Tom Risch doesn’t mind the idea of paying a transportation fee calculated using the number of miles he travels, rather than the amount of gasoline he buys.
Even though he’s about to drive more than 1,000 miles across country to get home to Pennsylvania.
“They’ve got to get it somewhere,” said Risch, a Kansas University engineering graduate, headed back east in his trusty Subaru. “You’ve got to get from Point A to Point B. However we’ve got to do it, we’ve got to do it.”
Talk of charging drivers based on the ground they cover, rather than the fuels they purchase to get there, is gaining momentum among transportation officials scrounging for money to finance their mounting list of maintenance and construction projects.
Officials know they need to come up with a new way to finance road and highway work, as an economic downturn and the rise of alternative-fuel vehicles continues to drain their budgets of revenues they seek to maintain, overhaul and expand transportation networks.
In Kansas, highway officials already are scaling back plans and even warning that already-approved projects could be dropped, given financial constraints.
Charging drivers based on how many miles they travel, they say, could stem the decline of fuel-based revenues, which have dropped as people turn to hybrids and other increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles to help make ends meet.
“We need to start transitioning to other payment approaches,” said Deb Miller, Kansas secretary of transportation. “The one that’s been discussed most frequently — although it has complications attached to it — is a vehicle-miles-traveled tax.”
Barriers remain
Officials acknowledge that the roadblocks to such a system are high, at least for now.
Today’s technology would allow for such a system, Miller said, but officials have not settled on exactly which approach might work best. Researchers are helping out by enrolling volunteers in pilot programs, to gauge interest and determine how such systems might pay off.
Questions about fairness also remain a concern.
State Rep. Gary Hayzlett, chair of the House Transportation Committee, said that he’d been following and taking part in discussions about such fees for three or four years. He still can’t figure out how residents in western Kansas wouldn’t end up paying more than folks in more urban areas.
“For the people who live in the very rural, far western part of the state, everything we do is driving,” said Hayzlett, R-Lakin. “How do you get equality in there?”
Miller said that privacy concerns also would be key to any discussion regarding a use fee.
“People feel like if we’re monitoring how many miles they’re driving, and maybe even where they’re driving, that’s too much information for a government,” Miller said. “There’s just some work to do, to figure out how to implement it, and how to get people comfortable with it. And that’s going to take some time.”
Federal fuels tax
State Sen. Dwayne Umbarger, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, expects the fee concept to be among options considered this summer, as he joins Hayzlett and other lawmakers in discussing options for a potential new comprehensive transportation program.
The state’s last 10-year program, which generated an average of $650 million a year for projects, formally expired June 30. The next program could look to traditional resources including vehicle registration fees, sales taxes, or even tolls.
But the most likely source — and one that has been counted on heavily in past years — is a tax on motor fuels, he said.
In Umbarger’s mind, the best solution would be for the federal government to set a fixed tax on fuels, then distribute the proceeds to states. That way Kansans living near the state’s edges wouldn’t be tempted to cross a border to buy less-expensive fuel in, say, Oklahoma, Missouri or Colorado.
“At the federal level, if we have an across-the-board increase in motor-fuel taxes in all the states, that takes that dilemma away from us,” he said.
Miller, for her part, would prefer to see governments rely less on fuel taxes and more on usage fees. And that’s only in part because charging a set tax for each gallon of gasoline generates less revenue as Americans get behind the wheels of hybrid vehicles, or even electric cars.
The most important factor: When it comes to any stretch of highway, a vehicle’s a vehicle — no matter where it gets its power.
“Perhaps the Chevy Volt is going to take the world by storm. We don’t even know what other kinds of propulsion technologies are going to come about in the future,” Miller said. “But a car that gets good mileage doesn’t do any less damage to the road or use any less of the road than does a car that gets poor gas mileage.”
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Informed (anonymous) says…
You're calling Deb Miller rightwing, logrithmic? She was appointed by Sebelius in 2003. She was, at one point, thought to be under consideration by Parkinson to become his lt. governor. Rightwing? I think not.
But, for you, everything is rightwing v. left, isn't it?
The funny thing? I actually agree with you that this is a bad idea. Very bad. But the (incorrect) way you politicized it? We part ways.
tanzer (anonymous) says…
sounds like they have already made up thier mind they will get this done since part of thier work is to convince us it is a great idea. for someone whose family lives on the east or west coast this would essentially be a tax on maintaining family relations - an anti-family tax if you will. even for those who fly out to the coast, there are many who live several hours from a major airport in kansas. and for those who are spread across the state it would be an anti-family tax - my family in kansas live several hours away and the rest live out of state.
tanzer (anonymous) says…
now that i think about it... why would anyone want to pay taxes on miles traveled outside the state??
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Taxing by mileage is wrong and should be taken off the table. First you encourage people to become more fuel efficient, now you punish them for it? And the government does not need to know where we are going 24-7.
Logrithmic-
You are an idiot. This sounds like a left idea through and through...lets find a way to tax people more. The idea started in Oregon and California...real right wing states there. You don't want it because you don't want the authorities to know would spend at least a couple hours daily at your drug dealer's house.
moderationman (anonymous) says…
Actually, this is used in England and NYC is thinking of implementing a similar proposal to tax drivers who use streets during rush hour. It was hardly a left coast idea. The original idea was to reduce congestion, which it did in London. It would be grossly unfair to those in Western Kansas, but name me a tax that is fair. To use a right wing mantra, where you live is a choice. Thus you choose to be taxed more heavily.
