Is A Per-Mile Driving Tax In Our Future?

[CAC1001]

http://blogs.forbes.com/tombarlow/2011/04/01/is-a-per-mile-driving-tax-in-our-future/

This sounds really intrusive to me. Yeah, I know the government can track you via your cellphone and all that and if they really want to find you, they will, but, having everyone's car literally tracked, the amount of miles driven, just sounds really intrusive.

I mean so it's a bright and sunny Saturday and you decide to go and take a nice drive through the countryside. Now this represents freedom and liberty. The government isn't pestering you right then. But add in the idea that the moment you start the car up and begin driving, that the government is now monitoring your driving, measuring the distance you are driving, I mean jeez.

I hope this doesn't happen, and if it does, I think it will end up in the courts (I would hope!).

 

[JaredJames]

They want to do this in the UK.

Have a different per mile rate on different roads. Country roads being cheapest and motorways being most expensive.

Can't see it taking off myself.

 

[m k]

Clearly.

We are moving towards the point where used energy is mostly "self made" but roads are not.

 

[Jasongreat]

We already have that, there is a tax per gallon. The more mpgs you get the less you pay per mile, it seems to me that is sufficient. Any attempt at monitoring driving habits by the government, in the US, would be heavily opposed, atleast I hope it would. The problem with the current system is that congress can't keep their hands off the funds, like they do with all other specific taxes.

 

[AlephZero]

This already exists. It's called a tax on vehicle fuel.

You could argue that an annual vehicle tax is a fairly pointless, except that it provides a good excuse for keeping track of vehicle ownership, which is useful for legal and law enforcement reasons indepedent of taxation.

In the UK, the annual vehicle tax on cars is small compared with the fuel tax for an average annual mileage.

You could possibly make an argument for taxing heavy vehicles (trucks etc) based on the higher amount of damage they do to roads, but I don't have any hard facts about that - and in any case they have a higher fuel consumption.

There are already "pay as you drive" car insurance policies available in the UK, where the premum is linked to when you drive and on what type of roads, via a tracking device fitted to the car by the insurance company. They make good sense in some situations, e.g. people who mainly use their cars at off-peak times on quiet roads.

Private roads with toll charges is a different issue. They have been around for hundreds of years already in one form or another.

 

[JaredJames]

This already exists.

It's not quite the same.

They want to replace current UK road tax with a system which monitors how much you drive and relays it back to the government.

You would then be billed for it on a monthly basis (or whatever they choose).

 

[AlephZero]

I mean so it's a bright and sunny Saturday and you decide to go and take a nice drive through the countryside. Now this represents freedom and liberty. The government isn't pestering you right then. But add in the idea that the moment you start the car up and begin driving, that the government is now monitoring your driving, measuring the distance you are driving, I mean jeez.

Every time I drive anywhere further than half a mile from my house, I go through at least one camera with an automatic number plate recognition system. Usually, I probably go through 20 or 30 of them. Big deal, it doesn't bother me - but then I'm not usually doing anything illegal.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I think that this is more in response to vehicles like the Volt, Leaf, and Tesla roadster and model S. Also given that someone could brew ASTM biodiesel at home with relative ease. The federal, state and local governments stand to lose roads money.

 

[Jasongreat]

It's not quite the same.

They want to replace current UK road tax with a system which monitors how much you drive and relays it back to the government.

You would then be billed for it on a monthly basis (or whatever they choose).

So its more of a surveilence on the public thing than a revenue thing? Governments can already easilly get road funding through taxes, no need to have a branch that sits around deciding if you are driving too much, to too many places and think you need to be sent a big bill at the end of the month to punish you.

 

[JaredJames]

So its more of a surveilence on the public thing than a revenue thing? Governments can already easilly get road funding through taxes, no need to have a branch that sits around deciding if you are driving too much, to too many places and think you need to be sent a big bill at the end of the month to punish you.

They'd remove the original road tax.

Those who don't drive much *supposedly* save. Those who drive loads lose out by paying more.

Those who drive on only country / low traffic roads pay less per mile than those driving congested areas / motorways.

 

[Char. Limit]

They'd remove the original road tax.

Those who don't drive much *supposedly* save. Those who drive loads lose out by paying more.

Those who drive on only country / low traffic roads pay less per mile than those driving congested areas / motorways.

So IOW, city people with long commutes get punished, while country people who don't really have to drive to get to their jobs get rewarded?

Remind me to pick a job close to home, then.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So IOW, city people with long commutes get punished, while country people who don't really have to drive to get to their jobs get rewarded?

