Dutch Government To Tax Drivers Based On Car Use

An anonymous reader writes "The Netherlands is testing a new car use tax system that will tax drivers based upon how much they drive rather than just taxing the vehicle itself. The trials utilize a little box outfitted with GPS, wireless internet, and a complex rating system that tracks a car's environmental impact, its distance driven, its route, and what time it is driven as a fairer way to assess the impact of the vehicle and hopefully dissuade people from driving. The proposal will be introduced slowly as a replacement for the current car and gas tax, however it is most certainly controversial and will be a real test of how far environmentally savvy Dutch citizens will be willing to go to reduce the impact of the car."

Comments

This was proposed in Oregon

[symbolset]

It makes the tax more fair to charge road-users by the mile and the ton over the road, and how would you measure that without a GPS odometer in every car?. Don't look at the idea that the state associates your tax ID with your vehicle and tracks your every move. That's just the fairest way to collect the tax. There's no other motive here. Take off your tinfoil hat. There is no ulterior motive. Trust us.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It makes the tax more fair to charge road-users by the mile and the ton over the road, and how would you measure that without a GPS odometer in every car?

Tax the fuel. It's not just Oregonians that use the road.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they will use it to track us. They already implemented a similar system in the public transports network that tracks you every move.

Remember, this is the country that has the most known wiretaps out on its citizens(China and NKorea are good contenders if we would know.).

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

True, but the UK has more video footage of its citizens. ;)

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[WorBlux]

Not really the fairest way. Cars create very little wear and tear on the highways (They are like 95% of the volume and responsible for 5% of the wear and tear). The two main externalities of cars are pollution which a gas tax can roughly cover, and congestion, which tolls can cover. Per-mile only makes sense where the miles themselves create the externality like heavy trucks and farm equipment.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[teh kurisu]

In theory, you could have all the processing done in the unit itself. A map of every road in the country, plus the pricing quotas for those roads, would fit on an SD card. The unit could process its location history and simply upload the bill.

That's not to say that it's how it will be done, but it's how I'd do it.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[tinkerton]

Take off your tinfoil hat. There is no ulterior motive. Trust us. Ok, let's settle on plain stupidity. A fuel tax is a good measure and it takes in account very well the difference between an SUV and a Prius. Setting up a huge infrastructure in an attempt to go from 'good' to perfectly fair is very misguided. Usually it's the old 'because it has flaws it can't be good and it should be removed.' Then all you need is an example, however rare, where the fuel tax can be considered unfair.

And of course once your every move is being tracked every possible use will be made of that data.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[lennier1]

And yet the UK police still can't do shit to prevent the crimes which are going on during these riots.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[skids]

and how would you measure that without a GPS odometer in every car?

Easy. By taxing tires.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[NalosLayor]

This seems like the kind of tax that GPS manufacturers would lobby for... "The market is already saturated with GPS devices? Let's make it illegal to not have TWO!"

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Tax the fuel.

In the Netherlands? Well, it's possible, tax is only some 60% of the price per liter yet. Fuel price in the Netherlands is already high though.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[lucidlyTwisted]

Indeed, and this is because a camera cannot walk about and actually apprehend people. But cameras can be bought from companies who would be very appreciative of a civil servant/MP who authorised their purchase.

Cameras also make it easier to levy fines, which raises revenue.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Xest]

"It makes the tax more fair to charge road-users by the mile and the ton over the road"

More "fair" possibly, but not more rational.

It hurts essential car users like couriers, commuters, and so forth, but does nothing to combat lazy people who take their kids 1 mile each way to school in the SUV when they could just as easily walk.

This sort of tax basically says "Yeah it's okay to use your car wastefully, for pointless journeys because you're lazy. But want to be a salesman? want to fill a skill gap in an area - such as doctors - by commuting to it? want to be a courier? want to live in and support a rural community? Well tough shit".

This sort of tax is a sure way to gimp your economy, making it harder for companies to find the skills they need by hiring commuters whilst failing to make any impact on wasteful road use and emissions.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[barrkel]

Probably the biggest cause of wear and tear is snow and ice (freeze-thaw, expanding cracks), and after that hydraulic action (wet weather + tyres). If you have temperate weather and roads with good drainage and a solid foundation, I don't think you should see a whole lot of damage. But the potholes really come out after a cold snap.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[outsider007]

Yes and like Netherlands, Oregon drivers should be incentivized for smoking weed. Because weed makes you stay off the highway, and in your apartment listening to Steely Dan albums where your carbon footprint is low.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[boaworm]

Exactly... what's wrong with taxing the fuel?

The idea is to make people use less fossil fuel, to conserve driving when possible, and get eco-friendlier cars.

It's so backwards, as the ultimate goal is to reduce fuel consumption, so let's tax mileage?

Of course, when we all have nice green eco-friendly recycleable electic cars with batteries that don't kill 100 square miles of land... then they have to tax something else.. but that's quite far in the future :)

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Bert64]

People will just keep running their old tires as long as they can, long after the point at which they become unsafe...

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[squizzar]

I'm not sure taxing essential safety equipment is prudent. With that thinking you might as well start taxing brake pads (people who drive inefficiently will wear them faster). What could possibly go wrong...

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[arglebargle_xiv]

Tax the fuel.

Doesn't work (and not just for fuel but for pretty much any indirect charging system). People just grumble, and pay more. When they see the dollars clicking past (or, for things like tobacco, when they see shots of diseased lungs), that's when it has an effect.

So unfortunately while this system is horribly privacy-invasive, you need some form of direct feedback to have an effect on the public. Indirect costs only have a marginal effect on decision-making.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[labradore]

There is a thing called an odometer. It's in every car. There's nothing wrong with requiring a car inspection every year and taxing mileage based on the odometer is a much cheaper and simpler and less intrusive way.

If they want to track you, they've already got your cell phone.

This GPS stuff is idiotic.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[realityimpaired]

Compared against the possibility of receiving a bill at the end of the year for my mileage, I'd rather pay the tax on the gas. At least that way, it's amortized over the whole year rather than a lump sum. Quite aside from that, cars that don't have NL plates still use the roads, and they wouldn't be taxed at all under the proposed system, which is hardly fair to the locals.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[silanea]

At least here in Germany we already have mandatory inspections every two years. Reading the odometer could be done there.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[skids]

That would be why we have annual inspections.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[skids]

We already do tax tires, and tires are already a significant expense, especially in the high-mileage shipping industry.

The CBO already addressed this issue in their report on transportation system tax options. The only concern raised was that there would be a perverse incentive to run vehicles with less axles, which would increase road damage. That could easily be fixed by a twiddle to the tax code for vehicles with less axles than appropriate.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Smidge204]

You can buy gasoline across state lines, too, so that is no way to guarantee the money goes to your state. Further, what if your vehicle doesn't use gasoline or diesel? You get to use the roads without helping to pay for them, which is a large part of the problem.

Many states already require odometer reporting and it's a federal crime to tamper with them. Many states also have compulsory liability insurance for car owners. Solution: Have the insurance companies require odometer reporting and include state taxes in their costs. The reason this is better than an annual check (at inspection time) followed by a bill is the tax may add up to a hundred dollars depending on how much you drive (gasoline tax equivalent for California would be about 2 cents/mile). Car insurance usually has a monthly payment system to spread out the financial burden.

Sure it's not perfect but it's better than a simple fuel tax and the invasive GPS solution.
=Smidge=

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[tommeke100]

I live 60 km (37 miles) from work. I've had my car (a small efficient Diesel) for over 2 yrs (75.000 km / 46.600 miles) and I didn't have to change my tires yet. The profile on them says I still got a good 20k to go. How are you gonna tax this unless you charge 500$/tire?

We are ALREADY severely taxed on our car usage, it's called FUEL.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[cvtan]

AFAIK only 18 out of 50 states in the US have mandated inspection programs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection. I was surprised at this low number.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Kharny]

since most dutch people drive outside of the netherlands quite a bit, that would be impossible to use.

It would be illegal to tax any km's driven outside of netherlands

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Leebert]

The idea is to make people use less fossil fuel

This is exactly the problem. Most of these proposals are coming because such taxes won't work on electrics, or don't generate enough income with higher and higher efficiency gas/diesel vehicles.

There's no political will to increase the fuel taxes, and no easy mechanism to apply them to electric cars.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Smidge204]

Exactly... what's wrong with taxing the fuel?

Doesn't easily extend to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. And as vehicle efficiency increases and alternative vehicles become more popular, your tax revenue drops while your costs to maintain the roads remains the same. Gasoline and diesel are also used in non-vehicle engines (generators, farm and construction equipment, small engine tools, etc) which would be paying this tax while not contributing to road maintenance expenses.

Taxing actual road use makes the most sense. You can scale it by vehicle weight and class (since fuel use is not linearly proportional to vehicle weight, while road damage is), create residential, commercial and industrial tiers if you want since a heavy truck that gets 12MPG does more damage than a large car that gets the same. It takes the state of maintenance of the vehicle out of the equation (poor fuel economy due to poor maintenance).

If the goal is to reduce fuel use (and I agree with that goal), we should STILL tax nonrenewable carbon fuels.
=Smidge=

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the problem. Most of these proposals are coming because such taxes won't work on electrics, or don't generate enough income with higher and higher efficiency gas/diesel vehicles.

Then tax the odometer as if it was a electric or water counter. Mandate the odometer to be readable from the window. GPS and wireless reporting is overkill and it's a privacy nightmare... If you don't want this to succeed with the obviously spying sole interest you must provide acceptable option for the claimed 'need'.

Posting anonymously because i want to mod you up anyway.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[roman_mir]

I can always disconnect the odometer, and this new device is not going to be connected either.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[SlashV]

It isn't about the overall distance, but about the distance traveled on busy roads, which you can't measure with the odometer and you can't rely on cell phones, because ppl will just switch them of or use prepaid.

The 'car use tax system' is proposed to reduce traffic jams, not to save the environment. The latter is just added to the mix in order to gain politically. For saving the environment, just raising gas prices is a lot easier.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[ccguy]

OK so 4 tires shared with another 10 guys just to go to the inspections, old ones the rest of the year...

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[ultranova]

Yes and like Netherlands, Oregon drivers should be incentivized for smoking weed. Because weed makes you stay off the highway, and in your apartment listening to Steely Dan albums where your carbon footprint is low.

Actually, that's a great idea, and one that we need to seriously investigate for the future. It's what all these energy conservation programs come down to: encourage lack of action, because any action takes energy. Energy conservation = passivity.

I posted in another story about virtual worlds being used for this purpose, but weed would also work great.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[mmcuh]

If that's what they want to do, why not just add congestion charges for the busy areas such as city centres? It seems to work well in many other European cities.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[kwark]

The fuel taxes/levies are a constant. This proposed system takes congestion on roads and times of use into consideration. Per the article the drive from Eindhoven airport to the city center(?) costs 5 EUR during rushour. That is a 15-30m drive for something like 10km. Off-peak I can do that trip in under 10m on my bike. In the current system the variable costs for this trip is approx the same for all vehicles alike (when using the same fuel type and mileage): approx. 0.5l of fuel.

The theory is that putting a higher price on driving during rushhour will result in less people on the road at the same time, people that can avoid the rush hour premium will do so. At the same time the fixed costs of owning a vehicle is reduced (yearly road taxes) and the taxes on buying a car should be abolished (BPM http://www.vdsautomotive.nl/en/zakelijk/bpm-calculator ). Overall this would be a more fair system for use based taxation, but the main fear people have is that levies on fuel, the road tax and BPM will remain making driving more expensive. Only a small minority will oppose this for privacy reasons.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[gilesjuk]

We've looked at similar things in the UK.

Surely this system will track where you are and at what time you drive?

A fuel efficient car isn't efficient if it is sat idling in a traffic jam in the rush hour. Yet a car that is less fuel efficient will be emitting less pollution if it is driven at night on a clear road.

It's about trying to reduce traffic queues by making it more expensive to drive at peak times.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[swalve]

In the US, non-road fuel isn't taxed. And license plates cost more for heavier vehicles.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[zippyspringboard]

The average tire pressure on a car tire is 32 psi, the average pressure on a large truck is well over 60 psi, most run over 100. I was told by a highway engineer years ago that one large truck creates the same amount of wear and tear as thousands of cars, especially if it's overloaded. It is my understanding that large trucks and environmental effects are responsible for the vast majority of all damage. If you start looking at the damage closely you'll start to notice that most of it seems indicative of the dual tires that trucks run, or the long trailers they pull. For example in urban environments where the rear wheels track out of the standard path of a tire on a turn.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[KDR_11k]

I think he means cars as the personal vehicle variety, not including trucks and such which are the real cause of wear.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stormthirst]

Who said it would be a lump sum? Just bill the user at the end of the month. These systems will be almost completely automated - so the computers send out the bill and take the money from the users account (or the user could waste their time and write a cheque I suppose).

Besides, if you'd bothered to read TFA, you'd know that the Dutch government is trying to pay for their roads when people are using more environmentally greener options like hybrids and electric cars.

The billing isn't just about the miles you use, it's the route you take and the time of day. It could be used to, for example try to encourage people to travel at different times of day to lessen the congestion in towns. It's about changing people's attitudes - something I appreciate America doesn't like doing, but Europe is a very very different place.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stormthirst]

But that's the point. They are already taxing something else - the mileage. People are already using alternative fuel sources, but the Dutch are thinking ahead and planning. Spend a Euro now, save 10 later.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stormthirst]

The odometer is read in every car every year in the UK, to prevent fraud. After all the value of a second hand car is largely based on the mileage it's done. Which would you prefer to buy - a 2 year old car that's done 500,000 miles, or a 10 year old car that's done 50,000?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Sinthet]

With all the vulnerabilities shown in GPS recently, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to just either jam the signal, or create a fake signal that constantly informs the receiver that you are currently stationary.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[kwark]

"Then tax the odometer as if it was a electric or water counter."

Doesn't work with international traveling, riding to my parents house I travel through Belgium since it is a shorter route (in km not time), should I be taxed in the Netherlands for these kilometers? Also when I travel though Belgium I fill up on fuel, so I pay taxes there (a selfish act since fuel is cheaper).

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[The Snowman]

In the US, non-road fuel isn't taxed.

I paid a tax on the gasoline in my lawnmower and in my line trimmer, and I live in the U.S.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[jimicus]

It's about trying to reduce traffic queues by making it more expensive to drive at peak times.

Cobblers. Look at why there's a lot of traffic on the roads at peak times:

1. People getting to/from work.
2. People getting the kids to/from school.

This accounts for a huge amount of peak-time traffic - and neither employers nor schools care if it costs a bit more to be on the road at 08:30 instead of 10:00, that's the driver's problem. This is revenue raising, pure and simple.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[jimicus]

I can always disconnect the odometer, and this new device is not going to be connected either.

Or, if you prefer, you can attach a big sign to your vehicle saying "Attention everyone! I am attempting to dodge taxes!"

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[donaldm]

Raise taxes on petrol and only the motorist who drives a petrol car is affected. Raise taxes on diesel and you increase the cost of haulage and everyone pays for that. Raise taxes on heavy trucks and guess what everyone pays again. As for truckers not maintaining their vehicle I won't deny that some may do that but the majority do maintain their trucks since that extra bit of fuel economy translates to extra revenue for the the people or companies who run the trucks.

This proposal is made by politicians who need to spin the proposal in such a way so that it will win votes (hey look at us we are "green") at the next election. An idea like this can also rake in much needed revenue that is sorely needed for those junkets to foreign countries and chauffeured cars (fuel and distance tax exempt of course).

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[donaldm]

In Singapore if you drive into the city center during peak times you pay more then during the off peak times. This is done by cameras reading the registration plate or the vehicle has a sensor. At least this is a fairer scheme and it does lower congestion.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[mikael]

What happens if they decide to use bicycles, rollerblades, motorcycles and public transport instead? Seems the government want it both ways; high taxes on carbon emitting cars, and high taxes on clean emission cars.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[mikael]

Definitely the larger vehicles. I used to see the double deckers buses cause potholes to form. First of all a crack in the tarmac would form, then the bus would drive to the side of the road, put all the weight on that side and compress the road. Water would flow out of the pothole, and when the bus moved away, the water would pour back into the pothole.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[skids]

How are you gonna tax this unless you charge 500$/tire? We are ALREADY severely taxed on our car usage, it's called FUEL.

The question you have to ask yourself is, would I rather pay a large tax on tires, OR a large tax spread out over every fuel purchase, or what ratio of the two.

Personally I think any form of mileage tax is way before its time. They should just jack up the gas tax as much as they need to to cover the transportation funds, and let the e-cars slide for maybe even up to a decade more. It's good incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[arkenian]

It's about trying to reduce traffic queues by making it more expensive to drive at peak times.

Cobblers. Look at why there's a lot of traffic on the roads at peak times:

1. People getting to/from work. 2. People getting the kids to/from school.

This accounts for a huge amount of peak-time traffic - and neither employers nor schools care if it costs a bit more to be on the road at 08:30 instead of 10:00, that's the driver's problem. This is revenue raising, pure and simple.

While I mostly agree, I feel obliged to point out that increasing numbers of employers offer flexible hours etc. For example, where I work, many people come in an hour early to get good parking, and I come in half an hour 'late' because I'm not excited enough about getting home in the evening to get up early for a parking space and I want to skip the traffic at the security gate. Tax policies like this might make employers even more willing to make adjustments like that.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Smidge204]

You might mean non MOTOR fuel isn't taxed... non-motor fuel (like home heating oil) is either not taxed or taxed differently, depending on where you live. If you buy motor fuel retail you're getting taxed on it regardless of how you use it.

License plates might cost more for trucks but the difference does not cover the additional wear-and-tear they cause the roadways.
=Smidge=

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Smidge204]

It's not just about maintaining trucks, it's about maintaining anything and everything. I see plenty of cars belching smoke on the roads. And heaven forbid the price of goods accurately reflect their costs. Maybe the solution is to haul less by buying more locally, or expand the use of rail freight. Sustainability is about more than just "being green."

=Smidge=

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[donaldm]

In Australia some companies allow their employees to have what is know as a Novated lease on a car although there are other types of leases. Basically if you purchased a car for say $40k you would have to pay a fringe benefit tax of 20% if you travel between 15,000 km and less than 25,000 km, if you travel over 25,000 km you only pay 11% (there are other rates but this is the most common) so if you have a fairly fuel efficient car (mine is a diesel) you really have no choice but to travel over 25,000 km a year.and it is far cheaper to do the extra 10,000 km and save $3,000

I am quite sure the armchair green lobby would say that's unfair but take that away and you destroy thousands of jobs and votes as well as most likely increasing pollution and accident rates since one of the requirements of a Novated Lease is to have your car properly maintained.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Lennie]

Actually, if you read some of the other comments or the article you might have noticed they charge extra for rushhour. And that is one of the primairy goals, make the rushhour less frequent and less busy.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Joce640k]

So basically it's an electronic toll road...

