This is a guest post by Steven E. Polzin, director of mobility policy at the Center for Urban Transportation Research.

The issue of a fuel tax increase might best be discussed by disaggregating it into a number of questions:

1. Is there a need for more revenues?

2. Does the public believe there is a need, and if not why?

3. What is the best source for new revenues?

4. What level(s) of governance should implement a new or higher revenue source? and,

5. How should new revenues be spent?

I will restrict my comments to the third question, what is the best source of new revenues, and restrict my comments to the near term.

For those seeking to raise additional revenues the goal might be to have the tax or fee be as unobtrusive as possible. It is likely to be most palatable if it is embedded in the cost of something else, preferable a very small incremental cost, and not well revealed to the consumer – something they pay perhaps once a year or infrequently so as to not arouse their angst. On the other hand, for an economist trying to use pricing as a tool to appropriately price something so as to influence behaviors or reflect true costs, the payment should be as transparent as possible and be applied so as to influence each relevant decision. We have a conundrum.

The extremes in this continuum for transportation infrastructure funding might be a transportation impact fee for a new home embedded in the home cost and amortized in a 30 year mortgage versus a dynamic vehicle mile fee with a taxicab like meter on the dash counting out the accumulating costs of travel. In the case of personal vehicle travel today, much of the total cost is in the vehicle capital cost or relatively infrequent maintenance costs and as such the actual travel decisions tend to not be particularly sensitive to the marginal cost of an individual trip. However, as fuel costs have increased these costs are more significant. For example in 2000 fuel and oil costs were 18 percent of total household personal vehicle travel expenditures, whereas in 2008 they were 34 percent. The average driver fills up once a week so they would feel the pain of fuel taxes once per week. Frequently enough so that they are cognizant of costs and might consider it in travel decisions and perhaps in vehicle purchase or home or work location decisions. But also frequently enough that they may utter their contempt of Congressperson Taxmemore on a weekly basis, thus decreasing the political palatability of this type of revenue source.

If we are serious about trying to influence travel behaviors so as to move toward appreciating the true costs, it makes sense to pay those costs through a transparent and decision sensitive means such as a fuel tax. While it won’t have the impact of that dashboard meter, it moves closer to having the cost of decisions apparent to travelers.

In the 118 months since January 2001, fuel prices have changed more than 5 cents month-over-month on 78 occasions or two-thirds of the months. The three-month change in national average fuel costs has changed more than 15 cents in 67 three month periods or 56% of the of the three month periods. Forty-three of those times the change was an increase with the highest being over 80 cents. The public has become accustomed to fluctuation in average fuel price. The increase in the nearly ten year period is $1.36. Thus, a 15 cent increase should not be a huge deal and it is a pretty good way to influence behavior relative to many alternatives. It might make folks think a little about how often and far they travel, what vehicles they purchase and where they select their next residence.

Now answer the rest of the questions.

Last week the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Commission) released a draft proposal that included a recommendation that would simultaneously boost the Highway Trust Fund and reduce the national deficit through a “gradual 15 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.” I wrote to the Commission last month urging its members to consider the role that sound transportation funding policies, including an increased gas tax, can play in setting our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. The Commission co-chairs' gas tax recommendation is a bold idea that must be given serious and immediate consideration by both President Obama and Congress. We need a national debate driven by our elected leaders about how to fund our transportation needs into the future.

Increasing the gas tax, and maintaining the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity as a dedicated funding source for transportation improvements, will help ensure the “user fee” principle that has supported the system for more than fifty years. Recently Congress has chosen to take emergency measures and transfer some $30 billion in General Fund revenues to the Highway Trust Fund to temporarily maintain its solvency. This approach is unsustainable and if allowed to continue could undermine the future quality of transportation in this country as well as needlessly increase our federal deficit.

The public understands the benefits of a user fee-based transportation system. One takeaway from the recent election it is that the federal government must work harder to demonstrate to the public that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. We must strengthen the pay-as-you-go, user fee principle and deliver real transportation safety and mobility benefits in order to gain public confidence for the federal program. If we fail to do so, it will continue to be extremely difficult to increase transportation fees and pay for the system’s modernization and expansion.

Despite the calls for a federal motor fuel tax increase from a range of groups and individuals, going back more than two years to the recommendations of the two surface transportation commissions established by SAFETEA-LU and more recently in the statement of the Co-Chairs of the President's fiscal reform commission, there seems to be little likelihood that such an increase will be enacted by the new Congress. Yet, there is broad bi-partisan recognition that investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure is an important short-term tool, in addressing high unemployment (particularly, in the construction sector0, and in establishing the foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth.

