Bay Area drivers could pay to drive each mile under tax proposal
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Imagine being taxed a dollar for driving to the store. Commute to work? That'll be a few bucks more.
Is it crazy or the way of the future? The Bay Area is considering a long-range plan to become the first place in the nation to tax drivers for every mile they travel, with an average bill of up to $1,300 per year.
The proposal is a long way from becoming reality. But under the scenario, drivers would likely have to install GPS-like trackers on their cars to tally travel in the nine-county Bay Area, from freeways to neighborhood streets, with only low-income people exempted.
Transportation planners know they would have a tough time selling such a radical plan but argue the goal of the so-called VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax is to reduce traffic and pollution while raising revenue needed to fill potholes and bolster public transit service.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_21095536
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)which are already encouraged by fuel taxes, which end up a 'use' tax that is paid per mile, and diminishes with better, more efficient vehicles.
Why remove the incentive?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)A: Because the "initiative" originates with the motor industry and the fossil fuel industry.
As you noted, a fuel tax is a "use" tax per mile that is reduced by increasing engine efficiency.
Neither the engine efficiency nor the reduction in fuel consumption are desireable to
the real proposers of this type of tax.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)are intended to pay for road maintenance.
But cars that use less gas cause the same wear and tear as those that use more.
So more efficient vehicles means lower revenue but costs that are unchanged.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,364 posts)My guess is that fuel efficient cars "generally" tend to be smaller and lighter than gas hogs, so probably cause less wear per mile driven. Hybrids with heavy batteries are probably an exception, getting good mileage and causing more wear.
I'd also guess that the most damage is caused by medium to heavy trucks, like garbage trucks, cement trucks, and yes, even beer trucks.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Several states have found this to be a problem.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)An SUV that weighs twice what an economy car does will do roughly 2^4 as much damage to the road or sixteen times..
All else being equal the smaller and lighter car gets better fuel mileage so a direct per mile tax on driving needs to take into account the much smaller amount of maintenance required on the roads for lighter vehicles if the tax is going to be equitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating
tawadi
(2,110 posts)Sad part is, many people commute because housing is too high in the city. There goes their savings.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
RogueBandit
(182 posts)It's ridiculous that people drive all that way just to turn around and drive back. The work place should be under, next to, or around the corner from home.
frylock
(34,825 posts)are you suggesting that carpenters pack up and move every time they start a new project?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)right next door to their place of work.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But those people don't necessarily get jobs in the suburbs in which they actually live, they often get a job in some other suburb. The net result of this is that people commute from one suburb to another instead of suburbs to a central location, this makes a public transit scheme much more difficult and forces even more people into cars.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
high density
(13,397 posts)forcibly installed on my vehicle.
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)Oh never mind, we already know...
elzenmahn
(904 posts)Businesses will flee the area, as will residents. Besides, how will they be able to enforce this little scheme on those who live outside of the area and visit occasionally? Will we need to get one of these GPS devices on our vehicles just for our occasional jaunts?
Crazy? I call it stupid.
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)Thank you and good night.
rocktivity
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)...they sure need to do something about our roads. They're getting worse and worse out here in the East bay. 
Auggie
(31,186 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Pay per mile for drivers could be here in 2020
>
But, he said, by 2020 it is predicted they will be the norm, which could allow governments to charge motorists variable road tax depending on how far they drive.
Mr Bruneteau, who is managing director of Brussels-based navigation consultancy Ptolemus and who formerly worked for Vodafone and sat nav firm TomTom, said the 'e-tolling' technique was already being used in long- haulage trucks in Europe.
He told the conference that the same could apply to private cars if governments were serious about cutting down road journeys and slowing climate change.
Mr Bruneteau said: 'Instead of everyone paying the same road tax, drivers will pay depending on how far they drive. So if you drive less, your road tax will be lower. People can then see a real financial gain which should encourage people to drive less, which is better for the environment.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/pay-per-mile-for-drivers-could-be-here-in-2020-1-1242752
Our current UK road tax system is based on the C02 rating of the engine and so is independent of usage.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... by the facts of the matter which require no government snooping at all.
>> Mr Bruneteau said: 'Instead of everyone paying the same road tax,
>> drivers will pay depending on how far they drive. So if you drive less,
>> your road tax will be lower. People can then see a real financial gain
>> which should encourage people to drive less, which is better for the
>> environment.
