Pardon me but FUCK THIS IDEA: Gas tax on miles, not gallons, tested

[elehhhhna]

Gas tax on miles, not gallons, tested
PORTLAND, Ore., March 25 (UPI) -- Oregon is testing the idea of collecting highway funds through a tax on miles driven, rather than gasoline consumed.

Eighty percent of Oregon's highway money comes from its 24-cents-per-gallon gas tax. If the state promotes reducing gasoline consumption and consumers tend to buy the fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, highway revenues would take a hit, The New York Times reported.

The test program uses a global positioning system to track miles driven, using a black box (!!!)to calculate how many miles are clocked in-state, out of state and during rush hour.


http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060325-031322-1742r

[unblock]

1. that's just bizarre on so many levels

not the least of which is that gas consumption is so much easier to measure.

[napi21]

2. You know what would make more sense.

Base the tax on vehicle weight. The heavier the vehicle, the more wear and damage it does to the road surface. That's one of the reasons, on many toll roads, the fees are per axle etc.

[SoCalDem]

63. Scales in front of pumps.. Easy to do

Hummer=$5.00 a gallon
Corolla=$1.75 a gallon


Heavy farm vehicles or waivered work trucks could use a speed-pass thingie available at the counter to adjust the rates, but the giganto-vehicles would then be paying "their fair share", and thrifty people would be getting a break..

Or they could just install an RFID (since they plan to anyway) that connects emissions to gas price.... a well maintained vehicle pays less...one without a tuneup for years, pays more..

fair is fair

[Blue_Tires]

68. people have tried

to get the fuel consumption tax applied to (non commercial) truck/SUVs since the Carter admin, but our friends in the automakers' lobby have swatted it down at every chance

[Canuckistanian]

3. Makes sense from a road maintenence view

But I agree that it would be an ecological and energy consumption faux pas. The state should be encouraging people to drive less in the first place.

And, people are not going to go along quietly with having their driving habits monitored and enforced by a mysterious "black box".

[TahitiNut]

18. No, it doesn't make sense from that POV either, imho.

The wear and tear on roads is far greater when a 6,000lb. SUV slams over it than when a 3,000lb. sedan cruises by - and it's not just twice as much. The pot-holed rust belt is looking more and more like Beirut, with pot-holes looking like mortar craters.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Still, it's the 18-wheelers that do most of the damage

And they're already paying the big road taxes, at least where I live.

[TahitiNut]

33. Not on the most vulnerable streets.

The most vulnerable streets are residential and secondary roads. The 18-wheelers spend 99% of their time on highways built to a higher load specification. I'm old enough to remember when many streets and bridges were off-limits to vehicles over 5,000 lbs. "Load Limit" signs were everywhere. I'm old enough to remember when 18-wheelers weren't permitted on many residential and side streets - when movers had to transfer their loads from highway vans to smaller trucks in order to deliver the household goods.

[OhioNerd]

32. I'm sorry but...

I'm sorry, but your response demonstrates a prejudice that I think is skewing your view.

I believe that what you intended to say was: "The wear and tear on roads is far greater when a 6,000lb. SUV uses it than when a 3,000lb. sedan uses it..."

What you actually said was this: "The wear and tear on roads is far greater when a 6,000lb. SUV slams over it than when a 3,000lb. sedan cruises by..." (Added emphasis mine)

It appears to me that you harbor a certain disdain for SUVs and it makes me wonder if you have even considered the possibility that an SUV can be a rational choice for either a primary or secondary vehicle. In regards to the tax issue, I suspect that any tax plan is going to be unfair to someone but that a tax per gallon is probably the least unfair to the largest number of people.

[TahitiNut]

35. (Hmm) Strange, but I don't detect the slightest 'sorrow' in your post.

Funny, that. :shrug: Ironic, too. :eyes:

(Like) my current car ...




(Like) my prior car ...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioNerd]

52. Did you have a factual issue you wished to discuss?

Telling me that you don't detect any sorrow in my post because I used the phrase "I'm Sorry" to indicate that I was trying to be respectful is a bit, well... snarky.

