109 Comments - Unpopular - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:41 pm: Without question there needs to be an increase in the gas tax. - Gruntled University Employee - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:42 pm: I voted yes. Why? Because the money needs to come from somewhere other than my pension. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:42 pm: Yes. Infrastructure is in terrible shape—crumbling bridges and roads. - Been There - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:45 pm: I voted yes. But we eventually will need to come up with a way to tax electric cars after they become more mainstream. - Steve Rogers - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:46 pm: Voted Yes. But I wonder if 3 cents is enough. I might suggest 5 cents. But baby steps I guess. - Steve - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:47 pm: I voted no. Illinois has more people than in 1990. That’s plenty of more consumers paying a gas tax. Anyway, since many people in Illinois think the rich can afford to pay more , a gas tax affects everyone. - Tommydanger - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:48 pm: Voted yes. My idea of significant would be an additional.10/gallon and indexed to inflation. Gas prices change daily/weekly where I live. If the additional dime were baked into the pricing, I doubt whether it would make a big difference to most motorists. What would be make a difference would be roads and bridges that were better if not adequately maintained. - Interim Retiree - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:48 pm: Yes. While I am w/Gruntled and have a pension, those of us who use the roads should be paying for them. Roads & bridges need constant upkeep. - Les Nessman - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:49 pm: Yes, and .20 to .25 cents and tie it to inflation. Also a fee on electric vehicle registration should also be added. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:50 pm: Voted “yes” “Why?” It’s a user tax, using that gas puts a strain on the roads, the roads, and bridges too, need significant repair. It’s a safety issue too. Yep. I’m not going to “like” it, but I like safe roads and bridges so the vote is a clear yes. - The Real Captain - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:50 pm: I said yes. I think 3 cents is low. What we always see is that our politicians want to skimp on these increases so it wont seem too bad. Well it is bad if you drive in this state and it is becoming dangerous as well. I say 10 cents. - Levois - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:50 pm: I would support a significant increase (and since I’m not fiscally inclined I’m not sure how significant) in the gas tax. Hopefully it goes towards specific infrastructure needs. - curtis - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:51 pm: Significant: To me it means enough to where people notice and it meets the needs for a capital bill. Gas is stil cheap. We all remember the days of $4 a gallon gas. It hasn’t been over $3 in a long time. I say tack on another 20-30 cents a gallon and people will notice and you can at least point to new projects being built as a result. If gas costs $2.95 or even $3.15, it’s still mostly fine. I say hike it to 30 cents over 3 years. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:53 pm: –Illinois has more people than in 1990. – This is true, actually. The sky is not falling!! - curtis - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:54 pm: Clarifying prior comment: Raise it 11 cents to 30 cents. Not raise it 25-30 cents. - Otown Beatdown - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:54 pm: Voted yes. Would much prefer an increase to any per mile tax. VMT tax is inherently anti downstate and anti business to those who operate fleet vehicles. - Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:55 pm: Well, before we get to raising yet another tax… How much gallonage is sold in Illinois versus gallonage sole in 1990, 2000,2010 and 2018? What was the revenues collected and deposited into the MFT fund? Since there has been no capital bill recently, what is the current balance in the MFT fund versus what is being proposed as a spend for a capital bill that would be cash and not bonded? Then let’s talk about raising the gas tax. - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:56 pm: Voted yes. Need money to make the roads and bridges safe. Would also increase the excise tax on new cars and a tax on car repairs. The new cars reduce gas tax revenue through greater efficiency, this counters that loss. A service tax on repairs is sort of a use tax. It also gives information on the condition of the fleet. When roads deteriorate, repair costs go up. So you then have more money for the roads. - Huh? - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 2:59 pm: Yes. without roads there is no economy. Without roads we have nothing to buy in the grocery stores, department stores, the local bars, or your favorite establishments in which you purchase items. Stand on a bridge over the interstate and count the number of trucks. those trucks are carrying the goods of the American economy. There isn’t anything that you do buy or use in your everyday life that has not come over the roads. The roads and bridges of the state are the lifeblood upon which our economy runs. - Rutro - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:00 pm: Make it 20 cents. - Blue Dog Dem - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:00 pm: Voted yes. Significant is 2 cents. - BenFolds5 - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:00 pm: Voted No. Let’s see a comprehensive plan for all the taxes and what the cuts in spending are going to be. I think it may be more than time to raise it, but I would like to see a real plan and