"Squaring this circle" should be the preoccupation of the Administration and Congress, as it approaches a new authorization bill in 2011. Whatever the size of that bill and whatever the scope of the funding it provides for investment in transportation systems and facilities, we must maximize the reach and the returns of the funds that are available. Thus, even a bill that is limited to the revenues from the current federal gasoline tax rate and/or is roughly equivalent to exisitng program levels can improve returns and benefits -- both short- and long-term -- if it is founded on some key principles --

First, such a bill should contain the initial steps toward a genuinely user-pay system of investment, in which, in the words of the UK's Eddington Report, we "get the prices right." The gasoline tax is no longer an effective proxy for system use, and it will not provide a sustainable revenue stream to support transportation investment indefinitely. Thus, we need to go back to some basic questions, in considering transportation funding, and to revisit some of the key questions -- what forms should user charges take? What is the role of dedicated trust funds? And, as the MIller Center report urged, what are genuinely federal or national interests?

Second, we need to insure that federal funds will stimulate and leverage greater investment by states, localities, and private ventures in essential transportation projects and programs. The competition that promotes innovation should be encouraged through the commitment of even limited federal funds, and federal barriers to innovation -- such as the prohibition on tolling the Interstate System -- should be removed.

Third, we need to undertake a fundamental and comprehensive reform of federal surface transportation programs, so that they are built on clearly articulated national goals and purposes, and on the values of outcomes, performance measurement, and accountability.

Even in the face of a continued reluctance to increase federal investment resources, by raising the gasoline tax, we need to make better, smarter, and more beneficial investment decisions. Greater returns can be the basis of restoring public trust in federal surface transportation programs and to increasing taxpayers' willingness to support sustainable and adequate revenue sources.

Despite the calls for a federal motor fuel tax increase from a range of groups and individuals, going back more than two years to the recommendations of the two surface transportation commissions established by SAFETEA-LU and more recently in the statement of the Co-Chairs of the President's fiscal reform commission, there seems to be little likelihood that such an increase will be enacted by the new Congress. Yet, there is broad bi-partisan recognition that investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure is an important short-term tool, in addressing high unemployment (particularly, in the construction sector0, and in establishing the foundation for long-term economic recovery and growth.

"Squaring this circle" should be the preoccupation of the Administration and Congress, as it approaches a new authorization bill in 2011. Whatever the size of that bill and whatever the scope of the funding it provides for investment in transportation systems and facilities, we must maximize the reach and the returns of the funds that are available. Thus, even a bill that is limited to the revenues from the current federal gasoline tax rate and/or is roughly equivalent to exisitng program levels can improve returns and benefits -- both short- and long-term -- if it is founded on some key principles --

First, such a bill should contain the initial steps toward a genuinely user-pay system of investment, in which, in the words of the UK's Eddington Report, we "get the prices right." The gasoline tax is no longer an effective proxy for system use, and it will not provide a sustainable revenue stream to support transportation investment indefinitely. Thus, we need to go back to some basic questions, in considering transportation funding, and to revisit some of the key questions -- what forms should user charges take? What is the role of dedicated trust funds? And, as the MIller Center report urged, what are genuinely federal or national interests?

Second, we need to insure that federal funds will stimulate and leverage greater investment by states, localities, and private ventures in essential transportation projects and programs. The competition that promotes innovation should be encouraged through the commitment of even limited federal funds, and federal barriers to innovation -- such as the prohibition on tolling the Interstate System -- should be removed.

Third, we need to undertake a fundamental and comprehensive reform of federal surface transportation programs, so that they are built on clearly articulated national goals and purposes, and on the values of outcomes, performance measurement, and accountability.

Even in the face of a continued reluctance to increase federal investment resources, by raising the gasoline tax, we need to make better, smarter, and more beneficial investment decisions. Greater returns can be the basis of restoring public trust in federal surface transportation programs and to increasing taxpayers' willingness to support sustainable and adequate revenue sources.

Too many people talk about transportation funding as though the debate were over—as though we all agreed that 1) raising the gas tax is basically inevitable if we don’t want our national transportation system to collapse, and 2) the main problem with a gas tax hike is that any tax hike is political kryptonite right now.

