Pay by the mile, instead of by the gallon? Testers sought for state experiment

Should road-usage charges replace gas taxes? The state is looking at the idea, and looking for volunteers to help figure it out. Here’s the announcement, just out of the WSB inbox:

Drivers will have a chance to “test drive” a proposed system that would charge them by the mile, rather than by the gallon of gas for their road usage. The Washington State Transportation Commission today approved a plan to conduct a Road Usage Charge pilot project in fall 2017 that will simulate how this system might work.

“As the fuel efficiency of vehicles increases, gas consumption decreases and this equates to a reduction in gas tax revenues over time. The gas tax serves as the major source of funding for building and maintaining our state highways and ferries,” said Commission Chairman Jerry Litt. “Under the direction of the state Legislature, the commission has been assessing a road usage charge as a possible replacement for the gas tax in the future.”

The commission’s Executive Director Reema Griffith added, “During the commission’s evaluation over the past four-plus years, we’ve determined a road usage charge is feasible and that it could produce the revenue needed for Washington’s roads well into the future.”

The commission’s next step is to test the concept with the public and see what people think of it based upon actual experience using it. Recruitment will begin in spring 2017, with up to 2,000 volunteers needed from across the state to participate in the year-long test. Individuals who want to learn more about the project and have an interest in participating can visit the Road Use Charge website at www.waroadusagecharge.org.

Pilot project participants will choose different ways to participate and report their vehicle’s mileage. Some options do not involve any technology, such as manually reporting odometer readings; others do involve technology utilizing smartphones or in-vehicle technology. Because this is a simulation, participants will not be charged for any miles driven.

A 25-member steering committee has guided this work since 2012. The steering committee includes representatives from: auto and truck manufacturers, ports, environmental groups, trucking industry, cities, public transportation, business community and state agencies. The committee also includes three transportation commissioners and eight legislators.

A key finding from the work of the steering committee is that the gas tax is becoming more and more inequitable. Under Washington state’s current gas tax system, drivers pay widely different amounts for roadway use, depending on their vehicle’s fuel efficiency; those driving older, less efficient vehicles fill up more often and therefore, pay more in taxes. This inequity is expected to grow each year as vehicle fuel efficiency continues to rise, and as more alternative fuel vehicles that don’t use gas at all come onto the market.

Currently, 14 other states are evaluating a shift from the gas-tax revenue model to a road use charge. Funding for this work stems from a $3.8 million Federal Highway Administration competitive grant received earlier this year.

Here’s the slide deck that accompanied this agenda item, on the first day of a two-day meeting for the WSTC. Tomorrow morning its topics include tolling updates, one of which will focus on the future Highway 99 tunnel (see the agenda here).

68 Replies to "Pay by the mile, instead of by the gallon? Testers sought for state experiment"

  • Mark47n December 13, 2016 (4:48 pm)

    This is ironic and is the same thing that utilities do. They encourage the adoption of more economical and more efficient technology and then, upon the loss of revenue from the higher efficiency equipment come up with new ways to recapture the revenues lost be encouraging the newer tech. As a cyclist and someone who walks a lot I can’t help but wonder when I’ll have a new tax levied on my shoes or bike (for those who don’t see the sarcasm, trust me, it’s there).

    • Moose December 13, 2016 (11:21 pm)

      So true

    • Timo December 14, 2016 (6:39 am)

      ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman
      If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
      If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
      If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
      If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

  • sgs December 13, 2016 (4:53 pm)

    Initial thoughts:  I don’t drive that much because I live in the city, but could afford to pay more than the person who may have to commute from the suburbs and may not be able to afford it.  Doesn’t seem fair.  Also, seems we are being punished for driving more efficient cars, and lastly, those who ride mass transit don’t contribute at all?  Yes, they don’t drive private cars, but still use the roads.  The more people ride transit, the less tax revenue there will be which is the problem now.  Hate to say it, but income tax to cover all this may be the way to go.  

    • newnative December 14, 2016 (8:03 am)

      Are you kidding?  We don’t contribute?!  #1 We are lessening the impact on roads by reducing the number of cars.  #2 Mass transit isn’t free.  Peak-time commuters in Seattle pay $2.75 per trip, regardless of mileage coverage, people commuting in from the suburbs pay more.

