This is an excerpt of a guest column Nick Chambers, editor of Gas 2.0, wrote for Popular Mechanics. You can read the whole column on the Popular Mechanics website.
The road trip—driving cross-country for days on end, crammed into a vehicle with your family—is virtually a required rite of passage for most Americans. The lure of the open road is as ingrained in our psyche and culture as the hamburger, football or fishing. So it’s no surprise that proposals for new types of taxes on these seemingly free highways—traditionally paid for by gas taxes and tolls—are causing an uproar.
Back in July of this year, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) proposed a bill that allocates funds to research the effectiveness of taxing highway usage by the mile. On the surface, the bill seems to be laying the groundwork for big government to track our driving habits while simultaneously discouraging the driving of more fuel-efficient vehicles. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Most road maintenance and upgrades in the U.S. are currently paid for with fuel taxes. It has been that way for a long time. In fact, Oregon started the trend of taxing gas back in 1918 and the Federal government followed suit in 1932. For the most part, the system has kept roads and highways maintained and in working order. However, since the 1970s, average vehicle fuel efficiency has been going up even as we’ve put more vehicles on our roads. Over time, this trend has caused fuel tax revenues to decline per vehicle, which poses a problem for road maintenance and upgrades.
Some say that the solution is simply to raise our gas taxes much higher—by a dollar or more per gallon. But this solution doesn’t address the base problem: With the country focusing on using less or no oil-based fuel, gas taxes are an inflexible system of revenue generation. Increasingly, fuel usage has little correlation to actual road use. The ultimate example of that is the electric car; if it has enough range, it could drive a lifetime and the owner would never pay a penny in gas taxes.
According to others, the only equitable way to make sure that every vehicle using our roads is paying proportionally for the maintenance of them, is to charge on a per-mile-driven basis—a mileage tax.
But does a mileage tax threaten personal privacy and discourage fuel-efficiency?
Continue reading at Popular Mechanics…
You can also check out more content from Popular Mechanics:
- How to Make Biodiesel With a Commercial Kit
- The Future of Diesel in the US: Analysis
- 4 Retro Cars Boost Power and MPG With Diesel and EV Upgrades
PDF 
I don’t like this idea of taxing by the mile, unless the tax is scaled by a factor proportional to the weight of the vehicle. My Trailblazer does more damage to the roads than a Toyota Yaris so I should have to pay more road tax to go the same distance and a Hummer H2 does more damage than my Trailblazer so the H2 owner should have to pay more than me. Scaling would keep the incentive to buy light (fuel-efficient) vehicles.
The gas tax already does this in a sense because heavier vehicles require more fuel to go the same distance as a lighter vehicle, but I do see the conundrum that hybrid, all-electric vehicles, and bio-fuel vehicles cause with the current system.
I don’t like this idea of taxing by the mile, unless the tax is scaled by a factor proportional to the weight of the vehicle. My Trailblazer does more damage to the roads than a Toyota Yaris so I should have to pay more road tax to go the same distance and a Hummer H2 does more damage than my Trailblazer so the H2 owner should have to pay more than me. Scaling would keep the incentive to buy light (fuel-efficient) vehicles.
The gas tax already does this in a sense because heavier vehicles require more fuel to go the same distance as a lighter vehicle, but I do see the conundrum that hybrid, all-electric vehicles, and bio-fuel vehicles cause with the current system.
Tim,
Good thoughts. I had the same thoughts when I was writing this post. What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface. It may make a difference of a small fraction of a cent per mile, give or take. The mileage tax concept certainly is flexible enough to incorporate that weight charge if we, as a society, decided that’s what we want to do. The mileage concept is also flexible enough that we could charge an “environmental damage” surcharge as well, where the driver of an electric car would pay less per mile than the driver of a Hummer, for instance. It all depends on what the politicians do and what the American public wants.
“What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface.”
I can buy that. Did it show that most road damage was weather related (freeze/thaw cycling, salt, snow plows)? I still like the scaling idea and maybe, as you say, it should be based on emissions and/or fuel-efficiency rather than weight.
“What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface.”
I can buy that. Did it show that most road damage was weather related (freeze/thaw cycling, salt, snow plows)? I still like the scaling idea and maybe, as you say, it should be based on emissions and/or fuel-efficiency rather than weight.
“What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface.”