But for people who care about equity, there’s a bigger problem with the gas tax: it’s regressive, meaning it hits low- and middle-income people far harder than it hits the wealthy.

While the lowest-income Americans aren’t affected by the gas tax because they can’t afford cars, the vast majority of low- and middle-income people—especially in suburban and rural areas—depend on their cars to get to work or look for it, to bring their kids to school or day care, and to access medical care. And higher gas prices take a far larger chunk of their income than they take from wealthier Americans.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy breaks down the problem in “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States”:

[E]xcise taxes are usually the most regressive kind of tax. Overall, state excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and beer take about 1.6 percent of the income of the poorest families, 0.8 percent of the income of middle-income families, and just 0.07 percent of the income of the very best-off. In other words, these excise taxes are 22 times harder on the poor than the rich, and 11 times harder on middle-income families than the rich.

At a time when Americans are struggling with the worst economy since the great depression, building our national transportation system on the backs of the poor is unjust, immoral, and unsustainable.

So how do we fund transportation?

There is no one solution, but there are alternatives, and we need a serious debate about them. One alternative to the gas tax is a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax: charging motorists based on how far they drive and when. VMT has its drawbacks and technical hurdles, but it has a potential advantage in terms of equity, since lower-income people tend to drive less than higher-income people.

Another potential solution is adjusting the imbalance in roadway pricing fees that let heavy trucks pay far less than their fair share. As Rob Puentes from Brookings pointed out:

Economists have long criticized the current system of roadway pricing, contending user fees should be structured so that different classes of vehicles would pay their respective costs. One such study found that single-unit trucks weighing more than 50,000 pounds contribute in user fees only 40 percent of the estimated costs of their use. Autos contribute 70 percent of their costs; pickup trucks and vans, 90 percent; and single-unit trucks weighing less than 25,000 pounds contribute 150 percent of their costs through the taxes and fees they pay.

Other alternatives to consider are congestion pricing, tolling, variable pricing, high occupancy toll lanes, and general revenue--probably the most equitable funding source, since it shares the burden equally. A National Infrastructure Bank could help fund large projects, which should also include workforce development requirements to help spread the economic development effects throughout the community.

The main point is that the debate is far from over—especially for those of us who care about equity.

I find it inexplicable that law makers are reluctant to support an increase in fuels tax to rebuild America. Support appears lacking on both sides of the aisle. .Amazing. particularly at a time when our infrastructre if failing so badly, when our global competitors are investing billions into their infrastucture, and when even traditionally anti tax interests like the US Chamber of Commerce support a gas tax increase.In all of my years in the industry, including stints as Secretary of a state DOT and Deputy Seccretary in another state I cannot recall a single legislator who suffered politically as a result of supporting increases in the fuels tax.

We do need the active leadership of the President. Perhaps a gas tax increase that in part feeds the highway trust fund and the balance used to decrease the budget deficit may be more palatable to some reluctant law makers.

The public transportation industry is in full support of, and applauds the draft proposal to increase the gas tax by 15 cents. This proposed increase will support vital transportation infrastructure improvements and sustain long-term projects and allow for the passage of a multi-year surface transportation bill. Investing now in transportation will create and support millions of jobs over the next decade, leaving future generations the groundwork for a sustainable and viable transportation network.

In an era of budget tightening, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform realized the importance of transportation investment. There is a distinct connection between improved transportation infrastructure, economic vitality and fiscal responsibility.

Transportation investment is directly linked to balancing the federal budget, however, without new sources of funding we face damaging cuts to current programs including reducing payrolls and impeding economic growth or the addition of an estimated $34 billion in general fund spending. Both of these conclusions weaken any efforts to balance the federal budget.

It is also important to recognize that a small number transportation programs are currently funded with general funds, and those programs meet important needs and should be continued. Public transportation plays a vital role in our economy and without increased contributions to funding sources there will be drastic effects to our nation’s competitiveness.

Properly funding transportation infrastructure is an issue that affects the entire country. The American Public Transportation Association, in collaboration with numerous other organizations, recently released a statement praising Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) on this issue.

Might John Horsley find the time to explain why AASHTO seems to prefer that increased charges for road use be federal charges rather than state charges?

Federal involvement in financing state roads greatly increases costs and delays implementation. It also encourages the financing of uneconomic projects (such as Alaska’s $231 million “Bridge to Nowhere”), because the federal contribution encourages states to finance projects they would never dream of financing themselves.