cap. - twowaystreet - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:01 pm: I said yes, but I’d raise it 5 cents a gallon. Let MI hold on to that number 5 spot for 5th highest gas tax in the nation. - Responsa - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:01 pm: I voted no to this because of the increased use of electric and hybrids which also use the roads and bridges. They need to be part of the infrastructure solution so everybody pays and contributes to maintenance. Come up with a plan for this and I’ll vote yes. - zatoichi - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:02 pm: Roads need to be maintained and I do not see the cost of concrete going down. How will the state handle the increase of electric cars which do not buy gas? All of the major auto manufacturers are developing electrics which are going to become available eventually. A $.10 increase would work. Gas prices by me jump from $1.99 to $2.57 and back for no apparent reason. - Blue Dog Dem - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:04 pm: My yes vote would need to coincide with a PLA with the trades for at least 6 years. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:10 pm: I voted no. Illinois combines a gas tax with a sales tax. Both taxes are flat and regressive in nature. When gasoline prices increase, the sales tax revenue increases. When prices decrease, the sales tax revenues decrease. Tax the expensive electric cars driven primarily by the wealthy that pay no gas tax or sale tax on gasoline instead. The progressive income tax will allegedly save most in the middle class $250.00 to $300.00 annually. We are then going to wipe out a good chunk of that extremely modest reduction with a gas tax? And then a plastic bag tax? And then whatever is next tax in our current tax more and spend more mentality these days? What the right hand gives, the left hand takes away. By the way, I don’t see many Mom and Pop gas stations around in Illinois these days. I’m it isn’t my imagination. - Dome Gnome - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:10 pm: Yes, without hesitation. I’d rather have safe roads and bridges than to have a few extra pennies in my pocket. - Big Jer - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:10 pm: I voted yes. I would start at 5 cents. Why? For the reasons that Willy stated above. This should have been done a few years ago when gas started to hover around $2.50/gallon. With the amount of pickup trucks and large SUV’s I see driving around, people are not worried about their gasoline costs at all. To Willy’s point. We do not drive cars anymore but trucks which are harder on pavement and infrastructure than cars. Pay Up. - Road Fund Blues - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:10 pm: In FY91, $362mm was transferred from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund to the Road Fund. In 2020, $314 mm is projected to be transferred from the MFT Fund to the Road Fund - Ben - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:11 pm: If you want a big increase, you should add if you live in Chicago and don’t own a car. - Chicago_Downstater - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:13 pm: I’ve had to replace three tires in two years thanks to potholes. I’d rather just pay the extra in gas to make sure we’re all driving on safe roads. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:14 pm: I voted no. I think we need to have a conversation about the current level of taxation on fuel. We pay a motor fuel tax plus the sales tax which goes into GRF. We’re already double taxed on every gallon we buy. We should re-direct more of the sales tax into the road fund. - Not It - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:16 pm: You need a dependable and solid revenue source in order to sell bonds. I would also increase the registration fee to cover fuel efficient vehicles, and allow for that fee to be paid in installments instead of all at once. - A guy - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:16 pm: I’m a no. I could be a yes, but “significant” is vague and not comforting. - Chicago_Downstater - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:18 pm: Should’ve read the parentheses. Sorry. Significant to me is at least a quarter. And I drive nearly 60 miles round-trip every weekday from the city out to the burbs and back, so I’d really feel that quarter. But I’d feel it a lot less than those potholes. - ChicagoVinny - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:18 pm: I worry about my employees being able to make it downtown given the sorry state of Union station and Metra - if increasing the gas tax can get some sorely needed capital funding there, I’m all for it. - SOIL M - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:19 pm: Well since I now live in an area where a gas station cant stay in business due to much lower prices just across the bridges in other states, why would this make sense? When the I-57 Bridge opened to MO there were 3 gas stations there. As travelers learned how much cheaper it is just to wait a few miles, they are all now closed. In Cairo you can buy a $70,000 pickup, but cant buy a gallon of fuel to put in it. Go to Cape Girardeau, Perryville, or any other place where Illinois residents can drive across the bridge to buy gas, and count the Illinois license plates. Remove the Sales Tax from Gas and then maybe we can talk about raising the MFT. This will bring the prices more in line with surrounding States. Maybe then you could sell some gas along Illinois borders and bring in additional revenue that you are now sending to other places. But then again if you are proud of the fact that Illinois will have one of the highest total fuel taxes in the country then go ahead and send more business across state lines. - Captain Obvious - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:19 