I’m not a fan of class warfare arguments in politics — because they breed resentment and are frequently wrong on the facts. But I make an exception in the case of paying for our roads and bridges using a gas tax, which certainly favors the wealthy, who can afford to buy the latest gas-free (or at least very fuel efficient) models, over the poor, who might be driving around the same old gas-guzzling truck they bought used a decade ago.

The idea of the gas tax made a lot of sense when everyone drove inefficient (to modern standards) gas-powered vehicles. As a typical “user fee,” the idea was that the more one drove, the more gas they would buy; and the more gas they’d buy, the more they would contribute to funding the roads. Since those who drive more typically put more wear and tear on the roads, requiring those who bought more gas to contribute more to road funding was fair.

But the math has changed — a lot.

If we take two drivers — one, a rural resident with a beat-up old truck that gets 10 MPG; and the other, an urban resident with a hybrid that gets 60 MPG — their contribution to North Carolina road funding per mile driven is drastically different. If they both drive 16,073 miles in a year, the state average according to Policy Genius, the guy with the 10 MPG old truck will buy 1,607 gallons of gas that year, while the hybrid driver will buy 268 gallons.

With a 40.5-cent tax per gallon, the truck owner pays about $650 per year in gas tax, while the hybrid owner will pay one-sixth of that, at $108 — for using the roads the same amount. Hybrid owners pay an additional $90 per year to make up some for this disparity, but most are still unlikely to break $200 in their contribution to the state’s roads annually.

The EV owner pays $0 in gas taxes for that vehicle. So they would at least contribute something, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law a few years ago requiring a registration fee for electric vehicles, which is now $180, and for hybrids, which is $90 as mentioned above.

I remember when that fee went into effect because I was working for state Sen. Kathy Harrington’s office, who was co-chair of both the Senate Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee at the time. Electric and hybrid vehicle owners were not happy about this new fee. But it was clear the gas tax was not going to cut it long term, as revenue was dropping due to fuel efficiency, even as many people moved to the state.

When this electric-vehicle registration fee recently went from $140 to $180, due to a formula based on inflation, there were articles across the state quoting EV owners saying things like, “I’m saving the environment with my vehicle. Why should I be punished with this extra fee?”

But the roads have to be funded. It’s not about punishing EV owners. As some on the left are fond of saying in other areas of tax policy, the wealthy just need to pay their fair share. The reality is, according to Bloomberg News, about 60% of vehicle sales will be EVs by 2040. It won’t be long after until EVs are the majority of vehicles on the road. Having these drivers contribute to road funding is vital if we want to maintain something approximating a user-fee model.

Some states are experimenting with a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee, where everyone pays a flat rate based on an odometer reading during their annual inspection. With a VMT of about 2 or 3 cents a mile, we’d likely be able to get rid of the gas tax and EV/hybrid registration fees. Oregon’s VMT pilot rate is 1.8 cents, but ours would likely need to be higher than other states because North Carolina funds most roads at the state level. Other states typically have an extensive system of county roads as well.

To avoid voter anger, legislators would be wise to avoid the problem of sticker shock, where people pay the entire bill at once. Since they’re used to gradually contributing to roads throughout the year when they buy gas, maybe systems can be put in place to have the money taken out gradually too.

Government-efficiency watchdogs are bullish on VMTs as a replacement for the gas tax, with the Tax Foundation saying:

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) taxes are the road funding tool of the future. For decades, the gas tax proved to be a reliable user fee that funded road construction and maintenance, and consumers paid for their road usage via gasoline taxes when they filled up at the pump. Unfortunately, gas tax revenues have decoupled from road expenses and have been unable to support road funding in recent years.

Toll roads are another user fee that has many strong advocates, but tolls tend to be very unpopular with drivers. More energy now appears to be with VMTs as the solution.

There are also options that are not user fees, like pulling tax money from unrelated sources. This year, for the first time, the North Carolina General Assembly approved about 6% of sales-tax revenue to be spent on roads to make up for the gas tax’s shortfalls. If legislators don’t act, their hand might be forced, and raiding ever-larger amounts from other revenue sources, like from the sales tax, might be the easiest solution.

This week, Carolina Journal highlighted a study by DC-based research group National Transportation Research Nonprofit that found North Carolina’s $656 million spent for 2022 road funding was $341 million short of NCDOT’s recommendation of $997 million. NCDOT responded to CJ’s request for comment by saying they are working with the NC Chamber and others “to find sustainable funding solutions for declining transportation revenues” and have even launched a website reaching out to the public for input on the matter.

If all this means that the motor-fuel tax is on the way out, this would also benefit those who buy diesel fuel for heavy machinery in construction and agriculture. In a period of rising prices, this could help keep the cost of food and housing down. It is no small thing to eliminate 40.5 cents on the price per gallon of diesel, which is $3.60 today in North Carolina and would be $3.20 without the tax.

There are a number of potential solutions to this long-term road-funding problem. It’s fairly clear, though, that in the future, we won’t be relying primarily on the gas tax. And this is a good thing.

Currently, it is not a true user fee, where the more a person drives, the more they pay. It’s a two-tier tax system that greatly favors those who can afford new vehicles, like hybrids or EVs, and greatly disadvantages poorer and more rural drivers, who drive older and heavier vehicles. It also disadvantages families with children, like mine, who have to buy larger vehicles with more seats.

Thankfully, there’s little choice but to look quickly for a better way.