DON'T CONFUSE NEEDS FOR HIGHWAY FUNDING

Just so you don't forget: Gov. Mel Carnahan wants to raise your taxes to pay for transportation needs around Missouri. But he knows the Legislature isn't going to talk about new taxes during this election year, much less approve a tax for transportation. So the governor is likely going to ask you next year to approve a tax increase of some kind to pay for transportation.

The issue of transportation funding has been in the forefront a lot in recent months. All the attention stems from the fact that the state's 15-year highway plan has come up short on money. How much money is a subject of hot debate. There are some state officials who would like for you to think something like $14 billion or so must be raised from new funding sources. Others, however, say the addition fuel taxes Missourians are paying are already providing a big chunk of money for highways, and the extra money needed might be a more reasonable and acceptable figure.

But the really gritty issue is the language of politics when it comes to discussing highway needs. Does everybody recognize the difference between "highway funding" and "transportation funding"?

To put it simply, the 15-year plan was for highways. Just highways. And the bulk of the funding came through higher fuel taxes paid by motorists who use highways. This plan was logical and fairly easy for voters and taxpayers to comprehend.

But since the shortfall in the highway plan was first made public by officials of the Missouri Department of Transportation, there has been a subtle shift. Now the emphasis is on transportation needs, not highway needs.

What's the difference? The difference is costly urban mass transit, hiking trails, bicycle trails, riverport facilities and airport improvements. While all of these modes of transportation have their supporters, and rightfully so, the plain fact is that these "transportation" projects could quickly drain funds earmarked for highways.

So when the governor talks about the need for more taxes for transportation, what he is really saying is there should be higher taxes for things that aren't highways. Take the Metrolink light rail system in St. Louis, for example. Metrolink's passengers pay low fares that don't even come close to covering the operating expenses of the system. Solution: More "transportation" taxes for Missourians everywhere, even those who will never use Metrolink.

Lt. Gov. Roger Wilson recently decried the so-called urban-rural split over transportation. But it's a fact that cannot be ignored. There are major highway needs in rural and urban areas that ought not to be jeopardized by other urban transportation needs. If the governor wants a tax to subsidize Metrolink in St. Louis, then he should say so and stop mixing it with highway programs.