Scientists test pay-as-you-go driving

Researchers from the University of Iowa Public Policy Center have developed a system for charging drivers federal taxes by the distance traveled rather than on gallons of gas purchased. The study is being conducted with 2,700 drivers from states like Maryland, Texas, Iowa and California to gauge public reactions and experiences with the system. The basis for the study is the declining tax dollars being paid for car use in the States; as fuel prices rise, cars get more efficient, and alternatives like ethanol and hybrids gain ground, our 18.4-cents-a-gallon tax on gas (which was set in 1993) remains static, thereby making it harder for The Man to get paid. Eventually, the government will have to find another way to generate tax dollars from drivers -- and researchers think this might be it. Instead of paying a constant fee on the fuel we purchase, drivers cars are equipped with a taxi-like meter, and users will be given a monthly bill for the miles that they've driven. We can only hope this is avoidable, perhaps due to the spontaneous existence of a free, plentiful, environment-friendly fuel source... or another revolution.

[Via Autoblog]

[Frank @ Sep 25th 2007 2:02PM]

If they pull this crap they better do away with all the toll roads too.

[Paul @ Sep 25th 2007 2:19PM]

They better make the software and the hardware tighter than my granny's ass after losing at bingo. Otherwise, hackers are gonna be all up in her shit...err...I mean their shit...ew

I for one, don't care! All you rural/suburban bastards weep your little hearts out. I've lived downtown in a major city for years and haven't had a car since 2003. Suck It!

[Randomness @ Sep 25th 2007 2:29PM]

The toll roads are being sold to private companies now because the gov't needed to balance the budgets, so they just sold the roads. It doesn't look like the toll roads are going anywhere until the 75year leases are up. Sorry Frank. And you thought people hacked the iPhone a lot... ha.

http://www.progressivestates.org/blog/203/more-on-private-toll-roads
http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=6724

[Nick @ Sep 25th 2007 7:09PM]

just you wait till they make any type of circumvention of this system a federal offense.. Then we'll see how many geeks are gonna try and save a few bucks when the consequences will be a couple years in jail and being banned from use of a computer for a couple more years.

[H8R @ Sep 25th 2007 2:02PM]

I forsee a thriving underground market for circumvention tools if this ever goes big time.

[Calviin @ Sep 25th 2007 2:47PM]

My first thought was on how quickly this would get hacked. Apple, Sony and Microsoft can't keep their electronics hack proof. What chance do the Feds really have? Nobody is going to see this as fair, and in real life, when most people think something is too unfair, they work around it, legal or not.

[DarkAardvark @ Sep 27th 2007 9:27PM]

if it's mechanical, just change the sensors/make the software on it register 1/16th the distance
if it's gps, just take the gps unit out or something.
i'd like to play with this.
***or just drive a car without this device***

[Shawn @ Sep 25th 2007 2:02PM]

what. the. fuck?

[octoberasian @ Sep 25th 2007 4:05PM]

The same three words that came out of my mouth after I read this.

So... let me get this straight: the government sees that the gasoline tax is no longer paying off and sees the need to tax drivers continuously wherever they go to fill the gap?

Is this government greediness or plain stupidity?

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2007 4:22PM]

Gas taxes and Licensing fees don't cover all of the costs of roads. It's a massively subsidized public service.

[Don @ Sep 25th 2007 4:41PM]

Yes - even a perfectly fuel efficient car that runs off of Champagne wishes and Caviar dreams won't replace the need to build and maintain roadways, signs, lights, etc. That is a big part of what the tax is for, and is a big reason why EVERY road isn't a toll road.

[ryantrevisol @ Sep 25th 2007 2:06PM]

So I don't get rewarded for having an efficient car?

[JohnTitor @ Sep 25th 2007 2:19PM]

yup total bummer, what they should do is just increase the tax on the gas smartasses

[Paul @ Sep 25th 2007 2:21PM]

Yeah, you save money on gas. And think of it this way, they can only tax one, not both, otherwise the public will go crazy, so chances are, your gas will drop by almost 20 cents per gallon.

[Terc @ Sep 25th 2007 3:09PM]

Yay, cheaper gas, time to put my own personal hole in the ozone. V24 Baby, rollin' on 50" rims and um, flamethrowers! Maybe our government should focus on rewarding people for being environmentally conscious instead of profiting from oil companies. First order of business: Get Bush out of the oval office. No really, this isn't a Bush bashing thing, it's a common sense statement. The Bush family has a vested interest in oil companies, and over the last several years President Bush has been involved in several changes in US policy that has resulted in record profits for major oil companies.

While I realize Bush didn't develop pay as you go driving, this is something that would be very appealing to people interested in oil profits because the price of oil could go up, and the price at the pump could go down. All while discuraging people from buying efficient vehicles.

[Dean @ Sep 25th 2007 2:07PM]

well, im ready to unplug the module from my car... seems liek it would be hard to enforce. although, i suppose they could check if the milage matches when they test emissions

[Paul @ Sep 25th 2007 2:23PM]

If the unit is unplugged, I'd bet that there is a flat fine that is some ridiculous number.

