Gridlock and Proposition 111

Your editorial “Washington Stalled in No-Tax Lane” (March 9) reaches a conclusion based on a small fraction of the objectives of the national transportation policy.

The federal government’s commitment to transportation has not diminished. Our policy calls for a continued federal emphasis on maintaining infrastructure, investing in research and development, and expanding capacity in areas of national significance. In the department’s 1991 budget request of $27 billion, a full 66%, $18 billion, is for infrastructure, an increase of 11% over last year’s budget request.

You mistakenly accuse the federal government of “retreating from a traditional federal responsibility” with respect to raising revenues. As part of the policy’s implementation, the Federal Aviation Administration recently proposed a funding reauthorization bill that includes a 70% increase in capital spending over the next five years. It requests that Congress allow us to spend down the aviation trust fund from its current $7.6-billion surplus to under $3 billion in five years. It calls for an increase in the ticket tax paid by fliers from 8% to 10% of the ticket price.

We do not, however, for good reason, call for an increase in the federal gas tax. Our position is simply that the gas tax is an attractive and useful source of revenue for states to efficiently use. The more the federal government taps into that same resource, the more it takes away from the states. Last year a California legislator told a major newspaper that an increase in the federal gas tax will “kill any efforts in California to improve our roads.” He was and still is correct.

DAVID P. PROSPERI

Asst. Secretary for Public Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C.