Oregon Considers GPS-based Road Taxes 696
Oregon is considering instituting a road tax - a tax based on the mileage driven within the state. The tax would be implemented with mandatory GPS boxes in each vehicle recording the mileage driven in Oregon. We've done a couple of previous stories on Great Britain's initiatives in this area.
Oregon California (Score:5, Funny)
if you think about it, im not really off topic (Score:3, Funny)
But seriously, no laws have been passed. All they are doing is studying a problem: "If your roads are paid for by a gas tax, how do you pay for roads when electric and hybrid cars start eating into your gas tax revenues?" That is a good question, worthy of some study. I think there must be a better idean than a transponder to record mileage on Oregon roads. What if you drive on private roads a lot?
Re:Would you quit blaming California? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a long time Oregon resident, let me fill in the slashdotters with some background.
One: Oregonians are poor. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country. When you run out of unemployment benefits, you automatically get taken off the unemployment rolls and become 'employed'. Real unemployment is 15-20 percent. Our forest product, tourist, fishing, and electronic industries are decimated.
Two: Oregonians are dumb. We have the shortest school year in the country and are about to shorten it another twenty or so days. We have one of the highest dropout rates in the USA. Most of the jobs requiring advanced skills and education to people moving here from other places.
Three: Oregonians are cheap. We voted down all major tax increases in the past ten years. We defeated the sales tax proposals put forth by our betters five times in the past twenty years. Being cheap is a direct result of being poor and dumb.
Four: Oregon is big. Bigger than New England. A third of the people live in the Portland metro area; one third live in other 'cities'; and the rest live far out in the country and drive lots of miles.
Five: Our state legislators are either over-educated Jane Jacobs followers from Portland or Eugene (the Dems) or dumb-as-dirt bible-thumping morons from the woods (the Repubs). Each side hates each other and would gladly shut down the state rather than cooperate or give an inch on anything. Both sides pride themselves on coming up with truly dumb laws to show that they are meaner than the other side. For example, get caught with any amount of voter-approved medical mar1juana, lose your driver's license for a year.
Or, drop out of high school at age sixteen? Can't get a driver's license until you're twenty-one.
To point of all this? Don't take anything that the Oregonians say or do seriously.
Re:Would you quit blaming California? (Score:3, Informative)
"Last year in Oregon, 963 people fell off their bicycles -- and drowned"
Taking us seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever had Tillamook Cheese? or Oregon Nog?
In terms of intelligence, we have excellent engineering schools (Oregon State University) and liberal arts universities (University of Oregon). Personally, I graduated from Chemeketa Community College (in Salem) with an AS degree in Computer Electronics. The electronics department at Chemeketa is one of the best I've seen from visiting various community colleges.
of course, the job market here sucks right now, so I'm stuck working for the state. =)
Another thing about Oregon is the livability. There's the big city living in Portland, if that floats your boat, but then there's the ROOM to live out on a couple of acres if a rural setting suites you more. I spent part of my years growing up on about an acre and a half with lotsa trees. My work in downtown salem was a 15-20 min drive, even at the height of rush hour.
What else is there to cover? We have the big beautiful outdoors! Little known waterfalls, hiking trails, and wilderness areas abound. Personally, I enjoy Abiqua Falls outside of Silverton, as well as the Opal Creek Wilderness area, up at the end of the Little North Fork road. =)
Oh, and Seaside! The beach there is one of the widest on the west coast! They've had beach volleyball championships there. Lincoln City hosts kite flying festivals a little further south. The dunes near Florence and south are a blast to go running around in (on foot or on your favorite atv veh).
And that's just in the northwest area of Oregon -- there's sooooo much to explore here!
Re:Would you quit blaming California? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the only foolish law in Oregon... (Score:3, Informative)
Oregon has a lot of foolishness surrounding laws. For example, see this: Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash. [hevanet.com].
A city councilman in Portland, the largest city, tried to promote a law that would require giving people tickets for going through a yellow (not red) light. Of course, the purpose of a yellow light is to warn drivers that the light will soon be red, not to make them stop.
For a while, there was a law in Portland that said you could be fined $400 for jaywalking. This was especially foolish because there are many times when the streets of Portland are empty.
Recently I talked with a programmer friend who said that he had spent a week finding a subtle bug that mildly affected the user interface of one of his company's products.
However, when I talk with people in Oregon government about the major defects in Oregon law, they just dismiss the issue with very little thought. One recently told me something to the effect of, "It would be too difficult to make a more perfect law." Another said, "This is the legislature's responsibility," which I understood to mean, "I don't have to think about it."
There are a lot of foolish laws in Ohio, too... (Score:5, Funny)
In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker's stand, you can be fined $25.00.
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
The Ohio driver's education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.
Participating or conducting a duel is prohibited.
