Oregon to test nation's first per-mile road tax

Finally, some state takes the obvious step! http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097168_oregon-to-test-nations-first-per-mile-road-fee-in-lieu-of-gas-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Using the ODB2 port??
er.. I'm using that port for Leaf Spy Pro... ;-(

While I'm not opposed to the concept, I'd prefer it not cost me functionality.

desiv

desiv said:

Using the ODB2 port??
er.. I'm using that port for Leaf Spy Pro... ;-(

While I'm not opposed to the concept, I'd prefer it not cost me functionality.

desiv

Click to expand...

Applies to any type of car, and really, what % of just LEAF owners do you think use their OBD2 ports? It's a limited test, not a final system. AFAIC, anything we can do that shifts more of the cost of owning a car to how much it's driven (as opposed to the fixed costs that make up the majority of a car's cost now) is a good thing. I'm a big fan of pay-as-you-drive insurance and car-sharing too.

GRA said:

Applies to any type of car, and really, what % of just LEAF owners do you think use their OBD2 ports? It's a limited test, not a final system.

Click to expand...

I didn't say I was concerned about other people here..
I was only thinking of myself..

And as for it not being the "final system," I work with computers.. A PILOT project is simply something that is:
Production In Lieu Of Test

desiv

So at $0.015/mile, that's $15/month, $180/year, at 12k miles/year.

I could live with that if they actually fix the roads and bridges.

Even better if they add in a weight surcharge.

DNAinaGoodWay said:

So at $0.015/mile, that's $15/month, $180/year, at 12k miles/year.

I could live with that if they actually fix the roads and bridges.

Even better if they add in a weight surcharge.

Click to expand...

If they want the payments to be proportional to the damage caused to roads, they would charge very little to the average sedan, a huge amount to semis, delivery trucks, etc. The worst vehicles to drive down roads are actually fire engines with 10,000 gallons of water in them. They can literally damage a new road just by driving down it once--especially if the temperature is warm.

And even better would be to add a congestion charge. In non-congested areas, and at non-congested times, this would be nothing. But it would force drivers to pay for the time cost they impose on other drivers by driving at high-peak times in certain areas. The money from this could be use to directly improve transportation options in those areas (so there wouldn't need to be as much congestion anymore).

I don't get why they need to plug a device into the car to achieve this. Here in NY, we bring our cars in for a safety & emissions inspection once a year. Why can't they just record the mileage from the odometer during that inspection and charge accordingly? Is it because some of those miles might have been driven out of state?

NYLEAF said:

Here in NY, we bring our cars in for a safety & emissions inspection once a year. Why can't they just record the mileage from the odometer during that inspection and charge accordingly? Is it because some of those miles might have been driven out of state?

Click to expand...

The short term reasoning is that in Oregon we don't bring in our cars once a year.
So they can't just piggy back on that process.
As for why the OBD2, it's interesting.
They "could" just look at the mileage if they want miles driven. I'm not sure what "else" they get from the OBD2 data?

They are also talking about increasing fees for studded tires, which are the things that I think (just my opinion) do real damage to the roads around here...

desiv

desiv said:

Using the ODB2 port??
er.. I'm using that port for Leaf Spy Pro... ;-(

While I'm not opposed to the concept, I'd prefer it not cost me functionality.

desiv

Click to expand...

odb2 splitters are commonly available.

Nubo said:

odb2 splitters are commonly available.

Click to expand...

Ohhhh! Did not know that...

Googling now (even tho I won't be needing one.. but still..)

Thanx!

desiv

desiv said:

NYLEAF said:

Here in NY, we bring our cars in for a safety & emissions inspection once a year. Why can't they just record the mileage from the odometer during that inspection and charge accordingly? ...

Click to expand...

The short term reasoning is that in Oregon we don't bring in our cars once a year.

Click to expand...

I have to tell my insurance company my mileage once a year. There's no reason insurance companies couldn't share that information with the state to compute mileage fees - or better yet mileage-times-weight fees.

If you lie about your mileage it will catch up with you when you sell the car, and then you'll owe back taxes, penalties, and interest. Not to mention back insurance payments, penalties, and interest.

The oil companies are behind this. They don't want any tax on top of their fuel. The cheaper it feels the more people will use gasoline. (Side effects - cleaner alternatives are delayed, pollution/GHG gases from gasoline continue).

The Federal Excise Tax (18.4 cents/gal of gasoline) hasn't been increased in 20 years. Let it catch up with inflation in reasonable increments and build the highway funds back up instead of taking money from the General Fund.

Each State taxes are different. Because the federal excise tax hasn't been increased various other mechanism have sprouted up such as increase State taxes on gasoline or increasing local sales taxes on the general public. (And taking money from the General Fund Budget, both State and Federal)

For a vehicle that gets 20-25 MPG and travels 12,000 a year that's (18.4 x (12,000/(20 or 25))) =

$110-$88/year Or approx $10-$7/month!

