Oregon will move to tax cars by the mile
In a step toward making driving in your own vehicle akin to taking a taxi cab that charges by distance traveled, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski plans to recommend his state transition away from the gas tax in 2009, eventually replacing it with a mileage tax. A task force has studied how this could be done:
As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.” What that means is explained on the governor’s website:
“As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.”
According to the policies he has outlined online, [Gov. Ted] Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax. The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”
Northwest policy makers are increasing looking at alternative means of paying for roads. The Puget Sound Regional Council completed its own study of "road pricing" that would charge driver's tolls depending on where they drove and when. Study groups in Seattle has suggested transitioning to the same kind of system. Matt Rosenberg, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, had an overview of the so-called Vehicle Miles Traveled tax (VMT) here on Crosscut. Some officials are concerned that since we will run out of oil before we lose our interest in cars and trucks, a new way of funding transportation has to be found and user fees are one way to do that.
The Oregon mileage tax proponents claim that GPS satellite tracking systems installed in vehicles by the manufacturers would not gather or transmit data on where and when people travel, but multiple studies have cited public privacy as a major public concern.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 7:02 a.m. inappropriate
"multiple studies have cited public privacy as a major public concern."
--
DUH! You THINK?
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 7:51 a.m. inappropriate
What ever happened to the idea of checking the odometer?
At every emessions test, total mileage since the last test is calculated, and tax is paid at a rate of 1/x over the next x-years (until the next emissions test).
Can teh odometer be messed with? Yeah. But so could (potentially) any GPS recording system that's installed.
This is low-tech, but generally reliable - we use the car odometer reading for everything else.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 8:51 a.m. inappropriate
It's none of the government's damned business where or when I use my vehicle. The Big Brother toll systems like "Good to Go" are bad enough, but this is obscene. The gas tax is a tolerable, progressive tax that has the added benefit of encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. All this proposed system does is snoop on people and report their whereabouts to The State. The gas tax is simple, direct, and in the end accomplishes the same thing (taxing people based on what they consume in transportation infrastructure) without the added expense of the taxation devices or the intrusion into their privacy. I WILL NOT participate in such a program if it comes to Washington. Let them throw me in jail, the fascist bastards.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 10:27 a.m. inappropriate
I can't say about Oregon, the idea would go down in flames here and put the rightful cause of congestion pricing into a whole it might not climb out of.
Using the gas tax does have a nice built-in environmental subsidy - buy a vehicle that uses less gas and you pay less tax.
FWIW, the way to go is like a congestion priced HOT Lane. These work and people like the choice - actually taking away some of the stigma of the HOV lane from right wing folks.
The tough battle will be going from a one lane HOT to a two lane, perhaps reducing the free lanes to one.
This gets a bit techy, but this is also likely the time to roll out Intelligent Vehicle Systems - networked ABS systems and cruise controls with road and vehicle redundancy. When there are two lanes available, one of those lanes can be dedicated to vehicles so-equipped, starting with professional truck and bus drivers as well as the green-rich.
The time to start planning for that path is now.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 11:01 a.m. inappropriate
So why not just raise the gas tax? if Oregonians are, as the article suggests, buying more fuel efficient cars (high fives all around) then why would a complicated, likely expensive and surely cheatable miles-driven program offer any better solution than the gas tax? I read the article hoping to find that explained.
The only apparent explanation is that the Oregon Governor is not intelligent.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 11:33 a.m. inappropriate
This idea is DOA. It doesn't encourage fuel efficiency, and it leaves too much opportunity for fraud -- people disabling their transponders. Plus the privacy issue.
If gas tax revenues are falling due to efficiency, raise the per-gallon rate.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 12:08 p.m. inappropriate
Here's a novel concept: why doesn't Oregon stop having the lowest vehicle registration fee in the country ($54 for two years)? The U.K. imposes an annual fee called the Road Fund Licence (i.e., tax disk), which is on a sliding scale based on vehicle size and fuel consumption. No Big Brother equipment required!
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 12:34 p.m. inappropriate
Since gas taxes charge the driver per gallon consumed AND the efficiency of their vehicle already causes them to spend more or less on the gas tax based on their mileage what exactly is gained by this new policy other than a state-wide invasion of privacy. As there will be no net change in driving behavior nor tax collected one could readily conclude that tracking the travel of individuals was the only real goal.
Contrary to Mossback's stated view, policy makers are looking for every method possible to pay for anything OTHER than roads.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 1:14 p.m. inappropriate
Douglas, I don't know about right wing kooks, but as a libertarian kook I have a lot of problems with HOV lanes, foremost as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Yeah, I know, the Constitution is supposed to be a "living document" and, as such, means nothing; still I hold on to the romantic notion that the power of government can and should be restrained and the Constitution is a ready-made vehicle for doing that. I can see establishing a privilege lane for buses and registered van pool vehicles. I can even see a case for letting a car, with two or more LICENSED DRIVERS in it, use such a lane. But there is no way that an adult and a child constitute a car pool; neither does a cop riding alone in his car (although I'd admit an exemption for such a cop, lights and siren running, on his way to an emergency). Neither does an empty bus nor a car with out of state plates. HOV lanes are nothing more that a government program to establish an arbitrary privileged class and tax all citizens to support them.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 1:53 p.m. inappropriate
We should all thank carpool lanes for helping make the freeways more efficient.
