FOR HIGHWAYS: SHORTER SCHEDULES AND NO SALES TAX

When Gov. Mel Carnahan appointed the Total Transportation Commission about a year ago, the state was just responding to the news that a 1992 comprehensive highway plan for the state was some $14 billion short of funding. In what was obviously a move to find ways to raise billions of dollars for transportation, more than likely through tax increases, the commission has met and is about ready to make its recommendations.

There is still considerable sentiment around the state that the projects promised in the 1992 plan should be completed. After all, voters gave their approval to increases in the state fuel tax to pay for improvements they were promised. The Total Transportation Commission estimates all of those projects could be completed -- for about $847 million a year for 20 years over and above the revenue the state is likely to generate from existing sources of highway funding. But that price tag also includes a number of additional projects, many of them unrelated to highways but geared to other forms of transportation such as mass transit, waterways and railroads.

The fact that the commission is looking at a whopping tax increase to pay for its wish list comes as no surprise. That was anticipated from the outset. What is surprising is that the finance subcommittee of the commission would advocate a 1-cent increase in the state sales tax to pay for the transportation needs. This comes just as the Legislature approved a 3-cent reduction in the state sales tax on groceries as part of a revenue-cutting plan to comply with the state's Hancock Amendment that limits growth in state revenue.

The sales-tax cut on groceries won't go into effect until October, and already the pockets of taxpayers are being picked. A statewide sales tax has never been earmarked for transportation before. This option has generally been left up to local governments who see needs in their own areas that can be handled with extra sales-tax revenue. That was the case in Cape Girardeau when voters in late 1995 approved an ambitious plan for street improvements.

Certainly the commission should keep a couple of thoughts uppermost in their recommendations:

First, every effort should be made to fulfill the pledges of the 1992 plan that turned out to be woefully underfunded. These projects should have a much higher priority than any new projects, particularly those that don't even fall into the category of highway improvements.

Second, transportation sales taxes should be reserved for local governments who would otherwise be limited in their efforts to raise funds locally, if the state already had an onerous sales tax for transportation.

Fuel taxes have long been the preferred method of paying for highways. These taxes, on gasoline and other fuels used by automobiles and trucks, are the most direct way of linking costs with services provided. In addition, at least a portion of the Total Transportation Commission's we-want-to-do-everything plan might better be relegated to local governments for action. Many of the projects would specifically benefit a small area of the state. Those areas could come up with their own financing arrangements -- possibly even a local sales tax.

One other approach the commission should seriously consider is the scope of the proposed projects. The 1992 highway plan that is $14 billion underfunded was a 15-year plan. That is too long. Needs change. Traffic demands shift. It would be better to have shorter timeframes in which specific projects could be completed and paid for before lower-priorty projects are financed and built. This would give the state the ability to decide more frequently what the real highway needs are for the next three or four years.