The mileage tax is a fair idea, but has real perils

From a market -based perspective, user costs that pay for public roads should be based on the amount that drivers use them. Instead, California assesses these costs thanks to a gasoline tax which only approaches closer to wear vehicles imposed on the road system. People buy gas and can then drive as many kilometers as they wish.

The system worked quite decently, even if transport managers and legislators have not always used money wisely or effectively. But California encounters a problem.

Currently, 25% of new car purchases are electric vehicles and an increasing part are hybrids that combine petrol with battery systems. While the state eliminates new gas cars sales by 2035, it fears that it does not have enough funds to maintain our infrastructure.

The current system is inequitable. The average driver pays $ 300 per year in petrol taxes, but EV drivers do not pay such taxes, although they pay stable road improvement costs of $ 118 to help compensate for costs. The governor approved two pilot programs by which drivers would use a GPS system or take photos of their meter and paid according to their mileage.

As Caltrans explains, “under a road load, all drivers share road maintenance and repair costs depending on what they really use”.

A complaint focuses on the intrusiveness to have our mileage watched. This is legitimate, although Californian insurers already use mileage estimates to help determine the premiums.

Another is the problem of implementation. How many additional government bureaucrats having advantages responsible for California will end up adding just for it to work? Would they be able to make it work in such a great state?

Our greatest fear is that our tax legislature, a approval can impose the new mileage fees and not cancel the existing petrol tax. We cannot think of any example of our state by ever eliminating an existing existing tax.

We prefer a hybrid system similar to that approved in Utah. In this state, electric vehicle drivers can pay flat fees at registration – or choose to pay according to their monitored mileage. This would solve the problem without introducing new tasks for the majority of drivers who are already paying for petrol taxes to improve and keep the roads.

It is indeed time to review the way in which the costs of use are evaluated.

But until the legislators can convince the Californians that they will completely replace the old tax with a new one, we urge them to try this intermediate course.

California Daily Newspapers