As for privacy/tracking: I'm in two minds. If the data is anonymized (only distances traveled are freely accessible, the 'places visited' is separate) and proper court procedures are in place then this *could* help catch an awful lot of criminals.

OTOH, we know that the chances of it being done properly are somewhere between slim and none so we should oppose it.

This sort of system *is* coming though because almost 100% of people are going to switch to electric cars - no more gas revenue.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stiletto]

Sounds like a racket to me. The auto mechanics must have great unions in those states.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stormthirst]

Cos you know, bicycles and rollerblades cause so much damage to the roads. Really?

Motorcycles - ok. But again the damage done is significantly less than a car or truck.

In europe a lot of public transport is a train system, so is largely irrelevant. Not sure about the Netherlands - never visited.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[horigath]

What happens if they decide to use bicycles, rollerblades, motorcycles and public transport instead?

Then the wear on the roads and the environmental damage will be considerably less and so maintenance costs will be lower, as will revenues. As a bonus, congestion will be lower and so workers will benefit from either increased productivity or increased leisure time. Where's the problem?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Plunky]

Surely this system will track where you are and at what time you drive?

In the UK there are already automatic number plate recognition cameras in many many locations. They don't seem to be advertised all that well, alas.. For instance, I count at least five on a 10 mile stretch of country road that I regularly cycle along and which most car drivers (that I know) have never even noticed.. In fact I was told that many of the 'traffic monitoring' cameras (thats the blue ones, alongside most major roads), which previously took a low resolution image every minute or so and beamed it back to base have been silently upgraded to record number plates instead in recent years but I don't have a car so I don't know if that is generally known..

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[interval1066]

"There's no political will to increase the fuel taxes, and no easy mechanism to apply them to electric cars.

And there shouldn't be. If the stated purpose of the tax is to decrease fuel consumption then taxing electric vehicles is contrary to the stated goal. The purpose of the tax is obvious; to enrich the state, period. There is no altruistic reason. And if the purpose of life is to serve the state, what kind of life is that? At what point do Europeans decide that a particular level of taxation is too much? 50%? 75%? When does one say "Well, now that's over the line?" What would be the harm in simply turning over one's income to the state and letting the state dole out what every one needs, according to their means? Which of course would be 100% since the state would be confiscating all our money?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[wagnerrp]

Who cares if there is no gas revenue for electric cars. It's not like they are actually harmful to anything. Wear on the road is computed based off the axle weight to the fourth power. Comparing them to a semi truck is like worrying about that fly that just landed on your arm, when there is a gorilla sitting on your back.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[SSCGWLB]

There is tax free diesel for construction and agricultural use, it is dyed red so use in on road can be detected. There is a serious fine for having red diesel in the wrong vehicle.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[wagnerrp]

I think you misunderstand the scale of things. If you actual scale it proportionally to road damage, consumer vehicles would get off practically free. Nearly all the damage to roads capable of handling a semi truck is caused by semi trucks.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[semi-extrinsic]

This sort of system *is* coming though because almost 100% of people are going to switch to electric cars - no more gas revenue.

Surely you jest? We are a very, very long way from even 10% of people switching to electric cars. The main obstacle will be twofold:

1) We don't have nearly enough powerplants. As nuclear is being phased out after Fukushima, natural gas and coal are the main options for new powerplants. There goes your environmental argument.

2) The electricity grid has nowhere near the capacity needed. You would have to dig up all the local roads everywhere and lay new power mains, and you would have to upgrade many of the large power lines and distribution stations as well.

Net social-economic impact: negative a few hundred billion dollars, and more CO2 produced.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[wagnerrp]

And just how do you do that? Rush hour is rush hour because that's when people need to get places. Just because you make it more expensive doesn't mean their schedule will magically change.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[roman_mir]

It's everybody's responsibility and a moral imperative to avoid paying as many taxes as humanly possible.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[kwark]

The electronic toll road was essentially the plan from de late 80's-early 90's. First by numberplate recognition on the highways, later by blackboxes in cars scanned by toll ports. The latest GPS/GSM boxes are to store the information localy and to only upload the totaleds bill. But the justice department already floated the idea that these boxes can be tapped (remote) for detailed information when needed. The same department was slapped when it was found out that ANPR data was being kept and mined for possibly criminal data unrelated to the original purpose. When caught the response was: well we have change this irritatng privacy law then to allow us to do that we want.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[arglebargle_xiv]

There is a thing called an odometer. It's in every car. There's nothing wrong with requiring a car inspection every year and taxing mileage based on the odometer is a much cheaper and simpler and less intrusive way.

And of course no-one would ever dream of winding back an odometer. In conjunction with that, we also don't have considerable numbers of mechanics with experience in fiddling odometers.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Rennt]

The stated purpose is actually to make road users pay for the roads they use. Fuel consumption does not come into that calculation at all, as fuel consumption has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining roads.

I do have to admire that slippery slope you got going on there though. Freedom yeah! Down with socialism!

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Aquitaine]

The stated purpose is actually to make road users pay for the roads they use. Fuel consumption does not come into that calculation at all, as fuel consumption has nothing to do with the cost of maintaining roads.

If it doesn't, it's only because nobody in the Dutch government made the very difficult logical leap of 'let's maintain the roads with a gasoline tax,' where you have a pretty direct correlation between gasoline consumed and roads used. Or else they did at first and then absconded with that revenue for some other purpose, which you'd easily find happening outside of Holland as well.

As the GP says, if the point of a gas tax is to reduce gas consumption, then there is indeed no reason to tax electrics because you've already won when somebody's driving an electric car (well, 'won' except that you probably subsidized their electric car, but they're using less gas, certainly).

If your goal is instead to make people pay for roads they use, plenty of countries have had EZPass for years now. The trouble is that you have to pick the roads you want to make toll roads, and you have to build toll booths. The government no doubt found that to be cumbersome and figured it'd be easier to just earn a flat percentage per mile traveled. It will create a huge bureaucracy, cost a fortune to operate, probably get hacked by 'no sir my car ain't movin' black hats, and give the government a complete record of your every move. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[jabelli]

That's because you bought it out of the road-use pump. I don't know if you can actually get non-road gasoline, but I'm sure that farmers use non-road diesel. It has a different color dye, red I think, and you get fined if you use it in your road vehicles.

In any event, if they do sell non-road gasoline, you probably can't buy less than 50 or 100 gallons at a time.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[cduffy]

It hurts essential car users like couriers, commuters, and so forth, but does nothing to combat lazy people who take their kids 1 mile each way to school in the SUV when they could just as easily walk.

Long-distance commuters are not a good thing, except as a short-term stopgap measure.

Having people who need to travel a long distance to work -- without the infrastructure to provide them a better means to do so than a single-occupancy vehicle -- means that city planning is being done poorly. High-density mixed-use development, or even just older-style zoning (from before everything was planned on the assumption that everyone would have a car) means that folks don't need a car to get around. Moreover, having the true costs of commuting exposed not only encourages better personal choices, but also means that one is no longer unfairly subsidizing a single mode of transportation and thereby making it harder to justify funds spent on others.

Bicycle and motorcycle couriers are very well-established -- in the middle of rush hour, average bicycle speed is substantially *faster* than average car speed in urban areas, and there've also been no end of 50cc-scooter-vs-supercar races in dense urban environments where the scooter has won handily.

In the case you give of a doctor commuting to a community -- if the taxes collected represent a genuine externality placed on others by that commute, well, those costs exist. You can either decide that they're worth paying in this case (and pay your out-of-town doctor more for the commute... presuming, of course, that you can't find one willing to move), or you can decide that they aren't -- but in either case, we're talking about taking real costs and placing them on the people incurring them. Roads are expensive. Congestion is expensive. Bringing in that out-of-town doctor costs money, and the amount of money involved shouldn't be hidden.

Let's talk for a minute about how expensive roads really are. Portland, OR has what's considered the best cycling infrastructure in the continental US. They calculated its replacement cost at $60M in 2008 dollars. Now, how many miles of highway do you think that $60M equivalent to? The replacement cost of the best transportation cycling infrastructure found anywhere in the US is equivalent to the cost to build between .8-4 miles of 4-lane urban freeway, or to build a single interchange.

The infrastructure you advocate is extremely expensive, and heavily subsidized by those who don't use it already. (Cyclists pay for city streets through property and sales taxes to their cities, but also pay for highways via the non-use taxes which now fund almost 50% of their development and maintenance).

Why should anyone -- commuters, couriers, salespeople -- get a free ride?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[The Snowman]

That's because you bought it out of the road-use pump. I don't know if you can actually get non-road gasoline, but I'm sure that farmers use non-road diesel. It has a different color dye, red I think, and you get fined if you use it in your road vehicles.

I was not aware of non-road use pumps. I guess living in a city will do that. Makes sense, though. But for as much gasoline as my yard tools take, the taxes are probably miniscule when amortized over the months that one gas can will last.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[ABCC]

Over many months the fuel may evaporate, but the taxes are paid up front. Hence, they are certainly exactly the same as the % you pay for using the same fuel in a car vs a mower.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[X10]

Tax the fuel. It's not just Oregonians that use the road.

In Holland, they already tax the fuel, with some 200%, which makes fuel here 4 times more expensive than in the US. The new system will tax you on top of that. It will replace the road tax that we now pay, which is about $80 a month for small cars, going up to a few hundred a month for bigger cars. And they tax you when you buy the car, with 45%.

They want us to use public transport. But the capacity of pt is such that if 10% of people take pt instead of the car, public transport would grind to a halt. Also, they don't take into account that for some people pt is not an option. I don't live near a train station, pt more than doubles my travel to work time. So probably I should move. But then, they tax you for moving also. I wonder what idiots voted for a government like this. Oh, it's democracy. Oh well...

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[riverat1]

That's because you just go down to the local gas station to buy it. On my uncles farm there were two 500 gallon gas tanks, one for the vehicles used on the road and one for the farm equipment not subject to the tax. I imagine if you really wanted to you could get untaxed gasoline for your mower and trimmer but the hassle probably wouldn't be worth the effort for the small amounts of fuel you use in them.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[CrashandDie]

10km in under 10 minutes?

Let's see. That's over 1km per minute, or over 60km/h?

I'm an avid biker (motorised and not), but damn, those are quick legs.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

"Who cares if there is no gas revenue for electric cars. It's not like they are actually harmful to anything."

Because they are powered by coal? Don't get me wrong I think electric cars are better but "harmless"? Um... fuck no. Once again we would get a lot more bang from our buck burning the gas in a 90% efficient gas turbine then transporting and implementing it is electrons.

Also wear and tear. Friction is a bitch and degrades roads, even in small cars. Not to mention the manufacturing process.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

Massive savings in infrastructure spending.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

There are also bacteria that eat diesel and lower its store energy.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[nospam007]

One of my cars is electric, the other uses vegetable oil.
I don't pay fuel tax.
That's sort of the point of this measure.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[wagnerrp]

The fuel tax is intended as a way to pay for road repair. I'm saying the standard ton and a half consumer electric vehicle is practically harmless to primary roads and highways. Sure there is friction, but an asphalt road versus a soft rubber tire, the road wins. Nearly all the wear and tear on roads is from weather effects, and heavy trucks.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

The cost benefit ratio for people just getting in a car by themselves and being single car commuters is still to low. Change that equation far enough through traffic, costs, or incentives and maybe they will walk a block and then get on a bus or ride a bike, Just those two things would probably save the US billions in health care alone.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

It is not fair if you drive off road. I pay to maintain my roads on my tree farm; it is expensive. I can't get the fucking bureaucracies in the state government to do their jobs and update their maps when I build new ones or repair existing ones which has permitting effects. I know this is a rare activity but it exists.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Nick Ives]

Actually, the main reason why CCTV doesn't have much of an effect on conviction rates is because the police can't be bothered going through the footage.

For high profile cases like the recent riots they'll make the effort.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

If you tax by odometer than Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman are well and truly fucked.

http://longwayround.com/

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

In Oregon what about studded tires?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[F34nor]

Yeah right Koch Brothers Troll. Right now Social Security taxes and bond sales to the Chinese and Arabs pay for the highway system. Put a weight mile tax with a multiplier for studded tires and single occupancy on every car, truck and bus and then divide the total cost of the roads and apply it evenly. I am sure you would shit a brick and what it really costs to drive.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[nospam007]

This works automatically for _all_ the cities, towns, villages, subs, residential areas, no additional costs for them.
They can tax all hours they want, make historic centers prohibitively expensive, just as driving through residential areas when you don't live there as well as around hospitals, schools, retirement homes and whatnot.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Eskarel]

Thing is nuclear isn't being phased out anywhere. The Germans and a few other countries are pretending that they're phasing out nuclear and focusing more on renewables, but the reality is that they can and do import a lot of their baseload power from France which is very heavily into nuclear power, so the Germans will still have coal and nuclear they just won't have it locally which works I suppose in Europe where distances are short, but if anything went really wrong, they're close enough to still be screwed so it's rather pointless.

The other factor is the fact that, while I know almost nothing about German politics, I'll bet dollars to donuts that Merkel will be out on her ear before too long simply because the German government doesn't have any choice but to keep bailing out southern European countries and there will be electoral hell to pay for it eventually so the "pretend commitment" may not last long enough to actually phase out a single plant.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[nospam007]

"That would be why we have annual inspections."

People with illegally wide tires or other 'additions' already change them for the inspection, it takes 10 minutes.
I know people who use the same set of tires to get all their family's cars through inspection.
If it costs money everybody would do it.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[nospam007]

"but does nothing to combat lazy people who take their kids 1 mile each way to school in the SUV when they could just as easily walk."

Easy. If you don't live in a circle a mile around a schools, you pay 50€ a pop if you drive the little fattie to school.
Remember it doesn't cost a dime to implement such things, no cameras to be installed, no tech whatsoever.
Just a few entries in a database.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[rtb61]

Now to make it truly honestly fair. How about jobs for life so that you can lives within in working distance of your place of employment. Now when it comes to living close to the services and facilities of society, how about subsidising purchasing opportunities at those locations. Forcing the poor to live the greatest distance from services, facilities and places of employment and thus paying the highest transport taxes hardly seems fair.

It really seems that more, very large multifunction buildings are required, with retail at the lowest level, then offices and government services and finally residential. Buildings filling full city blocks with pedestrian bridge access from one building to another at the commercial levels.

Wont people to use cars less, then stop pretending it's a luxury full of super cars and chauffeur driven vehicles and a reality of taxing those who can least afford it, as the are pushed to the most undesirable living locations, often far from jobs, which they will likely lose anyhow.

Most people, given a real choice, would rather be able to walk to work, walk to the shops, walk to medical and other government services. Live in clean, "quite" and modern, relatively roomy accommodations, close to everything. Now make that possible and forget sticking it to the poor taxes.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[PPH]

What happens if they decide to use bicycles, rollerblades, motorcycles and public transport instead?

I wonder how much road wear a bus carrying four people causes compared to, say four Priuses (Prii)?

costs will be lower, as will revenues

Washington State is already running into this problem. Too many people driving efficient cars, not paying enough road tax. And more people riding the bus, which doesn't come close to paying for itself. So they tried (but gave up on) an 'efficient car surcharge'. And now they're squeezing car owners to pay for transit services with higher license tab fees.

Fuel taxes, tolls and mileage fees seek to modify behavior by encouraging people to use 'efficient' (i.e politically correct) transportation whenever possible. But licensing fees discourage people from having an alternative. Whether you drive a lot or not, you pay. So don't own it. Having a pickup truck around for the occasional trip to the hardware store becomes less attractive, no matter how little I use it.

Every one in Seattle needs to start making trips from the hardware store carrying sacks of fertilizer, concrete, or an armload of 2x4s on the bus.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[TheLink]

And add carousel time too... ;)

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[kwark]

Of course motorized. What helps is that the biggest part of the route is 70km/h or more and the interaction of traffic lights along the route isn't to horrible. During rush hour traffic can be horrible, by not working 9:00-17:00 but 10:00-18:00 my home-work related traveling time is almost half that of rush hour.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[roman_mir]

My home insurance is private, I am paying for private fire brigade, the cops are municipally founded and so my property tax pays for them, the schools are all private and they charge fees for road usage here, but then again, I am not in the United Socialist States of America.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[dr2chase]

Where can I find one of these 90% efficient gas turbines? Especially, one that is suitable for use in an automobile (hint: thermodynamics -- large immobile engines, we can at least do something useful with their waste heat).

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[dr2chase]

Must be this guy: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/speed.html

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[dr2chase]

I hope, perhaps with little foundation, that by the time e-cars are the majority vehicle, that we will also have reliable self-driving cars, and they would be more like robotic taxi-jitneys. You call for a ride from A to B, a car shows up, with some other people already in it, maybe you pick up another on the way, and get dropped off. Robo-cars sit idle during slack periods, more run during rush hour. Closer to point-to-point, less wear and tear on the roads, also more efficient because of the multiple passengers. That's what I'd hope, anyway.

I think the problem with roads, trucks, and cars, is that the trucks do the initial damage, but unless you (spend the money to) watch for new cracks, they'll get out of hand fast, and the first day it rains, cars finish the damage. And think of the money you can save by deferring road maintenance, eh? So it's not just trucks, unless you sign on to healthy spending on preventive road maintenance, and that's not fashionable nowadays.

Your other choice is to just ride a bike -- a cargo bike is plenty capable for most trips, doesn't necessarily need a road, and doesn't tear the road up, either (lighter than any car, the lower speed and narrower tires jet less water into cracks).

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[nukenerd]

Tax is not just for road repair, it is for all the expenses associated with the road system - signage, drainage, cleaning, furniture, hedge cutting, policing and so on. Also for the basic engineering - even if a bridge were to carry only small cars it would still cost money to build and maintain (like painting the steel), and a road for only small cars still needs a surface and the space to accomodate the vehicles. Ever thought of the road space in terms of land rental, especially in cities?

Even without the wear and tear of large trucks, roads will deteriorate naturally and still need maintaining. Ever seen a stretch of completely disused road and how it soon deteriorates, with subsidance and vegetation?

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Compared against the possibility of receiving a bill at the end of the year for my mileage, I'd rather pay the tax on the gas. At least that way, it's amortized over the whole year rather than a lump sum. Quite aside from that, cars that don't have NL plates still use the roads, and they wouldn't be taxed at all under the proposed system, which is hardly fair to the locals.

Yeah, all nice and that - but from most places in the Netherlands, you only have to drive a few dozen miles at most to a different country with cheaper fuel already. If you further jack up fuel price, even fewer people will pay those fuel taxes. And use more gas to do it.

Sometimes the simple and obvious solutions are too simple (for very large values of "some").

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[couchslug]

"Doesn't easily extend to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles."

Which is an additional incentive to USE those vehicles, which now comprise a trivial percentage of those on the road.

