"The case for a mileage fee," by Lee Munnich (March 15), offers a welcome solution to the state's intractable problem of funding transportation infrastructure: It is long-term, reliable and fair (and might even avoid partisan wrangling). Both parties are acknowledging our declining infrastructure and the need to find money to fix it; what better solution than a user's fee, with each of us paying for the wear and tear we impose on the system? While implementing such a system is challenging, we can learn from states like Oregon and California that are already moving in this direction. And thanks to the University of Minnesota and its Humphrey School of Public Affairs for continuing to explore real solutions for the state's problems; now will our legislators do the same?
George Muellner, Plymouth
• • •
Munnich starts with a premise that people who own high-mileage cars don't pay their fair share because these people "are driving just as much … and paying less for the same use."
Nonsense. High-mileage cars are always much lighter than other cars and, as a result, cause much less wear and tear on our roads. The very small number of electric cars do not pay gas taxes, but their high prices have them contributing more money at time of purchase and licensing.
Mileage taxes would force us to create a whole new government bureaucracy to track mileage and impose taxes and penalties. Our problem that nobody wants to admit is that our federal and state gas taxes have not gone up with inflation and do not give us enough revenue to fix our roads.
John Giese, St. Paul
• • •
How might a road user charge not work?
First, we enjoy road trips around the country. How would Minnesota miles be determined? Even an implanted, invasive car meter would not distinguish between roads and bridges crossed in Minnesota vs. other states. Would we pay for fancy highway road "readers" on state borders to signal the gadget when to start and stop recording Minnesota miles?