Remind me to pick a job close to home, then.

Yes, you are supposed to find a job closer to home. That's part of the point of the proposed tax. Alternatively, move closer to your job

 

[ParticleGrl]

This sounds really intrusive to me. Yeah, I know the government can track you via your cellphone and all that and if they really want to find you, they will, but, having everyone's car literally tracked, the amount of miles driven, just sounds really intrusive.

For a per-mile tax, think toll-roads, not big brother tracking.

 

[jtbell]

This already exists. It's called a tax on vehicle fuel.

The problem is that (in the USA at least) it's charged per gallon of fuel, and the rate generally hasn't increased at all during the last 20 years or more. Thanks to inflation and greater fuel efficiency, the gas tax isn't bringing in enough money to even maintain the highways we have now properly.

 

[CAC1001]

For a per-mile tax, think toll-roads, not big brother tracking.

Toll roads you pay to drive on though, this type of tax requires you have a special device put onto your vehicle so that the information is relayed back to the government.

 

[CAC1001]

Every time I drive anywhere further than half a mile from my house, I go through at least one camera with an automatic number plate recognition system. Usually, I probably go through 20 or 30 of them. Big deal, it doesn't bother me - but then I'm not usually doing anything illegal.

Yes, and as I said, anytime you go anywhere with you cellphone, you are being tracked too. But there's a difference between having cameras that can be used to recognize you or your vehicle at some place, and having the government literally tracking you when you drive.

 

[JaredJames]

For a per-mile tax, think toll-roads, not big brother tracking.

Well for the UK system, no toll roads, just big brother tracking.

This way they could track every road.

 

[Proton Soup]

So its more of a surveilence on the public thing than a revenue thing? Governments can already easilly get road funding through taxes, no need to have a branch that sits around deciding if you are driving too much, to too many places and think you need to be sent a big bill at the end of the month to punish you.

yeah, it sounds completely like a surveillance thing. not sure when or if people are going to wise up to all this crap. i think america is already dead.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Good thread

I am a PhD in Transportation Economics (soon to graduate, hopefully). I can tell you that in the near future mile-based charging hopefully will be the norm. I believe Oregon played with the idea.

Why charge for transportation use?

Answer: Because it is a GOOD, and its consumers should pay for ITS COSTS (instead of being highly subsidized like it is now!), both private costs, and social costs (i.e. congestion externality). Actually, the Gas tax especially in the USA (because it is a direct fund only assigned for transportation expenses) has tried to emulate the pricing by usage. However, the gas tax is imperfect at best due to many reasons including some political cited here in the thread.

Economists and other policymakers have played with alternatives such as tolling, transportation utility fees (basically seeing transportation as an utility like electric power), and so on. Mile-Based-Charging basically DIRECTLY addresses your consumption of transportation by both the miles driven, and which roads (arterials, freeways...) you traveled on. You should pay MORE for roads highly popular (high demand).

 

[Al68]

Good thread

I am a PhD in Transportation Economics (soon to graduate, hopefully). I can tell you that in the near future mile-based charging hopefully will be the norm. I believe Oregon played with the idea.

Why charge for transportation use?

Answer: Because it is a GOOD, and its consumers should pay for ITS COSTS (instead of being highly subsidized like it is now!), both private costs, and social costs (i.e. congestion externality). Actually, the Gas tax especially in the USA (because it is a direct fund only assigned for transportation expenses) has tried to emulate the pricing by usage. However, the gas tax is imperfect at best due to many reasons including some political cited here in the thread.

Economists and other policymakers have played with alternatives such as tolling, transportation utility fees (basically seeing transportation as an utility like electric power), and so on. Mile-Based-Charging basically DIRECTLY addresses your consumption of transportation by both the miles driven, and which roads (arterials, freeways...) you traveled on. You should pay MORE for roads highly popular (high demand).

Have you missed the point of this thread? Nobody is objecting to paying the bill for roads, the objections are based on privacy issues.

The fuel tax isn't perfect, but it doesn't invade everyone's privacy, and it's close enough to a perfect "fee for service" model to never even consider invading people's privacy to make it a slightly better approximation.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Have you missed the point of this thread? Nobody is objecting to paying the bill for roads, the objections are based on privacy issues.

The fuel tax isn't perfect, but it doesn't invade everyone's privacy, and it's close enough to a perfect "fee for service" model to never even consider invading people's privacy to make it a slightly better approximation.

