http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/12/28/news/local/1aaa02_road.txt

Ok, it's time to get noisy again. Somewhere in Oregon, there are some people WHO WON'T LET THIS DIE.

It's not the cost. For me, it's under a buck a day. No worries. It's the GPS, having to maintain that, the costs for that (Oregon fucks a lot of this kind of stuff up, and I don't want my driving to be handled by some private company in this way, so I have to deal with their shitty almost good enough for us, but plenty good for the state devices!)

...and the privacy worries and administrative hassle for that. I cross Washington all the time, and would then be burdened with proving that repeatedly, or just paying.

Why not just increase the gas tax, and or fund the roads with whatever energy source happens to power cars in the near future?

I don't think we need this. Anyone care to talk me down on it? Otherwise, it's time to start bitching about this to the usual people, REPEATEDLY.

The state tax is .25 per gallon. In my car, I get 35 most of the time. It's often more, but let's just put it there.

So, that's 35 * .012 = .42, which is more or less double.

Now what chaps my ass is that my car is light, does not impact roads, is efficient, and generally not the problem, yet I'll pay as much as the hoser driving a big ass car, or trucks.

This is not ok, it's a regressive tax, and those generally impact us ordinary people more.

We could just increase the fuel tax, which would be an incentive to drive less.

Or, if we do this, why not adjust it per car? Since they will have a database to collect from (and don't tell me they won't, because I would dammit), they can then just assess the right kind of tax based on the impact of the car.

A bike = nothing. Small minor league cars, next to nothing. SUV / Truck = substantial.

This seems so counter-inuative that it amazes me. Instead of high mileage vehicles getting a break on the gas tax because they use less gas (duh).... this shifts the tax break to gas guzzling SUVs and monster trucks, who will pay the same "mileage tax" to drive from Portland to Lincoln City, even though their vehicle dumped massively more carbon into the air, and created far more wear and tear on the roads with their heavy vehicles.

The point of a tax is not to encourage more efficient driving, it's to fund repair and maintenance of the roads. Look, if people want to change the purpose of a gas tax to give incentive to use less fuel, fine, but that requires a different set of assumptions (probably a higher overall tax).

No law has yet been written, so I don't know why people automatically assume a big truck would have to pay the same rate of mileage tax as a smaller car. The tax rate could definitely be set by weight of the vehicle.

I don't like the GPS tax either but for other reasons. For one, if your car is not registered in Oregon - if you are just visiting or happen to live in Vancouver or are here for a few months - you now get to pay zero tax for maintaining the roads you use with everyone else - meaning Oregonians will have to pay a higher tax burden than they do now. I too am not crazy about the idea of being required to register and use a GPS system and of being tracked in some state database. At some point all future cars may come with some sort of GPS built-in, but what if you have a 20-year-old car?

I think the state has the right idea about trying to make the roads tax more independent of the consumption of gasoline. I wonder if the future for many American cities isn't simply to put cameras on the freeways and tax people who use certain roads. For example, put cameras on the Sunset highway inbound and photograph license plates. If you commute inbound 5X a week, you pay a certain tax. If all states cooperate on this, then there could be a reciprocal collection - so Oregon could automatically collect road fees from from non-Oregon drivers and vice-versa.

Such camera systems are already in place in Europe, because European cities tend to be much older and not as well suited for a lot of car traffic. Plus it helps reduce traffic. In America, we could keep the gas taxes too but augment the funding of road repair with additional road use fees with these cameras, which could also have the added purpose of helping to reduce traffic congestion. Maybe it costs more to drive in on the sunset between 7am and 9am, I dunno.

In any event, what it comes down to is a need to pay for the roads somehow. What we're really arguing about is the mechanism for paying for roads, how the tax is distributed, and how much is collected. But if you drive, you have to pay one way or another. Politically, just raising the tax rate is very difficult.

Andrew

This is a slam dunk...it'll never happen in Oregon and they'll be tons of lawsuits if it's passed. Very bad idea.

So on what basis would people sue the State of Oregon for imposing this?

Andrew

Well, this will be abused. Do you want a record of your driving existing somewhere?

I sure don't.

Very solid points Andrew. Thanks!!

Agreed about the tax funding the roads. And how politically difficult is it to raise the rates? Hell, we've got Dems across the board. Going for this will spend a hell of a lot more poltical good will than a small bump in the gas tax would be.

Most people wouldn't even notice!

Bump it a penny per year for 5 years or something. It's not a big deal, given the regular gains we are seeing in overall car economy.

I have huge objections to having to maintain a device to operate my car to collect the tax. It's silly, and full of privacy issues.

Wonder who's drooling over the fat ass contract for this also? Oregon has not always done well with this kind of thing. For all we know, it will be a proprietary device, supplied by one supplier, and that supplier will have lots of unforseen costs that will get paid once the revenue gets shifted through them.

Also, say the gas tax goes away. Won't the stations then just slowly absorb that margin? I would!! You bet I would. Would be easy too. Just go a penny or two every coupla months, happy with the gains.

Won't take but a few meetings to settle that among friends.

The case for a NEW tax hasn't been made. Anybody know more about who is pushing this, why, who will supply devices and infrastructure?

It still sounds like this whole GPS idea is in its very early stages and quite far from being implemented. It's just something the State of Oregon has been exploring.

Could it be that this is all a clever ruse to persuade people of the preferred alternative of simply raising the gas tax? The legislature is probably going to take political heat for raising other taxes; being able to tell voters "It was either do that stupid GPS thing or raise the gas tax a little" is an easier sell than "We decided to raise yet another tax - the gas tax." Don't you think?