  • Erithan December 13, 2016 (5:28 pm)

    Didn’t they try to implement something like this a few years or more back? (Sorry if I missed it!)

  • dhg December 13, 2016 (5:58 pm)

    Their website, while pretty, does not provide much information.  How will visitors using our roads be taxed?  What about those massive trucks that do more to destroy the pavement than a small lightweight car?  Mile for mile, those trucks rip up the road but they’d be charged the same as a vw bug?  And SGS makes a good point that everyone benefits from roads, including those who take the bus.  I have too many questions about it right now to get behind it.

    • RayWest December 14, 2016 (4:48 am)

      That was exactly my thought. Why should visitors or businesses that are transporting goods or whatever while passing through Washington be exempt from road taxes. They are also putting wear and tear on highways.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to just up the current tax on gas and spread the tax burden fairly on everyone who uses the roads.  We are already over-taxed as it is and I’m tired of the government continually  digging into my not-very-deep-pockets. Very short-sighted thinking here by our leaders.

  • Jon Wright December 13, 2016 (6:41 pm)

    I think a condition of complaining how this is a bad idea should be that you have to suggest a better idea.

    • WSB December 13, 2016 (6:45 pm)

      And the whole point of this is to find out if it’s a good idea, bad idea, so-so idea.

    • Sunuva December 13, 2016 (7:28 pm)

      1) State Income Tax (could help solve this and a few other problems our state has funding necessary items)

      2) Tax by vehicle weight + amount driven (just because I may have a bus in my driveway doesn’t mean I’m driving it regularly) (I personally don’t like the idea of big state govt tracking my mileage, but you asked for ideas)

      3) Income tax, seriously. Yes I’m repeating myself. We are a rich state and we can’t even properly fund our public education. The solution is before us yet we continually push it aside. Why?

      • Canton December 13, 2016 (9:35 pm)

        Oregon has an income tax and they are claiming the same 50% shortfall. Their pilot program only has 20% participation and anticipate over 12 million through next year in program costs. At 1.5 cents per mile, how much have they already wasted before collecting a dime.

        • Canton December 13, 2016 (9:39 pm)

          Btw, look at Oregon’s income tax table. $8400- 125000 taxed at 9%, 125000 + at 9.9%. Big difference in incomes vs taxes paid.

    • Double Dub Resident December 14, 2016 (7:12 am)

      I’m sorry,  I didn’t realize we were elected government officials.  If the government proposes or better yet, attempts to   institute a tax on the taxpayer,  why is it the  burden of the taxpayer to do the government’s job and look for proper solutions to the issue? 

      • Jon Wright December 14, 2016 (3:52 pm)

        Because being against something without providing a better idea provides zero value added. And besides, since online commenters seem to think they are subject matter experts, it seems like it is a great untapped resource for solving the world’s problems.

  • Karen December 13, 2016 (7:03 pm)

    Will the gas tax be removed if this goes through?

  • Gladys Kravitz December 13, 2016 (7:16 pm)

    I’m fine with this, as long as they system is “some state worker sticks their head in the window and writes down the mileage” once a year.  You’re not sticking anything in my OBD-II port that records what I do as I’m doing it.

    • RayWest December 14, 2016 (5:08 am)

      My concern is that once a year, all motorists will have to report to a “mileage inspection station,” for which we will be charged a “fee” to record our yearly mileage. Something similar to the profitable emissions checks that car owners regularly had to go through. So on top of the mileage tax, there would be an additional tax (probably at least $20.)

  • Atomicoven December 13, 2016 (7:22 pm)

    It’s bullcrap people; you’ve got to see that. Please see it

  • Joe G December 13, 2016 (7:31 pm)

    The question is how to fund roads, buses, ferries. Right now the gas tax is the big generator of funding. With more fuel efficient vehicles,  users of public transit, and yes bicycles, the $$ are not there. So, while you may not like this idea for funding, come up with a better, more equatable way to fund transportation to include roads and bike lanes. If you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem. 

