CC – Item 7B – Staff Report Proposal by Scag to Include an Odometer Tax in the 1997 Regional Transportation Plan ® �o staftep ort
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGG J
DATE: ILLY I, 1997
RE: PROPOSAL BY SCAG TO INCLUDE AN ODOMETER TAX IN THE 1997
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)
This year, as the Council is aware, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is
required to update its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and submit the plan to the State
Legislature for approval in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. SCAG is required by federal
and state statutes to prepare and update the RTP every three (3) years or risk the loss of federal
funding.
In the "Chapter VI_ Financial Plan" section of the Preliminary Draft of the 1997 RTP, page 52
includes a section that reads as follows:
To implement transportation projects and programs in the staff alternative - which
significantly enhances performance-, additional funding will be needed. To put this in
perspective,an additional '/z cent tax would need to be added to each gallon of gasoline,
a Ye cent sales tax increase, or a .05 cents charge per mile driven.
While it is not entirely clear what SCAG staff intended when writing that section, it does appear that
an odometer tax of some sort is one option available under a section entitled "Innovative Funding."
However, there is no other mention of the tax in the 1997 RTP, and it does not appear to be a
recommended option at this time. Regardless, should the Council choose to oppose the concept, it
would be appropriate to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to SCAG stating the City's position.
SCAG is currently accepting public comment on the RTP and is expected to vote on the issue next
month.
COUNCIL AGENDA
JUL 03399)
ITEM No. t I
1997 RTP Odometer Tax
July 1, 1997
Page 2.
Attarhed is a copy of the"Chapter VI, Financial Plan"plan section of the preliminary 1997 RTP and
a copy of an Orange County Register editorial entitled"The Odometer Police."
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council take a position opposing the odometer tax and authorize the
Mayor to send the appropriate correspondence.
stufmemoodotaxat
Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft 97 RIP•January 1997
I
CHAPTER VI: Financial Plan
The Regional Transportation Plan must identify revenues sufficient to fund its
I implementation from traditional sources of funding that can reasonably be
expected to be available during the Plan's timeframe. The financial plan also
discusses the status of innovative funding that was recommended in the
Iprevious Regional Transportation Plan. Although the financial plan for the RTP
focuses on funding the ground transportation system, the importance of a
robust financial strategy for airports and ports is also recognized.
Revenues
I Traditional Funding
Traditional sources of funds refer to federal, state and local funds that have
Ihistorically been used to pay for transportation improvements.' Early in the
planning process, three revenue estimates were forecast. In developing the
Plan, low , medium, and high forecasts were projected by differing the rate of
Igrowth in transportation funds. In August 1996, SCAG's Transportation and
Communications Committee recommended deleting the High Forecast from
consideration because new information presented to the committee indicated
Ithat the assumptions used were overly optimistic given the recent court
decision requiring a 2/3 super-majority vote to increase local tax and fee
revenues. Subsequent discussions with SCAG's transportation partner
Ilagencies, in addition to a review of national forecasts, have identified the
medium forecast of $81 billion as the most likely funding scenario.
I Therefore, between 1996 and 2010, approximately S50 billion dollars are
expected to be available. After 2010, when the counties' transportation sales
tax measures sunset (except in Los Angeles County), $31 billion dollars are
Ianticipated.
Although the $81 billion does not include the vehicle fuel tax fund returned
I directly to local governments to be used for transportation purposes,
(approximately $500 million annually within the region) these funds are
insufficient to adequately fund local street operations, on-going maintenance
I and the deferred maintenance programs of local governments for their streets
and roads.
I' 23 United States Codc 134(ISTEA)
' Such funding sources include:federal Surface Transportation Plan;Congestion,Mitigation and Air Quality Program;Federal Highway Administration;Federal Transit
Administration Section 9 Operating and Section 3 Capital;State Transportation Fund:local sales tax revenues;and local transportation funds.
IIt._Ad Southern California Association of Governments 47
Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RTP•January 1997
I
While the $81 billion must be used for transportation purposes, limitations
Ill exist so that some funds may only be used for transit, some are restricted to
capital, some can be used only for projects and programs which improve air
quality, and others are earmarked for specific projects. In addition, current
II law generally allocates these funds at the county level, rather than to the
region as a whole, which provides further limits on where the funds can be
spent. Approximately $32 billion are from local sales taxes which often have
Ispecific projects tied to them.
