Motor fuel taxes have been collected as a principal source of highway funding for close to a century. They account for approximately two thirds of all the highway user fees and about half of all highway expenditures. Federal fuel taxes have not kept pace with the inflation in general and increasing traffic demand and resulting construction, maintenance and operation costs of the transportation assets in particular. Lack of political will, combined with rising anti-tax sentiment among the populace, has kept the federal tax level not only well below its initial intents, but also at a unsustainable level in future. Mileage based user fees are possibly an alternative to the fuel taxes, which have been the main mechanism for funding the transportation system. Mileage based user fees have been successfully utilized in many parts of the world with glowing results. Germany's "TollCollect", a quasi government enterprise has utilized GPS technology in collecting the users' fee from the truck operators. The system has been a financial engine providing much needed funding for many major transportation projects. Oregon Department of Transportation, in a federally co-funded pilot project, examined the practicality of the mileage based user fee collection at the fuel pumps. According to the Oregon study, there are not any major technical difficulties in mileage based user fee collection at the pump. Study participants (general motorist) did not express any objection to the mileage based user fee collection. This dissertation evaluates revenue impacts of several pricing policies including: Current per gallon fuel taxes, conversion to a mileage based user fee, time of day user fee application, area type user fee and congestion priced user fees. State of Florida's years 2015-2035 fuel revenue forecast is used as a case study. A model is constructed to estimate annual vehicle miles travelled for the analyses period. Fuel efficiencies, current per gallon fuel taxes and their corresponding mileage-based user fee equivalents are the input to a financial model developed for comparisons. Results demonstrate that decrease in fuel revenues due to vehicles fuel efficiency improvements can be offset by replacing current per gallon fuel taxes with a mileage-based user fee. Pricing the user fee according to area type, roadway classification, time of day and congestion level can not only generate more revenues but also assist in demand management.

Mileage-based user fee initiatives in the United States and abroad show that such fees can lead to more equitable and efficient use of roadways by charging drivers based on their actual road use and by providing pricing incentives to reduce road use. Mileage fees for passenger vehicles, however, continue to face significant public concerns related to privacy as well as cost challenges. Privacy concerns are particularly acute when Global Positioning System (GPS) units are used to track the location of passenger vehicles. Reliable cost estimates for mileage fee systems are not available, but implementing a system to collect fees from 230 million U.S. passenger vehicles is likely to greatly exceed the costs of collecting fuel taxes. Commercial truck user fee systems in Germany and New Zealand have achieved substantial revenues and benefits such as reduced road damage and emissions with fewer privacy concerns, but ensuring compliance in a cost effective manner presents trade-offs. Few commercial truck mileage fee pilots have been conducted in the United States, but efforts in two states suggest such fees pose fewer privacy and cost challenges than passenger vehicle fees. Mileage fee rates could be set to replace or supplement current Highway Trust Fund revenues. GAO calculated average mileage fee rates for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks needed to meet three federal revenue targets ranging from $34 billion (replace current federal fuel tax revenues) to $78 billion (increase spending to maintain existing system conditions and performance). To meet these targets, drivers of passenger vehicles with average fuel efficiency would pay $108 to $248 per year in mileage fees compared to the $96 these drivers currently pay in federal gasoline tax. These fees would affect users' costs differently based on each vehicle's fuel efficiency, because drivers of less efficient vehicles now pay more in fuel taxes than drivers of vehicles with greater fuel efficiency. However, like federal fuel taxes, mileage fees would comprise a small portion of users' overall fuel costs and thus only marginally increase users' overall transportation costs. A mileage fee for commercial trucks could also increase users' costs, particularly for larger trucks that log more miles. In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimated that heavy commercial trucks generally pay less in federal taxes than the road damage costs they impose. Adjusting mileage fee rates to account for vehicle road damage costs would increase rates for commercial truck users. However, FHWA's estimates may not reflect current conditions. Setting rates to cover these costs would require updated estimates of vehicles' responsibility for road damage. State departments of transportation (DOT) recognize the need for an alternative funding mechanism to meet future revenue demands, and many would support federal actions to evaluate mileage fees. Few states reported that they are likely to introduce such fees in the next 10 years, but more than half would support federally-led field tests of mileage fees for commercial trucks and electric vehicles. Although few electric vehicles are on the roads today, their numbers are expected to increase, and they do not contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. Without a federal pilot program to evaluate (1) options to more accurately charge commercial trucks and electric vehicles for their road use and (2) the costs and benefits of such systems, Congress lacks critical information to assess whether mileage fees for these vehicles could be a viable and cost-effective tool to help address the nation's surface transportation funding challenges.

This primer presents some promising and innovative mileage fee system designs and transition strategies. For states or localities that are considering a transition to mileage fees, awareness of these strategies can help determine whether shifting from fuel taxes to mileage fees merits further consideration. For jurisdictions already engaged in detailed assessments of mileage fees, these concepts can help reduce costs and build public support.

"A mileage-based road user charge would involve assessing owners of individual vehicles on a per-mile basis for the distance the vehicle is driven. Currently, federal highway and public transportation programs are funded mainly by motor fuel tax receipts that flow into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The tax rates, set on a per-gallon basis, have not been raised since 1993, and receipts have been insufficient to support the transportation programs authorized by Congress since FY2008. The long-term viability of motor fuels taxes is also questionable because of increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and the wider use of electric vehicles. Economists have favored the use of mileage-based user charges as an alternative to motor fuels taxes to support highway funding. This book examines consideration and viability of road user charges based on mileage."--Preface.

The road mileage user-fee is viewed as a promising alternative to the fuel tax, which in recent years has proven to be an inadequate means of financing road infrastructure. Public opposition is often thought to be a barrier to the political feasibility of the road mileage user-fee, but there has been only limited empirical evidence to quantify this opposition and identify factors that may be driving it. We use a nationally representative public opinion survey to investigate the level and intensity of support for replacing the fuel tax with a mileage user-fee. Our results confirm that there is widespread public opposition to the adoption of mileage user-fees, with the number of opponents exceeding the number of supporters by a ratio of 4 to 1. Furthermore, public support for the mileage user-fee is largely independent of individual demographic characteristics but is sensitive to features of the mode of administration. Administration modes that improve public acceptability are those that minimize privacy intrusion, one-time technology costs, and tax evasion concerns, and maximize convenience, accuracy, and fairness. The intensity of opposition is stronger than the intensity of support; relative to supporters, those who oppose the mileage user-fee are more likely to state that they are willing to take political action against the adoption of mileage user-fees. Policy implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

" Federal funding to build and maintain the nation's highways and bridges comes primarily from highway users through federal fuel taxes. These revenues have eroded due to improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and other factors contributing to shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund. Experts have proposed alternative means of raising revenues by charging drivers fees based on their miles traveled. Several states have tested systems that gather vehicle mileage and location data, which has raised privacy concerns. GAO examined (1) the benefits and challenges of mileage fee initiatives in the United States and other selected nations, (2) mileage fee rates necessary to replace and supplement current Highway Trust Fund revenues and the effect these fees would have on users' costs, and (3) state DOTs' views on future revenue demands and mileage fees. GAO reviewed five domestic pilot projects and programs in Germany, New Zealand, and the Netherlands; modeled mileage fees for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks; and surveyed 51 state DOTs. "