Breast feeding is not allowed in public.
It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance.
No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.
I don't think Oregon has any patent on foolish laws. In fact, they tend to have extremely good ones.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "considering a law" and passing one.
But I guess it's too much to expect the typical slashdot poster or moderator to understand that.
Re:Oregon California (Score:5, Insightful)
Two positives: It taxes road use, and makes SUV's pay more per mile.
So simple. and better.
This goes to show that the real use of this GPS TAX is identification and location of vehicles.
Not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Ask a truck driver. In the state I live in, there is a significantly higher gasoline tax than a lot of other states, especially those around us.
A lot of trucking companies have taken great pains to plot exactly how far out of their way they can go to still be profitable. In other words paying a truck driver extra milage for almost an extra half a day can be cost effective.
This works the same way when the destination is in my state. They plot the gas fill ups so that they have to get as little gas, definitely not proportional to their road use, in the state.
Re:Oregon California (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like cigarette taxes - they discourage smoking, but they also raise revenue, and state governments get 'hooked' on the money, to the extent that truly discouraging smoking gets problematic, in a budgetary sense.
That's one way to guarantee a dubious activity will remain permitted for a long time. For example, in Washington State, both timber sales and the state Lotto send money directly to the education budget. That way, if you're against aggressive logging or state-sponsored gambling, you can be painted as against children.
Might be a good thing.. (Score:4, Funny)
For once, macho-dudes might actually consider using a roadmap rather than driving around lost.
Oh, right.... (Score:3, Funny)
The Portland Police will just use this so they know you're far from home and they can rifle through your garbage with impunity.
Read more -- Oregon DOT (Score:3, Informative)
Poor Oregon. But imagine what people said about them when they came up with a gas tax??
No reason given? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No reason given? (Score:2, Redundant)
Yes it does. They say that their gas tax revenue decreases as cars become more fuel efficient (especially with hybrids). The mileage tax would be based on the current gas-tax rate.
Of course, part of what drives people to adopt fuel efficient cars is the savings. If Oregon decides to reduce those savings, they can expect a proportional reduction in the rate people switch to hybrids.
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
They can simply increase the rate of the gas tax...
Re:No reason given? (Score:3, Insightful)
This proposal is incredibly counterproductive. I think the gas tax should be raised, regularly (e.g., 5c/year), to discourage heavy consumption. And btw lightweight fuel-efficient vehicles wear out roads less than huge testosterone trucks.
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
Whoa! That sounded just like a clip from politician's weekly radio address on CNN!
All it needs now is a followup like "...and it will only benifit special interest groups and their agendas" =)
Re:No reason given? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus don't forget all the potential for using anti-terror efforts as an excuse for tracking citizens' movements or other bald-faced power grabs.
This is what happens when a bunch of technically- naive (i.e. most) politicians get ahold of a copy of Wired.
Oregon won't let you pump your own gas either (Score:3, Interesting)
God knows how much gunk got in the engine because of that.
Good thing it was a lease.
Re:Why NJ Doesn't Allow Self-Serve Gas (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the real problem is government attempting to right some imbalance by passing a law and then passing another law to adjust for the new problems created and then passing yet another law when that doesn't quite work... that's why the government is constantly screwing the consumer in areas like cable and satellite TV. They are trying to level the playing field by badaging the symptoms rather than curing the causes and are causing more problems then they solve.
It's also how our Federal tax code got to its ludicrous, elephantine state. Just like in programming, sometimes you have to throw the whole thing out and start over. It will be much less work in the long run.
A flat tax or something equivalent wouldn't be a panacea, but it would sure be a better starting place for adjustments than the status quo. Also, not leading people around by the nose through the tax code (incentives, disincentive and other nonsense, social engineering through draconian bureaucracy...) would be a good idea.
Why? Here's WHY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
The huge disadvantage: privacy. How on Earth do they think they can protect the privacy of drivers in Oregon? Today, phone logs and account information are accessible to anyone with shady connections and cash. And even if the information somehow stayed within the government, how does it justify digging so deeply into the privacy of its citizens?
Re:No reason given? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it is disadvantage depends on where you are looking from. Increase in state control over individuals is an advantage for the state (recall the Poindexter's "scientia est potentia"). This is probably why it is being pushed by the bureaucrats.
The same way the internet filters in libraries got rammed through dressed up in 'protecting the children' rationale. Or the never ending 'war on drugs' which has done more damage to privacy and freedom than any other single 'noble cause' (to say nothing of damage to the pocketbooks of public which finances both sides in the war, as victims of increased taxes and other property crimes).
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
I did. There was nothing that explained why they felt that raising the gas tax wouldn't accomplish the same thing for less money, less hassle, and less Orwell.