IImplications of Trends in Revenue Generation
I Over the past decade, several trends have begun to emerge which point toward
significant decreases in the amount of money available from traditional funding,
despite increased numbers of cars, drivers and vehicle travel. First is the increased
I fuel-efficiency of vehicles and the projected increase of alternative-fuel and zero-
emission vehicles into the vehicle fleet to help reduce air pollutant emissions.
Moreover, although funding from local sales tax measures has provided an added
boost to transportation revenues over the past decade, most of these sales taxes are
scheduled to sunset halfway through`the RTP planning period in all counties except
Los Angeles. Expectations for continued reliance on these revenues past the sunset
Iperiod are generally seen as unrealistic, given recent court decisions and passage of
State Proposition 218 in 1996, a statewide initiative restricting the ability of local
governments to impose fees and taxes, which require a 2/3 super-majority vote for
all measures to increase state or local revenues post-1996. Collectively, each of these
trends points toward significantly less revenues over the 25 years of the RTP that
would have been anticipated based on the 1994 Regional Mobility Plan.
The rate at which fuels are taxed to generate revenue to fund the transportation
system also has not kept pace with the rate of inflation. As Figure 22 shows,
S inflation will significantly erode the buying power of the California 5.18/gallon
motor vehicle fuel tax rare during the RTP period. By the year 2020, revenues
generated will be worth only 47% of what they would otherwise have been worth if
althey had kept pace with inflation.
Figure 22
IVALUE OF FUEL TAX OVER TIME
8118, _ •
U 9:11761
$1181
5115,
&M.
8113
1 X1I
S1111
811-
Salt
1996 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
M Years
II
'att� Southern California Association of Governments 48
Chapter VI: financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RIP•January i99)
Devolution of responsibilities from the federal government to state, regional
and local levels is also an important vend. While additional programs and
requirements have continued to be placed on the transportation system,
sufficient funding to implement these programs has not followed. Although
funds continue to be authorized, only approximately 90% typically has been
appropriated. Moreover, a federal 4.3 cent/gallon levy was placed on gasoline
and diesel fuel in 1993 to help balance the federal budget. Shifting these funds
to transportation uses could provide approximately $264.4 million additional
dollars annually to the region.
Costs
The costs of projects and programs for which commitments have been made
significantly reduce the revenues projected to be available for further
mei transportation improvements. As shown in the Regional Checkbook in Table
14, only SI 5 billion dollars remain after the projects begun in the 1996-2003
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) are built, operations and
in maintenance costs for the transportation are paid for, and local projects
obligated by sales tax measures 'are funded. The amount projected for
operations and maintenance is considerably higher than current programmed
expenditure percents. However, as the regional infrastructure ages, it
becomes more difficult to defer maintenance if this region wants to avoid
considerably higher levels of reconstruction.
Table 14
"The Regional Checkbook"
of Financial Costs and Revenues for the SCAG Region
Revenues Description 1995 Dollars
(billions)
Medium Forecast $81.4
COSTS
111 Adopted RTIP $18.963
(less Transit/Rail Operations& $3.450
Maintenance for 3 years)as
programmed in the RTIP
"NET"RTIP COSTS $15.513
Cost to complete Projects started in $6.551
the RTIP
Other Committed Costs $8.025_
Operations and Maintenance for the $36.777
1996-2020 Plan Period
SUBTOTAL 866.323
AVAILABLE REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR $15.029
PROGRAMMING
Ilk, d Southern California Association of Governments 49
•
111 haorer VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'g7 RIP.January 1997
S
11 Table 15: Available Revenues By County ($ Billions)
1995$
Traditional Baseline Costs Net
Revenue R11P Cost to Cost O&M Total Available
I Forecast Capital Rojec4 Complehrgaumed MeCompleasurete 19942020 for
Aftemalires
in RTIP Pro)ectS
Impede! 50.410 50.166 50.000 SO.COO 50.721 $0.8e9' -50.479
II Los Angeles $59 39 $7.91156011 56289 526622 H]032 51260]
Orange510.205 54297
$O.r 0 50<50 53.646 5449351711
Riverside 14.584 50.601 $0.000 50.636 51.816 53.253 $1 331
San Bernardino $5 BC $1975 S0.200 30.650 $3.067 55.692 50.151
I Ventura $1171 50256 SaDDO 50.000 50.704 50.962 50.309
Total 361.352 515.5101 360111 56.0251 336.7771 366.323 315.029
S
When the revenues and costs of each of the alternatives are presented at the county
li level, clear discrepancies between projects desired and funds available begin to
emerge. In Imperial County alone, implementing what is considered to be the
"baseline" program will leave a deficit of S0,479 billion. Additional improvements
MI beyond this will be impossible to implement unless new revenue is found or
roadway maintenance is deferred.