If you want people to use the least amount of fuel per mile, don't tax mileage, tax fuel choice to move them to preferred fuels.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[rubycodez]

prevent crime? no, the purpose is to have security theatre, a "database of dirt" on people, and to have footage for media to justify agendas. The camera system is working well.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Hognoxious]

That's because if the courts do as much as giving the criminal a stern look the Belgians (who think Europe is their empire) say it's against human rights and award them 98 million quid.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[CrashandDie]

More likely this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8H6fU9VNgQ

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Or just go back to using toll roads, which is where this whole conversation is going, anyway.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Lennie]

Well, in the article it said they would put a taxi-like-euro-counter on your dashboard so you could see the price of what you are doing.

It might have some affect* on some people.

* If I get that one wrong, sorry English is not my first language.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[bhtooefr]

No, there's such a thing as off-highway fuel meant for tractors, that no road tax is paid on. Other taxes may be paid on it, but not road tax.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[tombeard]

No. In the US, farm use diesel is not taxed. It is dyed (green I think) and your vehicle can be checked to see if that is what you are burning.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Zerth]

The 2 year. Because, unless its owner drove it 11+ hours a day at 65 mph every day of the year, it must be completely invisible to cops.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[tombeard]

Probably the 2 year old car. Engine internals, brakes, suspension, transmission can be refurbished for a lot less then rusted body parts, deteriorated plastics, rotted rubber, faded paint. The most expensive care parts are the custom bits, not the machinery.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[tombeard]

http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Xest]

Fundamentally, if you're talking about cycling then I actually agree with you- if you can cycle in, then you should do it. Just as if you can find usable public transport that gets you into work in a sensible time you should do it. But my point is this- what about all those essential workers who can't do either of these things? Society needs them, a healthy economy needs them, but road tax proposes just isolating them from economic centres- a frankly fucking stupid move. It's something that may work in small areas like London's congestion zones, but outside of that, as a nationwide thing does far far more harm than good, and lowers the cost for non-essential car users, and heightens the cost for essential car users.

Let me give you another example. What about the country vet? He'll have to travel a long long way to help sick farm animals. If he can't afford to do that, or boosts his prices to cover it so that farmers can't afford him, then the farming industry suffers and loses profits. Of course, they'll also be paying more to transport their produce into cities, so that'll become unaffordable, which means cities either do without, or prices of food rise yet again- far more than they have already.

I think you're focussing on far too narrow a situation- you're talking about how people who could use other methods should be charged road pricing and I agree with you on this. But you're completely ignoring the other half of society who can't use other methods. I don't mind inner city congestion zones for lazy people, but you shouldn't be charging this to essential workers who come from elsewhere, and have to cross the country. It'll only hurt your economy, and finally you've got the idea of subsidies the wrong way round. You genuinely think people who who have sought after, high end skills, and genuinely make a difference in companies because of those skills, and hence tend to get paid more, and help generate more revenue for the company- hence paying more out of their pay cheques in tax, and hence generating more corporate tax revenues, are being subsidised over the high school run moms who don't work, or work low paid/part time jobs and so pay little to no tax, but also in countries like the UK get tax credits, and also consume tax resources for schools etc.? Seriously? The people you're talking about taxing more are the sort of people that generate the tax revenues that allow for schools to be built and run in the first place.

One might equally take your idea- of realising costs, and building them into wages and such to suggest that people with kids should pay for their schools. I don't think it'd go down too well though - well, unless you're one of those free market extreme nutjobs.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[boaworm]

One of our most famous Swedish authors thought that 102 % income tax was too high, so she wrote a book on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[semi-extrinsic]

Just to clarify, I meant being "phased out" as in "not considered for new powerplants". No one in their right mind is building new nuclear plants in Europe now. But I do share you viewpoint that this will only last for as long as people still remember Fukushima, i.e. 2-3 years max.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Mindcontrolled]

Germany has been massively exporting power. Half of out nuclear capacity is basically unnecessary and used for export to the European Supergrid anyway. Why again should I have this shit in my backyard? Besides, as soon as the summer is a little warmer, the French are happily importing, because their crap-arse reactors ain't working with the low cooling water in the rivers. Great tech, there, dudes.

On the political side, yeah, I guess Merkel will be gone soon - but who would revoke the phasing out? The reds? They instated the plan originally, before the CDU, busy as always gobbling down industrial cock, revoked it later and then, just this year, did a 180 on that.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[cduffy]

Before going in here, let me circle back and highlight -- my arguments are predicated on the taxes in question being effectively calculated to internalize externalities. If this assertion is not accurate, I don't assert that they hold.

Let me give you another example. What about the country vet? He'll have to travel a long long way to help sick farm animals. If he can't afford to do that, or boosts his prices to cover it so that farmers can't afford him, then the farming industry suffers and loses profits. Of course, they'll also be paying more to transport their produce into cities, so that'll become unaffordable, which means cities either do without, or prices of food rise yet again- far more than they have already.

My argument is that implicit subsidies -- in which the cost to repair roads is hidden behind takes shared by all -- be replaced with either (1) market forces, or (2) explicit subsidies. If the market won't bear the county vet's prices accurately reflecting his costs, well -- that means that something about the system is needlessly inefficient. One way or another, however, the costs are borne by society -- it's a question of whether that happens through food prices, through general-fund taxes to pay for the roads, or through an explicit subsidy recognizing the county vet as a special case (and, thereby, making it clear and obvious to others that that subsidy is taking place, rather than having it be hidden and implicit).

You genuinely think people who who have sought after, high end skills, and genuinely make a difference in companies because of those skills, and hence tend to get paid more, and help generate more revenue for the company- hence paying more out of their pay cheques in tax, and hence generating more corporate tax revenues, are being subsidised over the high school run moms who don't work, or work low paid/part time jobs and so pay little to no tax, but also in countries like the UK get tax credits, and also consume tax resources for schools etc.? Seriously? The people you're talking about taxing more are the sort of people that generate the tax revenues that allow for schools to be built and run in the first place.

I'm not talking about whether an individual is receiving a net subsidy or a net outflow, but rather about whether the taxes and subsidies surrounding this specific aspect of their lives -- transportation -- is encouraging them to make economic decisions which accurately reflect the true costs and benefits of the choices they make. If having subsidized highways makes it appear cheaper to live in the suburbs, when having true costs exposed would reduce the total cost to society for that person to live in the urban core, how does it help anyone to distort the market in such a way as to encourage decisions which lead to higher total costs?

The goal isn't to punish anyone, but to have true costs visible, with externalities pushed back in, such that the actions in an individual's economic self-interest are also in the economic self-interest of society as a whole.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[Stormthirst]

In the UK, the speed limit on the motorways is 70 mph. In practise that means most people drive at 80-90 mph.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[WorBlux]

Trucks and heavy equipment. When a road is engineered for 40,000 pounds, 2-3 thousand doesn't to much to it. For roads other than highways, your biggest enemy is just time and weathering.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[swilver]

Once you own car, you are gonna use it. Make owning a car cheaper and congestion will only get worse.

And it is all based on the faulty assumption that people enjoy rushhour traffic and could easily avoid it.

Re:This was proposed in Oregon

[el_gordo101]

I believe he means fuel for non-over-road use such as farm equipment (tractors, harvesters, etc.) Wikipedia link.

Fuel tax?

[Nick Fel]

Isn't this much easier to achieve -- albeit with less accuracy -- via fuel tax? Every time the government here proposes a mileage tax, I can't help but think we already have one. Added benefit of encouraging people to drive more efficient cars.

Re:Fuel tax?

[petes_PoV]

Yes, fuel tax already does that. However it doesn't differentiate between "good" mileage (the lorries that transport food/goods around) and the "bad" mileage such as driving little Johnny a quarter of a mile to school in the 4x4 every day (and then back again, later).

This system also allows governments to adjust the tax paid by different groups according to their revenue-raising targets/public opinion/congestion reduction needs, in the same way they can target other groups with income and Value Added taxes.

Though you've got to wonder what the effect of one individual with a GPS jammer in a city centre at rush-hour would be?

Re:Fuel tax?

[sosume]

With neighbouring countires a hundred kilometers away for many, it would be rather rewarding to get cheap gasoline just across the border.

Re:Fuel tax?

[Bram Stolk]

Remember that the Netherlands has a tiny area.
This means that pretty much everyone lives close to the Belgium or German border.
Dutch taxes on fuel are currently already extremely high.
But that high tax rate is easily avoided by filling up at the border.

Re:Fuel tax?

[drginge]

While placing the tax on fuel would seem like the obvious answer, the high cost of gas in Europe (equivalent of over $8 a gallon) is already a political headache, and any government which proposed to add more tax to an already heavily taxed commodity would soon find themselves very unpopular. People like the idea of being environmentally friendly, being fuel efficient etc, but they love the personal freedom and liberty that cars give them - what they want is a cheaper, more environmentally friendly method of getting around without a loss in what they see as their basic rights.

Re:Fuel tax?

[JackDW]

Yes, and this can't replace the fuel tax, because if it did, The Netherlands would have the cheapest fuel in Europe. Drivers in neighbouring countries would drive there to refuel. There's no border checkpoint. So it would need to be an additional tax on top of the fuel tax.

The article quotes someone as saying: âoeTo do it you need support of the government, and it needs to happen when there is not an election because thereâ(TM)s always a bit of resistance.â

Most likely a lot of resistance. The only thing people hate more than being taxed is being taxed twice. And when the "meter also factors in the cost to society in the form of pollution, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and wear and tear on roads", people are inevitably going to wonder if these costs are being calculated in a fair and reasonable way.

Re:Fuel tax?

[Opportunist]

Ours does. Fuel for transport vehicles can be claimed against tax and you get (part of) the fuel tax back.

Re:Fuel tax?

[iamhassi]

Though you've got to wonder what the effect of one individual with a GPS jammer in a city centre at rush-hour would be?

^---- This.

Right now you don't have a choice, if you buy gasoline you pay the tax, but as soon as the government puts the monitoring system in the hands of the people there will be people that will attempt to disable it somehow, and given how poor GPS works in my vehicle and smartphone I'm thinking it won't be too difficult to circumvent.

Re:Fuel tax?

[ComaVN]

The difference in gas prices between german/belgian petrol stations along the border and cheap, unmanned gasstations inside the country is so small it hardly pays to make a 10km detour for it, let alone the 100km+ distance most inhabitants would need to drive.

Re:Fuel tax?

[ooloogi]

Is there "good" and "bad" mileage? If it's about road wear, then pavement damage goes with something like the cube or more of weight, so the truck is likely to do more road damage per litre of fuel used than little Johnny's car. If it's about traffic congestion, trucks also slow traffic flow. If it's about CO2 emissions, then emitting 1kg of CO2 from the car taking Johnny to school worse than causing 1kg of CO2 to be emitted from getting stuff delivered?

Re:Fuel tax?

[iamhassi]

100km = 60 miles, unless the gas is significantly cheaper it's not worth spending a few gallons of gas to save 10 cents a gallon.

A neighboring state to me has gas that is about 20 cents more per gallon than where I live because of taxes. If you're within 10 miles of the border it makes sense to come here to fill-up, since 20 miles roundtrip is ~1 gallon of gas and would save about $4.00 in a 20 gallon tank (20 gal * 20 cents = $4).

Re:Fuel tax?

[adamofgreyskull]

"Good" and "bad" in what respect? Wear on the roads? Congestion? Pollution?

Re:Fuel tax?

[lucidlyTwisted]

Mod parent up!

Indeed. Not only does it let people manage how much they are taxed directly (drive less, more efficiently, buy a more efficient vehicle....) it also does not required € billions in Orwellian state control mechanisms.

Re:Fuel tax?

[zakkie]

It's not less accurate, it's completely correct. Fuel-based taxation is the perfect solution, and every country I'm aware of already taxes fuel heavily. To add another tax on top of it is either really ignorant (unlikely) or an attempt by the powers that be to further and unfairly lighten the wallets of their citizenry, wrapped up in an "environmentally-conscious" sugar coating. Fighting this unfair tax would now mean that you're an anti-environment reactionary doing the bidding of the dirty oil companies.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xnpu]

The promise is that the amount money flowing to the government remains the same as it is now (or does not increase more that it would without the system). Supposedly people who already drive less will end up paying less tax, while long distance/frequent drivers will end up paying more.

Of course we all know these promises are rarely kept.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

Fuel taxes do a poor job of correcting the externality because they don't accurately reflect the costs you impose on others when you drive. Those costs come from accident risk (minus what you pay for insurance), noise, local pollution, global pollution, damage to buildings, roads and crops, policing, congestion and the worsening of the physical environment, especially in cities. The size of those depends on:

• - When you drive (congestion, accident risk and night time noise)
• - Where you drive (almost all of the above; remember that local pollution and noise in cities affects more people)
• - Which particular roads you choose - do you cut through the residential streets, for example
• - What car you drive (a modern car the uses the same amount of fuel as an old car may still emit fewer pollutants this causing fewer health problems and less damage to crops and buildings, may have a lower accident risk and may be quieter)
• - How you drive (accident risk, noise, your effect on congestion and pollution)
• - How heavy your vehicle is (damage to roads especially, but maybe some sensitive or historic buildings, too, from vibrations)

eg, IIRC, there are several cities where the number of early deaths from traffic pollution is larger than the number from accidents. Also IIRC, there was a study in the Netherlands about the costs of traffic that put local and global pollution costs about equal on average, but of course not for any given journey. That's the sort of thing you can't capture with a fuel tax because of the effect of population density.

Re:Fuel tax?

[AmiMoJo]

I know a guy who used to un-plug the wire connected to the speedometer so that the mileage counter didn't increment when he went on long trips. I can imagine people unplugging the antenna of their GPS. Jammers are available but the GPS signal is so weak anyway that you could probably sabotage it without needing to keep something that would act as evidence in court in your car.

Your example of commercial haulage being "good" mileage is interesting. We need to get as much of that traffic off the roads as possible and higher taxation is not the way to do it. There has to be a better option available, which usually means rail. In the UK we destroyed much of our rail infrastructure in the 60s because we were doing it wrong and rather than do it right it was simply abandoned.

Re:Fuel tax?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Why yes. The current petrol tax in NL is close to €1/l... I say we certainly have road pricing here already. But from the government's perspective, a fuel tax has one glaring flaw: it can only go so high before even people in the south-west of the country will consider driving to Belgium for gas, driving gas stations near the borders completely out of business.

Now with a scheme that actually lets you charge by the km, the sky is the limit. Great for milking people with no viable alternative to commute, for all they're worth. People don't sit around in traffic jams for fun; even in a country like the Netherlands with its dense and well operated public transport network, cars are still the better alternative by far, even with traffic jams. It's nice for government to be able to tax those people selectively; like putting a high tax on basic necessities so people have no choice to pay, but in this case there's the advantage of being able to sell it as "more fair" and "green".

You can also come up with weird pricing schemes; an old favourite of cell phone providers. Charge for this bit of road, lower the price on that one, fiddle with the car and petrol tax a little, and claim that it's all good, claim that perhaps some will pay more but most will pay less, and the tax burden will remain the same (actual statement from the previous minister of transportation). Except that it won't, of course. And it's not like the current tax does not bring in enough. Road tax, petrol tax and the 45% tax on new cars already pay for the roads and public transport subsidies 3 times over.

For those wondering about GPS jammers and the like: that's covered. There are enough roadside cameras to do a little licence plate recognition. If they spot you on a priced road but don't have a matching GPS signal, they'll send you the bill anyway. If this happens too often, it'll be a fine.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

Yes, fuel tax already does that. However it doesn't differentiate between "good" mileage (the lorries that transport food/goods around) and the "bad" mileage such as driving little Johnny a quarter of a mile to school in the 4x4 every day (and then back again, later).

That's very kind of you to decide whats good and bad to save everyone else the bother. We already have a mechanism to distinguish these: do you value it enough to be prepared to pay the market price? If you can get the market price equal to the cost to society by taxing based on pollution, congestion and so on, why do you need to intervene to crudely categorize 'good' and 'bad' uses? If you're worried about the effect on poorer people then you should instead worry about misallocation of income, not cause deliberate mispricing.

Mispricing caused by you making an exception for food will distort certain decisions, such as:

• - Do I transport food to my supermarkets at 9am, or be more careful to stick 3am and 2pm, letting my staff sit idle for an hour or two if I have to? If it costs sufficiently more I may avoid busy times more.
• - How many warehouses do I use and where do I put them? If transport costs more relative to storage I may use more storage facilities in order to drive fewer miles.
• - What size of vehicle do I use and how many stops does it make? A large vehicle making many stops may cause more damage to roads or more pollution, but cost less in driver time. Increasing the cost of a ton-mile relative to staff time will change that equation.
• - Which route do I choose? Do I avoid densely populated areas at the expense of more time and fuel use?
• - How much extra am I prepared to pay for a quieter vehicle, or a safer vehicle, or one which damages the road less?

Getting the road pricing right will mean each retailer will try to balance these for themselves. Large retailers are generally pretty good at making these decisions, IF they have the right incentives.

Re:Fuel tax?

[MrL0G1C]

There's no such thing as 'good mileage' those goods vehicles spit out pollution and wear out the roads. Longer miles means more vehicle wear which leads to more environmentally destructive vehicle repair. And the 'goods' which are not food - how much of those are produced in an 100% environmentally friendly manner - practically none.

Taxing fuel encourages the use of local food produce and lessens the need for road repairs.

Good point about the GPS jammer, I bet those could be put together for a pittance and hidden where they would take hours or ays to find.

I live in the UK and fully support the fuel tax. I also cycle everywhere within 10-20 miles.

Re:Fuel tax?

[Arlet]

That would be impossible, because the system itself needs to be paid too. There will be billions spent on development, hardware and maintenance.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

The purpose of taxation should be the same as the purpose for which any other government action should be done: to raise the welfare of its citizens. Taxes change economic decisions. If cauliflowers are taxed more than cabbages I may choose cabbages over cauliflowers even if it's better for both me and the farmer if I didn't. All taxes do this; but some do it more than others.

But some economic decisions are already distorted. Taxes (sometimes subsidies) can distort them back the other way. eg, if I drive a car a damage others. If the price I pay reflects only the cost to my car/fuel suppliers then we'll all drive too much in the sense that on average we'd all benefit if we all drove less, even though none of us individually would benefit from driving less individually. A tax may correct that decision, ideally by charging us exactly as much as we cost others when we drive....then when we decide whether to drive our decision is based on 'benefit to me' vs 'cost of creating car and fuel' + 'cost to third parties of me driving'.

If there are unexploited opportunities to levy such taxes then it doesn't make economic sense to be increasing VAT. Why not reduce VAT or income tax and raise the revenue through road pricing, electricity and gas taxes, air travel and so on? Mainly it's because it's politically impossible because of international treaties and because for some reason people scream about road taxes more than they do about paying the same via income taxes. And so we end up with taxes that don't fulfill their purpose as well as they could...[sigh]

Re:Fuel tax?

