Bay area officials considering a regional gas tax increase
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay area is proposing a 10-cent-a-gallon regional gas tax. The tax would be applied in addition to existing state and federal gas taxes and state sales tax. The reason given for adding the tax would be to encourage drivers to go to more fuel efficient vehicles. In order to get the tax, two thirds of the voters in the nine counties in the Bay area would have to approve. The problem is that gas prices typically fluctuate by more than ten cents a gallon and such a small tax is likely to be ineffective for it's stated purpose. If they really want to influence drivers behavior they would need a substantially higher tax increase.
[Source: San Francisco Chronicle]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dan Barahona 11:19AM (10/08/2007)
You're absolutely right... in the Bay area, 10 cents a gallon is hardly noticed. I fill up at anywhere from $2.89 to $3.49 in a given month it seems. We can look to Europe to see what price level we need to achieve before smaller and/or more efficient vehicles become the norm. In a country where GM thinks a hybrid Escalade is a green machine we have a long way to go.
-dan
http://www.solar4sf.org
Reply
Phil L. 1:21PM (10/08/2007)
Beware of a tax whose sole purpose is to modify behavior.
Suppose it's succesful - and the revenue drops to near zero? By then, those who benefit from the tax have become constituents, with a very real interest in making sure the income stream continues, regardless of taxpayer behavior.
I want to see our energy behavior change - but I'm also very aware of how governments work. I've always found it ironic that tobacco settlements payments presume continued tobacco use in order to pay the additional taxes.
Reply
Chris M 3:50AM (10/09/2007)
The real critical question should be, "What is done with the tax revenue generated?"
If the revenue is used for good things, like improving traffic flow or effective public transit, then it would be good even if it didn't change car purchase decisions.
If the revenue was wasted on bad road design or subsidizing bad public transit, then we'd be better off without it.
Reply
gsolman6 8:40AM (10/09/2007)
Well California does have a large number of structurally deficient bridges so combining the ability to address that problem with reducing VMT, pollution and congestion is a good thing. In the long run higher transportation costs will promote smarter land use for mixed growth and higher density development.
Reply
gsolman6 8:48AM (10/09/2007)
The problem with a regional tax is that people who live outside the area and commute downtown can fill up near their residence and avoid the "surcharge."
Reply