S The overall cost of the staff alternative is S17.348 billion, as shown in Table 16. In
contrast, the county transportation commissions' submittals would be expected co
cost S14.833 billion, while the projects and programs proposed by the subregions
iiiwould cost $44,318 billion.
II Table i6: Cost of Alternatives By County ($ Billions)
I955S
Iradihonal Net Staff Altemasve CIC Solution Sudegional Soluton
Revenue Available Capital 0514 Total Balance Capital OW Total Capital 061. Teat
Forecast tor
1111
Anemsawn
lllparn .50.410 39479 $0.052 $0.341 $0.713 40.542 $0.202$0.20250.012 30.212 50.N1 50.013 50214
Lae:angoras $59 009 512.717 50.264 51 342 59646 SO59510 $V 59.888 30.624 512 744 5x.303 $27047
71
Orange 5102 51 711 $0.6]1 50.249 51.120 50.591 53.169 50.046 53.215 32.951 30.716 53.027
111 Riverside 54.594 5191 $3.539 50.221 52.771 41.440 50.455 $0.016 $0.273 56.SV r 141 58.694
San 6ernarchno 35.6U $0151 53.453.444a 50.125 53.5]1 33.421 50.28 $0.008 30290 SS 027 50.190 55.207
Ventura 51.271 50.309 $0.719 50.113 SO177 50.132 3 ..116 50.011 50.129 50.116 50.011 30.129
Tole 321obi sba.015 5150151 S[.seri 5173461 423191 514 1141 50.,MI 5143:231 S.3:6./a. ».053 S44.350
1111 ,
As can be noted by the previous table, the costs and revenues in each county
do not match up. While the Region may show a small deficit or surplus, the
same may not be true for a county for the same alternative.
U
a
IIIi; 4 Southern California Association of Governments 50
111
Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RTP•January 1997
r
Implications of Trends in Expenditures
Historically, the Southern California region has spent a much greater
proportion of its revenues on capital - typically around 65 percent - than on
operating and maintaining the transportation system. If the system were to be
maintained consistent with best practices recommended in most
transportation engineering handbooks, it is estimated that about two and a
half times the amount currently spent on maintenance would be required. As
both new transportation facilities are built and the vast amount of
infrastructure put into place over the past several decades continues to age, a
greater proportion of the finite amount of revenues will need to be expended
on maintaining and operating the system. This, in turn, leaves far fewer
dollars available to spend on capital projects from traditional funding sources.
Moreover, much of the local street network has been maintained using local
111 transportation dollars and general fund revenues. As local governments
attempt to balance increasing demands on their general funds, the priority
local roadway maintenance will have is uncertain. This will become
increasingly difficult as the impacts of Proposition 218, which significantly
affect the ability of local governments to raise fees and taxes, take effect over
the next few years.
Two key trends affect transit expenditures within the region. First, the existing
transit,fleet will need to be replaced at least two times during the timeframe of
the plan. In addition, significant expenditures on transit capital will need to be
made for new transit service. Because there are not sufficient funds for the
massive transit capital outlays required, the average age of the region's bus
fleet will exceed the 12 years used as a benchmark by which a bus needs to be
replaced to maintain consistent operational quality.
rIncreased demands are also likely to be made on revenue sources historically
used to fund transit capital as transit operating assistance is phased out at the
I federal level. To cover operating costs, fares will ultimately need to be raised,
which has historically led to decreases in transit ridership. Setting transit fares
at a level to cover operating costs while maintaining ridership will be a key
challenge faced by transit operators within the region. In Los Angeles County,
a recent court decision requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority to not only maintain, but enhance bus service along
key, highly used routes that serve transit-dependent people as well as reducing
the cost of monthly transit service passes. Clearly, the challenge in meeting
expectations for reliable, efficient and low-cost transit service will become
1111 more difficult over the next 25 years.
