CA Mileage Tax proposals and VMT reduction talk

[Max Rockatansky]

We seem to not have a dedicated thread for these topics.  It seems that a certain someone wants to talk about these on the General Board (Replies 34-58):

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=37158.50#bot

What say you Pacific Southwest board about VMT reductions and mileage tax proposals?  What is the latest news you have on VMT studies and what the state is doing with the mileage tax studies?

[The Ghostbuster]

It will be up to Californians to decide whether a mileage tax should be implemented. As for vehicle miles traveled reduction, that is futile. You'd have an easier time making water run uphill.

[cahwyguy]

All I can say is that I monitor any such proposals on my legislative info page, https://www.cahighways.org/links-legislation.html . I should be posting updates to that page probably by the end of the week (I'm working through the CTC minutes now).

[jdbx]

We seem to not have a dedicated thread for these topics.  It seems that a certain someone wants to talk about these on the General Board (Replies 34-58):

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=37158.50#bot

What say you Pacific Southwest board about VMT reductions and mileage tax proposals?  What is the latest news you have on VMT studies and what the state is doing with the mileage tax studies?

I think that mileage taxes make sense in lieu of diminishing gas taxes.  IMHO, the gas tax is an ideal way to raise highway funds since it correlated pretty well to mileage driven (ie- drive more miles, use more gas), and tended to compensate well for heavier vehicles that put more wear on the roads (ie- heavier vehicles tend to be less efficient and use more gas).  With higher CAFE standards and the proliferation of alternative fuel vehicles, there needs to be some sort of alternative.

The devil is always in the details.  How do you fairly assess such a tax without infringing on people's privacy or freedom of movement?  How do you avoid hitting people with a huge bill vs the incremental way that gas taxes are collected with each fill-up?

I have a few ideas around that, but none of them are very convenient or as easy as paying at the pump when you buy gas.

I think that VMT reductions have their places in dense urban areas where there are plenty of alternate transportation means available, but I dislike it being used as a default blanket approach when looking at highway improvements.  Much of the transportation infrastructure in this state is  functioning with the same capacity as it was when our population was much less.  While I agree that you can't widen highways indefinitely, I do think that induced demand in many cases is actually just latent demand, and I have seen many cases where improvements that would fail the VMT test have resulted in a marked improvement in traffic and quality-of-life for road users that has lasted decades after the improvement was completed.

[SeriesE]

Sadly, it seems like VMT reduction have been used as an excuse to cancel non-widening safety related improvements like interchange improvements in certain areas.

[cahwyguy]

Sadly, it seems like VMT reduction have been used as an excuse to cancel non-widening safety related improvements like interchange improvements in certain areas.

I've been reading through the May and June CTC minutes the last two days as I get ready to release a round of updates to my site, and I haven't seen any indication of that there. In fact, safety factors are one of the things the CTC tracks when assessing projects. Can you cite specific projects, as opposed to the vague "in certain areas"?

[SeriesE]

Sadly, it seems like VMT reduction have been used as an excuse to cancel non-widening safety related improvements like interchange improvements in certain areas.

I've been reading through the May and June CTC minutes the last two days as I get ready to release a round of updates to my site, and I haven't seen any indication of that there. In fact, safety factors are one of the things the CTC tracks when assessing projects. Can you cite specific projects, as opposed to the vague "in certain areas"?

Well, I don't have access to the minutes, so I'm going off the public hearings I've been to for Los Angeles area and San Francisco Bay Area. Since they're current projects, I'm not sure if a decision has been finalized.

The one I remember off the top of my head is the I-605 Improvement Project. Plenty of public feedback opposing any improvements to the freeway saying it will not fix anything due to induced demand etc. They even oppose the alternative that fixes the interchanges, widen lanes to 12' wide with no additional lanes, and adding back shoulders. I'm not sure what's the current status, but based on what I've heard during the meeting, Metro already backed off once.

[cahwyguy]

Well, I don't have access to the minutes, so I'm going off the public hearings I've been to for Los Angeles area and San Francisco Bay Area. Since they're current projects, I'm not sure if a decision has been finalized.

Actually, if you read my changelog, it is easy to get to the minutes and agendas. Just go to https://catc.ca.gov/meetings-events/commission-meetings . There you can see the minutes and agenda items for the current year. Use the "View/Download (date) Meeting Materials" to go to the page where you can see the agenda, the minutes from the previous meetings, the change log and more. If you go in the agenda, each agenda item is linked to the specific background package (a bit of a pain).

Use the Past Meeting Materials page to get to the past meeting materials.

For the legislature, simply go to https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and click "GO" under the quick bill search. You get a list of all bills, and you can then go to see the details of any bills.

This is stuff I do during every round of updates to the California Highways page.