Road Use by E.V. Drivers: To Tax or Not to Tax?

[LTLFTcomposite]

Is it true that one truck puts more wear on pavement than 10,000 cars?

I always wondered about that too. If there is even a small bit of truth to this, would it make any sense to build an interstate system just for trucks? Build it with better materials so it holds up better. Without trucks on the road, would the highways last longer and be in much better repair?

Yes they would! This is a great idea. That would keep auto traffic separate from truck traffic, making driving more enjoyable for all. As for using a stronger material, how about long pieces of steel, carefully aligned so the trucks could ride on steel wheels. The rolling resistance would be so low that the trucks could all be hooked together and pulled along the road by a single truck with an engine, further increasing the fuel efficiency. You could even make the truck in front powered by electricity from overhead wires... no scratch that, that would just be trading an exhaust pipe for a smoke stack, and the extra power demand would bring down the grid.

 

[padamson1]

I always wondered about that too. If there is even a small bit of truth to this, would it make any sense to build an interstate system just for trucks? Build it with better materials so it holds up better. Without trucks on the road, would the highways last longer and be in much better repair?

Yes they would! This is a great idea. That would keep auto traffic separate from truck traffic, making driving more enjoyable for all. As for using a stronger material, how about long pieces of steel, carefully aligned so the trucks could ride on steel wheels. The rolling resistance would be so low that the trucks could all be hooked together and pulled along the road by a single truck with an engine, further increasing the fuel efficiency. You could even make the truck in front powered by electricity from overhead wires... no scratch that, that would just be trading an exhaust pipe for a smoke stack, and the extra power demand would bring down the grid.

:lol: :lol: Totally LMAO. Great stuff LTLFTcomposite

 

[garygid]

With containerized shipping and E or CNG powered rigs used
for local delivery ... the railroads could really thrive again.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

You could even make the truck in front powered by electricity from overhead wires... no scratch that, that would just be trading an exhaust pipe for a smoke stack, and the extra power demand would bring down the grid.

Do not worry about grid, works great for many countries, and not only for trucks, but also buses that can go as fast as 200mph.

 

[Smidge204]

Sounds good in theory but in practice we see what we're seeing now with the topic at hand. EVs come around that don't pay any gas tax, and (much more importantly) cars in general become more fuel efficient, so the revenue from the tax decreases while the need for roadwork is ever-increasing. Rather than simply fixing the problem out of the general fund as they should, policy makers use the idea of the gas tax as an excuse to let the roads fall into disrepair until they can safely pass off another tax on us. And the cycle repeats.

If you're concerned about a particular item not getting its fair allocation of general fund dollars, then you should support a law requiring that a certain percentage of the general fund be devoted to that item, irrespective of the source of the money. Of course that approach is not without its own problems, as we've seen in California...

...what.

So instead of having a tax that is directly tied to the roads, with the amount proportional to how much you use the roads, you want everyone to pay some fixed rate regardless of whether or not they even own a car? Yes, cars are getting more efficient and gas tax revenues are falling. That is exactly why we need to rethink how to best collect funds for road maintenance.

Let's take an analogy: The Jersey Turnpike. Typical toll road, with the toll being proportional to how much you use it (toll amount increases based on how many exits down the road you travel). The more you uses it, the more you pay. You are suggesting that everyone in the state be charged some flat fee regardless if they use it at all. Some people end up paying for something they don't use, some people use more than they pay for, some people are from out of state and don't pay at all. Does that really sound like a better system?

Maybe you misunderstood something... all vehicles should be taxed based on weight and mileage. Fuel taxes would not be required at all for road maintenance - although I'd argue the fuel tax should remain for other reasons.

With containerized shipping and E or CNG powered rigs used for local delivery ... the railroads could really thrive again.

I like to daydream about a national network of highly automated, high-speed rail designed solely for containerized shipping. Separate from passenger rail but with speeds just as fast (100+MPH). Load your crap into a container, tag the container with a barcode/RFID, tell the system where you want it to go and walk away. Put the whole thing underground, since it's only a dream...

