Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Oregon Shows Mileage Tax Can Work

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

The Oregon Department of Transportation has declared its test of the mileage-based tax a success. The Beaver State instituted the pilot project out of concern that increasing purchases of hybrid cars and non-gasoline powered vehicles would undermine the integrity of the gasoline tax. The test was designed to determine if it was practical to administer a program that taxed motorists on the basis of the number of miles they drove, rather than the volume of gasoline they purchased.

Oregon’s system relies upon a device inside the car to read the odometer and transmit it, along with a vehicle identification number, by wireless technology to the gas pump. The tax is calculated and added to the price paid at the pump. After that point, tax collection is the same as it is for the gasoline tax. Privacy advocates please note: The system cannot track your car when you slip off to see your girlfriend. States the report: The concept requires no transmission of
vehicle travel locations, either in ‘real time’ or of travel history.”

Key findings of the “Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program” report include:

  • A mileage fee can be implemented to replace the gas tax as the principal revenue source for road funding.

  • The mileage fee can be paid at the pump, making it almost indistinguishable from the motorist’s perspective, from how they pay the tax now.

  • The mileage fee can be phased in gradually alongside the gas tax, allowing non-equipped vehicles to continue paying the gas tax — and allowing the state to capture revenue from out-of-state drivers.

  • The system is compatible with congestion pricing. Different pricing zones can be established electronically, the fees charged, and the revenues collected when drivers fill up at the pump.

  • Many levels of privacy protection can be implemented.

  • Potential for evasion is minimal. Tampering with the on-vehicle device would result in default payment of the gas tax.

  • Cost of implementation and administration is low.

To my knowledge, no one in Virginia is giving serious consideration to the mileage-based tax. But we should. The gasoline tax is living on borrowed time here, just as it is in Oregon. We need to start thinking about the future now.

I have advocated taxing motorists on the basis of the number of miles they drive, adjusted for the weight of the vehicle — heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on roads, therefore they should pay more — and the amount of pollution they emit. Under my user-pays system, all monies from the Mileage Tax would be used for one purpose only: to fund road maintenance. The tax would be adjusted up or down as the cost of road maintenance rises or declines. (I have advocated other mechanisms for funding construction of new roads, which I will elaborate upon if anyone is interested.)

(Hat tip to Jonathan Mallard for pointing me to the Oregon study.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

31 responses to “Oregon Shows Mileage Tax Can Work”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Very interesting report. my thanks for posting it.

    this is way better than having state inspectors record the odometer twice a year or whatever.. but I think they have some major hurdles .. still..

    Unless Wi-Fi odometers become standard for all auto manufacturers – it’s gonna require a state retrofit program… for not only every vehicle sold in Oregon but every vehicle brought into Oregon from outside of Oregon…

    .. this sounds to me like a government program that may not be popular… 🙂

    then.. what will they do if folks go out of zone or out of state..,buy gas.. pay a regular gas tax and then return… to a wi-fi pump that computes 1500 miles since their last wi-fi-recorded fill-up?

    I think Oregon is pushing the envelope here.. and someone has do… I guess…

    and yes.. Wi-Fi could be used to do high-speed tolls also… but isn’t that essentially what EZ-Pass RFID is also?

    so .you have a “transmitter” that transmits Odometer and VIN number… and the state can put up Wi-FI readers at service stations and toll gantries.. and wherever else they choose…maybe even in patrol cars…

    .. and then a DA in a criminal case gets a court order for the Wi-Fi odometer/VIN “hits”… hmmm…

    Hey… if you’re not a bad guy.. why should you worry… right?

  2. Red S Tater Avatar
    Red S Tater

    yeah, we don’t have enough ways to tax the living daylights out of everyone… now we need to tax the odometer since cars are getting better mileage etc.

    This plan sounds like it was created by the same genius that came up with the idea to fund healthcare from tobacco sales.
    So that when people do quit smoking, the healthcare system loses funding.

