Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

AB3A

Mon Jun 12 14:04:08 -0700 2006

manage

Yeah, but at the very end of the article, there was mention of the concern that this milage based tax would not push conservation measures forward. 

In the existing tax methodology, he who buys the most gas pays the most tax.  Miles per gallon figure in to this equation.  Government revenue does get hurt if conservation takes hold, but then one would hope that taxable  economic recovery would more than make up for that missing revenue. 

I dunno.  I don't think much of this idea.  It also makes a database which can be used against such drivers.  What next?  GPS based evaluation of driver risk?  I'll bet insurance companies are salivating over this data.  Somehow I think the downsides outweigh the upsides on this project. 

However, if Oregon seeks to prove me wrong, I'm ready to watch them try.  However, pardon my skepticism, I really don't expect much good to come of this.

Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

President4242

Mon Jun 12 16:21:19 -0700 2006

manage

The key of this idea is more towards linking the revenue strongly to what the taxes are used for.  The revenues aren't being used to reduce gas mileage in cars- they're being used for basic road maintenance.  A two ton gasoline vehicle and a two ton hybrid cause the same amount of road damage- but one will pay half the taxes for it under the current system.

Myself, when I'm past my six month probation, I'm going to suggest a carrot and stick approach- reduce the database passed to the pump down to JUST aggregate data (Miles used and a rush hour flag), then pair with a cell phone map maker to provide bluetooth GPS data to the driver in real time.  That would speed the adoption by giving the driver back something immediate for choosing milage tax over gas tax.

Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Mon Jun 12 14:18:13 -0700 2006

manage

Way too much information collection! Rotten privacy design.

Drive up to the weigh station or DMV every year, get an official odometer reading, fill out a refund request for documented out-of-state miles (from your log, or produce pump receipts), boom, done. It would even deter used car dealers from rolling back odometers.

Or, since Oregon has this eccentric ban on self-service gas stations, enlist the gas station attendants in collecting data.

Or have people report in-stsate and out-of-state mileage when they renew their vehicle licenses. If they lie, they'll be caught when they sell the vehicle.

Much better than a log of every place you've been and how fast you drove to get there. Yes, the pump doesn't receive positional data yet but it is being collected.

The idea of per-mile taxes rather than per-gallon taxes makes a kind of sense. My Prius tears up the road as much as a Ford Escort, contributes just as much to the need for snowplows and police, but it sure doesn't produce as much gas tax revenue.

Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

mcrbids

Tue Jun 13 00:33:48 -0700 2006

manage

The idea of per-mile taxes rather than per-gallon taxes makes a kind of sense. My Prius tears up the road as much as a Ford Escort, contributes just as much to the need for snowplows and police, but it sure doesn't produce as much gas tax revenue.

You think that road damage is all that matters? Currently, more species are going extinct than at any time since the last major ice age, and you're worried about road damage?

Gas taxes should be per gallon for a reason - a gallon respresents a fixed amount that a car burns that is a measurable loss of our national sovereignty, our progeny's inheritance, and of our survivability on this ball of mud we call home. I strongly oppose "mileage" taxes - they negate the very thing we most need! - fuel-efficient, reliable, alternative-energy burning transportation.

In fact, I'd suggest that our government, in order to promote alternative energy, place a percentage tax on gasoline in order to fund the guaranteed purchase of biodiesel, butanol, and other bio-fuels at a price halfway between what  oil is going for on the open market and at the pump, to be sold at the pump. As fuel prices climb, so would this tax, proportionate to the amount of price climb. Make sure that the bidding process isn't exclusive, and as oil prices climb, biofuels become immediately and exponentially more attractive.

This provides a solid foundation for the financing of  R & D, and development in biofuels keeps monetary assetts at home instead of going oversees to fund terrorism and dictatorial sheiks, while providing insulation against price spikes - if fuel prices climb, bio fuels become instantly more profitable while requiring ventures that produce usable fuel at prices usably competetive with petro fuel.

That's Crazy!

bill_mcgonigle

Mon Jun 12 14:21:06 -0700 2006

manage

Which legislator's brother got the contract for this? The only positive benefit I can see here is the rush-hour tax and that's a regressive tax which I would think the Oregon politicos would be against.

I wonder when the first computer viruses will start spreading via gas pumps. Somebody here forgot about the KISS principle.

That's Crazy!

President4242

Mon Jun 12 16:23:51 -0700 2006

manage

The key here is road repair, and the positive benefit is that Prius owners would pay as much as a Escort owner (right now, the Escort owner pays MORE- despite the same damage being done to the roads by both vehicles).

I agree on the KISS principle though....