> Our current UK road tax system is based on the C02 rating of the engine
> and so is independent of usage.
Bruneteau is playing a bit fast & loose with the term "road tax" and, by following
his (deliberate) usage by your colloquialism, you may unfortunately mislead
non-UK DUers.
There hasn't been a "road tax" since 1937 (when they stopped paying the VED
into the Road Fund). Roads in the UK are paid for out of general taxation
(with the rare exception of toll roads that have their own special rules).
People who keep using the historical (albeit incorrect) usage are doing so for
the purpose of glossing over the nature of UK taxation in a way that benefits
them (yes, primarily the car manufacturers and media coverage of the same).
Our current (UK) vehicle tax system is based on the CO2 rating of the
engine and so is independent of usage. It is a flat rate so the amount that
you pay is the same (for you) whether you use your Jag/Land Rover/Prius
for 1000 miles per year or 20,000 miles per year. That is only the static part
of the "road tax" and you can only influence the effect of it (=cost) via your
choice of vehicle.
Our fuel tax is per litre/gallon and so is dependent on both engine efficiency
AND usage. Although this is also a flat rate, it is a consumption tax and so
the amount that you pay depends not only on your mileage but on your
fuel efficiency (actual rather than theoretical - i.e., including driving style).
This is the dynamic part of the "road tax" and you can influence the effect
of it by your choice of vehicle, your choice of transport (e.g., whether you use
the car rather than a 5 minute walk) and your choice of driving style.
Hence, the UK "road tax" when taken in full is actually a very fair and forward-looking
method of not only raising revenue according to usage but also encouraging the
road-using public to modify their behaviour in an environmentally-friendly way.
(And yes, I get p*ssed off when "interested parties" like Bruneteau or any
politicians misuse the terms in an attempt to deliberately mislead the public.)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)are generally , other than some instances of vehicle age , based on a CO2 band. My Jeep is £ 460 pa which currently scales down to zero for cars below 99 g/km.
Aside from that Road Fund Licence aka Road Tax remains common parlance here. I don't know what equivalent if any there is in the USA.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)we will be charged by the breath we take.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)just saying, the groundwork is already laid for such a tax.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)When is Gov Brown and the democrats ever going to get the rich in California to start paying their fair share?
savalez
(3,517 posts)madville
(7,412 posts)Remember seeing that somewhere but could be wrong
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Transportation planners know they would have a tough time selling such a radical plan
Ya think?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)These proposals to tax cars on mileage is based on the fact the roads be built to take trucks up to 80,000 pounds (and higher with special permits). Thus the interstate and other highways must be built to take these 80,000 pound (or 40 ton) trucks in addition to your 3000 or 4000 (1 1/2 to 2 ton) automobile (Even a 3/4 ton pickup weighs only 4590 pounds or about 2 1/4 tons unloaded, three tons if loaded with a 3/4 ton load, thus when I am using the term "Truck" I do NOT include pickups or vans, but just the heavy trucks and tractor-trailers).
To be able to take such trucks, roads MUST be built to take such heavy vehicles, that drives up the cost of building such roads AND such roads deteriorate almost exclusivity do to the punishment put on them by heavy trucks. The affect of automobiles on such roads are minor at best when compared to the trucks operating on the same roads.
Thus, while The trucking industry pays a good bit of the highway taxes, what they pay do NOT cover the costs to operate such trucks on the roads. People who drive automobiles and pay taxes on gasoline end up subsidizing the trucking industry. i.e. the harm done to roads by Cars are more then paid by the gasoline taxes paid by car owners, the excess collected ends up paying for the work needed on the roads to keep them fit for heavy trucks.
With US Gasoline usage down by 12% since 2007, the subsidy provided by the tax on gasoline is down (i.e. less money for roads so that TRUCKERS can operate their trucks). The Trucking industry is lobbying everyone they can to make sure the lost in revenue is made up somewhere other then on the diesel fuel they use. I am surprise the trucking industry has NOT lobbied for bicycle having licenses so the fee from such licenses be used to keep up the road.
Cost. One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962). Overweight trucks chronically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety. (U.S. DOT, 1997).