    I’ve got another one for you if you like the mileage tax…
    How about taxing liberals for every lie they tell.. like global warming for example, you could pay for healthcare easily right there.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Looking better. There needs to be a backup system so that if there is no transmitter on the car, the pump adds a standard gas tax (say I’m driving in from another state, or somebody has found a way to disable it to try to avoid the tax.) If truly adjusted for weight, that’s better still. One of my major objections (one of the reasons I like the gas tax) is the higher tax paid by the substantially lower-milage vehicles. The last thing we want to do is to remove an incentive for conservation.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Jim, I’d like to hear the ideas for new roads….(perhaps again)…

    The gas tax and it’s son – the mileage tax have a trait that I don’t think is good and that is UNLESS the revenues ARE restricted to maintenance only and not new roads…

    AND – even for maintenance, improvements (which include widening existing roads) – the process is still flawed.

    And it’s the same problem that we have now – and that is that there are 3 kinds of roads, interstates, statewide major arteries (that we call Primary’s in Va)and then local city and lesser arterials (called secondaries in Va).

    Right now, in some states including Virginia, VDOT get’s a “cut” of the statewide gas tax revenues to maintain/improve the Interstates and Primary’s) and after they get their “cut”, they (VDOT) allocate the rest to the localities.

    In the past, they did not allocate strictly proportionally because some projects would take MORE than a localities total annual allocation so what VDOT did would be to essentially set up multi-year “accounts” called the 6 yr plan where in one year the allocation would be shown as a “credit”, essentially an IOU that counted towards “saving up” for a project that would require more funding than one years worth.

    There are three big problems with this approach.

    1. – First, VDOT got into the businesses of “promising” more than a 6-yr window and they did it without proper accounting such that after a proper audit was done – almost 1/2 of what they promised – they did not have funding for – never did… they were literally paper promises done often in response to a locality request to have “something” to show to their voters.

    2. – VDOT’s method of determining priorities – unlike the standardized methods of rating bridges with specific metrics are used to assign a rating – more subjective, sometimes political measures were used to rank projects that would be built next.

    3. – Once VDOT got into the business of maintaining construction (vice planning) windows wider than 6 years, they would use that power to directly influence local priorities.

    Basically, what they did and still do is that yes – a locality and even an MPO can deliver a list of it’s priorities but VDOT holds the purse strings so they decide WHICH priorities they will actually fund.

    So, some projects listed as priorities for localities would not be allocated any funding.. year after year while other projects that VDOT favored would get the lions share of the allocations..

    Why is this bad?

    Because they did not use an objective needs-based standard to rank projects – at least one in which all parties could see exactly which projects were ranked higher (and why) and would be advanced while others would not be.

    If we had process like we have for rating bridges – it would be more clear when limited funds were allocated to repair one bridge over another.

    Now take two roads – one in NoVa and one in RoVa – and a statewide gas tax or it’s follow-on, a statewide mileage tax – and you can see why we will be propagating a way of doing business that is, in my mind, fundamentally flawed.

    NOW – the SOLUTION to this, as much as it is hated by some in this blog is to have strong Regional Authorities who will decide for it’s region – what the priorities are for it’s gas tax revenues.

    Can it be abused if these authorities are not elected?

    yes, of course – but at least the “deciders” are known local elected and there is ample opportunity for the public to actually better understand what is going on and why – and deal with the issue at election time if they don’t like the way that decisions are being made.

    More transparent and more open just by virtue of the fact that decisions are more local.

    I don’t know how this works in Oregon but I would say – if/when it comes to Virginia that NoVa/TW/HR (and another other locality that gets an authority) will have a leg up on RoVa localities that do not – and will continue to use the previous VDOT “way” of allocating money and deciding priorities.

    ps. Red S Tater expresses a sentiment that is pretty common with most voters – who simply will not or cannot accept the reality that existing roads, once built, are not “free” but require a tremendous amount of money to maintain; a LOT more money than before with the inflation of road materials AND the fact that the existing gas tax has not grown to keep up with inflation.