I can buy that. Did it show that most road damage was weather related (freeze/thaw cycling, salt, snow plows)? I still like the scaling idea and maybe, as you say, it should be based on emissions and/or fuel-efficiency rather than weight.
I think the best option is to tax tires instead of fuel or mileage. All vehicles need tires, regardless of their energy source. Even bicycles need tires! A tax based on the mileage rating of a tire would work, so that a 40,000 mile tire would be taxed less than a 60,000 mile one. This tax would also be exclusive of the price of the tire: it would be based solely on the rated mileage of it. It would also be ‘anonymous’, like fuel taxes.
I think the best option is to tax tires instead of fuel or mileage. All vehicles need tires, regardless of their energy source. Even bicycles need tires! A tax based on the mileage rating of a tire would work, so that a 40,000 mile tire would be taxed less than a 60,000 mile one. This tax would also be exclusive of the price of the tire: it would be based solely on the rated mileage of it. It would also be ‘anonymous’, like fuel taxes.
I think the best option is to tax tires instead of fuel or mileage. All vehicles need tires, regardless of their energy source. Even bicycles need tires! A tax based on the mileage rating of a tire would work, so that a 40,000 mile tire would be taxed less than a 60,000 mile one. This tax would also be exclusive of the price of the tire: it would be based solely on the rated mileage of it. It would also be ‘anonymous’, like fuel taxes.
That is stupid, The Goverment’s tax is pig!
That is stupid, The Goverment’s tax is pig!
Here in Australia, the annual financial rape&pillage our government conducts on its faithful citizens involves paying just over $500 / year / car for the annual road tax (at least in Melbourne, that is the Vic Roads charge). The reason this is so high is that our land mass is on par with USA meaning we need almost as many roads, but our population (and thus the number of vehicles being driven) is less than 10% of that of the US. However the idea is being floated to make registration fees of hybrid and other clean-n-green technology cars substantially less than the old-school way of thinking. This is also being discussed for parking meters in the city, but I have no clue how they plan to implement that one.
So it would seem that if this brainwave eventually gets legislated, we will be paying a premium for the polluting vehicles (road tax on Hummers would be over $1,000 [plus an additional ugly-car tax] if it were up to me, so all the Hummer fans are grateful I have no say) which might be the right way to raise revenue. Not necessarily a distance-covered tax, but more of a flat tax.
I can see the government’s dilemma here: Encourage people to reduce their oil-dependence, when oil-dependence has been such a magic cash-cow for so many decades.
A national battery-swap scheme for electric vehicles (one of the idea being investigated) could give the govt their much-desired charge-per-mile, so that when someone wants the convenience of a 10-minute change and no depend on home-power, then there is a tax payable, built into the battery change fee.
Here in Australia, the annual financial rape&pillage our government conducts on its faithful citizens involves paying just over $500 / year / car for the annual road tax (at least in Melbourne, that is the Vic Roads charge). The reason this is so high is that our land mass is on par with USA meaning we need almost as many roads, but our population (and thus the number of vehicles being driven) is less than 10% of that of the US. However the idea is being floated to make registration fees of hybrid and other clean-n-green technology cars substantially less than the old-school way of thinking. This is also being discussed for parking meters in the city, but I have no clue how they plan to implement that one.
So it would seem that if this brainwave eventually gets legislated, we will be paying a premium for the polluting vehicles (road tax on Hummers would be over $1,000 [plus an additional ugly-car tax] if it were up to me, so all the Hummer fans are grateful I have no say) which might be the right way to raise revenue. Not necessarily a distance-covered tax, but more of a flat tax.
I can see the government’s dilemma here: Encourage people to reduce their oil-dependence, when oil-dependence has been such a magic cash-cow for so many decades.
A national battery-swap scheme for electric vehicles (one of the idea being investigated) could give the govt their much-desired charge-per-mile, so that when someone wants the convenience of a 10-minute change and no depend on home-power, then there is a tax payable, built into the battery change fee.
“What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface.”
That may be true of passenger vehicles but semi trucks put huge ruts in the roads. Are we going to increase their taxes as well which will lead to higher priced goods because of increased transportation costs?
“What I came to find out was that lots of research shows that the variance in weight of all types of passenger vehicles actually has very little effect on the amount of damage those vehicles do to the road surface.”
