A per-mile tax? Toll roads are a better alternative
With cars more fuel-efficient and Americans driving less, revenue generated by per-gallon fuel taxes is on the decline. But Oregon's response to that dilemma, which raises cost and privacy concerns, represents a wrong turn — especially because there's a far better approach.
Oregon is seeking 5,000 volunteers for a pilot project set to begin in 2015, Fox News reports. They'll still pay the federal per-gallon tax but instead of Oregon's 30-cents-per-gallon tax, they'll pay 1.5 cents per mile driven — as measured by devices attached to their vehicles' computers.
Those devices can't track their locations. But to avoid taxing such drivers for miles driven on private or out-of-state roads, per-mile taxation will need to incorporate smartphones and/or GPS systems, which add cost and can track locations, raising obvious privacy concerns.
GPS cost averages about $200 per vehicle. And there's the cost of calculating and billing to consider: A 2012 Government Accountability Office report said collecting GPS-based per-mile taxes for 230 million U.S. passenger vehicles likely would cost far more than collecting per-gallon taxes. And per-mile taxation would hit the most fuel-efficient cars as hard as the worst gas guzzlers.
So, what's the existing, far better solution? Why not more toll roads? Not raising new privacy concerns, not needing costly new collection systems and treating all passenger vehicles the same, toll roads are the preferred alternate route to the same destination — more revenue.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The rise of ISIS: Obama’s bus
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The climate debate: Better science
- U.N. Watch: Fanning hate’s flames
- Chicken Littles can’t cluck away climate facts
- Stop Pa. Senate Bill 444: It turns the people’s right to know into government’s right to hide
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The AG’s randy emails: Selective disclosure