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm
In other words, a 40 ton truck can easily cause as much damage to a typical road as 60,000 1 ton cars.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4991.html
As recently pointed out to members of Governor Otter’s 15-member task force investigating the funding of Idaho’s highway infrastructure, one fully loaded axle on a big truck is equal to the pavement damage of 10,000 passenger cars
http://fightinggoliath.org/Pages/highwaydamage.taxpayertab.html
kooljerk666
(776 posts)Reasons Why!
National Security
Living in a secure land is more than having a strong military. It is having a strong economy not held hostage to damage or shut down from petroleum supply interruptions, export embargoes, or escalating world prices. Peak oil production threatens availability and price stability of petroleum in the near future—as soon as 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Defense..........................
and
Health & Safety
Passenger rail travel and rail freight enjoy a safety record never matched by motor vehicle traffic. Particulate and ozone pollution resulting from truck diesel emissions plague residents in communities along major truck freight routes. Research shows exposure to diesel emissions causes disease, including asthma in children and increases the number and severity of asthma-related hospitalizations. Further, a constant campaign for longer, heavier, faster truck limits places all highway travelers at greater risk. Moving mid- and long-distance heavy trucks and freight trailers by Steel Interstate rail will save lungs and lives and money, too.
And............
Environmental Advantages
The Steel Interstate delivers a cleaner, greener, lighter footprint on the landscape than commensurate highway construction and use. The Steel Interstate System would dramatically reduce America's contribution to climate change from our transportation sector.
And!
Environmental Advantages
The Steel Interstate delivers a cleaner, greener, lighter footprint on the landscape than commensurate highway construction and use. The Steel Interstate System would dramatically reduce America's contribution to climate change from our transportation sector.
AND!!!
Economic Dividends
...............if 7% of the nation’s current oil consumption can be saved, at only the modest cost of 1% more electrical use, as one analysis projects, that can go a long way toward paying for the build-out of the Steel Interstate system.....................
AND!!!!!!!!
Fossil Fuel-Free Mobility
Steel Interstate passengers & freight trains move on renewable electric energy instead of fossil fuel, enjoying order of magnitude design efficiency advantages over trucks and cars.
The frackers are against this project cause they taxpayer to spend over $65,000 per truck to covert diesel to nat. gas:
Converting over-the-road trucking to Natural Gas would be astonishingly expensive for the return on investment, a proposed congressional bill includes a $65,000 subsidy per converted truck. Tens of thousands of lane-miles of new highway would be required to accommodate projected freight growth, and that's just the beginning...
With Mississippi River lo water levels, freight is at a standstill, rail can replace ships & use less energy.
http://www.steelinterstate.org/
happyslug
(14,779 posts)With the Interstate Highway System the system of Subsidy was easy, the Federal and State Governments imposed or raised gasoline taxes, then told car owners that was for maintenance of the road so they could drive on the roads. No one told car drivers they were paying for roads HEAVY TRUCKS could go on, thus it was a hidden subsidy (as are most such subsidies).
The Trucking industry will fight any increase in oil taxes ("Oil Taxes" is a term I am using to include both the Tax on Gasoline AND Diesel) by simply pointing out it is going to RAIL not ROADS. People assume Roads mean roads they will travel on, but rail is a system they will NOT use. Thus opposition to Oil taxes going to Rail will be immense, given that it will be driven by the trucking industry.
Corporation do this all the time, emphasis how something MAY hurt a poor person, when the real concern is how it will affect them (The classic case is real estate taxes, the little old lady who will lose her home to taxes is always given, even through it never happens, but this story is spread by Corporation who do NOT want the taxes on their expensive offices and homes to go up. Corporation know, people do NOT care how a tax increase hurts a corporation, but know people worry about the old and infirm, thus the little old lady losing her home is brought out as why the tax increase should NOT occur OR that taxes should shift from property, the richest property tends to be owned by corporation to income, something Corporation can avoid paying).
Thus it will be a hard fight to get high speed rail into the US. I agree with the Steel Interstate Coalition that going "back" to rail makes sense, but the biggest problem is HOW come up with the money to do so NOT how to do it. I would opt for the following as something achievable today:
1. Require all Railroad to electrify, it is NOT that hard to do as your web site points out, but mandating it will speed it along.
