Pro: Taxing miles traveled is the most logical way to increase revenue to repair highways
WASHINGTON EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Is it time to phase out the federal gasoline tax and tax drivers on the miles they travel instead?
The richest nation on Earth can’t pay for the roads it needs anymore. The way the U.S. government collects the money it needs for roads—through a federal tax on motor fuel—is outdated and badly needs modernization to adapt to drastically changing circumstances.
In 1956, Congress came up with a “pay-as-you-go” method to fund the Interstate Highway System. Instead of floating bonds, the Federal Highway Trust Fund was created and mainly supported by federal taxes on motor fuel, then 3 cents per gallon.
The Trust Fund’s guiding principle was fairness—the more you used the highways, the more you paid for them. But even though the federal motor fuel tax is now 18.4 cents per gallon, the Trust Fund is going broke.
Better fuel economy, reduced gasoline use and highway travel, and rising construction costs have caused the Highway Trust Fund to run out of money at a time when a first-class highway system is badly needed to help pull our economy out of recession.
To look into this problem, Congress created a 15-member National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission to investigate options and recommend a course of action.
The numbers tell the tale: long-term federal highway revenues are estimated to bring in only $32-billion a year, while highway needs total almost $100-billion a year. Meanwhile, real highway spending per mile has fallen by nearly half since the Trust Fund was established.
The Commission’s unanimous report, released in late February, calls for a 10 cents per gallon boost in the federal gasoline tax—which equals one-half cent per mile—followed by a gradual shift from our current reliance on motor fuel taxes toward a fee on actual miles driven.
To measure these miles, the Commission calls for “in-vehicle or after market Global Positioning System (GPS) devices” that would track the way we drive. The per-mile charge would depend on whether the driving is on crowded urban freeways during rush hour (higher charge) or lightly traveled rural roads (lower charge).
The goal of the mileage tax is still to collect the funds we need for good highways through user fees, but in a more logical way than we do now.
The report says the amount charged for cars could range from 0.9 cents per mile to match current Trust Fund revenues, or go up to 2.3 cents per mile to “maintain and improve” the annual investment level.
The levels of taxation require careful calibration to ensure fairness. But compared to the current system, fairness should be relatively easy to achieve.
What’s fair now about charging a driver who can afford a new 40 mpg hybrid less to use the highways than a construction worker who drives a 20 mpg pickup?
“The gas tax isn’t going to fill the bill,” says Congressman Peter Defazio, D-Ore., a member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.
So in a pilot program, Oregon has installed GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles equipped with in-vehicle transponders that calculate the mileage tax owed.
Drivers in Portland continue to pay the tax at the pump, just as they have in the past. Other states, plus the Netherlands and Denmark, are considering mileage taxes.
Privacy is sometimes cited as a concern, but privacy is protected when the data is kept within the vehicle. The many GPS tracking devices already in today’s vehicles, such as OnStar, E-ZPass and LoJack, are effective without compromising privacy.
Simply raising the fuel tax would be a temporary band-aid on a hemorrhaging Highway Trust Fund. As more fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles require less motor fuel, the funding gap will only grow. And as we modernize our vehicles and reduce our motor fuel use, it’s time to let the vehicle mileage tax play its role in our highway funding.
Gerald Bastarache is former director of communications at the Highway Users Federation and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, and a former reporter with the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times. Readers may write him at The National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20045.

May 6, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF,
If the tax was set up well, decreasing mileage driven would not have too much of an impact on funding since the need for those tax dollars would decrease. Less use means less wear and tear which means less tax money needed for repairs.
***
Darwin,
The self-employed currently self-report their yearly personal and business use of their vehicle(s), couldn't we use a similar system for everyone? This would increase the opportunities for fraud but appropriate incentives to accurately report and penalties for fraud could be implemented.
***
I'm not really a big fan of this tax but the idea behind it is not ridiculous. It would make those who use the roads more pay more for repairing them. I don't agree with the author that we should treat the driver of a small hybrid the same as a pickup, however. A split between mileage and gasoline might be a better idea since it would take into account both road use (mileage) and the environmental impact of the vehicle (gasoline).
May 4, 2009 at 6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, I also have to add. Stop the low-bidder for repairs too. If I am the only one that has wittnessed this slap me? But, a road is shutdown for repair/repave. and as soon as it is open? They are hacking it up/ cutting it up. and it becomes a wreck after 1 winters use.
Is it me or do they need to hire someone that DOES KNOW HOW to repair roads and do it right the First time?
I personaly have put up with re-routing directions every year and these same roads are (2 years old) ready for redo already. Look at the wonderful redo on west side of east rotamer rd. When that one was compelted, they had cement saws a roaring and slit it up awfully. Then threw down slag in the crevases. Now? Its becomeing trenchs to avoid and the road leans terible. Write road repaired? The giddy-up effect is returning already after less than a year. And many many more of the so called patch works are pregnent and a hazard to all drivers.
SomeBody call SomeBody that Knows how to do road work for a change so we dont have to spend so much REDOING thier mistakes. THAT would save taxpayer money and actually have a functioning road with a shelf life.
Drives me nuts. Have a good drive folks.
May 4, 2009 at 6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alert, alert; Captin Kirk...This Is Illogical.
Maybe the fix for the water problems can be a new tax on toilet flushings?
Air quality, tax people for excersion and heavy breathing?
Tax parents of students, for the higher/lower grades new school tax.
I think we need to begin to elect people that have a selfless quality about themselves and non-personal gains in mind to office.
You know? The Real Reason we are to have representation? FOR THE PEOPLE.
Its really beyond stupid now. Shesh.
May 3, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is dumbest idea ever. The idea that they will be able to implement this is absurd. Once the GPS units are installed they will use them to check to see if you were speeding and then charge you accordingly as well.
May 2, 2009 at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
This should be a lesson in how stupid government operates. They want money to “repair/maintain roads, they also are telling you (via legislation; Go Green!), to drive less and more economical cars. The later guarantees revenues will decrease; you travel further on the same taxed amount of gas. So to fix the current tax/revenue dilemma they created, yep another tax! This is just like taxing smokers. If the really thought tobacco was that big a problem they should ban it. Instead, they show they care by imposing higher taxes on it. It is all about the money.
May 2, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
And what happens when people start driving even less? The government managed to create the problem and their solution, as always, tax, tax. And, what guarantee would we be given that the money raised would NOT BE SIPHONED OFF TO PAY SOME OTHER PROGRAM THAT WAS SHORT ON MONEY? This tax is not fair nor honest, it is a rip off.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.