Mileage based road use taxes

[Koolau]

Gas taxes are already generally higher for all vehicles that use gasoline or diesel in that weight is a primary factor in MPG, so heavier vehicles use more fuel and pay more gas taxes as a result. “Big trucks” pay slightly more per gallon as well, the federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. In addition, many but not all, state diesel fees are higher per gallon than gas taxes.

How much would be fair?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States

Wow. Fair? We could discuss this all day. What have I found? Most people really mean "equal" (whatever that means) when they say fair.

Without looking them up, I contend that fair means getting what you have coming to you. Or, it means getting/giving what you have earned/bargained for. It's fulfilling a contract as written.

Equal is "everyone gets the same thing no matter the contribution, effort expended, credentials, training, etc.)

Since no one will agree what "fair" is nor will anyone agree with my definitions, maybe we should leave it there. Heh, heh, but I will if you will.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

Drive less. Pay less tax. I know it's not like the lottery (aka a tax on the stupid), where you only pay if you want to, but there are alternatives to a large percentage of the driving that people do.

 

[ownyourfuture]

I agree EVs should pay their fair share, but gas taxes have never been adequate to fund roads for 70 years! Let’s solve both instead of creating a complex system singling out EVs?

Agreed: As far as I know, the federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, & hasn't changed since October 1, 1993. Seems like neither side ever wanted to raise it. One said no new taxes, the other said it would be a regressive tax on the poor.

It's too bad they couldn't have gotten together & said we're going to raise it 11.6 cents, to $.30 per gallon with an ironclad guarantee that every single penny will go towards transportation/infrastructure.

If you're going to dream, might as well dream big

 

[Koolau]

If you're going to dream, might as well dream big

Yeah, especially the part about a politician keeping a promise.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Toll roads have proven to be effective revenue raisers over the years. I live in a state where tollways are a third rail politically because of the tourist industry, but it seems like a logical option. Lots of states have a few toll routes, why not make all the limited-access roads tollways? People could avoid the expense by traveling back roads or city streets if they didn't want to pay.

 

[Midpack]

Drive less. Pay less tax. I know it's not like the lottery (aka a tax on the stupid), where you only pay if you want to, but there are alternatives to a large percentage of the driving that people do.

How exactly is the problem. Any practical ideas?

The annual inspections idea above sounded better than some I’ve seen. It wouldn’t be hard to require annual inspections for ALL vehicles, though it would be cheaper for cars with zero tailpipe emissions. e.g.NC charges $13.60 for required safety inspections and $30.00 for emissions when required.

 

[RxMan]

In my experience the answer always seems to be more taxes. There’s never a reflection on all the money already coming in and how to better spend it. This will be the same thing. It’s too damn easy to spend other people’s money.

 

[VanWinkle]

Most of our commerce requires mileage to deliver goods, travel to spend, and general consumption. Taxing mileage will have the opposite effect of the intended result. I agree that there will still be a gas tax and this will amount to a tax increase. I'm not sure why we continue to funnel billions to those that find a way to waste a large percentage of the funds.

 

[Ever_Ready]

Tire tax

 

[Koolau]

Toll roads have proven to be effective revenue raisers over the years. I live in a state where tollways are a third rail politically because of the tourist industry, but it seems like a logical option. Lots of states have a few toll routes, why not make all the limited-access roads tollways? People could avoid the expense by traveling back roads or city streets if they didn't want to pay.

Hmmmm. The limited-access roads I've traveled lately, I would be insulted to have to pay a toll to drive them. I use those "back roads and city streets" you mention to avoid the pot holes and collapsed pavement on the Interstates where I can.

Some day, when at least one of the "infrastructure Trillions" actually is used for, well infrastructure, maybe a toll would be tenable. Now, not so much. But YMMV.

 

[Surewhitey]

Agreed: As far as I know, the federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, & hasn't changed since October 1, 1993. Seems like neither side ever wanted to raise it. One said no new taxes, the other said it would be a regressive tax on the poor.

It's too bad they couldn't have gotten together & said we're going to raise it 11.6 cents, to $.30 per gallon with an ironclad guarantee that every single penny will go towards transportation/infrastructure.

If you're going to dream, might as well dream big

And if adjusted for inflation, maybe around $.40/gal. That would be about $66 last year for us... Not exactly a deal breaker. And if it reduces demand, big oil might reduce prices (or output) to adjust.

They're smarter people who can surely look into the future for EV adoption & find a starting point for the fee amount due to lost tax revenue...

 

[Sunset]

The problem for most suggestions is it raises the cost too, whether inspecting all vehicles, using GPS on every vehicle (how would you know it wasn't removed), etc..

Also everyone benefits from roads, even non-car owners and bike riders.

I'd rather see a road tax for every adult, it's fair everyone pays as everyone benefits, it can be on the tax return.

 

[Koolau]

The problem for most suggestions is it raises the cost too, whether inspecting all vehicles, using GPS on every vehicle (how would you know it wasn't removed), etc..

Also everyone benefits from roads, even non-car owners and bike riders.

