San Francisco Bay Area considering Vehicle Miles Traveled tax

[GuyContinental]

I cringe at the administrative and privacy issues tied up in that one. IMO a gas tax plus hefty access tolls (i.e. bridges) does away with both of those issues while capturing out of towners and aligning incentives. But no, we don’t do meaningful gas taxes that would disincentivize low MPG and high weight vehicles around here.

On a side note I had cause to read the TX GOP platform document this morning, a related section caught my eye under the “Economy” section:

Transportation Fuel Taxes – We call for all transportation and fuel taxes collected to be used for road construction, improvement and maintenance only. We resolve that tax revenue derived from gasoline taxes should only be used for highway construction and not be diverted to any other use, including mass transit and bicycle paths

It’s quite the read. LINK

[KLizotte]

@GuyContinental 25859 wrote:

On a side note I had cause to read the TX GOP platform document this morning, a related section caught my eye under the “Economy” section:

Transportation Fuel Taxes – We call for all transportation and fuel taxes collected to be used for road construction, improvement and maintenance only. We resolve that tax revenue derived from gasoline taxes should only be used for highway construction and not be diverted to any other use, including mass transit and bicycle paths

It’s quite the read. LINK

*Sigh* These folks simply don’t understand the concepts of market failure, public goods, and externalities. Very scary. No one should be able to graduate from high school, much less run for public office, without first passing an exam on basic economic principles.

[mstone]

I’d be perfectly happy with that option, as long as it was bundled with the requirement that nothing but gas taxes or tolls could be used to pay for motor vehicle facilities. Us cyclists would somehow manage to get by on the windfall from the general fund money previously spent on cars.

[Mark Blacknell]

Increase the gas tax, skip the complications of a VMT.

[DaveK]

I can’t get behind the privacy implications of this (nor the fact that the Supreme Court recently ruled warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles to be unconstitutional) but if a better mechanism could be found I like the idea. Anything that moves us towards a true user fee. We can’t solely fund roads and construction off user fees – my bike was shipped to the store in a truck after all even if I didn’t own a car – but the cost of driving should be more clear and the choices we make should take that cost into account more than they do now.

/edit – ^^ stunning that the lawyer is better at succinctly making an argument than the engineer. ^^

[jrenaut]

I wish we could tax use super-precisely without all the hassle. I mean, if you’re taking 8 people camping, for example, a Suburban is very environmentally friendly. A 150 mile roundtrip commute, even at 40mpg, isn’t. I use my bike, my feet, or the bus for most of my transportation. When I DO drive, it’s usually with four people in the car. To really influence behavior in a beneficial way, the tax has to take that sort of thing into account. And of course enforcing that become all but impossible.

We should definitely increase the gas tax, though. And those Texans are bonkers.

[Terpfan]

@GuyContinental 25859 wrote:

I cringe at the administrative and privacy issues tied up in that one. IMO a gas tax plus hefty access tolls (i.e. bridges) does away with both of those issues while capturing out of towners and aligning incentives. But no, we don’t do meaningful gas taxes that would disincentivize low MPG and high weight vehicles around here.

On a side note I had cause to read the TX GOP platform document this morning, a related section caught my eye under the “Economy” section:

Transportation Fuel Taxes – We call for all transportation and fuel taxes collected to be used for road construction, improvement and maintenance only. We resolve that tax revenue derived from gasoline taxes should only be used for highway construction and not be diverted to any other use, including mass transit and bicycle paths

It’s quite the read. LINK

I’ll get banged for saying this, but setting aside my bias toward building more/improved/better bike paths, I can understand the rationale behind their statement. We’re a relatively small part of the equation, but your mass transit eats away huge at fuel taxes that were originally designed solely to build and maintain the roads (goes by the term farebox recovery in state legislative settings). So for every car you take off the road and move to mass transit, it’s not just the net loss of the fuel tax, but it’s also the net cost increase of the mass transit ride (ranging from 30-70% in most states for what’s subsidized). Add to that antiquated fuel tax system that cars have significantly improved gas mileage and you come up with a crumbling infrastructure because nobody wants to pay significantly higher fuel taxes–and us advocating for them probably doesn’t play too well given we benefit from them without much actual cost to us (aka, don’t give them new ideas because they will suggest tolling us before you know it).

As for the VMT concept, it’s actually a highly libertarian concept assuming you’re removing all fuel taxes because you’re effectively paying solely for use. It’s an expanded version of toll roads in theory. But I think you will get a lot of pushback because to be effective it has to be implemented statewide, at a minimum. So how you cope with saying to rural residents that they will be paying significant amounts by default of having occupations like farmer or rancher or forest ranger, etc, is a complex political question.

That’s plenty from me.

[creadinger]

@GuyContinental 25859 wrote:

I cringe at the administrative and privacy issues tied up in that one. IMO a gas tax plus hefty access tolls (i.e. bridges) does away with both of those issues while capturing out of towners and aligning incentives. But no, we don’t do meaningful gas taxes that would disincentivize low MPG and high weight vehicles around here.