[andy @ Sep 25th 2007 2:09PM]

I propose that they quit giving my tax money away to other people, and then there won't be an issue with fees for roads.

[Paul @ Sep 25th 2007 2:26PM]

amen

[HopkinsChemist @ Sep 25th 2007 3:38PM]

I propose that they quit giving my tax money away to stupid oil wars, and then there won't be an issue with fees for roads.

Personally I'd support the system, but then again I ride a bike.

[andy @ Sep 25th 2007 5:37PM]

I hate to trip up your perfectly good diatribe with facts, but if we were in a war for oil, we would secure the oil source and take the oil, right?

We have not secured any oil source and taken any oil, so where is your oil war?


Or did you just get caught spitting out leftist propaganda?

[C. T. @ Sep 25th 2007 8:26PM]

Well put, Andy.

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2007 9:01PM]

he meant failed oil war. Like everything else Mr. Bush touched.

You can't argue the fact we are spending $100,000 per minute in a war with no progress for over three years. That could build a lot of roads here....

[yoinkers @ Sep 26th 2007 1:03AM]

So what was the war for then Andy?

Was it to find the weapons of mass destruction? Oops, haven't found those yet.

Maybe it was to free Iraq? Hmmm... last time I checked ethnic conflict wasn't rampant in free states I'm used to.

My point is that it's a failed war. Your arguments don't make sense because NONE of the pre war objectives have been met. Well, I guess we got Saddam. Make that 1 objective.

[MacGyver @ Sep 25th 2007 2:10PM]

Anybody ever think of just increasing the fuel tax? Why should person 'A' with a fuel-efficient car get screwed just as much as person 'B' in the gas-guzzling SUV when they drive the same number of miles?

If you want to pay out the nose every month to fill up your SUV, knock yourself out, but don't drag me down with you.

[DingDong @ Sep 25th 2007 2:19PM]

A higher fuel tax is a regressive tax on lower income people who depend on their car and are already hanging on by a thread. So while it would be wonderful to screw the idiots who drive Escalades and Hummers, you'd be screwing poor people as well. I personally can't abide that.

[dan durand @ Sep 25th 2007 2:27PM]

"A higher fuel tax is a regressive tax on lower income people who depend on their car and are already hanging on by a thread. So while it would be wonderful to screw the idiots who drive Escalades and Hummers, you'd be screwing poor people as well. I personally can't abide that."

god bless you.

[Nilgiri @ Sep 25th 2007 4:26PM]

How is that poor people will be effected by any tax related on vehicles or the fuel for them? Oh, you mean those poor people who have a car, a warm house with a bed in it, and a refrigerator with some food in it, which qualifies them for being in the upper 8% of the wealthiest people in the world? Let's get some perspective folks. I don't mean to belittle the daily strife of those less fortunate than me, but the bottom line is that we all have a great deal of choices to make in this country, and those choices determine our personal conditions to a great extent. Anyone who has a vehicle is not lacking in options to pursue; it is only the lack of will that is in question.

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2007 4:30PM]

Everyone, no matter what kind of car they drive, makes some kind of maintenance demand on the public roads. Now Hummers and Escalades cause more damage to roads than your Prius sheerly because of their weight. If this tax took into account the weight of the vehicle as a factor for the tax, that could make sense.

[Phil @ Sep 25th 2007 5:12PM]

Typically poor people have to drive the furthest and the most often. They have to drive their kids to school, and then commute from their cheaper housing in the burbs into the business centers for work. Better off people can afford the more expensive places closer to where they work, and can afford the hybrid cars. Poor people can't afford either, so they are going to be double taxed for being poor.

It's like saying the state isn't making enough in sales taxes off well made shoes that don't wear out in a few months. so we are going to tax the number of steps you take.

And about paying for infrastructure: Most infrastructure problems are caused by the ever increasing number of big rig trucks on the roads. Right now trucking is like a subsidized industry. The roads trucks use are being paid for by tax payers. Its not fair that trucks do the most damage to roads, clog them up with their slowness, and are involved in fetal accidents, and just pay the same kind of taxes normal businesses do. If anything, these devices should be put in trucks and they should be taxed for the amount of public infrastructure they use to make money.

[jbodar @ Sep 25th 2007 7:40PM]

@Chris

Car registration fee in Hawaii is based on vehicle weight.

[mabhatter @ Sep 28th 2007 1:45AM]

Pay per mile defeats the purpose of the tax to get smaller more efficient cars on the road. Of course nobody with a SUV wants their pump cost to go up, so they want to tax drivers of smaller, efficient cars more. Like another poster said, cars used to pay by weight class... until small, light expensive cars got popular in order to meet efficiency... so they changed the fees to "cost" based in addition to size.

Frankly with $3 gallon gas, taxes on gas for transportation have been too low for too long. Considering record industry profits the measly 28 cents collected for gas tax is not enough. In most places they could take another 20 cents and the consumer wouldn't notice it due to the high prices. Of course that wouldn't fix ROADS because the money they collect now is not going to roads.

