Oregan road mileage tax to replace fuel tax

[Thoglette]

In Oregan motor vehicles are going to pay for the road. Maybe.

MyOreGo

User pays 1.5c per mile for cars and LVs.
YMMV

[ColinOldnCranky]

In Oregan motor vehicles are going to pay for the road. Maybe.

MyOreGo

User pays 1.5c per mile for cars and LVs.
YMMV

I'd suggest then a rate of around 0.0015c per mile on the basis that a bike, causes, say, 1/1000th the damage as does a car. Now wouldn't THAT pee off the hard nut angry motorist, maybe even more than us getting a freeby.

[Thoglette]

I like that Col'n Where do I send by $2.50 for 2016/17 FY?

A recent article Getting serious on roads reform is one way our political leaders can get back on track in The Conversation outlines why this sort of thing is happening. In short...

The Commonwealth’s fuel excise is obsolete. Despite the reintroduction of indexation, the fuel excise revenue base is steadily declining and will eventually disappear.

Fuel excise is obsolete because fuel-efficient and electric vehicles use less fuel. It is also unfair, because people who can afford the latest Tesla cars will pay nothing in fuel excise. And it does not signal market demand for, or go directly back into, building and maintaining transport infrastructure.

He quotes from a recent Competition review as stating that roads are the

… only example of an infrastructure asset, where the government owns the great bulk of the asset, funded through the tax system and given away for nothing.

[Cyclophiliac]

… only example of an infrastructure asset, where the government owns the great bulk of the asset, funded through the tax system and given away for nothing.

That's a point completely lost on too many motorists, who insist that cyclists don't pay for the roads. A pity this message isn't broadcast more widely.

[Cheesewheel]

In Oregan motor vehicles are going to pay for the road. Maybe.

MyOreGo

User pays 1.5c per mile for cars and LVs.
YMMV

I'd suggest then a rate of around 0.0015c per mile on the basis that a bike, causes, say, 1/1000th the damage as does a car. Now wouldn't THAT pee off the hard nut angry motorist, maybe even more than us getting a freeby.

Could be halved again for unicycle riders

[BJL]

Could be halved again for unicycle riders

Actually, since unicycle riders are putting all their weight on a single wheel and therefore the force imposed on the road as expressed in PSI would on average, be double, their taxes should be double that of a bicycle.

It's a very common misconception I found out from the days when I drove a small 4x4. Which happened to weigh about the same as a Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore of the time but caused less damage to the roads by fact that I was running bigger and wider tyres than the sedans would be and therefore applying less PSI on the road surface and causing less damage. So there!

[ColinOldnCranky]

… only example of an infrastructure asset, where the government owns the great bulk of the asset, funded through the tax system and given away for nothing.

That's a point completely lost on too many motorists, who insist that cyclists don't pay for the roads. A pity this message isn't broadcast more widely.

I know that we like to say that motorists to not pay, consolidated revenue does. But from what I recall from looking into it previously a fair slice is paid for out of excise and other motor related charges. But even if they get ony half of it for free, half not paid is a still a huge subsidy. Open to hard facts to the contrary.

(Just trying to keep us honest.)

[ColinOldnCranky]

In Oregan motor vehicles are going to pay for the road. Maybe.

MyOreGo

User pays 1.5c per mile for cars and LVs.
YMMV

I'd suggest then a rate of around 0.0015c per mile on the basis that a bike, causes, say, 1/1000th the damage as does a car. Now wouldn't THAT pee off the hard nut angry motorist, maybe even more than us getting a freeby.

Could be halved again for unicycle riders

Yeah, I like that. In my last few years before retirement, at 0.0015c/km I would be slugged a princely sum of $10-$13 pa. I'd have to give up one end-of-trip coffee and muffin every year. At half the rate I could afford the muffin.

[uart]

I'd suggest then a rate of around 0.0015c per mile on the basis that a bike, causes, say, 1/1000th the damage as does a car. Now wouldn't THAT pee off the hard nut angry motorist, maybe even more than us getting a freeby.

But it would be too hard to track the km done on every bike, so collecting it would cost more money than it raised. Instead they would have to put an excise on new bike sales. Given that on average each bikes sold only gets ridden a few thousand km before people lose interest, that would probably equate to less than 10c per bike sold.

[uart]

I like that Col'n Where do I send by $2.50 for 2016/17 FY?

You rode 27000 km last year? I'm impressed.

[Thoglette]

You rode 27000 km last year? I'm impressed.

No, I just can't do simple math. IT's 25c worth.

[familyguy]

Interestingly, I plugged a few figures into the calculator there. It appears the more fuel efficient the vehicle, the difference between the current fuel tax and the new mileage tax gets bigger.

1000 miles a month at 35MPG (6.7l/100km) = fuel/8.57, Orego/15
1000 miles a month at 30MPG (7.8l/100km) = fuel/10, Orego/15
1000 miles a month at 25MPG (9.4l/100km) = fuel/12, Orego/15
1000 miles a month at 20MPG (11.7l/100km) = fuel/15, Orego/15
1000 miles a month at 15MPG (15.6l/100km) = fuel/20, Orego/15

Looks like its geared to break even at 20MPG (11.7l/100km), which seems pretty inefficient.