AASHTO’s attitude seems particularly strange in that its excellent staff, under John’s leadership, could perform many of the coordination functions now exercised by the federal government.

It surely cannot be that states prefer federal financing to relieve their officials of the duty of having to justify increased charges to their road users …

So, John, why do state officials support increased federal financing of state roads?

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has publicly supported an increase in the federal gasoline tax to support investment in surface transportation infrastructure. Most recently, we added our name to a letter to the bipartisan debt commission in support of the Carper-Voinovich proposal.

But our support for increased revenues is not unconditional; it is contingent on several important reforms.

First, we must adopt a performance-based system that ensures that taxpayers receive a healthy return on their investment. And when I reference “healthy” I am referring to economic health, public health and environmental health.

Second, we must reaffirm the decisions made in 1970 and 1991 that the federal government would fund investment in walking, biking and public transportation. We need a 21st century Federal Transportation Trust Fund that enhances mobility by investing in all modes of surface transportation; not one narrowly focused on building highways.

Third, walking and biking – or “active transportation” -- represents 12 percent of all trips but only 1.5 percent of federal surface transportation spending. Investment in active transportation should increase to a minimum 3 percent share to begin to build out this neglected part of our transportation system.

Fourth, an essential element in achieving the 3 percent funding share is the preservation of two vital programs: Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School.

In our view, the conditions that I have outlined above are modest and simple common sense. But I realize that not every one sees it that way. AAA, for example, has proposed turning back the clock to 1956 by mandating that federal gasoline tax revenues should only be used for highways. If AAA’s position were to become law, it would be the end of the Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School programs.

Not surprisingly, our support for a federal gasoline tax increase would quickly evaporate if AAA’s autos-only policy position were to prevail. But if things were to come to that -- and all federal investment in active transportation was on the verge of elimination -- we would have to give serious consideration to supporting the option Mr. Roth refers to of repealing the existing federal gasoline tax and turning all responsibilities back to the states. We would then prepare to launch state-by-state campaigns to increase active transportation investment at the state level as a condition of our support for increasing state taxes on gasoline to make up for the lost federal revenue.

But I am confident that it won’t come to that. After all, since mid-September we have collected the names of tens of thousands of AAA members on a petition asking AAA to reverse their opposition to funding trails, walking and biking with federal gas tax revenues. The support for such investment has never been higher at the community level. I am confident that our political system will not ignore all of those voices who want safer places to walk and bike in their communities.

The chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission, along with Sens. Carper and Voinovich, have proposed a sensible increase in the gas tax that would allow for properly investing in our transportation needs and restoring America’s global competitiveness.

While there are many good options for transportation infrastructure investment – including an infrastructure bank, credit enhancements, bonding and public-private partnerships – these won’t be enough to address the crisis facing our roads and highways. A modest increase in the gas tax, however, would allow us to create millions of jobs and do the work that’s essential to our future.

A 15-cents-per-gallon gas tax increase amounts to pocket change for a stronger America and, if presented clearly and honestly, it is an investment the American people will support. But for that to happen, we need our political leaders to stand up, really listen to their constituents, and make clear the enormous benefits that come with an improved transportation system.

The benefits of jobs and restoring our ability to compete in a global economy are something the public will understand if only political leaders would address the issues clearly instead of lambasting government investment as wasteful. If our leaders pass legislation that creates jobs and builds America, while allowing for transparency and accountability, the public will support and appreciate those efforts.

Poll after poll shows that Americans prioritize investment in our crumbling infrastructure. In fact, when new taxes and user fees to fund transportation projects are on the ballot, they pass more than 70 percent of the time. What’s more, analyses from groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the International Monetary Fund show that infrastructure investment is one of the single best ways to fuel economic growth and create new American jobs. With the American Society of Civil Engineers giving American infrastructure a “D” rating on safety, maintenance and capacity, there is no excuse for ignoring our infrastructure needs.

The real question in this debate is not about a gas tax – it’s about fully funding the Highway Trust Fund and our many urgent transportation priorities. One benefit of a user fee like a gas tax is that it distributes the costs of maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure amongst those who put the most strain on these systems. It comes down to a simple choice: we can force the American public to pay the price through the economic impact of inadequate infrastructure, or we can require those who use the system to help maintain it.

