Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Dunkin came out pretty well after all
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Common Cause, ICPR support bill *** Madigan backs remap reform proposal
Posted in:
* Translation: “Just about everyone thinks my Orwellian idea to charge drivers by the miles they drive sucks, so I won’t put my members on the spot by moving it forward”…
Re Cullerton raising issue of maintaining roads with increasing electric vehicles. Here's his point: pic.twitter.com/WhXUk21DwN
— IL Senate Democrats (@ILSenDems) April 17, 2016
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Dunkin came out pretty well after all
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Common Cause, ICPR support bill *** Madigan backs remap reform proposal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I absolutely hate this idea.
Since the first gasoline shock in 1974, the point has been to reward fuel efficiency and conservation as a matter of national security.
(Of course, now we’re back to exporting crude, and are a net exporter of refined petroleum products. So much for energy independence and the reasons we’re bogged down in the Middle East. But that’s another story).
So when people follow the plan and burn less fuel, but the money gets tight, you pull out the rug?
Sorry, find another way.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:48 am
Actually, I prefer elected leaders who accept reality and change course rather than doubling down on a flawed strategy.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:54 am
It’s not Orwellian to set up a user fee. And did you see Jim Reilly’s speech a week or so ago that we are $43 billion short for our infrastructure? We are dramatically under-investing in transportation and the President should be applauded for facing this reality with a reasonable proposal.
My two cents: we ought to tax trucks by the mile first. They already have electronic logbooks for where they travel. They are already registered with the ICC. And they cause almost all the damage to the roads because of their weight. If we taxed trucks a dime or a quarter a mile they would probably come close to paying for their own damage to the roads.
Comment by Dan Johnson Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:56 am
Exactly, HG. Having bad ideas sometimes is not a disaster. It’s when you only have a few ideas that you stick to without reflection or thought of consequence.
(cough) turnaround (cough)
Comment by Blue Bayou Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:57 am
This is a really tough problem to solve. The motor fuel tax is probably the fairest tax out there. It is essentially a user fee. Yes we want to encourage electric cars and other fuel efficiency, but it does create a situation where you have motorists who are getting a free ride – – not paying any user fee for using the roads. There is no simple solution, but the one that makes the most sense is to install mileage readers in new electric and hybrid cars at some point in the future. It probably only make sense if the feds do it.
Comment by RM Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:57 am
The idea of a per mile doesn’t bother me much, per se (downstate folks who have to drive a lot further to get anywhere will like it much less). I didn’t like the idea of the transponder being plugged into my car (too Big Brother for me).
Comment by titan Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:59 am
This never looked like a serious proposal. I am not able to guess even one good reason for launching this trial balloon.
Perhaps it was to show an ugly proposal just in time to announce the graduated income tax amendment proposal.
Comment by Politically Incorrect Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:59 am
Need to find a way to replace revenues lost to electric and hybrid vehicles, but taxing by the miles driven is just unworkable, at this point. Maybe if ALL vehicles were electronically linked, it could be done, but the bureaucratic logistics would be a nightmare.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:00 am
===I am not able to guess even one good reason for launching this trial balloon.===
Local 150 backs it, as do some wonky techie types that Cullerton has gotten to know since he bought an electric car.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:02 am
Word, the “reward” for fuel efficiency should be less money paid for fuel, which anyone can get by buying a more efficient vehicle. Everybody needs to chip in for the “real estate” they use to travel on, otherwise we will see the infrastructure fall apart. We are not yet at the tipping point for electric vehicles, but there’s a few hundred thousand of them on the road, and more are coming. Granted, this was an unpopular bill, and practically no one likes the Big Brother aspect of a mileage tax…I think IPI’s Facebook page broke the internet with negative comments.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:03 am
FWIW, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker also proposed charging fees to electric car owners
http://www.twincities.com/2014/11/16/wisconsin-considers-joining-electric-car-tax-trend/
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:05 am
His focus group needs a couple of more members.
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:06 am
===His focus group needs a couple of more members. ===
Yeah. Particularly people who would struggle mightily to pay a lump sum tax bill if they chose to opt out of 24/7 government surveillance.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:08 am
Sad to see him cave on this so quickly. To fellow conservatives / libertarians who would kill off any discussion of this because of the Big Brother bogeyman — get a freaking grip.