Gas guzzlers rejoice?

Jim

[Thoglette]

Looks like its geared to break even at 20MPG (11.7l/100km), which seems pretty inefficient.

There's the rub. Gas taxes came in when 10MPG was not unusual (and hot big blocks with autos were struggling to get that).

Now we have Teslas with zero fuel use

[bychosis]

Looks like its geared to break even at 20MPG (11.7l/100km), which seems pretty inefficient.

There's the rub. Gas taxes came in when 10MPG was not unusual (and hot big blocks with autos were struggling to get that).

Now we have Teslas with zero fuel use

Needs a combination of the two. No fuel tax and all km's tax will lead to quite a few older cars running without speedo's connected so the kms don't rack up, I'd be headed in that direction. Fuel tax makes sense as it's easy to collect and monitor, but as you say doesn't apply to e-vehicles.

[BJL]

Taxes on electric vehicles could be collected at charge time. Legislate that electric cars must be charged from a power point with its own meter that's taxed at a higher rate.

In Australia it's a moot point anyway since we're too stupid to generate enough electricity to support electric vehicles anyway. I can just see it in Australia now -

Do we use electricity for lighting, cooking, heating, cooling, manufacturing? Nah, let's charge cars!

[uart]

Gas guzzlers rejoice?

Yes it does seem a bit geared towards rewarding gas guzzlers. There has been some concern over there for a while about electric cars (and even hybrids) not paying their share. I know that at least one state has tried a special "hybrid tax" out of this very concern, but I think it's the wrong idea to penalise cars for being efficient.

Ok, pure electric cars might need a different approach, but as for the others I'd prefer to have incentive for low fuel use.

[Scott_C]

Needs a combination of the two. No fuel tax and all km's tax will lead to quite a few older cars running without speedo's connected so the kms don't rack up, I'd be headed in that direction. Fuel tax makes sense as it's easy to collect and monitor, but as you say doesn't apply to e-vehicles.

The Orego system uses an ODB-II port plug-in module to monitor the vehicle mileage, some of which also include GPS monitoring (which enables only in-state km's to be counted, if you use a non-GPS module then any out-state km's accumulated get charged for). Whilst you can still frig with the system with the non-GPS modules to try and hide your true km's the module can probably figure out something is going wrong from seeing the engine cycling high and the application of the accelerator and brake whilst in gear even though the speed readout is 0kph. ODB-II ports have been standard on petrol cars since 1996 and diesels since 2006.

The system also works on a fuel tax refund basis (which requires you to keep a log of fuel purchases) so it will be obvious that there is a discrepancy between fuel purchased and distance travelled if you frig with your odometer.

The thing I feel the system is missing is that the per mile fee should be based on axle load, not a flat fee per mile, as axle load is a good measurement for comparing road wear caused between vehicles.

[bychosis]

Needs a combination of the two. No fuel tax and all km's tax will lead to quite a few older cars running without speedo's connected so the kms don't rack up, I'd be headed in that direction. Fuel tax makes sense as it's easy to collect and monitor, but as you say doesn't apply to e-vehicles.

The Orego system uses an ODB-II port plug-in module to monitor the vehicle mileage, some of which also include GPS monitoring (which enables only in-state km's to be counted, if you use a non-GPS module then any out-state km's accumulated get charged for). Whilst you can still frig with the system with the non-GPS modules to try and hide your true km's the module can probably figure out something is going wrong from seeing the engine cycling high and the application of the accelerator and brake whilst in gear even though the speed readout is 0kph. ODB-II ports have been standard on petrol cars since 1996 and diesels since 2006.

The system also works on a fuel tax refund basis (which requires you to keep a log of fuel purchases) so it will be obvious that there is a discrepancy between fuel purchased and distance travelled if you frig with your odometer.

The thing I feel the system is missing is that the per mile fee should be based on axle load, not a flat fee per mile, as axle load is a good measurement for comparing road wear caused between vehicles.

I was more thinking about getting an even older car, no electronics.

Good point about out of state kms though. Assuming that the feds can't do this (rego is state based) and the states wont cooperate on a rate, it's going to be 'big brother' watching my every move to determine how much tax I pay. No thanks! Sure, 'big brother' already tracks me with my phone, but I can turn that off or leave it at home. And then what if I go on a interstate trip, do I get an invoice from Victoria, SA and WA when I get home or does NSW get all the kms tax for that trip? How does it work for interstate trucks that spend a lot of time out of state?

Fuel tax is so much easier

[ColinOldnCranky]

Could be halved again for unicycle riders

Actually, since unicycle riders are putting all their weight on a single wheel and therefore the force imposed on the road as expressed in PSI would on average, be double, their taxes should be double that of a bicycle.

It's a very common misconception I found out from the days when I drove a small 4x4. Which happened to weigh about the same as a Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore of the time but caused less damage to the roads by fact that I was running bigger and wider tyres than the sedans would be and therefore applying less PSI on the road surface and causing less damage. So there!

Aah, but but my tyre is a relatively fat 2".

[Thoglette]

No thanks!

If you have a company owned vehicle you probably already have an IVMS

And the carrot will be when you insurance company offers you reduced premiums for "safe driving". Which never quite seem to eventuate, despite the sticks.