pm: Raise the gas tax 6 cents and remove the sales tax. - lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:20 pm: Voted yes - besides the need, it helps the environment and I’m agnostic as to whether it would act as a regressive tax: people who own cars and drive a lot might have higher incomes (understood this is a bad assumption for rural areas - I’m wildly speculating that it’s offset by the numbers in the city/suburbs). - Flapdoodle - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:20 pm: Yes. It’s a use-based tax: Drive more, pay more. What “significant increase” means is trickier. As a base, take the current value of 19 cents in 1990. Cumulative inflation is about 92.6%, so 19 cents is now about 37 cents. Quite a jump and lots of squawking probably. - Johnnie F. - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:20 pm: Yes, and we need a way to collect for non gasoline vehicles. Can’t an additional amount be collected for hybrid and electric vehicles at the time of annual plate registration? - DuPage Bard - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:21 pm: So a gas tax to fund roads and bridges yet RTA and schools and many others have their hands that doesn’t make it a user fee. If everything was going to go specifically to roads and bridges you could justify the user fee aspect. - Tequila Mockingbird - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:22 pm: I voted no. But if they are going to do it, do it big, sky’s the limit. Because I’m close enough to buy my gas in Iowa for a couple years then retire and move out of Illinois. - The Magnificent Purple Walnut - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:23 pm: I voted no, but could reconsider with more information. Would like to know how much has been collected each year and how it had and is being spent. Illinois doesn’t always seem to use funds for the intended purpose. If it goes to the roads only, then yes. - DuPage Saint - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:27 pm: Voted yes. And to me significant means up to and including 25 cents. Tie some of these things to inflation and adjust annually. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:29 pm: Rich i voted yes….forget the sales tax and raise the MFT a dime. also raise the plate fee 50.00 and let the electric cars pay what ever 12k miles would pay in MFT. - Wylie Coyote - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:33 pm: 1. Convert the 6.25 percent state sales tax on motor fuels from GRF and put it into the Road Funds. 2. Go ahead and raise it 15-cents a gallon but do it over a three-year period. 3. After the third year, index the MFT so we aren’t in this kind of a fix. 4. A big chunk of the revenues raised from MFT goes to subsidize mass transit. If the motorists have to pay more tax, then mass transit fare ought to go up proportionally. 5. Don’t even think of a statewide MFT. First, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and no-one trusts government with a GPS tracker or any other device you have to stick in your car. Wait a couple of years and the federal government will be working on a nationwide VMT because the federal highway pot is in just as bad shape as the state. 6. Create a flat tax or registration fee of some sort for electric cars. But don’t go too overboard. Heck, they can only go 200 or so miles before they need to be charged. And don’t tell me it ought to be cheap because they’re clean burning. You still need a smoke-belching power plant to provide the electricity to keep them charged. - Chicago Bars - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:33 pm: I support the bridges not falling apart & have yet to hear any alternative good ideas. Something needs to shift for the Electric car shift too - Wylie Coyote - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:33 pm: IK meant to say VMT under #5. - Robert the Bruce - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:37 pm: Voted no. I’m cool with raising the gas tax, but use it to help balance the budget rather than increasing spending. - DuPage Guy - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:39 pm: I voted yes. Significant - I’d say raise it by 5-10 cents. If we exempt fuel sales from sales tax, I’d say raise it by 20-30 cents. With the lockbox amendment theres a better chance of it going to transportation projects than going into the State General Fund. Though because that would blow a huge hole in the budget of both the State and Locals, it will never happen. - SAP - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:40 pm: Yes. I would consider a dime a gallon significant. With the current rate generating about $1.3 Billion/year another dime would add a little over half a Billion/year I’m guessing. We need the money and it would incentivize purchase of fuel efficient vehicles. I’d throw in eliminating the reduced registration fee for electric vehicles and eliminate the partial exemption for ethanol while I’m at it. - SAP - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:40 pm: P.S. I’d phase in the increase over a couple, three years. - twowaystreet - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:41 pm: ===- Ben - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:11 pm: If you want a big increase, you should add if you live in Chicago and don’t own a car.