Massachusetts Joins States Contemplating Pay-Per-Mile Road Tax Plans
By John O'Dell February 18, 2009
By
John O'Dell, Senior Edito
r
Add Massachusetts to the list of states considering the idea of replacing shrinking gas tax revenue with a pay-a-you-drive tax.
We told you last month about Oregon's flirtation with the idea that motorists should pay for road upkeep based on miles driven rather than gallons of gasoline purchased.
Now the state that hosted the Boston Tea Party is toying with the idea of sticking GPS systems in residents' vehicles so it can keep track of how much they drive around the Bay State and charge them accordingly.
The Massachusetts mileage tax being talked about is fairly mild -- 25 cents per mile, or $1 for 400 miles -- and we can see the rationale, we really can.
In this wicked economy, people are driving less and/or getting behind the wheels of more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the gas tax revenue traditionally used by states to raise funds for road building and maintenance is drying up.
A Bad, Bad Thing
So why not charge road users directly for the wear-and-tear they inflict by levying a per-mile fee?
That's the reasoning, and it makes sense -- but as we said last month, we think it's a bad idea.
There's also a little issue called energy independence, and another called harmful tailpipe emissions (which covers toxic or smog-causing gunk and greenhouse gases).
As a matter of national policy we are encouraging people to jettison their gas-guzzlers and seek out the most efficient cars and trucks they can. We want plug-in hybrids and electric cars that use no oil at all.
Taxing gasoline rewards and thus encourages purchases of fuel-efficient vehicles; charging by the mile doesn't. The driver of a 15-miles-per-gallon Jeep Grand Cherokee pays the same for a 100 miles trip as the driver of a 48-mpg Prius, even though the Jeep uses more than three times as much fuel and, as a heavier vehicle, does more damage to the road surface.
Massachusetts is at least the tenth state to be contemplating the move and there seems to be little in the way of a national debate on its wisdom.
Why not a hefty hike in gas taxes with a rebate plan to ease the burden on the poorest drivers? (Another issue in a pay-per-mile scheme is that the poorest among us often are forced by housing costs to live farthest from their jobs.)
We're wondering where all the fuel-efficiency advocates who can muster millions of voices over a tenth of a point decline in the national fuel economy average have gone.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Passenger cars do not tear up roads the most - it's heavy trucks by far. And trucks already pay more in gasoline taxes. The gasoline tax is a smarter way to go. States should learn to operate with larger capital reserves (those ninnies) just like we scold the automakers for not doing. States should not hike up taxes at all when the economy is tanking.
John: Agreed. It amounts to a flat tax that penalizes the poorest drivers the most. There are cheaper and better ways to go about raising incidental automobile revenue. Instead of going about with GPS units to track mileage of every vehicle, why not just set up toll booths? Or just raise gas taxes?
Your math is wrong. You wrote...
"The Massachusets mileage tax being talked about is fairly mild - 0.25-cents per mile, or $1 for 400 miles"
In order for the mileage tax to be $1 for 400 miles, the rate would have to be 0.0025 per mile, not 0.25. A rate of 0.25 calculates to $100 for 400 miles. This rate would undoubtedly fix a lot of roads and bridges, but only the rich could afford to drive on them.
0.25 cents per mile is 100 cents per 400 miles, which is $1 per mile. The math is fine.
ADD A COMMENT