Automobile Black Box Tracks Mileage

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/national/25gas.html

Seeking Fiscal Health Without Gas Tax
By SARAH KERSHAW

CORVALLIS, Ore. ? Two professors were cruising around the campus of Oregon State University here in a Ford Explorer. A wireless black box, mounted on the dashboard, tracked the miles in a test of a per-mile fee system that state officials said might one day replace the state's 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax.

The professors drove to the edge of campus, a laboratory with an old gas pump. The mock service station was equipped with computers that read the black box and calculated how many miles the professors had clocked, broken into categories ? in-state, out of state and during rush hours ? and levied a tax based on the miles driven rather than gallons burned.

The Oregon experiment is among several efforts across the country designed to increase state revenue for road maintenance and construction without raising gasoline taxes. Oregon's examination of a "vehicle miles traveled tax" comes at time when many states are facing depleted transportation budgets, chiefly because of inflation.

Projections indicate that the financial situation will worsen in the years ahead as fewer gas tax dollars are collected, especially in states that have pushed use of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Oregon is one of 10 states to have adopted a "clean cars program," a set of incentives designed to reduce pollution related to global warming, according to the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups. Now, energy experts say, it is among the most aggressive in testing a way to offset the financial effects of those environmentally friendly policies.

Estimates show that by 2025 at the latest, state and federal fuel efficiency measures to reduce oil consumption and emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide will cut per-mile gas costs by 15 percent to 25 percent, according to the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Less conservative projections suggest that those cost reductions could happen by 2015 or earlier, depending on the pace of sales of fuel-efficient cars.

Reduced consumption would undoubtedly result in a huge hit to the tax dollars collected by many states, which rely on gas taxes to pay for most highway costs ? particularly states on the West and East Coasts. In Oregon, for example, 80 percent of the state highway money comes from its gas tax.

States on the coasts have also been the most aggressive in pursuing ways to reduce gasoline consumption, and consumers have been more apt to buy the fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids.

In a signal of growing consternation about the declining tax revenue, $100 million was earmarked in President Bush's latest proposed budget to test alternatives to the gasoline tax on a broad scale, according to the federal Department of Transportation. Oregon officials hope to tap into some of those dollars to expand the experiment here.

A pilot program based on the experiment rolls out at the end of March and will last at least a year. Within the next six weeks or so, 280 paid volunteers will have their cars equipped with a global positioning system that will allow the vehicles to be tracked by computers installed at two Portland service stations, where the drivers will be required to fill up.

The Oregon program is being watched closely across the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but it has also touched off some privacy concerns because the same system could be used to track a driver's location.

Critics say the G.P.S. records collected by the service stations could be subpoenaed for any number of reasons: criminal cases involving terror suspects or civil cases like divorces, where, for example, a suspicious husband or wife may seek gas pump receipts to prove the whereabouts of a spouse.

"I think what we've learned since Sept. 11 is that federal law enforcement seems to have an insatiable appetite for every bit of information that might be available," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group in Washington. "The existence of such a database, which would, for the first time in history, allow for the creation of detailed daily itineraries of every driver, raises obvious privacy concerns."

Proponents of the Oregon experiment acknowledge that the privacy issue must be addressed, but the State Legislature would ultimately address such policy questions if the gas tax were to be replaced by the G.P.S. fee system. Under the pilot program, data collected at the two participating service stations will be routinely erased, except for the most recent gas pump receipt, said James M. Whitty, manager of the Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding at the State Department of Transportation.

"There is modest information accessibility here," Mr. Whitty said, adding that the system would track where a motorist filled up but would not go beyond whether the miles were driven inside or outside the state and whether they were driven during a morning or evening rush.

But Mr. Sobel said that if too much data was erased, customers would not be able to dispute charges by seeking their records, as can be done through credit card companies.

The actual per-mile tax under the Oregon system would be determined by state lawmakers. But for the purposes of the pilot program, it is set at 1.2 cents a mile, with extra taxes imposed on miles driven during rush hour and none for miles driven in other states or when there is no G.P.S. signal. The total works out to be roughly on par with the current state gas tax, officials said.

"It's a complete idea," said Mr. Whitty, who along with the professors here began work on the mileage tax in 2001, after the Legislature mandated an examination of alternatives to the traditional gas tax. The $2.9 million experiment was financed by both state and federal money.

It is too early to know whether such a system would discourage people from buying fuel-efficient vehicles. Mr. Whitty said he had heard of some drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles being upset. Others, though, were feeling guilt about having paid fewer taxes than most drivers, he said.

