But the
description ignores that automobile use receives a similar “subsidy”. Other than the gasoline tax, which is both
inadequate and poorly apportioned, we don’t pay to use public roads.
Ah-hah, some
argue, we pay for our roads through our property taxes. Well, not really. Even if we skip over the fact that property
taxes support roads in the same way that income taxes support transit, and
therefore either both are the beneficiaries of subsidies or neither are, a
homeowner pays the same property tax bill whether he drives 1,000 or 100,000
miles per year. There is no supplemental
charge for the extra 99,000 miles of road use.
But some
will now argue that the gasoline tax is how we pay for the extra miles. There is some truth to the argument, but less
than one might think. The gasoline tax
is a proxy for road usage, but a poor one.
The federal Highway Trust Fund has been running on empty for years,
forcing Congress to loan money from the general fund. And even then, the Trust Fund is only used
for road construction and maintenance.
The other costs of gasoline use, particularly the geopolitical and
environmental costs, are borne elsewhere in the federal budget.
One could
argue for a much higher gasoline tax.
Indeed I’ve done so. But the gas
tax isn’t well apportioned. A car
getting 45 miles per gallon will pay only one-third the gas tax per mile
compared to a car getting 15 miles per gallon.
(As a Prius driver, I’m not really complaining about it, but I’ll acknowledge
the inequity.) It’s an appropriate tax
for the geopolitical and environmental costs of petroleum, to which its
collections are not directed, and a flawed tax for road construction and
maintenance, to which its collections are directed. Don’t you love federal tax policy?
For these
reasons, many argue for a new form of taxation, a vehicle mileage tax
(VMT). Indeed, when we talk
transportation issues at Petaluma Urban Chat, the VMT is often noted as a key
omission in the economics of transportation.
At its
simplest, a VMT could be imposed by having an annual odometer check with a
payment assessed for mileage traveled during the year.
But if a VMT
was implemented using the upper end of technology, it could be a remarkably
useful tool. If every car had a sensor that
allowed the movements of the car to be continually tracked, different mileage
charges could be applied to different times of day. Driving south on 101 toward San Rafael at 8am
Monday morning would have a different charge than driving the same stretch of
freeway at 11pm Monday evening.
And if
vehicle location is collected on a short enough time increment, speed could be
calculated. If you travel 1.3 miles on
101 in 60 seconds, you can expect a speeding ticket for going 78 miles per
hour. The automated enforcement would
immediately slow traffic, resulting in gas conservation and freeing police
departments for other uses.
In an
application of particular interest to me, parking could also be monitored. Spend three hours in a two-hour zone? The fine could be automatically added to your
bill. No meter attendant required. Park every day at the far end of the Safeway parking
lot while carpooling to a job in the East Bay?
You’d be charged for the use of the parking space, with those funds
passed along to Safeway. (Note:
Carpooling is a good thing. Hopefully,
the charge would be fair to Safeway while not enough to discourage carpooling.)
But there’s
a dark side to a VMT. Many people sense
a “creepiness” factor in having their car being continually tracked. I’m perhaps not as bothered as some about it,
but I can appreciate the concern. I
wouldn’t be pleased about a technocrat in Sacramento knowing if I made frequent
1am runs to a liquor store. Or if my car
spent the night outside my girlfriend’s house whenever my wife was out of
town. (Note: Both examples are extremely
hypothetical.)
Atlantic
Cities has written about the creepiness factor.
Emily Badger acknowledges the concern and the need to balance improved
equity in road use fees versus privacy invasion. Unfortunately, Badger doesn’t come to any
helpful conclusions, winding down with the thought that perhaps churches or
schools can facilitate the dialogue. It
was an interesting thought, but doesn’t seem to lead anywhere.
Against this background, it’s interesting to note that Oregon is proceeding with actual road tests of a VMT. They’ve identified a range of VMT implementation options from strong information/low privacy to weak information/high privacy. At this time, they’re only testing the implementation with volunteers. But the results will be available to the state legislature which will decide on the future of a VMT.
It’ll be an
interesting experiment to follow.
Because if an effective VMT leads to a higher percentage of road costs
being fairly collected from drivers, it could lead to higher transit fare box collections.
As a closing
note, some may ask what would happen to current property taxes and income taxes
if a VMT supplants some of the needs now covered by the first two. If our taxes were already covering the annual
costs of government and if we didn’t have a deficit, property taxes and income
taxes should decrease. But as we have
deficits and unmet governmental needs, the reallocation of taxes would be a
legislative decision. And I never try to
predict those.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Fascinating idea, Dave! The first concern unidentified herein that springs up for me is the one of regressive taxation. I hypothesize that a VMT, along with many demonstrably just features, would also cost lower-income taxpayers a higher proportion of their income than of mine or Matt White's. Any numbers or thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteMy name is Barry Bussewitz and I made the comment about regressive taxation. I do not much like anonymous posting and did not realize the heading would be "unknown." I think I have figured out how to fix that.
ReplyDeleteBarry, thanks for the comment. And thanks for identifying yourself. I agree with you about anonymous posting. I suspect that the internet would be a more respectful place if everyone followed your lead.
DeleteI appreciate your concern about regressive taxes. But I think we eventually need to think about car usage as a luxury, not a necessity, so a VMT becomes more like a fee and less like a tax. We need to begin think of driving as a parallel to movie tickets, steak dinners, and green fees, all of which are also cost a higher percentage of income for the lower income folks.
The problem of course is that we've constructed a world in which driving isn't a luxury, it's a necessity for most folks. So perhaps we need to institute a tax credit equalty to a percent of the VMT for lower incomes. The credit could then be reduced annually as we transition to a world in which options are available for living with little or no driving.
I'm fully satisfied with proposals such as yours here to make a VMT tax reasonably fair across income groups — and to speed up a decreasing dependency on individual private motor vehicles. Due to a remarkably severe blizzard in my home state of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday (Feb. 8, 2013) instituted a total ban on all non-essential motorized vehicle traffic. I can imagine the thrill of car-free avenues of white and drifting snow. I wish I were there!
Delete