News Is A Per-Mile Driving Tax In Our Future?

[Char. Limit]

You're assuming the mileage per gallon of each vehicle is the same, but it's not. Vehicles with low mileage per gallon actually end up paying more taxes in contrast to vehicles high mileage per gallon. This is one of the problems of the fuel tax.

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

 

[Proton Soup]

You're assuming the mileage per gallon of each vehicle is the same, but it's not. Vehicles with low mileage per gallon actually end up paying more taxes in contrast to vehicles high mileage per gallon. This is one of the problems of the fuel tax.

the heavier the vehicle, the more wear on the road, and the lower the mileage per gallon. so it's plenty "fair" if that's your worry. i don't think you are giving this a very thorough examination.

A tax on miles actually is more uniform, and more flexible (it can be adjusted across road classes to fund each road network needs).

My interest is actually in Tolling with price discrimination through lanes. I argue that Tolling efficiently (instead of wait and pay), it is an alternative to replacing the fuel tax.

so i will take that as a "yes", that you do have a personal financial interest in at least this sort of invasive monitoring of individuals.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

Aha!, true true (there's empirical evidence of this). However, this leads to more travel consumption!, and thus increased travel time costs (aka more congestion). Thus, you are assuming travel consumptions does not change. In addition, if we assume cost of extraction and production of gas does not change to firms, it can be seen clearly that fuel tax will have to increase as revenue may also drop (consumption increases but also hampered by congestion increases, this is ambiguous, and hard to say without magnitudes). It could be that the fuel tax will be bigger percentage of the price of fuel in order to pay for the costs and the additional increase in costs due to induced demand.

 

[Pyrrhus]

the heavier the vehicle, the more wear on the road, and the lower the mileage per gallon. so it's plenty "fair" if that's your worry. i don't think you are giving this a very thorough examination.

Now you assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. This is not true. Vehicles of same weight may have different mileage per gallon. Equity for fuel tax is not as clear cut as you're imagining.

 

[Pyrrhus]

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.

I don't think it is that much about government control. It is more about welfare and paying for the costs. Generally, drivers forget that transportation goods (e.g. roads) are actually rivalrous, and non-excludable or known as Common pool goods for the most part. Your consumption is allowed, but it will reduce the consumption (e.g. increase the costs) of another. Ok, I admit there's regulation when needed such as subsidies to the poor so they can still use transportation.

Yes, when we have a working version of the automated car. I think it is likely to be mandated for traffic safety reasons, and also traffic system management reasons. Safety as robots are not limited by our sensory limitations. Management as robots can drive closer to each other, and coordinate themselves thus assuming system optimal distribution of flows (aka reducing significantly the travel time delays). Unfortunately, humans unlike ants or other insects tend to be rather selfish when consuming their common pool goods.

 

[turbo]

There are considerations that need to be weighed before charging people per driven mile. My state is very rural and thinly-populated. People need to drive so that they can get to their jobs, and there is almost no public transportation. My wife has to drive about 1/2 hour each way on back roads to get to the factory where she works. Other employees travel even farther. These people aren't creating traffic congestion due to the nature of the roads in this area, and they shouldn't be saddled with extra costs related to keeping a job. As it is, there is a LOT of car-pooling going on among her co-workers to try to keep fuel costs/vehicle wear reasonable.

As for implementation, how stupid is the idea that every single vehicle needs to have a transponder/GPS to tally the owners' mileage? We all have to register our vehicles, and when it is time to register, we have to provide current mileage. The towns, counties, etc that register vehicles could give yearly mileage totals to the feds, if necessary, BUT that would be an unfunded mandate that small municipalities might not be able to afford. Fuel taxes are still the best bet, as long as the pols don't treat that money as a slush fund, and actually use it to improve roads and repair bridges.

 

[Pyrrhus]

There are considerations that need to be weighed before charging people per driven mile. My state is very rural and thinly-populated. People need to drive so that they can get to their jobs, and there is almost no public transportation. My wife has to drive about 1/2 hour each way on back roads to get to the factory where she works. Other employees travel even farther. These people aren't creating traffic congestion due to the nature of the roads in this area, and they shouldn't be saddled with extra costs related to keeping a job. As it is, there is a LOT of car-pooling going on among her co-workers to try to keep fuel costs/vehicle wear reasonable.

As for implementation, how stupid is the idea that every single vehicle needs to have a transponder/GPS to tally the owners' mileage? We all have to register our vehicles, and when it is time to register, we have to provide current mileage. The towns, counties, etc that register vehicles could give yearly mileage totals to the feds, if necessary, BUT that would be an unfunded mandate that small municipalities might not be able to afford. Fuel taxes are still the best bet, as long as the pols don't treat that money as a slush fund, and actually use it to improve roads and repair bridges.