    • Your Mom December 14, 2016 (2:41 pm)

      As soon as the waste is cut and they actually treat our money with respect, because we all worked very hard to get it.  THEN i think we could all agree that you are right.  At this point the government wastes too much and until that is reigned in i cant sign on to any new taxes.  Especially since we sign on to new taxes almost quarterly these days.  

  • flimflam December 13, 2016 (7:37 pm)

    similar to water usage – “the conservation efforts are working so well that we need to find new and exciting ways to take your money”. insane. the city /state doesn’t want people to drive. people drive less/use alterative fuels, city/state must find a way to continue to take in that money.

  • Murienn December 13, 2016 (8:20 pm)

    The roads need to be maintained. Even if you work at home and don’t use the roads to commute: the supplies to the stores (groceries) you shop at do, the garbage trucks that pick up your trash do, the fire engines that respond to your emergency do, the police that respond to your call do, etc.  If you ride a bicycle, you utilize the roads. Your friends that visit you use the roads. The busses you ride to work use the roads. 

    Just how do you propose we pay for something that ALL of us receive benefit from?  It’s part of living in a community.

  • Donna Hayward December 13, 2016 (8:25 pm)

    “The commission’s next step is to test the concept with the public and see what people think of it”

    Save your time, here’s what I think of it: 🖕🏼

    There must be another solution, I bought a Prius to SAVE money.

    • Murienn December 13, 2016 (8:47 pm)

      Save money on ‘gas’ or on the taxes that support the infrastructure you use?

    • A D December 14, 2016 (5:34 pm)

      Love this!

  • West Coast Nomad December 13, 2016 (8:33 pm)

    I agree with comments that paying for roads is a responsibility that requires shared community contribution. Goods and services we use and benefit from reach us by way of roads whether we personally drive, carpool, vanpool or bike. Also, as community members, we routinely contribute to infrastructure and services we use more or less of–or not at all e.g. sidewalks, bike paths, libraries, parks and schools. I checked out the Road Usage website but the FAQs didn’t describe what other states are doing to address this issue (meaning the states beyond the 14 states looking into a road usage charge). Do other states fully cover transportation costs with state income tax? Maybe it IS time for a WA state income tax, too. I’m no big fan of this, either, but the conditions of our roads are an embarrassment and increasingly hazardous due to potholes, unexpected bumps, etc. 

  • TheKing December 13, 2016 (9:22 pm)

    I say just leave it alone. I understand the motivation is to get people to drive less supposedly, but as taxes go through the stratosphere more families will have to move farther from their work in the city. What if this goes through and they lose their behinds moneywise? 

  • David December 13, 2016 (9:30 pm)

    Here’s one small idea to help the roads. Outlaw studded tires in the city limits. In the last few years one can count in terms of hours how often studded tires may have been useful. Even in those instances they probably weren’t necessary.

    • A D December 14, 2016 (5:38 pm)

      That’s a good point. Enough people put them on in the fall and leave them on until spring. It destroys the roads. I bet some people don’t even use them to go skiing, etc. putz along on city streets for months, wrecking them. The tires aren’t even needed most years. 

  • sgs December 13, 2016 (9:43 pm)

    To those saying that alternatives should be proposed rather than just complaining, did you read Sunuva’s post?  Pretty concrete solutions.  What’s your response?

  • bolo December 13, 2016 (10:44 pm)

    Vehicle weight should be part of the equation, as heavier vehicles wear out the roads faster. Also, auto insurance should have mileage as part of its price calculation, to be more fair.

    • heyalki December 14, 2016 (7:53 am)

      There is already a charge for “excessive vehicle weight” when you purchase your yearly tabs.

      • A D December 14, 2016 (5:41 pm)

        People renew their tabs? Take a look around sometime. I bet 1 on 10 are expired. PEOs don’t enforce it or can’t keep up. I regularly see tabs from 2014 and 2015 when, in December of 2016, every vehicle should have a red 2017 sticker. 

        • LyndaB December 14, 2016 (10:37 pm)

          I have turned to looking for expired tabs to keep me entertained while being stuck in traffic.  I like the idea about the studded tires.  

    • KM December 14, 2016 (8:06 am)

      Love both of these ideas as part of the equation. Good call.

