MJS Increases Newsstand Price  |   Home  |   State Website Features Minneapolis Skyline

Oregon Eyes Mileage Tax

Coming soon to a state near you. 

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.”

While I agree that there needs to be a long term change in transportation funding as Americans move to more fuel-efficient vehicles, this is not the way to do it.  It’s fraught with privacy concerns and enforcement nightmares.  I do like that they are trying to make sure that the people who use the roads more are subject to pay more for them.

Posted by Owen at 0723 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. Your alternative ideas include…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1052 hrs
   
   
   

2. Since when have privacy concerns or enforcement problems ever stopped a government program?

   Patriot Act?  Yeah, no privacy or constitutional problems there.

   Enforcement? Hello Drug War!

   If you don’t want a per mile tax, I think the only proxy that will allow for taxation based on use is simply to increase the gas tax to account for the offset in loss due to fuel efficency… which will adversly affect those who don’t have fuel efficient vehicles, which may be seen as a feature by some, and not a bug.

   Posted by Nick on December 29, 2008 at 1123 hrs
   
   
   

3. It’s fraught with privacy concerns and enforcement nightmares.

   If you have any sort of OnStar system in your car the hardware, and probably the data just waiting to be queried, is already there.

   And how is this any different than the info that is obtainable from sleuthing through your Blackberry usage?

   How we fund it is only part of the transportation puzzle that our current and future economic realities are going to require

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1126 hrs
   
   
   

4. This is infinitely preferable to Rhode Island’s proposal to use odometer readings, which makes no distinction between in-state and out-of-state driving.

   There’s actually a lot of potential here, especially if more states were to head in this direction and a uniform sort of technology could be implemented that would help to bring operation/installation costs down.

   Here’s an alternative: instead of using GPS, use the same sort of RFID technology that many toll booths use.  Develop a device that, instead of tracking the vehicle via GPS, transmits the odometer reading via RFID.  Readers could also be posted at all state borders to ensure that vehicles weren’t being charged for out-of-state mileage.  I understand that such a device may be harder to retrofit, however.  What would help to bring costs down here is getting many states on the same page.

   That could eliminate Owen’s concern about government tracking where vehicles are going, although certainly the tinfoil hat crowd hates RFID for the same reasons GPS probably makes them squirm.

   I would also include a differential taxation scheme so that heavier vehicles, which cause more wear to our roadways, pay taxes at a higher rate than smaller vehicles.  As long as we’re accounting for variables, we should remember that weight is a significant variable as well.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 29, 2008 at 1151 hrs
   
   
   

5. This Mileage Tax has nothing to do with government revenue - it’s about one thing and one thing only: controlling the behavior of citizens, specifically to make them drive their cars less often.

   If this passes and it has this effect, the Oregon legislature and/or the governor will bellyache that gas tax revenues are down because people are driving less (just like when municipalities encourage people to conserve water, then raise the water bill because people are using less water).

   There is no satisfying liberals.

   Posted by Josh Schroeder on December 29, 2008 at 1223 hrs
   
   
   

6. That sounds preferable to GPS.  I think we all agree on the same goal… let’s make sure that the folks who use the roads more pay more for their use.  RFID sounds like a more workable solution to me.  Honestly, if they put in the full speed toll booths like in Illinois, I wouldn’t mind that either.  In either case, I agree that tiering it to the weight of the vehicle also makes sense. 

   I don’t think that the usage of the road should be the entirely accurate.  For example, if grandma never drives but continues to have her mail delivered, trash picked up, grocery store stocked, etc., she still benefits from the roads and should contribute something.  I’m OK with spending some general funds on transportation as long as the vast bulk of it is based on a fee structure.  It’s not like we need to keep pretending that the transportation fund is segregated anyway

   Posted by Owen on December 29, 2008 at 1224 hrs
   
   
   

7. They are more than just privacy concerns with this type of taxation.  I personally live and work in Eastern Oregon, just to buy the essentials I have to drive 15 miles one way.  Those who think that people who use the road more should pay more are a little off.  I do agree that if public transportation is available in your area, yes if you use the road more then you should pay more for the usage. However, an exemption for rural areas needs to be included in such a plan. 