That may be true of passenger vehicles but semi trucks put huge ruts in the roads. Are we going to increase their taxes as well which will lead to higher priced goods because of increased transportation costs?
I like “use taxes” and the concept of a mileage tax as it’s a great indicator of how much a vehicle has used the roads. While there may not be a big “wear and tear” difference between vehicle’s weight, I do think Mileage tax should be combined with vehicle weight for two reasons:
1. There IS a difference in wear and tear AND it makes sense to most people
2. It provides the government with a means of incenting people to purchase lighter vehicles (which are inherently more fuel efficient).
Taxing vehicles with Mileage Tax makes a lot of sense for PHEV/EVs…
1. They will be using the roads without paying their fair share of road taxes since they won’t be filling up at the pump.
2. It will be very easy (automatic) collect mileage data once Vehicle to Grid (V2G) is rolled out nationwide. It also makes it hard for people to cheat their mileage usage since machines are doing the data collection. People should be able to see reports of their vehicle’s usage by pulling a report on the Internet.
3. Tax billing could be simple and automatic (like EZPass Tolls) which reduces the administration cost to the government and keeps billing on a monthly basis that evens the revenue stream.
That said, I’m for implementing a mileage tax on PHEV/EV’s and keeping the current Gas tax system (changing it would be hard).
I like “use taxes” and the concept of a mileage tax as it’s a great indicator of how much a vehicle has used the roads. While there may not be a big “wear and tear” difference between vehicle’s weight, I do think Mileage tax should be combined with vehicle weight for two reasons:
1. There IS a difference in wear and tear AND it makes sense to most people
2. It provides the government with a means of incenting people to purchase lighter vehicles (which are inherently more fuel efficient).
Taxing vehicles with Mileage Tax makes a lot of sense for PHEV/EVs…
1. They will be using the roads without paying their fair share of road taxes since they won’t be filling up at the pump.
2. It will be very easy (automatic) collect mileage data once Vehicle to Grid (V2G) is rolled out nationwide. It also makes it hard for people to cheat their mileage usage since machines are doing the data collection. People should be able to see reports of their vehicle’s usage by pulling a report on the Internet.
3. Tax billing could be simple and automatic (like EZPass Tolls) which reduces the administration cost to the government and keeps billing on a monthly basis that evens the revenue stream.
That said, I’m for implementing a mileage tax on PHEV/EV’s and keeping the current Gas tax system (changing it would be hard).
I like “use taxes” and the concept of a mileage tax as it’s a great indicator of how much a vehicle has used the roads. While there may not be a big “wear and tear” difference between vehicle’s weight, I do think Mileage tax should be combined with vehicle weight for two reasons:
1. There IS a difference in wear and tear AND it makes sense to most people
2. It provides the government with a means of incenting people to purchase lighter vehicles (which are inherently more fuel efficient).
Taxing vehicles with Mileage Tax makes a lot of sense for PHEV/EVs…
1. They will be using the roads without paying their fair share of road taxes since they won’t be filling up at the pump.
2. It will be very easy (automatic) collect mileage data once Vehicle to Grid (V2G) is rolled out nationwide. It also makes it hard for people to cheat their mileage usage since machines are doing the data collection. People should be able to see reports of their vehicle’s usage by pulling a report on the Internet.
3. Tax billing could be simple and automatic (like EZPass Tolls) which reduces the administration cost to the government and keeps billing on a monthly basis that evens the revenue stream.
That said, I’m for implementing a mileage tax on PHEV/EV’s and keeping the current Gas tax system (changing it would be hard).
I have a problem with “road use taxes” because it will inevitably drive up the price of goods well have all come to rely on for acceptable costs.
Trucking companies are already super-competitive, and charging more money based on how much they use the road will drive up shipping costs, and hence, the price we pay on pretty much every good we use.
I like the idea of a flat, yearly tax, per vehicle, per household/business. You may do less damage to the environment by driving an electric car, but you’re not doing any less damage to the road.
If you want to get people away from cars, tax the cars. That will get people who don’t really need cars to give them up while not squeezing small businesses out by driving up their mileage costs.
I dunno just my opinion…
I have a problem with “road use taxes” because it will inevitably drive up the price of goods well have all come to rely on for acceptable costs.