[realityimpaired]

Isn't this much easier to achieve -- albeit with less accuracy -- via fuel tax? Every time the government here proposes a mileage tax, I can't help but think we already have one. Added benefit of encouraging people to drive more efficient cars.

That's easier in a larger country. If you're living somewhere that the nearest drive to a different tax structure is 10 hours away, or a ferry ride away, or even a toll crossing away, then you can set your prices appropriately. If you're living somewhere that it's a two-hour drive at most to a different country with a different tax structure, then it becomes more difficult to raise revenues by raising the fuel tax. Especially when there's no toll, and where you don't even need a passport to cross over into that different tax structure.

Even here in Canada, where the fuel prices are much more homogeneous, I still see people from Quebec coming over to Ontario to fill up on gas, because it's usually cheaper on the Ontario side. I also see people crossing from Ontario to Quebec to fill up after a large spike in price, because Quebec is usually slower to react to price hikes like that. People will drive an extra half hour for gas to save $0.03/L... now imagine how far they'll drive to save $0.75 or more per L due to big differences in tax rate.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

A modern car uses the same amount of fuel as an old car? Really?

No, of course not for comparable cars. But I'm sure you could find an old small low-powered car that uses the same amount as a large new high-powered car. The old one may still have a higher accident risk, produce more local pollution (particulates, NOx, etc.) and produce more noise.

And a heavier one uses the same as a light car?

The same applies. You can find heavy cars that use less fuel than light sports cars, for example.

The fuel tax already takes into account congestion, weight, and age.

It does so badly. My fuel is taxed just as much if I drive at 2am in a rural area as at 9am in a city. Possibly not at all if its an electric car. Weight and age are irrelevant, it's road damage, pollution and so on that are important. Weight and road damage may be closely correlated, but damage from pollution is not.

Highway miles are more efficient.

Yes, but they're just as efficient if the highway is in a built up area as they are in a rural area. The damage is different.

Newer cars are more efficient. Lighter cars are more efficient. The cars that do the 'bad driving' have worse mileage, the conditions that are 'bad' have the worse mileage. Don't you know how cars WORK?

Just because there is SOME correlation between fuel use and the damage you do to others doesn't mean there's GOOD correlation. Fuel use and levels of local pollution are not perfectly correlated. Level of damage caused by a given amount of local pollution and level of fuel use are not correlated at all. Level of noise is not perfectly correlated to fuel use - an old, badly designed or moronically modified car may produce more noise for a given amount of fuel. Damage caused by a given level of noise depends on location and time, which is not correlated at all with fuel use. Contribution to congestion is probably quite badly correlated (because it depends so much on time and location and not at all on the efficiency of your engine). Accident risk and fuel use are not likely to be well correlated.

Given that the goal is to reduce the amount of damage drivers do to others beyond the benefits of the driving it's important to get the correlation as good as possible to make those decisions as good as possible. The differential cost of driving a highly polluting car in a city vs the countryside might mean that the current stock of highly polluting cars moves more to rural areas. Heavy vehicles may take different routes, deliveries may happen at different times, warehouses and factories may be built in different areas, etc. A fuel tax alone can't create enough of a price differential between such different decision to affect them sufficiently.

Re:Fuel tax?

[richg74]

The idea of a mileage tax comes up fairly regularly. It's never been clear to me that it would be any more effective at reducing travel by car, pollution, etc., than an increase in the fuel tax. And the technology to implement a mileage tax (basically, an in-car GPS receiver and telemetry device) raises some significant privacy concerns. Some might argue that all-electric vehicles should not escape paying taxes; but going to a carbon tax would address that.

I wrote a longer blog post on this back in 2009: http://richg74.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/gas-v-mileage-tax/

Re:Fuel tax?

[russotto]

Yes, fuel tax already does that. However it doesn't differentiate between "good" mileage (the lorries that transport food/goods around) and the "bad" mileage such as driving little Johnny a quarter of a mile to school in the 4x4 every day (and then back again, later).

That is a feature and not a bug. A Bureau of Motor Vehicle Virtue and Vice using a "complex rating system" to determine what driving is virtuous and can be taxed lightly, and what driving is sinful and should be taxed punitively, is neither necessary nor desirable.

Re:Fuel tax?

[petes_PoV]

whats good and bad to save everyone else the bother

I don't have to decide - it already happens, all the time. For example road tax (the additional tax paid for the "privilege" of using the roads) is not linked to the amount of damage that a vehicle does. So 40 ton lorries that cause many thousands of times more wear to the roads than a small family car do not pay their share of the bill - they are subsidised by the "bad" vehicles (or the ones who aren't prepared to cause disruption and protests) who pay proportionately more.

Re:Fuel tax?

[japa]

Isn't this much easier to achieve -- albeit with less accuracy -- via fuel tax? Every time the government here proposes a mileage tax, I can't help but think we already have one. Added benefit of encouraging people to drive more efficient cars.

Yes, but it's too simple a solution. There will be no hi-tech companies with their (gps) solutions that are trying to get their solution as the mandatory one. ie. No-one to offer nice "gifts" to the law makers to help them make the right decision etc...

Re:Fuel tax?

[Grishnakh]

However it doesn't differentiate between "good" mileage (the lorries that transport food/goods around) and the "bad" mileage such as driving little Johnny a quarter of a mile to school in the 4x4 every day (and then back again, later).

Wrong (in the USA). SUVs, 4x4s etc used for personal transportation use something called "gasoline" (what you call "petrol") in the vast majority of such vehicles, as do 99.9% of cars. Trucks (what you call "lorries") which transport goods and food use something called "diesel". The two are taxed at different rates.

In addition to that, there's separate taxes that trucks pay in each state that they pass through; if you're in America, look at the left side of a tractor-trailer's tractor part when you're on the highway, and you'll see a bunch of small stickers. Those are the tax stickers for each state it might drive through. But as the other poster said, the trucking companies get back the fuel taxes they pay, in exchange for paying these usage taxes. Commercial trucks are government regulated and have to keep logs of where they went and their mileage, and are taxed based on this information.

Though you've got to wonder what the effect of one individual with a GPS jammer in a city centre at rush-hour would be?

Which is exactly why this scheme should be abandoned. I for one would be happy to set up a GPS jammer just to screw with such a big-brother scheme if any governments here tried it.

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

Oh, road tax is pretty much useless as a corrector of externalities (although 40 ton lorries DO pay quite a lot more). I suspect we agree that the Dutch idea would be a much better tax than either fuel or road taxes from that point of view. I presume the only reason why road tax exists is because governments realized that if you have to go through a procedure to maintain your car's registration they might as well charge you for it. All I disagree with is that anyone could be competent to divide car use in to good and bad....tax it in accordance with the damage it does to third parties and let individuals decide if their intended use is worth what they have to pay.

Re:Fuel tax?

[toddestan]

If you're on salary the extra half hour in the office will net you exactly $0.

Re:Fuel tax?

[wvmarle]

Reality calling.

That price advantage was 10 years ago, or more.

And most people in NL live at least some 50 km from one of the borders: most of the border areas are pretty thinly populated. And a 100 km detour has never been worth it.

Some weeks ago I've driven extensively in NL and DE and found fuel prices to be virtually the same. Differences between gas stations within one country (easily 5 cents per liter) are bigger than the differences between the countries (1-2 cents per liter). On a price of about E 1,60/l for standard Euro95 fuel.

Re:Fuel tax?

[wvmarle]

Part of the idea is similar to London's congestion charge. You pay extra if you want to use busy roads at busy times. It's also far from new, it's been on and off subject of discussion for well over a decade. Now probably finally the tech is there to make it technically possible to begin with.

Re:Fuel tax?

[ChrisMP1]

And if you don't want to? I go to PA for gas all the time (southern upstate NY), and I'd much rather a nice drive than time in the office. In fact, I might be willing to pay more for the long drive than what I'd earn in the office. A sort of luxury cost, if you will. Because it's much nicer.

Re:Fuel tax?

[thegarbz]

It's a mental problem. I work for an oil refinery in a country where tax makes up more than half the cost of fuel at the pump. People complain to me about the price of petrol and when I ask them how much they think petrol should cost I often hear a response that is less than what the government makes on every litre. Yet the cost of registration has increased 3 fold over the last 5 years and no one blinks an eye. They complain bitterly for about 30seconds once a year and get back to complaining about the petrol.

A government that drastically increases taxes on petrol is likely to fight an uphill battle against their opposition at the next election, and that's the only reason why an insane tax on fuel is likely to not happen too easily.

Re:Fuel tax?

[iamhassi]

All-electric vehicles pay taxes on the electricity, and it will be many years before everyone is driving all electric vehicles. Honestly I don't think we will ever be all-electric, I think electric with a gas-electric generator will be the preferable option, at least until they can fit ~50 miles of electricity into a 2 gallon gas can

Re:Fuel tax?

[tragedy]

Of course, 1000 miles of driving an SUV doesn't do as much road damage as 1 mile driven by a large truck.

Re:Fuel tax?

[that_xmas]

You mean little Johnny in the motorized wheel chair? You mean he'll be perfectly fine traveling down the road on his own?

Re:Fuel tax?

[xelah]

So then give tax exemptions or rebates to people who own a certain type of car.

Doesn't work well enough. For example, a noisy and locally-polluting car driven occasionally in rural areas causes less damage than if it were driven frequently in cities. Differentially taxing these two cases will help push those cars out of cities and in to rural areas. Differential harm has to be reflected in differential pricing to affect decision making and fixed taxes/rebates on certain kinds of car are too crude to pick up those differences.

Congestion charging.

That works for one particular kind of harm, to a point. It tends to cover a fixed area, for example, and will often only charge you once for being in it, no matter how much you drive there. The suggested Dutch system can incorporate it - indeed, improve on it - whilst simultaneously providing an infrastructure to vary the tax with other kinds of harm, too.

Tax insurance premiums.

Again, that doesn't work. A fixed insurance premium tax doesn't differentiate between levels of harm caused by drivers. A proportionate one taxes someone who's car is expensive because it's a quiet, efficient and safe modern hybrid as much as someone who's car (or insurance) is expensive because it's designed to go fast. Insurance premiums aren't well correlated with externalities - the level of harm you're causing to others for which you're not already paying - because they include internal costs as well.

Re:Fuel tax?

[thecounterweight]

Suppose mathematically, we can get a fuel tax to add the same cost as the fee per mile proposed here. Remember that most people are idiots. The problem is that most people, despite being charged the exact same cost via these two methods, will view these two costs differently. If you simply raise gas prices via a fuel tax, then it doesn't register in their brains that "if I drive less I'll pay less"; they just assume "big oil is fcking me again and I can't do anything about it - I must continue my normal routine!". However, if you put a taxi-like meter in their cars and they see that as they drive they accrue a cost, but when they do not drive there is no such cost, it might *click*. If people really view gas prices as a cost per each mile instead of an unchangeable cost to do their normal routine, maybe they'll start walking to the nearest corner store.

Re:Fuel tax?

[CtownNighrider]

Rail is great for really long distance, heavy stuff, but some of the stuff trucks ship probably wouldn't go great on rail without completely moving buildings. My dad runs a small trucking company and ships mostly stuff for the post office. Think TV guide and People magazine. He takes it from the printer (which does have rail lines going in for the fucking massive rolls of paper it uses) in upstate NY and then drives it to places like Boston and NYC delivering it right to the post office. I don't think it would be economical to put all of that on rail. Sure maybe part of that trip could be moved to rail and then the post office would send straightjobs to pick up their share of the load but that would be a big change.

Re:Fuel tax?

[niftymitch]

I know a guy ...snip...
  Jammers are available but the GPS signal is so weak anyway that you could probably sabotage it without needing to keep something that would act as evidence in court in your car.

...snip...

Something like a tin foil hat over the antenna?
Perhaps with magnetic attachments and even a solar
panel to power something....

Re:Fuel tax?

[CtownNighrider]

And the people driving those "bad cars" are benefiting from whatever good is being delivered.

Re:Fuel tax?

[Meski]

It's not perfect, a fuel tax takes no note of *when* you drive. The proposed scheme here could do that. Whether you care to decongest roads by making it more expensive to drive in peak hours is another matter.

Re:Fuel tax?

[michelcolman]

The Netherlands are not in the USA, though. Roughly half the cars in Europe are diesels.

Re:Fuel tax?

[Grishnakh]

That's easy enough to solve with the second method I described: separate mileage taxes on commercial trucks (based on their driving logs), while allowing them to get a refund for all the fuel taxes they pay.

Movement won't be a reliable measure

[LoadWB]

Putting an environmental impact fee (tax) on fuel would be a more reliable compensation for your impact than GPS. If I sit idling in my car for a few hours I can burn an entire tank of gas without moving an inch.

For what will the GPS tracking *really* be used?

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[fearlezz]

Indeed. The car's location will be known to the authorities 24x7. Combine that with the fact that all your movements with public transportation are soon tracked with the chip-card, and it means that the government knows where you are any time of the day unless you're walking.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[lucidlyTwisted]

"The car's location will be known to the authorities 24x7."
It pretty much is. Not heard of the ANPR cameras and never wondered why license plated have an RFID chip in them?

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[xnpu]

It's not about the environment. Not sure why that was thrown in. It's more about traffic management, e.g. if you drive outside of rush hours you will be less than during rush hour. Also KM's within congested areas will be more costly than elsewhere.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Arlet]

There's already a penalty for driving in rush hour: you sit in slow traffic. People who can avoid it, will already do so.

This system adds a ton of complexity and costly overhead, while not providing much improvement over the current situation.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Phleg]

That penalty is nowhere near enough. It's the tragedy of the commons: each additional car on the roads during rush hour might cost the rest of the area hundreds of dollars in externalities. That's why there's been so many attempts at finding ways to manage congestion pricing. By tailoring the price to discourage use when demand is high and encourage use when demand is low, you can dramatically reduce the amount of congestion at peak use.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[ildon]

For what will the GPS tracking *really* be used?

To ensure their steady stream of tax revenue for road maintenance and other uses as people move to hybrid/electric cars.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[whiteboy86]

Tax on fuel is maxed out in Netherlands we pay 1.5-1.8 Euro per liter -- about $7 per US gallon already, therefore and not surprisingly other means of taxing have to be invented along with other needs like the mentioned tracking of speeding violators etc.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Ichijo]

Putting an environmental impact fee (tax) on fuel would be a more reliable compensation for your impact than GPS.

Actually, the gas tax only covers your emissions. It doesn't cover your impact on traffic congestion, which is higher when the road is congested or approaching it; it doesn't cover wear and tear on the roads, which is proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle (the gas tax is only proportional to the first power of the weight of the vehicle); and it doesn't correct for the fact that bridges are much more expensive to construct and maintain than at-grade roads in rural areas.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[superwiz]

Which begs the question "why not simply go by the odometer reading?" I am not sure about Holland, but in the US cars have to be inspected every year or two (depending on the state) and odometer reading can be recorded at such time. Why not use it as a measure of how much the car was used?

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[russotto]

Actually, the gas tax only covers your emissions. It doesn't cover your impact on traffic congestion, which is higher when the road is congested or approaching it;

Drivers already bear the cost of traffic congestion.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't want your 12 year-old son, who just witnessed a murder, to testify in court where he will be abused by the defense attorney? Well I guess we could just let everyone know you drove to that adult store 3 weeks ago... Oh and what's that? A strip-club 4 years ago? Guess we can leak that too"

"You don't want to sell your house so we can build a new road? Well, do you want people to know where you've been 3 days ago? We can make that happen".

"Yes sir, I'll gladly tell you where your employees go on their private time in exchange for some money. Of course that will have to be our little secret..."

"Well Doctor, you can either tell us about your patient or we can tell your wife about that affair you're having..."

"The government has decided that in order to raise money to fix the damages caused by the riots, all people who had their vehicles downtown will be automatically considered as rioters and will have to pay $10000 each. We don't care about your explanations, your car was there, you're a rioter"

"We noticed you did not drive your child to school today. Attending school is mandatory, why wasn't your son at school? Should we call child services?"

"You've been driving to all the monuments of our city this week. Maybe you're just a tourist, but maybe you're a terrorist. We need to investigate".

"Now, you either let us look in your computer where you keep plenty of personal and sensitive information, or during our next press conference about this case we mention that you have been driving in front of a school everyday. Yes, we know that school is just around the corner and you can't help but drive in front of it every time you go shopping, but we'll forget to mention that last detail."

Really, what could go wrong?

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Arlet]

By tailoring the price to discourage use when demand is high and encourage use when demand is low, you can dramatically reduce the amount of congestion at peak use

So, where is all that traffic going instead ? The problem is that people don't have a whole lot of options in the first place, otherwise they would have already chosen to avoid rush hour.

And where do you get your hundreds of dollars of cost per additional car ? Sounds like a lot to me.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Paradise Pete]

Which begs the question[sic] "why not simply go by the odometer reading?"

That only tells raw distance. They want to include the the time of day and the location. Downtown during rush hour is much worse that either downtown at night or the countryside during rush hour.

(also, it raises the question, not begs it. That means something else.)

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Ichijo]

Drivers already bear the cost of traffic congestion.

But not in proportion to the amount of traffic congestion each driver causes.

We can permanently eliminate traffic congestion by allowing supply and demand to settle on the equilibrium price of travel. This would save us all a LOT of money that would otherwise be needed to expand freeways just to relieve traffic congestion.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[complete loony]

Much, much simpler solution, and probably just as simple to fake; require submission of your odometer reading when you renew your registration.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[zippthorne]

That depends on how often you drive through tunnels.

I suspect there will be Dutch geeks whose entire commute is, apparently, through a tunnel....

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[horigath]

Well, about 30% of commuters in the Netherlands primarily travel by bicycle. So they've got a ways to go yet if tracking is the real goal.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[russotto]

Drivers already bear the cost of traffic congestion.

But not in proportion to the amount of traffic congestion each driver causes.

Really? Because it seems to me that in as much as that's a well-defined quantity, drivers DO bear the cost of traffic congestion in proportion to the congestion they cause. Someone driving on an otherwise empty road bears no cost of congestion, and contributes not at all to it. Someone driving on a heavily congested road bears the same cost of congestion as everyone else around him -- and is contributing to that congestion just as much. Roughly, anyway; much larger vehicles such as buses and trucks cause more congestion but bear the same costs.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[dubl-u]

Four differences with a cash penalty for peak use:

1) The cash can be used for something else (e.g., road improvement), while time spent sitting in a jam is pure waste.
2) The penalty can be imposed directly upon the people actually driving in rush hour, without knock-on effects for others.
3) Pricing can be adjusted to maximize road flow. Traffic jams reduce throughput.
4) Cash biases use toward greatest economic need, rather than greatest willingness to waste time.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[ShakaUVM]

>>Putting an environmental impact fee (tax) on fuel would be a more reliable compensation for your impact than GPS

Right. And fuel taxes encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, which is a good thing, right?

These tracking taxes on cars are evil, for a lot of reasons.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[ShakaUVM]

>>You get some shitty milage if you can burn a tank of gas idling for a couple hours.

