• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Oregon considers subbing mileage tax for gas tax

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
The governor endorses the program, which would install GPS devices in every new car and free the state from the problem of falling gasoline tax revenue. Some drivers worry about privacy.

Reporting from Portland, Ore. -- For years, Oregon has been diligent about reducing the state's dependence on fossil fuels, but its environmental consciousness has come at a stunning price -- gas tax revenue is down $4.8 million a year compared with 2006.

That drop, caused by lower fuel consumption and a slowing economy, has prompted Oregon to consider a new way to pay for road repairs: Democratic Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski's upcoming budget calls for a highway tax based on mileage, not gasoline purchases.


A state task force will look at equipping every new vehicle in Oregon with a Global Positioning System to record every mile driven and where. Motorists would pay at the gas pump based on how much they drove, no matter how fuel-frugal their vehicle.

The plan still requires legislative endorsement and the full details could take several years to work out, but state analysts said the governor's endorsement is a crucial step toward solving what has become a problem in many states: dependence on a gasoline tax.

"This is a way to try to develop a fair funding mechanism that we're going to have to have if we're going to be aggressive in terms of looking at electric cars and hybrids and plug-ins and all those options, and at the same time continue to invest in our roads and infrastructure," said Rem Nivens, the governor's deputy communications director.


Oregon plans to spend $650 million on transportation projects next year, a smaller version of President-elect Barack Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending. Here, it will be financed in part by a 2-cent-a-gallon tax increase.

Jim Whitty, manager of the state transportation department's office of innovative partnerships and alternative funding, said the state already faces a $10-billion shortfall in financing transportation projects, and the number will climb unless the decline in gas tax revenue is addressed.

Only a major rethinking of highway finance can keep Oregon from running seriously short of transportation funding as early as next year, state officials say.

While Oregon appears to be out in front in looking at a mileage fee, several other states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Texas, have also expressed an interest in phasing out the gas tax in favor of charging motorists for how much they drive.

In Oregon, some drivers protest that the plan would discriminate against rural residents who may have to drive several miles just to get to the grocery store; create potential inequities compared with drivers from out of state; and raise privacy concerns, with Big Brother keeping a satellite watch over where everyone is driving.

"What's next? Tattoo numbers on your forearm?" wrote one commenter at Oregon Catalyst, a conservative website.

Jason Williams, executive director of the Taxpayer Assn. of Oregon, said: "This is just another wide-eyed government experiment that's going to fail and cost the taxpayer a lot of money. We basically see it as the next big boondoggle of 2009."

While the GPS mileage-counters could be programmed not to regularly report a vehicle's location, that wouldn't entirely eliminate privacy concerns, Williams said. "The fact that they tag your car to a certain place at a certain time means they're tracking your movements. So what happens in a divorce court when the wife tries to track where her husband was, or a boss tries to make sure you were where you were supposed to be?"

Some Oregon businesses have been eager to take advantage of the state's substantial tax credits for shifting to energy-efficient vehicles. The governor's proposal to expand the tax credit for electric cars to up to $5,000, combined with new federal subsidies, could allow Oregonians to save up to $12,500 on the purchase of an all-electric car.

Portland's Hot Lips Pizza already has converted five of its 14 delivery vehicles to all-electric, "and we're looking at definitely increasing that number," in part because some customers now specify that they want their pizza delivered in an electric car, said Lou Hijar, director of operations.

He said the company has not calculated how a mileage fee rather than a gas tax would affect its expenses, but is ready to look at the proposal. "We're always looking for the better mousetrap," he said.

State officials say they are committed to minimizing concerns about privacy and about inequity before implementing any mileage-based idea.

In a Portland trial program in 2006 and 2007, about 300 cars were equipped with GPS devices and every time drivers bought gas, they were charged 1.2 cents a mile -- about equivalent to the state's 24-cents-a-gallon tax assuming a vehicle that averages 20 miles per gallon.

