The national system benefits from roads in and across rural states and areas. Without such roads, it would be difficult-if not impossible-to move people and goods between major urban areas, as is required for both a prosperous national economy and continued personal mobility.
Many people have expressed concern that broader use of tolling and pricing is inconsistent with the national interest in a strong surface transportation network in and across rural states and areas and that wide-scale use of pricing and tolling approaches could have negative equity impacts on rural citizens. The fact that residents of rural areas tend to have lower income levels than metropolitan residents and thus already pay a larger share of their income
The effects of a shift to VMT pricing on rural residents are complex and not yet fully understood; more study and analysis of potential rural equity issues under different pricing approaches is needed, especially given the relatively limited alternatives to driving long distances that are available to people in rural parts of the country. | for transportation highlights the need to ensure that any new surface transportation funding strategies, including tolling and pricing, do not create additional equity issues. In many if not most cases, traffic densities in rural areas do not support new road projects funded fully by tolls (this is often true in urban areas as well), despite the fact that rural roads are often less costly to construct per lane mile than roads in urban areas. And with implementation of comprehensive road pricing, if prices are based on the cost of system components used, rural drivers could have to pay more per mile than urban drivers because the costs would be spread over fewer users. For example, Montana has only 66 people per centerline mile of federal-aid highway compared with a national average of 311 people.76 Without mitigation for population density disparities (and assuming relatively limited use by out-of-state travelers), rural citizens could have to pay road charges that are higher than those charged urbanites for traveling the same distance. The impacts of a comprehensive pricing system on rural equity issues will depend on how it is implemented. If, for instance, a federal pricing system is established as a fixed rate per mile regardless of location or specific system cost (comparable to current motor fuel taxes), rural residents should generally not pay more than they do via the gas tax (recognizing that they already bear a relatively high burden based on the high number of miles they travel). If, alternatively, rates (either at the federal or state/local level) are adjusted based on specific system costs allocated by direct roadway use, then rural citizens could be adversely affected, as the per-mile cost for rural system components would likely be higher in many instances. |
With respect to a flat (or universal) VMT charge, some context is required to understand the potential impacts. The Oregon road pricing pilot project found that rural residents drive about 10 percent more than urban drivers, and testimony before the Commission suggested that this differential may be larger in other rural states.77 In addition, data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey indicate that citizens in rural areas drive 34 percent more miles per year than people in urban areas, and the difference is even greater in rural western states.78 Thus, when compared with citizens in urban areas, those in rural areas consume more fuel to drive the additional miles and currently pay more in annual motor fuel taxes. Shifting to a flat VMT fee structure would not necessarily change this pattern, since rural citizens are indirectly paying by the mile now through the gas tax.
A key variable in making the comparison is vehicle fuel efficiency: rural citizens who drive relatively high-efficiency vehicles (i.e., consuming less fuel) could end up paying more than they do now based on the gas tax (assuming no adjustments for fuel efficiency). At least one study, however, has found that the vehicles of rural residents, on average, are less fuel-efficient than those of urban residents,79 suggesting potential inequities caused by high-efficiency vehicle use may be limited in rural areas. In fact, drivers whose vehicles get below average miles per gallon will see a reduced cost of vehicle use following implementation of a national flat VMT fee. It is not clear, however, how vehicle choice in both rural and urban areas could change in the future.
Overall, the effects of a shift to VMT pricing on rural residents are complex and not yet fully understood; clearly, more study and analysis of potential rural equity issues under different pricing approaches is needed, especially given the relatively limited alternatives to driving long distances that are available to people in rural parts of the country. To be fair and equitable and to support national mobility goals, any comprehensive VMT fee structure will need to incorporate appropriate pricing approaches for all parts of the country (including low-density areas) so that travel is affordable to all citizens while still ensuring adequate funding is provided to support needed investment across the country.