RibMan (anonymous) says…
This is an outrageous assault on liberty. Taxing movement is beyond the pale. The car use to be a symbol of liberty. Now it is a source of revenue to pay for an out of control budget. Electric cars have little range and taxing discourages activity. Next they will tax phone usage, TV time, internet time all by the minute.
This will be an excellent opportunity for the people of Kansas to get engaged with what their public servants are up to.
Let the conversation begin.
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…
That would be called the Law Of Unintended Consequences. "Let's make evereyone drive tiny, dangerous cars that are good for the environment and cost a lot! Think of the extra sales and property taxes we'll collect! Oops! We forgot that gas pays to maintain (and build) our roads"...idiots @@.
That will be the nail in the coffin for Lawrence. I'm not about to live in this already overtaxed town and pay a penalty tax to work in JoCo. Now it's REALLY cost-effective for me to move...even if I take a hit on the sales price of my house...idiots @@.
LTownBaby (anonymous) says…
Labmonkey, you are correct, logrithmic is an IDIOT! Big government does not equal the RIGHT, I think that is about as far LEFT as you can go. You are obviously insecure about something logrithmic, maybe you can cry to Obama and he will make it all better. After all, he promised the world and has delivered nothing except a bigger deficit for our country.
Would you oppose this idea if they did it solely by mileage driven, and not with a GPS? Who says they can't make a car inspection part of the registration process each year and make you pay for the mileage driven over the previous year?
AreUNorml (anonymous) says…
Why don't they just stick a tube & sensor up our asses and tax us on our consumption and throughput!? Then at the same time they can tell us that we're not eating correctly and won't qualify for the government health care. Get behind this idea people, it's gonna make everything so much simpler...
lmn (anonymous) says…
Dear logrithmic, thank you for your crazy rants about this being a rightwing issue. You're quite entertaining with your level of absurdity, bordering on Irish...or Mr_Nancy_Boy. God bless!
On a more serious note, it is a terrible idea and an invasion of privacy. There *has* to be a better way to get funding. Government has increasingly become more intrusive.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
logrithmic, while I agree with your overall sentiment, you cannot use this comparison to further your argument:
"A car that gets good gas mileage is one that not only is propelled by alternative fuels or methods such as electric power, it is lighter too. That means a Toyota Prius does a lot less damage to a road than a Cadillac Escalade or a fully loaded 16 wheeler."
Comparing a Prius to an Escalade? C'mon...that's a very faulty comparison. You can't pick two items to compare that are as far apart as you can just to make your point sound better. If you want to do that, then you need to take into account that one of those vehicles has annual sales figures of about 160,000 (Prius, 2008) and one of those vehicles has annual sales figures of around 40,000 (Escalade, 2008). I'm betting that four Priuses do just as much (if not more) damage to the road as one Escalade.
A logical comparison would be comparing two vehicles that are relatively similar in size and weight. Why not compare the Prius to the Honda Civic, a gas-powered vehicle approximately the same size as the Prius, but which weighs about 100 lbs. less?
Overall, though, I hate the idea of taxing me on the miles I drive...I just don't agree with the logic you used in that comparison.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
One loaded 18-wheeler does as much damage as 2500 cars.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
It really should be mileage, but with a weight factor added in. A moped shouldn't have to pay the same mileage rate as an F-450.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Informed (Anonymous) says…
"You're calling Deb Miller rightwing, logrithmic?"
You don't know loggie - it's not a Republic/Democrat, conservative/liberal thing. The definition of 'rightwing' to loggie is anyone that disagrees with *HIM*. (Which I guess makes him 'wrong-wing.')
**************************************
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
"This is a lie and shows the very shallow thinking of the rightwing. A car that gets good gas mileage is one that not only is propelled by alternative fuels or methods such as electric power, it is lighter too."
You really are a clod. They weren't comparing a Prius to an Escalade, loggie - you should really try holding off on the pipe until after lunch at least. A Camry hybrid doesn't weigh less than a Camry with a normal drivetrain, a Civic hybrid doesn't weigh less than a conventional Civic.
"As some pointed out yesterday - the future of freight is rail - not truck."
Gonna' make it a little harder for the UPS guy to find a parking place near your home, dontcha' think?
***********************************
LTownBaby (Anonymous) says…
"Would you oppose this idea if they did it solely by mileage driven, and not with a GPS?"
I work out-of-state. Almost half my mileage is in Missouri. Why should that factor into how much I pay Kansas to keep up their roads?
Thats_messed_up (anonymous) says…
I hate this tax idea!.........but,................ if it leads to the collapse of the Lawrence economy I'm for it. LOL : )
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
"Now what does more damage? The 160,000 Prius vehicles or the 2.3 million large trucks?"
Who pays more in road use taxes, loggie? A Prius or an 18-wheel truck? (Yes, it's 18, not 16, you imcomparable dolt.) Do you have *any* idea what the average truck pays in annual taxes? (Pssst - that was a rhetorical question, loggie - we know you don't have any idea about anything.)
By the way, loggie, does that 10-wheel 30,000 lb tractor do as much road damage as when it hooks up and becomes a 100,000 lb 18-wheel tractor-trailer? No? But they'd still pay the same per mile, since it's the tractor that would accrue the mileage, right?