If you had a factual issue with my post you wished to debate or discuss I'd be happy to do so.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Bashing SUVs is what passes for fun on DU, stick around and you'll

notice it. :hi:

[OhioNerd]

40. It's a popular sport I guess.

Ironically, my SUV is a Subaru Forester. ;)

[petronius]

51. That other sub-thread bit the dust...

...but I put my reply to your last post to me in my journal, if you're interested.

[OhioNerd]

53. Sure, but...

Can you explain "journal" to me?

I'm not sure where to look.


Edit: Never mind, I figured it out.

2nd Edit: I THOUGHT that I had figured it out, but when I tried to reply to you it just took me back to the thread. Am I doing something wrong or is that just how it works?

[petronius]

54. I guess that's just how it works

I don't know what would happen to a reply to a journal entry that no longer exists in the parent thread - journals are kind of new...

You can reply here if you like - I'll know what you're talking about.

[OhioNerd]

57. OK

Well the FIRST thing I think I'd say is that there is no such thing as a road/gas tax system that everyone is going to think is fair. The best you can do is come up with a compromise that everyone can live with.

Beyond that, you made mention of two different SUVs that both got 20mpg only one was much heavier than the other. You were making the point that they'd both be getting the same mileage and therefore paying the same taxes but that the heavier one would be causing more wear on the road. Valid point, except for one thing. If you have two different SUVs of signifigantly different weight, they will NOT be getting the same mileage.

You might have one vehicle that weighs 3000lbs and another that weighs 3500lbs; and have those two vehicles getting fairly similar mileage. However, you will NOT have a 3000lb vehicle and a 5000lb vehicle getting the same mileage.

To further muddy the waters, think about this:
Source: Consumer Reports

SUV: Ford Escape - Popular 4wd SUV, average size - 3,575lbs - mileage = 19/23
CAR: Crown Victoria - Popular family sedan or "Grandma Car" - 4,180 - mileage = 17/25
Now compare those to a BFS (Big F**king SUV)
BFS: Ford Expedition - Prime example of huge non-commercial vehicle - 5,900lbs - mileage = 13/17

The point of this is twofold:
Not only is the Car/Suv dynamic a bit more complex that we might think it is, but when you look at a really stereotypical vehicle like an Expedition, the owner is taking a big mileage hit. And having owned large vehicles like that (Most recently a 6,500lb 3/4ton Chevy with utility bed), your typical mileage result is going to be something like 12mpg all the time, under all conditions.

[petronius]

61. Those are valid points (especially the first paragraph)

You're correct that there tends to be a strong correlation between vehicle weight and fuel efficiency, and your argument that the larger dollar amount paid in gas taxes by low-efficiency vehicles adequately accounts for the full range of societal costs caused by these vehicles is not irrational. (You are as free to have an opinion as I am to disagree with it. :)) However, I'd suggest that this correlation is strong but not perfect - I could be wrong but I have the impression that there are similarly weighted vehicles with very different fuel efficiencies (I'm thinking hybrid vs. standard SUVs) as well as fairly light sports-car and luxury type vehicles with very low efficiency (these little cars get, IMO, an undeserved pass in the resource consumption/environmental arguments).

I see it a bit differently - I view the social costs of car ownership (i.e. what owners are responsible for paying for through taxes) as falling into two distinct categories:

1. Fuel consumption - these costs include all of the direct and indirect costs associated with using the resource, including the costs of extraction, refining, and transportation, the geopolitical problems, and the environmental issues. I think the flat fuel tax approach adequately captures these costs - drivers of low-MPG vehicles and high mileage drivers pay more.
   
2. Road consumption - this refers to the wear and tear on road surface as well as the safety issues related to larger vehicles. (Also, though less critically, the intangible frustration costs caused to other drivers in terms of reduced visibility, clogged parking lots, etc.) I view this as a separate issue from fuel consumption, and despite the relationship between size and efficiency I argue that this set of costs should be directly addressed (my preference would be through weight-based registration fees).

