Transportation policy nerds everywhere watched with interest last Friday as Ray LaHood got kneecapped by Obama’s press secretary for raising the possibility of a national vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, tax. It would be levied by putting GPS locators in cars and then taxing drivers based on distance driven. It’s seen as necessary by advocates to address a gap (predicted to get worse) between gas tax revenue and the actual costs of maintaining our highway system.
Obama seems to have no interest in fighting this particular battle. “It’s not on table,” said Robert Gibbs, after LaHood’s remark was published in an AP story.
Secretaries of transportation, and transportation policy makers in general, do seem to be fond of the idea though. Federico Pena, who served under Clinton, endorsed the VMT approach in a conversation with us late last month. Perhaps not coincidentally, he also said that he and LaHood were planning to chat so LaHood could pick his brain.
LaHood is hardly out on his own. Later this week the “blue ribbon” National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission will issue a report backing the VMT tax (or that’s what we’re hearing anyway). Several states, including Oregon and North Carolina, are pursuing the option or look like they will.
What’s mystifying though is why anyone would be a serious fan of the VMT tax. For the reasons Matt Yglesias lays out in this post, it just seems a mediocre option. A subcompact hybrid on an empty road and Chevy Avalanche driving on a highway pay the same rate? Huh?
Beyond that, America has always had a very robust culture of paranoia (some of it healthy, some of it not) about government nosing into people’s business. There are millions of citizens who will get freaked out by the prospect of their cars being tracked by satellite. So why do it, when (a) it’s an inelegant solution; (b), it actually is a bit intrusive; and, (c) it’s really not necessary.
With some combination of a bump in the gas tax, congestion pricing, and perhaps an electricity surcharge way down the line (in the era when we’re all driving tidal-powered rigs), we should be just fine for decades to come.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
i don’t think the problem is that they came out quickly against VMT, it’s that they came out quickly against it AND have been vocal about not raising the gas tax.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yes, certainly wouldn’t characterize anyone’s actions as a “mistake” in this. And the VMT is not necessarily a bad thing. But there are better options — including higher gas taxes.
-Jebediah
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Yea agree with your plan Infrastructurist.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
There are a lot of flaws on depending solely on the gas tax. I hear a lot of either or on this issue, and I see no reason we both can’t exist. Keep the gas tax to encourage fuel efficiency, but have a VMT tax in addition to that, which is better reflection of infrastructure demand. If someone has a full electric car, they still create congestion, they still cause wear and tear on the roads, why should they get a free pass? As more and more cars move away from gas altogether this issue of closing the infrastructure spending gap will snowball bigger and bigger. We need to be looking at all options, and VMT should not be taken off the table. I think the paranoia issue could be addressed by creating a federal standard for odometer check ups and protection, rather then a overly techie and costly GPS installation solution , which seems to be where a lot of the opposition comes from, perceiving it as a Big Brother move.