I'd rather see a road tax for every adult, it's fair everyone pays as everyone benefits, it can be on the tax return.

I don't really disagree with what you say here. But we could do this 50 different ways and no one would agree that it's "fair."

My issues with all this are 1) using highway money for other stuff and 2) losing privacy. Other than that, the word "fair" has no real meaning because every one has a different concept of fair.

 

[CaptTom]

Drive less. Pay less tax. I know it's not like the lottery (aka a tax on the stupid), where you only pay if you want to, but there are alternatives to a large percentage of the driving that people do.

To me, this idea is totally backward. I don't want to go back to a horse-and-buggy economy. People who live in urban areas sometimes forget that everything they consume every day is brought to them. We all use the roads, directly or indirectly. Our entire economy, everything we depend on for survival, relies on both our national and international transportation systems.

Most of our commerce requires mileage to deliver goods, travel to spend, and general consumption. Taxing mileage will have the opposite effect of the intended result...

Exactly.

...Also everyone benefits from roads, even non-car owners and bike riders.

I'd rather see a road tax for every adult, it's fair everyone pays as everyone benefits, it can be on the tax return.

And there is the crux of the problem. How would we identify everyone's "fair" share?

What we need to do is first agree that efficient transportation is a critical function of government which we all need to support. Then we can argue about how to collect the revenue. From that perspective the concept of a mileage-based tax is absurd.

 

[Koolau]

Then we can argue about how to collect the revenue. From that perspective the concept of a mileage-based tax is absurd.

Then, of course, "absurd" is in the mind of the beholder - just like "fair."

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

Hmmmm. The limited-access roads I've traveled lately, I would be insulted to have to pay a toll to drive them. I use those "back roads and city streets" you mention to avoid the pot holes and collapsed pavement on the Interstates where I can.

So then you'd have a choice, wouldn't you?

When I was a kid, my Dad would skip the Tri-State Tollway in Illinois and take the Old Skokie Highway (Highway 41) so he wouldn't have to pay the tolls. I think there were about 20 traffic lights on 41. For nostalgia sake I gave that a try a few years ago. I found I was traveling with fleets of 18-wheelers, most of which would take half a mile to get up to speed from each red light.

I've also driven in South Florida, which has the choice of the turnpike (toll) and I-95 (free). I gave up on 95 when a semi passed me on the right at freeway speed-plus in the breakdown lane.

Most regular tollway users are equipped with wireless transmitters that track their passage through toll plazas. They were an inconvenience when you had to carry a handful of small change to feed each toll basket. Now you hardly even need to slow down.

It wouldn't bother me in the least if they made every limited-access highway in Wisconsin (my state) a toll road.

 

[Koolau]

So then you'd have a choice, wouldn't you?

When I was a kid, my Dad would skip the Tri-State Tollway in Illinois and take the Old Skokie Highway (Highway 41) so he wouldn't have to pay the tolls. I think there were about 20 traffic lights on 41. For nostalgia sake I gave that a try a few years ago. I found I was traveling with fleets of 18-wheelers, most of which would take half a mile to get up to speed from each red light.

I've also driven in South Florida, which has the choice of the turnpike (toll) and I-95 (free). I gave up on 95 when a semi passed me on the right at freeway speed-plus in the breakdown lane.

Most regular tollway users are equipped with wireless transmitters that track their passage through toll plazas. They were an inconvenience when you had to carry a handful of small change to feed each toll basket. Now you hardly even need to slow down.

It wouldn't bother me in the least if they made every limited-access highway in Wisconsin (my state) a toll road.

It's okay with me as well. I never plan to return to Wisconsin!

Our freeways on Oahu were originally built for 3 lanes. To accommodate traffic, there are portions where they simply turned 3 normal lanes into 4 narrower lanes. There are virtually no break-down lanes. So, 4 lanes is much better than 3 - until someone breaks down or there is a wreck - then, it is horrible.

Again, to pay a toll for that kind of freeway, I would be insulted. But, we'll get what we get, I guess. So far, soaking the tourists seems to help keep the roads "free." YMMV

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

It's okay with me as well. I never plan to return to Wisconsin!

Our freeways on Oahu were originally built for 3 lanes. To accommodate traffic, there are portions where they simply turned 3 normal lanes into 4 narrower lanes. There are virtually no break-down lanes. So, 4 lanes is much better than 3 - until someone breaks down or there is a wreck - then, it is horrible.

Again, to pay a toll for that kind of freeway, I would be insulted. But, we'll get what we get, I guess. So far, soaking the tourists seems to help keep the roads "free." YMMV

Whatever dude, but I'd venture that the highway system in Wisconsin is more reflective of the nation as a whole than that in Hawaii. Tollways seem to work in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, etc. When considering ways to impose user fees on motorists it's worth considering a system that's already in use.

 

[Koolau]

Whatever dude, but I'd venture that the highway system in Wisconsin is more reflective of the nation as a whole than that in Hawaii.

I agree dude. Very little in Hawaii (from roads to food to entertainment to politics to schools to houses to electric grids etc. etc.) is the same as it is in Wisconsin or the rest of the mainland. Hawaiians are proud of that (even if it's to their detriment - in my opinion.