Yes, in fact. Zero.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Arlet]

1) The idea behind the plan is to stay cash neutral, by reducing fixed taxes, so there is no extra cash.

2) Same for wasting time.

3) Discouraging road use by high prices reduces throughput as well, maybe even more.

4) I'll agree on that one, but I don't think the difference is interesting enough to spend billions on a highly complex system.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[dubl-u]

Sorry, not totally following you here.

Are you talking about revenue neutrality for 1 and 2? That's irrelevant to the question of wasted time vs productive time. It's also irrelevant to knock-on effects (e.g., people traveling after rush hour who still encounter jams).

For point 3, if you're talking about a fuel tax, that doesn't maximize efficiency; load stays just as peaky. You need per-hour and per-route road pricing to shift demand to alternate times.

And regarding 4, allocating resources to economic need, you're talking like we aren't already spending billions on a highly complex system. It's just that the billions spent are in terms of lost economic productivity due to wasted time and fuel, rather than direct tax collected.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Pharmboy]

So if they have so many tunnels, are you saying they can install sensors to track drivers in tunnels? When it comes to collecting taxes, (or tracking citizens) never underestimate the Government. Any government.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[zippthorne]

I'm not suggesting that they will be driving through physical tunnels. Just that the reception of their tracking collars will be "mysteriously" very poor most of the time.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[rubycodez]

the tax only punishes people for getting their daily duties done, mainly getting to work. They are not the ones "wearing out the roads", commerce is. This bullshit lie of confiscating wealth to "save the planet" or "for the public good" has to stop. Taxes bloat government into a bigger monster.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Ichijo]

Someone driving on a heavily congested road bears the same cost of congestion as everyone else around him -- and is contributing to that congestion just as much.

We don't use time as a form of money here. If we did, there would be no "shortages," there would only be really long queues.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Cell phones. Don't worry, there will be a bike safety/license/tracking scheme soon. I wonder when it will become required?

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Mana Mana]

> (tax) on fuel would be a more reliable compensation for
> your impact than GPS.

I can tell from this response you didn't read the article. Your point is negated by one fact: alternative-fuel vehicles.

Petroleum-based fuel tax revenue, which is used to maintain Dutch roads, is DECLINING as gasoline, oops petrol, oops Benzine, consumption is displaced by electrical energy usage. Nations do not have a universal way to tax vehicular electrical energy usage, e.g., gasoline hybrids, plug in-gasoline hybrids, electrical vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, etc. which make the rising majority of new vehicles in Europe.

I give more credence to this Dutch argument that high gasoline taxes, high emissions standards, small vehicle sizes for small city roads, high mass transit penetration still has not caused a regression in new vehicles registrations, which are increasingly clogging roads into the projected future. Assuming that all those fuel taxes, registration taxes, congestion taxes are used for their intended purpose of road infrastructure maintenance.

Here in the USA, all that revenue is shifted to other uses to mask our budgetary shortfalls, and buy votes. Till the governors of NY and NJ decide to raise inter-NY-NJ bride and tunnel rates up to 65% in one shot. Fuckers.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Meski]

An approximation of your speed. Not accurate enough to issue instantaneous speed based fines, but if you were in Canberra at 12pm, and Sydney at 130pm, they'd have a good case for a fine.

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Phleg]

It is a lot. The number is from here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_komanoff_traffic/all/1

Re:Movement won't be a reliable measure

[Arlet]

Thanks. But I don't really think it's valid to extrapolate Manhattan to the rest of the world.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Rei]

I think this is based on the the standard cart-before-the-horse "How will we get tax revenues when electric cars become common" fear.

Honestly, until we're even within spitting distance of such a scenario, they can safely be neglected. For the next decade or two, they're not going to have a relevant dent in tax revenues. There's no need to do this sort of stuff now when it'll be obsoleted before it's needed, and when at best it's an additional hindrance on the industry.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why not just tax fuel like everyone else? This messing about with GPS seems ridiculous to achieve such a simple aim.

If they really wanted to be fair they'd find a way that taxes the bicyclists and out-of-state drivers, too.

They gotta know where you are all the time

[Colin Smith]

No really. It's for your own good.
 

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[daBass]

You are working on the assumption that the system will send location information to the government.

The trials utilize a little box outfitted with GPS, wireless internet, and a complex rating system that tracks a car's environmental impact

Sounds like the box has all the info it needs to calculate the cost, needing only to send that information to its base.

I'm not saying that is how it will work, but there is no reason to jump to conclusions.

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[Colin Smith]

Good for you! Keep up the optimism. You must still be young.

 

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[TheSpoom]

I'm saying that is not how it will work, primarily because it would be easy to fake (yes, yes, encryption, but that only works as long as someone doesn't grab the key from the hardware; once that happens, the cat is out of the bag for everyone).

Either the car will be tracked 24/7 (probably with periodic uploads), or those in charge of their IT have not fully thought through the system.

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[thegarbz]

Or we could all have an unrelenting pessimism for everything and need to put on our tinfoil hats everytime someone else says something as innocuous as "Hi".

The reality as always lies somewhere in between. The system is open to abuse, but I believe it is unlikely to be abused.

Mind you ... they could just take down the odometer number when you register the car for another year ....

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[martinX]

Following the recent riots and civil unrest reported in ... , local authorities have decided to activate the tracking feature of the road congestion GPS system. Just for the duration of the unrest. And in anticipation of future unrest.

Together with the public transport card tracking, we can all look forward to a bright peaceful future ahead.

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, let's take a system such as OnStar, installed in many (all?) GM vehicles, and compare it to this proposed system. This will give you directions, has sensors to detect likely impacts, can unlock your car if you need it, runs engine diagnostics, provides driving instructions and more. Awesome, eh?

But it can do so much more.

Recently, they've been putting out commercials bragging about how they can help get your car back if it's stolen. Apparently they disable the throttle, and the car just stops.

Seems sort of great. But think about it - plenty of room for abuse. While they boast of stopping criminals, there are plenty enough other uses for their having almost total control of your vehicle.There will be people who are willing to argue that their desire to keep you off the road is legitimate. Going through a nasty divorce with a vindictive SO? Deadbeat Dad? Unpaid parking tickets? Police wanting to automatically disable the vehicle for a speeding violation, Automatically disable vehicles at DUI checkpoints while you prove you aren't drunk?

You're going to argue that this isn't like OnStar, that it's just checking mileage. It won't be, as politicians find out just how much control they will have over people.

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[DutchUncle]

... but there is no reason to jump to conclusions.

I'd rather say: there is no reason to jump from anonymously collecting my gas tax, and maybe even adding an odometer tax at inspection time, to wearing a constant monitoring device like a criminal. If you want to charge more for highways or city streets, make them toll roads with E-Z-Pass-style systems (like London already has). That's not the same as tracking me every instant. (I object less if they want to do this on commercial vehicles, because there's less of a privacy issue, and commercial vehicles already have logging and reporting requirements.)

Re:They gotta know where you are all the time

[michelcolman]

And how fast you're going :-(

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You can mod my post down if you like, it still doesn't address the concern of fairness.

You're all looking at this the wrong way.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about fairly taxing road usage. That's just their rationale for implementing a system for tracking private citizens.

I must applaud them though. Instead of using the threat of terrorism to justify the system, they are hijacking ecological concerns. That shows imagination.

What they do not tell..

[tramp]

are the costs involved with building and maintaining this system. Combined with privacy concerns, possible fraud and system failure makes an fuel tax much more preferable.

A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

What a smart idea that is. Smart because it automatically gives cheapskates a way to lower their expenses. If you don't want to pay a lot, let your car sit and ride your bike. Use your car only when you really need to haul around a huge hunk of metal. Most cars are empty but for the single, fat driver, hauling their can to work and back. A law like this would have multiple benefits:

• Discourage unnecessary driving
• Encourage fat-ass drivers to walk, carpool or ride a bicycle
• Encourage people to move out of suburbs, closer to their actual jobs

• Wish we could do that in other places such as fat-ass-central: the USA. But that would smack of some environmental/social welfare idea and the fat-ass Conservatives would have none of it.

Re:A No Brainer

[UmbraDei]

Of course, the Dutch already ride more on their bikes than almost any other country in the world... Making your point pretty obsolete (except for the last benefit you mentioned.)

Re:A No Brainer

[xnpu]

You misunderstand the idea. There will be large areas when the system will not bill you while your normal car tax is lowered. If anything, this encourages more people to buy and use cars in those areas. Again, it's not an environmental issue. It's just about getting traffic to stay away from congested areas/hours.

Re:A No Brainer

[Caesar Tjalbo]

You can lower your expenses now by buying a small, used car and using it sparingly. However, if too many people would save money on their car, the government would have to find another means of getting income. Income needed to develop projects like this, I might add, because it's something that's been under development for over a decade now. The best thing about motorists is that you can milk them and keep on milking them; people hate to give up their car.

Re:A No Brainer

[MPAB]

I live in Guadalajara, Spain (the original one). It's got about 90 thousand inhabitants, most of which work in Madrid (about 60 km away).
The hospital, where I work at, is 7 min away from here by car. Should I take the bus, the trip lasts 30 min, to which I must add an average 15 min between buses at peak times. Now, that's 45 min against 7, twice a day.
If I go to Madrid, it takes about an hour if by train or if by car. But by car I bypass the 30-40' of busing to the train station and also the time limits (I must get back before 10 pm or I may not find any buses at the station in Guadalajara).

Now, if that appears difficult: Try doing it with a child and a toddler in a stroller.

Not to mention going from one city to another and finding there's only one bus to go in the morning and one to get back in the afternoon.

Meanwhile, the politicians will always have their official AUDIs with a driver.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Okay, fine. I will say that I would prefer any system that encouraged the points I mentioned.

Re:A No Brainer

[Trepidity]

What about a gasoline tax, like we already have? Directly penalizes you based on how much you drive, and how inefficient the vehicle you use for driving is.

It makes more sense to me to just raise the gasoline tax, since it exactly measures how much gas you're using, and taxes proportionally to that.

Re:A No Brainer

[stms]

We get all that and all we have to do is tell our government exactly where, when, and, how we drive our cars. Where do we sign up?

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Well, there is no sense arguing with someone unwilling to stand by their convictions, Anonymous Coward.
You wearing a tinfoil hat, too?

Re:A No Brainer

[Charliemopps]

or they could just introduce a gas tax... The only real purpose for this is to track their citizens movements.

Re:A No Brainer

[kreuzotter]

A No Brainer indeed. Mobility increases genetic diversity. You seem to be all against that. You want everybody to mate within their village and produce No-Brainer off-springs.

Re:A No Brainer

[MaWeiTao]

Do you realize how stupid what you're suggesting is?

How do you propose a "fat-ass" bike or walk 10, or more, miles in rain or snow?
How do you force people to move closer to work when rent and home prices are significantly higher and thus not affordable?

I'll tell you what will change. Nothing, except that now citizens will be paying even more in taxes. And that's exactly what the politicians want. They love to institute these kinds of taxes that supposedly encourage changes in behavior all the while hoping that people don't actually change their habits because if they did that revenue would be lost. And if that scenario does come to pass they'll just raise taxes some other way to make up for it.

And let's not forget that this sort of thing screws most people who work and do business.

Re:A No Brainer

[Goboxer]

That is the most ludicrously stupid response ever. Most people don't live in cities (the places with the good mass transit) because its fucking expensive out the yang. But I'm sure that doesn't occur to the average person. If everyone that worked in cities lived in cities the prices for renting/owning would be through the roof, and to compensate, everything in the city would be more expensive. Because that guy flipping burgers at one of the city's 10 McDonald's has to pay to live in his $2000 studio, because "zOmG, he has to live nearby or else he's stupid!!!".

Get real. Cities are expensive. Commuting is the solution to both expense and overcrowding. Mass transit further lowers both.

Re:A No Brainer

[errhuman]

7 mins by car is surely doable by bike no?

Re:A No Brainer

[morari]

Encourage people to move out of suburbs, closer to their actual jobs

Ew. As if the suburbs aren't bad enough, now you want everyone living in those rancid cities instead?

Fuel taxes could take care of these problems, and all without letting the authorities track your every single movement. If you're within biking distance of your workplace, then great. I'd probably bike on most days as well. For the rest of us however, that don't like living within our neighbors sewage, we'll just get smaller and more efficient cars. No one needs a full cab, long bed, dual axle, 4x4 to put around grocery shopping in.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

To begin with, while I myself owned a car that I drove rarely, I rode my bike year round in a part of the US that had harsh winters. What you may not realize is that riding a bike will keep and it will take care of your fat ass. I rode 5 miles. Part of the problem we face as a society is the notion that you can drive 40 miles to the suburbs on cheap gas, spewing greenhouse gases into the air in a way that treats the atmosphere as a CO2 toilet. As with anything in this world, there will be winners and losers. Those who have been stupid enough to buy huge houses they can't sell in the suburbs will of course have to be responsible for their actions and poor decisions, just as those of us who have planned wisely will benefit from our wise decisions. Are you suggesting that your stupid decisions be subsidized? People like you who do nothing but complain about taxes are fools. You want all of us to pay for roads so you can drive your car out to the suburbs. You want all of us to pay for oil wars to keep oil cheap enough to subsidize your stupid decisions. Finally, again, why should we subsidize the stupid decisions of business? If your business is predicated on dumping toxins in the creek behind your factory, on spewing pollution into the air from your delivery trucks, then you deserve to suffer. Welcome to America. There is no free lunch. So many businesses want to offload the expense of dealing with the toxic waste of their businesses on to the public and then when my children and yours get cancer from drinking the poison in water, get cancer from breathing polluted air, the polluting businesses are off complaining about their taxes. All of the opinions you have expressed merely assert your belief that you should get something for nothing. Sorry. Those days are over. It is now time to pay the piper.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

That tin hat suits you.

Re:A No Brainer

[dubl-u]

That doesn't follow. That the Dutch ride more than almost any other country does not mean they're anywhere near the limit of the benefits that can be achieved by more ridership.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Sir, I am no conservative. Not in the slightest. If you can't find a job then of course you have to move. If you tied yourself down to a certain location by buying a house--face it: you fucked up. Yes you might have to move and yes that sucks but there are no guarantees in life. Again I am no conservative.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

You are missing the point. The system of having each person drive this huge hunk of metal around is unsustainable. I am no fan of the privacy issues of this either--but I won't have to worry and neither will you about the privacy issues--ride a bike. Nobody will be tracking your feet or your bike.
I don't not think that businesses should be concerned about the issue privacy. If you use your personal car for business then what are you worried about. I'm sure your business knows where you're going--you expect to conduct your business in privacy? You selling crack? Meth?

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

No, we have chosen to spread out. Nobody forces you to live in the suburbs. Nobody forces you to have a lawn. Why do you need so much space? I used to live in New York City. I rode the subway every day and it was glorious not having to drive. Now I live in a Midwestern city. When I moved here for an awesome new job, I first went to the office. Then I looked for the closest acceptable apartment complex and rented a place. I am 5 minutes from work. You could do the same. If you say you "need" to have a lawn, then suffer and like it.
There is NOTHING except the resistance of the car-centric culture from creating public transit all across America.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Whiner. Each of us is an adult who can work to make the cities better. If they are allegedly rancid, it's because we have focused our money and attention on building roads out to the stupid suburbs. Hang your strip malls.
If you are worried about the privacy implications--ride a bike! Nobody will track your bike. The point is to discourage driving. You should be able to walk to get your food. Ever heard of the local movement? Even in New York City, there were farmers who grew vegetables in Brooklyn or Queens and they sold them in Farmer's Markets. If New York City can do it, then there is no other place that can't.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Trolling? The guy who wrote 'Fuck you' was a troll. Someone like me who has come back and come back to defend my initial post is no troll.

Re:A No Brainer

[onceuponatime]

A what cost to the economy? The assumption is that the economy won't be affected by pushing cars out of the rush hour areas. What a wholely niave assumption. If people had the choice to be just as economically viable and live in quiet areas they would probably already do so. What a dangerous gamble this would be. Especially in times when people are already under huge economic pressure. It'll probably be a congestion success and the economy of the Netherlands will nose dive.

Re:A No Brainer

[jmv]

Even better would be for the owners of less efficient vehicles to pay mode... which is exactly what a tax on gas achieves. It just makes sense. If what you want to reduce is total fuel consumption, then you tax fuel. In that case, tax may actually be the wrong term. The idea would be for the gas price to reflect the total cost of burning it, including the hidden environmental cost. Besides, I'm not actually sure that increasing the taxes on gas would really increase the final price by much (except maybe in the states). The current high prices are mostly dictated by the supply-demand balance. If you increase taxes, you decrease the demand, which brings the price down.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

You are going in the right direction but the Dutch model could achieve the same goal since they would know what kind of car you had.
Still, the goal is to discourage and eventually eliminate the idea that it's normal to drive a 2,000lb hunk of metal around all day. That idea is only favored by Exxon-Mobil and Shell. They want you to blow gas and don't care about the consequences. The Dutch model discourages cars altogether. And if you're not driving a car, there are no privacy implications for you.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Dude, you are MISSING the point. Don't drive! Ride a bike! Walk! Take public transit and you are anonymous! Why must you drive a 2,000lb hunk of metal everywhere?
I'm sorry if you have a fat ass.That's not my fault. And I don't look on fatness as a sign of intelligence. Sorry to break the news to you, Jumbo.

Re:A No Brainer

[king_grumpy]

Discourage unnecessary driving

Encourage fat-ass drivers to walk, carpool or ride a bicycle

Encourage people to move out of suburbs, closer to their actual jobs

Don't know what it's like where you live, but in Australia inner city rental prices are out of reach of the average worker. If people had to move inner city, rent would rise making it even more unaffordable. We also lack decent facilities in most building for bike riders - showers, secure lockup. I'm not against the idea (I ride part way to work), but it requires a massive change in societal attitude.

Re:A No Brainer

[MPAB]

Surely. Under 38C in the summer or rain in spring and fall ... and carrying along the kid, whom I drop at the school that's in the way.

Re:A No Brainer

[morari]

Farmers markets? We have that out here in the country as well, but with actual farmers instead of scene kids and hipsters. Hell, I even have a decent sized garden in my backyard to provide much of my produce. Cities are rancid because there are people there. People are dirty and moronic. I don't want to live anywhere near them. I value my privacy, peace and quiet. Besides, there is no way I'd ever put up with the kind of laws you city folk do. I like being able to paint my house without applying for a permit and having the color decided upon my the city council.