Licensed drivers is the wrong cutoff. We shouldn't disincentivize non-drivers. Also, not that it matters, but some of us non-drivers pay more in taxes than the average driver anyway. I'd be ok with not including kids, because that incentivizes the drive-everywhere soccer mom lifestyle. Good luck getting that passed though.
As for cops and empty buses, we want both our police and transit systems to work efficiently, so whatever they need, they should get.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 3:46 p.m. inappropriate
I’m the administrator for the Road User Fee Pilot Program at ODOT. I understand that there is concern over Oregon's interest in a mileage fee. However, there is a few things I would like to explain.
Oregon is preparing to replace the gas tax when it no longer will be a adequate revenue source to fund our roads. Cars will be on the market next year that will get over 100 miles per gallon. This is great news for the environment but problematic for road funding. Knowing this problem is coming, Oregon has led the nation in developing possible solutions. Charging by the mile rather than by the gallon is one possible solution.
With that said, Oregon has worked through the details of developing a mileage fee system over the last seven years at the direction of the Road User Fee Task Force. Like you, the Task Force shared many of your concerns which we have addressed though our work as described below.
Privacy. ODOT was directed by the task force to protect the privacy of Oregonians while developing the mileage fee system. The mileage counting device that was designed for the study receives a GPS signal (much like a television or radio receives signals) to locate itself but does not transmit a signal. Therefore, there is no ability for anyone's car to be tracked. The mileage counter tallies miles driven within Oregon and does not create a travel history. A mileage fee could be charged without the use of GPS but the downside would be that Oregonians would be charged for miles driven out of state, something the task force wanted to avoid.
No retrofitting. ODOT’s mileage fee concept does not include installing any devices in existing cars. Instead we propose that auto companies equip the vehicles at manufacturing much like they already do with other government mandated standards like seat belts and emission controls.
Fairness. Some people assume all vehicles will pay the same mileage fee rate and this would be unfair to drivers of fuel efficient vehicles. This may not be true because the rates and structure have yet to be decided. A flat rate of one cent per mile was used for the pilot study however the rate could differ for different types of vehicles.
Rural motorists. Rural motorists could gain under a mileage fee proposal depending on how it is structured. Because we know that rural Oregonians drive larger, less fuel efficient vehicles, they are already paying more in gas taxes for driving the same miles as their urban counterparts. If the mileage fee was a flat rate, like one cent per mile like in the pilot test, rural drivers would actually pas LESS.
More info can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/mileage.shtml
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 3:49 p.m. inappropriate
So wait, how does this encourage better efficiency cars? If I'm taxed $.012/mile to drive a Ford F250, with 26" tires, and I'm charged the same to drive a Prius, what is the incentive to change? Sure, I'd save on gas, but I wouldn't have bought the F250 if I cared about gas prices anyway.
Hello, raise the gas tax! Though, no matter how you slice this, it's a regressive tax (Gas tax, or this one).
The local mayor in my city talked about charging homes a flat amount to cover road repairs, regardless of how many cars you had, or the kind of car. Again, why should someone with 1 small car (or a motorcycle) have to foot the bill for some jackass with 4 cars that drives around with studs half the year?
Ultimately, yes, this would encourage less driving, but until the US (or rather, the west coast) has an alternative to driving semi-long distances (Amtrak on the west coast sucks), there's really no way this will actually help anything, and it'll certainly cause privacy uproar.
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 6:37 p.m. inappropriate
Betsy Imholt is a typical ignorant Socialist Keynesian State Tax Consumer. Oregon should be renamed "The Gimme Gimme State". Portland and Salem are the biggest problems. High unemployment because they tax the hell out of businesses and productive people (close to 10%). A public transportation system that is useless and does not pay for itself through fares(ever wonder why there are no turnstiles for in/out at the MAX; it's a slushfund for the political class). A bridge system that needs upgrading, of which, the funding from the Feds has already been squandered and an overpaid/under-worked road crew( how many years did it take to do maintenance on the Burnside Bridge?) . An Urban Growth Boundary that did nothing but feed the credit bubble on real estate speculation. A water system that is disgusting(raw sewage is dumped right into the river; don't believe it, go to Cathedral Park).
