Derek wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:49 PM:There are costs that rise in proportion to the volume of gasoline used (pollution) and others that rise in proportion to the number of miles traveled (traffic congestion, road wear, danger to other road users). These two costs vary independently depending on the automobile, so taxing solely based on miles traveled is insufficient.

Tax both, gasoline and miles driven. For miles driven, charge less per mile for Smart cars than Hummers, because they are safer to other road users, cause less road wear, and take up less space on the road.

Smart Cars uhhhhh wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:31 PM:So smart cars are safer to other road users?

I guess if you're driving a wind up car, you want anything of size of the road!

to derek wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:22 AM:OK Derek - you can pay for my taxes too!

We need less taxes, less regulations, less government interference - not more!

JimRT wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:00 AM:What about the people that drive 74 miles just to get to work and back we will be paying more and we are the ones that drive high mileage smaller cars? No, this is not fair. If you are going to do it then just tax everyone. There are too many factors to consider, their test and survey costs would pay for a substantial amount of roadwork.

Any bet wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:21 AM:the survey will come out in favor of the mile tax? Why waste the money, it will be skewed to the most revenue for the government. Those that sit home sucking welfare etc will love the mile tax. Those of us that work and have to commute once again will support those that don't.

George wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:17 AM:Hi, Derek! Fuel use increases as road usage increases, which means that a "fuel tax" and a "miles travelled" tax are exactly the same. Double taxation is a bad idea.

However, not all fuel consumption is related to miles travelled. When traffic is at a standstill due to planned gridlock, those engines are still running. Fuel consumption and pollution could be significantly reduced if SANDAG would follow through with the promised freeway expansion.

But SANDAG has no plans to increase freeway capacity for a remarkably selfish reason, revealed in "Transit Planning Errors Compound Our Commutes" (NCT, November 16, 2005):

"It's like a sneaky tax increase imposed on the motoring public without notice or voter approval. Without congestion, a 39-mile drive from San Diego to Escondido takes 36 minutes and incurs a gas tax of $0.75. With stop-and-go driving, it takes an hour and a half and the tax increases to $1.10 for the exact same trip, an extra $175.00 per car every year."

As an update, that extra $175.00 is for a one-way journey. The round trip cost would be an extra $350.00 per year.

We don't need more taxes and we don't need higher taxes. What we do need is the congestion relief we were promised when the TransNet tax was approved by the voters in 2004.

Walt wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:12 AM:State of Oregon has been running this test for about two years. Results? Remember when the government said our Social Security numbers would be kept secret? San Diego with it's inadequate roads, and rated by Texas Transportation Institute as most congested large city has the same demographics to be representative of USA!! But Derek sees the issues correctly. Primarily user pays considering general public already contributes through sales tax etc. Pay per mile seems fair, but I suggest is trumped in today's climate by incentives needed to conserve energy. Thus stay with gas tax when gas used. Equivalent for electric cars is kilowatt-hours. That's easier to measure right in the car and transmit for collection.It mostly deletes the privacy question. Why get more complex GPS into the act?

Derek wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:46 PM:George wrote: "Fuel use increases as road usage increases..."

But a Prius goes farther on a gallon of gas than other cars and therefore pays less in taxes per mile. Is it fair that the Prius owner doesn't have to pay for his fair share of road wear?

"Double taxation is a bad idea."

Is it double taxation if the total amount of both taxes is equal to the original tax?

"When traffic is at a standstill due to planned gridlock, those engines are still running."

Earlier you wrote that fuel use increases as road use increases. This would be another exception that taxing fuel alone won't cover.

Umm.. wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:42 PM:The other side of this is the market price of gasoline includes these taxes, thus they are factored into what the market will bear. Take them out and you are in effect giving a bonus to the oil companies.

Oh, and the Prius does not get *that* much better gas mileage. Especially when this popular round of cars nears the end of their useful life, the party will be over when the batteries start to need replacing.

Brad wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:43 PM:Why don't we tax these so called "traffic engineers" who can't get the lights to change when there isn't anyone going in one certain direction, but there are others sitting at red lights at that intersection?

aaa wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:54 PM:Either way the same amount of money has to be generated to keep the roads in working order. Taxes of any kind are about as popular a sharp stick in the eye, so no one is going to like this. I have to qustion the practicality of this proposal however. There is really no way to beat the gas tax as it is with the vast majority of non-hybrid/electric vehicles. I tend to think this system will be harder to implement and enforce. If done correctly everyone would pay roughly the same as with the current gas tax, some more and some less depending on miles and vehicle types but it would average out across the board. You can please all the people some of the time or some of the people all the time, but you can't please all the people all the time.

George wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:15 PM:Hi, Derek! Planned gridlock is not the normal mode of operation for a freeway. All that's needed is to fix the congestion problem, and it will be true that fuel use increases as road use increases. Planning failure causes the consumption of fuel with no corresponding movement.

And if you have two taxes on the same thing, you have double taxation. Currently, we are paying a per-gallon state gas tax, a per-gallon federal gas tax, a state sales tax on the gas AND on the per-gallon taxes (taxing the taxes, as it were), the TransNet tax on taxable purchases, and taxes to repay the Infrastructure bonds. Adding a sixth tax is not necessary. There's plenty of money for congestion relief. The problem is that there are no plans for congestion relief.