A weight-distance tax: Apportion the burden fairly

A September conference at the Miller Center of Public Affairs raised an interesting proposal. Eighty transportation gurus at this U.Va. think-tank, headed by former Gov. Gerald L. Baliles, recommended imposing a penny or two "mileage tax" on Virginia's motorists.

The idea merits consideration; however, a much fairer way to address highway and related funding needs would be a weight-distance tax (WDT) on tractor-trailers and other behemoths of the roadways.

The Baptists and the bootleggers won fame for jointly promoting Prohibition in 1920. For years, truckers and the transportation bureaucrats have teamed up with legislative allies in Richmond to side-swipe such a proposal, which the American Automobile Association and Del. Kenneth R. Plum, D-Fairfax, have championed. The current crisis argues for smashing the three-way alliance, placing more of the burden where it belongs.

The concept of such a levy is straightforward. The owner of a large truck would pay a levy based on the miles traveled in the commonwealth times the average weight of the load carried — the data for which collect dust in the filing cabinets of several state agencies.

Why implement a weight-distance tax? The reason is that the General Assembly has continually allowed longer and heavier tractor-trailers, many of which are twin rigs. (The industry would introduce triple rigs if it could.) These mini-trains wreak enormously more damage on our infrastructure than automobiles and pickup trucks. They also make I-81 and other interstates more treacherous. Yet, truckers pay only a pittance of the ballooning cost to maintain existing arteries and build new ones.

In addition, officials generously issue "blanket permits" for overweight vehicles — in other words, for as little as $45 per year as of 2008 (with a possible $40/year mileage fee), you can cram your truck with far heavier loads than our roads are built to handle.

A number of states have successfully adopted the WDT. In Oregon, for example, truck owners need a Weight Receipt and Tax Identifier if their vehicle travels through the state and has a gross weight of more than 26,000 pounds.  Once an Oregon permit has been issued, monthly reports must be filed.  After one year, if your account is in good standing, you may apply to report on a quarterly basis.  Oregon also requires a bond of all new carriers. The amount of this bond varies.

Kentucky, New Mexico, and New York have enacted similar schemes.

A weight-distance tax would raise badly needed funds and promote fairness to automobile and small-truck owners who balk at forking over more taxes at the gas pump.

The initiative would also encourage the industry to use trucks with different configurations. For instance, additional axles properly spaced on these vehicles spread the weight more evenly and reduce wear and tear on the pavement. Another benefit could be greater reliance on trains, which neither destroy roadways nor intimidate drivers. Adopting the weight-distance tax would also be an important step toward imposing a weight-damage tax that would do even more to correct inequities.

Huge trucking companies regard the WDT as evil as a teetotaler viewed booze in the 1920s. No wonder the transportation sector has poured $17,193,601 into our state's political campaigns during the decade, even as it ingratiates itself with allies in the Division of Motor Vehicles, which issues the oversize/overweight documents.

Herbert Hoover called banning liquor sales "a noble experiment," and it was repealed in 1933. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the Old Dominion's motorists will sing the praises of a weight-distance tax — along with the politician who musters the courage to spearhead the plan.