Another issue to consider, however, is that large vehicles - no matter why people are buying them - are and will continue to be popular. There is currently a trend toward higher fuel efficiency in this high-weight category (with hybrids, for example) and a weight-based tax like I suggest could counteract this trend and push people back toward more standard, heavy SUVs. That would be one objection against tinkering with our current system.

[OhioNerd]

71. You hit on something important.

You hit on something important, albeit tangentially.

I'll cut straight to it with a change in wording to remove the ambiguity. If you think I'm off the mark, tell me.

Those great big SUVs, especially silly ones like the Hummer H2, the Caddila Escalade, the Mercedes Galendewagen, etc. are feckin' ANNOYING.

As in; Who the f**k are you to drive such an obnoxious, self-important vehicle? And why the HELL are you in front of ME?!?! The notion of punishing those wankers is very gratifying.
But honestly, can you really punish people with taxes just because you find them annoying?



Obviously, there are taxes that need to be paid in order to provide the infrastructure that we all need to get from place to place. Fuel taxes are part of that and what's more, the govt already charges bigger/heavier vehicles more money at almost every junction. However, the govt takes a broader view than we do of what's light and what's not. They aren't looking at the few thousand pounds of difference between various passenger vehicles. They're looking at various commercial vehicles, up to and including tractor trailers; and it's been that way since before I was born. (And I ain't young.)

This is all part of a self-correcting problem anyway. When we run out of oil we'll burn something else, most likely alcohol. E85 looks promising. You should see the hot rod I have on the drawing board that will be able to take advantage of E85. Right now you can go into a GM showroom and buy any number of flex-fuel vehicles that will run on both regular gasoline and E85. The economy of it is a little strange because alcohol contains less energy than gasoline but the engine has to stay with a low enough compression ratio to be able to run on gasoline. Once they begin to sell engines with 15:1 compression, which lets the engine exploit the advantages of E85, then you'll really see something.

I'll tell you what... If you find new energy technologies to be exiting, then you're going to like the next few decades. The way we do everything is going to change dramatically. Oil is too valuable to be wasting on producing energy.

[petronius]

74. Funny, but no...

You have correctly deduced that I find unnecessarily large vehicles annoying, but when it comes to tax issues I'm only interested in finding an equitable system where people pay their fair share (based on definable, quantifiable impacts or services received). Ideally, I'd like a tax system that encourages people to make rational, reasonable, socially-conscious choices, but I don't believe in using taxes to punish those I find annoying - partly because I doubt that I'm 100%-non-annoying myself, and partly because there's not enough money in the world to tax all things that annoy me...:) (Also, I like having wankers out ahead of me - they clear out the speed-traps!)

[TahitiNut]

55. It's called "conspicuous consumption" - nothing new, and still insane.

Funny how Bush supporters call those who oppose his fascist/corporatist predation "Bush-bashers" and SUV fans call those who oppose conspicuous consumption "SUV bashers" -- a handy and neat way to shift both the blame and the focus while completely evading intellectually honest discussion of the merits of either.

Once upon a time, folks owned (or borrowed) small trailers for those rare occasions they'd want to transport more than their passenger cars could hold. (My compact LeBaron has a trailer hitch and I owned a small trailer up until 3 years ago.) I once lived in a neighborhood that had an old pickup truck available to ANYONE who needed to do hauling. Everyone knew where the keys were and where it was parked. Everyone kept it gassed up and the 'owner' had basic liability insurance. Once upon a time, people actually followed "good neighbor" practices and the guy with a truck or van would let his friends and neighbors borrow it.

I'd guess about 90% of the folks who drive SUVs could rent one far more cheaply for the rare occasions when they actually needed the extra capacity. There are far more rational and responsible choices for most.

I think the prevalent (real) reasons for buying SUVs are (1) let the other guy die instad of me if we crash, (2) SUVs block my visibility so I'll get one too, (3) penis substitutes, (4) the roads are so bad (partly due to heavy SUVs) that I'll get one for a more comfortable ride and just add to the problem, and (5) the same reason a dog licks his balls: because he can!