2. Forbid local government from taxing the electrification equipment. One of the reasons for de-electrification of rails systems through the US after WWII was that local government would tax such improvements as part of their real estate taxes. The Father of Modern Real Estate Taxes, Henry George always opposed taxing improvements on land, wanted taxes on the land itself based on its location in relation to other pieces of real estate, highways etc. Several areas do this, tax LAND separate from improvements (The City of Pittsburgh did it till about 10 years ago, it was eliminated in the infighting over land taxes and the need to re-access property ever so often to keep the tax as fair as possible).
3. Finish the tunnel to New York City, the lack of that tunnel (today there is only two line of rail between NYC and New Jersey, this restricts how much can go by rail through NYC and is the biggest bottleneck in the country when it comes to rail).
4. Bite the bullet and build a STRAIGHT rail line from either Philadelphia or Washington to Pittsburgh. This would require a massive amount of tunneling, but would cut transportation times in half. At present the old Pennsylvania Main Line and the old B&O main line wiggle around the Appalachian mountains to get to Pittsburgh from Philadelphia or Washington. I know the Mountains out west are larger, taller and a bigger headache, but a series of tunnels through the Appalachian mountains would be the single greatest gain of speed for the maximum number of trains. Washington to Pittsburgh in Shorter, but Philadelphia to Pittsburgh has lower mountains. Pick your poison between the two routes. George Washington liked the Route from Washington (Thus talked General Braddock to take that route in 1754), but General Forbes, who took Pittsburgh in 1758 from the French liked the route from Philadelphia.
I mention the above, for the above is doable today and has a huge return if done. The rest of the system can piggy back on it. Now you have to give people in all areas of the Country something and something should be done elsewhere (LA to Seattle for the West Coast, Seattle to Minneapolis for the Northern Mountain States La to Denver AND Dallas for the central and mountain states. Minneapolis to Pittsburgh via Chicago for the Mid West, Dallas to Houston, Barton Rouge, Atlanta and Charleston for the South. These can be started WHILE the above is being built. You have to give all sections of the Country something, including a Boston to Albany to Detroit via Ontario for the New England, up State New York and Michigan support.
The problem remains how do we pay for the above, it needs to be done but someone has to pay for it up front. Private enterprise only does thing with a high rate of return, thus when Railroads had such high rates of return (1840s till 1912) Railroad boomed. When the rate of return dropped stating in the 1880s, investments in rail dropped looking elsewhere to get a high return on investment. Thus this has to done by the Government AND that goes back to how to subsidize the system. A tax on oil would be the best, but it will be opposed for people are of the mind set that oil taxes should go to highways only.
Thus the real issue is paying for the system NOT designing it.
Side note, the site mentioned peak oil. I once made a prediction that once peak oil hits, various ways to address it will come up. Electrification of the Railroads would be first, for it is easy (5-10 years after peak). I then predicted electrification of the Interstate Highway system, probably 10-15 years after peak oil. The reason is the volume of traffic can justify such a system if the price of oil is high enough. Then 10-15 years later the interstate system is converted to rail, so that the right of ways can be used AND Steel wheel on Steel Rail is still the most energy efficient transportation system. That would put us in the 2050 time period, thus Peak Oil may force the issue and we get a Steel Interstate system by default.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Stupid fucking politicians.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I visit San Francisco a lot driving from the Central Coast. If they wanted to charge me buy the mile to visit the city I'd choose to go somewhere else.
Ter
(4,281 posts)We could have an 80% majority in both Houses if we weren't so damn stupid. This give pukes ammo that we really are nanny staters and really want to take away your freedom. I'd personally vote against any politician who supports this.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)One massive problem with this proposal is that the 9 county Bay Area is ringed by other counties full of people who commute into the Bay Area every day. Are you going to give us a free ride? Or will you ring the Bay Area with toll booths and have people checking our mileage as we travel in and out? As a non-resident of the Bay Area, they have no authority to require me to install any sort of tracking device (and because the Interstates are federally funded, they can't prevent me from driving on them either).
I live in Stanislaus County and drive into Livermore on a regular basis. Under this proposal, I would pay nothing for that drive, while a Livermore resident who drives only a few miles across town would pay a tax penalty. Somehow, I don't see that surviving the ballot box.