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
They basically pay for their gas by the mile, and it has little effect. This wouldn't be much different, except for the possibility of a monthly bill telling them exactly how much they paid.
GPS spoofers (Score:2)
I preduct a thriving industry in GPS spoofers if this thing passes. It wouldn't be that difficult to generate signals that overwhelm the real GPS and make it look like the car is hardly moving. No mods to the in-car system needed.
Re:No reason given? (Score:2)
Expect Oregon to lose... oh, *ALL* of its tourism business if they do this.
Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:4, Interesting)
You still are going to need people on the road to visually see if a car has paid or not. So whats the point of making it GPS?
The UK one being introduced is not GPS but instead relies of computer character recognition of number plates. Its most likely doomed to fail.
Re:Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a case of legislators not understanding technology. It amazes me how every time a new technology is invented some legislative body gets wet over how to make money from it. Civilian GPS is *extremely weak* on purpose. It only works if you have a clear *line of sight* to the sky. Which means the GPS antenna would have to be mounted on the roof or the front or back hood of the car to work. How many sports car owners will be willing to screw up their vehicles (vipers, corvettes... etc) and mount this antenna there (not to mention it would look ridiculous)? Then all you would have to do to disable the GPS would be to cover the antenna. The system couldn't report loosing the GPS signal either because you would loose it all the time - in tunnels, in parking structures, in garages, while being towed, under tree cover, during bad weather, etc.
This tax would do create an enforcement nightmare. They would have to create a new department to regulate/distribute/license/collect taxes on the devices, and it would have to be supported by draconian laws and penalties. It would create another measure/counter-measure arms race, and as we've seen in private industry, the enforcer rarely wins.
Lastly, the tax isn't efficient, and this is what scares me the most. Lets say that through mass production, the GPS devices cost 100$ for the consumer, and 50$ to install. Who will have to pay that cost? The taxpayer of course ... now to recover 150$ at the tax rate they mentioned of 1.25 cents/mile you would have to drive about 12,000 miles. Here in California, the normal mileage rate is considered to be 8 - 10k/year. So generously, the first year of taxes are wasted because they could have just collected the 150$ the device cost from you and had the money directly, instead of forcing you to pay for the device, pay for collection and enforcement, and THEN pay a tax.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of all these GPS road tax schemes (Score:2)
Just Im trying to to say that its going to take more man power to implement the thing and to make the thing work.
Itll turn out to be more costly than simply increasing car taxes or petrol(gas) tax.
Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right! Because people who drive heavier vehicles don't cause any more wear to the roads...oh, wait...
Granted, people who drive hybrids or all-electric vehicles (or CNG or propane, for that matter) get a free (or at least discounted) ride with gasoline taxes. I think they deserve it for keeping the state's air cleaner.
If Oregon was really interested in going after the real source of wear and tear on the highways, they'd be taxing the hell out of large trucks--but that wouldn't fly with any number of well-funded lobbyists, so this sort of ridiculous overly complicated scheme comes up instead.
Re:Don't gasoline taxes do about the same thing? (Score:3, Informative)
For the most part, I travel by bicycle, actually--but I'll bite.
The most-cited work on road wear as a function of vehicle type and weight was conducted by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) in the 1950s and early 1960s. Their Road Test found an approximate fourth-power relation between rate of road wear and axle weight. Much modern highway policy around the world is based on these tests.
In 1989 Irick et al. (working for ARE Inc.) prepared a report Impact of Truck Characteristics on Pavements: Truck Load Equivalency Factors for the U.S. Federal Highway Administration; it cited a second to third-power dependence affected by road type and number of axles. Also in 1989 Small, Winston, and Evans published a book, Road Work: A New Highway Pricing and Investment Policy. It cites a third-power relationship between axle weight and road wear.
Depending on the experimental conditions, doubling vehicle weight will result in anywhere from four to sixteen times as much road wear. An SUV is not going to cause immediate catastrophic failure of roadways, but it does cause significantly more wear than a smaller automobile.
That said, the amount of wear caused by any passenger vehicle--Geo Metro or Ford Explorer--is virtually nil compared to the damage done by a semi. The difference is three to four orders of magnitude. Strictly speaking, it is logical to charge an SUV owner more per driving mile than a subcompact driver--but it would be much more effective to get as many large trucks off the road as possible. How to do so is left as an exercise for the Oregon state legislature.
what's funny, though... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's really sad about this, is that rich people are still less affected (as a percentage of their income) than poor people are. And before you say that poor people can just use Tri-Met [tri-met.org] or some other public transport, remember how much of Oregon is rural.
