Oregon 的道路使用收费 (USA)

Jurisdiction overview

Oregon's transportation governance is predicated on a constitutional mandate that emphasizes the equity of the user-pay principle. The state constitution requires that different classes of vehicles pay their fair share for the use of public highways, a requirement that has historically been satisfied through a combination of fuel taxes for light vehicles and a weight-mile tax for heavy commercial vehicles over 26,000 pounds. This dual-system approach has existed since 1947, demonstrating the state's long-standing comfort with mileage-based assessments for certain sectors of the economy. The revenue generated from these sources flows into the State Highway Fund, which is then distributed through a statutory formula known as the 50/30/20 split: 50 percent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 30 percent to the state's 36 counties, and 20 percent to its 241 cities. This distribution model ensures that local jurisdictions are deeply invested in the stability of the funding stream, as they rely on these transfers for local road maintenance, safety projects, and essential operations.

The socio-economic profile of Oregon drivers further complicates the funding landscape. The state possesses an ownership rate of hybrid, electric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles that is approximately twice the national average. This high rate of adoption for fuel-efficient technology reflects a broader environmental consciousness within the jurisdiction, but it creates a fiscal paradox: the very success of Oregon's climate and air quality initiatives directly undermines its ability to fund the roads those vehicles utilize. The current fleet distribution shows a significant move toward electrification, with over 119,000 zero-emission vehicles registered as of May 2025, representing roughly 3.2 percent of the total fleet, a number that continues to grow despite falling short of more ambitious state goals.

The geographic divide between Oregon's dense urban centers, such as Portland and Eugene, and its vast, sparsely populated rural counties in the eastern and southern regions, creates a diverse set of expectations for the transportation system. Rural drivers often travel significantly longer distances for basic necessities, leading to persistent concerns that any per-mile charge would disproportionately burden those living far from metropolitan cores. Conversely, urban planners in the Portland metro area have explored RUC as a potential tool for congestion management and localized revenue generation.

Policy drivers

The primary impetus for exploring alternatives to the gasoline tax is the "one-two punch" of improving fuel efficiency and the erosive power of inflation. For nearly a century, the gasoline tax served as a reliable proxy for road use because fuel consumption was closely correlated with vehicle weight and distance traveled. In the modern era, this correlation has decoupled. High-efficiency internal combustion engines and electric vehicles (EVs) allow motorists to travel the same number of miles while contributing significantly less, or nothing at all, in fuel tax revenue.

The erosion of the tax's purchasing power is equally critical. Oregon's state gasoline tax is set at a flat rate, which is not automatically adjusted for inflation. If the 1993 tax rate had been indexed to inflation, it would be approximately 55 cents per gallon today, whereas the actual rate remained significantly lower for decades before recent incremental increases. This structural deficit means that even as the population grows and the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases, the real-dollar revenue available for bridge repairs, pavement preservation, and safety upgrades continues to decline.

Beyond fiscal sustainability, the state's climate objectives act as a powerful policy driver. The Oregon Department of Transportation is mandated to align its funding strategies with the state's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals. Traditional fuel taxes create a perverse incentive for the state: it needs people to burn fossil fuels to maintain its roads. A road usage charge resolves this conflict by allowing the state to support the transition to a zero-emission fleet without compromising its financial stability. This alignment between environmental policy and fiscal reform has been essential in maintaining political support for RUC among the state's Democratic and environmental-advocacy stakeholders.

Program design

Origins and the Road User Fee Task Force (RUFTF)

The formal pursuit of a per-mile fee began in 2001, when the Oregon Legislature recognized that the burgeoning market for hybrid and electric vehicles would eventually render the gas tax obsolete. The legislature enacted HB 3946, which created the Road User Fee Task Force (RUFTF), a 12-member body appointed by the Governor, the Senate President, the House Speaker, and the Chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission. The task force was designed to be a permanent, deliberative body that would research, test, and recommend viable alternatives to the fuels tax.

During its initial years, the RUFTF evaluated 28 different funding mechanisms, ranging from tire taxes and battery disposal fees to significant increases in flat registration fees. Ultimately, the task force concluded that a per-mile charge was the most accurate and equitable way to ensure that users pay for the actual wear and tear they cause to the roads. This decision was rooted in the "benefit principle" of taxation, which posits that those who benefit from a public service should pay in proportion to their consumption of that service.

The pilot phase: Iterative learning (2006-2013)

Before launching a permanent program, Oregon conducted two major pilot projects that were instrumental in shaping the eventual system design. These pilots allowed ODOT to test both the technology and the public's willingness to participate in a new tax regime.

The first pilot (2006-2007) involved 285 volunteer vehicles in the Portland area. It focused on testing the feasibility of replacing the gas tax with a mileage fee and explored the impact of congestion pricing, where participants were charged more for driving in congested zones during peak hours. A key technical feature of this pilot was the use of GPS-enabled devices that communicated with specialized fuel pumps at two Portland service stations. When participants refueled, the system automatically calculated the mileage fee, deducted the state fuel tax, and added the net difference to the pump total. This pilot proved that the technology worked but revealed significant public discomfort with mandated GPS tracking and the high cost of retrofitting fuel pumps statewide.

