Mileage tax gains support of House Transportation Committee chair
by Sebastian Blanco on May 1st 2009 at 9:37AM 
Earlier this year, new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (R) briefly flirted with the idea of a mileage tax, where drivers would pay based on how far they drive. Briefly. Later, the State of Oregon released a study that found a way to "successfully" implement a mileage tax - GPS units and a wireless communicataion system at the pump were two key components - but this didn't address the big problem with a mileage tax: it removes any tax-based incentive to consume less fuel (a gas tax, on the other, does).
All this leads us to the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, James Oberstar (D-MN), who this week came out in lukewarm support of a mileage tax. The Transportation Committee is where a bill like this would need to be discussed, so having Oberstar voice his approval is important. In 2007, Oberstar recommended raising the gasoline tax to help pay for infrastructure repair, and Green Car Advisor notes that the mileage tax is his idea to keep money coming into the federal highway fund; with ever-increasing MPG numbers, the gas tax isn't generating enough money to keep roads in good shape.
[Source: The Atlantic, Green Car Advisor]Photo by JeffWilcox. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jim 10:21AM (5/01/2009)
Funny the guys who want the mileage tax do not pay for gasoline. The tax payers pay for it for them.
Reply
Ron Wagner 12:17AM (5/02/2009)
Vehicle weight is what destroys the roads, far more than mileage. Fuel taxes cover both. Just increase the fuel taxes, rather than add a new tax, and another way to invade our privacy and harass us. Let those who want to save money do so by buying small light vehicles. Punishing them is counterproductive.
Patrick 1:07PM (5/10/2009)
The purpose of U.S. energy policy is to encourage consumption, has been for 60 years, with a brief break under Jimmy Carter.
OrngCrush 10:21AM (5/01/2009)
Makes sense to me that infrastructure funding be tied to actual use rather than fuel. Fuel consumption has nothing to do with wear and tear on the road. It would be good to account for vehicle weight as well, though.
Reply
GoodCheer 10:32AM (5/01/2009)
You've struck the nail on the head.
While neither correspondence is perfect, weight DOES correspond to wear on the road, and weight DOES correspond to fuel efficiency. Because of these two, a fuel tax is a better representation of road wear than a straight mileage tax.
KK 10:32AM (5/01/2009)
Fuel consumption *does* correlate with wear and tear on the road because heavier vehicles tend to consume more fuel and cause more stress on the road.
Also tax is often used to change people's behavior, and this would be a perfect application: increased tax on fuel will be a strong incentive to reduce fuel consumption.
In addition, I would guess that a fuel tax is more progressive than a mileage tax. That is, rich people who can afford gas-guzzlers will end up paying more tax than low-income people driving economy cars.
I, for one, will watch this closely. I'm in the market for a new car soon, and if it looks like the mileage tax will come to effect, it would be much more difficult to justify the cost of a Prius over, say, a Matrix (which uses twice as much fuel but costs $6000 less).
dhofmann 11:36AM (5/01/2009)
Weight does correspond to wear and tear, but it isn't a linear relationship. Since road wear is a function of the cube of the axle loading, if a Hummer weighs 6,000 lbs and gets 12 mpg and a Chevy Aveo weighs 2,500 lbs and gets 30 mpg, then the Hummer does 13.8x the road damage but pays only 2.5x in gas taxes.
Could someone please explain to me how this is fair?
mike baz 11:32PM (5/01/2009)
Big Brother anyone?
Reply
Throwback 10:33AM (5/01/2009)
I'll pass on having the government keep track of where I drive, when I drive, and how often I drive. I already have a mother. How about we use the ga tax for the roads only, and not public transportation?
Reply
KK 10:46AM (5/01/2009)
Public transport systems ease road congestion. It makes sense for road users to subsidize public transport.
Throwback 11:00AM (5/01/2009)
The reverse could also be argued, drivers ease congestion on public transportation.
KK 11:40AM (5/01/2009)
> The reverse could also be argued, drivers
> ease congestion on public transportation.
Not really. Buses are obviously slowed down by cars. With fewer cars on the road, buses get faster and therefore more useful.
As for commuter rail, the more people use it, the more frequently they can run the trains. Which means average trip time becomes faster. Only up to a point, obviously, but there aren't many commuter rail lines in the US that are running at full capacity.
UH2L 10:56AM (5/01/2009)
A mileage tax is a horrible idea. It doesn't encourage the use of more efficient vehicles like a fuel tax does and as GoodCheer and KK so clearly state, heavier, less efficient vehicles do cause more damage to the roads. I can't believe Oregon is thinking of trying this when it's supposedly a green state. Did they already implement it? I lost track.
Reply
jharlan 11:02AM (5/01/2009)
This is even a worse idea than raising fuel tax in a severe recession. These jackasses have an insatiable appetite for tax revenues. They should be working on governmental efficiency and offering incentives to drive the preferred behavior rather than raising taxes into a recession that they pretty much caused.
Reply
Ken 11:09AM (5/01/2009)
"...with ever-increasing MPG numbers, the gas tax isn't generating enough money to keep roads in good shape."
Well Dummy, raise the gas tax. You can raise it dramatically now to encourage conservation or you can raise it gradually to compensate for lost revenue.
Why consider a new tax that will reduce the incentives for more economical or alternative-fuel vehicles? Are the oil companies contributing to your campaign fund?
Reply
paulwesterberg 11:48AM (5/01/2009)
The last time the federal gas tax was raised was 1993. It should at least be indexed to inflation in order to keep roadways maintained. Tracking car mileage would require a complicated and expensive tracking system.
brn 11:12AM (5/01/2009)
I'm fine with it if they also eliminate the gas tax. Otherwise, they're double dipping.
This whole thing pisses me off as it's just another way to tax. They're not changing, they're adding.
Reply
Chris M 5:49PM (5/02/2009)
The major support is from those driving gas guzzlers, as they hope to reduce their tax burden and shift it to those driving frugal economy cars and hybrids and even more frugal electrics. But they may be in for a shock, as I suspect they'd end up getting taxes on both fuel and mileage, and perhaps even a mileage "weight surcharge" as well.
Evie Futura 11:15AM (5/01/2009)
Raise the damn gas tax, then you pay for the infrastructure and the signal goes to the manufacturers and the consumers to be more efficient (and as a byproduct environmental)
No, way too simple for implementation, never mind the example that already proves it works well, the big oil lobby would have a heart attack
Reply
dealbig 8:43PM (5/01/2009)
Government now wants to restrict my movement, so I can only drive more if I have more money, this is BS. Charge more tax on the gallon of fuel that has to be imported. The gallon of gas creates the same amount of CO2 whether it takes you 15 miles or 45.
This is a big scam to add yet another tax that restricts the less wealthy from having freedoms. I have to drive to and from work and can't afford to move, that's why I drive a fuel efficeint and light car, which doesn't damage the roads as much as a semi.
Does the government really need to know where and when I've been somewhere? Then your insurance companies will penalize you for driving further even though you have a perfect driving record, once again BS.
Reply