Mr. Whitty also said that the privacy concerns might stem largely from fear of the unknown, even as global positioning systems are common now in vehicles because they can help drivers with directions, among other things.

Tell me if I'm reasoning this right, my brain seems to be farting right now:

If I drive a fuel efficient car for say 400 miles, and fill up with say 13 gallons.
Then someone else drives a gas hungry car for say 200 miles, and fills up with 13 gallons.

Fuel efficient car, 400 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00/gallon (no tax) + 400 miles * $0.012/mile = $30.80

Gas guzzler, 200 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00 gallon (no tax) + 200 miles * $0.012/mile = $28.40

Obviously a couple bucks isn't a huge difference, but how is that promoting fuel efficiency? Sure its promoting less driving which is a plus, but it I suppose "penalizes" people less for poor fuel efficiency....

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 

NoMoMoney

Member
Feb 17, 2005
161
0
0
It's not for fuel efficiency. The gas tax was always meant as a usage tax (for using roads). You get charged for how many miles you drive on roads. I'm not saying it is right, but that is what the angle is here. The gas guzzlers pay a larger portion of the usage tax then the fuel efficient cars.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
Originally posted by: NoMoMoney
The gas guzzlers pay a larger portion of the usage tax then the fuel efficient cars.
Gas guzzlers tend to be much heavier than fuel efficient cars (not always true). Don't heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads? Shouldn't heavier vehicles pay more per mile?

 

rezinn

Platinum Member
Mar 30, 2004
2,418
0
0
Well the obvious way it promotes fuel efficiency is that you still got about 13 miles per dollar while the gas guzzler got 7.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tell me if I'm reasoning this right, my brain seems to be farting right now:

If I drive a fuel efficient car for say 400 miles, and fill up with say 13 gallons.
Then someone else drives a gas hungry car for say 200 miles, and fills up with 13 gallons.

Fuel efficient car, 400 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00/gallon (no tax) + 400 miles * $0.012/mile = $30.80

Gas guzzler, 200 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00 gallon (no tax) + 200 miles * $0.012/mile = $28.40

Obviously a couple bucks isn't a huge difference, but how is that promoting fuel efficiency? Sure its promoting less driving which is a plus, but it I suppose "penalizes" people less for poor fuel efficiency....

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Your math is right, but your logic is wrong. You need to look at cost per mile, not cost per gallon.

By the logic you used, there is zero incentive now to buy a fuel efficient car since gas prices are the same for both.

You're also forgetting that the cost to maintain the roads varies with the number of miles driven, and it only loosely connected to the number of gallons of gasoline used. What states are facing right now is a circumstance where they cannot take in enough revenue to maintain the roads because cars are too efficient and causing more wear on the roads per gallon used. Hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles do more damage per gallon than less efficient cars, which is causing problems for states.

ZV
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
those crazy hippies!

my parents will be moving out of Oregon within 1-2 years , i don't think they'll miss it
 

Ime

Diamond Member
May 3, 2001
3,661
0
76
It's just another way they can raise taxes. I'm sure they'd keep the gas tax, and then just add this as extra.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
they've merely figured out how to collect micro-tolls for usage.
they might even charge more for dually pickups and things with many axles like they do on toll roads.
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: NoMoMoney
The gas guzzlers pay a larger portion of the usage tax then the fuel efficient cars.
Gas guzzlers tend to be much heavier than fuel efficient cars (not always true). Don't heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads? Shouldn't heavier vehicles pay more per mile?
Both good points.

Originally posted by: rezinn
Well the obvious way it promotes fuel efficiency is that you still got about 13 miles per dollar while the gas guzzler got 7.
Very true! Gosh I knew my brain was crapping on me:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $30.80 / 300 miles = $0.102 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $28.40 / 200 miles = $0.142 per mile

And for the gas tax version:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $29.12 / 300 miles = $0.097 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $29.12 / 200 miles = $0.146 per mile

:p

That makes so much more sense now, jeebus I wasn't thinking straight. Increases cost for gas guzzler, decreases cost for fuel efficiency; works for me!

Now onto the whole practicality and privacy issue....;)
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Your math is right, but your logic is wrong. You need to look at cost per mile, not cost per gallon.

By the logic you used, there is zero incentive now to buy a fuel efficient car since gas prices are the same for both.

You're also forgetting that the cost to maintain the roads varies with the number of miles driven, and it only loosely connected to the number of gallons of gasoline used. What states are facing right now is a circumstance where they cannot take in enough revenue to maintain the roads because cars are too efficient and causing more wear on the roads per gallon used. Hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles do more damage per gallon than less efficient cars, which is causing problems for states.