I suppose at least you don't have the kind of yuppies that the suburbs do. I would never be able tolerate that either. I have better things to do than show off just how green my lawn is.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Yes it does. And the same forces who were encouraged to build in the suburbs will instead build in the city. End of problem.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

You can live anywhere you want. That's what it means to live in the USA. Now, if you want someone to give you a job, then your choices are diminished.
Make your own business and you're home free. Can't do that? Then stop whining. Furthermore, it is only the most restrictive, covenant-bound suburb that limits the color you can paint your house. But anybody who chooses to live in one of those places has already chosen to enter hell and gets what they deserve.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

Taxes are a blunt instrument that are regressive. I would prefer something that more closely attacks the problem. And as I have said, you face no privacy invasion if you ride your bike. People do not realize the number of miles you can conveniently cover on a bike.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

This sort of non-argument just labels you an idiot--even more than your cowardly refusal to stand behind your comments. Do you think this does anything more than degrade you as a human being? It certainly does not have any effect on me other than making me laugh at you as a worthless waste of oxygen.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

You're probably already carrying your own GPS unit in your pocket now--your cell phone.

Re:A No Brainer

[curmudgeon99]

[Native of Nebraska. Currently call Indiana home. So, you are certainly a cretin.]

Re:A No Brainer

[morari]

Furthermore, it is only the most restrictive, covenant-bound suburb that limits the color you can paint your house.

That was simply taking an already ridiculous mentality to its logical extreme. You'd be lucky to put up a simple fence or plant a tree in your yard without it being zoned and inspected. The government has to make its money somehow, right? You give up so much freedom by living in or even near cities.

Re:A No Brainer

[PoopCat]

Not if it's uphill.

Both ways.

In the snow.

Antidemocratic

[Znork]

FTA: Eric-Mark Huitema, a transportation specialist with I.B.M ... “To do it you need support of the government, and it needs to happen when there is not an election because there’s always a bit of resistance.”

With people like that, we don't need terrorists hating democracy, we obviously have democracy-haters running the place. Not that it's surprising, but it's even more odious when they're so blatant about it.

Re:Antidemocratic

[Kjella]

He sounds like an engineer working for a private company, not a politician so he's hardly running the place. And how often do we get people here essentially saying "the sheep don't realize their own good, the government should do X even though it doesn't have popular support"? In his mind this system is probably more fair, and everybody wants a fair system right so the people are just being irrational about it, just sneak it in and you're really doing them a favor..

It's actually a fairly common tactic from the left side here in Europe, they need this information to make the tax system better. Pull out a few groups that are getting unfairly hard hit, make it seem like if you're against this you're kicking people that are already down. Then you get systems that are more and more impossible to avoid. For example here in Norway before you could pay by cash at most toll roads, now they're automated and you just drive through and get an invoice in the mail based on your license plate. There's simply no way to avoid being tracked by car anymore.

Planes have required ids now forever and increasingly more and more public transport is moving to electronic tickets typically tied to your person. Yes, you can still avoid that but it's inconvenient and expensive. Ticket automates strongly discourage cash due to break-ins and such, same with buying a ticket from the driver. Oh by the way, have I mentioned that if there's a rape in the area they'll gather all the cell phone logs and ask everyone to come in for a "voluntary" DNA testing?

Personally I think it's only a matter of time before everyone in this country is in a national DNA registry, for our own good of course to help solve crime and catch rapists and whatnot. And if we're really sleeping at the wheel, maybe the people who want to abolish cash will get their way and there won't be any anonymous tickets or purchases of any kind. I would not be surprised...

Re:Antidemocratic

[errhuman]

Wtf? Any more info on that rape/cellphone logs/DNA testing business? I'd never heard that one before.

Re:Antidemocratic

[dubl-u]

Not necessarily. For any change, there are short-term issues and long-term issues.

E.g., watch people complaining about how Apple is reversing the scrolling direction with the latest version of MacOS. Generally people grumble for a few minutes and then are perfectly fine with it. If you ask them at minute 3 whether it's a bad idea, they'll say yes. Ask them at week 3 and they'll say no.

He could just be saying that this is one of those things that people will be ok with when they get used to it.

Re:Already in use in several countries

[Opportunist]

No can do! Then the Germans wouldn't come across the border anymore to get cheap fuel!

Odometer?

[mishu2065]

How about reading the odometer when you do the Vehicle Roadworthiness Test every 2 years or every year? Not completely tamperproof of course, but then I hear turning back the odometer on newer models is a bit trickier. As for cheating, it might be offset by not having to install a GPS device in every car.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[maxwell demon]

Well, I'm sure they'll find a way to tax you for not leaving your house as well.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[DrXym]

Why not just tax fuel like everyone else? This messing about with GPS seems ridiculous to achieve such a simple aim.

Not everyone else just taxes fuel. The recognition being that it doesn't affect buying behaviour / consumption as much as it should. Many countries have a motor tax and these days it is usually based on engine size and / or CO2 emissions. The idea is the upfront & and annual financial hit is a more effective way to impress upon people to buy efficient vehicles. It certainly works in Ireland where diesel and small engine sizes are the norm and there is a €2000 difference between the best tax band and the worst..

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[thegrassyknowl]

Why not just tax fuel like everyone else? This messing about with GPS seems ridiculous to achieve such a simple aim.

Taxing fuel is pretty obvious. The GPS solution seems a little nefarious and a lot flawed, because they don't achieve anything that a petrol tax doesn't achieve and there is a wealth of other information they could take from it about my habits.

Anything they fit to your car can be modified to report incorrect data, or disabled. When the devices are common because they're mandated it won't take long for someone to figure out how. The same thing happened here with the 100kph limiters for heavy trucks and buses. They are a good idea in theory, but once they were common owners/operators began tampering with them in order to exceed the limit. They do this despite it being illegal.

Re:Wouldn't a gas tax bet better?

[iamhassi]

In taxes, yes, but the SUV is still using more fuel so it would still cost far more to drive.

Re:Bikes

[ComaVN]

Not everyone lives in Amsterdam, you know

GPS jammer sales go up?

[MoFoQ]

makes ya wonder if this will lead to an increase in sales of GPS jammers...or at the very least...tinfoil

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[skids]

There's no need to do this sort of stuff now when it'll be obsoleted before it's needed

Sure there is. At least if you ask the lobbyist for the company that thinks they will win the contract to produce the hardware.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[izomiac]

Electric vehicles perhaps, although then you could just move to taxing tires. AFAIK their degradation is correlated to distance traveled and weight carried. Plus tire wear is probably highly correlated with road wear, which is kinda the point.

Re:Already in use in several countries

[Xiph1980]

You clearly don't live in the Netherlands or surrounding countries.
There is no cheap fuel to get in NL. It wouldn't surprise me if we'd have the most expensive fuel in the world even. Dutch people already go to Germany and Belgium to get cheaper fuel.

Canceled

[TBerben]

This plan was canceled in the Netherlands as one of the first acts of the latest government (Rutte-1). I believe they were planning to increase taxes on fuel as a compensation.

Re:Canceled

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was already cancelled with the previous governement, when the at that time responsible minister for the system said something about it not working as expected and not supporting it.

Anyway, with the current political situation its unlikely to happen in the upcoming 4 years.

Re:Canceled

[that_xmas]

I was going to say, it seems a bit of overkill for a country that already has one of the highest percentage of bicycle usage in the world. Plus, public transport there is fantastic. Besides business that rely on motor transport, this sort of program would affect the handful of people that live outside of cities or who need to drive somewhere relatively far away on their own schedule instead the train's.

There is a giant amount of taxation on vehicles already. Gasoline comes in at the equivalent of 1 to 2 dollars per liter. Vehicles are subject to taxes on top of the usual VAT charges. The have a yearly charge based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle that is very steep if you have a gas guzzler.

Re:Already in use in several countries

[Opportunist]

Interesting. Wasn't it the other way 'round a few years ago?

old news, and how robust will this system be??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bit surprised to see this article at slashdot. The plans to have tax on milage (kilometer heffing in dutch) are already existing for a very long time here in the Netherlands. The former government was actually planning to introduce this, but the current government killed the project. So for me this isn't really news.

Further I'm very interested to see how such a system can be made robust. GPS signals are very weak and are easily jammed. One weather balloon and GPS jammer under the balloon will stop tax collection for half the nation.

We really need more engineers in politics!

What the system is

[CBravo]

The 'kilometerheffing' or 'rekeningrijden', kilometer charge, is a system to replace road tax and the extra VAT (BPM=40%!) on a car. It is supposed to enter service in 2014 but because of non-governance a while back I suppose it is delayed.

How the pricing is determined:
-type of fuel
-type of engine/exhaust system (no particle filter == 2.5 ct/km)
-place of the road (not sure if this in the current proposals)
-time of day

The system makes having a car cheap and driving one expensive in congestion areas/time.

I think the system, which was publicized in 2010 (!), is a little unfair. I bought my car in 2009, which is without particle filter. I now face, without doing anything, a hefty 2.5ct/km tax. That is 875 euro per year for me. Tell me where I could have made a different decision.

Re:Already in use in several countries

[Xiph1980]

It's been like this for at least as long as I can remember. As a toddler we used to fill up in Germany because that was a lot cheaper. That was about 30 years ago.

Why again?

[mpol]

I'm Dutch, and there has been a lot of controversy about this system. One disadvantage of the system is that it's an invasion of privacy. The government now knows exactly where and when you drive.

I just don't understand why it's needed. Currently there's a lot of tax on gasoline, and it has the same function. If you drive a lot, or if your car uses lots of gasoline, you pay more.
This system provides the same function, but with a lot of bureaucracy, and an invasion of privacy.

Wrong caption of an informative article

[victor50]

I have read the article itself and it is very informative on the subject. The Slashdot caption is completely off the mark. It should have read: "Disappointment on abolishing plan to tax car use in the Netherlands" or something like that.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[hackertourist]

We already have a fuel tax, in fact more than 50% of the fuel prices is taxes. But that's not what this scheme is about.
There are two goals:
1. to combat congestion, by setting a high price for road sections and times where congestion occurs.

2. to replace the current car sales tax (BPM) and ownership tax. BPM and ownership taxes are used to promote clean, efficient vehicles: cars with the lowest CO2 emissions enjoy lower taxes.
BPM goes against European regulations so it will have to be replaced eventually. The ownership tax currently discriminates against people who don't drive much: the tax tariff is independent of your kilometrage, so you pay taxes even if you don't use the car.

Reading comprehension #fail

[antientropic]

The headline and the summary are pretty much completely wrong: as the NY Times article explains, the trial was two years ago, but the government cancelled plans to introduce "rekeningrijden" (GPS-based metered driving) last year. So it's not going to happen anytime soon - unless the Netherlands suddenly gets a left-wing government, which is unlikely.

Re:Reading comprehension #fail

[TranceThrust]

Not even with a `left-wing' government dude. I can imagine only one left-mid party who would maybe support it, but both green parties would never support the idea as it is presented in this slashdot article due to privacy.

Dissuade from driving cars?

[Bert64]

Trying to get people to stop using cars is basically forcing them to reduce their quality of life... There are simply no viable alternatives to many car uses for a lot of people.

Public transport is useless, its dirty, unreliable, often unsafe, overcrowded (yes i know the roads can be crowded too, but at least you have somewhere comfortable to sit in a car and can stop to take a break), doesn't run all night and is even more useless outside of large cities.

Riding bikes is only practical for short distances, where its not too hilly and where it's safe to do so... This is why so many people ride bikes in holland, the population is densely packed, the ground is flat and there are cycle routes everywhere. In other places, cyclists are expected to share the roads with large dangerous vehicles and aren't allowed to ride on the sidewalk - even if the sidewalk is empty and the road is full of vehicles, thus slowing down the vehicles (causing them to waste more fuel) and increasing the danger for the cyclist.

Taking away people's personal transportation is a terrible thing to do, having your own car massively increases your quality of life and this is not a new thing, having your own horse has done this for hundreds of years and now people are trying to force us to take a massive step backwards.

Lack of personal transportation will force people to live in overcrowded ghettos, since public transport is not profitable/practical without a high population...

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Computershack]

Public transport is useless, its dirty, unreliable, often unsafe, overcrowded (yes i know the roads can be crowded too, but at least you have somewhere comfortable to sit in a car and can stop to take a break), doesn't run all night and is even more useless outside of large cities.

You've obviously never been to Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan to name a few.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[rally2xs]

>You've obviously never been to Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan to name a few.

We don't live there, we live here, in the USA, and here in the USA, "Public transport is useless, its dirty, unreliable, often unsafe, overcrowded (yes i know the roads can be crowded too, but at least you have somewhere comfortable to sit in a car and can stop to take a break), doesn't run all night and is even more useless outside of large cities." is true.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[manicb]

I don't see "in the USA" anywhere in Bert64's post. The original article about something which is being considered in the Netherlands. Congestion and pollution by cars is a global problem. Slashdot has an international user-base.

Not doing well to defend against national stereotypes here...

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Phleg]

Because we encourage people to drive miniature living rooms by offering free parking and free roads instead of actually building out and funding public transportation.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Phleg]

The point of these measures (if done in the United States) would be to get from where we are now (impotent public transportation, cars as a necessity) to something more sustainable and less costly to society (people living closer to cities, using public transport, walking, or cycling).

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[subreality]

Trying to get people to stop using cars is basically forcing them to reduce their quality of life

Getting you to drive less improves everyone else's quality of life. Since they are all reducing their usage too, your net quality of life improves. It is not a zero-sum game: everyone can win at this.

cyclists are expected to share the roads with large dangerous vehicles

Indeed - this is an excellent reason to try to reduce the number of cars on the road. Bicycling is much more fun on a sparsely-trafficked street.

Lack of personal transportation will force people to live in overcrowded ghettos

As a counterexample, I offer the entire history of human civilization before 1920.

People should stop living in the current deep suburbs where you're dependent on long-range personal transportation for everything. That doesn't mean ghettos. That means smaller, locally-sufficient towns. That means when you want to buy milk, a box of nails and a fishing pole, you don't make a trip to Safeway, Home Depot and Big 5, busting your way through a dozen traffic lights, circling for a spot in three enormous parking lots (which are also an enormous waste of land), and wait in line for some minimum-wage checkout clerk who hates his job. Instead, you walk, bike, or drive around the corner to the town's General Store, hand your money to Tom who lives three doors down from you, and jot back home - less stressed, less financially burdened by your car, less alienated. Like you were saying, it's about quality of life.

Sure, they won't have the selection and rock-bottom prices you're used to, but for anything you don't need right this minute, you have the internet. Or just plan your occasional trips to those specialty stores - it's not like you won't have a car at all. You're just encouraged to use it less.

[everything else you said]

We're talking about the Netherlands here. The cities are quite nice, and life without a car is not a burden even outside the cities.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[dodobh]

So you suggest the government stop building roads?

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[rally2xs]

If I had my way, it would be private, and that would mean that crap like national speed limits would be out the window, etc. If a private enterprise wants to make a road where there are no speed limits, they can do it. Don't think its safe? Don't drive it.

But the point is that private industry COULD build roads and turn a profit, if they wanted to. There is demand for that. And, think about this: It would be a toll road, the trucks would not be navigating free, and maybe the price boost in trucking would make private rail (more) profitable, and more goods would move via rail, which is insanely efficient in moving bulk cargo. What do the ads say? Something like 453 miles per ton of cargo per gallon of diesel. That's extremely efficient, and top that off with maybe 2 - 3 guys moving 1000's of tons of freight just by pulling 1 train. But that scenario is muted somewhat by trucks that, although they burn insane amounts of energy to move comparably tiny amounts of cargo, can do so profitably only because they do so on free roads.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Bert64]

Getting you to drive less improves everyone else's quality of life. Since they are all reducing their usage too, your net quality of life improves. It is not a zero-sum game: everyone can win at this.

No, your relative quality of life stays the same because everyone else's is lower too..
In fact, if financial penalties are the method of reducing car usage then the quality of life for the poor and middle classes goes down, while for the rich it goes up since they can still afford to drive and will now have empty roads to drive on.

As a counterexample, I offer the entire history of human civilization before 1920.

People had personal transportation before 1920, they were called horses and although not as convenient as cars they allowed individuals to travel higher distances than they could on foot, at greater speed, carry greater loads and do so whenever they wanted.

People should stop living in the current deep suburbs where you're dependent on long-range personal transportation for everything. That doesn't mean ghettos. That means smaller, locally-sufficient towns. That means when you want to buy milk, a box of nails and a fishing pole, you don't make a trip to Safeway, Home Depot and Big 5, busting your way through a dozen traffic lights, circling for a spot in three enormous parking lots (which are also an enormous waste of land), and wait in line for some minimum-wage checkout clerk who hates his job. Instead, you walk, bike, or drive around the corner to the town's General Store, hand your money to Tom who lives three doors down from you, and jot back home - less stressed, less financially burdened by your car, less alienated. Like you were saying, it's about quality of life.

Sure, they won't have the selection and rock-bottom prices you're used to, but for anything you don't need right this minute, you have the internet. Or just plan your occasional trips to those specialty stores - it's not like you won't have a car at all. You're just encouraged to use it less.

Exactly, prices will be higher, you will have to visit the stores more frequently since you won't be able to carry as much and you will also lose the price benefit of being able to buy in bulk. Also some things aren't really practical to buy on the internet, such as fresh goods.

This also isn't just about shopping, other entertainment facilities like swimming pools, cinemas, sports grounds etc. For virtually any of the places i travel to on a regular basis, going there via public transport is either impossible or would take considerably longer than it would by car.

Small locally sufficient towns are not going to happen... Companies don't want to have their offices in a small locally sufficient town, they want an office in the big city. Now chances are you can't afford to live there, so you will have to travel in along with the other thousands of people travelling to the same place at the same time... Forget about having a seat, sometimes you can't even physically get on the train/bus... And this is true in most large cities, new york, london, tokyo... Take a look at the japanese train loading videos on youtube.

Don't forget the lower quality of life because instead of having your own comfortable car which gets you straight from A to B as/when you want it, you now have to stand around on cold/wet bus stops or station platforms, get on overcrowded buses and trains where if you're very lucky you might get an uncomfortable seat, but chances are you will have to stand in conditions that would be illegal to transport animals in. And instead of going direct from A to B, you have to go via whatever route the public transport providers deem most profitable, which may involve a considerable detour, multiple buses/trains with long waits in between them etc.

I go to see a friend of mine who lives a few miles away, to drive there is between 20 and 40 minutes depending on traffic... To go there on public transport is a minim

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Bert64]

I have been to holland, stayed there for several months and made regular use of public transport... Public transport there is dirty, overcrowded, uncomfortable and often unreliable.

And funny you mention japan, have you seen the various videos circling the internet such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STNWc7Rlpfk ? It would be illegal in most countries to transport animals in conditions like that... At least if i'm sitting in a car in heavy traffic i have my personal space, a comfortable seat, my own music to listen to and can carry goods with me if i want.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Arlet]

In the Netherlands, there is already very good public transportation. The train grid is dense, and trains run very frequently. Still, the capacity of the train network is only in the neighborhood of 15% of the road capacity. If you want to seriously reduce road traffic, train capacity needs to be doubled, which would be a huge challenge.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Billly Gates]

If they did this in the US a revolt would happen and the TEA party would be happy to supply it.

