Taxing Drivers By The Mile

http://tinyurl.com/6kuzj
States Mull Taxing Drivers By Mile
CORVALLIS, Ore., Feb. 14, 2005

(CBS) College student Jayson Just commutes an
odometer-spinning 2,000 miles a month. As CBS
News Correspondent Sandra Hughes reports, his
monthly gas bill once topped his car payment.

"I was paying about $500 a month," says Just.

So Just bought a fuel efficient hybrid and
said goodbye to his gas-guzzling BMW.

And what kind of mileage does he get?

"The EPA estimate is 60 in the city, 51 on
the highway," says Just.

And that saves him almost $300 a month in gas.
It's great for Just but bad for the roads he's
driving on, because he also pays a lot less
in gasoline taxes which fund highway projects
and road repairs. As more and more hybrids
hit the road, cash-strapped states are warning
of rough roads ahead.

Officials in car-clogged California are so
worried they may be considering a replacement
for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with
something called "tax by the mile."

Seeing tax dollars dwindling, neighboring
Oregon has already started road testing the
idea.

"Drivers will get charged for how many miles
they use the roads, and it's as simple as
that," says engineer David Kim.

Kim and fellow researcher David Porter at
Oregon State University equipped a test car
with a global positioning device to keep
track of its mileage. Eventually, every car
would need one.

"So, if you drive 10 miles you will pay a
certain fee which will be, let's say, one
tenth of what someone pays if they drive
100 miles," says Kim.

The new tax would be charged each time
you fill up. A computer inside the gas
pump would communicate with your car's
odometer to calculate how much you owe.

The system could also track how often you
drive during rush hour and charge higher
fees to discourage peak use. That's an
idea that could break the bottle neck on
California's freeways.

"We're getting a lot of interest from
other states," says Jim Whitty of the
Oregon Department of Transportation.
"They're watching what we're doing.

"Transportation officials across the
country are concerned about what's going
to happen with the gas tax revenues."

Privacy advocates say it's more like big
brother riding on your bumper, not to
mention a disincentive to buy fuel efficient
cars.

"It's not fair for people like me who have
to commute, and we don't have any choice
but take the freeways," says Just. "We
shouldn't have to be taxed."

But tax-by-mile advocates say it may be
the only way to ensure that fuel efficiency
doesn't prevent smooth sailing down the road.

You know what they need to do?

Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.

A lot of our problems would be solved then.

Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
> You know what they need to do?
>
> Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
>
> A lot of our problems would be solved then.

Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
"truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the EPA's
MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG in
the city should pay more, and so forth.

Sherman Cahal wrote:
> Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
> > You know what they need to do?
> >
> > Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
> >
> > A lot of our problems would be solved then.
>
> Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
> "truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the
EPA's
> MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG
in
> the city should pay more, and so forth.

Just raise the gas tax. It's the fairest method, still encourages
conservation (perhaps more so than at present) and doesn't introduce
any more bureaucracy into our already over-bureaucratized government.
Of course, it's a) politically unpopular and b) makes sense, so that
idea is at a disadvantage to other, more complicated and wasteful
solutions.

nate

N8N wrote:
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
> > > You know what they need to do?
> > >
> > > Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
> > >
> > > A lot of our problems would be solved then.
> >
> > Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as
a
> > "truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the
> EPA's
> > MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG
> in
> > the city should pay more, and so forth.
>
> Just raise the gas tax. It's the fairest method, still encourages
> conservation (perhaps more so than at present) and doesn't introduce
> any more bureaucracy into our already over-bureaucratized government.
> Of course, it's a) politically unpopular and b) makes sense, so that
> idea is at a disadvantage to other, more complicated and wasteful
> solutions.
>
> nate

Yes, raise the gas tax. Knowing that if they get a mileage tax put in,
it will be over an above whatever the current tax is anyhow. Be a cold
day in hades before a beaurocrat will ever lower a current tax. In
effect all they are doing is raising the gas tax anyhow.