    The net result is that the needs for maintenance and new roads has grown – while the funding has not.

    But some folks don’t want to hear that reality… to start with.

  5. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    I like the idea of a viciously regressive gas tax. Take the RF ID concept and cross it, backwards, with data from your income tax return. Those that make a lot of money, and already pay high income taxes, pay a low (current?) gas tax. Those that only make a little money – what the hell are you doing driving so much?

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    interesting concept but methinks flawed.

    Some folks say that VMT has a direct connection to productivity.

    I don’t agree with them.

    Let’s take NoVa and the folks who make enough money to live in Fairfax and not have to commute 50 miles for an “affordable” home.

    The guy who lives/works in NoVa makes more money and yet drives 1/10 the total miles.

    Why should he have the heck taxed out of him – to buy more roads for those that commute longer distances?

    There are those in this blog that claim (correctly so in my view) that NoVa is already having to pay far more of it’s share of taxes for RoVa – to the detriment of their own transportation needs.

    I can see having the rich pay a higher proportion of their income for the needs of those who are truly poor and vulnerable and unable to truly care for themselves.

    But I cannot see the Rich being taxed to provide a “better” standard of living for the middle class – and to me that would include building roads that provides commutability to more “affordable” homes.

    Why? because these are not poor and vulnerable but instead folks looking to better themselves – even if the means to do so does not come from their own efforts.

    I would assert that it is bad policy to encourage/subsidize behaviors that are wasteful and not in the best interests of society as a whole; a person who travels long distances contributes 10 times as much to air pollution as someone who does not – regardless of how much they earn.

    Further, instead of matching demand with supply – we’re instead subsidizing the cost of something – the deman for which – will increase – the more we subsidize it.

    It’s not like someone who needs mental health services but cannot afford them.

    The demand for rheabilative health services won’t increase because more folks will want to take advantage of “free” rehabilitative services. They won’t be going out and crippling themselves so they can get more “free” services.

    But when you subsidize commuting – by having the close-in NoVa commuter pay for the farther-out commuters – you’re encouraging more and more folks to commute further out.

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, You ask how I would finance construction of new roads if under the “Bacon Plan” all gasoline (or Vehicle Miles Driven) tax revenues were allocated to road maintenance. Here goes:

    (1) Tolls. Toll-driven projects in which private-sector entrepreneurs assume the risk. No subsidies. No eminent domain. No pawning off risk to the state. These projects would be built only if there were a demonstrated demand, and/or property owners along the route were willing to contribute their rights of way. The Dulles Greenway would be the model.

    (2) Congestion pricing. Congestion pricing allocates scarce roadway capacity in the most efficient manner, and it incentivizes drivers to seek alternate means of transportation. It also raises revenues that could be plowed back into transportation improvements within the same transportation corridor (or within the same cordoned area, if it were used for a place like Tysons Corner).

    (3) Community Develoment Authorities. Landowners whose properties values would benefit from the construction of new transportation infrastructure could create CDAs, float bonds and pay for the infrastructure themselves. The bonds could be paid off either by tolls and Tax Increment Financing within the CDA district.

    (4) Proffers or impact fees (I haven’t thought through which would be preferable), in which developers offset the local impact of their development by funding spot transportation improvements.

    (5) General Fund. The General Fund could be tapped for projects deemed to be in the broad public interest for reasons of public safety (hurricane evacuation) or economic development (four-laning U.S. 58, or building the Coalfield Expressway). These projects would have to compete with other priorities such as K-12, public colleges, health care, etc.

    Such a scheme would eliminate the phenomenon of taxing the public, routing revenues through Richmond, and leaving it up to politicians, bureaucrats and special interests to decide how to spend the money. It would directly address your concern that projects be prioritized according to some rational criteria. Bottom line: Projects would not get built unless someone — either property owners or road users — were willing to pay for them.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I LIKE the Bacon Plan a lot except for #5 which is like asking government to check your wallet for the “public good”.