By the way, if I still lived there, my first challenge to that law would be to have them prove that my car wasn't on a flatbed truck when it was moving around, with the flatbed truck presumably reporting its own movements for taxation purposes, already. And I'd like to see them try to charge me for building an encasing box for the unit to block GPS reception when I'm not at the inspection site, if they win that battle.
hairy eyeball (Score:2)
Because fuel efficiency == bad (!) (Score:5, Informative)
So I guess they are trying not to discriminate against older and larger cars, who would pay much more fuel tax than hybrid, esp. as they raised the tax rate to compensate. An alternative might be a direct ad valorum tax on each automobile, paid with registration -- that would cut against expensive and new cars, unfortunately discouraging trading up.
I am sympathetic with their need to maintain constant income, it's how they maintain the roads. As for their methods?
A bizarre side effect of a good thing, I'll say.
Wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing no one breaks laws. Good thing that people can't change laws once written. Good thing there is no privacy challenge related to non-real-time data collection.
Good thing I DON'T LIVE IN OREGON.
umm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:umm (Score:2)
Good thing GPS's haven't been around long (Score:4, Funny)
Travelled: precisely 15.24 miles today.
Health: Pa died of snake bite.
Only pay during sunny weather... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oregon (Score:2)
Re:Oregon (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Fifty-four fourty or fight, dude!
A better solution that does the same thing (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
-- what stops the state or federal govt (or a malicious third-party, like a stalker) from tracking where you go?
-- how does Oregon collect from out-of-state travellers?
If the purpose of the law is to collect revenue for road usage, what about this can't be done via conventional toll roads, with the use of "EZPass"-style transponders to collect payment?
This is probably cheaper and certainly a more robust way to handle road usage costs than going to an untested and privacy-violating GPS system.
Is Oregon a test-bed for how the government can track the movements of its largely car-bound citizens?
-Alex
Cannot be done! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is, the "Good Faith and Credit Clause" of the U.S. Constitution means that licenses issed by any state are valid in all fifty. What's more, a car with California plates can legally drive on Oregon roads.
The thing is, Oregon cannot require California-registered cars (or cars registered to any of the 49 other states) to have their tracking devices.
Another cause of death: Suddenly every road in the state effectively becomes a toll road. That'll cost them in federal highway funds, as toll roads in theory are supposed to be spending those tolls on their own repairs. And, you can surely bet the neighboring states' representives will see to it that Oregon loses all their highway funds for implamenting this kind of tax.
So, it's a nice chance to beat up a clueless state legislator or two for getting a little too 1984-ish on us... but there's really nothing to fear here. This law is D.O.A.
Good Faith? More like RIGHT to Travel ! (Score:2)
--
prairies, n.: Vast plains covered by treeless forests.
- Anonymous
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:2)
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:2)
It just takes one state with easy to qualify residency standards, and everybody will suddenly become a "resident" of that state, and Oregon would have no way to inflict that requirement on a visitor from another state who just happens to own property in Oregon.
That "within a year" loophole leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:3, Insightful)
But they can -- and probably already do -- require Oregon residents to drive cars registered in Oregon. And they could make the GPS box required to pass inspection, prior to getting registration. This'll only affect Oregonians, unless it works, in which case some blockhead will immediately call for a nationwide system to collect tolls on, say, the Interstates.
FULL faith and credit (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's Full Faith. Nothing requires states to act in good faith.
Someone else mentions the right to travel, which refers not to travel so much as discrimination against out-of-state immigrants with respect to things like welfare benefits and voter registration. Irrelevant here; there is nothing discriminatory about requiring everyone to pay for the road they drive on.
Re:Cannot be done! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not necessarily true. California started requiring additional pollution control equipment on all cars sold in the state some time in the mid-sixties, I believe. It wasn't until 15-20 years later that you no longer saw cars that fell under the categories of "California model" and "49-state model". I'm not saying that it'd take that long with GPS trackers, but if it took 20 years to homogenize smog equipment on all cars when California required it, how long will such a thing take when a smaller state like Oregon does?
Privacy? (Score:2)
Secondly, this tax will discriminate against those people who are forced to drive more miles then others because of their occupation or place of residence.
Re:Privacy? (Score:2)
I think it is an invasion of privacy, but they do have the right to know where and how many miles you drive. It's perfectly legal for a police officer to follow you around, noting such data. Silly, yes, but legal.
Secondly, this tax will discriminate against those people who are forced to drive more miles then others because of their occupation or place of residence.
Aren't those same people then being discriminated against by having to pay more in gas? Perhaps if the state mandated where you live and work, this argument would work.
Don't get me wrong; I don't like the thought of the government (state or federal) having the ability to track my driving via GPS. I'm certain that such records would soon be available to law enforcement - and probably without even needing a warrant, thanks to things like "Homeland Security". Like many other posters, I don't see why they wouldn't just raise the gas tax. Or if they really want to tax based on mileage rather than how much gas you use, why not just use a glorified odometer rather than a complex and expensive GPS system? I suppose that they could tax certain roadways more with a GPS, but I don't think that ability would justify tracking all driving citizens.