Andrew

I hope so. Really a bump on the gas tax is no big deal.

Even a big one is ok with me.

Better to consider a reallocation of current taxes.

At some point "one more penny" is going to be too much. Taxes are a much easier sell when they can compare the increase to everyday items.

"This tax will amount to less than the cost of a cup of coffee per day."

"The average homeowner will see their taxes go up less than a dollar a day."

"The increase amounts to 50 cents on a 100 dollar purchase."

When put in those terms, then nearly ANY tax increase is easy to accept, even for those streched to the limit.

If everyone sits down, and takes the time to see just how much of their earnings goes to taxes at all levels... sales, use, property, income, pass thru et al... the actuality would surprise many, and the realization that the actual tax rate is high enough, but the use of those taxes is where the problem lies.

Otherwise, maybe the solution becomes...

You are issued a job, and vouchers for necessities rather than payment in cash for hours worked. You get vouchers for XXX dollars for travel, food, housing, clothing, etc: and then fit your lifestyle to those values. Can't live too far from the work place, or the travel voucher won't last the month. Blow your discrecionary spending voucher on a television, and then eat canned food when the stove quits.
Light up the christmas tree and risk having the power cut for a couple of weeks because your have exceeded the limit on your utility voucher.

Is there a tipping point on taxes? If a big gas tax increase is ok with someone realise that it will have a negative effect on someone else, and why is that ok? Sure everyone has a different threshold, but again at what point is one more penny in taxes too much?


There was an encouragement to increase population, more people = more tax revenue. Oregon and Washington as a whole, but particularly Portland, and the entire east side of Puget Sound experienced tremendous growth in the past 20 years. Instead of a house on an acre, it was certainly more profitable for landowners, developers and builders to put as much housing into as little space as possible. The governments welcomed the increased tax base. Land use activists applauded the containment of sprawl. How many people can we cram into a five acre parcel became the norm. Hi density living. Well you increased the tax base, but you also increased the stress on resources. Instead of five families using the road past those five acres and five homes being hooked up to sewer, water and power, you now have 50 families in that little area. that in itself creates issues. Look at the squeeze across the river every day, and the rabbit warrens that pass for housing areas in and around Vancouver and PDX. Commute from Tacoma to Seattle, Or Everett to Seattle, and look at the housing density. The thinking was intelligent growth and land use planning. Compressed housing, with lots of greenspace. The reality is the increased tax base of so many more people shoehorned into the region created an increased need for infrastructure that far exceeds the revenue. Monies needed to build new roads rather than being spent on maintaining existing ones. Transit systems expanded to ease congestion, but can't earn enough to cover their own costs. The explosion in growth came at a high price that was 30 years in the making. At some point the expense of maintaining the livibility of the region, will stifle growth, and without growth there will be a decline. THE PNW will eventually face the same issues that beset the midwest rust belt cities. Not so much a loss of manufacturing jobs that eroded the tax base, but rather a tax base that can't support the cost of the infrastructure needed to maintain it. A willingness to increase the tax burden now will be a much greater burden later when the growth stops, but the maintenance will continue at a higher level than revenues can possibly cover.

Only look to California and their revenue issues. They have reached a point where no amount of growth will solve their revenue problems. So if the people of California can't cover their own maintainance costs, should the whole country pony up? Then which state is next? Again the question is at what level is your tax burden too much. You can't continue to pay one more penny forever. Obviously for some people, they can absorb additional tax burdens as good for all of us. Other people have reached their limit, one more penny is too much and they leave. Good riddance to those who won't do their part! EXCEPT now you and your friends have to pick up their share as well.

Sorry for the ramble, happy new year to one and all. May good things come your way!

It is crap like this. As a big part of the reason I moved from Oregon.

Roger, I think a big part of the problem is that we rarely make taxes a function of other things.

IMHO this gets us into a lot of trouble.

You see a penny more, and it all adding up and suddenly it's too much.

Well, what about when the value of the currency changes? Does that penny still make sense? Maybe, maybe not.

The right thing to do, would be to compute the budget for the roads, then calcuate the tax, then assess it as a percentage of the currency, so that the tax rate is then constant, and things like population size changes, currency value changes and such don't hose up the budgets.

Alas, we don't do this, so we are always fighting over this and that tax, and people just see more tax, when the reality may be quite different!

I have to laugh at people who consistantly blast aspects of Portland not to their liking while their own place of residence is experiencing far more dire straits -- for instance, Clark county homes have devalued substancially more than Portland's, a higher backlog of homes for sale and a higher unemployment rate as well. I won't even begin with California.

The land use planning is impressive here. Without good land use planning, you've ugly cities.

THE PNW will eventually face the same issues that beset the midwest rust belt cities.

Nope. People live here because they LIKE the area. Who in the heck would want to live in the mid-west by choice?

Yeah, Oregon does some stupid stuff, but all in all it's a fine state.

One artifact of the land use planning is that we end up with what would be rotten neighborhoods being remade over the years. I think that's pretty cool actually.

The alternative is to just leave them and build out, and that's the mess found in most places.

This is just stupid, and it's gonna take some advocacy to nail down and put to rest, that's all.

Oh I absolutely agree OREGON is Fine. I have dreamt of living and retiring there for most of my adult life. I loved 20 years in Tacoma, and spending many enjoyable days from Brookings to Blaine....
People still are moving to California and WA as well. But the reality is maybe the new people move in and don't buy a home because of the cost. maybe their being there because they like it is part of the problem. One more on the road, one more plugged into the power grid, stuck in traffic. My point was if you want the hi density population, then you have exponentially higher costs and there may be a point that those costs can't be covered. At that point your quality of life declines. Services are cut. Taxes rise.......

