Becerra Brings Up a Mileage Tax. Panic and Demagoguery Ensue
California’s transportation funding system is broken. That’s not a controversial statement. But thanks in large part to the partisanship that has surrounded transportation funding, any serious conversation becomes a political firestorm and nothing gets done.
Last week, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra gave a rare interview and was asked whether he would consider a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) tax as a way to fund transportation infrastructure. His answer was hardly a ringing endorsement of a specific tax proposal. “Everything should be on the table,” he told KCRA’s Ashley Zavala.
“Our roads aren’t maintained just by some magic wand. We have to pay for it,” Becerra said. He went on to make a fairly straightforward point: drivers of electric vehicles use the same roads as everyone else, and they should contribute to maintaining them, too.
For that, Becerra was treated to a barrage of outrage from conservative media and Republican politicians. The California Post framed the comments as Becerra wanting to impose an additional tax on drivers. The Washington Examiner declared that Becerra supports both a gas tax and a mileage tax. Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton quickly turned the exchange into a campaign attack, suggesting California drivers could face another $1,000 in annual costs, which may be true for some EV or hybrid owners but might actually see savings for those in less-expensive cars.
Hilton has been perhaps the most unserious candidate for statewide office in recent history when it comes to transportation planning and the transportation funding crisis. He has proposed slashing car ownership fees with no plan on how to replace the funding, has promised gas prices lower than any other state in the country despite the massive damage it would do to air quality should he succeed, and would halt all funding and support for California High-Speed Rail.
And he’s hardly alone, California’s Republican Party, desperate to talk about anything besides Donald Trump’s war on the state’s residents, air quality, coast, economy, and whatever else comes to mind have tried to demagogue on transportation funding for most of the last decade.
Recent History of California’s Attempts to “Study” a VMT Tax/Fee
Earlier this year, Assemblymember Lori Wilson introduced AB 1421, legislation directing the California Transportation Commission to continue and deepen its study of a road usage charge as a potential alternative to the state’s gas tax. Wilson wasn’t proposing that California immediately begin charging drivers by the mile. She was asking the state to bring together years of research, pilot programs and recommendations so lawmakers could make an informed decision about the future of transportation funding.
As Streetsblog California reported in February, the proposal was hardly the first time California had considered the idea. The state has been studying road usage charges since 2014, with bipartisan participation and support from a coalition of labor, business and transportation interests.
That didn’t stop the legislation from becoming the subject of a similar right-wing outrage campaign earlier this year. Conservative commentators and Republican lawmakers portrayed a study bill as if it were an imminent tax increase. Some even claimed that the state was preparing to charge drivers by the mile on top of the gas tax.
AB 1421 ultimately passed the Assembly but failed to receive a committee vote in the Senate.
Problems with a Gas Tax
Californians have hardly been insulated from the forces that determine what they pay at the pump. Despite political promises and efforts to bring prices down, gasoline has become considerably more expensive over the past year. AAA reported an average California price of approximately $6 per gallon on October 27, compared with $4.59 a year earlier. That’s an increase of more than 30 percent. Inflationary pressures and international events, particularly the war with Iran and the resulting disruption to global oil markets, have helped push prices higher.
In other words, relying on gasoline as the primary source of transportation funding leaves the state exposed to forces it cannot control. It also means transportation revenues fluctuate with the price of oil, even as the need to maintain roads and bridges remains relatively constant. And as these prices rise and fall, the amount of money California receives from the state tax per gallon remains flat.
A VMT system isn’t a magic solution. Any proposal needs to account for the different circumstances of urban, suburban and rural drivers. It needs strong privacy protections, a transparent collection system and safeguards against double taxation. It should also be part of a broader conversation about how California funds transit, active transportation and the infrastructure needed to give people alternatives to driving.
But those are precisely the kinds of questions a serious public discussion should address.
The conservative media’s reaction to Becerra’s comments, like the reaction to Wilson’s legislation earlier this year, shows that some people would rather turn transportation funding into another partisan culture-war issue than actually solve the problem. They want to frighten drivers with hypothetical bills and imaginary tax increases rather than explain how they would pay for the roads everyone depends on.
Becerra deserves a bare minimum of credit for acknowledging an uncomfortable reality: California needs to figure out how to pay for its transportation system as the vehicles on its roads change. That doesn’t mean he has all the answers or that he’s even put any real thought into the answers. But, it does mean he’s willing to have a conversation that California policymakers cannot continue to avoid forever.