ZV
Bah, logic, who needs it? ;) Thanks, I finally got my head straight.

Good point on the hybrid road usage though, more wear and tear.
 

crystal

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 1999
2,424
0
76
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Tell me if I'm reasoning this right, my brain seems to be farting right now:

If I drive a fuel efficient car for say 400 miles, and fill up with say 13 gallons.
Then someone else drives a gas hungry car for say 200 miles, and fills up with 13 gallons.

Fuel efficient car, 400 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00/gallon (no tax) + 400 miles * $0.012/mile = $30.80

Gas guzzler, 200 miles, 13 gallons: 13 gallons * $2.00 gallon (no tax) + 200 miles * $0.012/mile = $28.40

Obviously a couple bucks isn't a huge difference, but how is that promoting fuel efficiency? Sure its promoting less driving which is a plus, but it I suppose "penalizes" people less for poor fuel efficiency....

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Your math is right, but your logic is wrong. You need to look at cost per mile, not cost per gallon.

By the logic you used, there is zero incentive now to buy a fuel efficient car since gas prices are the same for both.

You're also forgetting that the cost to maintain the roads varies with the number of miles driven, and it only loosely connected to the number of gallons of gasoline used. What states are facing right now is a circumstance where they cannot take in enough revenue to maintain the roads because cars are too efficient and causing more wear on the roads per gallon used. Hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles do more damage per gallon than less efficient cars, which is causing problems for states.

ZV

In another word, with all the demand/project demand for fuel efficent cars in the future, the tax collectors see their revenue going down. They need to the think of a plan to get the most out of the tax payers.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
the greenies want to punish all of the evil SUV drivers , that is the bottom line. they want to tax vehicles they oppose more than ones they like. and just people in general that use too many resources
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
the greenies want to punish all of the evil SUV drivers , that is the bottom line. they want to tax vehicles they oppose more than ones they like. and just people in general that use too many resources
Um, if you use more resources, shouldn't you pay for it? :confused:
 

archcommus

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2003
8,115
0
76
I don't think this would bother me too much, but the damned box better be 100% free and be installed for me. :p I'm not bending over backwards for their new rules.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: FoBoT
the greenies want to punish all of the evil SUV drivers , that is the bottom line. they want to tax vehicles they oppose more than ones they like. and just people in general that use too many resources

WTF are you talking about, this proposed change does the EXACT opposite.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Ime
It's just another way they can raise taxes. I'm sure they'd keep the gas tax, and then just add this as extra.

of course. people will complain for a few months then it will stop
 

ZetaEpyon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Very true! Gosh I knew my brain was crapping on me:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: 300 miles / $30.80 = $12.98
Gas guzzler $ per mile: 200 miles / $28.40 = $7.04

Now with the regular gas tax ($0.24 tax in that state) assuming $2.00/gallon:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: 300 miles / $29.12 = $10.30
Gas guzzler $ per mile: 200 miles / $29.12 = $6.86

That makes so much more sense now, jeebus I wasn't thinking straight. Increases cost for gas guzzler, decreases cost for fuel efficiency; works for me!

Now onto the whole practicality and privacy issue....;)

You still did the math wrong for $ per mile. It should be:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $30.80 / 400 miles = $0.077 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $28.40 / 200 miles = $0.142 per mile

And for the gas tax version:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $29.12 / 400 miles = $0.073 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $29.12 / 200 miles = $0.146 per mile

Edit: Fixed to use the same numbers you used in the earlier post.

It's very slightly cheaper for the guzzler, and very slightly more expensive for the efficient car, on a per mile basis. This makes sense given the intent of the test.
 

fbrdphreak

Lifer
Apr 17, 2004
17,555
1
0
Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Very true! Gosh I knew my brain was crapping on me:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: 300 miles / $30.80 = $12.98
Gas guzzler $ per mile: 200 miles / $28.40 = $7.04

Now with the regular gas tax ($0.24 tax in that state) assuming $2.00/gallon:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: 300 miles / $29.12 = $10.30
Gas guzzler $ per mile: 200 miles / $29.12 = $6.86

That makes so much more sense now, jeebus I wasn't thinking straight. Increases cost for gas guzzler, decreases cost for fuel efficiency; works for me!