=== Yes I live in Chicago and don’t own a car and said we should raise the gas tax 5 cents. Pick another tax and I’d be fine with that for infrastructure funding. What tax would you suggest raising? - view from the cheap seats - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:44 pm: I voted no. They need to apply this to hybrids, electric and everyone who uses our infrastructure. - dbk - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:44 pm: Voted “no” despite the condition of roads/bridges. A gas tax is a rather old-style tax, we need a more comprehensive and future-oriented tax on use of infrastructure to accommodate electric vehicles. Maybe a mileage tax combined with licensing fee based on weight/age of vehicles? Agree generally with others - this is a stop-gap solution, not a long-term one. - Ben - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:49 pm: I’m okay with a gas tax increase of 5-10 cents and I drive about 20,000 miles a year and own three cars. it just adds a perspective. - Smitty Irving - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:57 pm: Yes but … instead of a 2-5 cent increase, make it 4-10, and going forward all roads (other than tolled) are cash on the barrel head. Short term, less bang for the buck, but as bonds are retired, each year more funds funds for roads. Are we still paying Debt Service for Build Illinois? Illinois First? - Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:58 pm: 19 cents in 1990 is the equivalent to 38 cents today, basically doubling the gas tax. Spending all of that money on infrastructure projects is significant enough for me. - muon - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 3:59 pm: For those who suggest removing the sales tax and converting it to an MFT, I would suggest two things. First, since this is for state projects, only consider removing the 5% state portion that now goes to the General Fund. That leaves the locals intact. Second, start with a raise that is roughly revenue neutral. At $2.50/gal that is about $0.12 of the cost of fuel. So an increase of $0.12 would not be noticed at the pump, and for more expensive products it would be a decrease. Switching to an MFT would also reduce somewhat the volatility of gas prices. A sales tax goes up when the price goes up, making the price increase even higher. An MFT is fixed regardless of the price of gas, so the only price increase would be that of the product itself. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:07 pm: Not basically, actually doubling the gas tax. It is fair though because it is just inflation since 1990. Doing a little back of the envelope math, that could pay for a pretty big capital bill in itself. - NorthsideNoMore - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:08 pm: Yep, costs have gone up and the State and Local Govs have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the infrastructure built on behalf of the people of Illinois. - theCardinal - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:09 pm: Yes, as long as they stop raiding the road fund etc. - Amalia - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:14 pm: Voted No. I support an increase in the tax. I don’t consider a 5 cent per gallon raise to be significant. But that’s what I think they should do. Raise it 5 cents per gallon. I also believe that hybrids or pure electric should be taxed another way. the tax is for road work and those cars affect the road. So they need to pay something for the miles they use on the roads. - 37B - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:15 pm: I voted yes. When instituted in 1929, gas cost 21 cents per gallon and the gas tax was 3 cents per (14.3%). It was raised several times over the years until 1990 when it was raised to the current 19 cents and the cost of gas nationwide was around $1.30 (14.6%). It is still 19 cents per gallon on $2.43 cost per gallon (7.8%). I doubt (but am admittedly not certain) that road upkeep infrastructure costs have fallen by nearly half over the last 30 or so years. Set it and forget it at 14.5%. - 37B - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:16 pm: Phase it in if need be to avoid shock to people heavily reliant on car use. - Platon - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:27 pm: Do this instead of raising the income tax. - City Zen - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:31 pm: ==I doubt (but am admittedly not certain) that road upkeep infrastructure costs have fallen by nearly half over the last 30 or so years.== What efficiency gains have been made since 1990? One would assume advancements in concrete pavement technology over 3 decades would allow us to lay a higher quality road in a shorter period of time. - Just saying - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:33 pm: Make it an even 30 cents per gallon. Our infrastructure needs all the help it can get. That would create construction jobs which would last a long time the way our roads are now. - Chicago 20 - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:33 pm: I voted no. The roads and infrastructure wouldn’t be in such bad shape if the past gas tax funds weren’t redirected for non-infrastructure items. These inland port rail heads such as the Center Point facility in Elwood add thousands of trucks per day on area roads without paying a dime for the infrastructure needs has to change before I’ll consider paying more gas tax. - truck man - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:39 pm: Ozinga Concrete has propane mixer truck we need to TAX them too - Wensicia - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:49 pm: No, not a significant raise. This will increase public transportation costs to a level many cannot afford. - Sense of a Goose - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 4:50 pm: I think a combination of taxes will be needed going forward. Hybrids and electric vehicles still use the roads so a use/mileage tax might be appropriate. Curbing fossil fuel use is an important on its own and higher prices are shown to lower consumption. I’d prefer it be done at the federal level so border communities don’t pay the price. - Yooper in Diaspora - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 5:15 pm: It seems reasonable to raise the gas tax to some degree, since it has not been raised since 1990. - Robert Lincoln - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 5:22 pm: Does anyone know what the average cost of a gallon of gas was in 1990? and could a tax be levied, that actually decreased if the cost of gas went up? - anonymous - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 5:39 pm: Somebody please explain the difference between raising the gas tax and paying per mile driven….. - PublicServant - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 5:48 pm: Raise it even more on diesel fuel. Those trucks are killing our roads. - Been There - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 6:12 pm: I get about 23 miles to a gallon in my car. If I drove 10,000 miles that would be around 435 gallons. At 3 cents a gallon that would cost me $13. I drive around 30,000 miles per year so it will cost me around $39 per year. I would guess about 50,0000 people spend that per month on tolls. I would advocate that the pain will be minimal until you get to 15-20 cents per gallon. - SSL - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 6:16 pm: We need to raise the gas tax, and we need to go big. No less than $.25 a gallon. We can get Illinois into the top 3 in the country and we need the good press. With the soon to be approved progressive tax, the already exorbitant property taxes, a very healthy sales tax and now a top 3 gax tax, Illinois will be a real destination state for high earners. I kid of course. - Oldtimer - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 6:50 pm: What’s the price of gas going to be this summer when this takes effect, $2.25, $2.75, $3.25? I could handle a $.25 increase if prices remain in the $2.50 range. After that, it starts to hurt. - Mama - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 6:53 pm: I voted NO because there is insufficient information. It all depends on what the heck “significant increase in gas tax” means. (5 cents more, 10 cents more or 20 cents more or higher?) - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 7:05 pm: I voted yes, and 10c seems about right, what Iowa did, but IL will raise more $ because can s and trucks probably buy 4x the fuel in IL as they do in IA. Electrics, adding probably $200 to annual registration should cover it. Electric semis will need to pay more when they come online. If we don’t do a GPS based VMT tax, another future option might be a monthly odometer read and pay it via debit. - Tim - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 7:11 pm: I voted no. Until the state eliminates prevailing wage and opens up bidding to outside contractors my vote is no. If we weren’t stuck with prevailing wage we could probably afford to complete much more work than we can now. - Ole - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 7:16 pm: Yes and I support up to .20 cents - Stagman - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 7:36 pm: Sure. I live in the metro-east and buy my gas in Missouri anyway. - Enviro - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 7:50 pm: I voted no. Increasing the gas tax would disproportionately hurt low income people. The last capitol bill was funded by a tax on gambling. The infrastructure projects could be funded by increasing that tax. - Chicago 20 - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:00 pm: Tim - “IUntil the state eliminates prevailing wage and opens up bidding to outside contractors my vote is no. If we weren’t stuck with prevailing wage we could probably afford to complete much more work than we can now.” Probably? Where is the empirical evidence to support your failed theory? - Big Tom - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:15 pm: No - Odysseus - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:49 pm: Yes, and significant is a minimum of $1. Also, the restriction that this goes to only to infrastructure projects needs to be removed. Dump it straight into GRF. Taxing fuel is better than CAFE style laws at making people buy fuel efficient vehicles. We’re way behind where we need to be on addressing climate change. - Odysseus - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:55 pm: @Robert Lincoln - looks like gas in 1990 was about $1.20. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-915-march-7-2016-average-historical-annual-gasoline-pump-price-1929-2015 - 44th - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:57 pm: no - Enviro - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 8:57 pm: I voted no to a significant increase in the gas tax. This would be unfair to low-income workers and retirees. But I think an increase of 5 cents would not be too much to ask. Increasing the state tax on all existing forms of gambling would be a better way to raise funds for a capital bill. - Siriusly - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 9:10 pm: We absolutely need a hike in the gas tax and here are my reasons why: 1) We need a reliable revenue source for capital funding - can’t fix roads and bridges with no money; 2) investments in capital improve the infrastructure and result in more private investment, economic growth results. 