  • South Park Sassy December 13, 2016 (10:50 pm)

    This is so ridiculous.  If the entire reason they’re going through this is to make up the tax dollars they are missing ‘due to hybrids’ just increase the gas tax.  No need to spend stupid amounts of money figuring out a new system to charge people…that’s a waste of money.  

    By the way I also blame the big heavy busses and all forms of public transportation.  So many people that used to drive to work are now taking public transit.  How dare they stop single car commuting and gyp the gas tax man!?!  Tax them too by miles travelled on busses etc.  

  • WSGuy December 13, 2016 (11:05 pm)

    Anyone who rationalizes this as a need for a new tax is just playing into the government’s hands.  “Let’s add a new tax to pay for [X]!  Especially if the tax is on The Rich(TM) and not me.”

    Within two years the original rationale will be forgotten and it will just be another stream of money for politicians to tap into.  And as their appetite for that money grows, the definition of “Rich” will change to include you too.

  • Moose December 13, 2016 (11:27 pm)

    I struggle with this logic. Folks would LOVE to work close to home but in these times they might need to commute. Giving maybe 10 hours or more a week just to make a paycheck. And now there’s a potential penalty?!

    • Steve Mansfield December 14, 2016 (12:11 pm)

      This is the one potential flaw in this plan in that those who can least afford the mileage tax are the most likely to pay the most.  However, as this is a tax on electric vehicles, and those vehicles are in most cases outside of their ability to afford in the first place, they’re not as likely to pay it.

  • Gorillita December 14, 2016 (8:19 am)

    It seems that, across the board, whenever something gets better (like hybrid cars), government says “oh,no!” this isn’t bringing in enough money.   The taxpayer has a hard time ever getting ahead if his/her efforts cause a tax increase rather than an “atta boy.”

  • South Park Sassy December 14, 2016 (8:42 am)

    With so many apartments being built without parking because they are on Rapid lines, people have fewer cars.  Fewer cars, less gas sold, less gas tax collected.  So I guess we better start requiring that apartment buildings have parking or tax the developers for the losses.  ;)

    • ClayJustSayin December 14, 2016 (10:25 am)

      If the new apartment / condo dwellers are all taking the bus, how do you explain all the extra cars parked roadside everywhere?  Hmmm?

  • Rick December 14, 2016 (8:48 am)

    How about a tax on people who don’t own or drive cars? It’s only fair.

  • Eric1 December 14, 2016 (10:34 am)

    Gas taxes are one of the few fair taxes we have.  Don’t drive, no taxes. Drive a lot, you pay your fair share for the privilege. Small insecure Prius, lower taxes per mile. Big, compensating F350, more taxes per mile.

    .

    The big plus is that gas taxes have to be spent on roads.  So if the state can promise me good roads,  I say double the gas tax. It would be worth the hundred or so extra dollars a year to drive on a smooth 35th Ave SW. I drive it only a few times per week but damn that road needs help (as do a lot of Washington roads).

  • wetone December 14, 2016 (10:50 am)

    One more thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is what happens if state falls short of $$$$ with this bone head move or courts hold up gps privacy issues involved and goes for engine run time instead ? Newer cars already have capabilities for doing so and older cars would have glorified hour/ hobbs meter installed.  A trip from WS to downtown at 12am takes 15min. for  6 mile drive, during rush hour 35-45mins. By going this route state would make more money and we would most likely see state and city efforts towards fixing traffic issues continue as they are today, very little….

  • Steve Mansfield December 14, 2016 (12:09 pm)

    I’m seeing lots of folks criticizing this for a number of reasons, and many of them don’t seem very well thought-out.

    First thing: as we venture more and more into a non-fossil-fuel economy, gas taxes will very quickly cease to sustain road maintenance.  Until we stop needing roads, they will have to be maintained.

    Folks have suggested simply raising the gas taxes on those who drive gasoline cars – “I bought an electric to save money”.  If you’re using the roads, you still have to contribute to their maintenance.  If you bought your car thinking that you could avoid any and all such taxes, then that was naiveté on your own part.  If all we do is raise the gasoline tax higher, then more and more people will switch.  This would, of course, accelerate the need for just such a measure here.

