By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana lawmakers are considering whether to shift the state’s funding for roads and highways from a system based on gas purchases to one based on miles traveled.
Currently, Indiana drivers pay an 18-cent per gallon tax on gasoline, which is the state’s top transportation funding source, outside federal funds. But experts told a legislative committee Wednesday that the state should consider requiring at least some drivers to pay a road usage fee instead.
That’s because as cars have become more fuel efficient, gas tax funding has remained stagnate or fallen – even as the cost of road construction has increased. The problem is expected to worsen under higher gas mileage requirements mandated by the federal government.
“We have a problem that is an ever increasing spiral,†said Republican Rep. Ed Soliday of Valparaiso, the chairman of the Joint Study Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Assessment and Solutions. “Things are not going to get better.â€
And Congress is facing a similar problem with the federal gas tax, which provides most of its transportation funding. That means the states can’t wait for help from the federal government, Soliday said.
“We have to look at alternative ways for everyone to pay for their fair share,†he said.
But auto industry leaders told the joint committee on Wednesday that any new system shouldn’t punish people who choose to buy hybrid or electric vehicles.
“We’re fine with paying our fair share as long as it’s technology neutral and comprehensive,†said Genevieve Cullen, vice president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.
Lawmakers briefly considered legislation last year that would have imposed a $100 fee on the owners of electric vehicles, an amount Soliday said was based on the average amount that Hoosier drivers pay in state gas taxes. That plan was scrapped in favor of a study this fall to consider funding alternatives.
Jeff Perry, regional director of state government relations for General Motors, said policy makers too often blame the technology for transportation funding issues, even though improvements in gas mileage are more responsible for shortfalls. He said fees imposed on the owners of electric cars or hybrids – which combine gas and electric motors – discriminate against people who are choosing a vehicle that is better for the environment and the country.
Perry also said the fees aren’t fair because some larger hybrid vehicles have lower per-gallon mileage than do efficient gasoline-only powered cars.
“The problem is that the (gas tax) model is flawed,†Perry said. “We need a ground up approach, not just patches.â€
One alternative is a road usage fee, which involves charging vehicle owners based on how many miles they drive. It’s a system that could be implemented in addition to the existing gas tax or in place of it, supporters said.
Oregon is implementing that type of system and officials in Washington and Nevada are considering something similar, said Matthew Dorfman, a partner at D’Artagnan Consulting, which works with states on transportation issues.
He called the road usage fee “almost the inevitable option.â€
The system can involve installing monitoring devices in vehicles – but must also include the ability for drivers to report their mileage manually to avoid concerns about privacy, he said.
“There is no mandate for a GPS. There is no black box,†he said. “There should be some form of user choice.â€
Denvil Duncan, a professor at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, told lawmakers that he’s conducted surveys showing that Americans are open to the change – but only if they can see that it will eventually replace the gas tax. They don’t want to pay both, he said.
Drivers were also concerned about private issues, especially for programs that would use a GPS tracker in their vehicles. But Duncan said drivers were more supportive of self-reporting options.
Cost is also a factor, he said.
“So if you decide to go with a GPS model, the question becomes who will pay for the GPS device – the government or the driver,†Duncan said. “We’re seeing this does make a difference. If I don’t have to pay for it, I’m more likely to support it.â€
Lesley Weidenbener is managing editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
What major user of highways do the most damage to highways?
What major user of highways, cause the building cost of highways to be so high?
The answer is on highway trucks. Compared to on-highway trucks, regular family vehicles do little to no damage to roads.
We should need to make sure the user of the highways that causes maintenance and construction cost to be big, pay their fair share. Raising tax dollars based on mileage alone is not the proper solution.
I agree, a weight factor would need to be leveraged into the estimating of exactly what vehicles,– bring wear, and tear to the highways, and, How, and who,- pays “the freight” for the infrastructure, and it’s maintenance.
Aren’t the costs to operate commercial vehicles is already higher? Ultimately, any rise in the costs of freight will be passed on to consumers, raising the costs of clothes, food, and everything else we buy.
Any rise in the cost of trucking freight will incentivise moving the method of long haul freight to rails, ships, and air, taking trucks off the road, which is probably what this legislation is designed to avoid, if I had to guess.
The rise in costs to repair roads is passed on to taxpayers. There are many more consumers than those who pay taxes. We pay it either way. I think I would rather charge consumers than to put this on the backs of taxpayers which are a shrinking breed.
and how will these trucks pay that higher tax? By charging higher rates plus their margin.
And how will their customers pay the higher rate? By passing it through to the customer, plus their margin.
And being as nearly everything comes to us by a truck, how will these customers pay for the higher prices?
I expect liberal democrats to be incapable of seeing businesses as anything more than the goose that lays he golden tax egg to fund their programs and being to short sided to see the affects on families, but I do not expect it from conservative republicans…if such a thing still exist.
When will southern Indiana get with the rest of the the U.S. and start installing rails so we can get to using hi speed trains to get to other locations
I know millions of $$$ have already been used on studies ( or at least that’s what it was supposed to be used for ) that could possibly keep our highways in much better shape
Amen. In fact, it was a Winnecke campaign promise. One I’m not holding my breath on him keeping.
Here’s the network being built in the Midwest…
http://www.midwesthsr.org/vision
Unfortunately, I think the line from Evv to Chicago is just a hold over from Dennis Avery’s legistlation several years back that failed.