The fuel tax is not even close enough to a fee for service. You can dig up the literature by searching in google scholar. In addition, the use of ethanol, and also hybrids plus other alternatives are contributing to the deficits in the transportations funds for the USA. I believe since 2008 or 2009, the Transportation funds were well below 0, and with the SAFETEA-LU, an investment had to made to cover the deficit.

It is going to happen, regardless of privacy (Look for VMT Tax in Oregon- They ran a Pilot Program), because the fuel tax is not covering the costs, and thus it'll disappear or it'll need to transform.

 

[Ryumast3r]

What would you do then for states like Wyoming, where there are 500,000 people living there that all have to commute long distances to get anywhere?

Even in Utah a majority of the people commute 40-80 minutes via freeway just to get to their jobs (and we're not talking just sitting in traffic for 40 minutes, I mean driving at freeway speeds).

 

[Al68]

The fuel tax is not even close enough to a fee for service.

Close enough for me. Closer than any other tax we have to pay.

It is going to happen, regardless of privacy (Look for VMT Tax in Oregon- They ran a Pilot Program), because the fuel tax is not covering the costs, and thus it'll disappear or it'll need to transform.

Huh? Simply raising the fuel tax or reducing costs isn't an option?

Violating people's privacy isn't necessary to collect taxes, never was, never will be.

 

[f95toli]

Simply raising the fuel tax or reducing costs isn't an option?

Not in the UK and other places where the infrastructure is already stressed to its limits.
The problem here is that the most popular roads are basically already full, and there is no space to build new ones (building ANY form of infrastructure in the SE of England is already insanily expensive and takes an enourmos amount of time to build).
One of the main points of a per-Mile driving tax is to make people use the most popular roads less, especially during peak hours. This only works if you can track which roads (and when) people drive on.
The choice is bascially between tolls everywhere and a tracking system. Not doing anything is not an option.

 

[Al68]

One of the main points of a per-Mile driving tax is to make people use the most popular roads less, especially during peak hours.

That was my point: controlling people, not raising revenue, is the real purpose.

Even so, in the U.S., we don't need government to tell us that rush hour traffic sucks and we should avoid it if we can. We're smart enough to learn that for ourselves after a couple of trips.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The choice is bascially between tolls everywhere and a tracking system. Not doing anything is not an option.

This is exactly where the research in transportation economics is focusing on, plus other alternatives pricing mechanism.

Most likely, the gas tax will be raised, and it'll be milked as long as it can.

In addition, there are costs that can only be reduced by possibly rationing or redistributing the flows over a network. Travel time delays are such costs. In transportation networks, the costs are not only maintenance costs of the facility.

 

[Pyrrhus]

That was my point: controlling people, not raising revenue, is the real purpose.

Even so, in the U.S., we don't need government to tell us that rush hour traffic sucks and we should avoid it if we can. We're smart enough to learn that for ourselves after a couple of trips.

The real purpose is a direct charge to pay for the costs. I already mentioned the current financing mechanism is not paying for the expenses, and the transportation trust fund is running on a deficit, and it's surviving (at the moment) by borrowing capital.

Drivers are "smart enough", but they are uninformed about current traffic conditions. Thus, another part of the research of transportation is focusing on Traveler's Information (the system management part). However, travelers tend to be selfish and they will choose routes to reduce their own costs at the expense of increasing the costs of others. You don't care if other drivers get to their destination on time, and only if you get there on time.

A new concept referred as High Occupancy Toll Lanes is in test now in many states. Basically, you pay for the choice to opt out of congestion, by traveling through a priced lane. My guess is that in the future (unless a new technology breakthrough happens) each lane will be priced, and price discrimination will lead the management of transportation facilities. I am one of those advocating for Tolling everywhere (but tolling with no-wait technologies such as transponders) as drivers want to keep their privacy.

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't see what difference a "direct" method would make. it doesn't keep legislators from simply undermining it with rebates, etc. the way they do now. as long as you've got lobbyists, and the legislators they employ, the problem will persist. but I'm sure it will make a lot of money for people with an interest in implementing this program in the short term.

 

[Pyrrhus]

i don't see what difference a "direct" method would make. it doesn't keep legislators from simply undermining it with rebates, etc. the way they do now. as long as you've got lobbyists, and the legislators they employ, the problem will persist. but I'm sure it will make a lot of money for people with an interest in implementing this program in the short term.

That's a problem in public economics. Public provision of goods may be affected by political interests. Unfortunately, economists look at the problem from a efficient allocation perspective. It is difficult to account such political behavior. Although, economic mechanism are currently being explored to apply certain incentives that'll produce the desired outcome. Anyway, let's forget the theory, and focus on practicalities for a moment. "Transportation" is a publicly provided good, and thus political interests are linked with it.