Oh, and by the way, loggie - how many of those millions of trucks are registered in Kansas? How is the state going to collect anything from them?
What else ya' got (besides, apparently, a pretty healthy buzz on)?
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
"If you want to see what this money will be used for, it's not to destroy the Lawrence economy (douchebag). It's for great rightwing govt corporate welfare like this that ran in yesterday's paper:"
Nice story, dipstick. Did you bother to read it?
They're talking about using federal stimulus money for that project, weed-whacker. So you're saying the Obama administration is 'rightwing?'
"Another perfect example of a rightwing boozed up moron."
If by 'rightwing,' you mean someone who bothers to know what they're talking about before posting, points out your severe cognitive impairment, and makes you look like an a**, yeah, I guess that's me.
But out of curiosity, you're saying what - that a hybrid Camry *DOES* weigh less than a conventional one? (Actually, dolt, the hybrid weighs *MORE*.)
clarkentsman (anonymous) says…
Arguing about excessive government taxation and collecting taxes is two distinct arguments. Not wanting to give my opinion of the excessive taxation I will limit my comment to collection of taxes for transportation.
Its simple you have to go to the county treasurers office each year to get your tag renewed. While there you pay personal property taxes on your vehicle based in part on its age but mostly on its perceived Blue Book value. If it is determined that there should be a milage tax then you require all owners to have a vehicle inspection preformed by an authorized third party (not run by the government) who fills out a form which includes the current milage. The owner takes the form with them when they renew their tags. After deducting a base milage (say 5,000 miles for necessities) the owner is taxed for the additional milage based on vehicle weight and use. Then - by law - these funds could only be spent on roads. The gas tax would then be reduced to a lower rate but not zero. The Heritage Foundation reported that in 2007 almost 22% of the highway trust fund went to “Transit” these funds could be collected with the gas tax.
There, you can collect taxes for transportation funding and keep your privacy too.
And, no we don't want the government to know where we are at any given time. With the new health plan in five years they will know that you have a mole on your left cheek from the photo that you are required to give your doctor.
toe (anonymous) says…
If the government begins to monitor where you drive, then we will be living in a police state of Orwellian proportions. This cannot be done. It would be better to measure time than distance. Tractors have time meters on them. Cars can have them too. That way even if a car is stuck in traffic, not moving, but running and burning gas, the tax would be paid. There are lots of ways to transmit the data to the government.
compmd (anonymous) says…
"This is a lie and shows the very shallow thinking of the rightwing. A car that gets good gas mileage is one that not only is propelled by alternative fuels or methods such as electric power, it is lighter too. That means a Toyota Prius does a lot less damage to a road than a Cadillac Escalade or a fully loaded 16 wheeler.
These are examples of rightwing lies. And myths."
I'm sorry but this is absolutely incorrect. The empty weight of a Pontiac G6 is 3306 lbs. I've driven one of those for an extended period of time and they get terrible mileage, about 23mpg average. The empty weight of an Opel Zafira CDTi is 3459 lbs, and it seats 7 and gets 37mpg. My daily driver Volvo XC70 weighs 4100 lbs and gets 27mpg. The lightest of these three gets the worst mileage. Not a rightwing lie or myth, just simple verifiable fact.
Stop talking about Prius this or Camry Hybrid that. In the grand scheme of the automotive world, their efficiency sucks, and sucks fiercely. Our own Ford and GM make simpler, more economical cars but *do not sell them here.* Petition your congressmen to end the idiotic bans on diesel engines *designed here* and allow the European models of American cars to be sold in America.
That having been said, this entire idea is stupid in a country the size of the United States. Don't even get me started on the privacy issues.
merrill (anonymous) says…
This is a back door method of increasing taxes. Politicians always pretend they are against increasing taxes say like gasoline road tax. Now it is called a transportation fee aka a tax hike any way you look at it.
The bottom line is taxpayers need to stop adding more and more miles of roads we can neither afford to build nor maintain after the fact. So what do we do.
STOP building more miles and miles of roads and make take care of existing roads. At least maintaining existing roads IS NOT adding more and more miles to our tax bill.
Putting it simply.... stop expanding and take care of what we have. This too creates employment.
KUweatherman (Curtis Lange) says…
Uh, no. They can shove this idea right back up their rear end.
KS (anonymous) says…
log - if you raise the gas tax, you will hurt only the poor. The very people that I would think we ALL want to help. I have seen the poor struggling at the pump to pay for a gallon of gas. Let's just make it a little harder and say increase the gas tax another 50 cents a gallon. You know, just like they have done on cigarettes. The governement doesn't want you to drive fuel efficient cars or car pool. You can now see why. What the government needs to do is to figure out a way to spend less. BTW, when I have seen a truly poor person struggling at the pump, I have been known to swipe my credit card thru their side and tell them to fill up on me. Spend less and the govenment won't need to have so many taxes. Use the road tax for its expressed purpose and not on social programs and the general treasury.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
"What does it matter boozer? This monitoring is being considered nationally."
Um - yeah. Which pretty much blows to heck your "rightwing" conspiracy theory, doesn't it, little one? Maybe you haven't read a newspaper in a while (oops - sorry - maybe nobody's read a newspaper to you in a while), but we currently have a Democratic government at the national level?
"Who cares how many wheels there are you simpleton. Everyone but you gets it. What a dumba$$."
