California is Setting the Stage for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled

Evil_Odo.jpgA sign of the times?

USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood last month suggested that the country should
consider replacing the gas tax with a tax on vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) to compensate for the dwindling Highway Trust Fund, which is
primarily supported from gas taxes, the White House immediately
rebuffed him, assuring the public and angry editorial boards that Obama
had no such priority.  With a sluggish economy and greater fuel
efficiency in new vehicles, a VMT tax would replenish the Highway
Trust, though it would also allow planners and policy makers to develop
solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through better land use

Several states, including Oregon, Washington,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas are studying the feasibility of
the transition and what infrastructure and technology would be needed
to plan for a VMT tax.  In 2001, Oregon DOT (ODOT) launched a study
called the the Oregon Mileage Fee Concept (PDF), and in April of 2006, ODOT tested GPS systems in vehicles belonging to several hundred volunteers.  Based on those findings, Oregon governor Theodore R. Kulongoski this year called for outfitting every Oregon vehicle
with a GPS device that would assess a tax at the pump based on how many
miles had been driven, regardless of the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

In California last month, Assembly member Nancy Skinner of Alameda and Contra Costa counties introduced AB 1135,
which would require every motorist to report their odometer reading
when they register or renew their vehicle.  The state DMV would provide
overall VMT data publicly. It would theoretically be available through
fairly specific tracts to aid planning, though whether it would be by
block face, census tract, voter district, or county has yet to be

As the bill points out, accurate VMT data is
essential not only for immediate compliance with the greenhouse gas
reductions mandated in AB 32, but also for smarter regional planning
and the reduction of sprawl mandated in SB 375: 

accurate data about vehicle-miles-traveled–the mileage driven annually
by Californians–would provide essential information to guide local
transportation and land use planning. Location of transit corridor
improvements, light rail, bicycle paths, and high-occupancy freeway
lanes now depend on the estimates done by various state agencies, but
all of these projects would benefit from more accurate data. Better
data would also provide more consistent local and statewide estimates
for transportation planning, city planning, and air quality planning
efforts. The data would be essential in establishing long-term,
historical trends in vehicle use, traffic congestion, energy
consumption, and air quality measures, including ozone precursor
pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Picture_4.pngThis ABAG graph from a Joint Policy Committee presentation shows steady rise of VMT

One criticism of moving to a VMT tax from a gas tax is that the person
who purchased a more fuel efficient vehicle shouldn’t have to pay the same as
the person who still drives a big SUV.  By that logic, if a consumer
wants to drive a vehicle that pollutes more, they need to pay more at the pump.

Paine, TransForm’s Transportation Policy Director, said that line of
reasoning was flawed. "Even people who drive highly economical vehicles
have an impact on the roadways and ought to pay their share for upkeep.
A Prius contributes to traffic congestion just like a Mustang, but is
paying less into the account that addresses congestion and roadway wear
and tear."

Paine argued that odometer reporting would
likely not be the final method used for monitoring VMT, but that the
bill would allow planners to set targets to promote transit-oriented
development (TOD) and smart growth.  She said that living in close
proximity to one’s place of work cuts down on emissions and fuel
consumption better than any vehicle technology can.

"It’s hard to see how
we can be serious about setting regional targets for reducing driving,
without knowing how much driving is really taking place.  This bill would provide a significant boost to our efforts to curb
global warming pollution associated with driving and land use."

suggested that a Hummer driver living within a short distance of work
would use less gas than a Prius driver who commuted 120 miles each way,
as illustrated in this graph:

Picture_3.pngABAG graph showing the difference in gas consumption by commute distance and vehicle type

criticism of altering the gas tax to a VMT tax centers on the concern
that government would know too much about individual driving patterns
if every vehicle had GPS or other tracking technology.  Those critics
have complained that placing GPS in vehicles to collect VMT data, or
even self-reporting of odometer information, would violate privacy
rights, though AB 1135 explicitly states that personal information
would not be public record.

In a recent Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) meeting, several commissioners brought
up privacy concerns.  MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger explained
that a good deal of information is already collected through routine
smog checks, self-reporting to insurance companies, and Fast Trak and
Translink monitoring, etc.

MTC spokesperson Randy
Rentschler said at the same meeting that "to some extent, this is an
imposition on motorists, but we have to get a good sense of how many
vehicle miles traveled we have… as [transportation] is the biggest
source of CO2 in the state.  FasTrak and Translink have privacy issues,
but those databases exist.  When we are given subpoenas by the police,
that’s the only time that we will release private data."

Commissioner and Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said: "The privacy issue is
important, but the information is necessary and needed to plan and make
future decisions.  I think this is an important bill because we need to
get VMT and the methods that we use now are so complicated and arcane. 
We make assumptions about the impacts of TOD; now we could actually
start verifying these things."

The MTC Commission endorsed
the legislation at their March meeting. Commissioners Spring and Worth
were the only two members who voted against it, citing privacy
concerns.  Scuttlebut in the hall suggested they understood this was
the first step toward a VMT tax and they were positioning themselves
against the bill to please their suburban driving constituents.

