An opinion editorial by Ron McLinden, Chapter Transportation Chair
On August 6 the voters of Missouri rendered their verdict: In the matter of Voters vs. Proposition B: Shall the state increase the motor fuels tax by 5 cents per gallon, and the general sales tax by one-half cent per dollar? How find you? Voters responded, “NO WAY!”
The margin was almost 3 to 1 - 72.5 percent NO and 27.5 percent YES.
The Sierra Club opposed Prop B, along with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missourians for Tax Justice, the League of Women Voters, and others. Any number of other organizations remained silent, or expressed only nominal support.
We also put up more than a quarter of the money raised by the “No on B” Committee. Did we make a difference? Yes, a slight difference. Can we claim credit – or accept the blame – for sinking Prop B? No.
This was a “multi-modal” transportation package – the sort of thing that Governor Carnahan’s Total Transportation Commission recommended in 1997. What happened?
There were almost as many reasons to vote against Prop B as there were voters. Here are some of them:
1. Most of the new money would come from a sales tax rather than increased highway user fees. Yes, the gas tax was to be raised by a nickel, but far more new road money would come from the sales tax, which most people consider regressive.
2. Transit and other modes were included in the package, but at a relatively low level. Prospects for improvement of intercity rail passenger service were almost nil.
3. MoDOT adopted a spending plan for the new money that had 87 percent of it going for “major projects,” many of which would encourage more sprawl around cities and towns.
4. MoDOT’s plan would have used only about 12 percent of new money for maintenance. This appeared to contradict the department’s own first priority of “taking care of what we've got.”
5. A lot of people harbored resentment about what they saw as the “broken promises” of the 15-year plan. That plan would have built a four-lane highway to every town of 5,000 or more, using a phased 6-cent increase in the gas tax passed by the General Assembly in 1992. Within four years it was clear that there was not enough money to do it, and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission formally abandoned the plan in 1998. MoDOT”s credibility has been in the tank ever since.
6. Time for Missouri, the Prop B proponents, ran a heavily financed media campaign that insulted voters’ intelligence. Among other things, they tried to convince us that building a lot of new roads was the best way to improve highway safety. They also tried to convince us that heavy trucks would pay their fair share.
7. Most elected officials remained silent on the issue. The Governor had announced early in the year that he’d support whatever the legislature came up with, but once the issue was put on the ballot he limited his actual support to a few appearances late in the campaign. Even some legislators who voted to put Prop B on the ballot did so based on the rationale that “the voters at least have a right to vote on it.” Everybody wants to do what’s in the best interest of the state, but nobody wants to support a tax increase to do it.
8. As much as anything, a lot of voters were probably just lashing out at what seemed like a world increasingly out of their control: economic uncertainty, corporate accounting scandals, loss of retirement fund assets, unease about a vague “war on terrorism,” general distrust of government in general, on-and-on. They retaliated with the only thing they had available: a NO vote in the voting booth.
One of the unfortunate things about the defeat of Prop B is that transit services throughout the state will suffer. Most are already hurting due to reduced local sales tax revenues, and due to the state budget crisis that has resulted in a cutback in the existing meager state support for transit.
In addition, passenger rail service between St. Louis and Kansas City faces a possible reduction beginning about the first of the year. Dreams of higher-speed service across the state are now side-tracked.