There are also additional benefits to raising the gas tax: it allows us to invest in transportation choices like public transit, bike lanes and sidewalks, which encourage economic development, decrease congestion, reduce emissions, and encourage Americans to be more physically active. As electric vehicles begin entering consumer markets, Congress must also ensure that our system of infrastructure financing is sustainable in the future by studying alternatives that measure road use and link that use to infrastructure revenues. These are all parts of building safer, healthier, and more economically secure communities.

The gas tax is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats support fixing roads, bridges and transit systems as well as providing their constituents with transportation choices. The bipartisan co-chairs of the Deficit Commission recently demonstrated that we can and should increase our investments in infrastructure and that we can do so in a responsible way. Congress will soon be faced with similar choices. The key is for members of both parties to put aside partisan rhetoric and respond to the infrastructure needs of our nation.

Here is a guest response from Jack Finn, chair of toll services at HNTB Corp.

Americans hate the gasoline tax about as much as they love their cars. But, short term, we need to consider an increase in the gas tax (which will likely stall until after the 2012 election). It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s the only way we can ease the congestion we face. At last count, that congestion costs every traveler in the U.S. $750 a year. A gas tax increase as little as 5 - 8 cents per gallon each year during the next five years will cost average Americans only $10 to $20 each month per car.

In Britain and much of Europe the gas tax is nearly $4 per gallon, 20 times the federal tax in the U.S. In the long term, we should move away from the gas tax to solutions that actually charge people for the roads they use, including a vehicle miles traveled user fee, congestion pricing for peak hours and more toll roads. We’re willing to pay for actual use of other utilities — like electricity, water and natural gas — why not our roads?

According to a national America THINKS survey conducted by HNTB, most Americans support tolls on roads and bridges to generate transportation revenue, especially those that save them drive time. And when it comes to construction, Americans prefer a focus on fixing existing infrastructure than building new facilities. Read more at: http://www.hntb.com/news-room/news-release/americans-prefer-tolls-over-taxes

Many state and local governments are seriously considering an expansion of tolling, with support across the political spectrum. Essentially a user fee—tolls offer choice to motorists and a fair approach to paying for the roads and bridges they use. As public support builds, tolls might be less about where the money goes and more about benefits to drivers. More than two in three (68 percent) Americans don’t really think about tolls without considering convenience – they would be willing to pay a higher toll fare if it saved them time on the road.

The way we fund our roads is at odds with almost every other public policy America has adopted. While proposed climate change legislation, green energy initiatives and even our foreign policy demand that we move away from a dependence on oil, we pay for our transportation system almost entirely by using more of it. Be it a composite of tolls, taxes or other alternative funding methods, we need strong leadership to properly invest in infrastructure. encourage Americans to be less dependent on oil, reduce congestion, and support the use of public transit.

ASCE applauds Senators Carper (D-DE) and Voinovich (R-OH) for their proposal to increase the federal motor fuels tax. Ensuring that the Highway Trust Fund has enough revenue is essential to building our nation’s transportation infrastructure and growing the economy, and this bipartisan courage from Capitol Hill, coupled with the similar proposal from the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, shows that the time to act is now.

Including an increase in the draft proposal from the Deficit Commission shows that the way to long lasting economic security is through an improved infrastructure. Additionally, the draft gives the transportation industry a new way to frame the discussion and members of Congress a more appealing way to explain the need back home. However, at this time, the Deficit Commission’s proposal is the only credible plan that recognizes the integral relationship between improving our nation’s infrastructure, economic health and fiscal responsibility.

What we need now is the courage and leadership of Democrats and Republicans alike. They have to stand up for the nation’s economy and surface transportation systems by providing a revenue source—particularly one that has proven effective in the past, when properly funded. Furthermore, the Obama administration needs to reconsider its continued refusal to raise the gas tax, and instead focus on how an increase will actually benefit the nation during these trying times.

With the right combination of support, a gas tax increase could be viable in a tax extenders package or during a vote on the deficit commission proposal.

The engineering industry strongly supports a user fee increase to finance the necessary improvements to our transportation system. There is no question about the needs of our crumbling infrastructure nor of the current fiscal realities facing the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, despite the compelling arguments that we make, we still haven’t been able to move the needle of public opinion, and the gas tax is still viewed as a political no-no.