One quote from this study:

When discussing road wear cars don't matter: road damage is effectively caused by trucks

I guess that explains why the Belt Parkway is in such pristine shape - no trucks allowed! :lol:
=Smidge=

 

[Pipcecil]

When it comes to road tax money, in Texas there is a direct law that the gas tax can be only used for x items. Unfortunately, they have amended this many times and it gets siphoned off to other places. Currently only 37.5% (yes you read that right) goes to roadway maintence and construction. On the federal side (which can only be used for transportation - transit and roadway), texas gets 70.1% of all federal gas tax it puts in for raods and 7.6% of it to transit, the rest goes to other states.

Currently, the idea of building separate truck lanes has been thrown around here in Texas a bunch. Being directly adjacent to mexico and having one of the largest ports and one of the largest inland ports, we generate an abnormally high amount of truck traffic. But desptie this high amount a dedicate truck lane is not worth its cost. The reasoning is that it wouldn't be as congested and you could save more money in a reduction of traffic by allowing everyone to use it (there is a specific cost per time congestion causes we use a bunch). Most interstate systems use concrete and a high reinforced subgrade underneath the road to help prevent wear and tear from trucks. Its quite complex and alot of engineering is applied to the substructure underneath the roadway (you would be quite surprised to be honest). So in a sense, its being accounted for.

The problem with the whole EV tax that states and clawing to get is due to lack of funds. The federal Highway Trust Fund is insolvent and broke. States are barely keeping up with maintence by taking out loans and increasing debt, which is just delaying the problem. Through some calcuations we have done here at work for many many congressional reports, the average roadway cost 8-12 cents per mile just to MAINTAIN properly (depends on road type, etc. - this is a Texas number). This does NOT include cost for expanding the system when the roadway reaches capacity. Now take the national average for mpg, 25. So in 25 miles, said car/truck spends 1 gallon, and in Texas, generates 38.4 cents for the roadway (this doesn't count whats being taken out...in reality after all the "deductions" its more like 20.4 cents). The user SHOULD be paying 2-3 dollars for that 25 miles of roadway. Now you can see the disjunct, and now you can see why states are desperate for roadway money and are too scared to increase and/or change the gas tax.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

Pipcecil, that explain a lot. Form what I see 2-3 years ago, rail transported a lot of trailers, but that number seems to diminish. I believe there is much higher number of trucks used here than other countries. Rail really need a lot of investment, but because long distances, why we do not use/invest in rail system which in turn will lessen road use. Is the money only problem here?

 

[padamson1]

The problem with the whole EV tax that states and clawing to get is due to lack of funds. The federal Highway Trust Fund is insolvent and broke. States are barely keeping up with maintence by taking out loans and increasing debt, which is just delaying the problem. Through some calcuations we have done here at work for many many congressional reports, the average roadway cost 8-12 cents per mile just to MAINTAIN properly (depends on road type, etc. - this is a Texas number). This does NOT include cost for expanding the system when the roadway reaches capacity. Now take the national average for mpg, 25. So in 25 miles, said car/truck spends 1 gallon, and in Texas, generates 38.4 cents for the roadway (this doesn't count whats being taken out...in reality after all the "deductions" its more like 20.4 cents). The user SHOULD be paying 2-3 dollars for that 25 miles of roadway. Now you can see the disjunct, and now you can see why states are desperate for roadway money and are too scared to increase and/or change the gas tax.

A tax based on actual mileage and weight is the fair process, I just don't see anybody accepting the big brothersque methodology required to carry out such a tax getting accepted. Maybe EVSE or CarWings mileage data could be collected, summarized, and sent on a 1099-like form by the auto manufacturer (Nissan, Tesla, & GM have this data) to EV owners annually would submit with their taxes could be OK for people (still a potential for fraud and a little big brotheresque but at least the government isn't getting GPS data).

The gas (consumption) tax is really the easiest way to raise money for an ICE, but as pipcecil states gas taxes should definitely be higher. The resulting higher gas prices encourage people to drive (pollute) less and push individuals to buy higher MPG vehicles.