Comment by Lomez Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:11 am
And EV’s are only a miniscule part of the funding shortage problem now. Every increase of 1 mpg efficiency in the overall fleet of gas and oil powered vehicles sends a huge hit to the federal and state MFT pocketbook. Iowa recently passed a 10c per gallon MFT increase because they thought it was the best way to do it, for now.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:11 am
What about an additional tax/fee for hybrid vehicle owners at the time they register/renew their sticker?
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:12 am
Questions sparked by Cullerton’s trial balloon: Has the cost of building a mile of highway stayed the same, increased, or decreased over the last twenty years? The same for repaving/repairing? How much do additional government mandates (prevailing wage/environmental/must use unions) add to these costs? I’m watching a large HDTV bought a year ago for $1000…four years ago it cost $4000…have the same market/new technology dynamics affected contruction costs?
Comment by Maguffin Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:13 am
It’s just not an acceptable proposal.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:13 am
I’m glad he backed off this idea, electric cars aren’t popular enough, yet, according to Wikipedia 0.66% of new car sales in 2015 were all electric. An excellent way to ensure electric cars become more popular would be to simply increase the gas tax. Maybe once, or if, electric cars reflect 20% of the market they should revisit this issue, but not until then.
Comment by AC Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:13 am
“Surveillance” is exactly the right word. And it creeps lots of people out no matter what their politics or driving habits/needs are.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:14 am
Pay per mile is a non-starter but it may inspire a sober discussion as to how one should fund the roadways.
Comment by Keyser Soze Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:15 am
Oregon has a pay per mile program that is voluntary, but plan to roll it out to everybody eventually.
Comment by Angry Republican Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:15 am
===Maybe once, or if, electric cars reflect 20% of the market they should revisit this issue, but not until then. ===
The problem with waiting is that they could become popular and then dealing with it then would be politically tricky. The Internet was made “sale tax free” back in the day, and now forcing companies to collect those taxes is a daunting task in every state.
I drive a hybrid. I’d be more than willing to pay an extra license plate fee or whatever every year because electric cars aren’t cheap and the working poor don’t own many yet. I’m cool with that. I ain’t cool with the government putting a GPS device in my freaking car.
Forget about that. Move along. Ain’t gonna happen.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:17 am
I still think a pilot program would have been a good idea. As more and more vehicles do not use gasoline (which is good) we need to fine new ways to pay for our roads, bridges, and transit systems. I would have volunteered for the pilot program.
And for those folks worried about “big brother,” how come they don’t complain about the Tollway?
Comment by Just Me Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:22 am
==And for those folks worried about “big brother,” how come they don’t complain about the Tollway?
==
whut????
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:25 am
And how many folks who worry about big brother carry cell phones?
Comment by a drop in Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:28 am
Did people lose their minds too when I-pass was implemented? That thing that can snap pictures of your car with you in it.
It could very well end up there is not a practical / feasible way to implement this. Very disheartening though not surprising at all that we cannot even have that discussion.
Comment by Lomez Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:28 am
You’re either encouraging behavior or you aren’t. If you encourage first, only to penalize it later, your encouragement will mean less going forward.
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:31 am
I have concerns about the per mile idea because it will suddenly become an additional tax, not a replacement for the gas tax. Then the money could be “swept” and used for other things. We have too much of that going on already.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:37 am
Word,
Electric and hybrid cars cause just as much wear and tear on the roads as those fueled by gas, so why shouldn’t you pay for it? It’s not penalizing efficiency - you still get to save by not buying gas - it’s just recognizing roads need to be paid for.
And BTW, it was great to see Cullerton so quickly abandon that idiotic idea once people raised the spectre of, as Rich put it, 24/7 surveillance. That part of the plan, as well as the penalty for opting out equivalent to 30,000 miles, were just ridiculous.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:44 am
Lomez– People are not forced to drive on the tollway. They may choose to, but they also have the choice of using other surface roads that existed before the tollways were even built. They buy their own tollway transponders and install them and accept that they are being monitored on the tollway only if they want that convenience. Do you honestly not see the difference?
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:44 am
@Responsa
The Tollway Authority can readily track the movement of anyone with an iPass.
Actually, if the State set up iPass readers on various freeways and imposed speeding tickets based on the data collected, that could be a huge revenue stream.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:46 am
Responsa - Sometimes the tollway is the only option.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:47 am
HG–not responsive. You need some new material.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:48 am
Rich Miller @ 10:17 +1
Comment by NorsemanR Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:00 am
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:08 am:
“Yeah. Particularly people who would struggle mightily to pay a lump sum tax bill if they chose to opt out of 24/7 government surveillance.”
Rich, that says it all.