By the way, if you ever come to the Islands, enjoy what you see, marvel at the quaint way we do things but keep your suggestions to yourself.

I've been in meetings when some haole got up and said something like: "Well, back in Wisconsin, we did it this way." Local people visually recoil. It's truly amazing. I've learned after 15 years to accept it. I sorta understand it, too. I try to keep my mouth shut in such settings. Once in a while you can speak privately with a prominent local and maybe your idea will be looked at. But a direct approach doesn't w*rk.

 

[DenverDoug]

As a civil engineer, or at least most times, you have to recognize the public, tax payers, residents don’t want to pay for infrastructure. It’s a cultural and societal problem because what used to make the USA a first world nation was our first world infrastructure of roads, water treatment plants, domestic water systems, flood control structures, building codes, air ports, etc. And now that we all don’T want to pay for the use and maintenance of these facilities we no longer have first world infrastructure anymore. But deteriorated and poorly maintained facilities. Our roads and bridges rate out at a grade of ‘C’ or ‘D’ on a good day. If this present mind set was in place in the 50’s then Eisenhower could never have built our Interstate Highways. Taxes for infrastructure are needed. That is obvious and the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993. How many people think they can get buy on their budgets from 1993. A user tax for occupying the highways is appropriate and a use tax for the damage done because of your use of the roads is also appropriate. This second tax would be based upon the weight of your vehicle. And FYI, a two ton vehicle causes 4x the damage done by a one ton vehicle, so since you should pay for what you use, it is appropriate to include weight into the equation. Let’s stop burdening our kids and grand kids, with our failure to pay for what we use. We all learned a long time ago there is no ‘Free Lunch’ so let’s pony up and pay our fair share.

 

[Koolau]

As a civil engineer, or at least most times, you have to recognize the public, tax payers, residents don’t want to pay for infrastructure. It’s a cultural and societal problem because what used to make the USA a first world nation was our first world infrastructure of roads, water treatment plants, domestic water systems, flood control structures, building codes, air ports, etc. And now that we all don’T want to pay for the use and maintenance of these facilities we no longer have first world infrastructure anymore. But deteriorated and poorly maintained facilities. Our roads and bridges rate out at a grade of ‘C’ or ‘D’ on a good day. If this present mind set was in place in the 50’s then Eisenhower could never have built our Interstate Highways. Taxes for infrastructure are needed. That is obvious and the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993. How many people think they can get buy on their budgets from 1993. A user tax for occupying the highways is appropriate and a use tax for the damage done because of your use of the roads is also appropriate. This second tax would be based upon the weight of your vehicle. And FYI, a two ton vehicle causes 4x the damage done by a one ton vehicle, so since you should pay for what you use, it is appropriate to include weight into the equation. Let’s stop burdening our kids and grand kids, with our failure to pay for what we use. We all learned a long time ago there is no ‘Free Lunch’ so let’s pony up and pay our fair share.

Define "fair" in relation to this issue.

 

[zippy2020]

Impossible to make a system 100% fair to all when a big part of it is a guessing game. But living in CA, it's clear that even though we currently tax 100% of the funds budgeted, more is needed. Period. The roads are not in good shape, and that's not even including natural disasters like flood mitigation, mudslides, quakes, and fires.

If that's the price we pay for living here, then so be it. We have an ICE car, our neighbor has 3 EVs. Like it or not, they drive more than we do, so yeah - something has to be worked out that is somewhat fairer than what is in place now.

If I buy another car, it will probably be an EV, altho it will definitely not be a Tesla. But if I'm using the roads, it's only fair for me to help pay for their upkeep. I grew up in a state with toll roads; freeways are only "free" because the cost is spread out over many drivers.

 

[CardsFan]

Define "fair" in relation to this issue.

And therein lies the problem. With ANY tax proposal. People want "fair to everyone", but everyone has a different perspective of what "fair" is to them.

 

[CaptTom]

The "what is fair" question quickly becomes political. That's why I leave it out of discussions like this. In a perfect world, we elect leaders who work on behalf of their constituents to craft "fair" policy for all.

Yeah. I know. But that's a separate issue.

The issue at hand is the simple logic of who benefits from our transportation infrastructure. I suggest it's all of us, equally.

I've seen no good argument suggesting that somehow the person who rides a bike to work should be absolved from having to contribute to the international infrastructure which is critical to keeping them and billions of others alive.

The one argument which comes closest is that there are too many of us on this planet, and we need to go back to a time when we didn't need transportation. The solution to that is simple. Less humans. I won't stop anyone who volunteers to do their part by leaving this planet. If you choose to stay, then you must accept that just by eating, breathing and sleeping with a roof over your head, you are part of the problem.

 

[ychuck46]

We have a hybrid Ford Maverick truck that gets excellent gas mileage. Starting next year in TN our registration will go up quite a bit due to our smart choice in said vehicle. Politicians will always find something they want to spend money on, and will always put it in the guise of something people are more likely to get behind, like our roads. They then will spend the money on anything they deem to be proper.