Your concerns are understandable, as anyone on this thread that complained about privacy issues. I am also concerned about it, and thus do not support a GPS based miles-tax. However, I do see some advantages on the demand management (e.g. charging higher for using "popular" roads, and so on), which interests planners and policymakers heavily.

A less invasive alternative which has been suggested is an Odometer tax. You don't get as much information as a GPS-based tax, but it still a miles tax.

 

[Proton Soup]

Now you assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. This is not true. Vehicles of same weight may have different mileage per gallon. Equity for fuel tax is not as clear cut as you're imagining.

no, i do not assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. I'm simply pointing out that your idea of charging by the mile makes less sense than charging by the gallon, even without considerations for encouraging less consumption of petroleum.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Your concerns are understandable, as anyone on this thread that complained about privacy issues. I am also concerned about it, and thus do not support a GPS based miles-tax. However, I do see some advantages on the demand management (e.g. charging higher for using "popular" roads, and so on), which interests planners and policymakers heavily.

A less invasive alternative which has been suggested is an Odometer tax. You don't get as much information as a GPS-based tax, but it still a miles tax.

Getting rid of the GPS defeats the entire purpose of the per-mile tax, which is that you get charged per-mile, but the charge differs based on which roads you use.

Also, with the per-mile tax, you assume that every car that drives on certain roads causes the same wear on the road. This is also not true. Semi-trucks cause a ton more damage to a freeway (which would probably end up costing the most since they are commonly the most frequently used) then say... a Jetta TDI or a "SmartCar."

The Odometer tax would also unfairly tax the people who live in rural areas, like farmers, or people who have to commute 1/2 hour+ with no congestion (Utah has this problem, as does a lot of Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and the Midwest).

While the per-gallon tax also unfairly taxes the people who have those long commutes, changing the entire system, saying that it's more "fair" and spending resources to make a change that really does absolutely nothing is ridiculous, selfish, and wastes the money you would theoretically be earning.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't see that as a "problem". It encourages automobile makers to make more fuel efficient cars and encourages consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars. And then the environment is better, you spend less on fuel, and the automobile makers that made good decisions are prospering. Everyone wins.

Did I adopt an idiot grandson? Problem? The problem is that someone is trying to get away with something. And that problem is progress. We're already looking at an EV tax here on this side of the river. http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/HB2328/" looks to solve this problem before it even starts. Thank god the Republican author of the bill is sentient enough to realize that the damned Greenies are trying to destroy our country, and cut them off before their numbers get to big.

Passenger Vehicles Total: 4,484,180
Passenger Vehicles Electric: 133
Percentage: 0.0030%

Tax 'em to death before they breed!

Cough, cough.

Sorry.

 

[Pyrrhus]

no, i do not assume uniform mileage per gallon by weight. I'm simply pointing out that your idea of charging by the mile makes less sense than charging by the gallon, even without considerations for encouraging less consumption of petroleum.

How come it makes less sense? You said succinctly that heavy vehicles cause more harm to roads, and they have lower mileage per gallon. I pointed out that there's still an equity problem as vehicles of same weight also differ by mileage per gallon.

You've to remember the reason we tax gasoline (at least in the USA, gas taxes go to a dedicated fund instead of the general fund used by other countries; this means revenue from this taxes are only for transportation) is that gas consumption "tends" to be proportional to miles consumption. So why don't tax miles directly?

 

[Pyrrhus]

Getting rid of the GPS defeats the entire purpose of the per-mile tax, which is that you get charged per-mile, but the charge differs based on which roads you use.

Also, with the per-mile tax, you assume that every car that drives on certain roads causes the same wear on the road. This is also not true. Semi-trucks cause a ton more damage to a freeway (which would probably end up costing the most since they are commonly the most frequently used) then say... a Jetta TDI or a "SmartCar."

The Odometer tax would also unfairly tax the people who live in rural areas, like farmers, or people who have to commute 1/2 hour+ with no congestion (Utah has this problem, as does a lot of Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and the Midwest).

While the per-gallon tax also unfairly taxes the people who have those long commutes, changing the entire system, saying that it's more "fair" and spending resources to make a change that really does absolutely nothing is ridiculous, selfish, and wastes the money you would theoretically be earning.

I agree, which is my point of moving to a more direct charge such a GPS based per mile tax. However, there's the issue of privacy. I am currently researching alternatives such as Tolling, and others.