I
Southern California Association of Governments 51
111
Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RTP•January 1997
•
Moving Closer to the Goal
0 To implement transportation projects and programs in the staff alternative -
which significantly enhances performance-, additional funding will be
needed. To put this in perspective, an additional 1/2 cent tax would need to
ff be added to each gallon of gasoline, a 1/8 cent sales tax increase, or a .0S
cents charge per mile driven.
The RTP input from the county transportation commissions provides increased
mobility with a very modest surplus of about $200 million. As we look at the
input from the subregions, significant additional funds are needed to
implement those improvements. At a cost of 544.318 billion dollars, over $30
billion in additional funding would need to be generated.
rInnovative Funding
Federal statue allows the Plan to discuss needed additional "non-traditional-
revenues and strategies to raise them. Innovative sources of funds fall outside
of the traditional sources of funds. Examples that have been under discussion
in this region include: new tolls, congestion pricing, VMT and emission fees,
and private sector financing. The 1994 Regional Mobility Element proposed
consideration of $15-529 billion in innovative funding, which assumed a
$0.02$- $0.05 cents per mile charge or its equivalent.
Other funding and cash flow management strategies considered "innovative"
by much of the nation have already been utilized within the region for several
years. For example, maximizing joint development opportunities can permit
projects to be built or moved up in schedule, allowing benefits to accrue to
both the private and public sectors. In addition, delaying local matches
required for federal funds, lease payments and bonding each provide a means
to fund projects and programs sooner than might be permitted by more
conventional use of transportation funds.
Super Turnkey and private financing of transportation investments have also
begun to take hold in Southern California. Key examples are the Route 91 and
Foothill Transportation Corridor Tollways in Orange County. These privately
funded and operated projects have allowed significant new transportation
111 infrastructure to be built where sufficient public funds were not available.
The State Infrastructure Bank (SIB)/Transportation Finance Bank (TFB) offers
an additional opportunity to the region to provide flexibility in funding
projects. When California was selected as one of the ten initial demonstration
areas for an infrastructure bank as provided for in the National Highway
System Designation Act, the potential to create $1 billion in credit was created
J Southern California Association of Governments 52
ill
Chapter Vit Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RTP.January 1997
to leverage investments from the $100 million revolving fund. Since the bank
relies on timely repayment of interest to continue to capitalize the fund,
projects that have the greatest potential to generate a consistent revenue
stream are likely to benefit most from the bank.
ilAn additional innovative funding source is bonding against future fuel tax
revenues. Currently, bonding is permitted only against general fund revenues.
Using fuel tax revenues as a source of funds for repayment of bonds would
substantially increase available revenues during the Plan's timeframe.
r Although not exactly "innovative", an increase in the per gallon fuel tax
is would be considered innovative in the context of this plan. This increase
could be accomplished by (1) setting a higher cents per gallon tax rate or (2)
indexing the current rate to subsequent increases in the consumer price index
(CPI) to keep pace with inflation. Therefore, the purchasing power of the
current collection would not be diminished over time, as shown in Figure 22.
IAfter the adoption of the 1994 Regional Mobility Element, the REACH Task
Force (Reduce Emissions And Congestion on Highways) was formed. Chaired
ill by elected officials from both SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the committee involved participants from the private
sector, Caltrans, the county transportation commissions, EPA, FHWA and
II others to develop a strategy to implement market-based transportation pricing.
REACH's recommendation to look to HOT lanes is the initial step in that
strategy. Although still committed to a long-term vision of market-based
Rtransportation pricing, no specific recommendations were provided on
implementation timeframes or pricing levels. (The recommendations of
REACH can be found in the Action Element of the Staff Alternative, Table 10)
II
To move closer to meeting the goals set forth in the RTP, innovative projects
I which rely on private funding have been proposed. In particular, the smart
shuttles, high-speed rail and HOT lanes which demonstrate significant system-
wide improvements while providing opportunities for returns on private
I - investments are contained in the staff alternative. While the $2 billion cost for
these additional projects are not taken from traditional funding sources,
private funding of these projects is assumed.