At the surface higher gas taxes seems like a win-win, unfortunately the accepted logic is that our way of life is so dependent on cheap gas that the side effects would be disastrous for an economy already on the brink. This logic has been based on the observation that many businesses rely on cheap gas both for moving goods and customers driving effortless all over to eat out & shop, as well as commuters must who drive long distances b/c there isn't adequate mass transportation. However this conflicts with the data the average driving distance is 40mi (what makes EV's viable), so there must be a lot of Americans who don't really require cheap gas to get around and do what they need to do. Yes the transport of goods would definitely be adversely affected (given the demise of the rail system) raising the cost of goods in stores, but I am beginning to wonder if a moderate staged tax hike on gas over a number of years would really be as bad for the US economy as everyone thinks. If the new revenue is used to only to rebuild the highway infrastructure, that would produce construction and planning jobs which has lots of direct & indirect benefits....

 

[Pipcecil]

@EdmondLeaf:

Rail is actually getting a large insurgance as of lately due to increasing cost of trucking. The problem with investing in the infrastructure of these is that the railroads are private companies with goverment-like powers (i.e. eminant domain, etc.). Its very hard to convince these companies to invest in rail improvements, its their rail, you can't force them even if you offer money on the table and other stuff (like engineering designs). Then you have to explain to the public why the government is spending millions on private companies to improve their system to make them more money? We had this exact same situation in Fort Worth trying to fix an at-grade rail crossing (think of it as a stop sign) on the 2nd busiest intersection of rail in the US (imagine a freeway interchange with another freeway interchange and make it a stop sign or signal light instead....).

But the rail companies are trying very hard to improve their whole dependance. In the freight world, the moto is if its 250 miles or greater rail is better, less than that, its truck. Rail wants to reduce that to 100 miles, maybe even 50. With huge intermodal hubs that switch cargo from trains, trucks, and airline (Alliance Airport in Forth Worth is a perfect example), the freight infrastructure is booming. Its just hard to see because its out-of-sight-out-of-mind. For intstance for Alliance Airport did you know that Samsung Via BNSF makes a run on flat screen TVs from Long Beach to Alliance in 24 hours by6 train? Thats ultra fast. Then at alliance the goods are processed into the country and shipped by more train or truck to best buy and the like. Apple also has an insane airplane run from China to Fort Worth, non-stop over the pole in about 16 hours so you can get your iPods, iPhones, iPads faster. The trip used to take a stop in Alaska, but with the runway extention = larger planes = more fuel = non-stop.

 

[Nubo]

So instead of having a tax that is directly tied to the roads, with the amount proportional to how much you use the roads, you want everyone to pay some fixed rate regardless of whether or not they even own a car? Yes, cars are getting more efficient and gas tax revenues are falling. That is exactly why we need to rethink how to best collect funds for road maintenance.

Let's take an analogy: The Jersey Turnpike. Typical toll road, with the toll being proportional to how much you use it (toll amount increases based on how many exits down the road you travel). The more you uses it, the more you pay. You are suggesting that everyone in the state be charged some flat fee regardless if they use it at all. Some people end up paying for something they don't use, some people use more than they pay for, some people are from out of state and don't pay at all. Does that really sound like a better system?

Well, I pay taxes to support the fire department even though I have never required their services. I pay taxes to support the schools even though I don't have children. I pay taxes for all kinds of things that are necessary for society and my community to function. Regardless of how much or little I use the roads, I still need them to be there, to be maintained, etc...

The concept of a road use tax is archaic, in my opinion. This isn't the 1910's where a paved road is an oddity used by a wealthy few. And the concept of a paid turnpike or toll-bridge is even more annoying and creates man-made traffic jams where people sit in traffic for the privilege of handing over money or throw coins in a basket every few miles. A ridiculous system. We all need the roads so let's find a way to fund them with the least amount of hassle and intrusion. If we must tie it to use then a per-vehicle fee sounds best to me. Don't bother everyone with checking mileage and all the regulatory, enforcement, inspection and technical shennanegans needed to make it semi-reliable. The differential effect of GVW in road wear can be reasonably accounted for. Season tickets for the road. Done!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Well, I pay taxes to support the fire department even though I have never required their services. I pay taxes to support the schools even though I don't have children. I pay taxes for all kinds of things that are necessary for society and my community to function. Regardless of how much or little I use the roads, I still need them to be there, to be maintained, etc...

