A technological step ahead may also bring a step backward in funding transportation fairly. Utah is working toward charging tolls for freeway express lanes based on times of day, with rush hours being more expensive.

Right now both state and federal highways are largely supported by gas taxes. But $4 gas is inducing drivers to limit how much they drive. And there's no predicting the future trend. What would happen, for example, if a lot more people purchase electric cars.

"We don't even know in 20 to 30 years if they are going to be buying any fuel or what kind of fuel they'll be buying," Texas state Rep. Mike Krusee, a member of the National Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission, recently told the Utah Legislature's Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee.

Tolled highways are fairer and provide stabler sources of revenue, advocates say, adding that he federal trust fund for highways is going broke. Besides, these folks say, people who clog the roads at rush hour should pay for the privilege.

Beyond that, this thinking goes, because people jam the roads at certain hours, the government has to spend more money to build roads to cope with that crush of vehicles.

Electronic transponders are already in widespread use on tollways in other states.

It doesn't take much imagination to envision a future in which virtually all cars have such devices. They'd track mileage and time of day on highways -- which would become "feeways," not freeways -- and bill motorists accordingly.

Adding a bit of Big Brother, ubiquitous cameras would track the license plates of cars that tried to evade electronic toll-takers.

But the more this idea is looked into, the worse it sounds. First of all, if tolls steer cars away from interstate highways, they'll just clog local arterials.

Krusee called the current funding arrangement a subsidy by taxpayers to suburban developers who use the roads to open cheaper lands.

But what's wrong with opening up more land for affordable housing? Why should people be stuck in overcrowded cities?

Advocates of this misguided approach say that targeted tolls force people who drive to pay their share. But they overlook the fact that our transit system serves everyone, not just drivers. If the argument focuses now on big highways, it has to be remembered that the network of federal, state and local roads is interconnected.

A elderly woman with no car may depend on a family member or friend drive her to a doctor's appointment or to the grocery store. The environmentalist who bicycles everywhere likewise depends on goods delivered via the highways, from his organic tofu lunch to the bike itself. People congregating to demand social change will travel, whether by Lexus or city bus, on highways.

There's also the larger issue. Our freedom to travel is part of a larger set of freedoms. Public transit is fine, but don't overlook the freedoms granted by our system of public roads. It enables people to seek out more opportunities. They aren't tied down to a schedule or route created by bureaucrats. An open system allows people to maximize potential.

Moreover, the more complex the system gets, the bigger a bureaucracy it requires. Just look at the income tax code. It started with a couple of pages. Now it's up to thousands.

Start monkeying with who "should" pay what for driving when and where, and a huge jungle of new government regulations will sprout.

We're surprised to hear some pro-business groups hailing the idea. The idea is that current policies "subsidize" rush hour traffic. Supposedly half the people driving at rush hour are not traveling to or from work, so it's considered improper to construct road systems to meet such needs.

It strikes us as, odd, however, to think that people who are on the roads at rush hour are somehow unnecessary travelers. It's hard to imagine someone saying, "Wow, I'll have to hurry out to I-15 by 8 a.m., so I can sit in traffic for an hour!"

It's more likely most rush hour drivers are headed out at the normal times for a whole range of vital human activities, whether it's shopping, chauffeuring the kids, going to classes, heading to the doctor's office, or plenty of other things. There's no good reason to discriminate against regular people.

Perhaps the gas tax should to the way of the dodo bird. It could and should be replaced by a general increase in the income or sales taxes. After all, our road system genuinely serves the "general welfare" of the whole society. It's impossible to sort out who benefits and how. Trying to do so will only encourage more intrusive government.

 ________________________________________________________________________________