I suppose someone who still believes mommy and daddy when they tell you your 3-wheeler is a 'big boy bicycle' wouldn't know the difference, dolt. But most people know an 18-wheeler has more than 16 wheels.
"Trucks should pay more for their use (abuse?) or the roadway."
Um - they do, moron. The owner of the average 18-wheeler pays something like $20,000/year in road use taxes. How much does that Prius driver pay, again?
"Now get your booze, get your No-Doze druggie, and get on down the highway."
Nice try, no cookie. I'm not the one that posts 137 times (because you can't remember you've already done so) to every thread on drug use extolling the virtues of your recreational plant products, burnout.
"In my opinion, gas taxes should be raised. We want to discourage gasoline consumption."
Great idea! Oh, wait - except, if you had been able to read the big words in the story, you might have been aware (I doubt it, but hey, there's always a chance) that the entire reason they're running out of money for roads is that tax revenues are drying up because people are buying less gas! Lordie but you're dense.
"No one that gives one hoot about global warming or peak oil is running the state department of transportation. Even the dumbest rightwinger should realize that."
Gee, woulda' sworn you were the one who pointed out that "This monitoring is being considered nationally." Too much weed making you forget what you posted again, loggie? And again, the federal government is decidedly *not* rightwing at the moment - apparently the dumbest leftwinger *doesn't* know that.
Come back when you can converse with the adults, little one. Maybe after you have your fifth birthday.
distant_voice (anonymous) says…
So now that people in America are finally switching to fuel efficient vehicles, trust our government to create a method of penalizing us for doing something right. Unless modified, this tax applies the same to vehicles who get 50 mpg and vehicles who get 5. The person who drives a Prius would pay the same tax as a person who drives a Hummer. At least fuel tax equitiably punishes those who motor around in fuel guzzling modes of transportation. Given this and everything else mentioned in this blog, this has to be the top, stupid government idea since the war in Iraq.
dinglesmith (anonymous) says…
Clue in people. You can tell how far a car has been driven without knowing where it has been driven or installing a GPS. It's called an odometer. Manipulating an odometer is already a crime and its value is hardly private. (I can see it now - Jiffy Lubes nationwide installing crypto devices on their computers to protect odometer readings.) This mileage tax thing may or may not be a good idea, but please take off your tin foil hats and come in off the roof...
mdrndgtl (anonymous) says…
Will trips for medical reasons be tax-exempt? Will my bi-monthly trip to the abortion clinic be tax-deductable?
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Fee or tax we're screwed as usual. I love my country but I really really don't trust the government.
Tongie_soccer (anonymous) says…
All this talk of just checking the odometer each year sounds great - mine hasn't worked for ages...does that mean I'm exempt from the tax?
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
Typical of the Government especially at the State level. Come up with some hair brain scheme for taxation that will cost plenty to set up and enforce. It might be a breeze to set it up on toll roads but everything else will be a joke. About the same size of joke as the internet use tax. No matter what type of tax they come up with compliance is always an issue.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Questions about fairness also remain a concern.
State Rep. Gary Hayzlett, chair of the House Transportation Committee, said that he’d been following and taking part in discussions about such fees for three or four years. He still can’t figure out how residents in western Kansas wouldn’t end up paying more than folks in more urban areas.
“For the people who live in the very rural, far western part of the state, everything we do is driving,” said Hayzlett, R-Lakin. “How do you get equality in there?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a good point.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
Great story Marion.
“Somebody's going to go down with me if I get in that situation,” Veitch said. “I'm not going down alone.”
Granny's hardcore about her wheels!
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
The fact is that increasing taxes NOW to pay for projects we can't afford NOW will only perpetuate the problem.
Heavier vehicles do cause more damage to roads and they are taxed at a higher rate (license plates). However, most of the heaviest loads are just passing through and do not have Kansas plates.
The fact is that squeezing individuals and businesses for more money now will guarantee higher costs for everything which leads to higher unemployment and more bankrupt businesses and individuals.
The state simply can't operate the same way they have been until the economy can support it - or at least they get money from the 'stimulus package'. If the state can't do what they were already going to do with a boost from the Fed then the 'stimulus package' can't even maintain, much less produce jobs.
There's a way to collect taxes based on vehicle weight and mileage that allows for complete anonymity and insures those who travel through pay - they're call Toll Roads. Tolls certainly could even be adjusted to distinguish between compacts, full size, SUV and truck designations.
Fuel taxes are also important in the long run. It is clear that money influences change, and we do need to change our dependence on fossil fuels.
That being said, hybrids on the road today will almost certainly not be the road anymore in the next 7 years (or less) due to carefully engineered obsolescence. It will simply not be cost effective to replace the batteries in them (not to mention the computerized control systems that will inevitably fail) - not to mention the unnecessary complications from mashing an internal combustion engine in with an electric motor. Hybrid technologies have been in existence successfully for over 50 years - but auto manufacturers threw those ideas out the window until the Volt ...
If you're curious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_l...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
usesomesense (Anonymous) says…
"However, most of the heaviest loads are just passing through and do not have Kansas plates."
True enough. Except trucks pay a lot in federal road-use taxes, and the fed gives a lot of money to the states for roads.
"There's a way to collect taxes based on vehicle weight and mileage that allows for complete anonymity and insures those who travel through pay - they're call Toll Roads."
