NJ transportation commissioner Jack Lettiere was in the newspapers last week, discussing a rise in the state gas tax by as much as 15 cents per gallon. Some voices are already being raised in support of the plan. But before the idea goes further, New Jersey is entitled to a detailed discussion about what the state will use the additional gas tax revenue for.

This is a critical question. A 15-cent increase ― nearly a 150% hike in the state gas tax ― would more than double the revenue raised each year for New Jersey’s transportation trust fund.

Much good could be accomplished with a dramatically expanded transportation program. But that’s not guaranteed. NJ could use a suddenly-flush transport budget to continue the decades-old trend of widening highways and extending them further into undeveloped areas.

Governor McGreevey and the legislature owe citizens a concrete indication of their direction before imposing a big tax hike. The authorization for a gas tax increase must spell out where the money will go, and it must be written so such spending is guaranteed over time. The only way to do this in New Jersey is to include the spending guidelines in the constitutional amendment that dedicates the new revenue to the transportation trust fund.

There is much in the history of NJ DOT that cries out for such a guarantee. New Jersey took an historic step in 2000 by attaching policy language to the dedication of tax revenue to the trust fund. Legislators set ambitious road and bridge repair goals in the law. DOT ignored these provisions. When the Campaign challenged this flouting of law, an appeals court examining DOT documents found that "one could not discern a scheme for allocating available resources to various transportation needs, or an articulated plan for addressing those needs."

Proponents of a gas tax increase still have time to make their case to citizens and opinion-makers. The best way to do that would be a proposal that mandates large increases in road repair, shows a way out of NJ Transit’s budget swamp and demonstrates significant increases for other critical needs, from rail freight to pedestrian safety. Short of such a mandate, the idea deserves a quick death as a huge new taxation without accountability scheme.

. 

MTR back issues:

Go to index of all Mobilizing the Region back issues