Pay-per-mile should replace gas tax, state commission says. Don’t expect a quick change
The state Transportation Commission’s seven-year study of how to replace the state gas tax has reached the end of the road.
On Tuesday, the commission made its recommendations to the Legislature. As expected, the major one is for lawmakers next year to consider phasing in a pay-per-mile tax to replace the state gas tax, which is 49.4 cents per gallon. The idea is that a new source of revenue is needed because the state’s gas tax — which is used to fund roads and bridges — is being eroded by increasingly more fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles.
The commission did not recommend a time line for replacing the gas tax with a pay-per-mile tax. But the commission said it should not happen for at least 10 years and likely not for several decades.
A start-up phase should include vehicles that pay little or no gas tax — plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles — but pay flat annual fees regardless of miles driven. The Legislature would set the rate. The state Transportation Commission has studied setting it at 2.4 cents per mile.
What’s next for pay-per-mile?
The recommendations move to the Legislature, which will convene its 60-day session on Jan. 13.
State Rep. Jake Fey, the Tacoma Democrat who is chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said a likely scenario for 2020 is that the state Transportation Commission taps federal dollars to extend studying pay-per-mile, which the state refers to as a road usage charge.
Fey said in terms of transportation issues, he expects next year’s session to be dominated by the Legislature cutting the state transportation budget in response to voters approving Initiative 976.
“When you are cutting things, it is hard to justify making new investments,” he said.
In addition to capping car tabs at $30 — actually it would be $43.25 counting fees — I-976 would reduce or remove the authority of state and local governments to charge several motor vehicle taxes and fees that pay for transportation projects. Those provisions are on hold pending a legal challenge.
Opinions on road usage charge
Among the recommendations was that expenditures from pay-per-mile tax revenue be restricted to highway projects, like the state gas tax is.
Kelsey Mesher, advocacy director for the nonprofit Transportation Choices Coalition, expressed opposition to that recommendation.
“With the passage of I-976, we’ve seen that funding for our transportation system — especially for public transit — is fragile and limited. We’re concerned about restricting new revenue based on old ways of doing things,” she said.
Melsher said lawmakers should consider a progressive pay-per-mile rate — instead of a flat rate — so that lower-income motorists pay less.
State Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, said Tuesday that a pay-per-mile tax would be “intensely regressive,” with people of all incomes paying the same rate.
“It forces people who live in outlying areas and generally earn less than people in urban cores to pay more for the use of the state’s roads,” he said.
Walsh said he also is opposed to pay-per-mile because of concerns about losing privacy.
“At least some of the scenarios are they put a little GPS device in your vehicle and track how many miles you drive. That’s incredibly invasive and violates any common-sense of personal privacy. It’s just a bad idea,” he said.
The recommendations approved Tuesday include enrolling state-owned vehicles in the phase-in of a pay-per-mile system, in part to test ways to protect privacy. Another recommendation is to put privacy protection measures in state law.