Also true. However, there are many drawbacks. Not the least of which is it takes time - and money - to build toll plazas, and much more of both than it takes to implement a system like the mileage tax. Plus you have increases in accident risk and pollution with toll plazas. And a lot of traffic on lesser roads to avoid the tolls. And the costs of staffing and maintaining the toll booths.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
"And a lot of traffic on lesser roads to avoid the tolls. And the costs of staffing and maintaining the toll booths."
While light vehicle (everything other than trucks) traffic may increase, weight limits can (and are) imposed on other roads to deter truck traffic.
Cost of staffing and maintaining toll booths are paid for by the tolls themselves and are not an issue. Furthermore there is more and more automation - which eliminates staffing. Unless things have changed - there will be no humans posted at the Tonganoxie exit when it is completed - or at least not more than one.
Toll roads are NOT and immediate solution. Raising taxes is a superficial and backwards way of dealing with a budget shortfall. As pressure from new and increasing taxes bear down on individuals and businesses, problems will grow.
The bottom line is this: If you lost your job today, and your car worked but not as well as you liked would you go out tomorrow and buy a brand new one? I think not.
A small part of the stimulus package was intended to create new road construction projects. Unfortunately they didn't count on the fact that projects that have been going on (or were planned for) weren't going to be able to continue as Federal, State and Local tax bases shrink due to unemployment and declines in sales revenues.
This really isn't rocket science - the economy can only be repaired from the ground up. The only way to improve and maintain economic health is by producing things of value. Taxing more now to build and improve roads is counter productive. Those with jobs will have less to spend with businesses that provide jobs for other people. Businesses may not be able to afford employees and be forced to lay them off - creating fewer taxpayers.
The fact is that over the long term something will have to be done as fuel economy increases. It's kind of like where the state found itself several years back when the Fed dropped income tax and it didn't really dawn on the folks at the state level that income tax revenues to the state would also be reduced (since state income tax is (or at least was at the time) tied to federal rates. They'll put something in place and expect it to work the same forever and forget about it until.....
friend73 (anonymous) says…
I have to say, I didn't read all the comments on here but I did read the article. i think it's flippen insane! We pay taxes for the upkeep of the roads we drive on. We pay flippen car insurance (and sometimes it is based on how far you travel) Shoot before long we are gonna have all invest in horses and buggie's to get around! I know why everyone is broke!!! CAUSE 90 % of people are not crook's, like our goverment! Keep the money in their pockets. OO what a joy, Life is grand shoot, that's cause u are not out busting ur hump to pay for all the bullcrap, they screwed up! Sorry if I offened anyone. But I was not born with money shooting out my rear end and I sure the heck don't want to give anymore to the Goverment than I already do! Why don't they tax them selves instead? Shoot they would never hear of that. I am better than everyone else. what ever! It's just Crap if ya ask me!
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
usesomesense (Anonymous) says…
"While light vehicle (everything other than trucks) traffic may increase, weight limits can (and are) imposed on other roads to deter truck traffic."
I'm not saying trucks will be rolling along Mass St. But there are roads other than the Interstates that can and do bear truck traffic, U.S. Routes and state highways, that will pick up more traffic. Weight limits aren't generally to deter truck traffic, they're put in place due to limitations on the road itself (e.g. bridges that aren't built for that much weight), and as I said, that doesn't apply to many of those secondary roads.
"Cost of staffing and maintaining toll booths are paid for by the tolls themselves and are not an issue."
Um - yes they are. They reduce the amount that's collected in tolls that's available for road maintenance and construction. I don't know what business you're in, but if you were looking into a new revenue stream, would you choose the one that cost you more to bring in the same amount of money?
"The only way to improve and maintain economic health is by producing things of value. Taxing more now to build and improve roads is counter productive."
One might argue that an infrastructure that facilitates people traveling to work does have some value.
"The fact is that over the long term something will have to be done as fuel economy increases."
No kiddin'.
Not too sure what that should be, though. In principle, charging by the mile makes some sense, but I seriously doubt there will ever be a way to apply that fairly. Especially when one takes into account the benefits that everyone gets from the roads whether or not they drive on them - virtually every product we consume in this country travels over the road in trucks at some point, and police/fire/ambulances, not to mention buses and even bicycles, use those roads, too. On paper I would likely be one of those assessed the most, due to my 600 miles of commuting every week. But I don't know you could say I get the most benefit from having the roads.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
notajayhawk - don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying improvements can be ignored forever. I'm just saying the state needs to tighten it's belt along with everybody else at the present time - not try to figure out how they can quickly loosen it up again by increasing taxes.
While other roads are currently set with weight limits because of design (like bridge weight capacities) there is no reason the state can't ban heavy truck traffic (with some exception for local delivery) on other roads - driving the traffic to interstates.
Also, a K-Tag system for vehicles over a certain gross weight would be relatively inexpensive to implement, so the state could require interstate commercial heavy truck traffic to pay tolls on existing interstates by only adding toll plazas at the state line to make sure they have a k-tag or 'pre-tolling' them for the entire distance.
Probably the most reasonable way to handle the long term issue is a hybridization of both ideas - a gradual increase in fuel taxes and mileage tracking for commercial heavy truck traffic. This would ensure personal privacy and address the issue of wear and tear.
Once again - I do think that now is NOT the time to increase costs for any businesses and individuals we can avoid.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Let's do this with trash. The more that is thrown the more that will be paid. People throwing away an entire house full should pay more because they are creating more and more miles on the road.
