Ah, "it's not fair" is the great rallying cry of the masses. It really
means "make somebody else pay for the benefits I enjoy."

The damage each driver causes to the roads is based on how many miles
they drive and only vaguely on how much gasoline they burn; from that
perspective a mileage tax makes more sense than a gasoline tax. The
problem with the proposals discussed in the article is the intrusive
notion of the government putting a GPS system in your car and monitoring
where you drive- which is none of their business. A simple odometer
reader would be far more reasonable, but even this introduces problems
with how to bill and collect those revenues. A whole new government
administration would be required.

The damage drivers do to the environment from burning fossil fuels is
based on how much fuel they burn, not on how many miles they drive. A
"carbon tax" for funding addressing the problems thus created makes
sense and appropriately places the burden on people who drive
inefficient gas guzzlers (with apologies to poor folks who can only
afford cheap, used and generally boat-like cars).

The gas tax is paid up front and is practically invisible to the
consumer, which makes it easier to collect. The decline in gas tax
revenues is not due solely to people driving more fuel efficient cars,
however, it is largely due to people just driving less- billions of
miles less in 2008 than in 2007. This has the effect of reducing wear
and tear on the roadways, which in turn should reduce governmental costs
and reduce the burden on the gas tax collection system; however. locally
at least much of the damage to the roads is caused by weather and that
will proceed apace whether people drive or not.