Video & Transcript Research : 'mileage'

Page 1 of 31
ND

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Senate Transportation Apr 3rd, 2025 at 10:00 am

Transportation

Bills: HB1053
Summary: The committee took up House Bill 1298 and first discussed an amendment from Senator Paulson that would add variable electronic speed limit signs to the bill while leaving the 80-mile-an-hour provision unchanged. Members said the signs would be used on interstates I-29 and I-94 in selected problem areas, based on weather or accident conditions, and that the proposal would not require a fiscal note. The discussion then broadened to Senator Rummel’s concerns about related bills, especially 2243, 1250, and 1229. He argued that the House changes were removing municipal authority to double fines, lowering or eliminating points for serious traffic violations, and undoing prior Senate positions. Several members said they were willing to use HB 1298 as the vehicle to restore the earlier fine and point provisions, including the 29 violations previously assigned three points, and to avoid concurring with the House versions. Members did not take final action on the amendments or the bill. Instead, they agreed more work was needed and asked Legislative Council to prepare a combined amendment and options for the next meeting. The committee recessed and scheduled further discussion for the next morning.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Transportation Committee Aug 25th, 2025

Transcript Highlights:
  • The rate of the mileage rate is fairly similar. Next slide, please.
  • The mileage-based fee versus the annual flat one? Yeah, great question.
  • Yeah, so it depends on the mileage reporting option that they use.
  • So I'm going to talk about Virginia's mileage choice program.
  • The mileage-based user fee, the mileage choice program, it's not an alternative to the gas tax; it's
Summary: The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support. The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance. Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use. Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.