If you look at the grid, you will notice that all lines feed into Chicago. The reason for that, outside of the fact that it’s centralized in the Midwest is the notion that many areas are forming “megaregions” which is basically a conglomerate of states acting as one state.
There are approx 11-13 identified Megaregions. Here, Chicago is the capital of the Great Lakes Emerging Megaregion. Therefore, it makes the most sense for all rail lines to feed into Chicago where air travel will take all residents in this megaregion to the capital of the other megaregions where they can disburse in reverse.
Throwing money into an airport here that really only the rich can use is pointless and a waste of valuable resources. Building a bullet line to Chicago to fly out of there makes all the sense in the world.
I absolutely and unequivocally would not support a system mandating state tracking devices in people’s automobiles to log mileage. Surely we aren’t seriously talking about this.
The amount of gas one uses is pretty much directly proportional to the amount they drive already, except in cases where people have moved to electric cars or hybrids with little gas usage. Those people would be essentially penalized under this system. I suspect someone out there knows that, which is why this legislation is being pushed.
“ad captandum vulgus”
“to appeal to the crowd”..(phrase often used) ‘of politicians who make false or insincere promises appealing to the popular interest.”
This will punish people that have bought fuel efficient cars that have to travel for business and the traveling sales people.
If there isn’t enough money being collected to maintain the roads raise the gas tax a little. We all want good roads. To punish those people that bought fuel efficient cars is not fair. Those people are helping to keep fuel prices from going through the roof by concerving fuel.
Not to mention that efficient cars are small and do little road damage. It is time to start looking into an alternative way to raise money for roads though. If a high percentage of the population shifts over to electric vehicles the revenue stream from gas tax will drop like the post office’s did when email took over. We can’t afford to be blind sided like the postal service was.
How would out of state drivers who use our roads pay? Currently we at least tax them by their fuel purchases, but if that tax were eliminated there would be no viable way to assess a fee for their usage.
Any vehicle that exceeds 35 MPG should pay an additional $ 1,500.00 / year to a fund that is responsible for road maintenanes only. No administrative fees & no brick & mortor (license branches for example) usage of these funds. Those exceeding 50 MPG should pay $ 2,500.00 / year extra to feel good about themselves & slow the rest of us down because “too many leaves are falling”.
The main problem with checking & charging mileage is many drive their vehicles for business reasons. You should not be allowed to “charge” me for miles driven in other states. Bad Big Brother idea.
You are effing crazy. These highly efficient cars weigh much less than other vehicles and do nearly no damage to roads. Why would a vehicle that does no damage be surcharged to cover the damages of others. You are sounding like our President who penalizes the healthy to supplement the sick.
Figured you’d be first in line to tack on extra charges for those pinko commie liberal prius drivers.
Why? This is not about politics. It is about appropriately financing road maintenance. Charging those who cause the damage as opposed to those who don’t is a no brainer. Do you really think only left wing democrats drive a Prius. Gosh John, you are not only wrong you are into the stereotyping thing. You need to change your name to Jim Crow.
They’re driving on the same roads as I am but paying a lot less and in many cases enjoying free electricity to recharge them. Roads cost money. It’s time those little suckers paid their fair share. It’s bad enough they are so slow from a dead start-almost as slow as a scooter taking off but not quite.
Complete nonsense,your idea is absurd. Taxing for positive steps addressing the issues of global climate change through energy source conservation is just wrong. (negative objective)
Hybrids and electric vehicles on the road encourage smart planet operations forward. Fuel and road “Tax rebates’ on fuel used by hybrid vehicles forward should be set in place for consumers that choose to “conserve your resource supplied fuel.” Capturing the carbon impact numbers. (positive forward action)
The road systems infrastructure should be accounted for in a way as to encourage energy conservation and smart planet options.
That is a matter of choice the consumers make,through the total economic picture. GPS tracking of logistical commercial transit supply chain is already in place as an industry methodology for effective operations.
Key hole any tax plan for those through that, in collaboration with provisional industries involved. (point usage with industry expansion)
Leave the general public vehicles out of that incursion day one. (legality)
Roads in your state,county and “city” seem to have a apparent lacking of preventative maintenance. (previously sidelined)
Poor supply chain logistics infrastructure,taxing commercial traffic for that would further attach negatives to any given area that would ineptly do so. (predictability)
The most effective way to address the roads/highways in deterioration, is to build them and maintain them correctly in the first place. (access and quality forward)
I would suggest improved throughput infrastructure and use of data based numbers moved forward applied to increased commerce through access based growth conceptualizations for expanding industries forward. (innovation)
Meet the maintenance and construction objectives with calculated and designed growth in overall passageway usage numbers. (logistics planning)
Build forward and allow for growth. Achieve increased funding through actual employment creation and infrastructure needs met by the daily inputs driven by that. “The more jobs created the more licensed vehicles on the road.” (Innovation Growth forward)
Encourage energy efficient road use,and create more actual use cost effectively. (Reward and Retain)
Increase licensed vehicle and logistical commercial transportation support numbers,decrease overall global carbon impacts with positive sustainability. (Smart Metro)
“omnes una manet nox” (Horace)
“the same night awaits us all”
“terras irradient”
“let them illuminate the lands.”
gas prices has been between 3-4 bucks for all of obamas term we should have collected more tax with the high cost of gasoline……..the truckers already pay more i am sure those trucks do not get that much gas mileage……tax tax tax what a disgrace……
Comments are closed.