    As a couple other have noted, vehicle weight is factored into your tabs, but with regards to trucks (which someone mentioned), they do already also pay fees based on the weight they are hauling, so the additional wear they put on the roads due to their weight is accounted for that way.

    I’ve seen suggestions that people who don’t drive or who bicycle, etc. – those folks aren’t creating wear on the roads requiring the revenue. 

    Folks seem to be very upset about the fact that the state is trying to make up for lost revenue:  Yep, that’s exactly what they’re doing, because part of their job is maintaining the roads, and that money has to come from somewhere.  As was also noted, the ggasoline tax we currently have *must* go towards roads.  Similarly, this new tax on electric vehicles would be required to go to roads.

    So, before everyone gets all uppity about this – if you don’t want to be taxed for use of the roads, don’t use the roads.  Plain and simple.  Otherwise, stop complaining, and pair your fair share of the maintenance.

  • Kevin December 14, 2016 (2:09 pm)

     Have a tax added to DUI’s, reckless driving, careless driving, etc…..Have a tax for the drivers who have an impact on other safe drivers….just a thought!

    • Your Mom December 14, 2016 (2:52 pm)

      Full on YES to this.   Great idea!!!!

      send it to the house

    • Canton December 15, 2016 (10:02 am)

      Brilliant idea Kevin. Lets take these same OBD2/GPS monitors and put them in the cars of repeat traffic offenders. Along with the fine, put the monitor in for a certain length of time. The more traffic laws they break, the more they pay. This would actually teach people how to drive with their wallets.

  • Your Mom December 14, 2016 (2:50 pm)

    People, please stop advocating for an income tax.  

    Make them responsible first, and then maybe. 

    They are acting like children, maybe its time to start treating them as such.  

    Give them a budget and make them stick to it.  It’s not impossible, for profit companies/individuals do it everyday all day for everything.  

    Cut the waste and corruption and then lets talk about what needs to be funded and how it will be done.  

  • Born on Alki 59 December 14, 2016 (3:32 pm)

    This would be an administrative nightmare creating yet another branch of government we don’t need.

    Additionally, how do you determine how many miles were driven only in Washington without some sort of gps tracking device?

    If gas tax revenue is down due to more efficient electric vehicles then maybe it’s time to monitor electric vehicle kW  useage and add a road tax to those kW hours used. Just a thought.

    And why not charge bicycles a small annual license fee. The amount of infrastructure devoted to bike lanes isnt cheap, and yes it is paid for by road taxes and levies.  I don’t know anyone who rides a bike that wouldn’t want a safer riding experience.

    Do not fall for this snake oil idea folks, it’s just state government keeping track of our every movement while digging deeper in to our pockets trying to scare more taxes out of us. 

    Remember, Washington has one of the highest gas taxes in the country and they are slated for yet another increase. Demand accountability first.

    • Jon Wright December 14, 2016 (4:08 pm)

      Nobody cares about your every movement.

  • Jon Wright December 14, 2016 (4:06 pm)

    Your Mom, “government waste” is a tired trope that gets thrown around as a fact without any evidence of a systemic problem. If you really believe that government is dispropotionately more wasteful than any other human endeavor, come up with some examples and make a bona fide argument and you might convince people you are correct. In the absence of that, it just sounds like generic anti-government ranting.

  • Bradley December 14, 2016 (4:09 pm)

    I just calculated my increase under this insane plan: $90 more per year. That’s the thanks the Democrat lawmakers in our state want to give me for deciding to get rid of my gas-guzzler truck and buying a new, 40 mpg Ford Focus, instead. Had I kept my truck, I would SAVE $206 under the idiotic pay-per-mile scam.

    • Jon Wright December 14, 2016 (5:03 pm)

      I think the challenge with any sort of tax reform (at any level) is that even for so-called “revenue-neutral” changes, there are winners and losers and it always seems that the people who stand to lose do a much more effective job of mobilizing.

  • Jon Wright December 14, 2016 (4:12 pm)

    Electric vehicles pay an extra $100/year for their tabs that goes towards the state highway fund.