Re:Privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct - that was my point, although perhaps not properly explained. We don't have to drive at all. We have choice in where we live and what kind of car we drive and what kind of job we have. Taxing gasoline or mileage isn't discrimination (in the negative sense of the word) because it's something we can do something about. It would be like taxing cell phone usage. Is it discriminatory against people who use cell phones a lot? Well, yes, but not in a violation-of-rights sort of way.
I'll stop here because I think that we're arguing the same point. Consider this post a further explanation of my previous post.
Re:Privacy? (Score:2)
No argument here.
Secondly, this tax will discriminate against those people who are forced to drive more miles then others because of their occupation or place of residence.
Ok, now time to argue. Why shouldn't we discriminate against those who have to drive more miles to their occupation? Why can't they live closer to where they work? We'd certainly be easier on the environment if everyone drove 3 miles to work instead of 20...
Yeah, this'll work (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.phrack-dont-give-a-shit-about-dmca.o
Re:Yeah, this'll work (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, this'll work (Score:5, Informative)
*Sigh* I have this problem with my students, too. The "GPS signal" is actually many radio signals, all of them out in the open and conveying no position data on you. That's right -- the GPS satellites don't tell you where you are. The GPS satellites tell you where the GPS satellites are, via the timing data they broadcast. Note that, too: they broadcast.
A tracking system needs something more than a GPS receiver (and note that, too: "receiver"). There must be some sort of transmitter as well; that's not part of GPS. It's probably be some cell-based thing, but could be just a radio.
So all your paranoids can go dig your shiny new GPS receiver out of the trash. A receiver can't betray your location to The Man.
What about Mileage on Private Property? (Score:5, Interesting)
discriminates against the poor (Score:2)
And what about all the people in the state? Sure GPS units have gone down in price but they still aren't cheap. SO does that mean the State will give a voucher for the units to make it cheaper? No didn't think so.
This law will be defeated because it discriminates against the poor.
Re:discriminates against the poor (Score:2)
Did ya ever see the stereo's in those POS's owned by most teens? It often increases the value of the car by an order of magnitude :-)
This is so dumb!...... (Score:2)
Or even simpler, just apply the tax to gas with the dual effect of driving (pun intended) people towards more fuel efficient cars.
Having this type of tracking information will only lead to more invasive government...and records which could be abused. I grew up in Oregon, and I don't think the people there would go for "manditory GPS tracking" of their vehicles...you might start to see a lot of tin cans mounted above the GPS receivers if the state forces this stupid/invasive measure through.
Re:This is so dumb!...... (Score:2)
What about people who live right near the border of another state or country? Can your state prove that the majority of the miles driven were within your state? Heck, even people who don't live right near a border could rack up a fair amount of out-of-state mileage. There'd be a hell of a stink raised if states tried to base your taxes on your yearly mileage...
In the olden days. . . (Score:2)
I seem to vaguely recall something called a "gasoline tax" as well, which was supposed to have the same effect. Not to mention various levies on tires, which, again, are paid directly in relation to miles traveled.
And now that I think of it, didn't cars used to have something in them specifically to recored miles traveled *already*?
Of course the GPS boxes will never *ever* be used to actually record the movements and whereabouts of citizens "for the children" or to "combat terrorism," no siree Bob!
KFG
Depending on the tax rates ... (Score:2)
This is Really Dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when you don't have a signal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
Re:What happens when you don't have a signal? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Excuse me sir, I'll need to see your license, registration, and your GPS number, please."
Lame idea, but not as bad as it seems... (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that, no matter how well designed, this system is doomed from the start- it's just too complex for John Q. Taxpayer to understand. People in Oregon, just like the rest of the country, don't like new taxes. That's why we've managed to be one of the last holdouts for no sales tax, and we just soundly defeated a Canadian-style universal healthcare bill that would have laid ruin to the state's economy.
-M
They already have this... (Score:2)
What amuses me the most I think, is what while science has been marching forward with newer technologies to increase fuel efficiency (albeit at a snail's pace), the technology to create a road surface that is less susceptible to the wear and tear imposed by day-to-day traffic is something that appears to be somewhat elusive. Another entrenched interest, perhaps?
Why GPS? (Score:2)
Re:Why GPS? (Score:2)
gas tax (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
J.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The affluent SUV drivers pay alot of money with taxes anyway since their vehicles are gas guzzlers. With the population growing in Oregon and the new statistics showing more then half of the new cars being sold are SUV's and trucks there is no need for a tax increase. Money is pouring in. The problem I see is poor money management. Should the gasoline tax be used for the state and federal department of transporation or to the military for a cold war that no longer exists?
