March 2006, ODOT launched its mileage fee project program in the Portland area. The program, which charges a "per mile" fee at the pump in lieu of paying state gas tax by installing a GPS system in each vehicle to track the date, time, and location of the vehicle to determine the amount of per mile tax to be charged.
The 2001 Oregon State Legislature authorized the creation of the "road users fee task force"[link]-- to study various alternatives for replacing Oregon's gas tax as a primary source revenue due to the decline of the purchasing power of the state gas tax which has eroded over several years.
the reasons cited include...
1. the gas tax has not kept pace with inflation;
2. voters have opposed increases in the gas tax; and
3. the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, especially hybrids and alternative-fuel vehicles, continues to increase, resulting in less gas tax paid.
Proponents claim that the road user fee is fair because it is simple and affordable way to generate revenue because it charges a fee based on actual miles traveled in Oregon. And because the fee is variable, policymakers could offer a lower rate per mile for vehicles that achieve a certain fuel efficiency, for motorists that avoid rush-hour zones or for those participating in other environmental friendly situations.
The final report for the evaluation is due for release by summer 2007.
consider the following factors of this road user fee
1. It is a variable fee based on...
a) which road you're traveling on
b) the time of day
c) the amount of traffic
d) which bridges you cross
2. also do the math...
a vehicle that actually gets 20 miles a gallon will actually pay less tax per gallon compared to a vehicle that gets 50 miles a gallon for traveling the same distance.
example, both vehicles traveling 100 miles with a road accident .02 per mile, the low mileage vehicle would burn 5 gallons of gas, and pay two dollars in road tax. At three dollars a gallon, the total cost of the trip would be $17.
Comparably, a high of mileage vehicle, which ranges about 50 miles to the gallon, would burn 2 gallons of gas, however, would still pay two dollars in road tax. The cost for the trip would be $7.
therefore,While some would argue that the fee will be more fair, in reality, the better your gas mileage, the more tax per gallon you'll be paying compared to the current system
3. two final points, #1 I do not want a GPS system in my car for the sole purpose of collecting a tax. #2, because it is a variable tax, it can change at any time.
both Saxton and Atkinson said that they would kill this project if elected.
6 comments:
who is going to pay for those devices?
Maybe we should go back to toll roads.
The road you drive on has to be maintained.
It does not care whether you use 5 gallons or two gallons.
Taxes should be based on axle weight. It is the weight of the vehicle that has the largest impact in the amount of road damage it does.
My Jeep Liberty CRD (diesel) weighs 5000 pounds and gets 30mpg highway. The Gasoline version (if equipped with the same options) weighs almost the same (about 100 pounds less - around 4900 pounds). So per axle they are about the same. But the gasoline version gets 20mpg highway. So for each mile driven I pay less fuel tax but do the same amount of road damage. Is that fair? What if I make my own biodiesel or convert it to run on plain vegetable oil and pay no fuel taxes whatsoever?
What happens when we start having plug-in hybrids (which is coming, the Prius will have a plug in version within 2 years). The all-electric range is expected to be about 20 to 30 miles. I drive about 20 miles a day so conceptually I could never use any fuel - but still put wear and tear onto roads.
What if we start getting cars from Europe that get 80mpg?
How will we pay for road maintenance and enhancements if fuel consumption drops?
There needs to be a system in place. I don't know if this is a good system or not - but they have to start thinking of something.
As a side note, my neighbor participates in the study, and her car was broken into over the holidays and the only thing stolen was the study GPS device mounted on her dash...
I wouldn't mind paying more in direct taxation to upkeep the roads (roads benefit us all by empowering commerce, even if we don't personally drive). However, my fear is that if we give ODOT, say, an extra billion dollars, we will end up with an extra billion dollars worth of bike lanes and no new or improved roads.
The problem isn't the way money is collected. The problem is the way money is spent.
Considering the oil companies are posting record profits, I think THEY should pay for the upkeep of roads. After all, if we don't have decent roads we aren't buying cars or gas.
Dunno who Anonymous is, but I agree with them. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a GPS in my car tracking where I go and when, but the simple fact is, using a gas tax as a way to pay for roads is a broken system. You get what you pay for, it's only fair you pay for what you get. What you pay, be that in taxes or tolls, should be directly related to how much you use the road and how much wear you put on it, not on how much gas you burn to do it.
Post a Comment