  • bolo December 14, 2016 (5:33 pm)

    LOL, all the folks complaining about possible GPS-tracking– you do realize, don’t you, if you have a smartphone you are already being GPS-tracked. Even if you turn off GPS, they track you by cell tower triangulation.

    Some reading material:
    http://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/11/14/smartphone-tracking/

    and

    https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/problem-mobile-phones

  • M.B. December 14, 2016 (6:57 pm)

    The government wanted us to buy more fuel efficient cars and reduce emissions. They started charging us more for cars that put out more emissions when we went to register them. Then ST3 passed, and the more expensive cars that have reduced emissions, and higher gas mileage are going to cost us through the nose to register for car tabs. Now you want to charge us AGAIN on top of already charging us more, to use them?

    NO.

  • Kay K December 14, 2016 (11:27 pm)

    What’s the big problem folks. Let’s gather some real evidence and see how this would roll out instead of endless grousing and speculation. Very simple.

  • mark47n December 15, 2016 (3:03 am)

    In theory, leaving the how to track part out of the mix, I don’t have a problem with this until I’m asked to pay a gas tax AND a road use tax. At some point it gets ridiculous. On the other hand, our roads are terrible. Really terrible.  That said, I hope the proposal includes weight classes for vehicles when they figure out the cost per mile driven. And yes, I know that this is added to licensing fees as well. It’s a pay to play world, folks, and driving isn’t a right. It’s a privilege so we have to pony up somehow.

    Some have broken out the “tax the bikes!” argument. doesn’t work. It’s been tried by other cities/states and the programs have always cost more to administer than is brought in. Additionally, the vast and overwhelming majority of bicycle owners also own and drive cars so they do pay the tax.

    For those that ride buses and think their paying full freight, think again. Rides on buses and ferries are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. 

    It all costs $$$ folks. 

    • Canton December 15, 2016 (7:55 am)

      How about the 2015 “Connecting Wa” transportation package? 16 billion, 16 year tax phasing in 11.9 cents per gal over 2 years. What have they done with that so far? On the local level, the 2015 one billion “Move Seattle” levy. What have they done with that so far?

  • John December 15, 2016 (4:45 am)

    Just Say No!!!!

    The government want to put these boxes in your car and track your every move…

    There is NO way they will drop the taxes you pay at the pump…they state lawmakers have already said that. At the pump tax pays for upkeep and track tax is additional for new projects… 

    If they get this done two things will happen: They will continually increase the cost by a push of the button and there will be mission creep into other aspects of your life… for example they will auto ticket you if you go above the speed limit or if you don’t stop completely and the data will be used in court of law… 

    This is a terrible idea to give politicians this power.

    We must MOT let this big sister tech be used in this way…

    • Tbone December 15, 2016 (8:35 am)

      I am in agreement with you one hundred percent.   Scary.

  • Rick December 15, 2016 (6:36 am)

    It’s like the kid you send to the store with 5$ to buy a 4$ gallon of milk and he can spend the remaining 1$ on candy for doing his job. He comes back with a pint of milk and 4$ in candy. Instead of making him return the candy and buying the milk you give him another 5$ to buy the milk. You’ll eventually get your gallon of milk,1 pint at a time but it’ll cost more than 4$. And the kid still gets paid to do the job. 

  • Colby December 15, 2016 (7:25 am)

    I signed up, I’m interested on how this will progress.  I just began using a personal telematics device (Automatic Pro) on myself to track my driving for fun.

    • Checkyersource December 15, 2016 (11:10 am)

      That DOES sound like fun!

  • Mark December 15, 2016 (7:02 pm)

    The gas tax is a carbon tax and needs to be much higher to discourage people from driving large inefficient vehicles.   Not only is this wasting a limited resource it has adverse safety for drivers in smaller cars, peds and bikes also fare worse when hit by larger vehicles.

    People who do drive electric vehicles do need to pay for their use of highways, roads and streets.  These electric vehicles are aged based on equivalent mpg, simply creating a mileage charge based on mpg equivalent should be done. 

    Example a person driving a large gas guzzler at 10 mpg should pay more.  An electric vehicle rated at 100 mpg should pay 1 tenth the amount.

Sorry, comment time is over.