3) Gas is too cheap - we must apply gentle economic pressure against the excessive and sometimes wasteful burning of carbon, carbon emissions must become more expensive or we will end our planet as we know it. 4) There is a balancing point between energy being too expensive (slows economy) and too cheap (un-necessary damage to environment and excessive burning of carbon beyond what is needed for economic purposes). Currently, energy is too cheap, excessive carbon burning results. - Platon - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 9:27 pm: Prevailing wage is a waste of taxpayer money. Why should the state not get the best deal? - MG85 - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 9:28 pm: I am against any regressive tax. A gas tax is naturally regressive. I believe we need to raise revenue for the projects outlined, but there are other more progressive taxes: speed boats, ATVs, motorcycles, airplanes, helicopters, and I could go on. Of course, we need to make it like we do with cars, it doesn’t matter where you purchase the darn things, Illinoisans have to pay the tax. Heck, we could even levy a tax directly from the municipalities and incentivize a tax break if they raise their property taxes. I know many will not view this favorably, but the lower and working classes need a break. It’s time the folks who are doing well start paying for more. - Chicago 20 - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 9:57 pm: Turns out, prevailing wage is the best deal. https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-finds-indiana-common-construction-wage-repeal-reduced-worker-pay/article_e6769190-7574-5fa8-8bcb-f89c8f109cd2.amp.html - M Python - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 10:52 pm: Gas tax much better than a mileage tax. Might encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. Crude oil won’t last forever - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 11, 19 @ 10:55 pm: Yes to everything Siriusly said. Seriously. This is the fairest way to pay for roads, bridges and mass and other transit. Significant? More than a dime per gallon hike. This is long over due and most people understand what this is for and want good roads, bridges etc. and most are willing to pay, as long as it’s fair. - oldhp - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 12:19 am: Ok make a law that NOT ONE PENNY can be taken out of the motor fuel tax first. - So Illinois - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 4:04 am: I did vote no, simply because I am retired and every one of my pennies count, lol. However, I don’t drive near the miles I used to while working, either. But realize revenue must come from some source under the category of the nasty word “tax”. Yes, our roads and bridges are in dire need of repair. However, instead of targeting “just motorists” which does include those traveling through our State, why not be creative - a “consumer &/or receipt tax” of sorts. On every single ‘receipt’ ~ gas, food, clothing, entertainment, pack of gum, one drink at a bar, home and lawn, furniture, etc. - every final transaction produced at the register or on-line purchase - $.03 -.05 is added. Then everyone would be chipping in for our infrastructure and probably would produce additional for some other State expenses that need to be addressed. Think about how many transactions occur in one day through out the State. Food for thought? - Steve - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 5:02 am: Yes to gas tax. Yes to registration tax on electric vehicles. Yes to public transportation tax. Yes to bicycle tax to owners over 18. Yes to a user fee of some kind for everyone who uses the roads and bridges. Toll the interstates as well. - workerbee - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 6:49 am: My vote is no. This will not include electric cars. We need something that taxes all users fairly, although my vote would also be no to a mileage tax. - bob - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:10 am: We need to couple an increase in the motor fuel tax with an increased public transportation network. That way low income families are not more affected by this change. - Morgan - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:14 am: I voted yes. I work in infrastructure planning and design, and we aren’t keeping up with our aging roads, bridges, and water infrastructure. We often don’t have money for maintenance of existing assets, and in the end we spend many times the maintenance costs to replace an asset. Index the gas tax to inflation or build in incremental raises would be a good idea too. - DMAN - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:48 am: I voted no but go a head and do it. I can buy my gas in MO. - Vince Glothor - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:51 am: I’m with Wiley Coyote - Perrid - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:55 am: We need revenue from somewhere, and I don’t have a better idea. So I’m guessing it’s going to be at least $.3, maybe $.4 instead of the current $.19. Back of the napkin math, I put about 13 gallons into my car about every 10 days (I don’t get out much, lol). So currently, with those assumptions, I pay something like $90 a year. With a $.3 tax I would pay $142, and with $.4 I would pay $190. I don’t love it but I’ll take it so a bridge doesn’t collapse underneath of me. Now obviously it would be different if I had a longer commute, or if I had a business where travel is required, but for me personally it’s doable. - Anon 88 - Tuesday, Mar 12, 19 @ 7:55 am: I voted yes, however, the current combined f/s/l tax rate on fuel is 55.91 cents per gallon. Every border state but Indiana has a lower MFT than Illinois. Indiana’s combined MFT rate is 61.3 cents per gallon, so with that in mind, I would consider 5 cents to be a significant increase. As others have noted in this thread, Illinois does have more people than in 1990 which = more people driving. However, the average fuel consumption per person has gone down; likely because the average fuel efficiency in vehicles has gone up approximately 5 miles per gallon since 1990. With the ever-increasing popularity of hybrid and full electric vehicles, a per-gallon increase is going to be a band-aid. The only tax that actually makes sense (but is wildly unpopular and would be difficult to implement) is a miles-driven tax. Because this kind of tax is so difficult to implement and politically untenable, the only things left on the table are registration and renewal fees and sales tax. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.