The reality is that we won’t make any headway without Presidential leadership and bi-partisan congressional support. An increase in the user fee has to be sold to the American public from the President’s bully pulpit as a small but significant price to pay for financing the infrastructure investments that will get our economy moving again. Every gas tax increase in the history of the highway program has come with support from the White House. But President Obama won’t stick his neck out on this until he knows he has bi-partisan cover in Congress and that he won’t be demagogued by the opposition Republicans.

The question for Members of Congress is whether they are prepared to pass a surface transportation bill that is smaller than its predecessor? Are they prepared to cut funding for these popular programs? And if not, are they prepared to be honest about what it takes to publically finance these investments?

At this point, I think the best hope for a user fee increase will be in the context of a larger tax and/or budget deal, part of a “Grand Bargain” between Democrats and Republicans where the gas tax is a small piece of a much larger and more significant legislative package. A stand-alone vote on the gas tax, as part of the financing package for the next transportation bill, is too easily politicized and too easily defeated as tax-and-spend pork politics. It has to be one small bullet point in a long list of major tax and budget changes. The recommendations from the President’s fiscal commission chairmen are extremely helpful in that regard.

For our part, the stakeholder community needs to continue to deliver the message on the value of transportation investments for economic recovery and growth, and we need to be prepared to provide political support and cover for those lawmakers on our side. Only then will we achieve our mutually shared goal.

Commissioners Bowles and Simpson are to be commended for their draft proposal, which calls for a 15-cent gasoline tax increase, with 100% placed into the Highway Trust Fund. Their proposal is completely consistent with our letter to the commission. My organization and other highway user groups have been unlikely proponents of a user fee increase for a reformed, more trustworthy program. The fact is that we do not want general fund bailouts; we want to pay our own way. We are proud to have done so for the first 50 years since the creation of the Highway Trust Fund.

We would likely support even more than a 15-cent increase for the right program that addresses safety, congestion relief, freight corridors, and aging bridges and pavements. But we will not support an increase for diversion into a deficit reduction program. Motorists and truckers are not a reasonable target to pay for deficit reduction -- thankfully, Messrs Simpson & Bowles seem to recognize that. We have tremendous highway needs that need to be paid for.

Transportation groups that set a precedent of supporting a tax increase where 40% of the money is diverted are making a catastrophic mistake. It remains a non-starter for user groups that have been allies for increased transportation spending for 80-100 years.

The proposal by the Chairmen of President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to raise the national gasoline tax by 15 cents a gallon is strongly supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and a coalition of 14 other organizations which signed a statement praising the recommendation this week for being bold, timely, and bipartisan.

This latest proposal comes from Commission Chairmen, former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and President Clinton’s Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. They recommend that a 15 cent a gallon increase in the gas tax be “dedicated to fully fund the transportation trust funds and therefore eliminate the need for further general fund bailouts.”

Since 2008, Congress has made three general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund to keep the nation’s highway and transit programs solvent. Experts now predict that in two years, unless Congress increases transportation revenues or transfers additional funds into the Highway Trust Fund, America’s highway and transit programs will face cuts of more than $60 billion.

Last week Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) wrote a letter to Commission Chairmen Simpson and Bowles, urging them to recommend a 25 cent a gallon increase in the gasoline tax; 10 cents would be used for debt reduction and 15 cents to pay for transportation infrastructure projects.

The significance of the recommendation from the President’s Commission regarding fuel taxes is that it recognized that meeting the needs of transportation must be part of the overall solution: to sustain investment in critical infrastructure to reduce the federal deficit. The timing of the fuel tax increase is also apropos, in that the Commission recommends that it take effect in 2013, well after the Recovery is in full swing.

This crucial investment in transportation will pay huge dividends in the form of safer highways and transit systems for generations to come while creating and sustaining hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs today.

Raising the federal fuel tax is a bad idea, because the Highway Trust Fund has become a slush fund for some members of a dysfunctional congress that has run out of money.

I could go further and make the case that, now that the Interstate Highway System has been declared completed, existing fuel taxes should be abolished, as envisaged in the 1956 legislation, and transport funding returned to the states.

States are closer to road users and to other taxpayers and are in a better position to assess their preferences. Some states might even choose to give bigger roles to private sector financing.

As for other ways of paying for transport infrastructure: Railroad and aviation use, whether for passengers or freight, can be paid for by users in traditional ways. Payment for road use can be (as recommended last year by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Commission) be paid for by electronic systems, such as E-ZPass, or GPS-based pricing systems, which do not require travelers to stop at toll booths and can protect the privacy of road users.