I
IAirports
Air carrier airports in the SCAG region derive operating revenues from landing
I fees, leasing space and facilities to airport users, terminal rentals, interest, and
passenger facility charges. These revenues pay for maintenance and repair of
aviation facilities (runways, taxiways, hangars, etc.), security, and
Iadministration of the facility. Additions to plant and facilities are funded
through capital grants made by the Federal Aviation Agency or local bonding
against anticipated operating revenues.
JSouthern California Association of Governments 53
•Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'97 RTP•January1997
S
In most cases, while the airports are officially part of the municipality owning
the facility, they are operated as "auxiliary" enterprises and revenues and
expenditures are kept separate and distinct from other city services. As noted
in Table 17, revenues exceed expenditures for the larger facilities and while
there are deficits for the smaller facilities, these are relatively small. And,
because these smaller facilities serve general aviation, the deficits are
considered part of the services that local governments provide their residents.
Table 17
MAJOR AIR CARRIER AIRPORT FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS•
(S MILLIONS)
LAX ONTARIO BURBANK SANTA ANA PALM LONG
SPRINGS BEACH
Fiscal Year -> 1994 1996 1994 1993 1994 1994
Operating Revenue $140.874 $13,121 $23.002 $58.002 57.535 $8.798
Non Operating Revenue $178.558 $26.796 $2407 $7.987 $0.112 $0,502
Total Revenue $319.432 $39.917 $25.409 $65.989 $7.647 $9.300
Operating Expense $153.575 52.6.453 $17463 535.729 $8.107 $10.786
Non Operating Expense $57.393 $5.403 $2.031 $22.691 $0.992 $0.821
Total Expense $210.968 $31.856 $19.494 $58.420 $9.099 $11.607
Net Income(Loss) $108.464 $8.061 $5.915 $7.569 -$1.452 -$2.307
'Does not include Oxnard Airport,Palmdale Regional Airport,San Bernardino International Airport,or Impenal
County Airport.
Airport revenues may generally only be expended on airport facilities or those
off-site facilities such as a transportation improvement directly linking the
airport to a highway or transit facility. Use of airport generated revenue is
supposed to be used for future airport improvements. These funds may not
be used to subsidize other modes of transportation built and/or operated by
the municipality owning the airport. This distinction, however, does not
recognize that the traffic coming to and from the airport has impacts on the
surrounding transportation infrastructure and that these impacts will increase
as the volume of passengers served by the airports also increases.
Ports
Ports within the SCAG region are generally self-sustaining enterprises that
contribute considerably to the area's economic vitality. The Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles play a significant role in the global marketplace,
supporting an ever increasing level of commerce through the maritime
industry and other international trading entities.
Southern California Association of Governments 54
°Chapter VI: Financial Plan Preliminary 0raft 7 RIP•January 1997
Ili
During the 25 year timeframe of the Plan, approximately g8 billion in
investments are planned for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. On-
is
Ill going improvements to the ports position the region as the primary cargo
gateway for commerce activity with Pacific Rim nations, competing with
other locations on the west coast of the United States and Mexico. The Pier
in300/400 Implementation Program in progress at the Port of Los Angeles is an
ambitious undertaking designed to respond to an anticipated doubling of
cargo volume through the year 2020. Additional expenditures to upgrade
MBship berths, dredge deeper channels and increase the land area of the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach are expected through the 2020 horizon year of
the RTP.
Revenue for the port improvements is provided from bonding against future
I revenues and through lease fees paid by international tenants and customers.
Expenses result from daily operations and maintenance costs and capital
improvement programs designed to ensure the long-term viability of the
I ports. In general, revenues balance with expenses and are not supplemented
with public funding. Some port revenues are expended to increase freight
access on local roadways in the vicinity of Long Beach and San Pedro, but are
glimited to improvements considered within the California Tidelands Act.
Improvements along the Alameda Corridor have been a high priority for both
I the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as local jurisdictions along
the corridor. This project will serve as a key economic lifeline for the region as
the rail consolidation and grade crossing separation projects proceed.
MFederal highway transportation funds are allocated to the States by formulas
which give major recognition to state population, vehicle miles traveled
g (VMT), and lane mileage. The formulas do not recognize movement of goods
on a state's network of highways other than as a part of VMT. Heavy vehicles
cause significant maintenance and rehabilitation costs on the network. Several
gstates bear the burden of other states for Interstate commerce without
additional compensation, despite making significant contribution to the
economic well-being of the nation. Thus, SCAG has proposed that freight be
Irecognized as a factor in allocating a portion of federal highway funds.