    I would offer a friendly amendment.

    Economic Development projects (just as with your recommendations on Tysons) would require direct sponsorship of interested parties.

    For instance, a Coalfield Expressway would require those who might benefit from it to step forward and sign up from some of the costs – financed over time.

    I would equate such projects as “alliances” that span regions.. such that you may have both Richmond and HR/TW and the Port interests dealing with the need for better port-associated infrastructure.

    So.. I feel that you have the elements of a really GOOD vision and some I am perplexed, as to why we don’t see to have GA guys willing to, at the least, put something on the table.. as opposed to the tax&spend types verses the “no new taxes – but I don’t have much else to say” types.

    Right now, our transportation policy in Va is what I call the Forest Gump school of planning – “transportation is like a box of chocolates, you just never know what you’re gonna get”.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, I would agree with you on recommendation #5: If the General Assembly is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on economic-development road building, they should insist that the localities/regions benefiting from the project put skin in the game. Absolutely.

    Michael Ryan, You raise an interesting issue: the regressivity of the gasoline tax. One reason that Republican legislators give for not increasing the gas tax is that it would hurt less affluent Virginians. They sound like a bunch of Democrats!

    The problem with that logic is that working class Virginians who drive a lot are going to face a day of reckoning sooner or later as gasoline price prices continue to escalate. Insulating them from the consequences of their driving behavior will only make it harder on them in the future. People need to begin paying the full cost of their transportation preferences — and begin altering their behavior. If that means carpooling or taking the bus, then let more people carpool and ride the bus.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Reading through the report….

    this study concluded:

    “While principally designed to replace the gas tax over time, the
    Oregon Mileage Fee Concept also provides an electronic platform
    for creative applications of congestion pricing to manage levels of
    traffic during peak periods of driving. In other words, the concept
    accommodates creation of multiple “zones” that allow not only local
    option but also various pricing methodologies. The pilot program
    successfully tested “area pricing” but this conceptual system could
    expand to allow a virtually unlimited number of congestion pricing
    applications, not only area pricing but also cordon pricing, distance
    or point tolling of individual facilities and time-of-day pricing of onramps
    to limited access highways, or combinations—most without
    roadside infrastructure. Indeed, congestion pricing strategies
    could be tailored in ways that fit the individual natures of urban
    communities. These strategies could be phased in over time as
    congestion management needs surface.”

    In other words, the backbone of the nominal system will expressly support in addition to a flat mileage tax,

    time of day pricing
    congestion pricing
    zone, area, cordon pricing.

    separately or in combination.

    all the technology that will be needed already exists – principally wi-fi networking (or EZ-pass RFID) and the ability for the vehicle to broadcast it’s VIN and odometer reading.

    No matter what they say about privacy though, this will put a serious crimp on anyone using a vehicle while the cops are looking for them.

    But it’s a fait accompli anyhow. I read the other day that the way cops tracked down a serial killer was active monitoring of his position which was being report via his cell phone.

    Add to this, EZ Pass and now video license plate recognition systems (already deployed).

    So .. this is going to happen and the murkier aspect is whether or not the resulting systems will be “elegant” or not.

    An “elegant” system will utilize network traffic congestion sensors to adjust, in real-time the pricing.

    Drivers will be “taught” that certain places at certain times of day will be expensive to use and they will then make choices based on what it is “worth” to them.

    “elegant”, by the way, means to NOT have the DOTs attempting to build and operate this system. It’s not about road building, it’s an information technology problem that will need experts in those fields to put together cost-effective systems.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The Oregon Department of Transportation has declared its test of the mileage-based tax a success.”

    Gee, what did you expect?

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    After that point, tax collection is the same as it is for the gasoline tax.

    So what, exactly is the difference?

    The National Academy of Sciences has published a study on this topic that says we CAN achiseve exactly the same result by simply adjusting the gas tax as necessary.