On a side note I had cause to read the TX GOP platform document this morning, a related section caught my eye under the “Economy” section:

Transportation Fuel Taxes – We call for all transportation and fuel taxes collected to be used for road construction, improvement and maintenance only. We resolve that tax revenue derived from gasoline taxes should only be used for highway construction and not be diverted to any other use, including mass transit and bicycle paths

It’s quite the read. LINK

Slightly off-topic but if you think that is eye-catching then you don’t even want to look at their education platform. Absolutely appalling what they feel is good policy… ‘let’s get rid of critical thinking because it may teach kids to think for themselves and they may go against what they were raised to believe.’

[Amalitza]

Does California not have annual vehicle safety inpsections? I know Maryland doesn’t, but I thought they were an exception. They surely have emissions inspections (this is California)? Regardless of whether I think the tax is a good idea (I don’t at first thought, but I might change my mind on consideration), why would you have to install a GPS? Just note the mileage once a year at inspection time, or at the time of sale if sold before the year is up. GPS is stupid.

[GuyContinental]

@jrenaut 25871 wrote:

I wish we could tax use super-precisely without all the hassle. I mean, if you’re taking 8 people camping, for example, a Suburban is very environmentally friendly. A 150 mile roundtrip commute, even at 40mpg, isn’t. I use my bike, my feet, or the bus for most of my transportation. When I DO drive, it’s usually with four people in the car. To really influence behavior in a beneficial way, the tax has to take that sort of thing into account. And of course enforcing that become all but impossible.

Hence the gas tax route- ignore the vehicle, think of the gallons per passenger mile at a 10% tax on top of $4/gallon (and assume that everyone splits gas)-
1 person driving 100 miles in a 10mpg suburban = .1000 gppm = tax per passenger $4.00
8 people driving 100 miles in a 10mpg suburban = .0125 gppm = tax per passenger $0.50
1 person driving 100 miles in a 50mpg hybrid = .0200 gppm = tax per passenger $0.80
8 people driving 100 miles in two 50mpg hybrids = .0050 gppm = tax per passenger $0.20

8 people driving 100 miles in a 50mpg solient-green powered suburban = .0025 gppm = tax per passenger $0.10

The tax per mile scheme ignores the incentives to drive more efficient vehicles or cram more people into less-efficient vehicles. It also ignores the relative impact of the heavier vehicle on the road. Worse, since the tax is paid by the driver instead of at the pump it lessens the incentives to car-share on long trips. The Dutch deal with this with a combination of gas taxes and GVWR (vehicle weight) taxes.

[DaveK]

@GuyContinental 25902 wrote:

The Dutch deal with this with a combination of gas taxes and GVWR (vehicle weight) taxes.

DC already has this somewhat, the excise tax for cars in DC varies with GVWR and hybrids are exempt.

[jrenaut]

What we are trying to do with the various taxes makes a big difference. If we’re trying to pay for road maintenance, it makes sense to tax by weight and miles traveled. If we’re trying to get people to make more environmentally friendly choices, then something like the gppm tax that GuyContinental mentions above makes sense. If we’re trying to get people to commute at off-peak times, then a rush hour tax makes sense. Perhaps some combination of all three plus other stuff makes the most sense, but then becomes both impossible to collect, but also impossible for people to understand. And if they don’t understand how to increase or decrease their tax burden, then they won’t make the choices we’re trying to encourage.

Makes you wonder why anyone would want to go into politics.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@GuyContinental 25902 wrote:

The tax per mile scheme ignores the incentives to drive more efficient vehicles or cram more people into less-efficient vehicles. It also ignores the relative impact of the heavier vehicle on the road. Worse, since the tax is paid by the driver instead of at the pump it lessens the incentives to car-share on long trips. The Dutch deal with this with a combination of gas taxes and GVWR (vehicle weight) taxes.

Very good point, I hadn’t thought of that. I suppose you could increase/decrease the tax based on fuel economy tiers or something. Either way, it’s going to be pretty complicated…but I find it encouraging that political leaders are at least trying new schemes to tackle the problem, even if it takes some trial and error to figure out.

[pfunkallstar]

@DaveK 25870 wrote:

I can’t get behind the privacy implications of this (nor the fact that the Supreme Court recently ruled warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles to be unconstitutional) but if a better mechanism could be found I like the idea. Anything that moves us towards a true user fee. We can’t solely fund roads and construction off user fees – my bike was shipped to the store in a truck after all even if I didn’t own a car – but the cost of driving should be more clear and the choices we make should take that cost into account more than they do now.

/edit – ^^ stunning that the lawyer is better at succinctly making an argument than the engineer. ^^

Richard Nixon: My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it’s almost sickening. We’re free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don’t want to pay our taxes, why, we’re free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster!
Pain Monster: See you April 15 folks!

[GuyContinental]

@pfunkallstar 25953 wrote:

Richard Nixon: My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it’s almost sickening. We’re free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. !

I kid you not- the Texas GOP Platform doc has that covered too (in the Privacy section):

“We further oppose any national ID program, including the Real ID Act and the use of Radio Frequency Identification Chips (RFID) on humans.”

[Author]

Posts