Now onto the whole practicality and privacy issue....;)

You still did the math wrong for $ per mile. It should be:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $30.80 / 300 miles = $0.102 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $28.40 / 200 miles = $0.142 per mile

And for the gas tax version:

Fuel efficient car $ per mile: $29.12 / 300 miles = $0.097 per mile
Gas guzzler $ per mile: $29.12 / 200 miles = $0.146 per mile

So essentially, it's slightly more expensive per mile for the efficient car, and slightly cheaper per mile for the guzzler. Which makes perfect sense considering the aim of the test.
:eek:
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I would have big issues with them having a GPS device on my car. it also has problems with who pays for the box's? do you have to pay for them and have them istalled? what if youj move out of state? what if someone is visiting the state? what about driving on private property?


it should be intersting that happens on this. just glad i do not live there.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
I suspect that whole idea is that the mileage tax would be variable (that's why the system would use GPS). The 'toll' per mile would depend on the type of road, and on the time and date. The idea would be to discourage use of private vehicles at peak times - but not unduly penalize people who need to drive but are able to be a bit flexible.

The 'black box' in your car would use a combination of GPS transmissions and roadside beacons to calculate the prevailing toll rate and bill you accordingly. So, if you're driving out in the boonies in the middle of the night - you might pay $0.01 per mile - but if you're driving on the freeway into LA at 7:30 am on a Monday morning then you might pay $0.20 per mile.

A similar sort of system has been proposed in the UK for some time and has been subject to much discussion and development - although there is still no news as to how practical it is, and what sort of time frame it could be implemented on.

There are concerns about privacy. This is a development system and one reason that it collects so much personal data is so that statistics on journeys can be accurately obtained.

These issues could be addressed in a production system - E.g. a black box wouldn't need to store any information. Tolls could be calculated and debited on-the-fly. Transponder units on bridges, etc. could periodically check passing vehicles for a functioning box, and sufficient credit - any violation could then trigger a camera for further action. (Same way as the speedpass things work on toll roads). If data did need to be stored in order to dispute charges - then a possible privacy solution is for the box to log it to a personal smart card that the driver could take with him and/or erase at will.

One of the reasons that it does use GPS is so that there is the opportunity to recognise public roads and private property as well as classes of road. It should be easy enough to waive charges for miles driven on private property.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: Mark R
I suspect that whole idea is that the mileage tax would be variable (that's why the system would use GPS). The 'toll' per mile would depend on the type of road, and on the time and date. The idea would be to discourage use of private vehicles at peak times - but not unduly penalize people who need to drive but are able to be a bit flexible.

The 'black box' in your car would use a combination of GPS transmissions and roadside beacons to calculate the prevailing toll rate and bill you accordingly. So, if you're driving out in the boonies in the middle of the night - you might pay $0.01 per mile - but if you're driving on the freeway into LA at 7:30 am on a Monday morning then you might pay $0.20 per mile.

A similar sort of system has been proposed in the UK for some time and has been subject to much discussion and development - although there is still no news as to how practical it is, and what sort of time frame it could be implemented on.

There are concerns about privacy. This is a development system and one reason that it collects so much personal data is so that statistics on journeys can be accurately obtained.

These issues could be addressed in a production system - E.g. a black box wouldn't need to store any information. Tolls could be calculated and debited on-the-fly. Transponder units on bridges, etc. could periodically check passing vehicles for a functioning box, and sufficient credit - any violation could then trigger a camera for further action. (Same way as the speedpass things work on toll roads). If data did need to be stored in order to dispute charges - then a possible privacy solution is for the box to log it to a personal smart card that the driver could take with him and/or erase at will.

One of the reasons that it does use GPS is so that there is the opportunity to recognise public roads and private property as well as classes of road. It should be easy enough to waive charges for miles driven on private property.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah that's gonna happen
 

tw1164

Diamond Member
Dec 8, 1999
3,995
0
76
Wouldn't just be easier to require you to pay the tax on an annual basis, like when you get your care inspected (emissions or safety)?
 

Tsaico

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2000
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: tw1164
Wouldn't just be easier to require you to pay the tax on an annual basis, like when you get your care inspected (emissions or safety)?

With the way US saves money... doubtful...
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,584
985
126
I think this is stupid as hell. Basically, you are creating a disincentive to buying a fuel efficient vehicle.

The vehicles that cause the most wear and tear on the roads are not small cars like the Prius. It is big heavy gas guzzling vehicles. I think the states just want to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. There is no crisis. They just want more money to spend.

Edit-Oh, and what is it going to cost to implement this plan? Who's going to pay for all those black boxes? Who is going to monitor it and how are you going to be billed? How are they going to collect the money? Stupid stupid idea.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

The vehicles that cause the most wear and tear on the roads are not small cars like the Prius. It is big heavy gas guzzling vehicles.

per gallon of gas used which causes more wear and tear?


and no one has discussed exactly what the rate structure would be. you're all playing the jump to conclusions game.
Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.