    The only reason to resort to such schemes as this is political, according to the report. That, and it allows the process time to be come accepted, at which point it can be used for congestion pricing.

    If “an “elegant” system will utilize network traffic congestion sensors to adjust, in real-time the pricing.” what we are saying is that that hypothetical guy in Farmville will pay less for better service. This is a perversion of the free market system because there is ero chance that those places which are congested will enjoy additional competition to make them less congested.

    If “Drivers will be “taught” that certain places at certain times of day will be expensive to use and they will then make choices based on what it is “worth” to them.” then you can bet that this will be an enormous subsidy for sprawl.

    Nobody is going to pay more, to drive on roads that are more congested with no sign of relief in sight.

    This is precisely what the Tyson’s landowners are so worried about.

    RH

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “….UNLESS the revenues ARE restricted to maintenance only and not new roads…”

    Are you stark raving mad?

    The only way this can work is if we get more use out of our many miles of underused roads. Which is exactly what congestion taxes will guarantee. It is THE sprawl subsidy of all times.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “People need to begin paying the full cost of their transportation preferences — and begin altering their behavior. If that means carpooling or taking the bus, then let more people carpool and ride the bus.”

    How are they going to pay the full cost of their transportation preferences if the bus is heavily subsidized? If it isn’t heavily subsidized it will always be a lower preference and a higher price.

    Yes, Larry, we know roads are expensive to maintain. We will still have to maintain them to run the buses, the firetrucks, and the deliveries.

    We are going to wind up subsidizing something, one way or another. If you think roads are bad, just wait until you have to subsidize tranist at the same level.

    I suspect that when it comes down to that, then people will begin altering their behavior – at the polls.

    Commments such as Jim’s lead some people to believe that there may be less expensive ways to get the same benefits. When they discover that the benefits are not there, and the price is much higher, (for all but a few) they are going to be sorely disappointed.

    RH

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Having now finished the entire report, and even though the technology exists to do the job, I don’t think this is going to happen anytime soon – if at all

    for two primary reasons

    1. – A factory-installed GPS AND a VIN/VMT device is required – i.e. a Federal Law mandating this… not in this decade…

    2. – Not recognized, nor acknowledged despite their mandate that the system be transparent and acceptable to customers and an assured level of enforceability – is the “gotcha” aspect of having a users tolls reconciled at the time they purchase fuel – which will already be an expensive experience.

    So.. you pay for gas, you pay your VMT .. AND you pay for all of your tolls since your last fill-up including congestion pricing tolls.

    You won’t really know that your fill-up is going to cost you $40 or $90 until you actually fuel up.

    I predict that this is not going to be acceptable to customers because it is not transparent and further that it will lead to people buying “jammers” so that when they fuel the “readers” cannot “talk” to their car and the taxes will default to whatever the current gas tax is.

    I think they need to go back to the drawing boards on this.. give em credit for pushing the envelope and in doing so exposing some issues that will need to be addressed but this gets no cigar…..

    The interesting thing is that Feds are also going through this same alternative revenues process (GOOGLE “The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission”) and that group is also reading the Oregon Report.

    I think they’re gonna need some of them Operations Research guys…for this.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Hey RH – FYI

    Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of
    Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance

    Transportation Research Board of the National Academies

    …”Although the present highway finance system can remain viable for some time, travelers
    and the public would benefit greatly from a transition to a fee structure that
    more directly charged vehicle operators for their actual use of roads. The growing
    cost of maintaining acceptable service under present funding and pricing practices
    may at some point compel reforms that would increase efficiency. The transition
    could proceed in stages, starting with closer matching of present fees to
    costs and expanded use of tolling. Ultimately, in the fee system that would provide
    the greatest public benefit, charges would depend on mileage, road and
    SUMMARY 3
    vehicle characteristics, and traffic conditions, and they would be set to reflect the
    cost of each trip to the highway agency and the public.
    The potential benefits of a transition to direct charging are improved operation
    of the road system and better targeting of investment to the most valuable
    projects. Revenues from charges set to reflect the cost of providing service would
    provide an accurate indication of where capacity expansions would have benefit.
    Governments that own and operate roads could control fees and funding, so
    dependence on intergovernmental aid would be reduced. Reform in this direction
    offers the best opportunity for increasing the cost-effectiveness of spending
    and mitigating congestion.
    The committee identified two complementary tracks for practical reform:
    • Toll roads and toll lanes: An important opportunity exists today to create an
    extensive system of tolled expressways and expressway lanes employing
    existing electronic toll collection technology and variable pricing. Although
    such a toll program probably would not greatly increase the funds available
    for highways, it could expedite construction of critical highway improvements,
    provide a tool for managing congestion, and help gain public acceptance
    of road pricing.
    • Road use metering and mileage charging: This appears to be the most promising
    technique for directly assessing road users for the costs of individual
    trips within a comprehensive fee scheme that will generate revenue to cover
    the costs of highway programs. It uses communications and information
    technology to assess charges according to miles traveled, roads used, and
    other conditions related to the cost of service. Unlike conventional tolling,
    which is applicable only on expressways, road use metering could be used
    to manage and provide funding for all roads. Conversion to road use metering
    will require a sustained national effort. Governments must decide on
    the goals of the effort, authorities for setting fees and controlling revenue,
    the basis for determining fees, and how best to involve the private sector.
    Resolution of privacy and fairness concerns will be a prerequisite.
    As the finance system evolves, governments can keep it on a course leading
    to the necessary improvements by adhering to the following rules:
    • Maintain the practice of user fee finance, a system in which users of facilities
    are charged fees or special taxes, rates reflect the costs to serve each
    user, and expenditures equal the fee revenue.
    • Seek opportunities where possible to apply pricing—that is, allow fees to
    ration access to facilities.”

    http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/FEV/meetings/091207/FuelTax.pdf

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, Larry.

    I have read that report, and it supports many of my objections, the passage you quoted, notwithstanding.

    For example:

    “Although the present highway finance system can remain viable for some time, travelers and the public would benefit greatly from a transition to a fee structure that more directly charged vehicle operators for their actual use of roads. “

    Leaves out the prior explanation of how it is that we ALREADY pay for our actual use of the roads.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ultimately, in the fee system that would provide the greatest public benefit, charges would depend on mileage, road and vehicle characteristics, and traffic conditions, and they would be set to reflect the cost of each trip to the highway agency and the public.

    Gas tax charges ALREADY depend on mileage, road and vehicle characteristics. We can already set them to reflect the cost to the highway agency, but we have not done so for the last thirty years.

    But the last one gets me.

    How do we calculate the cost of one person’s trip to the public?

    If we use Larry’s argument, any trip causes an external cost, and no one has a “right” to cause external costs. Therefore every trip is prohibited.

    Except the one’s by Larry’s pickup. Since he is the only one still driving he has zero external costs on other drivers.

    RH

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “An important opportunity exists today to create an extensive system of tolled expressways and expressway lanes employing existing electronic toll collection technology and variable pricing. Although such a toll program probably would not greatly increase the funds available
    for highways,…….”

    Why create such an extensive system if it would not increase the funds available? Sounds like additional transaction costs for little gain.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Conversion to road use metering
    will require a sustained national effort. Governments must decide on
    the goals of the effort, uthorities for setting fees and controlling revenue, the basis for determining fees, and how best to involve the private sector.

    Resolution of privacy and fairness concerns will be a prerequisite.”

    Where have you heard these concerns before, on this blog.

    And I am free. We paid a bundle to the Academy to tell us this.

    A sustained national effort sounds like a huge expense for little gain. Except for the technology vendors.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “As the finance system evolves, governments can keep it on a course leading to the necessary improvements …..”

    But will they?

    How much are we going to get screwed while it “evolves”?

    How much are we going to get screwed when government does not obay the rules specified in the part of the quote I left out?

