Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
Thursday, April 29, 2010 | 8:35 p.m.
Reader poll
Sun archives
Sun Coverage
Despite public concern over the Nevada Department of Transportation’s interest in finding a new way to fund road projects, only a handful of people showed up for a meeting about the study Thursday night.
The transportation department is studying ways the state could implement a Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee, essentially a way to track the number of miles each car is driven and then tax the owner based on those miles, instead of taxing gasoline.
People have raised a number of concerns about the concept, especially that the government could track exactly where and when people drive.
About 70 people showed up at a public meeting in Reno on March 30, department officials said, but at Thursday evening’s meeting at the Clark County Government Center, staff from the transportation department and reporters far outnumbered the public.
Some of those who did attend said they picked up some valuable information, especially the extent of the shortfall the state’s transportation budget faces if it continues to rely on the gas tax.
“What I didn’t know before was the dilemma that we face as a state,” said Las Vegas resident Mike Hazard. “I’d never really thought about it, and it appears we have to do something.”
The transportation department expects to be $40 million short by 2014, largely because of the increasing fuel efficiency of cars and the growing number of hybrid and electric vehicles.
After talking to transportation department staff, Hazard said, he still doesn’t like the idea of the government tracking where people drive with a GPS or “black box.”
But if a tax is collected based on the odometer reading of the car, he might be able to support it.
“I think there’s some alternatives to the GPS system that might work,” Hazard said. “I don’t know how the government would prevent invasion of privacy if GPS is used.”
Transportation department Deputy Director Scott Rawlins said that is exactly the kind of feedback the state wants with this study.
“We need to figure out how to protect the privacy of people in this country and state if we are going to go to a different form of a fee,” he said.
But privacy means different things to different people, which is why the study is needed to get input, Rawlins said. He noted that many people drive with GPS devices already in their cars and cell phones.
But the fundamental issue is that something needs to be done to replace the gas tax, Rawlins said.
“Raising the gas tax is a loosing battle,” he said. “The gas tax is not going to address the long-term problems.”
State Sen. Michael Schneider, who is the chair of the Energy, Infrastructure and Transportation Committee, also said the state needs to find an alternative to the gas tax.
“We need to adjust because the gas tax won’t be there in the next 10 to 20 years; it’s going away,” he said.
He said his wife recently bought a hybrid car, cutting in half the taxes she pays, but she still adds wear and tear to the roads.
Schneider said the Legislature will be looking into the issue of the gas tax in the next session, and he is encouraging the transportation department to go on with its study to find viable solutions.
“There’s some things that still need to be worked out, but that’s all part of this,” he said.
People can continue to submit comments to the department about the current study until May 28 by e-mailing vmtfeestudy@vmtfeenv.com or by writing to Jason Van Havel, Study Coordinator, Nevada Department of Transportation, 1263 S. Stewart St., Carson City, NV 89712.
I am all for a gps, tracking type tax. But we should only put the tax on the people that work in the private sector, and wealthy retirees. Welfare people, illegals, government workers, should all get a free ride, via your pocket book!
The gps & tracking devices need to be attached on the government workers. Watch how unproductive they really are. Perhaps then adjust their rate of pay to that of the public sector.That includes the lazy firefighters. The money saved should be enough to offset any require for road projects.
Therefore no additional taxes will be needed.
tax on gas in the UK is around 80% the average price per gallon is $10
some food for thought
Register and tax automobiles/trucks on their weight not value. Why should a $30,000 lightweight energy efficient Prius cost more to register and tax than a $22,000 weighty, gas guzzler Ford F-150?
I like the gas tax. You drive you pay.
If necessary, raise the tax per gallon.
People with high mileage vehicles deserve a break.
Or, like other states, Hawaii for example, base the license fee on weight, not value. A heavy vehicle does more damage to roads then a lighter vehicle.
Or a combination of the two.
I DO NOT WANT THE goverment TRACKING ME.
A gas tax is simple, easy to enforce, and costs virtually nothing to implement. Since cars are averaging more miles per gallon than they did 10-15 years ago, raise the tax per gallon appropriately. This is a no-brainer.
If people continue to drive gas guzzlers (like old cars, SUVs, and heavy trucks), then they'll pay higher taxes - rightfully so - than someone driving a Prius or a Honda Civic (which don't tear up roads as much and don't have the emissions of larger/older vehicles.)
Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Introducing a GPS device to track vehicle movement is costly, cumbersome, subject to manipulation or fraud, and records more data than needed to collect this tax.
I saw the letter announcing this meeting in advance (4 days notice I believe) on the opinion page and commented then as follows:
"One further question, why is the meeting scheduled at a time when people who would be most affected by it are not able to participate? The normal working stiff won't be off work til at least 5PM or 5:30, and those are the people who pay the most in fuel taxes I presume.
May I suggest that your meetings in the future start at 7PM instead? I understand that this might place a burden upon the agency, but after all, you work for us on salary and should be responsive to our needs."
This poor turnout is exactly what I thought would happen. I would have loved to have been able to be there, but that was not possible.
So let me get this straight. We are told to conserve water and we do, but then the water company sells less water and must raise the rates. Same exact thing with electricity.
Now people drive more fuel efficient cars so the government receives less gas tax money, so we get shafted again for conserving.
WHERE IS OUR INCENTIVE TO CONSERVE ANYTHING? WE SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR CONSERVING, NOT PUNISHED WITH HIGHER RATES AND TAXES!!
The November Revolution is coming.
The only way this will work is if it is a national system used to replace the gasoline taxes. If it is done for Nevada residents only revenues from out of state individuals who drive here and buy gas here will be lost and additionally you will find even more people who will register their cars in other states, which in turn will reduce the amount reveues the state collects from car registrations. In the end they will likley try to implement this stupid system and still keep the gas tax. The prudent thing to do would be to remove the prevailing wage provisions for state contracts, which will immediately reduce the cost of contructing our roads thus reducing the need for additional revenues. This seems to be a typical government solution, where they consider a new way to raise money, but without taking into account what the ramifications on other revenue streams will be.