"They drive up to the pump and there's a mileage reader there, very much like a modern toll reader, which identifies the car as a mileage fee payer, and the total mileage driven in each zone is transferred by a wireless radio frequency that goes into a database, and the mileage fee rates are applied," Whitty said.

In Kulongoski's proposal, GPS devices would be installed only in new vehicles, and would monitor mileage only on Oregon roads. Drivers from outside the state would pay the standard gas tax, Whitty said.

The monitors could also allow the state to charge higher fees for rush-hour travel in congested areas, Oregon officials say. Seattle recently conducted such a trial with GPS and found that drivers were much less likely to enter congested areas when charged to do so.

California has also looked at mileage fees, but "we're still talking. We're not there yet," said Elizabeth Deakin, professor of city and regional planning at UC Berkeley.

She said the increasing variation in vehicles' fuel efficiency has impelled the national debate over how to pay for transportation expenses.

"A vehicle that gets 20 mpg pays more gas tax, but doesn't actually use that much more road than my hybrid does," she said. "I'm not paying much gas tax. I'm getting kind of a free ride. Of course, you can say that's not a bad thing, because it gave me an incentive to pay more money for the hybrid."

Mileage fees don't have to involve GPS trackers, Deakin said. They could be as simple as submitting periodic odometer readings -- when renewing car registration, for example -- or setting an estimated average that everyone would pay. (In the latter scenario, drivers could be invited to prove they drove less, and car sellers could be charged if their odometer readings were higher than they should be.)

Whitty acknowledged that he thinks Oregon "won't be able to complete this without assistance from the federal government, or a consortium of other states," because of such complications as the GPS cost to manufacturers for cars sold in Oregon; the likelihood that some Oregonians would just go out of state to buy cars without the GPS; and the potential inequity with drivers from out of state.

"We know what we need to do," Whitty said.

"Now the other states have to decide whether they want to use our system or try their own."

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...9jan04,0,4080617.story

Are you kidding me? 😕
Whatever happened to good old Oregon?
I thought it's usually considered one of the best states to live in, but now it's about to be turned into a police state.

I know AT has a LOT of Oregon residents, so I wonder how they feel about this.

BTW, cue in Dave in 3...2....1.....
 
Originally posted by: Lothar
The governor endorses the program, which would install GPS devices in every new car and free the state from the problem of falling gasoline tax revenue. Some drivers worry about privacy.

Are you kidding me? 😕
Whatever happened to good old Oregon?
I thought it's usually considered one of the best states to live in, but now it's about to be turned into a police state.

I know AT has a LOT of Oregon residents, so I wonder how they feel about this.

BTW, cue in Dave in 3...2....1.....

What about me? My work colleague Owen at the time installed the tracking system in Oregon on 2004 while I was installing Louisiana's system.

We fully expected that the Government would require people to be chipped by now for the system. That will be next after the cars.
 
Seems like a bad a idea- besides privacy it actually penalizes those who drive economical vechiles. Why should someone 30mpg focus pay 3x more tax than someone in their Viper roadster?

Why not just raise pump tax to a flat rate?
 
States been milking the higher gas prices. Last thing I read on GA was they tax not a flat rate but a percentage. That's why back in the late 90s GA had the cheapest gas at around, 70 cents or so. Once the price of gas raised up, we were getting taxed more per gallon, and no longer were we the cheapest. I'm sure the state has gotten used to having more funds for projects so it'll be interesting to see what happens if the price stays low for a year or so. Hell they already replaced most of the bridges in the state the past few years, what else could they find to do.
 
People outside of Oregon seem far more concerned about it than those of us inside. The winds of public opinion are not going to be in favor of a millage system, it was only 4 (or 6?) years ago that we shot down a proposal for replacing the gas tax with a weight-mile system for trucking; I don't expect the public has warmed up much to the idea since then. Kulongoski is right that something needs to be done to better align road use, taxes, and fuel efficient cars, but this is Ted throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks. It'll be presented along side the option to raise gas taxes (which is what needs to be done) and the gas taxes will be what wins.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Lothar
The governor endorses the program, which would install GPS devices in every new car and free the state from the problem of falling gasoline tax revenue. Some drivers worry about privacy.