sounds like you think the price of gas is based on what it cost to produce and deliver to you. actually you might want to consider what happens when fire services are inept or the schools in your area are failing. what is your home valued at? and how do you maintain that value? mowing the lawn??

well, actually. you maintain the value of your home by maintaining the neighborhood you live in by supporting services like schools, emergency services and whatnot.

if you have any questions about this, take a look at a 3500 sq ft 5 bed 5 bath brick home sitting on a 3/4 acre lot in a former upscale Detroit neighborhood. its a good deal at $37,000. that is an 80+% discount off the value of the home from the mid 90's.

now why is that $300,000 home worth so little?? because emergency services taxes and school taxes were not paid. that is why

 

[Nubo]

Well, I pay taxes to support the fire department even though I have never required their services. I pay taxes to support the schools even though I don't have children. I pay taxes for all kinds of things that are necessary for society and my community to function. Regardless of how much or little I use the roads, I still need them to be there, to be maintained, etc...

sounds like you think the price of gas is based on what it cost to produce and deliver to you. actually you might want to consider what happens when fire services are inept or the schools in your area are failing. what is your home valued at? and how do you maintain that value? mowing the lawn??

well, actually. you maintain the value of your home by maintaining the neighborhood you live in by supporting services like schools, emergency services and whatnot.

if you have any questions about this, take a look at a 3500 sq ft 5 bed 5 bath brick home sitting on a 3/4 acre lot in a former upscale Detroit neighborhood. its a good deal at $37,000. that is an 80+% discount off the value of the home from the mid 90's.

now why is that $300,000 home worth so little?? because emergency services taxes and school taxes were not paid. that is why

I'm not sure how that relates to my post. I was pointing out that much of the commons is paid in a general fashion, not via "usage tax". I suggest that roads should be considered that way.


I don't see how that implies anything about my concept of the price of gas, failing schools, etc?

 

[Yodrak]

Wonder what is your opinion. There is tax on my electricity, but is not for road construction/maintenance,

True

why I should pay another tax,

Good question

but I am using road like other people?

Ah, there you have it! You've answered your own question!

GM is against it - it will impede EV adoption. Kansas seems to propose highest tax but 26 Volts and no Leaf, if I am correct. Bu the way picture from DFW or Houston?
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/road-use-by-e-v-drivers-to-tax-or-not-to-tax/

True enough - taxation is frequently used to promote social and other agendas. That's why our income tax code is such a complex mess. Why not expand the concept to other taxes?

 

[Yodrak]

A whole separate interstate highway system? What a horribly expensive, wasteful idea.

But in certain areas, where there is good reason for it, separate truck lanes might make good sense. For example, there is a stretch of the NJ Turnpike/I-95 between the Raritan River and Newark where there are separate lanes for cars and for trucks and busses. 3 lanes for cars and a separate set of 4 lanes for trucks and busses, in effect 2 separate highways, in each direction. Cars are allowed to use the truck/bus lanes.

Yes they would! This is a great idea. That would keep auto traffic separate from truck traffic, making driving more enjoyable for all.

... would it make any sense to build an interstate system just for trucks?

 

[Roadburner440]

Why not just make everyone pay a flat tax, and be done with it? EVERYONE needs to pay in to the services that we all use. Which ironically the top 51% are the ones paying for these services when it is mostly the bottom 49% utilizing them. Most of the actual tax payers pay to send their kids to private school (on top of paying their taxes).. I think if we just levied a flat tax, did away with all the loopholes, exemptions, etc that things would be a lot better. Then you wouldn't have the 49% voting in block for people that promise more "free stuff," and they also would have more respect for where roads/fire/EMS/other services come from. Not to mention how the tax money collected is spent.