Public transportation is great if you are single and rich in a metropolitan area and can take the subway to work like in New York. What if you have a family? Can you afford a $500,000 1 bedroom apartment for everyone? No ... you move to the suburbs an hour or 2 away.

This is where you need a car and who will be screwed by such a measure. People in Ohio will not take a bus as it wont even take you to where you need a car. A car is essential to live.

Besides if you want to cut pollution ban importing from China as they are the world's largest producer of Carbon from filthy factories and coal powered power plants. Trying to cut down car usage will hardly make a dent and just make people struggling to survive even poorer.

Also the cost of goods sold would go up as truck drivers would have to pay to ship everything. Food prices and everything up goes up in price. A terrible idea

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Billly Gates]

"People should stop living in the current deep suburbs"

Are you going to pay me $4,000 a month for rent for a 3 bedroom apartment downtown yet? How about pay for my kids private schooling as the local schools are too dangerous?

I think not. Suburbs are economic units for people to have better lives, raise families, and do so for a fraction of the cost of living in a city. Europe is expensive too which is why I put down $4,000 a month as it is what the going rate for a 2 bedroom apartment is downtown and trust me that price is much higher in a trendier area.

There are pedophiles too that you have to think of it you have a family so public transportation for them is not an option if they have soccer practice or band and you need a car to pick them up.

Taxing poor people is wrong even if I maybe modded down for such a post I would like to point out the other side.

Also in places like London and other European capitals non ghetto areas are too expensive but for the top 2% to live in these days thanks to investors buying up and raising prices. So living in the hood will still cost you a good $300,000 for a 1 bedroom apartment.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[kwark]

"Public transport is useless,...., overcrowded"

Does not compute.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[kannibal_klown]

Trying to get people to stop using cars is basically forcing them to reduce their quality of life... There are simply no viable alternatives to many car uses for a lot of people.

Public transport is useless, its dirty, unreliable, often unsafe, overcrowded (yes i know the roads can be crowded too, but at least you have somewhere comfortable to sit in a car and can stop to take a break), doesn't run all night and is even more useless outside of large cities.

It depends on where you go. The article is about the Netherlands, not the US.

I don't know about that country but I've been to a few places in Europe where the public transportation is great and thus a lot of people don't even bother with cars. And I'm not talking big-city type of places either. Meanwhile I also know a bunch of people that use bikes + public transportation in Switzerland.

Then again, for all I know the public transportation thing over there could be like in the US: amazing in some places and complete garbage in others. Since I've only spent maybe a few months of my life over there spread out over 5 years.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[subreality]

I'm not talking about getting rid of cities. The problem is the suburbs surrounding them.

I'm also not talking about eliminating cars, just incentivising using other modes of transport.

You're making two assumptions in your condemnation of public transport: #1, that you need to travel so far (things would be much closer without any reduction in useful space when you don't have streets wide enough for two cars to pass between two cars parked on each side between every row of houses, sprawling parking lots surrounding every business, etc); #2, that public transportation has to be awful like it is in the US.

Numerous small towns have better net connectivity than the silicon valley. It's actually relatively inexpensive for small towns to invest in fiber, and many do when not bullied by the telcos.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Bert64]

Increasing the price of driving seems to be the only policy, which means that those who can no longer afford to drive are forced to use public transport, despite it being clearly inferior for their needs.

Often they try to increase use of public transport without improving it, or the "improvements" are dubious, for instance london underground is increasing the "capacity" of their trains by reducing the number of seats and forcing more people to stand. While this means that more people can be crammed into the same space, it certainly doesn't make for a desirable situation.

The idea of "buses good, cars bad" is a stupid one... A bus still drives around, even if its empty... And with a small number of passengers onboard, it uses more fuel than a car would. Also buses travel pre determined routes, so you may have to take multiple buses and travel considerably more miles. And of course you still need to pay the driver, even when he's driving an empty bus around. During peak hours some of the buses are over congested, while at other times large buses drive around empty or close to empty.

There are many people who are disabled who utterly depend on their cars, imagine trying to get a wheelchair onto a crowded bus or train... Assuming its possible at all, you would cause delays while the ramps were brought out, and at peak times the wheelchair might not even physically fit onboard. Such people would be utterly lost without their own car, and yet their ability to use their cars is being eroded by the ever increasing prices.

There are people who need, for whatever reason, to transport more equipment than they can reasonably carry...

Taking kids on public transport is extremely stressful... It's difficult to carry all the things you will need, especially for young babies like a buggy, changes of clothes/diapers, feed bottles etc... You have to be constantly watching the kids for fear they will wander off, go somewhere dangerous (like onto the train tracks), get snatched by a pedophile, get knocked over by other passengers who didn't notice them among the crowds, pick up something nasty off the floor and/or trying to eat it. And you risk further irritating other passengers if your kids start making lots of noise.

If i take the train to work during the summer, i will arrive dripping with sweat, having spent an hour (or more if theres delays) standing in a train carriage with hundreds of other hot, sweaty, miserable people.
If i drive to work, even if it takes me 2 hours due to congestion, i will arrive clean and fresh having spent 2 hours sitting on a comfortable seat in an air conditioned car.

Several places i travel to regularly are MUCH quicker to get to by car (20 mins vs 2.5 hours), and going by train also severely limits the times i can go... The last train i can practically get is about 8pm, since i need to change several times if i go any later i'm likely to miss the connecting trains and become stranded (also trains are less frequent at night, 2.5 hours at peak times with frequent trains becomes 3+ hours at night or weekends whereas the car journey becomes even quicker due to lack of traffic).

The fact is, public transport is not suitable for everyone, and forcing everyone into a one size fits all situation is a terrible thing to do and will reduce the quality of life for many. They should stop increasing the cost of driving, and instead try to make public transport more desirable... Positive incentive instead of negative punishment.
Make the routes more useful and more frequent, make it cheaper, make the vehicles cleaner, more comfortable, safer and less congested at peak times. Reduce people's need to travel by encouraging telecommuting, and decrease congestion in the core business districts by encouraging companies to set up in less congested areas. Stagger working hours, so you don't get a massive block of congestion at one time of day, and empty buses driving around wasting fuel at other times.
Make stations and bus stops less unpleasant and dangerous places to

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Bert64]

Sure, it *can* be...

But switzerland seems to be an anomaly, everywhere else has poorly funded, poorly managed public transport combined with a government intent on forcing people to use it despite how poor the system is. And most of the people in government never have to use it themselves.

And public transport may be suitable for "many" people, but it simply cannot be appropriate for everything... If you make driving more expensive, then you are screwing everyone for whom public transport is not and never will be practical.

Re:Dissuade from driving cars?

[Phleg]

Can you afford a $500,000 1 bedroom apartment for everyone?

Wow. Exaggerate much?

This news is ancient and out of date!

[pieterbos]

This plan is actually very old, from 2001. They tried again in 2005, then again somewhere in 2009/2010. The plan is discarded by the current government. One of the few good things they have done in my opinion. The road trail the article cites is from february 2010. Over one and half year old.

The plan would be a horribly complex technical solution, just to solve the problem of being able to buy gas in another country and charging more for busy roads during peak hours. Also, the plan was a major privacy concern because you would have to be tracked continually.

Track my car? Just Say No!

[AGMW]

An old school friend was contacted by blackmailers a few years back and they asked for £10000. In return, they said they wouldn't kill his family. He contacted the Police and they eventually caught the people.

There is NO WAY IN HELL he would have a tracker in his car because if anyone was able to break into the system it would make it easier for similar people to track, find, and do god knows what else, to his family. They could _know_ that his car was away from home and his wife's car was at home. They could _know_ that all vehicles were away and therefore the house was empty. And let's not even start to tell me the system is secure because we all know there is no such system!
There are just so many ways the information could be miss-used and abused, when a far simpler way to 'tax by the mile' is to put tax on the fuel.

Tax on fuel: You drive a lot ... you pay more. You drive an inefficient vehicle, or drive inefficiently, you pay more. Simple and cheap to setup, and cheap to run.

Re:Track my car? Just Say No!

[Plunky]

An old school friend was contacted by blackmailers a few years back and they asked for £10000. In return, they said they wouldn't kill his family. He contacted the Police and they eventually caught the people.

<nit>Well, I'm pretty sure that is extortion not blackmail.. but perhaps he was not in the best mood to care about the difference</nit>

Re:Track my car? Just Say No!

[wagnerrp]

Is this really a problem these days? Facebook and twitter users already broadcast to the world where their home is, and that they're not there. There have even been crime sprees based off this tracking information, and no one seems to care enough to change their behavior.

Re:Track my car? Just Say No!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Facebook and Twitter are at least voluntary.

Re:Track my car? Just Say No!

[AGMW]

The Police thought it was a problem. Apparently there were two gangs operating in the area at the time. One was a bunch of chancers and the others were a nasty bunch of bastards who, in all likelyhood, would indeed kill your family. My friend and his family were whisked away to a safe house. Alarms were put in his house which didn't just ring to the local Police station, but rang directly to any Police cars out on patrol with instruction that if the alarm went off they should proceed with all haste to my friend's house.

He returned a few days later. His father in law turned up unexpected and was greeted by a van load of armed response officers - somewhat spooked him by all accounts!

He now never answers his phone. You leave a message and he calls you back.

It was a VERY nasty experience and he will NOT be having any devices in his cars that could give even the remotest chance of tracking them.

Re:Already in use in several countries

[Bert64]

Everything else was cheaper in holland, gas has always been cheaper in germany... It was not uncommon for germans living near the border to buy food and such in holland.
The Euro has levelled the prices for a lot of things.

Amsterdam. The only place I've seen with.....

[Computershack]

...a multi storey bike park. The Dutch already do reduce car use. I went on holiday to Amsterdam and it is the only place I've ever seen with a multi-storey bicycle park full from top to bottom with bicycles. There are bicycles absolutely everywhere. Traffic in the city center is very light. Here's a picture http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3321534598_c1ac9ce508_b.jpg

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Vectormatic]

As a dutchman, i know some background (i didnt know they are back to testing this shit though, it was shot down previously)

Tax is already a significant part of our fuel price, ridiculously so. normal petrol costs $9.10 per gallon right now, but was even higher a few weeks back. One of the rationales for not doing even more fuel tax, is that currently people living near the german/belgian border drive significant distance to fuel up over the border. Raising fuel taxes even more would just make that situation worse. Besides, a flat tax on fuel wouldnt allow the government to give unfair benefits to hybrids like they currently do.

Honestly i hope this plan dies. I am not opposed to taxing for use rather then posession of a car, but i am very much against installing a GPS tracker in a car. How long till they use the thing to just fine you every time you speed automatically?

One more tax to add

[AK Marc]

In addition to taxing based on time of day, for the love of God, put in a $0.10 per mile tax on those in the fast lane. Get the people who enter the motorways into the fast lane, cruise 20 under the limit there, then exit across traffic from the fast lane out of the fast lane. It should be empty for all times other than rush hour. A quick pass then gone. If they are going to do this, then go all the way and use taxes to help enforce the laws about lane etiquette.

But only in their own country..

[Noctris]

Funny since a couple of years back, they had a political dispute with Belgium (neighbouring country) because almost every dutchie passes through belgium on their holidays by car (which during juli and august makes about 35%!!! of all highway traffic) and Belgium wanted to start using a tax-vignet ( like swiss) which you had to buy if you wanted too use their Highways.. The Netherlands pushed this out by threatning with "economical boycots" and continue too use the Belgian roads free of charge...

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[realityimpaired]

I'm looking forward to the day where you can not leave your house without being taxed.

In a sense, it's already here. The electricity you use to run your home is taxed, the food you use to run yourself is taxed, the utility connection for your sewage hookup is taxed. Even if you're completely off the grid, growing your own food, running solar/wind generators (we'll ignore the sales tax on buying that equipment in the first place), septic system, well water, don't use a car for transportation, live without telephone or other communications, etc., the property itself is still taxed. It is impossible to live in this day and age without being taxed in some way.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Baron Eekman]

Parent is correct.

This system ("rekeningrijden") is being proposed for years now. While it is certainly very fair--polluter pays, and pays more during rush hour--it faces two large problems:
- Technical implementation. There have been so many public sector IT fails now, most recently with the public transport Oyster card, that everybody is getting really reluctant to introduce another technical solution to a social problem;
- Privacy concerns, as many commenters here already alluded to. Used to be not a big issue for most people the Netherlands, steadily gaining attention over the past few years.

The price of travel

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm in America, but I really don't like this idea. I like the idea of freedom to travel. This discourages people from traveling. The rich should have no issue with this, but for anyone not so lucky, well, this is going to hurt.

Tax the value of the vehicle, not how much it travels.

Think of the children

[cvtan]

Suppose you could use the information from such a system to find a missing child. You would have to do it. Imagine an episode of "Law and Order: Special Minor Child Victims Unit" where the cops are complaining about privacy advocates are blocking GPS info that would rescue a child (especially a blonde blue-eyed girl). Yes, you could get a court order, but there's no TIME for that!

Re:Think of the children

[thegarbz]

Which makes you wonder why they don't just read the odometer every time you renew your registration to get the same information.

But this is government. Why make something easy when you can throw a ludicrously expensive solution at it.

Great and fair

[choongiri]

If I work hard to bike, walk, and use transit as much as possible, why should I subsidise your heavy car use?

Re:Great and fair

[swilver]

If you are talking about holland, I think that our car use subsidizes your public transport.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Leebert]

Plus tire wear is probably highly correlated with road wear, which is kinda the point.

Mr. Motorcyclist here. I'd like to strongly disagree.

Tire wear is highly correlated with the performance characteristics of the tire, the care and maintenance of the vehicle, and the driving characteristics of the driver. A good set of racing tires on a sportbike will only last a few thousand miles even for an only moderately aggressive rider, but I'm reasonably certain a ~500lb motorcycle is not causing significant damage to the road.

Similarly with high performance auto tires. I believe (though I'm too lazy to look this up) that semi truck tires actually last a fairly long time, because they're fairly hard rubber and their radius is so great that the number of revolutions per mile compared to a car tire is significantly lower.

Would it really though?

[Sycraft-fu]

It is already much cheaper to not use your car than it is to use it. If you primarily bike, and just use your car occasionally (something I've experience with since I bike to work) you have the following financial advantages:

1) Reduced gas costs. This is a big one, and one you can easily notice. If you don't drive, the car does not need gas. If you don't use your car to go to work and only use it for stores out of walking distance, you can easy refuel only once every 2-3 months, and then not even a full tank (gas goes bad if you leave it too long).

2) Lower maintenance costs. Vehicles wear out more with use than with idleness, so use them less, and you need to repair them less. It isn't that they don't need the same things, just that you don't need them as often. Like say you change your oil ever 3000 miles (not that new cars need it that often) and you live in an apartment so can't do it yourself, it costs you $20 to have done. If you drive 15,000 miles a year, you have to do it 5 times a year, $100 expense. Drive 1,000 miles a year and you do it maybe every other year (since oil does have a shelf life), $10/year.

3) Lower insurance costs. This one isn't big, but you do usually save some money if you drive less. They have broad categories of miles driven on a car (like 0-7500, 7500-15000, 15000+) and the lower tiers save you a bit of cash.

4) Lower replacement costs. Since you use the car less, and it wears less, you need to replace it less often. This one isn't something so easy to notice on a normal monthly budget cycle, but it can add up over time. You drive a car heavily and in a couple decades it is likely to need replacement, or major work, no matter what. You drive it occasionally and it can last a much longer time.

5) Not always applicable, but parking costs can be a consideration. If you work somewhere that charges for parking (as I do) or somewhere that doesn't have parking and you have to purchase it from a 3rd party, not driving saves you that cost.

It is already much cheaper to not drive on a regular basis. While I'm certainly not opposed to less taxes for people who drive less, I don't think it would change behaviour any. If people wanted to save money by driving less, they'd do so since you already do save a good deal of money.

Re:Would it really though?

[curmudgeon99]

I could not have said it better, and you have described my practice precisely. I lived in NYC for 5 years and expressed my silent gratitude for not having a car on a daily basis.
Now that I live in a flyover state, I do own an old Accord that I drive as little as possible. I bike the 5 minutes to work and to the grocery store.
I believe we express our intelligence more in what we choose not to do, more than what we blindly do without thinking.

The proposal is PURE government corruption.

[Futurepower(R)]

Yes, it was proposed in Oregon. I emailed the elected official that proposes it, and said that he will go to prison if he continues. That seems to have made a difference. I think people in that office recognized that what I said made sense.

The proposal is pure government corruption, partly based on the extreme ignorance of technology of most people who are leaders now. In Oregon, the elected official was given "campaign contributions" from a company that makes GPS tracking devices.

Think about it. GPS location is PURELY a voluntary system. If there is any incentive to cheat, it cannot function. A little aluminum foil on the GPS antenna prevents tracking. What happens if an Oregon car is shown to have been driven in Mongolia during the month? Was that someone cheating, or a technological failure?

What happens if someone drives through streets broadcasting fake GPS satellite signals? Wow! All those cars were in Mongolia at the same time!

See my comment on February 15, 2005, 1) Dupe of a dupe. 2) Stupid. 3) Corrupt.

Re:Bikes

[realityimpaired]

No, but if you live in Delft and work in Enschede, you're still an idiot. You don't have to live within walking/biking distance from work when you're in a country that has a decent public transportation system, but it's a good idea to live within distance of commuting, no? I would lay odds that while some of the people in NL have no choice and need to use a car, the overwhelming majority do have a choice in the matter.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Darkness404]

These taxes make -sense- though because they are based on how you use the services. Someone who drives on public roads for 5 hours a day should have to pay more than someone who drives on public roads for 15 mins a day. In the same way, people who do not have kids or do not send their kids to public schools should be exempt from paying taxes to support public schools. People who are on government assistance programs such as welfare should have to pay the money back over time once they are back on their feet when compared to someone who doesn't use welfare. Etc.

all wrong questions

[roman_mir]

All of these questions are wrong, all of these proposals are wrong.

Why is the crowd accepting the very premise that government must be involved in any capacity taxing and regulating people's behavior? Why are the roads not privately owned but are so called 'public property' in the first place? Why are people forced to pay taxes on anything rather than paying actual service fees and product costs, buying the products and services on the market?

Why is the crowd here so far to the side of government and not at all wondering why is government involved into anything? Why is government allowed to play any role in the economy? Should you all start asking these questions by now, with everything that you are observing in the economy?

Where is your entrepreneur spirit?

This is weak.

Re:all wrong questions

[cvtan]

Because people are morons and I want to be protected from them.

are they going to kill the gas tax then? :)

[roman_mir]

Come on, do you really believe that your gas tax will be eliminated if you switch to this system? Oh, come on. Seriously? For real, you are THAT naive about your governments' appetites for money? Money? Government?

Re:They never stop do they?