   I
   Fundy

   Posted by Cpl Fundy on December 29, 2008 at 1225 hrs
   
   
   

8. You guys are barking up the wrong tree. This is not about highways and roads. Read what the governor wrote more carefully:

   “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”

   and

   <i>“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.”

   Read that again, AS OREGONIANS DRIVE LESS. This is NOT about highways, it’s about transitioning from cars to mass transit and it’s been going on for many years in Oregon. If this were really about highways and the pain that transitioning from lower mileage to higher mileage cars then simply raising the gas tax with a rebate to lower income folks would be the solution.

   Privacy? There would be none with this kind of information collected, even by RFID. To believe that there would, you would have to believe that government would voluntarily give up the ability to control and spy on citizens. We’ve seen that both Republican and Democratic governments aren’t willing to do that.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1241 hrs
   
   
   

9. Great points, RS.

   Indeed if you’re at the point you’re afraid of what dolls are saying, there’s probably no satisfying you in this regard. However the privacy complaint is rather moot given that it’s the state’s highways you’re driving on; that’s why we take tests and get licenses and display license plates in order to be allowed to drive on them.

   If you don’t like it, find another mode of transportation.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1316 hrs
   
   
   

10. I don’t think that the usage of the road should be the entirely accurate.  For example, if grandma never drives but continues to have her mail delivered, trash picked up, grocery store stocked, etc., she still benefits from the roads and should contribute something.

    Au contraire mon frere, would not the businesses who provide grandma’s commodities & services be paying mileage fees?

    They of course would pass these costs along to grandma in the form of higher prices, oui?

    Or at least that is the position usually maintained on taxes & fees levied exclusively on businesses

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1435 hrs
    
    
    

11. The problem in this case is that someone like me, who drives 25k+ miles a year, am already being directly taxed (feed?) for my use of the roads.  I should not have to pay more in the form of higher retail/consumable prices.  Also, in the case of the trash pickup, that’s usually a government gig, which wouldn’t pay the taxes anyway.

    Posted by Owen on December 29, 2008 at 1510 hrs
    
    
    

12. The problem in this case is that someone like me, who drives 25k+ miles a year, am already being directly taxed (feed?) for my use of the roads.  I should not have to pay more in the form of higher retail/consumable prices.

    Can you walk me through how your or grandma’s personal use of roadways and subsequent mileage fees should offset the mileage fees payed by the respective providers of commodities & services to each of you?

    Seems like an equitable user fee structure to support a transportation system should be levied based on the actual mileage/use per user?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1543 hrs
    
    
    

13. There will be a cottage industry cropping up defeating these devices.  Believe me there will be no way to stop it.

    This is also fraught with technical issues.  The main one being- What if the device legitimately stops working?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 1651 hrs
    
    
    

14. @ Rick: Honestly, there’d probably be more money in thwarting toll booths - yet I don’t think we hear many states that use RFID complaining about toll booth fraud.  I seriously doubt this would be a major industry.  And if we find that you’re cheating, we can fine the hell out of you.  Some stiff cash penalties should deter the desire to save some spare change. We can also allow garages, auto repair facilities, car dealers, etc. to take the readings as well.

    @ Cpl. Fundy: Hey, you’re choosing to live out there.  Choices have consequences.  I’m pretty sure that those people driving around in/around Portland are already subsidizing TriMet through payroll taxes paid by their employers.  Then they pay again to use it.

    In any case, if Owen and I can agree that this basically makes sense, then it probably makes sense. 

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 29, 2008 at 1811 hrs
    
    
    

15. If people are driving less - shouldn’t the cost of maintaining the roads - DECREASE?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2008 at 2140 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.