  • i support this, especially as a full time bicycle commuter. that being said, there is no way this’ll fly. conspiracy theorists, privacy nut-jobs, and right wing nutters will never let this get off the ground.

  • Erik

    It is sheer ignorance to think that a VMT tax is in any way different or better then a fuel tax. Gallons of fuel purchased is an almost direct indicator of miles traveled when you are talking about populations the size of California. Where every type of car is used. There is no need for more technology. They just need a higher fuel tax to actually cover the highway repair.

    In rebuttal to the quote “A Prius contributes to traffic congestion just like a Mustang, but is paying less into the account that addresses congestion and roadway wear and tear.” Uhm, how about a congestion tax? This system works in London and would directly address the point made by Paine. What isn’t said there is that both a Prius and a Mustang pale in comparison to the wear and tear put on the roads by the heavier freight hauling vehicles. But making them pay their fair share is going to be the more difficult struggle then throwing technology at the problem. But wait, what if we charged a significant tax for diesel fuel? The one fuel most freight haulers use. Comes back to the fuel tax.

    I really wish some politician would grow a spine and push a better fuel and congestion tax. That is the real solution.

  • Geine

    This is outrageous to continue to be taxed without representation.

    Big Brother is having to much control over us, now this using GPS charging you another TAX.

    Is the government going to put a GPS into your body and charge you a take for walking, sitting, eating etc.

    How much to you want to Government to control you. Reminds me of post World War II under Russia, where in countries you had to have a pass to go from place to place.

  • ^
    case in point

  • I think it is simpler, cheaper, and just as effective to gradually increase the fuel tax instead of trying to do a VMT. The potential cost and hassle of installing GPS receivers on everyone’s cars, combined with the privacy concern that many people will (rightfully or not) have with this, seems like just too much of a pain. Just raise the gas tax. It’s easier and will accomplish the same goal.

  • J

    I have to wonder what other applications the VMT GPS devices could be used for. It would be fantastic if the data could be used for law enforcement applications or for 100% accurate traffic modeling. I agree that the privacy wackos won’t let this get off the ground, though.

  • First, it’s important to highlight that AB 1135 absolutely is not authorizing a fee or tax on VMT. It is a mechanism to collect data. Just yesterday, the Center for Clean Air Policy (an independent, nonprofit world leader in climate policy) released a call for better data on vehicle emissions, including VMT, to help decision makers make better policy. Check it out at:

    Second, I agree with other comments that indicate that we should be looking at a range of options to increase the funds we have for our transportation systems. Congestion pricing and raising/indexing the gas tax are just two others. Each approach has its own benefits. What’s undeniable is that our existing sources are drying up leaving crumbling infrastructure and underfunded transit services.

  • I think LA Streetsblog may not only have jumped the gun here, but could in fact help to contribute to the Skinner bill’s defeat by leaping to a VMT Fee from a VMT accounting purpose.
    Assembly woman Skinner merely seeks to get a more accurate accounting of how mile miles Californians are driving for the purposes of meeting AB 32 carbon reduction goals, not adding a fee for miles driver – that is my understanding. However, with this article, and others like it that the Republicans can use to show that the bill is merely a step toward a new tax, many moderate Democrats may be unwilling to support it….just my political hunches her.

  • All the “conspiracy theorists, privacy nut-jobs, and right wing nutters” in the world are no match for oil companies that hate their product being taxed, and contractors who would love to sell the gov’t tens of millions of GPS mileage meters. Auto companies love this too since it equalizes the cost of driving a gas guzzler with that of a more efficient vehicle.

    Fuel taxes are the best way to get people into more efficient, less polluting vehicles.

    The best way to replace tax revenues lost from reduced gasoline sales is to make fuel taxes a percentage rather than a flat cents per gallon. Then tax revenues wouldn’t fall with demand, as fuel prices rise. Unfortunately our politicians listen to oil companies, not economists or transportation experts.

    For congestion pricing to work it must be targeted at congested areas. Most congestion is from short trips that don’t add up to many miles. So to affect congestion, the per mile rate would have to be pretty stiff. If such a rate were flat statewide, it would be too burdensome on occasional long distance travel, which is important to our standard of living and our economy — visiting family, weekend vacations. etc.

    Let’s look at Europe, and their experience with percentage-based fuel taxes. Let’s look at cities like Hong Kong and London, and their experience with congestion pricing. But please keep in mind that these places have viable alternatives to private motor vehicles. Keeping (poor) people from driving in the US will not make those alternatives magically appear here.


The Gas Tax Versus a VMT Tax: Is ‘All of the Above’ an Option?

(Chart: Oregon DOT) The prospect of an eventual move away from the gas tax and towards a fee on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has sparked consternation from some well-known bloggers this week, with Matt Yglesias asserting that "a VMT [tax] has no advantages whatsoever over higher gasoline taxes" and Andrew Samwick suggesting that declining fuel […]

Thoughts at a Workshop On Replacing CA’s Gas Tax With a Mileage Fee

Earlier this week, I attended a California Sustainable Transportation Funding Workshop, hosted by Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and the Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance (MBUFA). The half-day program focused on how the state of California could shift from our current gas tax funding stream to one based on […]