Are you kidding me? 😕
Whatever happened to good old Oregon?
I thought it's usually considered one of the best states to live in, but now it's about to be turned into a police state.

I know AT has a LOT of Oregon residents, so I wonder how they feel about this.

BTW, cue in Dave in 3...2....1.....

My work colleague Owen at the time installed the tracking system in Oregon on 2004 while I was installing Louisiana's system.

We fully expected that the Government would require people to be chipped by now for the system. That will be next after the cars.

But you installed it anyway. Some revolutionary you are. :laugh:

 
This is nothing but a response to higher mileage vehicles. In typical govt fashion they push in two directions. Force higher CAFE standards then yap about the drop in taxes. In essence all a fuel tax is, is a mileage tax. They just dont like the mileage now.
 
What a horrible horrible idea on so many levels. Big brother takes another huge step towards total monitoring and control, another huge government administrative program in the making, expensive unneeded gps devices for everyone, and it's actually a disincentive for buying more fuel efficient cars. I'll pay the exact same amount in fuel taxes driving a prius as I would driving a hummer. That's just batshit insane in every way.
 
A GPS system in every car? Sounds like someone in the Oregon government might have connections to a GPS manufacturer. I'd imagine that that would take a very pricey contract to put one in every car. Rewriting a few laws would seem like a much better idea.
Would the current GPS satellite system also be able to handle the increase in load?

Plus they'll lose out on the revenue generated by things that don't really put on much mileage: Things like lawnmowers, small engine vehicles, and generators probably don't account for much fuel usage, but what about industrial and construction vehicles? Some of them can do a full day's work without putting on a single mile.


Seems like a rewrite of the current tax laws would be a much easier solution.
Besides, these governments were able to get by back when gas was $1/gallon. They probably just got acclimated to the increase in revenue, and now are unwilling to cut back expenses.


Paraphrasing Lewis Black, "One politician says 'I've got a really bad idea!' and the other one says 'And I can make it shittier!'"

They're doing a damn fine job of that.


 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
A GPS system in every car?

Sounds like someone in the Oregon government might have connections to a GPS manufacturer.

I'd imagine that that would take a very pricey contract to put one in every car.

Rewriting a few laws would seem like a much better idea.

Would the current GPS satellite system also be able to handle the increase in load?

The system is static from above other than bird count so there is no "load" on the satellites themselves.

The system on the ground is dynamic and where you may see "loading".

It's not any different than the toll passes many people already have on their windshields.

Many cities are already tracking all vehicles that have built in GPS such as Atlanta.

I just passed through a city that had portable ground beacons (mounted on the construction type rigs on a trailer) because they hadn't gotten around to digging in the permanent towers yet.
 
Really, really dumb. The GPS trackers cost money, and the upside to gas taxes is people who drive fuel efficient cars benefit. Why would they want to take away part of the advantage of driving a fuel efficient car? 😕 Fuel efficient cars are generally lighter and cause less wear on roads anyway.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, the ever hungry tax and spend types ramping up their plan - color me shocked...
Versus your heroes, who simply try to do away with the "tax" part, but spend like their lives depend on it.


Republican or Democrat, either side has a penchant for coming up with creative ways of pissing away our tax dollars on frivolous bullshit and bad solutions to simple problems.


 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
A GPS system in every car? Sounds like someone in the Oregon government might have connections to a GPS manufacturer. I'd imagine that that would take a very pricey contract to put one in every car. Rewriting a few laws would seem like a much better idea.
Would the current GPS satellite system also be able to handle the increase in load?

