California Republicans fume over per mile study

California State Assembly Democrats are moving forward with a bill that would require the California Transportation Commission to produce a report on the projected impact of a statewide road charge program.

The state says a road charge is “a ‘user pays’ system where all drivers pay to maintain the roads based on how much they drive, rather than how much gas they purchase”. The concept is aimed at replacing California’s gas tax, which the state says is the nation’s highest at $0.612 a gallon.

Even though the bill would only require a report to be delivered by January 2027, Republicans in Sacramento hit back hard.

GOP State Assemblyman Heath Flora described it as “piling on another tax”, while Bruce Lou said that “citizens shouldn’t be treated like ATMs”.

Democratic Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson, who introduced the bill, responded by accusing state GOP members of “completely lying and mischaracterizing the bill”.

Research into road charges has been underway for years in multiple states, and supporters of the concept argue it is designed to replace existing fuel taxes, rather than add a second layer of charges on top.

California is among 17 states studying road charges, also known as a road usage charge. Four states, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Virginia, have already implemented voluntary versions.

The pressure behind these discussions is simple: fuel tax revenue weakens as cars get more efficient and electric vehicles grow in market share. That leaves states struggling to keep infrastructure funding aligned with repair and maintenance demands.

A 2025 California state assessment identified the need for $757.5 billion in total transportation funding through 2035, while projecting $572 billion in revenue over the same period. The assessment projected a loss of $31 billion in revenue over the next decade and an overall transportation funding shortfall of $216.4 billion.

“The current per-gallon fuel tax is no longer keeping up with highway funding needs because vehicles can travel much farther on a single gallon of fuel,” transportation researcher Christopher E. Ferrell told the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University a decade ago.

“But it has been difficult to convince voters to increase that tax. If revenue were based on a fee per mile traveled, it could be more realistic.”

The revenue trend is not limited to California. Authors of a 2025 report by the National Association of State Budget Officers wrote that “motor fuel taxes had declined as a percentage of overall transportation revenue, going from 41.1% in fiscal 2016 to 36.3% in fiscal 2024.” They estimated a slight rise to 36.5% in 2025, while still pointing to a longer downward trend.

Tax Foundation researchers argued that, under the traditional mix of gas taxes, tolls, and registration related revenue, “only three states — Delaware, Montana, and New Jersey — raise enough revenue to fully cover their highway spending.” They added that switching “to a direct user fee on each mile driven” would offer “a better long-term fix” to state funding gaps.

“The legacy approach to funding our nation’s surface transportation infrastructure through a fuel tax will soon be far too insufficient,” Jay Golden, an environmental sustainability and finance professor at the Dynamic Sustainability Lab at Syracuse University, warned in a 2024 report for The Pew Charitable Trusts.

“States across the country must quickly develop new transportation funding strategies, or we will face a significant national crisis.”

Supporters of road usage charges often present them as a fairness argument: everyone pays for road upkeep based on miles driven, regardless of whether they drive a petrol car, a hybrid, or an electric vehicle.

“It’s probably a more fair way to make sure everybody pays something, and pays the same amount per mile,” Nate Bryer, who directs road usage charge development at WSP, said in an interview with Government Technology.

Researchers have also tried to quantify how a per mile charge might compare with what drivers currently pay through fuel taxes.

In a University of California study in 2025, researchers wrote that the cost of an RUC “ranges from 30% cheaper to 25% greater than the gasoline tax,” with a difference of “only +/-5% in most areas.” They added that the net impact was “a difference of only a few dollars over the course of the entire year.”

A separate report from RUC America said road usage charges resulted in a maximum added monthly cost of $1.35 and maximum savings of $3.32, with rural areas benefitting most because they “have less fuel-efficient vehicles than urban drivers on average.”

Collection methods vary, ranging from apps to odometer based reporting, including options that do not rely on GPS. Privacy concerns remain one of the central political obstacles.

“You could do congestion pricing. You could do layered pricing. You could use that data for multiple things, and you can still do it in such a way to protect people’s privacy,” Bryer said, calling it a “win-win for everybody.”

Washington State Transportation Commission materials on road usage charges also point to pricing flexibility that could support equity goals, including the potential to “reduce the tax burden on low-income motorists.”

Public acceptance may hinge on how the concept is presented. One Mineta Transportation Institute survey found 39% support for a flat rate road usage charge in place of a gas tax, rising to 51% when the charge was tied to a car’s emissions.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to follow us on Microsoft Start.