The answer to this is the second option. The government should not pay a fuel tax for other programs and then figure out how to tax drivers yet again to pay for the roads. The department of transporation should recieve most of the gasoline tax but they aren't and believe me the tax is bringing in lots of money thanks to gas guzzlers. IF they did this then they would no longer need to keep track of our driven habits to support more government spending.
Here's a reason: (Score:2)
How to head this off (Score:2)
Tantamount to a regressive tax on efficient cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the whole idea of using GPS to track mileage is ludicrous. GPS tracking fails in many situations such as tunnels and even heavy weather. Not to mention that they take time to 'lock on' to the satellite signal, often times longer than the trip itself. And of course buying a GPS device for every car would cost an outrageous amount of money.
The whole idea is DOA.
Something's rotten in the State of Oregon (Score:2)
This tax pays for roads, thus the mention of higher tax for studded tires. But while a fuel tax to some extent measures likely road wear, a per-mile tax per vehicle is useless for those purposes. What's the incentive to drive a small, light vehicle, when you get taxed the same per mile as someone in their 7700lbs Ford Monstrosity? There's a rather confusing (or confused) suggestion that the current Oregon gasoline tax will be retained as well, and that this tax will be an either/or, but that's hard to believe, as all that would achieve would be to introduce extra administration fees for no extra tax revenue.
The suggestion that real time tracking will be "illegal" is simply laughable. The first time law enforcement has a cause celebre (kidnapped Aryan child?), they'll demand access, and they'll be given it. The only question is whether it will be used routinely by the like of Ashcrofts Federal Illumatus Agency to identify suspicious behaviour. I rather suspect that this will depend entirely on how affordable this turns out to be, not on any question of privacy.
While it's always tempting to see conspiracy theories everywhere, in this case it's very hard to see what else it could be. Who's this going to be good for? Big Oil. Ashcroft's Watchmen. Pretty much nobody else, and certainly not the citizens of the State of Oregon.
Time to build a gps jammer (Score:2)
Why not just get a turnpike? (Score:3, Informative)
As an Oregonian.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides being an idiotic idea technically - costs for the GPS boxen (of course they'll probably want to charge the drivers for the box - why not just have everybody cough up the cost of a GPS box when they register their car and actually apply that money to roads instead of the GPS box, but I digress), tracking all of those cars, trying to make sure people don't disconnect them - it's not politically viable. Remember this is a referendum state. For something this far-reaching the legislature will be afraid to just enact it without a vote of the people - that's pretty much how it works here.
Currently some of the beaurocrats are whining about how they're not getting their gas-tax money from all of those folks driving hybrids (must be about 10 of them in the state by now, so it's a major crisis). Problem is, those hybrids do run on gas, they just do it much more efficiently. One would think that using less gas would be something the state would try to encourage instead of wringing their hands trying to figure out how they can spend $millions in order to make not much more money than they are now.
Hopefully, the bozo beaurocrat that came up with this idiotic idea will be promptly fired.
Use based taxes.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything that can be measured will be taxed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Each Government should be able to set an amount of money that is required to provide the services for which they were formed. This is called a realistic budget.
It seems to me that the Government mission has become clouded. Maybe our officials need to sit down and define the scope of government in the context of our State and Federal constitutions. Just because the Constitution does not prohibit government from entering into a particular area does not mean that they are mandated to do so.
Why is it that every time a new technology surfaces that enables something to be measured, government feels the need to use it to extract more money from its citizens?
Taxing the use of our roads seems like a good idea except that whenever you tax an action that is a right you change that action from being a right to a privilege. For example: we have a right to free speech. If your local government made a law that required a permit to speak it would in effect be saying that you do not have a right to speech that speech is a privilege. Rights cannot be taken away without due process.
It has been successfully argued that driving a car is a privilege not a right even though one of our rights allows freedom to travel. The constitution obviously does not specify the method of travel so I guess that's deemed to mean that walking cannot be taxed. Personally I feel that it's very close to the constitutional line. But then what do I know.
Anyway to end this rant I would ask Oregon's Government to consider the question; Just because you may have the technology to use GPS to extract more money from your people, is it really the right thing to do?
Re:Anything that can be measured will be taxed... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can figure out a (legal!) way of driving a car without buying it (maybe building your own?) and you can obtain fuel without buying it OTC (maybe looking at alcohol powered vehicles?) then you can drive without paying tax.
There are so many things wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Gas taxes work better, and promotes lower weight better milage veichels; this law would do the opposite.
The privacy issues (which I believe to be the real reason the proposal is being made) are huge.
But consider also:
Cars already have a way to measure miles on the road that would not involve a large extra cost to the consumer - an odometer. It could be read when the car's license is renewed, of if Oregon has inspections at that time, and people could be taxed accordingly. For those who do a lot of out of state travel (as if that's a real issue), they could supply documentation of such (such as out of state gas receipts) with their taxes and get a rebate. If you don't like that approach, even remote reading odometers for recording mileage at the boarders (for checking people in and out based on mileage) would be less expensive and less obtrusive than trying to track everyone in the state by GPS.