Conspicuous consumption is a term introduced by the American economist Thorstein Veblen, in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). The term is used to describe the consumption of expensive goods, commodities and services for the sake of displaying social status and wealth. The term is generally reserved for those forms of consumption that are motivated by societal factors and is not used to describe impulsive behaviours associated with personality disorders, such as binge eating or compulsive spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

See also Veblen's treatment at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/VEBLEN/chap04.html
The 'social status' being postured is often "I've got so much stuff and leisure time that I need this to haul it." More simply, it's also often "My car/daddy can beat up your car/daddy." I regard it as a mild personality disorder, quite frankly.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

64. Great post TahitiNut

:thumbsup: :applause:

[TahitiNut]

67. From a fellow fan of Arundhati Roy, I'm humbled.

Thank you! (I adore her! Possessed of all those qualities I admire most.)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

65. well, considering he was talking about the wear and tear each causes

the road, and since that wear and tear is directly related to weight, his choice of words doesn't seem like a bias at all.

[OhioNerd]

72. LOL, you're joking, right?

You can look at the words I quotated, especially the ones I bolded and then look at me with a straight face and claim that his words aren't biased?

Seriously...
Forget that I'm the new guy. Forget any questions of pride, ego or social obligation to your friend.

Are you honestly claiming that you see NO bias in his words and/or attitude?

[fishwax]

73. lol. no. are you?

His words don't convey a "prejudice that is skewing (his) view," They reveal *his view*. Colorful language is a rhetorical tool that conveys meaning. His point was that the difference in weight of an SUV and a sedan is the difference between a car that "slams over" the road and a car that "cruises by." That's not a bias or prejudice, but rather reflects his conclusion. His words are biased in the sense that he has a point of view. But that doesn't mean, as you implied, that his possible disdain for SUVs colors his judgment.

Forget that I'm the new guy. Forget any questions of pride, ego or social obligation to your friend.

Hmm ... you sound defensive and dismissive. I'm not sure why. It's not a matter of pride, ego, or social obligation. And it happens that I like new folks :)

Welcome to DU :toast:

[slaveplanet]

59. The pot holes in the rust belt

have more to do with secret Highway slush funds, being used for anything but fixing the roads.

fuel use is as great as ever...and so is the money they're taking in because of that.

[TahitiNut]

62. The misuse and abuse of highway funding is no doubt a huge part

... of the problem with roads and highways, and is almost nowhere more visible and conspicuous than in the Detroit area where I (now, sadly) live. Not only are such funds used for other purposes, unrelated to roads and highways, but the contracts for highway repairs and construction are obviously being granted for sub-standard and shoddy work in most areas and the "Cadillac" of construction in the more affluent neighborhods where (merely coincidentally, of course) the politicially-connected live and (secondarily) work.

When I first returned to this area (where I ws born and mostly raised) three years ago, after being gone for about 30 years, I was stunned and appalled at the abominable deterioration of the City of Detroit's roads and streets. They're rubble! In neighborhoods where my (former) girlfriends lived, the deterioration was appalling. What I thought might be Memory Lane had become Rubble Road. Michiganders make jokes about the "signs of spring": "Slow! Construction Zone!" and the international orange traffic cones that sprout up - but it's not funny at all to see the same roads become rubble within a year of being festooned with taxpayer-dollar-paid cones.

It's also stunning to me to see the Road Warrior behemoths that populate the roads and highways around here ... from Hummers and Navigators and Escalades to fully-power-equipped Chevy Suburbans - almost all occupied only by a solo driver, most often on their cell-phone, with no visible cargo whatsoever. It's common to stop at a light and be completely surrounded by exhaust-spewing high-rise behemoths that block not only my view of the light but of cross-traffic and any pedestrians. After living in (and loving) the San Francisco Bay Area for 15 years, it's stunning indeed. (It's no accident that Californians, despite their famous mobility and long commutes, are the least energy consuming people per-capita in the USA.)

[Salviati]

4. That's insane, for so many reasons...

Especially since the gas tax is used to pay for repair and upkeep on the roads, and the vehicles that do the most damage to the roads are, you guessed it, the largest most fuel inefficient types.

[Richard D]

5. Box, meet hammer.

[zoeb]

6. Does it include exemptions for delivery services?

Otherwise most trucking companies, UPS, DHL, USPS, newspapers, pizza will be out of business with this sort of program.

