[typoon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in674120.shtml

(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 his team 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 bottleneck 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.

This is by far one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. WHy don't just tax the amount of air we breathe and get over with it. That is what it seems like it is coming to. This will also hurt the whole idea of finding alternative fuel cars and trying to make things better for the environment. Politicians never met a Tax they didn't like. This is a good example of it if it ever comes true.

[adamk]

Originally posted by typoon:
[url]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.

This is by far one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. WHy don't just tax the amount of air we breathe and get over with it. That is what it seems like it is coming to. This will also hurt the whole idea of finding alternative fuel cars and trying to make things better for the environment. Politicians never met a Tax they didn't like. This is a good example of it if it ever comes true.

my first question is how would that implement it without imposing big brother-like technologies such as GPS? oh that's what they want to do. keeping track of odometer changes doesn't provide the where you've been but could also infringe on privacy - keeping track of a person's usage. also, odometer fraud would become more commonplace.

secondly, hybrid's fuel-efficiency comes partially from reduced weight which actually would help lessen road deterioration (sp?) compared to a regular car. larger engines and increased fuel-usage come from the fact that the vehicles they are driving are heavier.

any car will cause damage on a road after a while, but i don't see how people can complain that a light fuel-efficient car causes as much damage as a heavy gas-guzzling two-ton pickup. the gas tax seems like a fair practice in this case, and even more so since hybrids reduce environmental engine emissions into the air (if you want to take that into consideration).

[OldManMac]

This isn't going to happen. The outrage would be astronomical, and it would be prohibitively expensive to convert gas pumps and add electronics to your car to communicate with them, it would be very difficult to get everybody to agree on a fair tax rate, etc. That's not to say that some politicians wouldn't love to see it.

[vmarks]

Government never met a tax it didn't like.

They'll use GPS to tell the gas pump or drive through toll booth how much tax to assess, and then the next thing you know....


The next thing you know, they'll have it calculate the speed at which you travelled between points and assess the speeding ticket as well.

Where will it end?

The right to travel freely is an extension of the right to peaceably assemble; After all, you cannot assemble if you cannot freely travel to assembly.

[Sherwin]

Americans, fight this for all you're worth. For two reasons:

1) The only way they can do this is by monitoring your movements via GPS. Civil liberties anyone?

2) Restricting people's movements via mileage tax will hammer your economy, especially if they use a system where there's a sliding scale (i.e. first 300 miles/month is free, after that you pay).

--

Sounds like your government is about as "joined up" as ours. Ours is currently promoting flexi-time (variable start-finish time rights for all employees) and car-pooling. Doesn't take a real high IQ to see that the two are incompatible.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
They'll use GPS to tell the gas pump or drive through toll booth how much tax to assess, and then the next thing you know....

The next thing you know, they'll have it calculate the speed at which you travelled between points and assess the speeding ticket as well.

Where will it end?

AFAIK, the system proposed here (same thing) doesn't work like you're probably thinking. Here they've proposed that the GPS keeps track of the position of your vehicle at all times, not just when you hit the gas station or toll booths.

The systems tested here can calculate your speed and adjust your maximum speed limiter depending on which road you're on. Thus it'd be impossible for you to do 31 mph in a 30 zone (car groups keep telling them that this would be unsafe, for example if you needed to get out of the way of something quickly but couldn't).

[adamk]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Sounds like your government is about as "joined up" as ours. Ours is currently promoting flexi-time (variable start-finish time rights for all employees) and car-pooling. Doesn't take a real high IQ to see that the two are incompatible.

except in the case where employees who can carpool go to work at the same time. and have different car pools start at different times. that seems to encompass both car-pooling and flexi-time. i'll refrain from the IQ pissing tests.

which country is this anyway?

[Wiskedjak]

I appreciate the privacy and tax concerns. What would be an alternative to ensuring that roads are maintained in drivable conditions? The roads in the Detroit area are horrible with potholes that are big enough to swallow a tire and cause serious damage. I can't imagine what the roads would become like if there were less funds available for maintenance.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by adamk:
except in the case where employees who can carpool go to work at the same time. and have different car pools start at different times. that seems to encompass both car-pooling and flexi-time. i'll refrain from the IQ pissing tests.

Yep. But when you consider that 89% of people here work in companies with four or less employees, that doesn't really work. I mean, which "different" car pool would they be catching when the whole outfit can fit into one car?

Originally posted by adamk:
which country is this anyway?

England.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. But when you consider that 89% of people here work in companies with four or less employees, that doesn't really work. I mean, which "different" car pool would they be catching when the whole outfit can fit into one car?

i can see how you would be hard-pressed to get that to work. i saw a system in san francisco wherein people get rides from one specific place to another e.g. from berkeley BART (across the bay bridge) into downtown. people heading that way stop and pick up people lined up and take them in (provided the two are comfortable with it).

seems to have the benefit of not requiring people to work at the same place, start at the same time, nor have to live in the same immediate area.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I appreciate the privacy and tax concerns. What would be an alternative to ensuring that roads are maintained in drivable conditions? The roads in the Detroit area are horrible with potholes that are big enough to swallow a tire and cause serious damage. I can't imagine what the roads would become like if there were less funds available for maintenance.

1. Less Pork in Spending bills. That'll never happen.
2. I don't know about where you are but here in NJ the tolls we pay are supposed to go to rebuilding our roads. That is another way it could be done.
3. Using the Gas tax to help pay for road repairs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by typoon:
3. Using the Gas tax to help pay for road repairs.