To protect drivers’ privacy... (Score:5, Insightful)
To protect drivers' privacy, using the system to track cars in real time would be illegal.
Right. Just like social security numbers weren't supposed to be used for identification purposes. [cpsr.org]
increase the gas tax instead (Score:3, Insightful)
If Oregon wants to give special treatment to selected groups (truck drivers, low income, etc.), they can tax diesel differently, issue identification that would let these groups pay reduced taxes right at the pump, or institute a rebate program.
The use of GPS for this purpose is so stupid that it suggests to me that there may be a hidden agenda: get the GPS into vehicles and start using it for tracking and surveillance. Or, perhaps, it's simple political stupidity: politicians think that increasing gas taxes is political suicide, but voters are too stupid to figure out thie Rube Goldberg proposal. Or maybe it's just heavy lobbying from electronics manufacturers.
Can't any /. readers THINK logically? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am an Oregon resident, and this has been analyzed and discussed locally and all that LONG before it made any national news streams - or
Oregon's laws are no better or worse than anywhere else in the country. Every state has sucky laws. Every state has screwed up government. Every state has bad taxing schemes. Every state has areas with bad roads, crummy schools, or high crime. Every state also has some good stuffs, nice places, good policies - what have you. Portland has some strange laws (It is illegal to ride a bycicle on the streets downtown) and some good ones (they were the first major city to oficially legalize skateboarding and give skateboarders rights and responsibilities).
1. Oregon is looking at this system for the LONG TERM future, not immediate gain. The simple truth is that Petrolium based fuels are going to be replaced with other mechanisms. They are just THINKING of how they will be able to still provide roads when no one is buy buying gasoline any more. (Flashes of "Mr Fusion" powerd cars come to mind). "OUR ROADS SUCK - WE WANT MORE, BETTER ROADS!!! What do you MEAN you want us to PAY for them? Why should we have to PAY for them?"
2. These things you have been reading about are all trial programs to test the viability. They are planning on passing legislation to allow them to TEST these types of systems with voluntary participants. The results of these tests will be used to design the real system. (with the speed of state govt, it'll be a while.)
3. Part of the needs of these tests is to design a system that charges appropriately. Some of the discussed options is having the mileage rate also be based on vehicle weight, size, number of axels, etc... So that a smaller lighter vehicle won't pay as much as a large heavy one.
4. Outsiders will just pay the regular gas tax for now. Just like they do currently. If you buy gas in a state - any state - and you pay their gas taxes, you are helping to pay for their roads. If you pass through the state without buying gas - you are using the roads at a discount. (Some of all roads is paid for with federal dollars and federal gas taxes - so no one gets a completely free ride).
5. GPS is important so that they don't bill people for miles they drive outside of Oregon, or not on Oregon roads. The ultimate goal is for the GPS to only count miles driven on ROADS. We all know that GPS is not perfect, but we have to start figuring out something - and it is a place to start.
6. I do have very real privacy concerns. The system is NOT real-time - but who is to say what info they actually record? Even if it is after the fact, it could be abused. "Lets see, this indicates you were in the vincinity of this crack house - we should search your home for drug paraphanalia." "Hmmm, looks like you broke the speed limit 38 times this month. Here is ticket."
7. Any system would have to have the ability to detect tampering - much like cars computers do now (the dealership can tell if you have a chip or modified system) - and they would have to account for irregularities or weather problems. Our GPS devices we have now work pretty good here - except in forests. And since 2/3 of oregon residents live in the Willamette valley - full of dense forests - this could pose a problem.
8. People REMEMBER: Gas taxes are usage fees THE SAME WAY but just collected differently. Currently, a large heavy vehicle will typically get much less mileage, and thus pay more per mile for usage. A motorcycle that gets 70mpg will pay much less gas tax, but also damages the road much less. If you drive a million miles a year - you pay gas taxes - thus mileage fees - evey gallon of gas you consume.
9. Oregon already taxes trucks heavily. Deisel taxes are higher than gasoline taxes - which sucks for those who drive the 50mpg Volkswagen TDIs. In addition, Oregon taxes trucks on a weight / miles driven scale IN ADDITION to the fuel taxes. Pretty steeply as I understand it. Thats why we have so many weigh stations on our highways.
10. There could be better ways. Toll roads. I always have thought they were a good choice - because then the people who use that specific road pay for it. Transponders. Could work just like toll roads - with less manpower requirements. Maybe a combination of all the solutions. Nothing is perfect.