Plus they'll lose out on the revenue generated by things that don't really put on much mileage: Things like lawnmowers, small engine vehicles, and generators probably don't account for much fuel usage, but what about industrial and construction vehicles? Some of them can do a full day's work without putting on a single mile.


Seems like a rewrite of the current tax laws would be a much easier solution.
Besides, these governments were able to get by back when gas was $1/gallon. They probably just got acclimated to the increase in revenue, and now are unwilling to cut back expenses.


Paraphrasing Lewis Black, "One politician says 'I've got a really bad idea!' and the other one says 'And I can make it shittier!'"

They're doing a damn fine job of that.

I would have to agree to is part 1984 half corruption. I bet it is more the map makers pushing this then the GPS receivers manufacturers.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Really, really dumb. The GPS trackers cost money, and the upside to gas taxes is people who drive fuel efficient cars benefit. Why would they want to take away part of the advantage of driving a fuel efficient car? 😕 Fuel efficient cars are generally lighter and cause less wear on roads anyway.

They still have the advantage of spending a lot less money on gasoline. I agree with you that fuel efficient cars are generally lighter and cause less wear on roads. However, why should someone with an electric vehicle pay zero in taxes to drive on roads? (not that electricity isn't taxed, but there's no road tax on electricity). It seems that this is the fairest method, when coupled with tax incentives to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.
 
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: mugs
Really, really dumb. The GPS trackers cost money, and the upside to gas taxes is people who drive fuel efficient cars benefit. Why would they want to take away part of the advantage of driving a fuel efficient car? 😕 Fuel efficient cars are generally lighter and cause less wear on roads anyway.

They still have the advantage of spending a lot less money on gasoline. I agree with you that fuel efficient cars are generally lighter and cause less wear on roads. However, why should someone with an electric vehicle pay zero in taxes to drive on roads? (not that electricity isn't taxed, but there's no road tax on electricity). It seems that this is the fairest method, when coupled with tax incentives to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.

Why not increase the tax on those who think people should pay more for driving more? The left seems to be always willing to tax others, put your money where your mouth is and start paying more YOURSELF and set an example.
 
Road Usage taxes based upon how much one uses the Roads seems like a good idea. The Privacy issue would/should be the biggest concern though. I seriously doubt that High Mileage vehicles are driven significantly more than their counterparts and that Owners of such vehicles will lose any(or significant) Cost advantage they have.
 
Wow...this sure does sound like an invasion of privacy. However, I can see why they would want to implement this. However, it would seem more economical to simply move the gas tax to a percentage of total sale instead of a per gallon rate and simply reevaluate the ad valorem taxes you pay on vehicles based on average road wear/tear (by weight would make the most sense here) instead of only by net worth or model year. It would save them a lot of hassle and expense of a tracking system.
 
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
What a horrible horrible idea on so many levels. Big brother takes another huge step towards total monitoring and control, another huge government administrative program in the making, expensive unneeded gps devices for everyone, and it's actually a disincentive for buying more fuel efficient cars. I'll pay the exact same amount in fuel taxes driving a prius as I would driving a hummer. That's just batshit insane in every way.

The citizens (or perhaps better said, "subjects") of Oregon can wear ankle tracking bracelets for all I care. Better to keep them in their own state under the benevolent eyes of the nanny state.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, the ever hungry tax and spend types ramping up their plan - color me shocked...
Versus your heroes, who simply try to do away with the "tax" part, but spend like their lives depend on it.


Republican or Democrat, either side has a penchant for coming up with creative ways of pissing away our tax dollars on frivolous bullshit and bad solutions to simple problems.

:thumbsup: Unfortunately, I have to agree 100% with your assessment..... 🙁
 
Why not just raise the gas tax? That is the simplest, most direct way to impact fuel consumption. Unfortunately it also happens to be the most politically unpopular, because people know that it actually works.
 
How about they just restructure and remove government positions to reduce cost just like every other corporation in america.
 
Back
Top