Just like the report that Nixon quashed advocating legalizing pot.

Imagine the Washington state government proposing a $14 billion transit plan. For the tri-county area.

This is *transit*. Not roads.

But, Anon is right, we should tax the ultra-rich for this, using a tax on Tim Eyman and anyone else like him.

“…higher fees for freight…”

So, to be clear, you’re advocating for higher prices for baby formula and malt liquor? That’s not going to set well with at least one special interest group with influence over the Democrats…

Has that resulted in more than twice the improvement in traffic safety, reduction of congestion, and promotion of greenhouse-gas-reducing alternatives to driving that a 40 cent tax would have provided?

Anyone who pays Income &/or Property Taxes is not "poor"...

Thats the sort of cream that comes with the Olympics...

Do you pay rent? Yeah, then you're paying property taxes.

No. I don't pay rent. I invest in property instead.

And if you pay rent (as opposed to live in government subsidized housing) then you are not “poor” (you’re probably just not as rich as you think you should be).

“Poor” people live in government subsidized housing or squat in shacks or sleep on benches in parks or in doorways… “Poor” people go to bed cold and hungry…

Perspective is important and words do actually still have meaning.

Only filthy communists and America-hating traitors want to "fix the infrastructure, expand public transit and highways as well as broaden railway and rural access."

I'll be awaiting their full terrahist confessions from their cells at Guantanamo Bay.

I am glad to know that you do not support implementing the suggestions in this study.

I did not think you had that much common sense…

I apologize.

Instead I hear tired class warfare arguments about how regressive sales taxes are. As if poor people are living in Kirland and driving to Seattle. Or as if they drive Ford Expeditions instead of '87 Civics.

But I guess some people around here would rather just dynamite all the bridges and freeways so that everyone has to move far away (because we can't build condos or highrises in town, of course!) When 2.5 million of the 3.2 million residents of the Puget Sound move to some far away land, the problem will be solved!

I like Big Sven's solution; that's some out of the box thinking! And no %^&#$@ tax hikes. Now where can we lay our hands on some dynamite?

Has that resulted in more than twice the improvement in traffic safety, reduction of congestion, and promotion of greenhouse-gas-reducing alternatives to driving that a 40 cent tax would have provided?"

Since demand for gas is so price inelastic, probably not. But instead of going towards improved highways and expanded public transit, that extra buck a gallon ended up lining the pockets of oil companies and corrupt rulers of backward Middle Eastern states. Get some decent funding for public transit, and demand for gas will become a lot more price sensitive.

Sounds too sensible to pass through our ever so rational political process.

So a GVW-linked surtax makes the most sense.

Then Malt liquor is going to get real expensive.

And @9, SUVs do not cause appreciably more damage to the road than cars. The atmosphere, yes, but not the pavement. What causes the most damage to the asphalt? Articulated buses, 18-wheelers, and concrete trucks. Cars and pickup trucks (or SUVs) do hardly any damage by comparison.

Thanks for agreeing with me, Greg @30 - really, this 40 cents should be on commercial vehicles and primarily 18-wheelers, and maybe on camper vans. We already have agrarian exemptions, so it won't impact the grain, just the beer.

Meanwhile, 'low-income' residents throughout the country that can't even afford (or chose not to have) a car in the first place are already subsidizing roads when they pay their landlord's property tax, etc.

with the good infrastructure the "rich" drivers' gas taxes pay for, the "poor" will have better public transit to use instead of driving their '87 whatevers.

Some people will buy smaller fuel efficient cars, or take transit, as a lifestyle choice out of concern for the environment. That's super, but you'll never get the whole population to buy into that. Lots of people only care about gas milage when it starts effecting their wallet.

I say add a $1 p/gallon gas tax. The more expensive gas is, the more people will switch to transit or high milage cars.

On a more subtle level, if you increase the cost of shipping, that would encourage buying locally and discourage frivolous imports (like, why do we need bottled water from Fiji, nearly halfway around the globe? And why is that even financially viable?). That would both help the environment and local employment. So be sure to add that $1 p/gallon tax on diesel fuel for trucks, trains, and ships too. And jet fuel.

I'm not anti-road and I'm not anti-suburbs, but the government should neither subsidize nor penalize cars. They should just make them pay their fair share. And right now I think (though I don't have any stats) that means a larger gas tax and/or a congestion tax.

LEARN ABOUT TEXAS TOLL ROAD CORRUPTION:
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/