11. I *like* not having to pump my gas. Last night it was damn cold and raining sideways. I got to sit in a warm car while someone else froze. I always watch them and make sure they don't F up. And AFAIK Oregon is not the only state that it is illegal to pump your own gas, New Jersey the other maybe? One on the east coast anyway.
12. The one most important thing they could do is either get rid of studded tires - or tax them heavily. They freaking destroy the roads! We get nice ruts - so deep you can take your hands off the steering wheel and let the car just steer itself in the "tracks". And they are ABSOLUTELY un needed. I ski regularly, and on a two wheel drive rear drive van - I make it just fine without studs. Have for 5 years now. Only need chains occasionally. People use studs forgetting that studded tires REDUCE your traction in wet or dry conditions. NW Oregon has mostly wet conditions. So by using studs you REDUCE your traction 99% of the time, so that the ONE day a year we MIGHT get Ice, or the once a week you ski, or the one time you need to go through the mountains - you will have traction. Dumbasses. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I love when it is a sunny warm spring day, and I am walking around in a short sleeved shirt downtown Portland, and cars are driving by clacking with studs. Good thing they had them, those bone dry roads can be treachorus.
HELLO PEOPLE. STUFF IS NOT FREE. There is ALWAYS a cost somewhere. (I have heard people complaining that they had to pay a $3 use fee at a state park when before THAT policy they complained that trails that were washed out were not being fixed fast enough.)
Oregon yearly motor vehicle license fees (Score:3, Informative)
While some states have a yearly vehicle property tax (like Colorado, Taxachusetts, Rhode Island) that assesses a significant fee per year, most of that goes to local government for schools and stuff.
Most states have a fee of $30-$80
Some states, like Michigan, have an ad valorem, which is based on the value of the vehicle, and so people with more expensive cars pay more (this isn't a property tax because it is a flat percentage, it isn't based on property tax millage, and the money goes to the state for funding roads, not the local government.) It is gently rising, and my friend with a 2002 Corvette pays about $120, which isn't severe for an expensive vehilcle (and it caps off at some value.) That is clearly a progressive system for road financing irrelevant to how much ya drive or how much wear and tear you put on the roads.
New York has a system which has some type of base amount (like $40, but I can't remember what it is) and then adds some surcharge if the vehicle is heavy. That's essentially the same as the fuel tax, but once again, it offers a stable revenue base that fuel taxes can build off of.
Another suggestion is to change the fuel tax system to a hybrid style. Most states that I know of assess a fuel tax on each gallon of gasoline sold (like in Ohio, it's 22 cents...I think.) Instead, Ohio could consider making it 18 cents per gallon sold, then add another 5 cents for every dollar's of gasoline sold. That way, if gas prices go up and sales go down, the revenue stream is a bit more stable (and it still works well if prices go down, and people end up buying more gasoline.
At any rate, Michigan style ad valorem, New York vehicle weight surcharge, hybrid style gasoline taxes or simply raising yearly fees are significantly better ways of road financing than the complexity of a GPS system.)
Why GPS specifically? (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, if they *must* tax drivers for driving, I'm wondering why in gods name the legislators are bothering with GPS? Why not take the route the East went and implement toll roads to increase revenue for the department of transportation? Hell, they could even get creative about it and charge more for road-damaging SUV's, which some other posters have mentioned.
Yeah, this new law seems on the outside that it would raise all kinds of crazy cash, but it would seem to me to be far more expensive to set up and maintain. And then there will no doubt be legal challenges against it. All in all, far more trouble than its worth.
If they really need to levy funds for transportation costs, it would make more sense to me (at least in the near future) to go the Jersey Turnpike route. Make drivers pay tolls every so many miles. The eastern states have been doing this for years, and it seems to work pretty well--i.e. it helps support their highway system, and people there don't mind it too much.
Just a thought!
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Generally, most damage to the roads are caused by heavier, gas guzzling vehicles. By taxing gas, you do a good job of targeting those who damaged the roads the most.
It'd make no sense to tax driven miles to cover damaged highways. For the sake of an extreme example, a Geo Metro that travels 500 miles won't cause the same road damage that a semi-truck would over the same distance. Why would it make sense to tax them the same amount, if they don't cause the same amount of damage?
Tax where it counts (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I originally come from Pennsylvania which tends to have rather crappy interstate roads, and there's a simple reason for it - large tractor-trailers.
Pennsylvania a while back passed a law to eliminate studded tires from the road. Sad reality is that roads go worse, as there was more heavy truck traffic. Studded tires didn't really do anything.
If you want to cut costs on maintaining roads and raise money to do so, here's my suggestion:
Again, most of the wear and tear on roads in Pennsylvania is caused by out-of-state heavy-load trucks. Taxing your own citizens based on the mileage they drive their passenger cars taxes the wrong end of people and simply creates more excuses to vacate your state.