[Shane @ Sep 25th 2007 2:10PM]

No, no, no!

[John @ Sep 25th 2007 2:12PM]

Seems fair: you use the infrastructure, you pay for it. I work as an infrastructure analyst and I can tell you that we've been drastically under-funding infrastructure in north america for far too long. There's a good reason that we've had at least two fatal bridge collapses in the last 12 months in north america (Montreal and Minneapolis). If this is what it takes for road users to pay their fair share, then so be it.
Though i would hope there would be a sliding scale to account for those that use heavier vehicles and incentives for those that drive more fuel-efficient vehicles.

[ArcticFox @ Sep 25th 2007 2:24PM]

do you REALLY believe that all the extra tax that comes from pay as you go driving will go on fixing up the roads?

[Paul @ Sep 25th 2007 2:29PM]

of course it'll all go to fund our roads!! Or at least 1 penny out of every dollar, the other 99 cents needs to help fund the war on terror. If you're for infrastructure, then you're helping the terrorists win!

[Peter O @ Sep 26th 2007 10:35AM]

Actually the highway trust fund was setup to ensure that the money goes into spending on roads and mass transit. Only about 20% of the money goes into the general treasury.

[MichaelM @ Sep 25th 2007 2:13PM]

[We can only hope this is avoidable, perhaps due to the spontaneous existence of a free, plentiful, environment-friendly fuel source... or another revolution.]

Run cars on water and you still have to pay for roads and bridges somehow. Either you tax users (what the gas tax tries to do) or you raise local and federal taxes.

If you don't want to pay for roads, that's fine too...get a flying car...

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2007 2:14PM]

I wish the U of I policy center would spend as much time researching ways NOT TO SPEND tax dollars they no longer collect......

I understand the idea behind a road tax, but as mentioned previously it had better be either this....OR tolls, not both.

And I don't know about the rest of you but I find this, I don't know, a bit creepy.

[John M @ Sep 25th 2007 3:23PM]

yeah no kidding talk about big brother peeking over your shoulder...whats the next leap you get it used against you in court b/c it could cast reasonable doubt on your alibi? This is truly something that will make my white ass move to another country

[Dustin @ Sep 25th 2007 4:53PM]

You're thinking like I am: if this is pulling GPS data, one month your bill comes in a little high because they've shared the data and the state has tacked a speeding ticket onto the bill.

Ohio used to do that with Turnpike fare tickets: If you drove the distance faster than the speed limit, based on distance/time elapsed, they just tacked the fine right onto the toll.

[EricLMcCormick @ Sep 25th 2007 2:14PM]

yeah... thats F'ed up! I bought a house that is near where I work so I don't drive many miles and I also bought a fuel efficent vehicle so I don't waste much gas doing that but occasionally I go for a trip here and a trip there and its going to suck if I have these huge spikes where I owe "the man" because I was visit my parents.
I personally don't see this happening because this means the state will probably have to buy one of these devices for every car, truck and motorcycle regestered. Plus my bike has no room on it for anything, you think they are going to make one to go in it that also won't void my warranty.

[Rususeruru @ Sep 25th 2007 2:16PM]

This is way too intrusive I doubt that it would ever catch on.

[Rand @ Sep 25th 2007 2:17PM]

Why doesn't the government just stop beating around the bush and go straight to their master plan? The air tax. You breathe, you pay.

[R1cebrner @ Sep 25th 2007 2:17PM]

Attention all elected government officials!!!

Good luck getting reelected if you sign this one!

Tax the mulitbillion profit the oil companies are making. or the mulitmillion dollar stock options but don't hurt the little people anymore!

[R1cebrner @ Sep 25th 2007 2:17PM]

Attention all elected government officials!!!

Good luck getting reelected if you sign this one!

Tax the mulitbillion profit the oil companies are making. or the mulitmillion dollar stock options but don't hurt the little people anymore!

[engadget @ Sep 25th 2007 2:36PM]

Problem is most people won't pay attention to that and they'll just vote D or R as they always have.

[R1cebrner @ Sep 25th 2007 2:18PM]

Sorry system hiccup i hit add comment more than once

[Kerry Saylor @ Sep 25th 2007 2:19PM]

I foresee our tax forms getting even more complicated than before - now, adding in line items for mileage for all vehicles owned. I also foresee states wanting to get into the mix, too! If I drive across state lines, I will have to track my mileage in each state driven - separately... I don't f*@king think so!

States already get more than their fair share of tax from gasoline usage to pay for the streets and bridges - they choose to put that money elsewhere! I think it's time for the state governments to start accounting for all the money they receive via taxes and start funding the NEEDS instead of the WANTS of the government.

[Frankenstein Black @ Sep 25th 2007 2:23PM]

The best thing to do is to raise bloody heck NOW before it happens, because like a Vampire once the “Tax Man” starts to suckle its hard for him to stop! Oh, and didn’t a right-wing radio blowhard once say (during the pre war media blitz) that going to war er taking over Iraq will have a “net benefit” of lower gas prices? Yea, how’d that work out?