The upside is you can't beat the view!

BTW, "People live here because they LIKE the area." You can say that about anyplace. People live in Vermont, and Maine for the same reason.

They also live in Western Pa, West Virginia, Illinois, and Northeast ohio for the same reasons.

Would you pay 95 cents of every dollar you earned to stay in Oregon? 90? that was my question.

No, and I don't.

...As for Clark county, may be a back log of homes, but you haven't seen the dramatic fall off in prices as of yet. The problem is the lack of entry level homes. Do a search for livable homes under 100K, discount the mobiles because financing is impossible if they are over 10 years old.... Finding any? Hence the rabbit warrens of renters, and no George Bailey to help them.

Who in the heck would want to live in the mid-west by choice?

Not very many people.... Deane does....

I like the Clark County home prices. I'm looking to buy a house. I love the sunshine here, in Vegas. I hate dark rainy days. From the first day I moved here. THIS IS HOME, NOW. VIVA LAS VEGAS.

My point was if you want the hi density population

Just to make it clear, when I talk about this, I'm talking about kicking the need for automobiles. One works, play, shop and live within a few blocks. While this is ideal, I don't expect everybody to want to live this way, however don't expect me to pay for another freeway so you can live across town from where you work, or ESPECIALLY, another bridge, so you can come here from another state to work.

There was a report in The Oregonian recently about a substancial price drop for homes (upwards of 40%) in Clark county vs Portland. In fact, Clark co will take longer to recover from this mess than Portland. A source I can't quote says there are "newer" homes in Clark co that are priced below the cost to build.

There are "larger" developments in the Portland area that are still being build while everything in Clark co has come to a screeching halt. I'm waiting for a clearer picture this spring.

As someone who recently served as a property manager for a friend in Clark co, and evicted a long time tenant (via court ruling), I've sort of advised him to keep the trashed house vacant as throwing money into fixing the house wouldn't be worth the return as it would attract other deadbeats like the one I tossed out. There are just too many newer houses in Clark co being rented out cheap to compete with. Bad (credit) tenants are not worth the $800/mo for a 3 br on an acre (Salmon Creek/WSU area).

You can say that about anyplace.

Oh really? I was born in Ohio you know. Ever drive through Midland, TX? 95 cents on the dollar looks really good there.

I like the Clark County home prices.

Check out Midland, Texas.

Heh.

Put people to work, making an above poverty wage, and this all goes away.

I'm far more inclined to pay to have that happen, or support that happening in a lot of ways than I am willing to hear, "Start the race to the bottom in Oregon too", kinds of ideas.

There is a reason housing in Texas and in the rust belt is cheap ass. Nobody can make any money.

Fix that.

Remember when we made stuff, before we shipped that overseas for better prices? Yeah, now we are living the dream baby! Just like a whole lot of people said we would.

Skeptical--I'm talking about Clark county in Navada.

Well, duh, maybe you ought to say so. Say hi to Grissom for me.

Oh really? I was born in Ohio you know.

Yeah? Me too.

Only reason I moved back was to assist some elderly relatives and my wife would be closer to her Grand kids while they were all young... her kids from a previous marriage were in Pa and MD. Ohio was a low cost happy temporary medium. SHE was a lifelong PNWer. Know what? Houses are cheap here, the job market sucks, when you lose one, you compete with hundreds of others for the next one,

The relatives have passed, the grandkids are older and the plan was always to return. Another trip planned for May. Maybe a house deal comes together maybe it doesn't.......

as for ".... substancial(sp) price drop for homes (upwards of 40%)......

overbuilt, and now overpriced.......

Example: when gold stagnated at 200 an ounce, silver a few dollars, and 4 percent was a great return at the bank.... things were fine....

Interest jumped to 18, gold to 800 and silver to 50. peoples expectations were raised those higher values were now expected. In fact DEMANDED. Same with autos... for years a transportation car could be had for a couple hundred bucks... Those cars never went away, but they are now 2000. the slow steady appreciation of a home suddenly jumped double digits, and people were building new and turning a nice profit in a short time.

Now the bubble has burst, How many of the 225k houses have a true value nearer 75k? More importantly, who is going to eat the loss since very few of those homes were mortgage free?

Well, enough. Just a thread full of opinions and commentary. Nothing personal was intended by any comments I made. Just my observation.

Hi Steve in Nevada. (housing ain't so cheap there either despite the downturn). PS where are they stealing their water?

Nothing personal taken. The whole housing thing is a mess and a simple way out is elusive. Its not even worth my time to fix up my friend's house for a percentage of ownership. In inner SE Portland, maybe, but Clark co? Who knows where the bottom is and when it will recover.

Hi Roger: Lake Meed. And there is twenty thousand empty houses in Vegas now.

It's Lake Mead. The houses are empty because the market dropped like a bomb. Construction and housing was in a boom two years ago. But that fell real fast in Vegas and things have come to a halt. Construction on the strip has slowed down or temporarily stopped. Rooms on the strip can be had real cheap right now because visitors are down.
Missing,
With the gas tax, you in your fuel efficient car are paying less than the "hoser driving a big ass car, or trucks" because they are paying for more gas to go the same distance and hence pay more in taxes.
There are times and places where trucks are necessary. They deliver goods and supplies to the stores and system that you need and use. That will not change. They will not run on batteries. People should conserve where they can and trucks and other vehicles should be made more efficient. But they are necessary. Remember, last week, an SUV was the only thing moving for a while. Some people have to work during bad weather and we have seen that public transit is not necessarily reliable.

Totally fair. I myself rented an SUV for travel.