[classof56]

7. Well, as an Oregonian, I think it's safe to say--this will never fly here.

For one thing, it's an election year and no legislator wanting to keep his/her job would dare lobby for this. Not to mention, the initiative petition process is alive and well here, and like it or not, it's a very effective method of shutting down proposals like this. Plus, we have vote-by-mail, which makes it much more difficult to skew election results.

But thanks for the heads-up on this. We the people will be watching!

Tired Old Cynic

[ContraBass Black]

8. This shifts the tax burden toward more efficient cars.

Somebody didn't think.

Or maybe they did.

[elehhhhna]

10. It's the "gas discount for Hummer owners" act

[FormerDittoHead]

24. Exactly - totally regressive tax for those actually trying to help.

Meanwhile, as the other poster noted, people driving gas guzzliers will see their overall price of gas go DOWN.

This is totally upside down.

[area51]

9. Gas tax on miles

One of the problems w/this is the only jobs some people can find in this bad economy are far away from their homes. They can't just quit their jobs & look for one closer, or easily sell their house & move closer (or if they're an apt. dweller, the only places near work might be too expensive to afford). People shouldn't be punished for having to drive far to a job.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. It sounds good in principle, BUT

. . .and that is a very big BUT . . .

Can't we just see the state getting agents into people's cars to check their odometers? Can't we just see a small black market cottage industry growing up around paraphernalia to falsify the reported number of miles driven? Can't we just see the public practically giving awards out for creative tax dodging?

No thanks. Let's just stick with gasoline consumed.

[Boojatta]

15. "It sounds good in principle" is what people say about totalitarianism.

Maybe it sounds good to people who haven't thought very much about principles.

[pstans]

12. That is backwards

They should be encouraging conservation and buying cars with better mpg.

[Boojatta]

13. They didn't think of raising the gas tax per gallon?

Maybe this is a new idea: raising the tax. Historians on DU, can you tell me whether or not any tax has ever been increased?

If the state promotes reducing gasoline consumption and consumers tend to buy the fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, highway revenues would take a hit, The New York Times reported.

[TahitiNut]

22. Why not tax a gallon of gas like a pack of cigarettes?

:evilgrin: After all, isn't it supposed to both subsidize the social costs and encourage a reduction in usage?

[ladjf]

14. This is a ploy to penalize fuel saving vehicles. If enacted, it

would significantly suppress the further development of alternate energy powered autos and trucks.
This law is the oil company's wet dream.

[mondo joe]

16. Let's tax poor fuel efficiency instead. n/t

[wtmusic]

17. Ooh, they could even tell where you were driving

and maybe even if you were a terrorist. How useful!

[gratuitous]

19. It's a persistent idea

And all the more dismaying because it's so stupid. Three minutes thinking about it, and DUers have spotted most of the holes in the proposal, and you realize what kinds of problems are going to be propagated. For some reason, it keeps cropping up here in Oregon; I strongly suspect a well-financed push from some large industrial concern. We'll figure out which one eventually.

[yy4me]

20. Mandatory tracking device?

This is too bizarre to be considered. Just another spying device. Just one little extra chip and big brother knows where you are. Good grief, Am I getting paranoid?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. My first thought was Big Brother, and I don't believe you're paranoid

at all. Just do a search on DARPA....

[WinkyDink]

43. Isn't this being done in England now? The tracking, i mean.

[wtmusic]

21. Why what a surprise -- proposed by a REPUB state senator

http://www.brucestarr.org/

Excellent resource:

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/road_watchers.html

[Solo_in_MD]

23. This is what comes from using taxes as an instrument of social policy

Equitably tax road uses for roads. Do not divert funds into the general fund. Do not pay road bonds out of the general fund. No incentives or disincentives for MPG or value. Let taxes honestly reflect costs incurred. That will lower the propensity of government wonks to meddle (well overdue) and in the case of driving, that means costs will rise in some state since it will no longer be subsidized and lower in others. Best approach would be registration based on weight and fuel taxes, vice ad velorum taxes in use in many states.