The second pilot (2012-2013), often referred to as the Road Usage Charge Pilot Program (RUCPP), was more expansive and involved collaboration with Washington and Nevada. This pilot tested a multi-provider "open system" where volunteers could choose between different technology options and account managers. Participants were offered three primary reporting methods: a basic mileage reporting device (MRD), an advanced MRD with location services, and a smartphone application. Crucially, participants in the Oregon portion of this pilot actually paid the 1.56 cents-per-mile fee, whereas those in other states received illustrative bills. This real-world financial transaction provided valuable data on payment compliance and participant satisfaction.

The OReGO program structure

The culmination of these efforts was the passage of Senate Bill 810 in 2013, which directed ODOT to launch a permanent, voluntary RUC program known as OReGO on July 1, 2015. OReGO was the first fully operational, revenue-generating per-mile charging system in the United States. The program was initially capped at 5,000 vehicles to manage the scale of the initial deployment and ensure that the administrative systems could handle the load.

The participation model for OReGO is built on three core pillars: choice, privacy, and equity. To protect individual privacy, the state utilizes a multi-vendor administration system where motorists manage their accounts with private commercial account managers (CAMs) rather than dealing directly with the state DMV or ODOT. These CAMs, such as Azuga and Emovis, handle the data collection and billing, reporting only aggregated mileage totals and the resulting revenue to ODOT.

Participants are charged a flat per-mile rate, which is currently set at 2 cents per mile. To prevent double taxation, the system provides a non-refundable credit for the state fuel tax paid at the pump. If a driver travels 1,000 miles in a vehicle that gets 20 MPG, they would be charged $20 in RUC (1,000 x $0.02) but would receive a credit for the 50 gallons of gas they purchased ($20 at the current 40-cent rate), effectively resulting in a zero-sum transaction for that specific month. However, for high-efficiency vehicles or EVs, the RUC total will exceed the fuel tax credit, ensuring these drivers pay a proportional share for their road use.

Observed outcomes

The OReGO program has yielded a decade of data that provides a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the per-mile model. From a technical standpoint, the program has proven that an open-system architecture can successfully integrate private sector vendors with state financial systems. The use of the OBD-II port has remained the dominant method for data collection, though newer vehicles are increasingly utilizing embedded telematics, which eliminates the need for external hardware.

Enrollment and participation trends

Participation in the voluntary program has remained relatively stable but modest. As of November 2025, the program reported 923 active vehicles, a slight increase from 909 in the previous month. While this represents a small fraction of Oregon's 3.9 million vehicles, the program's value lies in its role as a "beta test" for a mandatory system. Approximately 48 percent of participants drive hybrid or electric vehicles, indicating that the incentive of waived registration fees is a significant driver of enrollment for this demographic.

Participant satisfaction has been remarkably high, with 96 percent of OReGO members reporting that they are satisfied with the program. Surveys indicate that once drivers overcome the initial technological hurdle of installing a reporting device, they find the monthly or quarterly billing process to be simple and transparent. Furthermore, many participants report that they feel the system is "fairer" than the gas tax, as they are paying for exactly what they use.

Public perceptions and education

The program has also highlighted the critical role of public education. Research shows that initial opposition to RUC is often rooted in a lack of information. When drivers are provided with even a small amount of detail about how the funds are used and how privacy is protected, their acceptance of the concept increases significantly. However, two persistent concerns remain prevalent: the perceived penalty for rural drivers and the problem of "free riders," meaning out-of-state drivers who use Oregon roads but do not pay the RUC.

To address the out-of-state issue, Oregon has been a leader in the RUC America consortium, testing interoperability solutions. These pilots have demonstrated that it is technically possible for an Oregon account manager to collect mileage data for miles driven in California or Washington and then remit those funds to the appropriate state. However, this requires a level of interstate cooperation and data standardization that has not yet been achieved at a national scale.

Local and urban outcomes

ODOT has also used the OReGO foundation to test localized pricing. The Portland Local Road Usage Charge Pilot (2021) explored whether RUC technology could support city-level transportation goals. This pilot examined static and variable rates within geofenced areas, layered local RUC on top of state charges, and tested corridor-specific pricing during peak hours. The results indicated that while the technology can support these complex pricing models, the administrative burden of managing different local rates increases significantly, which may limit their feasibility to large metropolitan areas with robust transit alternatives.

Analysis: Drivers of persistence and success

Oregon's ability to maintain a road usage charging program for over twenty years, while many other states have struggled to move beyond the initial research phase, is the result of deliberate policy and design choices.