The "hoser driving a big ass car" is that person who drives it because it's big, and maybe they aren't, and really is a different discussion!

Totally with you on trucks. Aside from building out way better rail, trucks should just get to be trucks and do what they do.

Of course, my price per mile of travel is as low as it gets. It's nearly what it would be using public transportation, BTW. At double the effective tax rate, this would remain true.

Still, it's regressive and I'm not generally ok with that, unless the usage warrants it. That's not the case here. If we are talking about something where it is the case, I'm perfectly ok with the regressive structure.

I find many regressive taxes are not well considered, and favored by big business, because they want all taxes regressive, for obvious reasons.

The state needs to expand DEQ auto testing to statewide where the semi annual inspection could provide odometer readings on which to base any tax. Certainly a lot less intrusive to personal travel history although it would cost a lot of money to build enough DEQ/DMV facilities to support it. When I was growing up in NJ in the 50's/60's every vehicle had to go through inspection every year where they tested brakes, lights, horn, etc. Raising income from licensing requires spending money to set up a system to do it with.

Total tax on a vehicle registration should be based on a combination of vehicle mileage (driven) and gas mileage (mpg).
Federal gas guzzling tax on the purchase aside, this method charges the most for operating gas hogs driven lots of miles and the least for high mileage state of the art vehicles driven the least with a siding scale connecting the dots. Commercial vehicles can have a different multiplier since they put on so many miles in comparison to non-commercial vehicles.

So, let me get this straight. Thickheaded Ted wants to pour endless money into an Orwellian system that tracks the movements of all of the citizens in their cars. This state, which does not have enough money to teach kids, keep our streets safe, provide all our children with health care or maintain our infrastructure, wants to invest in another big brother boondoggle.

Taking your kids to little league every week and school every morning? That will be penalized. Going to church or synagogue? That will be penalized. Visiting an ill parent across town? That will be penalized. Delivering meals to shut-ins as a volunteer? That will be penalized. Driving to the site of a contract job in the sticks? That will be penalized. Camping trip with the family? That will be penalized.

Spending every penny of your grandkids' education on a motor home and living like a nomad at five miles to the gallon? No different than a hybrid. Cruising around all weekend in your vintage muscle car draining beers and picking fights? No different than a hybrid. Buying an inefficient city-bound leviathan to make up for the obvious lack of firepower in your crotch? No different than a hybrid. Commuting from another state to work in Oregon? No tax at all.

I really hate it when mushy headed pols meet miracle technologies that allow them to avoid taking a tough stand on an issue. You can always count on them to do the most counterproductive, expensive and stupid thing imaginable. Infringing on the right to privacy of Oregonians, while giving a free pass to migrant labor from Washington, California, Nevada and Idaho is stone cold stupid. Either raise the damn gas tax, or don't raise the damn gas tax, but for the love of Tom McCall, be a man about it.

Andy--another bone head idea. Just what we need. twice a year DEQ. Your such a jerk.

You about got it Littlesongs.

The bitching is gonna have to occur on this one. Somebody somewhere is pitching a fancy new revenue stream, for a nice one in return and Ted is hooked!

Major bummer on that!

I'm filing the word "boondoggle" away for this. Perfect! Nailed it in one, single word!

They really need to just step up and raise the gas tax. What, the GOP is gonna come back and win over that? If so, the Dems have NO hope at all.

Lack of a spine is part of what got us here. Sheesh...

All part of why I probably never could run for office. I would say exactly that on the legislative floor. Man up, or go home!

(boom!, a few lunches later, and KSKD is the target of a smear campaign, funded by some people who think their bank account is some measure of their overall character)

Thoughts (and some not-so-popular) ...

1) BAN STUDDED TIRES. I can't think of a single thing that wreaks havoc on the roads than those things, their effectiveness in the snow and on the ice is negligable at best, most states in the midwest and back east have already banned them (my girlfriend lives in Ontario, she's here visiting right now, and she had never seen a studded snow tire in her life until she got here). The number of people that drive in the Portland area with studs on, for the chance of once or twice a year getting snow, are ruining the roads. At the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the infrastructure.

2) I don't have an issue with the idea of the mileage tax per se, though as someone who drives a lot it would affect me. My issue is with the whole GPS thing. Seems too ... Soviet-like IMHO. I am not cool with that at all.

3) As others have mentioned, this is a regressive idea. Punishing those of us who drive economical cars, and rewarding those who drive the pigs. If it was somehow balanced with a tax credit of some kind, or other incentive for hybrid owners, some kind of a credit for vehicles that get 30+ mpg ... I would be more willing to listen.

4) I know that this would be VERY unpopular in the west, but perhaps toll roads? Most states in the northeast and midwest have tollways, the funds go to the roads (I presume, unless it's Chicago, who has the worst roads I've ever driven on).

There has to be better alternatives. The mileage tax is one thing, Big Brother tracking your every move is quite another.

"Andy--another bone head idea. Just what we need. twice a year DEQ. Your such a jerk."

Steve,

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant bi-annual, every two years like it is now. By the way, you might consider not posting like a rude asshole. Just a suggestion. Good luck with your cigarette habit. Lung cancer rates among smokers are devastating. But I guess it pales in comparison to your gambling and anti-social problems.

Toll roads just suck. Collecting the toll limits the usefulness of the roads, and they have long coattails, meaning once we open that door, other lousy stuff follows.

Besides, we are not that far off on funding the roads, so why not just man up and fund the things?

Good call on the studs. I agree, though I LOVE studs. Only a small fraction of people use them correctly however.

The best way is to just store a set, then pop them on when needed, take them off when you are done. It's not hard, and they have a lot of advantages over chains.

If you drive smaller, lighter cars, studs rule. You don't need much of an impact to make driving the car favorable. And they are cheap! Buy them once, and just use them until you change cars, or one of them develops a problem.

Reality is most people throw them on, then just grind on dry roads all winter long.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475507,00.html

"We all have to be open-minded," she said. "Our current system just isn't working."

Ok.

WHY isn't it working? Hear that in the discussion?

Nope.

"revenues threatened by more fuel efficient vehicles"

Yeah, threatened. So what does that mean exactly? Oh and do note that ISN'T WHY it's not working. Nice word-smithing there. Hope they get paid well for that. Nicely done!

It means that we have revenue today, and that we MIGHT not have enough tomorrow.

Does this simple, stupid ass framing, warrant consideration of a new tax, given the costs, privacy worries (and I have those, sorry), and other downsides?

Nope.

Not even close.

So then, to keep the system working, we think through the tax and make it work. Done, next, end of story, morning glory!

I remain convinced that somebody somewhere delivered a first class, "atta boy!" sales pitch, and somebody else, or a few somebodies, won't let go of the dream.

That fuel tax can be reconsidered easy enough. Pay for some research to determine the factors that drive the income, sort them, then analyze them to determine which changes have the most impact, and what those changes are keyed to.

Instead of a thumb in the wind, "add a penny or a nickle", based on some lame ass Excel Projection done by a staffer with nothing else to do, we key the tax to those factors and write the law that way.

Once it's done, it's done. We won't have to worry about this again, letting our market dynamics handle things.

This is not hard.

Getting this system up would be, and it still will have the SAME problem?

The tax rates will still be stated in terms of absolute dollars, while our currency varies, demand varies, and miles driven and by whom varies.

What does that mean?

The TAX will always be somewhat wrong.

That's what it means.

So then, why build out a solution that does not address the core problem; namely, funding the damn roads to a degree most people consider adequate?

And we have college courses for journalists why exactly? Can somebody sort that out for me?

(setting that it's FOX aside)

Why isn't this clown, who authored this, framing the problem? How come it's just a statement of the completely obvious (and incorrect) politics?

I guess I forgot to mention in my recent post that I am against the GPS thing. I don't want anyone tracking where I am going and how much I am going, particularly the government. There is already too much government in our lives and I want less, not more. Governor Ted suffers from rectal cranium inversion and is jumping on all the "sounds good" bandwagons without much good reason other than he wants a legacy, damn the constituents. Following Governor Arnold is something he wants to do, also. Look at the current state of California. They are not doing so well.

I drive through Illinois on their toll roads. They say the tolls are to maintain the roads. I can tell when I cross the border into Wisconsin. They don't have toll roads. They are in much better shape than the roads in Illinois. In general, the winters in Wisconsin are not that much different than Illinois, and if fact are much worse in the northern parts. I don't know about Illinois but I am told that you can't use chains or studs in Wisconsin. They maintain their highways and clear the snow quickly. I arrived in Milwaukee last February after a snowstorm. It snowed early morning and I arrived at noon. I drove over to Madison and up to the Dells...3 hours..and the freeways were cleared and everyone was going 80.
Politicians want to keep throwing money at a problem. I may be missing something but for years, the roads in Wisconsin have been better. I have been going there at least once a year and sometimes 2 or 3 times since 1993 and they have always been better.
And the gas was usually cheaper there than here.

Also factor in that financially it is a no win. Greeners say we need to drive less and use less. So we drive less and more efficiently and suddenly there isn't enough money and we need a tax increase. So we have a tax based on consumption, yet consumption is discouraged. raising a gas tax only encourages less consumption. Then what? raise it some more? Who will that impact? Those on the bottom and least able to afford. So do you give them tax credits and assistance? That unfairly increases the burden on those higher up who are already paying the higher rate.

The actual tax rate per gallon is more than fair and has been raised numerous times in recent memory both federal and state. So maybe a fairer tax is one based on use. Do away with the per gallon tax, give each car a classification and base a use tax on weight. Not value, WEIGHT. Yes, the guy who owns the 1 ton dually and drives 5 miles to work will pay substantially more in taxes than the guy who commutes 50 miles one way, but drives a Geo or Versa. This also means that the family with four cars pays more than the family with one or two. Despite the fact that maybe the other two sit most of the year and don't impact the road. Address the solution of limited use vehicles with temporary use licenses. Got a classic 59 caddy in the garage that you drive in the summer? no problem. A temp use permit for a defined period. Want to put it on a trailer and haul it to a show rather than drive it? That is ok too. The trailer fee has been paid. Since the car is not being used, no use fee.

Is a Versa doing 100 miles a day on mostly highway more damaging to a road surface than a 1 ton on city streets? don't think you can say definitively. It's the multiplier that causes the damage. 100 thousand cars.

Another factor to consider is using better materials for the roads. Lowest bid brings along inferior materials, and it has been long proven that there are other mixes that increase the longevity of highways and stand up better to weight and wear. Unfortunate that they are not used because you can't be low bidder on the project if your material cost is 30 percent higher.

As long as 80,000 lb trucks are needed to move freight, you will continue with excess wear.

Another question is how would weight restrictions help? Is more trucks with lighter loads an answer? You increase consumption and add congestion, but is a higher volume with lighter loads better overall?

Plenty of variables, and 27 states are looking into "creative funding". Only thing for sure is government always seeks more revenue. Only look to how many new agencies have been created at both the state and federal level in recent times. Each one needs it's own funding. Maybe the answer is streamline, take care of the NEEDS, then if there is extra funds move to the wish list and cover some of the wants.........

I heard that OPB will have a discussion of this on "Think out Loud" Monday at 9:00 AM.

I'm completely against the GPS idea. It's too expensive to implement and I don't like the idea of anything tracking my whereabouts.

Is it too simple of an idea to just increase the gas tax? Sometimes complex problems can be solved without complex solutions.

And regarding studded snow tires, I agree with Brian, they should be banned. I have AWD on my car with STUDLESS snow tires, and they work great. There's simply no need to have studded tires anymore.

As long as 80,000 lb trucks are needed to move freight, you will continue with excess wear.

Another question is how would weight restrictions help? Is more trucks with lighter loads an answer? You increase consumption and add congestion, but is a higher volume with lighter loads better overall?

I can address this:

The more wheels the weight is being spread across, the less wear on the roads.

This is why when you see "heavy loads" with nearly 50 or more tires . . . they've spread that weight around to make it the damage factor equal to a legal load. Its the law by the way.

There is a complicated book of restrictions for truckers and distance between axles per weight classification they license their vehicles. The higher the class, the more restrictions and cost to get the permit. If you've a heavy load and illegal weight tag, you get a ticket even if its otherwise legal (I think $545 is the lowest overweight citation fine -- it starts at 101 lbs overweight and goes into the thousands of dollars quickly).

Oh and yes, the weighmasters at weight stations DO get out their tape measures and measure the distances between axles if you're tipping at the legal limit.

More trucks is not the answer because you're putting more weight (another vehicle) on the road to carry the same freight.

For the most part, I think the trucking industry is at the cutting edge of limiting damage because of the cost of fuel -- the less the tractors & trailers weigh, the less it cost operators to run them.

It's a bad idea. Too "big brother" for me... like Vitalogy said, the whole GPS tracking distrubs me.

Vitalogy: Is it too simple of an idea to just increase the gas tax?

Not complex - just politically difficult. I think the last two ballot measure attempts to increase gas taxes by even a nickel failed in Oregon. Perhaps with the end (for now) of "tax is always bad" Reaganomics, this attitude will change but I doubt it.

Anyway, the point of the GPS thing is not to raise more revenue - its to make to make generating revenue for the roads independent of fuel consumption, as fuel efficiency is expected to keep increasing which would keep requiring more increases in the gas tax.

Andrew

And by the way, I'm not for the GPS thing either although I'm not automatically opposed to it. I understand why they are exploring it, but I do have concerns about the concept too.

Andrew

How would you tax electric cars?

5 cents per KWH :-)

I would tag them at registration. Offer a three easy payments plan, or something and call it good for now.

That's cheap, and it can fund roads easily enough.

Perhaps SUVs can get GPS credits for riding a bike, or DOUBLE credits for taking TriMet.

OPB "Think Out Loud" podcast on this subject is on their site:

http://www.opb.org/programs/podcast.php?tol

I remain unconvinced.

Oops! It appears that right now they have the wrong program linked to the "Paying Per Mile" heading

I thought the Think Out Loud segment was pretty good in explaining more about how they plan to implement this technology. It actually makes a bit more sense now, but I can't say I'm quite on board yet.

Andrew

It has been said before, but I will say it again: A simple increase in a "per gallon tax" would increase real revenue right now. A higher tax would be a solid incentive for folks to drive more efficient vehicles and drive them more efficiently. It would bolster conservation efforts and move us further away from dependence on foreign fossil fuels. I know this increase seems like a real tough battle to some people, but too bad. If you or your party cannot lead, then either follow and make suggestions, or get the hell out of the way.

The idea of raising the current "per gallon tax" is scary to Ted and his ilk. More spooky than tracking citizens like ants under plexiglass is to the rest of us. A higher tax takes courage to implement and apparently our leaders have none. Instead, they would rather hide beneath the expensive petticoats of vaporware technology. Time that was wasted tinkering with sci-fi notions could have been spent building a strong bi-partisan coalition to increase the gas tax. No doubt, more opportunities will be squandered arguing over this boondoggle, while a big problem grows ever bigger.

Unfortunately, the new plan will abandon a sure-fire and proven way of creating a fair and balanced source of revenue. We need mandated fuel efficiency, but those teeth will be pulled too. We must make the transition from the current rows of lemonade stands for terrorists to a future filling station pumping something grown right here. It will be impossible to change our habits if gasoline is still the easiest or cheapest option. Is this not obvious to the folks in Salem?

What is Ted thinking? All over our state, he has cutting edge green technologies to encourage, homegrown biofuels to promote, wind projects to fight for, and geothermal energy sources to explore. He has reforestation, fish run restoration, invasive species control, environmental education, and the future of our treasured park system to consider. He has a clear bi-partisan mandate to clean up our air, water and land, to make us energy independent, and to preserve the beauty of Oregon. He also ought to know that regardless of party affiliation, Oregonians highly value their privacy.

Now -- as the old adage goes -- is no time to trip over our own shoelaces. The business community wants to move us to the head of the pack in the shift toward creating clean energy sources. Local workers are educated, enthusiastic and eager to build the tools of tomorrow. Our ports are ready to export what we have made around the world. Of course, large investments and potentially thousands of regional green jobs are at stake. Instead of addressing these issues, he assumes that all of this will fix itself. Just in case it does fix itself, he has this potential nightmare to keep the highway money spigot flowing.

He wants to take measures to move away from the "per gallon tax" now, because someday we may be living in an exclusively electric powered and biodiesel paradise. Isn't this like building a crib and nursery before you even meet your wife? Of course, this is a potential Oregon that he has done precious little to create in the first place. Lest we forget, Ted was misguided enough to consider John "Drill Baby Drill" McCain an environmentalist during the campaign season.

Do we need to spend our limited revenue needlessly on draconian measures and unproven technologies in order to create a system that might insure we have a revenue stream in a brighter future? Or, do we need to insist that those who represent us in Salem are actually equipped with common sense, strong spines and a proper level of moxie? Tomorrows roads mean precious little if we do not change the way we use them today.

Hell yes.

Spines are needed right now.

Hell, we just passed one hell of a referendum on 30 years of BS economic ideas.

Setting the proper tax is a baby step in the overall scheme of things! Ted is, frankly, being a complete puss about it.

We are not going to get to that future Oregon, if we don't take some hard steps right now, and avoiding bull shit moves like this is one of them.

It's just not that hard to let people know roads are underfunded.

EVERY FUCKING thing is underfunded! Why?

Because we have devalued ourselves. So, to fix that we've got to maintain what we have, ideally build on it, then empower people to build that value back up again.

That's the solution longer term. This tax, that tax being this way or that way is squabbling over a shrinking pie.

Fix the damn pie then, and the tax squabbling will largely go away.

Putting that out there to people, so they see it's not just some BS tax hike will be heard, particularly if they also finally hear that our state understands we are getting hosed big, and is working on that greater problem too.

ALL OVER THE PLACE..... DON'T READ..........

So based on the current price of a gallon of gas
and the current tax per gallon, what is the current rate? What if the state income tax rate was at the same percentage, but you paid no other taxes?


....increase the gas tax......

What is acceptable? 5 cents? 10? 50? 5 dollars? Then raise it again 5 years down the road? Previous increases haven't solved anything.



To someone who doesn't drive, they don't care how high it is. A lower income person with a family, rent, and the usual expenses feels the pinch every time the cost of a necessity ticks up.

.....mandated fuel efficiency.....

What is a good level avg 30 mpg? 50? Hell let's round it off at an even 100MPG... Ok car companies, take that loan money and make it so!

BTW, we need that by 2050.... make that 2025... aw hell don't dawdle, put you nose to it and give us those numbers by 2010!
Then, if you reach that level you also reduce the income derived. Less fuel used = less tax dollars received so the need for another increase in taxes. You have created a penalty for conserving. the less I use, the higher the tax rate. Where is the reward for using less?


MANDATED ANYTHING without funding and planning is no solution and in many cases too expensive to be practical. Too many unfunded mandates in place already. Mandating it and implementing it are apples and oranges.
Let's mandate full employment. FREE health care, free public transportation, 10 percent savings rate for all citizens, or any other pet cause that you might favor. Hell let's ban all gas powered vehicles within city limits, cap utility rates on Natural gas at .50 per ccf and electric at .06 per KWH.

I've asked before. What is enough. what tax level is too much?

Here's one. How about increasing the income tax rate to a point where property taxes would be eliminated. Who would be for that? ME! I own my home, but if you rent, that would be an unfair tax to you. Should renters get a tax credit? So home owners with a small income, or retired with no income pays little or NO tax, a higher income renter gets soaked. Would reward home and property ownership. HEY might help solve that housing crisis thing I've been hearing about.

Maybe we could MANDATE IT............

Roger, if you had a job that paid a decent wage, (your buying power per hour worked was in line with current costs), most of these questions would be moot.

So right now a lot of people are getting screwed. That's the problem, not funding the roads.

If we are producing well here, people are being paid well here, then we can afford our roads!

This is why a small bump on the tax is the right thing to do. And the money pinch because we have our national priorities all hosed up is why building out this goofy program is the wrong thing to do.

I have lurked around on this board for quite a while reading and not participating. I am also a 20+ year professional transportation planner... much of the work I have done relates to revenue systems for automotive transportation.

The biggest problem with the current system of gasoline tax is that if you increase the fee to actually produce enough revenue to conceivably meet the needs of the system, many of the rational consumers will switch modes or fuel types and the system won't have enough revenue. When users switch modes (e.g. take transit instead of driving, walk or bike) they reduce the peak demand on the system which helps to reduce the system needs. If users rush out and change fuel type -- compressed natural gas, hybrid, or all-electric -- they take gas tax revenue out but they remain consuming capacity. If we continue in the current approach, the reaction would be to again raise the gasoline tax and more consumers would switch either mode or fuel type.

The GPS-based system has one big advantage over the gasoline tax. The GPS-based system provides the opportunity to ascertain time-of-day for the miles traveled. Since roadway capacity during the peak period is a premium, drivers who only drive during the peak period would pay more than drivers who drive during the off-peak. The GPS-based system could also ascertain the jurisdiction of the roadway which could better allocate the revenue to the jursidiction providing the capacity.

I fully recognize those who are resistent to any government agency having information about where they are driving and when. My understanding of the system is that it does not have any capability of storing location coordinates by time -- only jurisdictional geography by time. The system reports its information when you fill your tank with gasoline -- calculates and adds the mileage fee and subtracts the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax would remain for out-of-state vehicles that did not have the GPS unit to report the miles traveled. If you didn't care about tourism (a big "if"), you could jack up the gas tax to a huge rate because those folks don't vote for Oregon legislative positions.

Effectively the GPS-based system treats every road as a toll road without the need for transponders. The system is closer to a user fee than the current gasoline tax.

My questions for those who would like to keep the current system of gasoline tax:
1) At what level of tax per gallon would you switch mode?
2) At what level of tax per gallon would you rush out and get a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle?
3) Would you agree to conversion of state highways to toll roads in exchange for removal of the state's share of the gas tax?

A flat gas tax now would help in the short term with its simplicity. Later, lets say 5 years from now, we could revisit this issue and perhaps then the GPS model will be a shoo-in. Right now, I'm not so sure and I'm pro-mass transit. I can't imagine the GPS thing being accepted by too many voters.

...drivers who only drive during the peak period would pay more than drivers who drive during the off-peak.....

What is the cause of peak driving, and can that be adjusted to relieve congestion? So basically the companies that have everyone on site at 8am would be the reason for the increased burden.

Staggered start times for major employers?
Other Ideas?


for a snapshot, Obviously most people on the roads at 7:18am are heading to work. The question is how to spread them out. Since you will not have less people using the system, can the flow be improved?

Welcome aboard Edust1958!

I won't switch modes until the return on investment for an alternative fuel vehicle makes sense in a three year or less window.

..or I am forced to do so.

One thing I found out during our high gas price peak was that the point of diminishing returns, where economy makes sense, happens to lie somewhere around 30 - 35 MPG.

This is going to be true for most people, and they will make adjustments. Some of that will be less driving, and with that comes less load, which follows on with less dollars.

The mass switch to a different mode isn't something that's just gonna hit us. That's a very significant change for a very high percentage of people! If a trend starts, then it's gonna be clear.

Interestingly, at $4.00 / gallon, assuming one isn't driving a guzzler (20 mpg or lower), fuel was still a great deal! So most of us cut down our driving, and that's all good.

That was enough to cause people to consider better cars, but not enough to force the majority of them to just quit it or switch up totally.

During that time, I noted that the big pinch on people was the down stream impact. Higher fuel translated into much higher costs for other things.

That's the big killer! Doubling the fuel bill, for example won't come close to a doubling of food.

If it were me, I would bump the tax for ordinary people, leaving commercial vehicles, that move products, alone, so that multiplier is impacted as little as possible. This leaves the dollars in the roads, and not in the grocery store.

I have to ask then. The current tax is what .25 / gallon? So how underfunded are the roads and why are they underfunded?

Are the feds holding back their chunk? Did cost of goods and services creep beyond what the tax can bear? Are we talking about maintaining what we have, or new works planned, and if so on the new works, what works and how come we are not talking about those?

Those add value and that makes a bump on that tax more sensible, given the new works make sense.

I'm asking the underfunded question because a bump of say 50 percent on the tax wouldn't impact people significantly. We've got the data on that, given the gas price bubble.

When I compare that to having to maintain a device, pay for the device, people to manage the devices, and deploy the infrastructure to collect the data and the revenue from the devices, I find it extremely difficult to justify that cost.

More precision on how we assess cost has it's appeal, but getting there is a lot of trouble.

I have to say the dynamic you put in play is far more appealing to me than all the work required to have us maintain devices for this purpose.

Isn't it a good thing that:

-there would actually be modes that are viable to switch to? (not many today, seriously)

-people are empowered to do it

-people actually doing it?

I think that's an absolutely wonderful problem to have! Instead of some onerous device to deal with, we have a public discussion of how to fund the roads, because people are NOT USING GAS!

Love it! That's a winner man. You guys can publish up stats, show how progressive we are, promote the alternatives, and then deal with tax in other ways.

Better yet, fit the devices to the non fuel using cars. If we end up with an alternative fuel, then tax that same as this fuel. If it's an all electric car (and I still harbour doubts over that being a mass reality given the state of battery technology), then it gets a device.

That makes far better sense, and we get a real world test bed, and no serious dependency on some supplier, with a legal lock in.

I really hate those.

Why not tag people at registration? If it's an amount that matters, break it up into monthly payments, or something. Existing administrative bodies can just administrate that for cheap.

(way cheaper than all the build out for the devices)

On the matter of the devices:

tracking is a loser Nobody wants it. I don't think we need it. I will appear in Salem repeatedly, if that's what it will take to kill it.

Who makes them? At what cost? I've got serious worries about that being a monopoly, and the implications of that on cost, efficiency and robustness of the devices.

Are they open? Can I see how one works? Is their function regulated by law, or will the law specify the device function and we then deal with competency issues on the part of the supplier?

If they are not retrofitted to existing cars, will they get stolen, what if they break, etc...?

So there you go! Stuff we ordinary people are thinking.

Given these fairly obvious points, I have a hard time thinking this is in our best interests.

On the legislative side, I totally see the ability to adjust the tax as needed as a plus. Who wants that? I don't! Nobody does. There is a reason taxes are hard man. SO THAT WE ONLY PAY WHAT WE NEED TO!

"All roads then convert to toll roads". Yeah, that's appealing! And I'm not putting this on you, don't get me wrong there.

Ordinary people, hearing that are gonna say no. They are gonna ask why, just like I did, and politically, having to maintain a device and have driving metered is a killer.

Dem or Republican. It's ugly. Know I'll highlight that fact big.

The reason the roads are underfunded, is that the state keeps dipping into the road fund for other things. It's a never ending need and cash drain.

If true, then an adjustable tax is a legal boondoggle for us.

Yeah, and we all know how well toll roads work. Lots of dollars, minimum maintenance, onerous collection, and some states sold them off for private interests to make even more money.

And that brings me to the supplier of the devices. I'll bet you a cookie they have revenue collection built in as part of their "solution" to a "problem" that does not currently exist, and might not exist ever.

Betcha there is an administrative cost to that, and betcha some MBA somewhere considers that a profit center, for "licensing" of "new technology" to the State of Oregon.

At the least, if we are to use devices to meter consumption, said devices need to be open enough that multiple suppliers are used, and the State owns the collection means and methods, so they can be run at cost.