I’m not sure what Cullerton was thinking, more than a little out of touch. Surely something more reasonable/incremental could be put in place.
Comment by Jimmy H Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:01 am
Increasing the license fee for electric cars (nominally and gradually) would seem like a fairer approach.
Some day, nearly every expressway could be a tollway. That might be where it ends up. Truthfully, that could very well be the most fair user fee there is.
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:03 am
IDOT had some listening sessions last year. I went to one in Peoria. IDOT head was hunting at. I thought it pointless because Madigan does not give Govoners he doesn’t trust.That said someone told me about a meeting of home care workers were omebody from the. IG office of DHS c laimed that they nailed home care workers on hours based on I PASS. I know Snowden said NSA monitored I PASS.
Comment by illinois manufacturer Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:04 am
For people who worry about having a “guv-mint transponder” but use I-Pass are contradicting each other.
The bottom line, the roads are in terrible shape in some places….and need to be repaired.
Enough with the black-topping them already.
In addition, in a big city like Chicago there is just no reason to not have a 1st class public transit system.
Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:09 am
As often as we’re monitored in far more invasive ways, and invite those ways into our lives (use a computer?), tracking simple mileage on Illinois roads is nothing. Anything you use that uploads to the cloud is invading your privacy in a way far more serious than Cullerton’s proposal.
Comment by RIJ Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:16 am
==And how many folks who worry about big brother carry cell phones?==
Um, quite a few are concerned about big brother and cell phones. Have you not paid attention to the news lately?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:27 am
==Local 150 backs it, as do some wonky techie types that Cullerton has gotten to know since he bought an electric car.== Rich @Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 10:02 am
And it appears those folks are here on this thread in large numbers today –all with the same talking points.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:32 am
Just a plain stupid idea and leads to more cynicism about Democrats willing to tax eanything and everything.
Wnen and if there are a huge number of vehicles that do not use gasoline, and the gas tax is how we fund are roads, this idea makes sense- but not until then. Also it would obviously only apply to those vehicles that do not use gas to pay that tax.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:34 am
What took him so long..
Comment by Mouthy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:34 am
This was one of the stupidest ideas I have ever read. So glad Mr. Cullerton has backed away from this. We must have some of the stupidest respresentatives in the world. How could this have been even remotely viewed as good policy?
Comment by Tone Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:38 am
I carshare. The cars have transponders. The carshare company charges me $.40 a mile plus the hourly rate. They know how far I drive their car. They don’t know (to the best of my knowledge) where I drive their cars or what I’m up to when I am driving one of their cars.
The Big Brother things sounds a little paranoid to me.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 11:49 am
===or what I’m up to when I am driving one of their cars.===
Can’t leave it at that. Tell us! lol
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 12:05 pm
Subsidizing luxury electric cars (through thousands of dollars of tax credits)that may not even be green if they are powered by coal is one example of the lunacy of our energy policy. Maybe they can reduce some of these tax credits to fund infrastructure
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 12:05 pm
===What about an additional tax/fee for hybrid vehicle owners at the time they register/renew their sticker?===
Pure electrics like the Tesla are only charged $35 for 2 years. I think someone who can afford a Tesla can afford the normal registration fee.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 1:09 pm
Cheryl44, yes, if your car has a transponder they know exactly where you’re driving. It’s not paranoia - it’s just technology.
And for those who argue iPass allows government to know everything, this is false. They only know when you are on the tollway passing by one of their readers. They certainly don’t know where you go when you get off the toll road. With the Cullerton transponder, they’d know exactly where you go, when you go, when you arrived, how long you stayed, etc. etc. Again, that’s not paranoia - just technology.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 1:49 pm
Here is the Dutch solution
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/18/3770328/netherlands-non-electric-car-ban-motion/
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:34 pm
I think it’s a unique approach and i’d like to see Illinois take the lead on some of these concepts. We need revenue and I admire the out of the box thinking even though I’m not particulary keen on more taxes.
Comment by cgo75 Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:01 pm
Rich, I think your method of collecting money to fix bridges, fix or build roads is a great way to solve the problem of diminishing transportation funds due to electric cars.
Comment by Mama Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:23 pm
My proposal is to eliminate the special registration break for electric vehicles, charge them an extra $100 a year and hybrids like $50 and all that money goes straight into the Road Fund. That could be paired with some changes to statute to make sure the Road Fund isn’t swept and there aren’t inappropriate uses for the fund (see the Auditor General’s report from a couple years ago).
Comment by MyTwoCents Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 5:54 pm