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    see some folks think the current system screws them.

    they pay taxes – and the money goes for roads that they don’t use.

    so they want the money they spend to go for roads that they use…

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That is idiotic. How could you know what roads you will use and what ones you won’t?

    Based on my living locations and job locations, I could never have predicted my own usage. How is a government offical supposed to figure it out? Let alone 20 or 40 years into the future.

    That is one reason you use a black box-to average out the costs.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    RH – you don’t drive the same road every day or nearly every day?

    has that road been improved?

    No you cannot possibly know every road that you might use once or twice a year or decade but how about the road you do use every day?

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “RH – you don’t drive the same road every day or nearly every day?”

    Nope. I have three different main routes, and several subs on each.

    I have the high speed high gas use, short time, long distance route.

    I have, the low speed, short distance, less gas, longer time and scenic route. That is my usuual route, and it includes 6 miles of dirt county road that definitely hasn’t been improved. It is a runnoff, air pollution, and maintenance nightmare, plus a safety hazard.

    And I have the pain in the butt route for when something blocks one of the others.

    But yes, I drive the same road every day or mostly – this month or this year. But I’m not the guy who plans the roads for everybody, evey job, home and school change for decades.

    Sure, I’d like to see MY roads improved. But as long as other people keep hollering NO new taxes that is’t going to happen-not for me, and not for them either.

    Everybody has to take their turn in the barrel.

  26. George Marchenko Avatar
    George Marchenko

    Despite Oregon’s Dept. of Transportation’s assessment that the Road User Fee program can work, citizens here are not anxious to adopt the technology suggested by the ODOT. Having been here since the start of October and having spoken with many Oregonians about this, I do not get the sense they see eye to eye with the state on this one. Evidently the state pilot program may have been flawed in that records produced by state vehicles participating in the program were manually manipulated by state workers to generate predicted(“automated”) results. Further, citizens are not willing to pay for RFID or any other technology that will automate mileage and VIN reading at the pump (and neither is the state apparently).

    Nope, Oregonians, at least the ones I talked to, are like most Americans. They’re more interested in seeing the state reduce spending (and therefore reduce revenue requirements) than be dazzled with technology and new ways to get into their pockets. This citizen’s prediction: Road User Fee program via mileage and VIN RFID data transmission at the pump is DOA in Oregon.

  27. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Is this the same George Marchenko who ran for Henrico County board of supervisors — or is there more than one George Marchenko in the world?

    I will readily concede that the version of events I reported on this blog was filtered through the Oregon DOT, thus is not likely to reflect broad voter sentiment.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if voters spurned the idea. Everybody wants something for nothing — or, more exactly, everybody wants stuff from the government, but they want someone else to pay for it. Oregonians, like everyone else in the U.S., will have to face up to the fact that the gasoline tax is living on borrowed time.

  28. LaughingMyLibertarianAssOff Avatar
    LaughingMyLibertarianAssOff

    The ease with which this tax can be beat is mindboggling.

    In the age old tradition of the Boston Tea Partiers defiance of taxes, I’m hoping this one IS implemented because I see exactly how to lower my gas taxes by about 25c per gallon without doing anything illegal at all, yet still driving my vehicle as much as I currently do. Yippee!

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are what is wrong with this country and should do us a favor and jump in front of train.

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This tax idea is idiotic, why don’t we also require gps in our shoes to help pay for rebuilding of sidewalks? Whoever came up with this idea clearly does not belong in a position of making decisions. A smarter tax would be to increase fuel tax, as much as that sucks. If they really want to make sense, they could create toll roads, those suck too but atleast it wouldn’t punish farmers for the driving mileage of their farm vehicles on their own land (for example).

  31. How Do you Feel about Paying for Each Mile you Drive? | RealCentralVA.comRealCentralVA.com

    […] Bacon’s Rebellion noted in 2007 Oregon’s successful implementation of Vehicle Miles Trav…: […]

Leave a Reply

Read More