Simple idea for an IDOT capital program: 6 year temorary 20 cent gas tax

[hbelkins]

If someone were to run on a platform of:

Raising registration fees,
Raising the gas tax, and
Raising the income tax,

guaranteed that person, and maybe one other family member, would vote for them.

I wouldn't vote for any idiot who proposed those things, even if it was a family member.

[Rick Powell]

If we had a mileage based tax, then a trucker would be paying as much tax as a small car.
We all know truckers do exponentially more damage than small cars.
Having a gas tax encourages people to buy small, more fuel efficient cars that do less damage on roads.

Mileage based taxes could be adjusted for the class of vehicle, just like tolls.
I'd say the cost of fuel itself, when it is high, probably encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars more than taxes, at least in the US where gas tax policy is not used as a behavioral tool as it is in places like the UK and most EU states.  Federal and state taxes per gallon haven't decreased any in the past 10 years, but the price drop from $4 to sub $2 gas hasn't been a great motivator for EV and hybrid sales, to say the least.  Raising the gas tax (like IA just did) is probably the easiest short term solution...until the mix of vehicles is so heavily tilted to EVs and high efficiency gas engines that the inelasticity of the gas tax breaks and there is no other practical way to collect road taxes, I doubt if a mileage tax will fly in the US.

[vdeane]

For electric cars, just tax the electricity used to recharge them.  I expect that high efficiency gas engines and hybrids are just transitional technologies between gas an electric, so they might be moot.

[johndoe780]

If we had a mileage based tax, then a trucker would be paying as much tax as a small car.
We all know truckers do exponentially more damage than small cars.
Having a gas tax encourages people to buy small, more fuel efficient cars that do less damage on roads.

Mileage based taxes could be adjusted for the class of vehicle, just like tolls.
I'd say the cost of fuel itself, when it is high, probably encourages people to buy fuel efficient cars more than taxes, at least in the US where gas tax policy is not used as a behavioral tool as it is in places like the UK and most EU states.  Federal and state taxes per gallon haven't decreased any in the past 10 years, but the price drop from $4 to sub $2 gas hasn't been a great motivator for EV and hybrid sales, to say the least.  Raising the gas tax (like IA just did) is probably the easiest short term solution...until the mix of vehicles is so heavily tilted to EVs and high efficiency gas engines that the inelasticity of the gas tax breaks and there is no other practical way to collect road taxes, I doubt if a mileage tax will fly in the US.

Dunno about you, but I have no intention of buying a pickup just because gas prices are cheap for the near future.

EU also has excellent public transportation which is essentially nonexistent for most, if not nearly all US cities. You can get by without driving a car there, not here for the most part.

Or we could properly build our highways in the first place like the germans and still be perfectly fine 80 years later that doesn't need constant maintenance every year..... but you know.... job killers and whatnot.

[dzlsabe]

Huge part of the problem are Chicago "freeways" I-94 & 290. Even with lower fuel prices everywhere, not many interstate trucks or cars fill-up in IL with higher fuel prices/taxes/user fees unless they have to. How does IL try to capture any $$$ that flies thru town, gratis? More I-pass? Look how good IL tollways look compared to free.

And with cars, trucks getting better mileage, as well as electric vehicles, how will road maintenance, let alone any new construction keep up?

This would never go, but imagine a small increase in fuel tax/road user fee say fifty miles from the IL border for west-bound traffic in IN and south-bound in WI. Sure, youd just go to the other side of the road if it was possible.

Or a fee at the weigh station, more if youre full, less if empty?

Or just raise the FHTF a nickle or two from 18 or 24 cents for diesel. Not increased since 1993? Oil glut will keep prices low for a decade? at least. Readjust the give/get or 55/45 rate? Our legislators just dont get it. Better, faster roads are in everyones interest.

Another thought may be to have a small tax/user fee (five cents a gal?) on railroad (freight and passenger) and off-road diesel. Maybe have it indexed to sulfur ppm? The rail fund would be used for upgrades (and CREATE type projects) to track & bridges used by both. The off-road would be to used to help fund continued or future road (or rail) projects.

[johndoe780]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money

Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.

Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.

If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.

[dzlsabe]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money

Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.

Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.

If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.

The headline says "big winner", the article not so much.

Trucks may use I-39, but it adds over 50 miles to a Rockford-Gary trek. And there still may be I-80 to contend with. Imagine an option that yes, would cost more, but would be shorter, faster. In the time it took to reach Gary the "free" way, one could be near OH.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-trucks-toll-increase-met-20141226-story.html

Freight rail does indeed "utilize" Chicago as much as possible. 25% of all rail in the country happens here. Thats the problem. Theres no room for growth or to speed trains through the city in hours instead of days.

[SEWIGuy]

Aren't tolls roughly akin to a "mileage tax" anyway?  If you look at the money that ISTA has compared to IDOT, maybe they should simply toll more roadways.

[johndoe780]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151202/BLOGS02/151209969/chicago-eligible-for-more-federal-transportation-money

Looks like Chicago is a big winner in the new deal.

Most truckers avoid Chicago in general and try to take I-39 and bypass most tolls/congestion.

If freight needs to get through or to Chicago, they already utilize freight trains as much as possible.

The headline says "big winner", the article not so much.

Trucks may use I-39, but it adds over 50 miles to a Rockford-Gary trek. And there still may be I-80 to contend with. Imagine an option that yes, would cost more, but would be shorter, faster. In the time it took to reach Gary the "free" way, one could be near OH.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-trucks-toll-increase-met-20141226-story.html

Freight rail does indeed "utilize" Chicago as much as possible. 25% of all rail in the country happens here. Thats the problem. Theres no room for growth or to speed trains through the city in hours instead of days.

Not necessarily true. If you're coming from a bit more south, say Indianapolis, and need to go to Minneapolis, you can easily just take I-74 to I-39, bypass ALL of Chicago traffic and toll and it would add 30 miles to the total trip.


The article is right. If we could fix Chicago's public transit, it'll keep people off the streets and won't clog up roads. That's a fact.

[dzlsabe]

No doubt, from Indy, Is 74 and 39 are the way to go. Hopefully they buy a few gallons of D2 here. Maybe even weigh station user fees (tolls). Certainly prefer increase in FHTF collections.

All for transit and RAILS. Dont like reading that a huge portion seems headed to Union Station for upgrades that are needed, but selling air rights and building above it? Rather see more/something spent on more non-downtown RAIL projects.

[mcarling]

The gas tax should be phased out and replaced with something else, perhaps a mileage-based tax.

No!!!  That would result in fewer people trading in old gross-emitting gas-guzzlers for newer cleaner more efficient vehicles.  Right now, people enjoy the benefits of their vehicles but transfer to everyone else part of the costs (pollution).  Fuel taxes need to be high enough to make vehicle owners cover the public costs of their pollution and pay for roads.

If there will ever be a mileage based tax, it's important that it include a multiplier for how much pollution the vehicle produced per mile.

In general, I would support an increase in state gasoline (and especially diesel) taxes.  I would not support an increase in the federal gasoline tax because I think the balance of funding needs to shift from the feds (which fund projects more based on pork barrel politics than actual need) to the states (where pork barrel politics are still a problem, but not as severe as with the feds).