COLUMBUS, Ohio (WOWO) — Ohio economists are divided over whether the state should replace its gasoline tax with a fee based on how many miles drivers travel, as policymakers face questions about road funding, electric vehicles, privacy and fairness. A survey conducted last week by Scioto Analysis found that 16 economists believed a vehicle-miles-traveled fee would be more efficient than a traditional gas tax, while 11 disagreed and four were uncertain. The debate comes as Ohio has paused its gasoline tax in an effort to bring down high fuel prices, raising questions about how the state should pay for road and bridge construction and maintenance over the long term. Gas-tax revenue is used primarily to fund transportation infrastructure. But as more drivers switch to electric vehicles and hybrids, which use less gasoline or none at all, the traditional tax collects less revenue from those vehicles. Supporters of a mileage-based fee argue that charging drivers according to the distance they travel could provide a more consistent source of funding, regardless of the type of vehicle they own. The economists surveyed disagreed, however, on whether such a system would be practical, fair or more efficient than the current approach according to the Ohio Capital Journal. Lucas Englehardt of Kent State University said a mileage-based charge would make sense if the primary goal were to pay for road maintenance. Drivers who use roads more would generally pay more, rather than having their contributions determined largely by how much fuel their vehicles consume. “In as far as the goal is funding roads, it makes sense to proportion the fee to the use of roads — miles traveled being a reasonable approach, and much more representative of the benefit than ‘fuel used’ is,” Englehardt wrote in the survey. He cautioned, however, that the gasoline tax serves a purpose beyond transportation funding because it also places a charge on emissions associated with burning fuel. “The one wrinkle here: the gas tax is part road user fee but also part emissions charge,” Englehardt wrote. He added that a per-mile fee could be more efficient for funding roads without necessarily being more efficient overall. That distinction highlights one of the central challenges facing policymakers: a replacement system would need to determine not only how much drivers should contribute toward road upkeep, but also whether it should account for fuel consumption and environmental costs. David Brasington of the University of Cincinnati questioned whether a mileage-based system would be worth the expense and whether drivers would accept the monitoring it might require. “If you use GPS tracking of Ohio drivers, it would be feasible, but people would probably have big privacy concerns,” Brasington wrote. He said other methods of measuring miles driven could carry substantial administrative costs compared with the existing gas tax. A system that requires new tracking, reporting or collection procedures could be more complicated and expensive to operate, potentially reducing its advantages. Privacy concerns could also become a significant obstacle if officials sought to track vehicle movements through GPS technology. Although mileage-based charges could be calculated using other methods, the state would still need a reliable way to determine how far each vehicle traveled. Ali Enami of the University of Akron supported a mileage-based fee but argued that distance alone would not adequately measure the cost a vehicle imposes on roads. Enami said vehicle weight should also factor into the calculation because heavier vehicles can cause substantially more pavement damage than lighter passenger cars traveling the same distance. “I would add that other factors, such as vehicle weight, should be included in the calculation of the fee,” Enami wrote. “That is, holding vehicle miles traveled constant, a road used by heavier vehicles would require more frequent repairs.” The issue is particularly relevant to large commercial trucks. Research cited in the report has found that a fully loaded five-axle truck can cause as much pavement damage as hundreds or even thousands of passenger cars, depending on road conditions. A mileage-based system that charged every vehicle the same rate per mile could therefore leave some drivers paying less than the actual road-maintenance costs associated with their vehicles. Adjusting fees for weight could more closely connect payments to the damage vehicles cause, although it would add another layer of complexity. Other economists argued that Ohio’s existing registration fees already help address the loss of gasoline-tax revenue from vehicles that consume less fuel. Hybrid owners currently pay an additional annual registration fee of $100, while owners of plug-in hybrids pay $150 and owners of fully electric vehicles pay $200. Those charges are intended, in part, to ensure drivers who purchase vehicles that use little or no gasoline still contribute toward transportation funding. Kevin Egan of the University of Toledo said the state’s existing fee for electric vehicles already makes up for the gasoline-tax revenue those drivers would otherwise contribute. “Ohio’s $200 annual registration fee on electric vehicles (vs. $35 for a gas car) is already a little more than the average gas car driver pays in state gas tax so this change already makes-up for lost state gas tax revenue from an electric car,” Egan wrote. Egan said higher annual registration fees offer a relatively simple way to collect revenue without introducing a new system to track vehicle mileage. Under that approach, drivers pay a set amount based on the type of vehicle they own rather than the distance they travel. He acknowledged that a mileage-based fee could be more efficient because drivers who travel greater distances in electric vehicles would pay more than those who drive less. But implementing that system would require tracking or otherwise verifying annual mileage, something that is not currently done for the purpose of collecting a statewide mileage fee. The competing proposals reflect a broader transportation-funding challenge as vehicle technology changes. A gas tax ties payments to fuel consumption, meaning drivers who travel similar distances can pay different amounts depending on their vehicles’ fuel efficiency. Electric-vehicle owners generally do not pay gasoline taxes, while hybrid drivers may pay less in fuel taxes because their vehicles consume less gasoline. A fee based on miles driven could distribute costs differently, potentially making drivers’ contributions more closely reflect their use of the road network. But the details would matter, including whether rates varied by vehicle weight, how mileage was measured, how privacy was protected and how much the system would cost to administer. For Ohio, the question is not simply whether a mileage-based fee could replace the gas tax. It is whether the state could design a system that reliably supports roads and bridges without imposing excessive administrative costs or creating new concerns for drivers. The Scioto Analysis survey showed support for a mileage-based approach among some economists, but the split results underscored the absence of consensus on how best to balance revenue needs, fairness, privacy and practical implementation. The survey did not establish that Ohio had adopted a vehicle-miles-traveled fee or committed to replacing the gas tax with one. Instead, the responses illustrated the competing considerations facing policymakers as they weigh how to fund transportation infrastructure while the state’s vehicle fleet continues to change. The post Ohio Gas Tax Debate Grows as Economists Weigh Pay-Per-Mile Road Fees appeared first on WOWO News/Talk 92.3 FM and 1190 AM. ...read more read less