[Kippesoep]

Depends on what you call "recently". The tax on fuel was already getting long in the tooth slightly before the dawn of time. Today's fuel prices are â1.682 per litre. That's â6.367 per gallon or $9.07 in fake money. Don't think for a moment that the price of petrol will drop when this "rekeningrijden" is truly introduced. They'll probably find ways to keep the "wegenbelasting" too, taxing both ownersnip and use based on distance and use fuel consumption.

Gas Tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is increasing the tax on fuel not doing the same thing without the complicated electronic gizmos and system?

wireless as cell phone data? who pays the romaing

[Joe_Dragon]

wireless as cell phone data who pays the roaming? or the main data bill?

What about when the GPS says your are on a local road but you are really on the a highway next to it?

What happens when it thinks you are not on road at all due to it not yet being part of the map data?

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to impose a carbon tax by taxing the amount you breath. They are going to attach a monitor to your body that tracks your breathing rate and reports it to the government. You will then pay a tax on how much you breath.

Why do you need GPS

[rossdee]

In my native country, Road User Charges have been around for a long time, for commercial vehicles and for alternate fuel powered private vehicles. For private cars it was just based on the odometer. For heavy vehicles it was based on hub-odometer (a semi would have two of them, one on the truck and one on the trailer).
  So why do you need the complication of GPS?

huh?

[SuperDre]

last time we heard about this, it was sent into to garbagebin..

To some it might seem like a good thing (for people living in the city where 'public' transportation is good), but for other people it's just a necessity and they'll be the ones that pay the price for nothing.. IMHO the current system is the best, you pay a specific ammount each month dependant on the weight and type of fuel just for having one (next to the ammount you pay every month for insurances which also depends on what kind of car you drive and how many miles), and then you pay for every kilometer you drive (taxes are at 70+% per liter of fuel), so the more your car slurps it's fuel, the more you pay, the more kilometers you drive you pay.. So how stupid must you be not to see that it's the best solution without the need for a VERY expensive administration system which won't work anyway (there are so many ways to corrupt the used system).

How come a simpleton like me can think of all the extra costs and problems and see the current system is working well, whereas people who have studied their whole life and have big degrees can only think up such stupid money hogging problematic systems..

Also let's not forget how much this will impact your privacy..

I thought cars were illegal in the Netherlands.

[John Hasler]

n/t

What about Poor People/Middle class?

[Billly Gates]

How are they supposed to get to work when the cost of a 1 bedroom apartment costs $500,000 downtown?

What about families who need to pick up their kids from Soccer Practice? Vactions etc?

This is Europe folks and the cost of living is very expensive compared to a cheaper place. People who live out in suburbia do so because it is cheaper to live. Now they will be taxed just to show up from work because living close to work is too expensive. Screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

If I were dutch I would be throwing a fit!

Re:What about Poor People/Middle class?

[Xenna]

Funny thing is that this road pricing scheme has already been dumped by the present government. I have no idea why this suddenly pops up again on Slashdot.

In defence of the system I have to add that this would have been a replacement for the present taxes (taxes on buying and owning a car) which had the perverse effect of actually encouraging driving more kms. If you already pay a lot to own a car you would want to use it as well. The reasons why the scheme was cancelled were cost (the technology costs a lot) and privacy.

Re:What about Poor People/Middle class?

[Xenna]

Oh, and we don't live in Suburbia because it's cheaper, but because there's less trash...

evil and stupid

[Moe Taxes]

Gas tax already exists, as does the bureaucracy and the collection mechanism. If they need more revenue just change a number, issue a memo, the tax goes up, the revenue goes up, you still have incentives to buy efficient cars and drive less, all easy and efficient.

Creating a new tax authority, with new electronic boxes, a new collection mechanism that deals with each individual car owner is silly expensive. If the goal is collecting more money the answer is obvious. When the answer chosen by the government is not the obvious one you should wonder, what are they really trying to do?

The plan was shelved.

[Anonymous Coward]

The plan was shelved. Please, next time actually read the articles you're linking to and not just the first paragraph.

Other people will see your headline, ignore the comment section, won't follow the link and will now conclude the system is a go here in NL, without justification.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Grishnakh]

In a sense, it's already here. The electricity you use to run your home is taxed, the food you use to run yourself is taxed, the utility connection for your sewage hookup is taxed.

Not always true. In many states, groceries are not taxed. I live in Arizona, and it's one of the few truly sensible and well-thought-out things about this place; I don't pay any taxes at all at the supermarket, unless I buy non-food items (e.g. a kid's toy or towel or chair bought at Fry's Marketplace or super Walmart will get the standard 8-10% sales tax, but a banana, ear of corn, box of cereal, or ice cream will not). However, this doesn't extend to restaurants or other prepared and served food; whether you dine at the Arizona Biltmore hotel or McDonald's, you'll pay regular sales tax on that food.

I honestly can't imagine how any state justifies taxing food purchases; it's a really evil thing to do to low-income people.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Grishnakh]

Someone who drives on public roads for 5 hours a day should have to pay more than someone who drives on public roads for 15 mins a day.

Yes, and that's already the case, with a very simple tax that's easy to administer and collect, called "fuel tax". The more you drive, the more fuel you use. The more fuel you use, the more tax you pay.

Putting a GPS box in your car to track all your movements and report them to the government is not a sensible way to tax people for usage, it's an invasion of privacy plus it incurs an enormous bureaucratic overhead. Since there's at a couple orders of magnitude difference between the number of fuel stations and the number of drivers, it's much easier to collect taxes from the fuel stations. A program like this will probably end up needing 30-50% of its tax revenue just to pay for itself, meaning the final tax you pay will be far greater than what you pay with the current fuel tax method.

Needlessly complex

[pubwvj]

There is no need for the privacy invasion nor the over technological solution of GPS. Simply tax gasoline and other car fuels as well as collect tolls and get the annual mileage each year to levy the mileage tax. KISS.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Grishnakh]

Yep, this is all correct. Summer high-performance tires wear out much faster than inexpensive high-mileage "hockey puck" all-season tires. Semi truck tires do last a very long time, and then they don't even bother replacing them, they put retreads on them, which eventually wear out and fall off and hit someone in a nearby car (or motorcycle), possibly causing a crash.

However, for any given tire, tire wear is definitely correlated with road wear, so it might be possible to add a tax to the purchase price of tires, adjusted for their expected usage (i.e. the tax would be higher for cheap all-season tires, and lower for high-performance tires, since the hi-po tires will probably only be driven 1/3 the miles of the others; also, the tax would be higher for truck and SUV tires than for small-car tires, since trucks weigh more and the road damage correlates with the 4th power of the vehicle weight IIRC). However, this probably isn't a good idea, because it'll cause tire prices to be very, very high, and as a result people will resort to dangerous practices to save money, either driving the tires until they're totally bald, getting retreads (maybe even a black market will arise for auto tire retreads), etc. You could enforce it by having inspectors look for worn-out tires and fine or force people to replace them when the tread depth is too low, but the enforcement costs of that could be high, unless it's only done as part of a yearly safety inspection which some states already require for cars.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Grishnakh]

BPM goes against European regulations so it will have to be replaced eventually

Why? Maybe they should tell the EU to f off with nonsensical regulations like that. Why shouldn't a sovereign nation be able to levy taxes as it deems best? Over here in the US, we don't even have any national regulations about car taxes, and they vary state-by-state. I think some high-sales-tax states even have special, lower car taxes to keep people from driving out-of-state to buy cars or from keeping high-pollution old cars too long.

It seems like the EU is doing the same thing our own Federal government has done: it's getting too involved in small details that should be left to the individual nations, like taxes, road speed limits, etc. They need to stick to just being a trade union and currency union and stop trying to homogenize everything, or else it's going to fall apart as different groups get pissed at too much centralized power and control.

Dam!

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Walking or sailing. This is the Netherlands with all those canals and dams.

Fuel Price Elasticity [Re:This was proposed in...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Tax the fuel.

Doesn't work

Well, except that many many studies have established that it does work. This is called "fuel price elasticity," and it is well known. People drive less when the fuel price is higher. The short-term elasticity is relatively low (because it takes a while for people to change their plans), and a long term elasticity, which is much higher.

http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Aczlan]

Electric vehicles perhaps, although then you could just move to taxing tires. AFAIK their degradation is correlated to distance traveled and weight carried. Plus tire wear is probably highly correlated with road wear, which is kinda the point.

Such a tax would discourage people from buying snowtires in areas where such a thing is prudent and would encourage tires with harder compounds which wear less (and provide less grip on the road in adverse conditions)
Thus taxing tires would cause an increase in accidents (hows that for extrapolation)
That would be suboptimal

Aaron Z

This really begs me to raise a point

[jvonk]

(also, it raises the question, not begs it. That means something else.)

You know, I used to be right there with you and corrected other people's misuse of the term. However, as time progressed I came around. It is much more intuitive (and frequently encountered) to use the improper form of this term. I still say, "begs me to ask" or "begs for the question" but they are unwieldy forms.

Besides, prima facie, the historical denotation of "begging the question" doesn't befit what is actually happening from a common person's perspective. "Question", in this context, is ambiguous for most people who aren't presuming the definition context of debate points. Furthermore, for those who truly beg the question to support an argument, asking questions/speaking tentatively is the furthest thing in their mind (ie. they are often full of zealous conviction).

Thus, I have begun to disambiguate and no longer use "begging the question" and say rather, "You are presuming the point under debate to support your argument", which is unambiguous and parses for everyone.

So, yes, you are correct. However, I think the effort to fight this is misplaced and righteous fury should be reserved for definitions that really matter. You know, like prefixes for data size being in powers of 2 rather than this subversive attempt to change the definition to refer to powers of 10. "MiB?! Over my dead body, you scum..."

Re:This really begs me to raise a point

[Paradise Pete]

Well, then I can see why you accept it, and that's pretty reasonable, but why would you use it? "Raises the question" is a simple and clear alternative. Often a new use for a word improves the language, but others that only subvert a useful meaning cheapen it. For two recent examples, making a verb out of "party" is a good example of improvement, while IMHO the current use of "awesome" merely cheapens the word and does nothing to improve the language. It effectively removes a word from the English vocabulary.

Re:This really begs me to raise a point

[jvonk]

I guess my realization was that this battle was over before it started due to the English translation of petitio principii being historically decided as "begging the question".

The typical connotation for transitive "beg" for common people is "to entreat/appeal/supplicate" or "require as necessary" the direct object of "beg". Consider a thought experiment: I'm sure you would agree that had this particular logical fallacy not appropriated the phrase then "begging the question" would logically parse as "prompts the question to be raised".

Therefore, I consider this scenario to be orthogonal to your valid example about the abuse of "awesome" supplanting the original denotation; I believe "begging the question" to have an inherent, valid and obvious parsing in the new, "abusive form" that has cropped up. This makes campaigning against the emergence of the new form almost untenable.

So, at best, I believe "begging the question" (fallacy) to be irrevocably cacked as a term due to the emergent ambiguity. This is much like how "megabyte" is now inherently ambiguous thanks to those IEC imperialists attempting to supplant the original definition. People can fight the good fight against the new definition, but the attempt at the promulgation of the new usurping definition has, ipso facto, ambiguated the term. /muttering about those IEC bastards and their scorched earth tactics...

PS. How's "ambiguate" as a neologism? Haha

Re:Fuel Price Elasticity [Re:This was proposed in.

[arglebargle_xiv]

Well, except that many many studies have established that it does work.

Well OK, it works, in the same way that deconstructing Mont Blanc with a teaspoon works, eventually, but it's far from the best way to do it. You need to go to experimental psychology, not economics, to deal with issues like this (and lung cancer, and weight problems, and many others). If I wasn't typing this via a borrowed fondle-slab I'd cite some references, but I don't have access to my own machine at the moment. Look up work on behaviour modification, and in particular behavioural risk modification when it's applied to unhealthy living.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[VanessaE]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this already:

For electrics and hybrids, put a flat tax on the *batteries*, using the weight of the car and its most frequent occupants as one of the factors, or if you give tax breaks for electrics and hybrids, stop doing so. After all, the car will wear those batteries out every 3-5 years, and the amount and style of driving a person does will surely also affect their lifespan. They already cost a few thousand to replace, so a fair tax on them won't amount to much by comparison. An extra $1000 (or the equivalent) in taxes every five years doesn't sound too bad.

Or, use the odometer and something that merely estimates the proximity to any nearby cell towers, and another device which estimates how much weight is added by the passengers and whatever freight they are carrying. No triangulation, just have the device use that proximity to decide when the car is out of the country, and phone-in the odometer reading, an "x% in-country" figure, and the total weight every month or whatever.

That way, the central tax servers would only be given *just* enough information to estimate your overall wear on the roads.

Economics: it works [Re:Fuel Price Elasticity]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Well, except that many many studies have established that [increasing prices to decrease consumption] does work.

Well OK, it works, in the same way that deconstructing Mont Blanc with a teaspoon works, eventually, but it's far from the best way to do it. You need to go to experimental psychology, not economics, to deal with issues like this

I'm sorry, but no. Economics works. Really. It's hard for pychologists to believe that people would be so simple as to use less of a product when it's more expensive, but actually, yes, they do.

There are some products that are perceived luxury goods that have negative elasticity (where increases price is interpreted to imply increased quality), and (of course) these are the things that psychologists tend to be interested in. But commodities, such as gasoline, aren't.

60 kph!!!

[wreakyhavoc]

Wow, you can cycle 60 kilometers per hour? I'm impressed. You must be a little damp when you get to your business meeting.

Re:Seems like a lot of effort

[Rei]

False. The batteries do not wear out "every 3-5 years". These aren't lead-acids we're talking about. They're generally *warrantied* for 7-10 years.

Strange

[DaveGod]

This doesn't make much sense for anything other than perhaps congestion.

Firstly, funding roads. The main benefit to a car user is that the road exists. My parents home has a shared driveway, but despite my neighbour using it far more frequently they both paid the same for it. Given the marginal wear and tear on the drive, this makes sense because what all parties were primarily paying for was access. This is also why it is right that roads are subsidised by general taxation and not only car taxes/licenses - I admit this despite not owning a car since I moved into the city.

Secondly, environmental concerns. Both emissions and the consumption of depleting reserves are important. The latter is clearly tackled most directly through taxation on the fuel. Emissions could potentially be targeted more directly using the Dutch system however the system appears to know only the car's factory certified emissions, distance and route. It does not know the individual's driving style nor the condition of the individual car. Tax on fuel accounts for all of these things to a greater and more direct extent with the exception of the certified emissions. That is a moot point because the individual has no control over the certified emissions other than when he chooses what car to buy, in which case adjusting the car licence fee (and taxable benefit if a company car) based on emissions (as done in UK) performs this action in a manner more easily considered by the purchaser.

Furthermore, tax on fuel is more easily (automatically, even) paid by the driver and means he has a relatively straightforward estimation to make when considering the cost of making a journey. It also does not require the government to be tracking every movement, nor expensive equipment, nor so much administration, nor is it prone to error (or cheating).

The only apparent advantage of the Dutch system is that it can be varied based on time of day and potentially busy routes, which may be useful for managing traffic, but may be prone to being unfathomable by the drivers, i.e. ineffective. There is potential for perverse incentives, particularly government increasing charges for roads not to manage congestion but to maximise revenue. Oh and it may also be more easily subjected to political favouritism, like exempting things like police cars (even though they use roads, congest traffic and emit particles too), some noisy group of motoring voters or indeed politicians' vehicles.

Re:Not what it's about.

[thegarbz]

Trying to get people to stop using cars is basically forcing them to reduce their quality of life... There are simply no viable alternatives to many car uses for a lot of people.

This is not what this is about. The fact is there are very viable alternatives to many car uses for a lot of people but they sit their fat arses in a fuel guzzler for the 1min trip to work rather than taking the healthier option of walking or riding. If this were introduced here I'd probably cycle to work for more than I do already, and I know several people at work who are already considering doing so because of the cost of petrol.

Those people who do drive every day have incentives to change their vehicles from something like a giant petrol hungry SUV that has never once left the bitumen to a car that not only is smaller and cheaper to run but more environmentally friendly too which also helps governments appear "green".

Stupid & Silly

[p51d007]

All of these idiotic ideas to "reduce the consumption" is nothing but BS. Ok...so what happens when everyone is driving "green" vehicles? Did you liberal anti capitalist eco-nuts ever thing that once you do that, there will be no "fossil fuel" taxes (oh pardon me...the "pc" term is revenue) coming in? Ok, how are you going to pay for road repairs & maintenance? It's just like the stupid tobacco taxes. You want those jacked up so people will quit smoking, but they have the taxes tied to "health care" (everyone knows it doesn't go there, but, that is what they tell ignorant people who believe it). There would not be a shortage of fuel, if the stupid EPA would just go kiss off and let the oil prospectors drill where there is oil!

The Netherlands is?

[DaVince21]

I thought "lands" was plural?

It's really about selling monitoring systems

[billstewart]

This isn't a new idea from the Netherlands. This is an idea whose proponents have been trying to sell in the US for several years, including trying to sell it to states like California and Oregon, and trying to sell to the Feds, and now they're trying to sell to the Netherlanders.

Sometimes they compare it to fuel taxes (by saying things about poor people not being able to afford Priuses) or to annual flat or per-car-value fees (by saying that those don't track road usage and construction costs), and they never compare it to having your odometer read when you get your car inspected (because that would be too easy), and sometimes they try to tell the Feds or the states that they aren't getting their fair share of the potential tax money (playing them against each other, except when they're trying to present it as revenue-neutral.)

As far as I can tell, it's primarily about building a big expensive monitoring system and selling lots of equipment that everybody would need to buy for their cars, an, and only secondarily about building a monitoring system that users like police will have ready access to, not that the sellers have any problem with doing that either. Issues like revenue generation for states or national governments or road construction agencies are really tertiary parts of their motivation.

Expensive Monitoring System sold as taxation

[billstewart]

This isn't a new idea from the Netherlands. This is an idea whose proponents have been trying to sell in the US for several years, including trying to sell it to states like California and Oregon, and trying to sell to the Feds, and now they're trying to sell to the Netherlanders.

They can get environmentalists excited about discouraging driving (raising either a fuel tax or annually checking odometers could also do that), and government road building agencies excited about raising taxes on people who use the roads more, and high-tech bloggers excited about arguing the merits of different pricing structures on driver behavior and revenue generation, and police agencies entirely not saying anything out loud about how amazingly cool it would be to have everybody have to buy a system that tracks everywhere they drive, posed as a tax measure, muchcooler than just putting license plates on cars or getting people to buy Fastrack toll transponders or put GPS in their cell phones.

It's a scam now, and it's been a scam since the beginning. It requires expensive equipment in every car and an expensive infrastructure to monitor the equipment, so it's also not revenue-neutral as a tax collection methodology. And at least here in California, we already have a serious mess about how different kinds of taxes get allocated between the state, cities, counties, and state transportation agencies, and they were trying to use that as a way to play the different levels of government off against each other so that at least one of them would be greedy enough to buy this thing.