Also, sitting idle in traffic due to congestion overestimates your usage costs through the gas tax as Ryumast3r points out.

 

[mugaliens]

It's nice to see our elected folks are listening.

Don't throw in hook, line, and sinker, though, as it's an election year and a half.

Instead, please focus on the truth, instead of the rhetoric, particularly the partisan rhetoric.

Such a waste! Don't waste your input!

- Mugs

 

[klimatos]

Also given that someone could brew ASTM biodiesel at home with relative ease.

It's not that easy. The problem is that you have to get ALL of the glycerin out of the feedstock. If you leave even a bit behind, you will ruin your engine! My oldest daughter (a biodiesel consultant) hears these sad stories all the time from people who thought that they could just burn their used cooking oil without extensive (and expensive) pretreatment.

 

[Proton Soup]

How come it makes less sense? You said succinctly that heavy vehicles cause more harm to roads, and they have lower mileage per gallon. I pointed out that there's still an equity problem as vehicles of same weight also differ by mileage per gallon.

You've to remember the reason we tax gasoline (at least in the USA, gas taxes go to a dedicated fund instead of the general fund used by other countries; this means revenue from this taxes are only for transportation) is that gas consumption "tends" to be proportional to miles consumption. So why don't tax miles directly?

saying that they differ doesn't say anything substantive. how much do they differ? is that difference significant to a degree that a massively complex system and new bureaucracy is worth implementing to smooth out the "equity problem"?

there is also supposedly this thing called a free market that let's inequities take care of themselves. individuals either choose the best deal cost-wise, or decide that they like a little inequity if it also gives them the privilege of driving a big honkin' SUV land barge.

 

[CAC1001]

IYes, when we have a working version of the automated car. I think it is likely to be mandated for traffic safety reasons, and also traffic system management reasons. Safety as robots are not limited by our sensory limitations. Management as robots can drive closer to each other, and coordinate themselves thus assuming system optimal distribution of flows (aka reducing significantly the travel time delays). Unfortunately, humans unlike ants or other insects tend to be rather selfish when consuming their common pool goods.

I'd be willing to bet that that will not happen either, as it intrudes too much onto people's freedom. I could see cars with automated driving becoming popular, but the type of system you are talking about requires a centralized way of controlling. Automated cars would just drive like a very skilled human, you're not going to get a system whereby you merge onto the freeway and all the cars cruise at 90 mph four inches apart or something.

 

[Pyrrhus]

saying that they differ doesn't say anything substantive. how much do they differ? is that difference significant to a degree that a massively complex system and new bureaucracy is worth implementing to smooth out the "equity problem"?

there is also supposedly this thing called a free market that let's inequities take care of themselves. individuals either choose the best deal cost-wise, or decide that they like a little inequity if it also gives them the privilege of driving a big honkin' SUV land barge.

The reason for implementing the new system is for both travel demand management (e.g. charge more for "popular" links) and revenue collection. I've already pointed out the problems with the gas tax, and the biggest one is it is not paying the costs (along with other taxes). Yes you can increase it but eventually it'll need to be replaced. And yes, the differences can be on standard deviations of even 5-7 miles per gallon. Do a google search. A simple example are Passenger Cars.

The Free Market cares about efficiency. Matching Demand to Supply, the so-called Walrasian Tantonement (or equilibrium). The equilibria from such a process is not NECESSARILY a desirable distribution of resources (i.e. equitable).

This is not applicable for the most part in transportation as externalities (i.e. pollution, congestion) exists, and the so-called market failure is present. This is typical of public goods.

Your last paragraph is just the consumer problem, if the Disposable income is enough, the consumer will just consume more. This is the reason that I explained before that higher mileage per gallon will increase the consumption for more travel (for same levels of disposable income). However, if you increase disposable income and prices don't change, then you get more consumption. There's no problem with consumption as long as we charge the right price, which cannot be obtained by an uniform price for all transportation (road) facilities. There's has to be a form of price discrimination. When will people realize transportation is not a good like a banana? It is different across TIME and SPACE.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I'd be willing to bet that that will not happen either, as it intrudes too much onto people's freedom. I could see cars with automated driving becoming popular, but the type of system you are talking about requires a centralized way of controlling. Automated cars would just drive like a very skilled human, you're not going to get a system whereby you merge onto the freeway and all the cars cruise at 90 mph four inches apart or something.

Yearly about 50,000 people die due to car crashes. Robots might reduce this number significantly, and if it does, you can bet it is likely to be enforced. Furthermore, decentralized coordinated systems are possible today (simple rules that result in a complex system). Automated cars will drive better than any human ever existed. You cannot compare a machine without the physical limitations of a human to a human.

