Opinion: Highway funding needs long-term solution
By Jim Madaffer
California drivers are bearing the burden of the state’s transportation funding crisis, with the average driver spending more than $500 a year to repair the wear and tear on their vehicle caused by bad roads. Gas tax revenues currently fund most of the state’s road maintenance and repairs, but gas tax revenues are declining as cars become more fuel efficient and as drivers adopt hybrids and electric vehicles. Caltrans estimates the funding gap to be about $5.7 billion per year for the state highway system alone.
Unless we address the transportation funding shortfall immediately, the funding gap will only widen. Lawmakers are working on a short-term solution to maintain our roadways and we will have to depend on the gas tax for the immediate future. However, gas tax revenues will continue to fall behind our transportation funding needs over the longer term. We must ultimately find a new transportation funding model that better reflects today’s realities.
One potential solution is the road charge. Under a road charge system, drivers pay by the mile rather than by the gallon. Whether you drive a gas-guzzling truck or an all-electric sedan, the road charge is the same per mile. Everyone pays their fair share. Several other states are already testing the road charge concept, and we must explore it further in California to determine if it is the right solution for us.
The state has already taken steps to begin exploring a road charge system. Senate Bill 1077, signed into law last year, requires California to study the feasibility of a road charge in a statewide pilot that includes a variety of volunteers from all regions of the state. To help ensure the parameters of the pilot meet California’s unique needs, SB1077 also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to design the pilot with the benefit of robust public input. The TAC includes experts in telecommunications, data security and privacy, as well as highway users, business and consumer advocates, elected officials and academic researchers.
In 2015 the TAC conducted a robust stakeholder outreach process to seek feedback and input on the design of the pilot. The TAC had 12 public meetings throughout California and invited residents all over the state to attend a meeting or comment through the TAC’s website. Additionally, the TAC invited more than 400 stakeholder groups and 130 elected officials to participate in the process, and it consulted a Road Charge Work Group made up of representatives from local government, vehicle manufacturers, fuel distributors and highway users.
After carefully reviewing all of the feedback and input gathered, the TAC released its final recommendations for the design of the pilot in early January. Some of the highlights of those recommendations are that the pilot should:
· Give drivers multiple options to report miles driven
· Provide non-technological options for those who choose to report their miles manually
· Protect driver privacy and personal data
· Measure the impact of a road charge on rural and urban drivers
· Require no cost to participate.
The pilot is now scheduled to launch this summer and aims to recruit 5,000 participants that reflect the geographic, demographic and socioeconomic diversity of the state.
Because it has been rigorous, this endeavor gave us the opportunity to carefully examine and develop a set of recommendations that reflect the unique nature of our state. While we know the current gas tax system will not keep pace with state and national needs in the future, we also know the development and implementation of a sustainable long-term solution will take time to deliver. That is why we should all do our part by signing up for the pilot. Together, we can help the state determine if paying by the mile is the right transportation funding solution for California.
For more information, go online.
Jim Madaffer is chair of the Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee and California Transportation Commission member.
This is the second article I’ve read about this proposal to take a swipe at drivers coming and going. The only logical means to raise revenue for road infrastructure is the gas tax. Toll roads put excess burden on people who have to pay to leave their homes and come back every day. Tolls don’t (and can’t) target frequent drivers, who SHOULD be paying the higher tax. But a good frequent driver will always find a way to go around a toll road. As for the volunteer self-reporting system it may be voluntary NOW but there is no way to track a driver’s miles WITHOUT violating their right to privacy. The legislature is driving around in circles on this. I have to wonder if they’re just “threatening” to tax miles you drive AND tax the gas you buy so people will feel relieved that there will “just” be a tax increase.
Tracking miles driven is onerous and invasive. I favor a combination of gas tax, which accounts for miles driven and hits more heavily on low mpg vehicles, and increased registration fee, which hits everyone who drives. I don’t care if there was a previous uproar about the reg fee. Schwartzenegger reduced it and helped put the state deeply into debt as a result.
You don’t get something for nothing. Tracking miles and slapping toll roads all over the place is abhorrent. Politicians are too chicken to raise the gas tax, which also fluctuates too widely with gas prices and with the increase in hybrid and electric vehicles as well.
Gasoline and diesel are the only things that you pay sales tax on taxes, both federal and state. When the price of gas goes down, the sales taxes plummet with it. The state, counties and cities that get the sales tax revenue need high gas prices to keep up the sales tax dollars. No surprise that CA is ignoring road maintenance. Addiction is never a good thing, especially when the addiction is to citizens paying more taxes. CA leaders are acting like junkies.
Let’s keep spending millions on building new unnecessary roads like the Fanny Bridge bypass. Yes, that’s a great idea.
“And as cars become more fuel efficient and many drivers switch to hybrid or electric vehicles, revenue generated by the state’s 48.6-cent gas tax — the backbone of the state’s transportation budget — has dwindled. Current gas tax revenue covers only a quarter of the state’s annual highway repair needs. And the gas tax — now the second highest in the nation, after Pennsylvania — is set to go down 6 cents in July.”
(taken from an article in the May 24, 2015 San Jose Mercury News)
I believe the only taxes that are reduced by lower gas prices are city/county percents…
The Feds and state are fixed amounts per gallon, no matter what the price per gallon!
LS, you also pay sales tax on CRV. Check your next grocery receipt.