I
Conclusions
IThe financial analysis contained in the preliminary draft RTP raises several key
issues. First, relying solely on traditional sources of revenue is not sufficient to
Imaintain and operate the existing system let .alone finance the additional
infrastructure needed in this region. To enhance system performance
significantly beyond a baseline scenario, additional revenues will need to be
Iraised, either by enhancing traditional sources of funds or developing new,
more innovative funding sources.
dSouthern California Association of Governments 55
�hapter Vl: Financial Plan Preliminary Draft'q]RTP.lanuary 1997
III
Second, while ISTEA increased flexibility in the me of funds for
transportation, many limitations remain in focusing funding where it would
have the greatest benefit to the region.
aThe following Actions are recommended:
1. The region needs to develop equitable ways of increasing transportation
111 revenues to accommodate the forecast growth in the region.
2. The region needs to develop approaches to deal with the implementation
II for large scale multi-county projects and for investing on a performance
basis.
111 3. The region needs to continue to evaluate long range financial strategies for
equitable financing of transportation infrastructure and maintenance and
S operations; such strategies should include an examination of a VMT fee or
an Emissions fee or a combined fee.
d 4. The region must seek ways to insure that the level of financial assistance
from the federal and state governments is maintained at current levels
(adjusted for inflation) and not diminished through devolution nor should
S it be reduced as the vehicle fleet moves towards fuels which are currently
exempt from fuel taxes.
I 5. Together with State, regional and local transportation parmers, work to
introduce freight as a factor to be considered in the future ISTEA allocation
formulas.
a
a
r
Il
I
II
I
•�'�.� Southern California Association of Governments 56
Opinion: Editorial: March 11, 1997 Page 1
OC EGi TEL.0 EMI/Liberty Online
News
3 Features
Lanai
ty March 11, 1997
Ad Products
&Services The odometer police
•
Customer Here's a bad idea citizens need to drive off the road early:
Service tax drivers for the miles they drive, as measured by car
odometer readings.
Home "The authorities would check your odometer once a year
and charge you 2 cents a mile," the Register reported
= Saturday. If approved, the fee -- really a tax -- would start
Feedbackin 2010.
eat Call it 2010: A Tax Odyssey.
Search It's all part of long-range planning by the Southern
9 California Association of Governments, a civic group that
Help
includes city and county government representatives.
Officials believe the current tax rates that support new
highways and road repairs will be eroded by inflation and
other factors in coming years.
"Now, the [state] gas tax is 18 cents a gallon," said
Patrick Michell, SCAG's principal transportation planner.
"That will decrease in its purchasing power due to
inflation, to 9 cents a gallon (by 2010). And proposed
vehicles that use electric and alternative fuels are not
taxed. So we are looking at replacing that revenue as
well" as those vehicles grow in use.
Keep in mind that state and county sales taxes, a total of
7.75 percent in Orange County, are paid on gasoline. And
there is the federal tax of 18 cents per gallon.
This is the second time SCAG has floated the
pay-per-mile idea -- the first time was 1994.
It was a bad idea then and is still a bad idea, is how Joel
Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, put it on Monday. He coined the phrase
"odometer police."
From Supervisor Jim Silva: "I hope it's going to die a
natural death."
Even the Orange County Transportation Authority was
quick to deflate the tires on the concept. On Monday the
board voted 10-0-1 against the proposal as the board
weighed SCAG's new regional transportation plan.
SCAG is circulating the plan for comment.
Opinion: Editorial: March 11, 1997 Page 2
"Not only was there opposition to the particular SCAG
proposal," OCTA spokesperson John Standiford told us,
"there's concern on how an agency such as SCAG should
even be allowed to have a taxing authority, which they
currently do not."
A better proposal from SCAG involves a real market
alternative: "It may turn out in terms of market incentives
that finding new revenue is completely driven by a 'hot
lane,"' Mr. Michell said. "A toll facility is available, and if
you use it, you pay for it."
Toll roads and "hot lanes," unlike a new tax on gas at the
pump or fees for miles driven, are a response to demand
and are paid for by users. This is a more market-oriented
approach, especially if the road is run by a private
company.
Bottom line: If SCAG was floating pay-per-mile as a trial
balloon, consider it grounded.
T..,+ of..n..a