Now how much was last month's phone bill? Electric bill, water bill? Sewer bill? Yes, funds need to be provided to pay for infrastructure and use of.

Let the Federal Excise Tax catch up with inflation from 20 years ago (in gradual increments)!

I will be glad to pay a lump amount on my annual vehicle registration fee for the miles I drive in my EV, but let's continue the EV incentives until they are becoming more mainstream, with the resulting benefits of less oil dependence, lower import and money set overseas, cleaner air, and less pollution and GHG.

I don't know who's behind this, but it's a really dumb idea.

First, what happens when cars are driven out of state for a period of time? Do they pay the tax to Oregon at the end of the month AND pay gas tax in the other states when they fuel up there? There is no way this doesn't add complexity and create situations where some people pay a lot more than they should and some less.

Second, gas usage is roughly proportional to road wear and tear - the largest vehicles cause more wear and tear so it makes sense that they pay more gas tax. This per-mile system charges the smallest economy cars the same as the largest SUVs. Probably that is an outcome some people want, but it creates an incentive to add more wear on the roads for less tax.

Third, this requires and entirely new system to collect the taxes, with the associated administrative overhead, when the gas tax system is in place and is built on top of existing systems.

I realize the people behind this might not be trying to create perverse incentives but may just be looking ahead to when EVs are common and trying to figure out an appropriate tax solution. I get that this will be an issue in the future. Right now, with EVs representing a tiny amount of miles driven it's simpler to have a small fee added to registrations of EVs, but later we may need another system. Hopefully the test will reveal the problems described above and they can figure out some way to address. However, by no means should this be done on a statewide basis at any time in the near future.

A straight yearly road tax per vehicle is simple, and fair. For a passenger car the number of miles driven have little to do with road wear, nor is it anyone's business to "discourage" EV miles driven by punitive measures. Leave the gasoline tax in place for ICE vehicles and collect from EV owners via yearly registration fees. Any per-mile system will be complex and bring on a mess of hacking measures and anti-measures.

Problem: Everyone that can is reducing their fuel consumption and all cars are now more efficient so tax revenues are down.

Solution: Every state, even if they don't have an income tax, has vehicle registrations that must be renewed annually. Eliminate the fuel tax (as if a tax could ever be eliminated). Replace with a yearly "road maintenance fee" (some for the fed, the rest for the state) tied to vehicle class which means you really don't need mileage. But If you want to add more for more miles driven - then require owners to report it annually - with penalties when cheaters get caught.

This "solution" however does not address the "real" problem: How can we get people to allow government real-time tracking of all of their movements. For that we need an expensive high tech solution connected to their vehicles and the road tax is a justification we can sell.

/You say "tin foil hat," I say realist.

A step in the right direction. It's very simple. Highways should be funded by a per_mile, per_ton tax (per ton since heavier vehicles (cement trucks) are more damaging than lighter ones (motorcycles)). Keep the gas tax. Increase it, in fact. But instead of paying for the roads, use it to pay for environmental cleanup of everything that comes out of the tailpipe. This way everyone only pays for what they use.

TickTock said:

A step in the right direction. It's very simple. Highways should be funded by a per_mile, per_ton tax (per ton since heavier vehicles (cement trucks) are more damaging than lighter ones (motorcycles)). Keep the gas tax. Increase it, in fact. But instead of paying for the roads, use it to pay for environmental cleanup of everything that comes out of the tailpipe. This way everyone only pays for what they use.

Click to expand...

+1. I was not implying that this Oregon test was the ultimate, best choice, just the first step in the right direction - I've been advocating for a weight-based mileage tax for a long time here. I'd go with per axle or per tire rather than per vehicle, as it's the former that determines the damage.

As to the issue about out-of state use, I suspect it mostly evens out in the end and isn't worth worrying about in the majority of situations. There will be a few edge cases, where people live in one state and commute into another; commuters into NYC are taken care of by bridge/ferry tolls, and similar cases (e.g. Portland, OR / Vancouver, WA) could do likewise, but there will undoubtedly be some instances where it will be a problem if there are no tolls. And tolls, even electronic ones, slow things down. But that would make driving less convenient, and would be more likely to move people to public transit, or living closer to work which may allow some other form of commuting, which are positives for both environmental and public health reasons.

TickTock said:

Keep the gas tax. Increase it, in fact. But instead of paying for the roads, use it to pay for environmental cleanup of everything that comes out of the tailpipe. This way everyone only pays for what they use.

Click to expand...

Well it is about the only tax that the poor pay a greater percentage of than the wealthy who can afford newer, more efficient, and less environmentally damaging vehicles so lets do that :twisted: