Comments on: California is Setting the Stage for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled

By: Matt O'Toole

Matt O'Toole — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:59:48 +0000

All the "conspiracy theorists, privacy nut-jobs, and right wing nutters" in the world are no match for oil companies that hate their product being taxed, and contractors who would love to sell the gov't tens of millions of GPS mileage meters. Auto companies love this too since it equalizes the cost of driving a gas guzzler with that of a more efficient vehicle.

Fuel taxes are the best way to get people into more efficient, less polluting vehicles.

The best way to replace tax revenues lost from reduced gasoline sales is to make fuel taxes a percentage rather than a flat cents per gallon. Then tax revenues wouldn't fall with demand, as fuel prices rise. Unfortunately our politicians listen to oil companies, not economists or transportation experts.

For congestion pricing to work it must be targeted at congested areas. Most congestion is from short trips that don't add up to many miles. So to affect congestion, the per mile rate would have to be pretty stiff. If such a rate were flat statewide, it would be too burdensome on occasional long distance travel, which is important to our standard of living and our economy -- visiting family, weekend vacations. etc.

Let's look at Europe, and their experience with percentage-based fuel taxes. Let's look at cities like Hong Kong and London, and their experience with congestion pricing. But please keep in mind that these places have viable alternatives to private motor vehicles. Keeping (poor) people from driving in the US will not make those alternatives magically appear here.

By: Irvin Dawid

Irvin Dawid — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:55:28 +0000

I think LA Streetsblog may not only have jumped the gun here, but could in fact help to contribute to the Skinner bill's defeat by leaping to a VMT Fee from a VMT accounting purpose.
Assembly woman Skinner merely seeks to get a more accurate accounting of how mile miles Californians are driving for the purposes of meeting AB 32 carbon reduction goals, not adding a fee for miles driver - that is my understanding. However, with this article, and others like it that the Republicans can use to show that the bill is merely a step toward a new tax, many moderate Democrats may be unwilling to support it....just my political hunches her.

By: carlip

carlip — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:31:20 +0000

First, it's important to highlight that AB 1135 absolutely is not authorizing a fee or tax on VMT. It is a mechanism to collect data. Just yesterday, the Center for Clean Air Policy (an independent, nonprofit world leader in climate policy) released a call for better data on vehicle emissions, including VMT, to help decision makers make better policy. Check it out at: http://www.ccap.org/index.php?component=news&id=195

Second, I agree with other comments that indicate that we should be looking at a range of options to increase the funds we have for our transportation systems. Congestion pricing and raising/indexing the gas tax are just two others. Each approach has its own benefits. What's undeniable is that our existing sources are drying up leaving crumbling infrastructure and underfunded transit services.

By: J

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 06:25:48 +0000

I have to wonder what other applications the VMT GPS devices could be used for. It would be fantastic if the data could be used for law enforcement applications or for 100% accurate traffic modeling. I agree that the privacy wackos won't let this get off the ground, though.

By: David Galvan

David Galvan — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:45:57 +0000

I think it is simpler, cheaper, and just as effective to gradually increase the fuel tax instead of trying to do a VMT. The potential cost and hassle of installing GPS receivers on everyone's cars, combined with the privacy concern that many people will (rightfully or not) have with this, seems like just too much of a pain. Just raise the gas tax. It's easier and will accomplish the same goal.

By: David Pulsipher

David Pulsipher — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:35:53 +0000

^
|
case in point

By: Geine

Geine — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:14:39 +0000

This is outrageous to continue to be taxed without representation.

Big Brother is having to much control over us, now this using GPS charging you another TAX.

Is the government going to put a GPS into your body and charge you a take for walking, sitting, eating etc.

How much to you want to Government to control you. Reminds me of post World War II under Russia, where in countries you had to have a pass to go from place to place.

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:07:46 +0000

It is sheer ignorance to think that a VMT tax is in any way different or better then a fuel tax. Gallons of fuel purchased is an almost direct indicator of miles traveled when you are talking about populations the size of California. Where every type of car is used. There is no need for more technology. They just need a higher fuel tax to actually cover the highway repair.

In rebuttal to the quote "A Prius contributes to traffic congestion just like a Mustang, but is paying less into the account that addresses congestion and roadway wear and tear." Uhm, how about a congestion tax? This system works in London and would directly address the point made by Paine. What isn't said there is that both a Prius and a Mustang pale in comparison to the wear and tear put on the roads by the heavier freight hauling vehicles. But making them pay their fair share is going to be the more difficult struggle then throwing technology at the problem. But wait, what if we charged a significant tax for diesel fuel? The one fuel most freight haulers use. Comes back to the fuel tax.

I really wish some politician would grow a spine and push a better fuel and congestion tax. That is the real solution.

By: David Pulsipher

David Pulsipher — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:53:16 +0000

i support this, especially as a full time bicycle commuter. that being said, there is no way this'll fly. conspiracy theorists, privacy nut-jobs, and right wing nutters will never let this get off the ground.