The more a person or company uses the road the more they
will pay which is probably equitable. Okay it is a tax increase but go for it.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
merill - it's really easy to say 'go for a tax increase' when you have a steady paycheck that seems invulnerable to increasing costs.
I've been luck so far - and everybody out there that still has a job should count themselves lucky.
You can count on the fact that taxes WILL increase just from the Federal government (you didn't really think the Fed had an extra Trillion laying around for a rainy day did you?). Right now they're trying to figure out ways to start squeezing it out of existing tax payers without raising taxes and increasing taxes on people that are wealthy enough to have CPA's and Attorneys figure out where to shuffle it to avoid paying them. Once they realize that won't work they'll be looking to the rest of us that work for a living to pay for it.
Throw the state on top and you're crushing the working class - work hard, pay more in taxes, pay more for everything you buy and then lose your job because your employer can't afford you anymore.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
The state can set up checkpoints and everyone will have to show their papers and log people's mileage that way. It sounds like an Obama thing to do. I'm sure the people of Lawrence would accept it. Similar to the former Soviet Union.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
usesomesense (Anonymous) says…
"While other roads are currently set with weight limits because of design (like bridge weight capacities) there is no reason the state can't ban heavy truck traffic (with some exception for local delivery) on other roads - driving the traffic to interstates."
The only way you could enforce that, however, would be to pull trucks over to check their destination. Not sure that'd be exactly legal.
"Also, a K-Tag system for vehicles over a certain gross weight would be relatively inexpensive to implement, so the state could require interstate commercial heavy truck traffic to pay tolls on existing interstates by only adding toll plazas at the state line to make sure they have a k-tag or 'pre-tolling' them for the entire distance."
How do you know where they went and how many miles they drove while they were inside the state? And what about local trucks that never leave (and therefore never enter) the state?
"Probably the most reasonable way to handle the long term issue is a hybridization of both ideas - a gradual increase in fuel taxes and mileage tracking for commercial heavy truck traffic."
Okay, I notice you seem to want to place the emphasis of any increase on trucks. There's a few problems there.
As people found out when diesel fuel went to almost $5/gal, if you increase the costs of trucking you increase the price of virtually everything we buy. To heck with an incrase in taxes on a certain commodity - *everything* will cost more. That is hardly good for the economy.
In addition, it would require some kind of national system to implement your suggestion. Every truck on the road would have to be equipped with the K-tag type device to be able to drive through Kansas. Unless surrounding states did something similar, then trucks would start bypassing Kansas if possible - and for many over-the-road truckers, it *IS* possible. While many might say good riddance, that would cause a further loss in road-use-fee revenues. And even without the trucks we still need the roads.
Trucks may seem like an easy target, and yes, an 18-wheeler does cause more road damage than a passenger car. But there are over 100 times as many registered passenger vehicles in this country as there are trucks. The roads are just as necessary for the people driving those, and while I agree it would be a bad time to increase taxes for all those people, it would be unwise to think we can make up the lost revenue on the backs of the truckers.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Lucky for us, Barry, that the Sun is too small to nova. It will swell to a Red Giant, though, in about 5 billion years. Whatever we evolve into by then should have found somewhere else to live.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Expensive transporation encourages local production. That's not a bad thing.
merrill (anonymous) says…
It's either an increase in gasoline tax,registration fees(tax), sales taxes,road tolls(tax) or a new tax aka transportation fee(tax). Why not call these what they are...taxes.
The no tax people like to look like no tax tax people so they increase things like fees or tolls which are taxes = the world of pretend.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
In Soviet Russia, roads drive on you. Will be same same in O'dude's New Order.
Look, is moose and squirrel!
BRB.
altarego (anonymous) says…
I agree with logrithmic. If this GPS deal happens the gubment will find out how much time I spend at the new Hooters out on the SLT. I don't care if that concern is left wang or right wang as long as it is 3 mile island hot and comes with a cold beer!
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
"Expensive transporation encourages local production. That's not a bad thing."
Somewhere nearby you're planning on mining nickel for those electric-vehicle batteries, gcc? Lots of silicon nearby for computer chips, or the raw materials for plastics (that would be oil) to make computers like the one you're on? How long will the local trees hold out if we make our own paper - a year, maybe two?
Oh, and I hope you don't like seafood.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
If it makes you feel any better, Pilgrim, I recently dumped my subcompact that was getting 34 mpg in favor of a minivan getting 22. It was the patriotic thing to do. :)
Boeing (anonymous) says…
Log proves yet again to be the resident idiot of LJW.com...well one of a few, but perhaps mayor of the idiots? I also agree that this is wrong, but the fact that you made it political makes me want to like it just to spite you
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Here's what former Kansas Governor Bill Graves has to say on the topic. Essentially, he says raise the fuel tax. It is interesting, though, that his real opposition is over the current issues with VMTT. Sounds like the real question is whether a workable model is possible, regardless of how far into the future.
-----------------------
ATA recognizes that future changes in vehicle technologies will significantly reduce fuel usage, putting the viability of fuel tax as the primary means of financing highway improvements in jeopardy. However, these changes will take decades and during the interim there is no infrastructure funding problem that cannot be fixed by simply increasing fuel tax and targeting that revenue towards our nation’s roads and highways.
