Gas tax defeat means Missouri lawmakers will be seeking money for roads

[TexasTowelie]

Missouri voters’ rejection of a gasoline tax increase last week leaves state officials scrambling again for a successful route to solving the Missouri Department of Transportation’s chronic money problems.

The measure, Proposition D, was defeated by a vote of about 54 percent to 46 percent. The gradual 10-cent-a-gallon hike carried only in St. Louis city, three metro Kansas City counties and four outstate.

Rejection by voters in St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin counties came despite bipartisan support from the top elected leaders in each one.

They joined Republican Gov. Mike Parson, Democratic Mayor Lyda Krewson and a long list of business and labor groups on the campaign.

Read more: https://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/along-for-the-ride/gas-tax-defeat-means-missouri-lawmakers-will-be-seeking-money/article_9a9949ab-60ce-5eb0-8f69-4b9d0be368fe.html

[Sherman A1]

1. This tax was a screwed up thing from the start

A big chunk of it was to go straight to the highway patrol before anything was directed to roads. MoDot also has been accused of favoring rural over metropolitan areas in road work along with accusations of some “interesting” decisions on building sound walls in the more affluent areas while the common folks seem to be unaffected by noise.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. You know, you are absolutely right in (1) a lot was going to go to the H. Patrol prior to any...

road work (I heard 70%!). What are they doing here? Trying to free up money for another unneeded tax cut? I have to laugh here too, the last tax cut we got in MO was 1% off our income taxes!

Also, you're right, I think in the road work, rural vs. urban, perhaps MODOT made the mistake of trying to impress taxpayers w/ accomplishments easier to see when done in a rural environment vs. an urban environment (lots more complications in urban environments whereas most rural MO roads do have alternate pathways that commuters can take).

The sound/sight barrier walls all out in affluent areas along the interstates (especially along the I64 route in STLMO) really ticked me off in that why just them along these particular areas got these walls/barriers (for those of you who do not know what we're talking about here, these are 10 foot high walls running parallel on both sides of the interstate highway 64/40 in the city of STLMO (and maybe in KCMO too?)). They go for miles along both sides of the highway.

But they mysteriously disappear when you get further out west or east inwards towards the city. I know several friends of mine who live in areas alongside the interstate highways that would have loved the walls to prevent the noise of the interstate highway (its constant and noisy).

Also being rejected mostly by rural voters. I'm not surprised. These people in the rural areas don't want to pay for their lifestyle. They're the ones who wanted to live way out in the boonies and not pay for it. Those that commute 20-30-40 miles each way too.

I could care less if these rural and boonie suburb voters rack up a gas bill of $200 a week driving to/from work. They should have thought about this prior to living in the rural environment and/or move or get a different job. Why should I, who lives in a urban environment, close to work, drives less than 2 miles a day on average (maybe 20 miles at the most a week), pay for these people's choice? The gas tax is the best and fair way to do this, because the ones who drive the most are using/damaging the roads the most and thus should pay the most. If they have to pay for gas for the business, etc., then they get to write it off. A gas tax is the most fair way to distribute the costs among the users.