A "DIRECT" method makes the difference as public provision of goods suffer from a cost allocation problem. How do you price goods such as to cover the costs? and how do you charge the users exactly what they consume? (equity considerations).

 

[Ryumast3r]

Do the economists care how pissed off people might be with those tracking devices? Or do they just not care?

 

[Pyrrhus]

Do the economists care how pissed off people might be with those tracking devices? Or do they just not care?

We care. There's empirical research on traveler's behavior to pricing schemes (I've done a few papers based on HOTLanes). There's might be some based on VMT Tax Pilot from Oregon data, I'd suspect. I've not looked at that. I am focusing my research on Priced Lanes, and on Traveler choices under uncertain traffic conditions.

 

[CAC1001]

The real purpose is a direct charge to pay for the costs.

On the surface perhaps, but to many in government, the real purpose probably is control.

Automobiles represent everything about society that utopians and social planners hate, because it represents freedom. You think the Left would even let people drive cars if they could prevent it? I don't think so. I think cars would be regarded like they firearms, too dangerous for the general populace to drive by themselves, something that should only be left to experts or people with special licenses. They cannot do this however because without automobiles, society would cease to function.

The Left have a natural inclination to utopianism (so do the far Right, but it's a free-market utopia they adhere to). If you look at all utopian visions of the future, if you notice, almost always automobiles drive themselves. Remember the freeway in "I, Robot," where the vehicles all are self-driven, and when you park your car, a big machine comes out and snatches it up into storage? In the book 3001: The Final Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, when the main character wakes up and finds he is now about one thousand years into the future, he also is told that now it is mandated by the government that everyone shave their heads to wear a special monitoring device on their their head. These are just some fantastical utopian visions perhaps, but the Left are prone to them and very prone to making attempts at trying to create such societies. However, automobiles that people can hop into and freely drive anywhere and any time they want, shatter attempts at this entirely.

Because the automobile is not something the government can control (yet). The idea of millions of people all just driving themselves anywhere they want, anytime they want, with zero government oversight, just is maddening to some of those with utopian schemes I'd imagine. I also believe this is the reason for the Leftist obsession with high-speed rail. They tend to despise America's cheap gasoline, big SUV's and pickup trucks, and the Interstate Highway System. They much prefer the European model of high fuel taxes, and hence expensive gas, thus forcing people to drive smaller vehicles, and take high-speed trains throughout Europe as opposed to a system of big highways. Trains run on a fixed schedule and follow fixed routes and are thus another way for the government to control people.

Your economics I find very interesting, but with the reasoning you're giving, if/when computers are invented that can drive vehicles by themselves, with no human interference whatsoever, you'd then argue that a policy should be made that it be made mandatory that all cars be self-driven so as to cut down (or even eliminate) car accidents and so forth. A per-mile tax is one of the best ways for the government to control the behavior of the masses driving their automobiles. It allows the government to track when, where, and which way people drive full-time. It may make for more efficient traffic, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to go about it when we have a society focused on freedom.

No more so than if having every car automated would eliminate traffic accidents means the government should mandate all automobiles be automated. I also disagree with your assertion that "it's going to happen." Maybe in Europe perhaps, but in America, I think you will end up with too much of a public outcry. The Courts have decided we have a right ot privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, so I would imagine many would claim such a policy would violate it.

 

[Jack21222]

I wonder how difficult it would be to disable or alter the tracking device in the car. Or, to remove the device and place it on something stationary. You know it will at least be attempted, and enforcing that will be another expense to the government.

 

[Al68]

The Left have a natural inclination to utopianism (so do the far Right, but it's a free-market utopia they adhere to).

Notice that these are far from equivalent. The right's "free market utopia" refers to an ideal limited government, not an ideal society under the control of government. Society would be free, not ideal. The acceptance of a non-ideal society is the ideal for government.

The left's utopia is an ideal for society, to be controlled by government. That's a very different concept of "ideal".

 

[Jack21222]

Notice that these are far from equivalent. The right's "free market utopia" refers to an ideal limited government, not an ideal society under the control of government. Society would be free, not ideal. The acceptance of a non-ideal society is the ideal for government.

The left's utopia is an ideal for society, to be controlled by government. That's a very different concept of "ideal".

Not to get too off track, but this is only true on economic issues.

Socially, the Leftist utopia has little or no government control over personal lives at all. Meanwhile, the Rightist utopia has strict government enforcement of morals.