VT considers mileage tax.

[Eddie Haskell]

http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Vermont-considers-mileage-tax-for-vehicles/-/9848766/18188890/-/9it9q3/-/index.html?absolute=true&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Any state that enacts an environmentally regressive tax like this should lose federal highway funding.

[flamingdem]

1. That seems unfair

distance is based on ones work distance and that shouldn't be punished.

[dkf]

2. What's worse is they expect to be tracking us via GPS.

Too intrusive.

[Auntie Bush]

3. What a shitty idea! Lot's of poor Vermonters drive long distances to work.

Talk about hurting the middle class!

[Squinch]

5. Oh, nevermind. I misread it.

[NoOneMan]

6. Climate change is regressive

And in a similar vein (relating another discussion I saw on DU), so is getting shot by an AR15.

Sometimes doing "regressive" things that could translate in a better world (one without climate change or without mass shootings) has a net progressive effect. Sometimes it doesn't matter. Pay now with money or pay later with famine.

Sure, there are probably a million better things we can do. But we all need to kick this 20th century mindset (of consumption, political struggles, priorities) to the curb if we are going to figure out how to fix this 21st century issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Mileage based systems are an attempt to charge in proportion to usage

It used to be that cars that were heavy or people who drove a lot of miles bought more gas and paid more in gas taxes. That helped cover road maintenance expenses. Hybrids and electrics use the roads but pay little to no gas taxes. The roads need to be funded somehow, and traditionally that has been by users via the gas tax.

If you have alternatives, please bring them up. This is not the only state headed this way.

[Nihil]

8. If they had a sensible fuel tax then they wouldn't need to spy on the drivers.

But a fuel tax wouldn't give the opportunity to monitor people in the same way
and so - despite being simple & effective - is not seen as desirable by authorities.

[Yo_Mama]

9. every state will do this

There are similar federal proposals as well.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22059

The gas taxes are the primary way we pay for our road upkeep and maintenance. With lower gas usage and the increasing popular of electric/hybrid vehicles, the funds to maintain the roads are being shortcut.

An electric vehicle is just as dependent on roads as a gas vehicle, and they will have to help pay for road upkeep.

Eventually we will get a federal version of this also. It is not at all environmentally regressive.

[happyslug]

10. But the push is from the Trucking Industry, NOT from people who drive cars.

You have to understand, roads (especially the interstates) are built to take the punishment of 40 tons trucks (80,000 pounds) NOT 1 1/2 ton cars. Yes, Tractor trailers pay more in taxes then your car, but they do more damage to the road then their taxes pay for. i.e. the gasoline taxes you pay when you fill up your car, builds the road needed by the trucks.

Cost. One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962). Overweight trucks chronically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety. (U.S. DOT, 1997).
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm

In other words, a 40 ton truck can easily cause as much damage to a typical road as 60,000 1 ton cars.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4991.html

As recently pointed out to members of Governor Otter’s 15-member task force investigating the funding of Idaho’s highway infrastructure, one fully loaded axle on a big truck is equal to the pavement damage of 10,000 passenger cars
http://fightinggoliath.org/Pages/highwaydamage.taxpayertab.html

In simple language, the trucking industry is looking for another source of subsidy given that people are NOT buying as much gasoline as they use to.

[Yo_Mama]

11. It's way more than the trucking industry

1) The worst damage to roads is just weather and aging in a lot of places. If two cars a year ran over them, the asphalt would pit and crack, water would get in there and freeze, and the roads would break up. Traffic makes that happen a bit faster, but they would not last even with minimal traffic. Once the road surface is already degenerating, the heavy vehicles make it break up a lot faster than autos do, but it's really weather that does it. I've seen a combination of wet years plus hard freezes do extensive damage to local roads within THREE years after they were resurfaced due to extensive water accumulation in the subsurface. There is almost no truck traffic on these roads - only delivery trucks and garbage trucks.

2) I gave you a link to the Congressional Budget Office. Here's the SF Metropolitan Transportation Commission:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=eb455a15-b13d-4079-a8e1-f2fccb7a5d3a

3) Think about it. If EVs take off, we will have to do this. Thus for the environmental benefits of EVs to have a chance, this is necessary. There is nothing more self-delusive than pushing new technologies without figuring out how we will pay for the infrastructure they use!