Why Oregon succeeded in launching early

The primary reason for Oregon's early success was the creation of a permanent, bipartisan institutional framework. By establishing the RUFTF in 2001, the legislature created a dedicated space for transportation experts and politicians to solve long-term funding issues away from the immediate heat of the budget cycle. This institutional continuity meant that when the fiscal crisis of the gasoline tax eventually arrived, Oregon already had a decade of research and two successful pilots ready to be implemented.

Furthermore, Oregon's "pilot-first" strategy allowed the state to build a body of evidence that countered the most common arguments against RUC. By testing multiple technologies and payment methods, ODOT was able to prove that the system was not only technologically viable but also accurate and secure. This evidence-based approach provided the political cover necessary for the legislature to pass SB 810 with bipartisan support, a rarity for any new tax or fee.

Design choices that reduced resistance

The most critical design choice in reducing public resistance was the "open system" architecture that prioritized driver choice and privacy. By mandating that the program offer at least one non-GPS reporting option, the state addressed the "Big Brother" tracking concern at its core. While many drivers eventually chose the more convenient GPS devices once they became comfortable with the system, the existence of the non-GPS alternative was essential for the program's initial legitimacy.

The use of private commercial account managers was another masterstroke in system design. This created a "private buffer" between the citizen and the state. Motorists are often more comfortable sharing data with a private entity (to whom they already provide data for insurance, diagnostics, or navigation) than directly with a government agency. The statutory requirement for these vendors to destroy location data within 30 days further solidified this trust.

Finally, the framing of the RUC as a tax-neutral replacement rather than a new tax was vital. The non-refundable credit for the state fuel tax ensured that drivers did not feel they were being charged twice for the same mile. By linking the RUC rate to the fuel tax rate, the state maintained a clear logic: you are simply paying your share in a different way.

Limits to scalability

Despite its persistence, the current OReGO model faces significant hurdles to becoming a mandatory, statewide system for all vehicles.

The second limit is the complexity of the enrollment and "true-up" process. In a voluntary system, participants are highly motivated to manage their accounts. In a mandatory system involving millions of drivers, the state would face a massive burden in ensuring compliance, managing delinquent accounts, and processing millions of fuel tax credits. Research suggests that a system relying exclusively on self-installed devices would be vulnerable to widespread tampering or evasion in a mandatory environment.

Finally, the equity concerns of rural and low-income drivers have not been fully addressed in a way that would survive a statewide political mandate. While data might show that a rural driver in an older, fuel-inefficient truck might actually pay less under RUC than the gas tax, the psychological impact of seeing a per-mile charge on a monthly bill is a powerful deterrent. Without explicit policy adjustments for these groups, a mandatory RUC remains a "heavy lift" for the legislature.

Current status

As of 2025 and early 2026, Oregon is entering a period of significant fiscal stress and legislative redirection. The Oregon Department of Transportation currently faces a projected funding gap of approximately $242 million for the 2025 to 2027 budget cycle, driven by the collapse of gas tax revenue and the impact of inflation on maintenance costs. This has led to a major legislative push for a new funding package known as the Transportation ReInvestment Package (TRIP), or HB 2025.

The 2025-2027 funding crisis and TRIP

The proposed TRIP package includes a variety of short-term and long-term revenue tools. Most notably, it proposes a significant increase in the gasoline tax, from 40 cents to 50 cents in 2026 and eventually to 55 cents by 2028, along with the implementation of inflation indexing for all future rate changes.

Crucially, the TRIP package and associated legislative concepts envision a mandatory shift toward road usage charging for certain vehicle classes. The long-stalled mandate for high-efficiency vehicles is gaining renewed traction. Current proposals would require all passenger vehicles with a rating of 30 MPG or higher, starting with model year 2028 or 2029, to enroll in the RUC program as a condition of registration. For these drivers, the RUC would replace both the fuels tax and the supplemental registration fees they currently pay.

Legislative and administrative challenges

The road to this mandatory system is not without obstacles. In late 2025, the legislature passed House Bill 3991 to provide immediate operational funding and avoid mass layoffs at ODOT. However, parts of this bill have been referred to the voters, meaning that some of the new revenue is delayed pending a statewide election. Governor Tina Kotek has called for a comprehensive solution in the upcoming sessions to repeal the fragmented pieces of HB 3991 and establish a durable, long-term funding structure in the 2027 legislative session.

In the meantime, OReGO is continuing to refine its technology. The program is testing "Connected Vehicle Ecosystems" (CVE) to allow data to flow directly from the car's computer to account managers without the need for any plug-in devices. This shift is seen as essential for reducing the high administrative costs and improving the user experience for the next generation of drivers.

The state is also grappling with broader economic shifts. Oregon's public school and higher education enrollment has seen significant fluctuation since the pandemic, which affects the state's overall tax base and General Fund priorities. With a graduation rate of 83 percent and a growing need for a skilled workforce to maintain the "green economy," the competition for every dollar of state revenue remains intense. The success of the RUC program is therefore not just a transportation issue, but a critical component of Oregon's overall fiscal health in an era of rapid technological and demographic change.