| Our Position on Proposition B Following is the statement we released on July 26:
The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission had a chance to improve the package through the spending priorities that it set for the new money. It failed to do so. The Commission looked at three spending options that would have increased the percent of Missouri roads to be improved to “good” condition by 2013 and chose the smallest percent – just over half. “Rather than using Prop B to dramatically improve the condition of Missouri’s crumbling roads, the Commission has chosen to allocate only 12 percent of new highway money to maintenance, but a whopping 87 percent to major construction projects,” stated Carla Klein, Chapter Director for the Sierra Club. “The Commission's stated first priority – ‘taking care of what we have’ – has been tossed aside.” Many of the 65 major projects the commission has promised will continue to encourage urban sprawl. Sprawling developments cost us all in terms of higher infrastructure and service costs, loss of open space and increased air and water pollution. Sprawl further limits our transportation choices. Without Prop B, public transit will face short-term challenges. This concerns us, since we believe the state should provide significant funding for transit. However, we concluded that the highway components of Prop B will be bad for transit in the long run, and also bad for transit-dependent workers who will have to spend more time commuting to reach jobs that keep moving farther away from urban centers and affordable housing. Missouri lacks a coherent policy toward infrastructure investment. It makes no sense to throw money at new suburban highways until the state adopts such a policy. Highway safety concerns everyone, and the Commission should continue to give it high priority. But Missouri should also emphasize safe driving, seat belt use, and enforcement. These strategies save lives on all roads, not just the relatively few miles that Prop B will rebuild. The Sierra Club will work to see that transportation funding is a campaign issue in the November elections, and that next year’s General Assembly does indeed address this important need. Missouri should invest more funding in improving the conditions of Missouri roads and improving our public transportation, but it needs to invest wisely. Prop B is a bad deal for Missouri. Missourians must demand that our decision-makers do better. We believe the way to do that is to vote NO on Proposition B on August 6. |
Where do we go from here?
Missouri still needs to invest more in its transportation systems. The problem is getting voters to accept that fact, and formulating a proposal that appears balanced. We had hoped that a new General Assembly might be willing to take a fresh cut at it next year. Unfortunately, the margin of defeat makes that highly unlikely.
For the time being, we are faced with transportation funding gridlock. MoDOT will be forced to concentrate most of its resources on maintenance and preservation to keep its roads drivable, and perhaps that's not all bad.
With not enough money to build all those new “safer” highways, the safety focus is likely to turn to programs that improve driving habits – including use of seat belts – and more emphasis on enforcement of existing laws. That’s good. Contrary to what the Time for Missouri campaign appeared to imply, education and enforcement are the most cost-effective ways to save lives and prevent disabling injuries. An extra million dollars spent to improve a few intersections or a mile of new road does nothing to improve safety on the OTHER 32,000 miles of state roads. A “buckle up” or “drive to survive” campaign, coupled with enforcement, can show immediate results on every single mile.
Transit will have to look more to local jurisdictions for increased support, rather than to the state, and some service will probably have to be trimmed. That’s especially unfortunate as entry-level jobs continue to migrate from center cities to suburbs where transit service is either not available, or highly inconvenient to use.
MoDOT will have to continue to work on its “credibility.” Unfortunately, it has to overcome a multi-year steady drumbeat from the Farm Bureau about “broken promises.” (That organization needs to grow up and accept the fact that “Daddy” never could afford the “pony” that he promised in the form of the 15-year plan. Daddy must have been drunk or otherwise “out of it” when he made the promise.) There’s a political component as well: The 15-year plan was funded in the final year of Governor Ashcroft’s administration, and its implementation was carried out under Governor Carnahan. It’s tempting to point partisan fingers at Democrats, but unfair since implementation took place under the same MoDOT people appointed by the Highway Commissioners who were appointed by Ashcroft.
For our part, we need to help Missouri reach a new understanding of transportation and reasonable expectations regarding it – call it a “new transportation consensus.” Transportation is not an end in itself, but instead only a “means” to an end. It’s a “good” only to the extent that it serves the “end” of a higher quality of life for all through access to “opportunities.” Those opportunities include jobs, goods and services, education and culture, and other life-enriching experiences.
Many people within MoDOT already understand this. Unfortunately, MoDOT has repeatedly gotten “carjacked” by the chambers of commerce and road builders and truckers and other monied interests who still haven’t caught on – who still think that increasing “auto-mobility” and laying more pavement are the best ways to assure quality of life. They are the “tough nuts” that have to be cracked.
Without realizing it, Missouri voters may have made a wise decision on August 6. The defeat of Prop B offers a welcome “cooling off period” during which we should expect a renewed level of dialogue about where transportation fits into our individual and collective lives – really –and how we can most cost-effectively set about to serve the needs of all citizens for “access to opportunities.”
Hint: it is likely to involve a conscious level of attention to public and private policies and practices that shape the future growth of our cities and towns – but don’t say “smart growth” because that gets peoples’ hackles up – and it will likely end up requiring a whole lot less pavement and other new infrastructure than most people now believe.