So no. I do not think we need an EV road use tax. We just need to go to 1 flat national tax, 1 state tax, and either 1 local tax or keep the sales tax. Either way we as communities need to decide what these services are worth to us, and either pony up the money (as a whole) or get rid of them.

There is a lot more at stake here than just saying we need to tax EV's as trasportation funds are raided to pay for other pet projects. Same with Social Security and the like. If the tax money actually went where it was intended there would be less of a problem, but when you have various interests (on both sides) raiding said funds you run in to these issues of looking for straw people. Even if they taxed me they would get what, $100 a year? With only about 20EV's in this area the county would recieve a whopping $2000. So if you ask me this is the least of their problems. Here they are talking about tacking on 20 cents per gallon to the gas tax, and I say go right on ahead. If I need to pay my yearly fee then so be it, but it will still be less than what they pay.

 

[Yodrak]

I also like the idea of a tax based on miles driven and vehicle weight. And it could be applied to all vehicles, regardless of fuel type, eliminating most if not all of the gas tax that is [theoretically?] dedicated to road maintenance, improvement, or construction.

Recognizing that 'the' gas tax is actually pancaked federal, state, and perhaps local taxes:
- at the state level, tie it to annual (or bi-annual, as the case may be) vehicle registration. True up when a vehicle is sold. Yes, a new tax collection process would have to be set up within the existing registration framework, but using that existing framework and applying the tax to all types of vehicles shouldn't make it unreasonably expensive, as applying a different type of tax to only one type of vehicle would.
- at the federal or local level, those governments could either continue on as now, collecting a gas tax paid at the pump, or could change also 'piggy-back' on the state process. The state process could be used to collect all the taxes, and periodically (monthly or quarterly) forward the amounts due to the feds and the localities.

As for that portion of the gas tax that might be there for 'social engineering' purpose, such as to somehow compensate for the impact of emissions on the environment - retain that portion of a much reduced gas tax and spend it appropriately.

I support the idea of a tax based on miles driven and the weight of your vehicle. This can be assessed during your yearly inspection.

However. The number of EVs on the road right now is so small it really isn't an issue. I would say the government should wait until there is a certain percentage, say at least 5% or something like that. We don't want to bog down the EV movement so early in the game.

 

[Smidge204]

I also like the idea of a tax based on miles driven and vehicle weight. And it could be applied to all vehicles, regardless of fuel type, eliminating most if not all of the gas tax that is [theoretically?] dedicated to road maintenance, improvement, or construction.

Keep the gasoline/fossil fuel taxes as a consumption tax. Instead of going towards road maintenance, it can go towards the other costs that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to; National defense, environmental protection, and health care. It should not be reduced at all IMHO, and probably increased gingerly so these costs are no longer externalized like they are now.

As for collecting... since an annual road use fee could amount to several hundred dollars per year it might not be practical to collect in a lump sum. Roll the fees it into your insurance premiums. This will spread the cost out over several months and works well since insurance companies are already well adapted to dealing with all the necessary information (vehicle type, weight, etc).
=Smidge=

 

[Yodrak]

No different from what I wrote in the last paragraph of my post - exept for the amount.

Keep the gasoline/fossil fuel taxes as a consumption tax. Instead of going towards road maintenance, it can go towards the other costs that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to; National defense, environmental protection, and health care. It should not be reduced at all IMHO, and probably increased gingerly so these costs are no longer externalized like they are now.

It might be quite a battle for individual states to get insurance companies to become tax collectors for their particular state. For the insurance companies, collecting different taxes for as many as 50 different states could be a complex and expensive proposition.

You're right though, that an annual lump-sum road-use tax at registration time, on top of the sometimes large personal property tax that some states impose for autos at the same time, could be difficult for consumers. Perhaps a system of, say, quarterly payments could be set up with the total amount for the year established at registration time.

As for collecting... since an annual road use fee could amount to several hundred dollars per year it might not be practical to collect in a lump sum. Roll the fees it into your insurance premiums. This will spread the cost out over several months and works well since insurance companies are already well adapted to dealing with all the necessary information (vehicle type, weight, etc).
=Smidge=