Taxing you by the mile.

[Mech]

Infowars.com | November 17, 2004

Alex has been reporting on the national plan to put satellite trackers in all or cars or transponders in all cars for seven years. The Federal plan has been public that long.

Now, Oregon, California and New York are moving forward with it. The Feds' own documents say you will be taxed over 25 cents a mile. Here in Austin, Texas where infowars.com is based, the City has announced the transponder system and admits that is will cost the average driver, on top of all other taxes, $1,800 a year to start.

We've seen national polls where upwards of 98 percent of respondents are against taxation by the mile, especially when it's connected to a tracking system.

Look at the non-scientific poll done by a local TV station in California where 95 percent are against it. But, of course, Schwarzenegger doesn't care. He's for it.

DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile

LA Times | Nov 16 2004

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday appointed a new Department of Motor Vehicles director who has advocated taxing motorists for every mile they drive — by placing tracking devices in their cars.

The idea would mean a significant overhaul of how California collects taxes to maintain its often-crumbling roads. Under the plan, the state gas tax — now 18 cents a gallon — would be replaced with a tax on every mile traveled by each car and truck.
The notion has not been endorsed by Schwarzenegger but is gaining acceptance among transportation and budget experts. As Californians drive increasingly more fuel-efficient cars, state officials are alarmed that the gasoline tax will not raise enough money to keep up with road needs.

Charging people for the miles they drive also worries some owners of hybrid cars, because it could wipe out any gas-tax savings they now enjoy.

Dan Beal, managing director of public policy for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said altering the system would remove one incentive to buying new-technology hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, because its owner would pay the same fuel tax as a Hummer owner.

"You are arguing against people taking risks on technology development," said Beal, warning that some mile-tracking systems could invite fraud more than the reliable tax meters at the pump.

Any change in the state's gasoline tax would have to be approved by the Legislature.

Privacy advocates worry about the government tracking the whereabouts of every car in California. In one scenario — currently being tested in Oregon — tracking devices send a signal to a GPS satellite following the car, and that information would be used to calculate the tax bill. Other devices send a signal directly from the car to the pump, which calculates the tax based on the odometer reading.

Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which monitors privacy issues, said if the device "can communicate with a satellite and then communicate back with another device on the ground, it could be used for something else. That would be my concern: How are limits placed on how this device could be used?"

[Mech]

Yet some transportation experts say the technology has wider implications. Officials are intrigued by the idea because California could begin taxing people for using specific roads at specific times. To keep people off freeways at peak hours, for example, per-mile fees for city streets could be pegged at a lower rate than the highway. That could prompt people to use alternative routes.

The governor and other top aides are exploring ways to alter our gasoline-driven society: Schwarzenegger wants more hybrid and hydrogen-fueled cars, and his new EPA secretary, Terry Tamminen, is writing a book about ending the use of oil entirely, calling it a "dinosaur."

For the state budget, the trend looks grim. Revenue from the gas and diesel fuel tax — about $3.3 billion — will have declined 8% between 1998 and 2005, adjusted for inflation, but the amount of miles traveled by cars and trucks on California roads has increased 16%, according to a February report by the legislative analyst. The California Transportation Commission has said the state needs about $100 billion in road and freeway repairs.

The appointment of Joan Borucki, a Democrat and longtime Caltrans official, has placed an advocate for a per-mile transportation tax within the top ranks of the Schwarzenegger administration.

She included the notion in the California Performance Review, a top-to-bottom audit ordered by Schwarzenegger last year. Borucki was the leader on the transportation section and pushed the idea of an odometer-based fee at an August public meeting in Riverside.

The idea has been circulating because more Californians are driving fuel-efficient cars, the review warned. Less gasoline consumed means less money for the state's coffers from the gas tax — even though people are driving and damaging roads just as much. "Electric vehicles, fuel-cell vehicles or other future fuels would not be taxed under" the existing per-gallon system, the report said.

The administration said Borucki was not available Monday, but she said in a statement that she wants to transform the DMV "into a customer-friendly, service-oriented unit of our government." Borucki, who was on the California Transportation Commission for two years, still needs state Senate confirmation for the $123,255-a-year job. She started at Caltrans in 1980 and worked her way up to manager of new technology and deputy district director for planning.

"She's devoted, and she's knowledgeable about the state's situation," said Elizabeth Deakin, a policy expert with the UC Transportation Center who has known her for 15 years. "She understands the state's concerns about wanting good service, and she understands technology."

In Orange and San Diego counties, some freeways are using what is called "congestion pricing" — vehicles pay to use certain lanes at peak hours. And two similar systems are being tested in Oregon.

Around Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council is placing global positioning devices in 500 cars to monitor where they drive — and then calculating a usage fee based on the roads they use and the times they drive. In Eugene, Ore., test cars are being outfitted with tracking devices that link up with special gas pumps around the area.