 

[CAC1001]

Yearly about 50,000 people die due to car crashes. Robots might reduce this number significantly, and if it does, you can bet it is likely to be enforced.

No, I would bet it is likely to be incentivized in some way, but not mandated. People still want to be able to drive their vehicles themselves, not have to rely on a robot to always do it by law. That is placing too much control into the hands of the state. Plus, you'd then have to outlaw things like bikes, motorcycles, sports cars, etc...I am sure you could outlaw sports cars and motorcycles right now due the accidents they probably lead to, but we live in a free society. Similarly, robotic vehicles are not going to end people driving their cars.

 

[Proton Soup]

The reason for implementing the new system is for both travel demand management (e.g. charge more for "popular" links) and revenue collection. I've already pointed out the problems with the gas tax, and the biggest one is it is not paying the costs (along with other taxes). Yes you can increase it but eventually it'll need to be replaced. And yes, the differences can be on standard deviations of even 5-7 miles per gallon. Do a google search. A simple example are Passenger Cars.

The Free Market cares about efficiency. Matching Demand to Supply, the so-called Walrasian Tantonement (or equilibrium). The equilibria from such a process is not NECESSARILY a desirable distribution of resources (i.e. equitable).

This is not applicable for the most part in transportation as externalities (i.e. pollution, congestion) exists, and the so-called market failure is present. This is typical of public goods.

Your last paragraph is just the consumer problem, if the Disposable income is enough, the consumer will just consume more. This is the reason that I explained before that higher mileage per gallon will increase the consumption for more travel (for same levels of disposable income). However, if you increase disposable income and prices don't change, then you get more consumption. There's no problem with consumption as long as we charge the right price, which cannot be obtained by an uniform price for all transportation (road) facilities. There's has to be a form of price discrimination. When will people realize transportation is not a good like a banana? It is different across TIME and SPACE.

but we already charge more for popular links with tolls. and we can raise revenues by raising tolls or taxes. i assume you have calculated some dollar amount that you think this is supposed to save through increased efficiency?

the banana thing i don't get. bananas cost more or less depending on where you buy them, and according to crop yield. they vary by time and place/space.

and on a more personal note, i think i very much like the idea of free and open roads. it is, i dare say, very AMERICAN. it is a part of my culture, and i think it would be a great shame to lose it. not every public resource needs to be metered.

 

[CAC1001]

and on a more personal note, i think i very much like the idea of free and open roads. it is, i dare say, very AMERICAN. it is a part of my culture, and i think it would be a great shame to lose it. not every public resource needs to be metered.

Me too, here here.

 

[Pyrrhus]

but we already charge more for popular links with tolls. and we can raise revenues by raising tolls or taxes. i assume you have calculated some dollar amount that you think this is supposed to save through increased efficiency?

the banana thing i don't get. bananas cost more or less depending on where you buy them, and according to crop yield. they vary by time and place/space.

and on a more personal note, i think i very much like the idea of free and open roads. it is, i dare say, very AMERICAN. it is a part of my culture, and i think it would be a great shame to lose it. not every public resource needs to be metered.

It is not the same. The financing mechanism is different. The current tolls with the exception of High Occupancy Toll Lanes are focused on revenue collection rather than travel demand management (although I think sometimes the value may increase, but for the most part is unresponsive to demand). Most of the reason for tolling in the USA is based on tolling to pay for the construction of a highway.

The "banana thing" was just me trying to argue that transportation good is for the most part non comparable to the people's idea of a good (which tends to always be a private good). For example, roads can be competitors (substitutes) or add value to each other (complements), while bananas can only be substitutes between them.

I know your last argument. It is what I hear at every public audience both from the public and politicians. It is the same reason that the gas tax has not been increased, and the same reason that I don't think a VMT tax (or GPS based per mile tax) will ever pass. I think tolls might have a chance, especially with the high occupancy toll lanes in the USA, and other tolling such as cordon pricing in the UK, and other European countries. As for me, I am in favor of another system more practical, similar to telecommunications charges .

 

[Pyrrhus]

I recommend reading:

THE RATIONALE FOR ROAD
PRICING: STANDARD THEORY
AND LATEST ADVANCES

by Kenneth Button

It's a good read about what's going on, and what should be done.

 

[OmCheeto]

Me too, here here.

Socialists...

 

[CAC1001]

Socialists...

What do you mean by that? I don't mind paying taxes to maintain the road system by any means, but I do like the road system in general where you can hop in your vehicle and go cruising.