[noahmijo]

25. That is total bullshit sorry Oregonians

So a motorcyclist should be charged the same as some Hummer driving asshole? yea that's fair.

[anitar1]

44. I think the best way to address the problem is to install

pedals on every vehicle.

[Mist]

26. Another expense with this type of tax (which sounds too unwieldy

to be implemented, as well as too damn nosy) is it would probably require extra hiring of state personnel just to try to keep track of all the data. Best idea is to go by weight of vehicle, tho' of course trucking companies won't like that.

[Savannah Progressive]

27. Truckers already pay taxes based upon Miles Driven.

The Truckers, a vast majority of whom are just working folks who are trying to survive, already pay taxes based upon miles driven in each state. They must track the miles driven in each state, now days this is accomplished with the same sort of Satalite Tracking system mentioned in this story, and the taxes are paid to each state based upon the miles driven in that state.

For example, if they purchase fuel in Idaho, drive to Seattle, they would pay Idaho the fuel purchase tax, then pay taxes to Oregon, and Washington. In fact, they are required to purchase an Oregon Licence Plate, as that state doesn't recognize any other states Licence Plate for truckers. They may also purchase a permit to operate on Oregon Roads for a handful of days instead, but most trucking companies buy the plate required instead of a temporary permit.

These are basically the rules we have forced our Truckers to live under, and the basic premise of fairness requires that all people have the same access, and same requirements, as anyone else.

[immoderate]

28. Tax on gas is the right way.

You all have it right. Taxing fuel is the most equitably progressive way to distribute the costs.

More miles = more taxes.

More vehicle weight = more taxes.

Larger engines = more taxes.

I'd suggest another progressive wrinkle, add insurance premiums to gas revenues. South Africa does it this way and it works very well.

--IMM

[Swamp Rat]

47. "add insurance premiums to gas revenues."

For years I've wished for that to happen. It's a GREAT idea!

[immoderate]

49. Thank you.

Your concordance is much appreciated.

--IMM

[PetraPooh]

30. If they just checked the odometer, maybe okay, but a GPS, NO!

[madokie]

34. I measure my fuel usage as miles to dollars and the last time

I checked I was getting 6.1 miles per dollar. I set the odometer when the light comes on tell me I'm running low then jot down the miles and then I always put in a dollar amount that is easy to figure, makes it easy to know at all times how many miles I'm going to be going on said amount.

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. That because they want the Hybrid driver's money too!

They'll get their freakin' money come hell or high water.

[Jack_DeLeon]

38. I dont want a govt black tax box in my car...

fuck that shit.

If thats the case I'll just go unregistered and avoid paying the tax altogether.

[seabeyond]

42. or it is a break for those with hoggish vehicles like hummers and suburban

i see it a different way. jsut another way to let them off the hook and go after the people that dont have the money to throw away

[RB TexLa]

45. As someone in outside sales, I think I very much oppose this n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

46. I have to agree--

people who buy cars with better fuel economy should be getting the breaks--if the taxes are based on miles driven, the benefit of driving a more efficient car is gone and assholes with schoolbus sized SUVs will be getting a huge tax break.

F* that.

[WestSeattle2]

48. Less affluent live farther from jobs....and they'll pay

MORE in taxes than more wealthier yuppies who live in downtown condos close to THEIR jobs? How insane is that?

[sweetheart]

50. Its a very intelligent green idea

The technology allows them to charge more for using roads that are
congested, or "during congestion hours", so that the economics of
road-costs self-regulate traffic jams. Otherwise, the traffic simply
increases to fill all existing road space forever until freeways are
10 lanes wide each way and still its not enough.

Then heavy road users will pay for the taxpayer provided free-resource
and we can begin to make road-users pay their own way, as it is not
a fair tax on non-car owners that they should pay for road maintenance
in their taxes... or at least, not near as much. I think our fat
subsidy culture of free gifting to the car driver the taxpayer's purse
should be long gone short on.

[Boojatta]

60. Re economics of road congestion

The technology allows them to charge more for using roads that are congested, or "during congestion hours", so that the economics of road-costs self-regulate traffic jams.