That's Crazy!

bill_mcgonigle

Mon Jun 12 16:32:26 -0700 2006

manage

The key here is road repair, and the positive benefit is that Prius owners would pay as much as a Escort owner (right now, the Escort owner pays MORE- despite the same damage being done to the roads by both vehicles).

You can handle that with a simple registration fee. I expect the cost of the tracking system will just about cancel out any benefit they reclaim from Prius owners. Which suggests to me other motives.

That's Crazy!

AB3A

Mon Jun 12 16:42:36 -0700 2006

manage

I think this method is like trying to swat a flea with a sledgehammer.   The opportunity to fake out the GPS (aluminum foil over the antenna anyone?) and/or hack the unit itself are manyfold higher than people who could screw with gas pumps. 

I see enforcement problems, privacy problems, and for what?  Why not make the Escort owner pay more  because of the extra fuel he uses?  The inequality of similar vehicle tax burdens on road funding is  a relatively minor problem in public policy.  Why is Oregon so hell bent to push this rope? 

I don't get it. 

That's Crazy!

President4242

Tue Jun 13 06:58:49 -0700 2006

manage

On the public side, it doesn't seem like much- but on the government side we're looking at an aging infrastructure that will require a LOT of repair and new construction in the next few years.  At just the wrong time too- as more fuel efficient vehicles cut back on fuel taxes.

That, and ODOT is the single biggest department in State government- because it gets ALL it's revenue from fuel and weight-mile taxes.  There's no room in the general fund, so if ODOT is going to keep operating, they've got to consider other sources of revenue.

However, having said all that- I agree with you- this is like trying to swat a flea with a sledgehammer....

That's Crazy!

logomancer

Mon Jun 12 18:11:02 -0700 2006

manage

The key here is road repair, and the positive benefit is that Prius owners would pay as much as a Escort owner.

This isn't really a benefit, especially when we're trying to cut back on fuel usage. Having to pay less gas tax as a result of having to use less gas is a point in the Prius' favor to someone who wants to buy a new car. Let's try to encourage the purchase of cars that do less harm to the environment, hmm?

Anyway, when there are more hybrids on the road than cars with conventional drivetrains, things will even out. Of course, we'll probably have to raise gas taxes in order to make up the reduced revenue, but one thing at a time...

That's Crazy!

President4242

Tue Jun 13 07:00:26 -0700 2006

manage

This isn't really a benefit, especially when we're trying to cut back on fuel usage.

ODOT isn't charged with cutting back on fuel usage- their *only* concern is road maintenance.  Hence the search for new sources of revenue that aren't tied to taxes.

Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

Mike

Tue Jun 13 09:30:12 -0700 2006

manage

Doesn't mean that those 10 ton tractor trailers will be paying an equivalent amount to the Escorts and Priuses who drive the same distance? I'm relatively sure tractor trailers do much more damage than sedans and coupes.

Gas Tax slowly replaced by GPS-Enabled Road Tax

President4242

Tue Jun 13 10:14:52 -0700 2006

manage

Tractor Trailers in Oregon already don't pay the same way passenger vehicles do- instead of fuel taxes, they pay weight-mile taxes through ODOT's Motor-Carrier Division, which runs "port of entry" scales all around the state (including a neat one which 75% of trucks now use, that weighs the truck in motion and assigns tax bills based on a transponder).  This GPS stuff is an attempt to extend the way tractor-trailers pay to cars.

Road Maintenance?

Anthony Taylor

Thu Jun 15 09:04:47 -0700 2006

manage

The whole "wear-and-tear" argument falls flat. Yes, a Prius causes just as much damage to the road as an Escort, but weather causes the most damage to a road. More money is spent on I-84 at Cabbage Hill per driver/mile than on I-5 in the middle of Portland, say. Probably by an order of magnitude or so.

This isn't about fairness. It's about data collection, and the ability for some tech firm to make a bundle of money at the expense of Oregon citizens. And later, when every car has the GPS system, it'll be used to monitor traffic violations, such as speeding.

The whole system is going to cost the Oregon government more. With the gas tax, collection is automatic, and requires very little oversight. OR will have to create new state positions to monitor and police the use of black-market devices designed to hack the GPS system. It *would* ge cool, as one poster mentioned, to be able to tie the GPS to your cell phone, for instance. But, that'd have to be supplied by the company who makes the GPS, and will only work with certain cell phones. Otherwise, you'd be "hacking" the GPS system.

Ergo, the need to police and regulate, resulting in new types of crimes, new government positions, and a constant supply of cash for some lucky tech company.

Perhaps I'm being overly-cynical. Maybe Scott McNealy is right, and we should give up on the idea of privacy. But then again, maybe we shouldn't put up with stupid decisions by our government.