[happyslug]

12. But if you only have to design around cars, it is a lot CHEAPER to replace.

and if built right, can last longer. In my home state of Pennsylvania a lot of bridges. many that Penndot wants to replace, NOT due to the fact the bridges can NOT automobiles over the next 50-100 years, but because they can NOT take any trucks over Five tons.

The cost to re-build a road for use by cars only, is way less then the same road built to take heavy trucks. A good comparison is the bridges on a bike-way to a bridge for heavy trucks.

The Montour Trial, south of Pittsburgh had to build two new bridges, total cost 1,9 million dollars, length of 120 feet:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/more-sports/two-new-bridges-eliminate-gaps-along-montour-trail-646579/

Here is the bridge BEFORE it was built:

http://www.montourtrail.org/construction/morganza.asp

The cost to replace a similar length of bridge was just under 1.9 million BY ITSELF:

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/District6/D6Media.nsf/cd20de0d8cd84b3785256d66005b622b/6405fbc32b1075d885257aef006cacfa?OpenDocument

Why the difference? The Rails to Trail bridges only had be be able to carry 5-10 ton trucks, not the 40-80 tons highway bridges have to carry.

Another comparison is the reconstruction costs of the J&L "Hot Metal Bridge" and its next door neighbor the former J&L "Monongahela Connecting Railroad Bridge" (Both tend to be called the "Hot Metal Bridge" by locals). Conversion of the "Monongahela Connecting Railroad Bridge" to auto traffic was simple, all that was needed was the two ends to be connected to the near by road system. Penndot did this for $12 million dollars NOT INCLUDING the costs of the new road system to the Bridge. THe Actual "Hot Metal Bridge" required more work, including removing metal parts that were installed when built to keep the hot metal carried by the railroad cars from heating up the bridge extensively. This also required the building of two ramps from the bike trail under the Bridge to the actual bridge on the South Side, and a second much smaller bridge to the bike trail on the North shore of the river. This came to $10 million dollars, more work but since it did NOT have to carry heavy loads cheaper.

http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghE/0588-4475/hotmetal.htm
http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=pennsylvania/hotmetal/

The Connecting Bridge:
http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=pennsylvania/hotmetalstreet/

Just pointing out that much of the cost of any bridge or road is the cost to be able to transport HEAVY LOADS, 20 tons or more. Thus roads and bridges are designed to carry loads 10-40 times the weight of most cars. Above I tried to get bridges are comparable as possible in term of length, but even with the Hot Metal Bridge the costs were hard to pin down so that a valid comparison can be made. As you get to close comparisons, you find out that the increased costs are quite high. The Hot Metal Bridge is a good comparison. $12 million for the wider bridge for cars, but that EXCLUDES the access roads to the Bridge, $10 million for the Bicycle part, but that INCLUDED the two access ramps AND the additional bridge over Second Avenue to get to that bike trail (The Hot Metal Bridge actually connects TWO bike trails, one on each side of the Monongahela River). $10 million sounds close to $12 Million till you realized it meant a distance twice as long (through NOT as one long bridge).

One last comment, between the construction of the two bridges, it appears bids on bridges went through the roof, almost doubling due to factors outside the differences between the two bridges:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sectionfront/life/high-bids-jeopardize-hot-metal-bridge-437102/

[Eddie Haskell]

13. We've always had gas taxes ... Why switch to mileage based taxes now?

Would you punish people for buying more efficient, cleaner burning vehicles? These vehicles are much lighter and cause less damage to the roads.

If you don't give people an incentive, they'll never adopt new technology.

[Yo_Mama]

14. They aren't necessarily lighter

You're not punishing people, but as gas sales go down, we have to collect more revenue to continue maintaining the roads. Lower gas consumption is good for the environment, but the roads can't be paid for by gasoline taxes any more.

Go here and look at the data:US gas consumption has fallen back to where it was in the mid 1990s.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=C100000001&f=M

There are more miles traveled and even more miles of roads, and funds to maintain federal, state and local roads keep falling short.

A fuel-efficient, EV or hybrid car needs the roads just as much as any other vehicle. What would punish people is getting their investment torn up on decaying roads. It happens.

There is no incentive needed to get people to search for ways to cut their transportation bill. Believe me, a lot of people can't afford to drive a gas guzzler any more.