Ronald Reagan famously diffused concerns about his age in a debate with Walter Mondale by pledging, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
In that same spirit, we hereby pledge not to use last week’s massive traffic tie-ups on Interstate 25 after a water conduit broke and created a giant sinkhole to draw attention to Colorado’s crumbling infrastructure, especially its rapidly deteriorating bridge and highway network.
Of course, if you were one of the motorists ensnarled in those traffic jams, we can’t stop you from asking when Gov. Bill Ritter and the legislature might put forth a plan for the “21st century transportation system” Ritter urged in his State of the State speech last month.
And now that you brought up the subject, we can report that transportation advocates, local government leaders and the business community are continuing to work on a potential solution that could be offered to this year’s General Assembly.
One such proposal by Joe Blake, head of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, was discussed by key county leaders in Denver on Friday. It was aimed at raising the $500 million annually that members of a special study commission appointed by Ritter said was the minimum new funding needed just to adequately maintain the state’s existing road system, without building even one mile of new highways.
Blake served on that commission, which suggested the necessary $500 million could be raised directly by the legislature by increasing vehicle registration fees by an average of $100 each. Technically, such fee increases are exempt from the provision of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requiring voter approval of new taxes. But such legal niceties are likely to be lost on a two-car family that faces a $200 a year fee hike without being allowed to vote on the question. And unhappy voters tend to vote the politicians who caused their unhappiness out of office.
One of the ideas Blake threw out Friday included reshaping the registration fee so that it would be based on the weight of vehicles. Under that plan, heavy commercial vehicles would pay more and average motorists less, making it easier for the legislature to pass such a fee increase without referring it to the voters.
We think such a plan has merit — especially if farm vehicles were exempted from the new fee. Farm trucks are relatively heavy but are used infrequently, mostly on dirt roads, and should not bear the burden of maintaining urban freeways.
Even so, raising the whole $500 million from such fees — no matter how it’s distributed — is still too much. Raising $250 million from a $50 average hike based on vehicle weight that might translate into just $25 on your family sedan would be much less likely to arouse voter ire.
To raise the remaining money, about $240 million a year, we like the commission’s recommendation for a $6 a day “visitor’s fee” on hotel/motel rooms or automobile rentals. The industries directly affected by such a fee might grudgingly support it to avoid losing their vital tourist business because of traffic congestion and crumbling highways.
We commend the business community for working so earnestly on our transportation problems — and urge Ritter and the legislature to act on their ideas.