Currently, cars with high fuel efficiency and large trucks don't generate enough revenue from fuel taxes to pay for the burden they place on roads, said Randall Pozdena, managing director of ECONorthwest, an economic consulting firm. A large truck, he said, can do as much damage on a city street as 10,000 cars, but it still pays the same amount of per-gallon gasoline tax, assuming the gas was purchased in California in the first place.

Drivers "can start allocating how much time they spend on each type of street," said Andrew Poat, a former Caltrans official who works for the city of San Diego. It could get even more detailed: Large trucks could be charged higher fees for using residential streets rather than more fortified freeways.

"It's just like water. We're trying to get water and energy meters to tell you what time of day you use energy. You use energy at peak hours on a really hot day, you pay more for that…. We need to start sending those price signals to users."

Still, privacy advocates worry about "usage creep" — like how the driver's license has evolved into official identification for nearly everyone. The information collected about mileage potentially could be subpoenaed in a court case or used to track someone without their knowledge, they fear.

But Pozdena and Deakin, the transportation experts, said most people don't care about this issue as much as privacy advocates, especially when presented with the possibility that as much as 25% of the road could be used by hybrids in the future. Drivers of non-hybrid cars have said it's unfair to pay the larger burden of gasoline taxes, they said.

"While some people are concerned about civil liberties, most people are not," Deakin said. "One of the things we found from focus groups and surveys is that most people said if the government wanted to track you, they have other ways to do it."
Tax California Drivers by the Mile?
ABC30 | November 17, 2004

A controversial proposal to tax California drivers by the mile could be gaining support at the top of the governor's administration. Find out how the plan would work.

The good news is that the high gas prices would be 18 cents lower. That's the amount of the state gas tax that would be eliminated.

But, there is a catch — you'd be charged for every mile you drive, and that could end up costing some people more.

Imagine that the next time you stop at the pump, instead of paying the state's gas tax of 18 cents a gallon, a little computer inside your car tells the pump how much you've driven since your last fill-up and you pay "tax by the mile."

The new director of the DMV, Joan Borucki, and others are worried the current gas tax isn't generating enough money to repair California's crumbling roads.

Fuel efficient cars are using less gas to drive more miles, but the governor isn't ready to speak for or against a per-mile transportation tax, "I know the idea he's talking about ... so, I need to think it through before I make a commitment to that."

Oregon is already putting GPS tracking devices in some cars, which send information to a satellite to calculate the tax.

But, consumer advocates worry the change could slow innovation and remove the incentive to buy hybrids or other environmentally friendly cars.

The new way of collecting tax money could still be a long way down the road. The legislature has to approve any changes to the state's gas tax.

Some transportation experts say there are some potential benefits with this plan. They could tax people for using certain roads at certain times.

That could encourage drivers to use alternative routes if it cost less than using the freeways.

[Mech]

ITS ALREADY HAPPENING IN ENGLAND.....


****


UK: Road Monitors To Directly Tax Cars By Mile

London Mirror | November 27 2004

MOTORISTS will be charged more than £1-a-mile to use their cars during rush hour, it was announced yesterday.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling is getting tough on drivers with the pay-as-you-drive scheme to ease Britain's traffic-clogged roads.

And he warned the Government would not keep building more roads to keep motorists on the move.

Under the plan drivers would have to pay £1.34-a-mile to use motorways and trunk roads at peak times.

Vehicles would be fitted with monitors which would be scanned by 'readers' fitted on road gantries and bills sent to people's homes.

Mr Darling insisted: "There is a limit to how much more road capacity you can create."

Other proposals to cut congestion on the roads include:

TIDAL FLOWS: The direction of traffic of one lane of a motorway is reversed to ease rush hour traffic jams.

HARD SHOULDER RUNNING: The emergency lane is opened up during peak periods to make extra room.

DYNAMIC LANES: Cats' eyes are used to change three lane motorways into four by narrowing lane width.

VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS: Maximums are lowered and minimum raised in rush hours to improve flow. The proposals come after a report said The Highways Agency has been "too slow, too timid and too cautious" in finding ways to speed up traffic.

The Agency, which runs motorways and main roads throughout England, was told to find radical "quick win" solutions to beat snarl-ups.

The National Audit Office also said it was "behind its overseas counterparts" in finding solutions to jams.

And it criticised transport chiefs for not knowing about big sporting and entertainment events in advance which often bring motorways grinding to a halt.

Highways Agency boss Archie Robertson admitted they had not done enough to ease the misery of jams.

He said: "We are already taking steps to address some of the issues identified but fully accept that we have more work to do."

He added: "I will ensure that where recommendations for improvement are safe and appropriate to deliver, we will take action."

The National Audit Office report said average traffic speeds had improved between 1998 and 2003 but they were still slower than 1995.

Traffic volumes on all roads rose by 14 per cent between 1995 and 2002.

Sheer weight of traffic accounted for 65 per cent of congestion, while things like accidents made up 25 per cent and roadworks 10 per cent.