Harry K

In article . com>,
Sherman Cahal > wrote:
>Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
>"truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the EPA's
>MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG in
>the city should pay more, and so forth.

Why not just raise the gas tax? It would penalize drivers who either
a) drive a lot of miles; or b) get poor mileage.

I'm not enthusiastic about paying more to the government, but if they're
determined to squeeze more out of us, wouldn't it be a lot simpler to
raise the gas tax than install gadgets in every car and every gas pump
(and create a whole new infrastructure and bureaucracy to support them)?

I see a *lot* of questions about a system like what's being discussed, and
I just don't see the advantages to be gained (other than the politicians
being able to say "we didn't raise the tax, we just added a fee" -- bull!).

Gary

On 16 Feb 2005 14:43:24 -0800, "Sherman Cahal" > wrote:

>Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
>> You know what they need to do?
>>
>> Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
>>
>> A lot of our problems would be solved then.
>
>Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
>"truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the EPA's
>MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG in
>the city should pay more, and so forth.

Just raise the gas tax if they're really in bad straights with respect to
revenues, which I doubt. I don't agree with raising the tax or creating a new
one to "penalize" either certain people or certain vehicles.

Bump the gas tax up by 50 cents a gallon and use the proceeds to build more
roads - not widen old one, but build new ones

-OR-

use the proceeds to build some new rail technology that is available to carry
cars and

1) Runs on electricity, preferably nuclear.
2) Runs a whole lot faster than roads can be driven.
3) Runs at zero emissions.

We need more space to get places in terms of concrete and guideways and rails
and so forth. Even consider elevated roadways, built directly over existing
roadways. No, I don't know how to do this without shutting down the existing
road, but if someone else does, then great - do it.

As for GPS, that's a nutty solution. The GPS receivers themselves do not work
100%, as they get blocked by tall mountains and tall buildings and wet forest
canopy and... deliberately placed foriegn objects over the antenna, such as tin
foil. You can bet that half the units wouldn't be servicable at any given
time. The state of California wouldn't be getting any $$$ from all the
tourists they attract that drive in, and the then there's the initial cost to
purchase and install the GPS receivers. There's _WAAAAAY_ too many problems
with this approach to make it practical, let alone the privacy invasion that is
sure to follow when legislators get the bright idea that they can download
people's travels and figure out where they've been as well as ding them $100
for every time they exceed the speed limit.

The whole thing stinks. Just raise the gas tax, if absolutely necessary.

Dave Head

> "Dave Head" > wrote
>
> use the proceeds to build some new rail technology that is
> available to carry cars and
>
> 1) Runs on electricity, preferably nuclear.
> 2) Runs a whole lot faster than roads can be driven.
> 3) Runs at zero emissions.

This would require tearing up entire urban areas and rebuilding
them. the U.S. has been built around the car and any attempt to
switch to a mass transit system is simply going to be too expensive.

Ed Stasiak wrote:

>> "Dave Head" > wrote
>>
>> use the proceeds to build some new rail technology that is
>> available to carry cars and
>>
>> 1) Runs on electricity, preferably nuclear.
>> 2) Runs a whole lot faster than roads can be driven.
>> 3) Runs at zero emissions.
>
> This would require tearing up entire urban areas and rebuilding
> them.

Where is Mrs. O'Leary's cow when you need it?

--

Stu

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:
>> You know what they need to do?
>>
>> Regulate SUV's as commercial vehicles.
>>
>> A lot of our problems would be solved then.
>
>Oh I definately agree! Tax SUV owners, who currently register it as a
>"truck" when its clearly not. I got another proposal: Tax by the EPA's
>MPG estimates. People who get below 20 MPG on the highway or 10 MPG in
>the city should pay more, and so forth.

That's what happens at the pump right now. Those behemoths use more gas,
so they pay more. Pretty simple and logical.
--------------
Alex