The issue that is bringing this topic up is the potential loss of that revenue if people begin to migrate towards hybrid and alternatively fueled vehicles. The gas tax would appear to be one of the primary sources of revenue for road maintenance. How does that revenue get replaced as a lack of dependence on gasoline decreases?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The issue that is bringing this topic up is the potential loss of that revenue if people begin to migrate towards hybrid and alternatively fueled vehicles.

I seriously doubt that. There's ulterior motive here, for sure - otherwise they'd just raise gas taxes, tax the alternative fuel or tax the vehicles at sale time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I seriously doubt that. There's ulterior motive here, for sure - otherwise they'd just raise gas taxes, tax the alternative fuel or tax the vehicles at sale time.

Of course there's an unterior motive ... there always is with governments.

However, it is an interesting question. If road maintenence is funded by fuel tax, what happens if vehicles become more fuel efficient?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Of course there's an unterior motive ... there always is with governments.

However, it is an interesting question. If road maintenence is funded by fuel tax, what happens if vehicles become more fuel efficient?

They would have to find alternative ways to fund it. Either by reducing the amount of pork in bills they pass (which will NEVER happen) or they could use tolls or other forms or revenue that they already collect from.

I think it's more the Big Oil companies that might also be behind this also. Hybrids also cut into their profits as well. The Gov't would most likely raise the gas tax or something to offset the loss.

[tie]

I'd like to say first that this idea is old news. Here is a quick link from March 2003 mentioning the idea as a rumor. (The reporter followed up the rumor and found support for the idea within the Oregon DMV and also in a study by U. Minnesota.) Last year, the head of the California DMV publicly came out in support of the idea (using GPS tracking), so it became more than a rumor. I don't know what is prompting CBS to pick up the story now.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Of course there's an unterior motive ... there always is with governments.

However, it is an interesting question. If road maintenence is funded by fuel tax, what happens if vehicles become more fuel efficient?

I don't see what the problem is. The fuel efficiency of America's fleet of cars has been dropping steadily for something like the last twenty years. There isn't need for serious worry. California is pushing for higher fuel standards, but the federal government is pushing the "when pigs fly" technology of hydrogen. We'll have hydrogen cars by 2050 maybe.

One idea, quoted from the above-linked article:

In Oregon, it costs $15 a year to register a regular car and $30 a year to register a hybrid or electric car.

"Most of our highway fund comes from fuel taxes," says David House, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles. "The more gas you burn, the more you pay into the system. If you're using a hybrid or electric, you're not paying as much fuel tax. To be constitutional, the (Oregon) Legislature decided to make up the difference by charging a higher registration fee."

Here is a link to a November 2004 article in the LA Times: here

[macintologist]

I'm surprised a neocon Trotskyite hasn't chimed in with some spin about how it will help in keeping track of terrorists.

I guess this one just goes a tad bit too far

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I'm surprised a neocon Trotskyite hasn't chimed in with some spin about how it will help in keeping track of terrorists.

I guess this one just goes a tad bit too far

That's because conservatives are not involved with the situation.

Liberals have been hyping these cars and their "green" benefits for some time, and now that their target market (other liberals) has bought up a significant quantity of these hybrids, they are all-of-a-sudden concerned at the potential tax impact.

Conservatives will only get involved with this if significant momentum is gained.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's because conservatives are not involved with the situation.

Liberals have been hyping these cars and their "green" benefits for some time, and now that their target market (other liberals) has bought up a significant quantity of these hybrids, they are all-of-a-sudden concerned at the potential tax impact.

Conservatives will only get involved with this if significant momentum is gained.

It is Schwarzenegger who is supporting this idea. Republican (so as "conservative" as say big-government Bush). There isn't a significant quantity of hybrids being sold and there's negligible tax impact. Schwarzenegger and his gas-company buddies just want people to buy more Hummers.

The natural thing to do, if there is a real problem, is simply to increase the gas tax. But I'm not advocating that either, since I don't think there is a real problem.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
The natural thing to do, if there is a real problem, is simply to increase the gas tax...

I am so sick of hearing this as a solution to all of our problems.

I want an amendment that sets a permanent tax code. If the government gets in trouble, then it will have earn money in ways other than taxation. Sell some damn t-shirts, breath mints, whatever.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I am so sick of hearing this as a solution to all of our problems.

I want an amendment that sets a permanent tax code. If the government gets in trouble, then it will have earn money in ways other than taxation. Sell some damn t-shirts, breath mints, whatever.

I love your selective quoting. I say, "I don't think there is a real problem." You say, "I am so sick of hearing this as a solution to all of our problems."

The tax code should adapt as should all government. Gas taxes are quite appropriate at the moment. The people whose gas purchases are funding the Iranian government and terrorist organizations (through Iran and also Saudi Arabia) should be the ones paying the most for the concomitant military expenditures. Without its oil revenues, Iran would be a free country, and Saudi Arabia would be a democracy. World peace and everyone lives happily ever after!

I don't know what you are suggesting with your "sell t-shirts" comment, but I'm happy to live in a capitalist country. If you want socialism or communism, go elsewhere. Government doesn't belong in business.

[thunderous_funker]

Maybe states should spend less on roads and more on better transportation initiatives?

California should have more light rail and the US should have regional high speed rail.

Road maintenance is an eternal black hole. Investing in alternate transportation infastructure is much more sustainable even if gas consumption should fall to zero.

California already has really punitive car taxes (licensing, registration, etc) and the roads are shyte. Maybe if they finally got a clue about planning and public transportation they could break the cycle.