Fuel taxes are the least expensive, most efficient source of highway funding available today. At present, 99 cents out of every 1 dollar in collected fuel tax goes to the Highway Trust fund. Other systems such as VMTT cannot come close to offering taxpayers that type of efficiency. In fact, the most efficient VMTT system in use in the world today costs 23 cents for each dollar collected.
VMTT is an elaborate, expensive, and environmentally unfriendly solution in search of a problem. A simple fuel tax is already an approximate tax on miles traveled because drivers pay more as they drive further and use more fuel. This provides incentive for individuals to use more fuel efficient vehicles.
Under the current fuel tax, heavier vehicles including trucks pay more because they get less fuel mileage (trucks also pay more because the federal tax on diesel is higher than the federal tax on gasoline – 24.4 cents vs. 18.4 cents per gallon). Under a VMTT a less fuel efficient vehicle like a Hummer would pay the same tax as a hybrid for the same amount of miles travelled – clearly not the best plan for the environment or the reduction of carbon.
In addition to extensive administrative costs, privacy is a major issue with VMTT systems of taxation. VMTT relies on technology to monitor vehicle movement and collect fees. Protecting the public from identity theft, fraud and other illegal activities will be a constant process that will add costs and complications that are not present in the fuel tax collection system.
Trucking companies, according to many VMTT advocates, could also be required to additionally track roadways used, time of day (for proposed congestion pricing), and ever-changing truck weights – a recipe for enormous administrative costs. Tax evasion and loss due to error are serious problems for all vehicles paying a mileage tax. Over the years about 20 states have tried and repealed various forms of mileage taxes for much these same reasons.
The trucking industry advocates increases in fuel taxes over other methods to address Highway funding shortfalls as long as those funds remain dedicated to improving highway infrastructure.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
The ex-gov has some good points about the problems with VMTT, but he oversimplifies on the fairness of a fuel tax.
For one thing, heavier vehicles do not necessarily use more fuel. As mentioned earlier, hybrid vehicles are usually a little bit heavier than their equivalent conventionally powered vehicle. It's possible for a hybrid SUV to use less fuel than a conventional smaller car.
(Incidentally, I have no problem with this - the people driving the more fuel-efficient vehicles should be rewarded, wasn't that the whole idea? But the problem with alternative-fuel vehicles is the more we use them the less we collect in fuel taxes, as the article points out.)
Also, theoretically, driving more does not mean using more fuel. Besides differences in vehicle gas mileage, there are also differences in driving style. Someone driving 100 miles on the highway might use less gas than someone driving 75 around town.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
You are simplifying the term "heavier vehicles." When discussing highway funding, "heavier vehicles" is code for the wear and tear done to a road.
Do not differentiate between the weights or fuel efficiency of a Lamborghini Murcielago and a hybrid Ford Escape because there is little difference in road wear when it comes to most passenger vehicles.
The exceptions, of course, are those SUVs designed to weigh over 6,000 lbs by manufacturers. It should be noted, though, that the reason vehicles such as the Suburban or the Yukon are designed that way is so they qualify for a tax credit given to work vehicles.
When Graves says "heavier vehicles," he is referring to non-passenger rated vehicles such as delivery vehicles and trucks. The dividing line has long been vehicles over 6,000 lbs, again a distinction based upon road wear and tear. As an aside, these are the targets of this tax credit. It is an attempt to offset the additional fuel taxes these "work vehicles" pay.
As another aside - when you see a No Trucks sign, that dividing line is 6,000 lbs. For example, if you own a Range Rover or a M Class Mercedes you are technically banned from Mississippi Street south of 6th Street!
Likewise, do not think in terms of the difference between highway mileage and city mileage. The discussion on VMTT should be limited to travel on roads subject to highway funding, in Kansas this would be roads maintained by KDOT. This, too, is one of the challenges to collecting such data.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Lots of things can be made from hemp, including paper. As for silicon, that's sand, something Kansas has in abundance. Besides, local production doesn't mean local sourcing for all the raw materials.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"You are simplifying the term “heavier vehicles.” When discussing highway funding, “heavier vehicles” is code for the wear and tear done to a road."
Um - the quote you posted stated "heavier vehicles *including* trucks" [emphasis mine]. One of us is simplifying his comments.
************************************
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
"Besides, local production doesn't mean local sourcing for all the raw materials."
Brilliant.
Oh, except it costs more to ship the raw materials than it does the finished product. Kinda' defeats the purpose there, gcc.
usesomesense (anonymous) says…
notajayhawk - so just what is your 'Master Plan' here?
You seem to like to pick apart any single sentence you can while ignoring the rest of what is said.
Let's hear your 100% equitable no-holes or exceptions solution...
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
usesomesense (Anonymous) says…
"Let's hear your 100% equitable no-holes or exceptions solution…"
Did I say I had one, sense? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that a pedestrian bridge to the moon is a bad idea. This is part of the problem with a lot of public policy. There always has to be one big perfect one-size-fits-all quick fix. It doesn't always work that way. But there are too many people who are quick to say you can't criticize *this* plan because *YOU* don't have a perfect plan instead.
But since you asked, my guess would be that either 1) we're going to have less money to spend on roads or 2) we're going to have to increase revenues from the existing revenue streams (e.g. higher fuel taxes). Raising money for roads the way it's been done for a very long time may not be 100% fair, but it's worked for a very long time, and if those who are still driving conventionally powered vehicles are going to bear a larger share of the costs over electric/hybrid/alternative fuel cars, well, as I said earlier, aren't we *trying* to encourage more of that?