Why doesn't the cost in time suffice to deter people from driving on congested roads? How is the fee level going to be established for a given section of road at a given time? If you want self-regulation, then shouldn't there be an auction rather than a predetermined fee?

[sweetheart]

70. congestion charging

As several schemes are showing, it works to having it basically charging the peak rate during
known peak hours and a second rate for semi-traffic'ed hours, and a zero-rate for off-peak.
This is a city-metropolitain traffic issue, but one that "ties the purse to the pollution".
If the pollution is the traffic, the noise, the petrol wasted sitting in first gear, then
we need a deterrence for doing the shopping run during high traffic hours. It has proven to
work exceedingly well in the city of london.

I would say its a fee, as its slightly complex, the rate table. One scale is the time of day,
another dimension is the congestion rate table for the section of road, another dimension is
the weather condition (say snow with only 1 lane open), another i'm sure in future will be
your vehicle axle loading, with the presumption being that a heavier load than human beings
deserves a freight-charge. The damage to the road is proportional to the weight of the
vehicle... so is the fuel burned... another dimension is the vehicle weight, engine displacement
and net fuel efficiency. These together form a complex rate table that bascially, like your
phone bill, would charge you for network-usage.

The system *could* be implemnted with the proper data and privacy safeguards, much as aircraft
are requirred to carry a tracking beacon today. Piloting a multi-tonne heavy object across
public roads is public business, the road system is not out of line to require such box technology.

I think they should add 1 more dimension, inserting a drivers license magnetic key, that the car
has speed governance based on who's driving. That way a parent of a teenager with a new license
could set the car to max-45. A drunk driver convicted could have the license key set that the
car would not operate for 12 hours if it spent more than 5 minutes within 100 yards of a bar.

The digital future is something we can embrace. It allows us to adapt previously inflexible
technologies. Why have a static speed limit when it can be flexible to the road conditions,
the experience of the driver and the traffic conditions. The car can operate as an interactive
network-road information element and the whole road system can be tuned to best serve the
driver and taxpayer both.

I'm totally for innovation, and totally not for violation of privacy... what to make of this, heck.
given the republicans and their evil ways, it will only be used as a tool to break people, and
in that case, its probably better to block all innovation, the fench sabateur during the vichy dem
regime period of the nazi occupation.

[donco6]

56. Extremely regressive.

The inexpensive suburbs are further from town. Hence, those with lower income will pay more than those who live in older, established, moneyed areas of town.

No?

[slaveplanet]

66. PPO's-This is going in whether you like it or not

The real and horrifying elements of what's really going on here.

What they are not telling you about this, is they have already been putting in the infrastructure for this. They have done it quietly.
Articles like this one are just the announcement.

What's going on is, they plan on taking all the roads your grandparents already have paid for, the Legitimate governmental authority that sits above the roads, the law enforcement and fining authority, and hand the whole kit and kaboodle over to their buddies and choice private PPO's who will then have total authority over your movement.

The king of Spain will be operating the trans Texas corridor through his company Cintra, and many of the key free highways in Texas. This Oregon thing is much the same setup, as well as the ones proposed in Ca, OH, IN most of the east coast states.

They will hook into this a point system that take into account all aspects of your life, and use your license as hostage.
The Tolls they're proposing begin @ $.15 a mile(multiply that by your MPG, for a per gallon price, mine works out to over $4 a gallon on top of the price of gas...right now fed excise is about $.50 a gallon), that does not include the price of gas and the included federal tax that won't be going away.

In Texas, despite opinion polls 95% against and overflowing angry city council meetings, citizens ONLY narrowly defeated the proposal to start putting RFID in the registration stickers.

The crooks don't care, they are ignoring the defeat, they are going ahead with apilot program and putting in the RFID in anyway.
and challenging the people to vote them out.




PS: the TransTexas corridor has had a whistle-blower go public, and say the concrete mix was totally below spec and is already falling apart before completion. They are cutting the cost every way possible, and are using illegal labor.

[gollygee]

69. Big vehicles are heavier and use more gas

they cause more wear on the roads and should pay more.

Also, this takes away an incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.