Trucking companies are already super-competitive, and charging more money based on how much they use the road will drive up shipping costs, and hence, the price we pay on pretty much every good we use.
I like the idea of a flat, yearly tax, per vehicle, per household/business. You may do less damage to the environment by driving an electric car, but you’re not doing any less damage to the road.
If you want to get people away from cars, tax the cars. That will get people who don’t really need cars to give them up while not squeezing small businesses out by driving up their mileage costs.
I dunno just my opinion…
if the tax is to repair roads, then it could apply to tires/tyres or volumes of fuel,
hopefully not both.
A flat tax is hard on those who have less but still need to drive, so not so fair.
A tax on emissions is complicated and i don’t see the correlation to road damage.
Having another machine+service to determine what I should pay will probably result in many complaints and crushed machines, regardless of the truth.
Easier to do is just lump it in as a percentage of earnings (income taxes), as we all pay taxes on one thing or another, and it would be less complicated. Most of us rely on the road system for many things, regardless if we drive or not. i believe that would be most effective.
if the tax is to repair roads, then it could apply to tires/tyres or volumes of fuel,
hopefully not both.
A flat tax is hard on those who have less but still need to drive, so not so fair.
A tax on emissions is complicated and i don’t see the correlation to road damage.
Having another machine+service to determine what I should pay will probably result in many complaints and crushed machines, regardless of the truth.
Easier to do is just lump it in as a percentage of earnings (income taxes), as we all pay taxes on one thing or another, and it would be less complicated. Most of us rely on the road system for many things, regardless if we drive or not. i believe that would be most effective.
if the tax is to repair roads, then it could apply to tires/tyres or volumes of fuel,
hopefully not both.
A flat tax is hard on those who have less but still need to drive, so not so fair.
A tax on emissions is complicated and i don’t see the correlation to road damage.
Having another machine+service to determine what I should pay will probably result in many complaints and crushed machines, regardless of the truth.
Easier to do is just lump it in as a percentage of earnings (income taxes), as we all pay taxes on one thing or another, and it would be less complicated. Most of us rely on the road system for many things, regardless if we drive or not. i believe that would be most effective.
if the tax is to repair roads, then it could apply to tires/tyres or volumes of fuel,
hopefully not both.
A flat tax is hard on those who have less but still need to drive, so not so fair.
A tax on emissions is complicated and i don’t see the correlation to road damage.
Having another machine+service to determine what I should pay will probably result in many complaints and crushed machines, regardless of the truth.
Easier to do is just lump it in as a percentage of earnings (income taxes), as we all pay taxes on one thing or another, and it would be less complicated. Most of us rely on the road system for many things, regardless if we drive or not. i believe that would be most effective.
Wouldn’t the power company just end up putting a separate meter in your garage so the government(s) can tax you on the electricity you use to charge your car?
Wouldn’t the power company just end up putting a separate meter in your garage so the government(s) can tax you on the electricity you use to charge your car?
Wouldn’t the power company just end up putting a separate meter in your garage so the government(s) can tax you on the electricity you use to charge your car?
Just tax the non-E85 gas. Increase the tax 2 Cents a month, i.e. 2 cents first month, 4 the next, 6 a month after that and so on. Continue until we become energy neutral.
Just tax the non-E85 gas. Increase the tax 2 Cents a month, i.e. 2 cents first month, 4 the next, 6 a month after that and so on. Continue until we become energy neutral.
If the government needs money to repair roads, why can’t it think of ways to generate that revenue without charging people? For example why doesn’t the DOT operate their own billboards and sell advertising? Why should Clear Channel make all the money while the DOT is providing their audience for free?
Or maybe they can grow switch grass for ethanol on the sides and medians of freeways? It seems like they cut the existing grass/weeds anyway, might as well make some money doing so.
I’m sure there are other creative ideas people could come up with for the DOT to make money from their roads without taxing people even more.
If the government needs money to repair roads, why can’t it think of ways to generate that revenue without charging people? For example why doesn’t the DOT operate their own billboards and sell advertising? Why should Clear Channel make all the money while the DOT is providing their audience for free?
Or maybe they can grow switch grass for ethanol on the sides and medians of freeways? It seems like they cut the existing grass/weeds anyway, might as well make some money doing so.
I’m sure there are other creative ideas people could come up with for the DOT to make money from their roads without taxing people even more.