They can't even get off their ass and plow the roads when it snows. And a tax on gasoline when prices were some of the highest in the USA. Now that commodities, real estate, assets and growth are tanking along with oil because of deflation and"peak credit", the socio-political geniuses are realizing their tax revenues from their collectivist scamming won't be enough to keep their great public/political class at it's comfort level. So along with them trying to work back door deals with Nissan to bring in a TAX PAYER FUNDED electric car system (which is a joke),and playing sweet bitch to the Obama Administration (moment of silence for the holy one...) on the whole "lets go build things we don't need, with money we don't have and make it look like we're doing something" crusade, they are trying to work out a new wealth extraction scheme seeing as how most other things that people own and use are going down in value or at the moment have a hard time being stably priced because of volatility. So why not just tax everyone when they move, right? They can't stand still all the time. It's not like they can cut back their bloated, corrupt public pensions and salaries or make them actually retire at a later age like normal working people have to. It's not like they could outsource public work to lowest bidder private firms and get rid of the "jobs program" for public/political parasite class(ie. state/city workers). It's not like they could hand Tri-Met over to private hands and make it pay for itself, or... gosh, make a profit. It's not like they could decrease local and state government and get rid of the useless spending. It not like they could get rid of all the social support clinics that are paid with tax dollars, turn them over to private funding, or... gasp, the churches, and actually make them do what they always say they are doing(supporting the community, ~lie~)and if they don't do it, start taxing them like a business.
No, can't do anything to tighten up on spending. That would be UN-AMERICAN and UN-PROGRESSIVE and UN-GREEN and UN-LIBERAL. Instead, they are going to rape the TAX PAYING populace just a lit bit more and a little bit deeper. All while the people stand there in stupid, giddy amazement. But don't worry, you'll eventually become numb to the pain you feel behind you. And don't worry, if you own one of the many useless businesses in Portland, maybe someone from Public Parasite Class will come in someday and give you some of your money back by buying a trinket. Of course... they will tax you on that money after you get it back.
No, at time when the state has a 2 Billion plus deficit( which they initially lied about and said they had a surplus), trillions of dollars of supposed public wealth have disappeared in the nation, unemployment is rising (and usually higher than national average in Oregon), The Baltic Dry Index is horrible (which means ports and shipping are tanking), credit markets are locked(new homes, cars, student loans, credit cards, etc.are going to be financed to people who neither want or need them; ie. top FICO score, if loans get made at all), the FED/Treasury is giving away corporate gift baskets in the form of trillions of dollars public money(say good-bye to the dollar)... what does government do? It taxes more and spends more. It penalizes people who are trying to save. All while raping you of any liberty you have left.
But hey, that new I-5 bridge will sure look nice. Too bad you wont have any money to even get across it when it's finally finished 10 years from now.
- I strongly suggest that every Libertarian, Independent and Conservative(if there are any out there with a shred of dignity left), to pounce on Kulongoski and remove this idea from even being considered. Kulongoski needs to be removed from Oregon politics. He is an ignorant political collectivist hack. NO CONFIDENCE. REMOVE HIM.
I'll close by letting you ponder the lyrics from Judas Priest:
Electric Eye by Judas Priest
Up here in space
Im looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I ...
Posted Tue, Dec 30, 8:42 p.m. inappropriate
Ms.Imholt I realize this is just one idea but it seems a ridiculous idea.
I'd like to question however, why Oregon has not just raised the vehicle registration rate that at this point is laughable. Just doubling it which would be no financial hardship at most should raise quite a bit.
More importantly however explain to me how this works with the many tourists/out of state folks that visit or pass through Oregon. Right now each of those vehicles that purchases fuel pays your tax. Which is fair since they are using your roads. If you eliminate this tax then basically the visitor will use your roads for free.
Do you expect visitors (non-car rentals) to actually install one of these idiotic devices or do you just expect Oregonians to pay for everything. I can tell you as a regular visitor to Oregon my visits would stop the day you required me to put any device in my vehicle. I'm sure that is the same for many other folks. Just think of it, less money spent in tourist areas and at the various other areas who cater to the visitors to your state.
An answer would be appreciated. Thank you.
Posted Wed, Dec 31, 2:27 p.m. inappropriate
Well, Ms. Imholt.....still waiting.
Posted Fri, Jan 2, 12:46 p.m. inappropriate
As is noted in previous posts, the gas tax does exactly the same thing, and has a built-in incentive for fuel efficient vehicles.
And the mileage based system--besides being overly complex--would become a minefield of necessary exceptions--not unlike the federal income tax code, which we all just love. For example, would a very necessary transportation system component like taxicabs get a break? Or would taxicab owners be paying the same rate as Lamborghini owners, out for a Sunday spin? The former needs highways to serve the public good; for the latter, the highway is solely a means to play with a toy. Why penalize the necessary?
Don't fix what works. As much as we might not like it, raise the gas tax, if you have sufficient justification for the need. But don't hide the absence of that justification with a silly--and broadly expensive-- change of clothing. All this proposal does is find another way to debate whether the need for additional highway revenue--and the transportation systems it funds--actually exists. I suspect the debate itself--if engaged in--will simply delay the fixing of roads.
If you don't believe there is a need, go drive around a bit. (Better yet, take a cab, so you can spend your time looking at what is bouncing you around.) Doesn't matter if it is the Seattle waterfront or downtown Spokane--potholes rule, and the piper must be paid to fix them.
Posted Sat, Jan 3, 12:28 a.m. inappropriate
Washingtonians will never accept a progressive income tax-- why do politicians think we would accept this?
The government doesn't need to know where I am at any given time, period. The proper response to the goverment on this one is "bugger off!".
Raise the gas tax (as the feds are sure to do).