http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2008/12/28/news/community/1aaa02_road.txt

Kulongoski to pursue mileage tax
By Hasso Hering
Albany Democrat-Herald

A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.

Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.

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, 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.”

The online outline adds: “The governor is committed to ensuring that rural Oregon is not adversely affected and that privacy concerns are addressed.”

When the task force’s study and test were in the news in 2006 and 2007, critics worried that the technology could be used to track where vehicles go, not just how far they travel, and that this information would somehow be stored by the government.

In more than one interview with the Democrat-Herald and others, James Whitty, the ODOT official in charge of the project, tried to assure the public that tracking people’s travels was not in the plans.

The task force’s final report came out in November 2007. It was based largely on a field test in which about 300 motorists in the Portland area and two service stations took part over

10 months, ending in March 2007.

A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.

The final report detailed the technical aspects of the program. It also stressed the issue of privacy.

“The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in real time or of travel history,” the report said. “Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements.”

Also, the report said, under the Oregon concept of the program, “ODOT would have no involvement in developing the on-vehicle devices, installing them in vehicles, maintaining them or having any other access to them except, perhaps, in situations involving tampering or similar fee evasion activities.”

Equipment for the Oregon test was developed at Oregon State University.

Whitty said last year it might take about $20 million to establish that the mileage tax is commercially viable. Eventually, GPS devices would have to start being built into cars, and fueling stations would have to be similarly equipped.

The gas tax would stay in force — Kulongoski has proposed that it be raised 2 cents — for vehicles not equipped to pay the mileage tax.



********



Nice job, pretentious-ass hippie hybrid drivers. Way to give big brother an excuse.

I think we touched on this in the global warming thread about a year ago, but let this be a lesson to all of you. When you live in energy efficient ways and revenues, be they private or public, drop below fixed costs, everyone ends up paying for it. Even the poor. And black people. And gays. And foster kids. And Palestinians. You heartless scum!

In principle, though, I'd say a mileage tax is a much fairer way to pay for roads than a gas tax. It's just difficult, in practice, to find out how much people drive without spying on them.

Apart from the spying part, which I think we all agree is awful, why is a mileage tax fairer than a gas tax? Don't fuel efficient vehicles harm the roadways less over time and therefore the less efficient should be paying more to maintain them?

One idea that I once had would be to tax gas progressively. The tax is bracketed depending on how much gas you use. Once you use over X amount you pay a higher tax.

It would require technology that would communicate between the gas stations and the car computers. (This might be easier in Oregon since you are forced to allow attendants to fill your tank), but you wouldn't have to track how far the cars went as Kulongoski's plan does.

I can't see this happening personally. Seems like a lot of work to implement. Probably wouldn't affect me much either way...I maybe drive 100 miles a week.

Yes, but now the state will know where your dealer lives.

How are more fuel efficient cars better for the roads? I could see that being the case to the extent that fuel efficient cars are lighter, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Technology has as much an effect on efficiency as weight. For instance, a Prius weights almost 3,000 lbs, while the first generation Accord weighed just 2,000 lbs.

Even if the dealer is out of state?
This part im not sure how its going to work.. will the computer just shut off? Will it still charge you for the mileage? And then you are only charging the residents, not the tourists, out of state commuters, etc.

Primarily the weight thing. Also, trucks, which tend to have lower fuel economy, usually have tires that are tougher on pavement than say, a Geo or other econoboxes.

Gas taxes may not be a perfect measure, but I think it's a better measure than straight mileage, and we shouldn't be doing anything to discourage more fuel efficient vehicles, IMO.

Well, I'd agree that we shouldn't discourage fuel efficient vehicles. I do wonder, though, if a gas tax isn't incredibly regressive. After all, fuel efficient technology is expensive, and older, cheaper cars tend to be less fuel efficient. Is the prospect of paying less for gas enough motivation for fuel efficiency, even without gas taxes?

Personally, I think toll roads are the most fair way to pay for road maintenance, but that's just me.

Any sales tax is regressive, and yes, older shittier cars are hit harder, but this is a case where I think the public good of discouraging the use of older cars outweighs the additionally regressive nature of the tax. Plus, an old Tercel still gets better mileage than a new Mercedes, so I don't think this really holds much weight.


It's not enough of a motivator WITH gas taxes, so I see no reason why it would be so without them.


I come from the land of toll roads. It is hell, and the roads are for shit. They work great for interstate traffic, but they kill local residents.

I hate having to pump my own gas.

You think I don't have my shit delivered son??

So when he gets busted, the state will know where all his customers live.

Which is exactly why the good people of Oregon will never allow this idea to come to fruition!

This.

Additionally, fuel inefficient vehicles should have a luxury tax involved when purchasing them. I'm not sure if something like this exists, but it should. Maybe an additional $3,000-5,000 tax on all SUVs.

PS, this makes me more likely to move to Oregon, not less. And if this chases people who don't care about the environment away from the state, that doubly makes me want to live there.

But it rains all the time in Oregon.

First, cars and trucks on roads really don't have much of an impact on modern day roads. Except maybe some rural roads. Roads today are constructed and designed in such a way that what travels atop them really doesn't do much of anything negative to break it down.

The biggest thing that destroys roads is the weather. 99% of road deterioration is weather related. Primarily freezing and thawing of roads. Without cars, this alone will destroy roads.

I really love the Northwest. In Washington, they tell you to get fuel efficient cars. They give you special tax credits, they tax and punish the hell out of you for buying an SUV. Then when it snows incredible amounts, they don't even salt the roads. All of this in the name of the environment. And when the roads are all packed in snow, they tell you to stay home unless you have an SUV or large 4 wheel drive vehicle. Hilarious.

And now in Oregon, they do the same thing. They bait people into buying these worthless hybrids and electric cars, these tin cans on wheels. You'll pay less money they say. Less taxes. Less gas! The environment wins! And then when their revenue falls...well...they go after you still. They intrude upon your privacy. Oh...it's a great thing. It's about the "environment."

California tried invading peoples homes by controlling their thermostats. Oregon wants to monitor how far you drive. Their just chippin' at the ole block.

Someday you folks will get a clue.

Who is "they" that are "chippin' at the ole block?