The shortfall is only *partly* due to the increase in higher-efficiency vehicles. It's also because of the economy, as the article notes. Maybe we ought to see where we stand when the economy rebounds before making any huge policy shifts? If that means one or two road projects wait a year, we'll probably get by.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Um - the quote you posted stated “heavier vehicles *including* trucks” [emphasis mine]. One of us is simplifying his comments.
The man is the President of the American Trucking Association. What do you think he means when he says "trucks"?
The kind of "trucks" you are talking about don't rise to the level of "heavier vehicles," as I demonstrated.
How can any of your comments be taken seriously? You honestly think the term "trucks" refers to a Dodge Dakota? If so, your comments on this topic cannot be considered relevant.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Marion, please don't confuse Bobby with facts.
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"How can any of your comments be taken seriously? You honestly think the term “trucks” refers to a Dodge Dakota? If so, your comments on this topic cannot be considered relevant."
Well, so much for trying to be civil.
Bobby-boy, how can any of *YOUR* comments be worth what comes out of a rat's hind end when you apparently don't seem to understand the word "including?" See, Bobby, if heavier vehicles *includes* trucks, that means it is not necessarily *exclusive* to trucks. But then, you always seem to know what the people you quote are saying better than they knew themselves, so what the heck.
Oh, BTW, Bobby - speaking of relevance: The story is about one possible solution to the problem of tax revenues drying up because of the economy and because of vehicles switching to alternative power trains causing a drop in fuel tax revenues. Um, Bobby? How many hybrid tractor-trailers have you seen zipping down the highway in Kansas? Please try to stay relevant to the topic and stop talking about trucks, Bobby.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says…
"...Likewise, do not think in terms of the difference between highway mileage and city mileage. The discussion on VMTT should be limited to travel on roads subject to highway funding, in Kansas this would be roads maintained by KDOT. This, too, is one of the challenges to collecting such data."
==============================
Who pays for a highway that is also a city street? Is it shared responsibility? Assuming KDOT does at least partially fund highways when they also happen to be a city's road, what would happen on this tax? 23rd Street is K-10, 6th Street is US-40. Iowa is US-59. North 2nd/3rd (North Lawrence) is the combined US-40 & US-59. Would people save money by avoid those streets and instead meander through residential streets?
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
"Richard Heckler (Anonymous) babbled…Let's do this with trash. The more that is thrown the more that will be paid. People throwing away an entire house full should pay more because they are creating more and more miles on the road."
I have a better idea: let's tax lawnmowers and low-use bus systems. Lawnmowers spew more carbon into the atmosphere compared to the majority of vehicles on the road. Low use bus systems like the T pollute *and* create undue wear on the roads.
Bob_Keeshan (anonymous) says…
Marion, in Lawrence the dividing line for the posted Truck Route is actually 26,000 lbs.
The 6,000 lbs dividing line is a national standard that is primarily based upon the tax code. I used the "no trucks" prohibition that exists on Mississippi between 6th and 9th as an excuse to be glib. I was making a funny.
However, many municipalities nationwide have actually adopted a trucks definition that mirrors the federal tax code and have dealt with protests about the largest of SUVs driving on neighborhood streets.
But, again, the issue with how to define "heavier vehicles" or "trucks" is increased wear and tear on Kansas highways. For almost all passenger vehicles there is no reasonable difference. 6,000 lbs is a low end dividing line that has been recognized with the federal credit, as well as by several states with similar tax credits. In other words, a Ford Escape hybrid with its gross weight of 4,680 lbs is not a "heavier vehicle."
As for the issue of fuel efficiency and how to define "heavier vehicles," you will find very few vehicles over 6,000 lbs which can meet the fuel efficiency of a car. Outside of boutique cars like the Lamborghini or roadsters like the Dodge Viper, the worst car is the Mercury Grand Marquis, averaging 16 mpg. Only 9 sedans on the market average less than 18 mpg
The only vehicle over 6,000 lbs to beat that is the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. It averages 19 mpg. To say that it is inaccurate of Graves to claim heavier vehicles get lower fuel efficiency is to rely upon the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid as your only example. That is statistically irrelevant.
Regardless of the differences in fuel efficiencies for passenger cars and new technologies such as hybrids, discussions of highway funding are still driven by powerful stakeholders like the American Trucking Association.
http://transportation.nationaljournal... is a good discussion of the topic, and is the source of the Graves commentary.
kmat (anonymous) says…
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
The state can set up checkpoints and everyone will have to show their papers and log people's mileage that way. It sounds like an Obama thing to do. I'm sure the people of Lawrence would accept it. Similar to the former Soviet Union.
__________________________________________
Are you capable of spewing anything other than hatred for Obama? It's getting pretty tiring to see the comments on any subject are directed at Obama, not about the actual topic at hand.
We sure are getting sick of you equating anyone that isn't republican as being communist. I know a lot of current soldiers that would like to pop you one. They voted for Obama and serve this nation while you sit at a computer comparing them to communists.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
Maybe this will be the kick in the butt that Lawrence needs to create blue collar jobs here. If only 10% of the daily 20k commuters Lawrence has moves closer to their work, that would be a major amount of income moving away.