Opinion: National mileage tax pilot tucked away in Biden’s 2,700-page infrastructure bill

Mariya Frost of the Washington Policy Center shares her opinion that a proposed national mileage tax pilot program should be rejected

Mariya Frost
Washington Policy Center

The national House of Representatives may soon vote on a $1 trillion, 2,700-page infrastructure bill that includes funding for roads and bridges, public transit, airports, waterways, and more. Buried on page 508 is a “national motor vehicle per-mile user fee pilot.” The purpose of the pilot would be to test the feasibility of a national per-mile charge, as well as increase public awareness of what this policy change might look like.

Mariya Frost of the Washington Policy Center shares her opinion that a proposed national mileage tax pilot program should be rejected.

A per-mile user fee program would have drivers pay for every mile they drive rather than for each gallon of gas at the pump. Similar per-mile charge pilots are being deployed at the state level – Washington state’s pilot took place in 2018 and I had the chance to participate and share my experience. No actual financial transaction took place in the state pilot. I submitted miles through a GPS-transponder and connected third-party app on my smartphone, and received “invoices” showing how much I drove, how much I owed in mileage charges, and the total credit I would be given for the supposed gas tax I would have paid for those miles.

Mariya Frost
Mariya Frost

The stated objective of a per-mile charge program is to replace the state and federal gas taxes we pay with a system that everyone pays into regardless of the fuel-efficiency of their vehicle. If you drive a lot and pay a lot in gas taxes, you’ll pay a lot in per-mile charges too. You might pay even more if those charges are layered with congestion pricing or significantly higher per-mile rates. 

Washington drivers pay a state gas tax of 49.4 cents per gallon, and a federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon. Unlike many other states, the Washington state gas tax is constitutionally protected for highway spending only, preventing diversion to things like public transit, education, or other non-highway spending. The federal tax we pay is deposited into the federal Highway Trust Fund, from which 80 percent of funding is dedicated to roads and 20 percent is diverted to transit.

A national per-mile charge, as stated in the infrastructure bill, would “restore and maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund” and “maintain the surface transportation system.”

While per-mile charges can function as simple user fees, transit advocates and politicians at state and national levels are pushing for per-mile charges to function as general taxes that can be spent on public transit and “environmental outcomes,” undermining the user fee idea that per-mile charges have been built on.

It’s details like this that should be hammered out in a public process where lawmakers can debate and vote on per-mile charge pilots and implementation parameters in a stand-alone bill. Instead, this massive policy shift in how we pay for transportation has been buried deep in a larger infrastructure package that lawmakers have to vote for or against in totality. This is a problem. Not only is it bad optics for such a huge policy (in the interest of transparency, it shouldn’t be tucked away in a larger bill), but it takes away the opportunity for lawmakers to vote directly on the pilot or subsequent implementation.  

Further, it’s hard to believe a per-mile charge would function as a true user fee when groups like Transportation For America (T4A), an advocacy arm of Smart Growth America, and federal lawmakers like Rep. Peter DeFazio are pushing for even greater diversion of Highway Trust Fund money to public transit. Why should lawmakers be given yet another revenue stream to deposit into a diluted, politicized fund? Lawmakers should deal with the integrity of the fund first, rather than throw money at a broken system.

This applies at the state level too, where lawmakers have repeatedly tried to pass a per-mile charge on electric vehicles as a part of a larger package, and without adequate revenue protection, when stand-alone legislation failed to move out of committee. Per-mile charges that are not protected exclusively for highway spending are not user fees, and shouldn’t be sold as such. Without an honest and transparent discussion that a stand-alone bill would facilitate, and without revenue protection in place, per-mile charge pilots and implementation should be rejected.

Mariya Frost is the director of the Coles Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center.

This opinion piece was produced and first published by the Washington Policy Center. It is published here with the permission of and full attribution to the Washington Policy Center.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhonda Gibson
Guest
Rhonda Gibson
25 days ago

I agree. The taxes, use fees, extra charges and more are getting way out of hand. It is turning into taxation without representation. We fought for independence from England over this sort of thing.
The politicians just want to keep taking from the American people like a never ending money supply. They just want to spend irresponsibly with no thought to us peons, slaves workers etc…
Taxation is out of hand no matter how they gussy it up and name it something else.

Gary Patten
Guest
Gary Patten
25 days ago

As a cab driver this would certainly kill my bottom line.

Julie Gorham
Guest
25 days ago

It would discourage traveling to merchants and encourage ordering online which would hurt local business.

Roy
Guest
Roy
23 days ago
Reply to  Julie Gorham

Jeff Bezos says thank you

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x