Should Colorado replace its gas tax with a road usage charge?

“It’s the gas tax, stupid!” Dec. 17 Chuck Plunkett column.

Chuck Plunkett’s column noting that the gasoline tax has not kept up with the times, while generally correct, fails to accurately describe the situation. Many think that gasoline taxes pay for the roads, and therefore that people in all-electric vehicles are getting a “free ride.” Plunkett does nothing to correct that false notion. In fact, gasoline taxes provide a only a minor and shrinking portion of roadbuilding and maintenance budgets. Most of the money comes from the general fund (sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, etc.), which means drivers of electric cars are paying plenty, as are people who do not even drive at all.

Raising the gas tax is not only long-overdue, practical (the collection infrastructure is already in place, unlike for the road usage charge, which Plunkett supports), and largely fair (given the minuscule percentage of all-electric cars on the road). It would also have the benefit of perhaps slightly reducing road usage, making it an effective twoprong benefit. When electric cars start to become prevalent, perhaps another tax method will make more sense, but not yet. ●●●

Chuck Plunkett and other supporters of the road usage charge all seem to miss a major flaw in the RUC logic — different cars have wildly different fuel efficiency.

I own a 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid. I average about 40 miles per gallon on regular gas. If I am going down a hill or stopped for a light, my gas engine shuts down completely. If I am driving up a grade or on the flat, the electric motor is contributing a good share of the power need. A typical gas-only sedan gets 20-25 miles per gallon, and the large pickup trucks never get out of the teens. Plus, the better the vehicle’s fuel efficiency, the less air pollution it emits in general.

Put simply, asking drivers of high-MPG cars to subsidize drivers of lower-MPG cars is nuts.