Illinois Insanity

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
Nubo said:
In today's world the roads are a public commons and benefit everyone regardless of miles driven or whether or not they even own or drive a car. Roads should be funded from general taxes.

Commons? Generally a bad idea.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Why do you think cities are looking at congestion pricing?

MoMoneyMoMoney.gif
 
Nubo said:
WetEV said:
Nubo said:
In today's world the roads are a public commons and benefit everyone regardless of miles driven or whether or not they even own or drive a car. Roads should be funded from general taxes.

Commons? Generally a bad idea.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Why do you think cities are looking at congestion pricing?

MoMoneyMoMoney

Didn't read the article on the Commons, did you?
 
WetEV said:
Didn't read the article on the Commons, did you?

I'm familiar with the work. But as to funding roads, gasoline tax has miniscule effect on miles driven or lifestyle decisions, because it pales in comparison to the price of the fuel itself and demand has proven to be relatively inelastic over wide price swings. Even less effective as a signal to control congestion since the effective tax rate varies widely due to variations in fuel economy.

Congestion pricing is a separate issue, and tends to reward the well-to-do.
 
wmcbrine said:
State Senator Martin Sandoval proposes a $1000 annual tax on EV ownership:

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/illinois-proposes-1000-annual-fee-on-evs/

Please let him and other legislators know how you feel about this, especially if you're actually in Illinois.


Virginia has a $64 annual fee that is pretty close to what the owner of a 35mpg gas car would pay in gas tax if it was driven 15k miles per year. It seems like it is a bit premature, given the scarcity of EVs on the road, but I can live with that.

$1000 seems absurd unless they are providing some serious EV charging infrastructure and making it free to use. Even with Illinois much higher (than Virginia) gas taxes that fee shouldn't be over $200 to be proportional to the average ICE driver.
 
Nubo said:
WetEV said:
Didn't read the article on the Commons, did you?

I'm familiar with the work. But as to funding roads, gasoline tax has miniscule effect on miles driven or lifestyle decisions, because it pales in comparison to the price of the fuel itself and demand has proven to be relatively inelastic over wide price swings. Even less effective as a signal to control congestion since the effective tax rate varies widely due to variations in fuel economy.

For a long discussion:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-15/gas-taxes-aren-t-paying-the-bills-for-roads-anymore

Roads are not the major cost of driving, so taxes to fund roads shouldn't be as well.


Nubo said:
Congestion pricing is a separate issue, and tends to reward the well-to-do.

As would a fee to use the Commons for pasture. Or parking meters.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so.
 
Nubo said:
WetEV said:
Didn't read the article on the Commons, did you?

I'm familiar with the work. But as to funding roads, gasoline tax has miniscule effect on miles driven or lifestyle decisions, because it pales in comparison to the price of the fuel itself and demand has proven to be relatively inelastic over wide price swings. Even less effective as a signal to control congestion since the effective tax rate varies widely due to variations in fuel economy.

Congestion pricing is a separate issue, and tends to reward the well-to-do.

Demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic in the short term because the amount of fuel people consume is mostly dictated by their choice of vehicle and choice of location, and both of those are major purchases that are made relatively infrequently. On a longer timescale, a sustained rise in fuel cost would begin to change people's decisions in these matters to favor more fuel-efficient vehicles and shorter commutes.
 
Titanium48 said:
Nubo said:
WetEV said:
Didn't read the article on the Commons, did you?

I'm familiar with the work. But as to funding roads, gasoline tax has miniscule effect on miles driven or lifestyle decisions, because it pales in comparison to the price of the fuel itself and demand has proven to be relatively inelastic over wide price swings. Even less effective as a signal to control congestion since the effective tax rate varies widely due to variations in fuel economy.

Congestion pricing is a separate issue, and tends to reward the well-to-do.

Demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic in the short term because the amount of fuel people consume is mostly dictated by their choice of vehicle and choice of location, and both of those are major purchases that are made relatively infrequently. On a longer timescale, a sustained rise in fuel cost would begin to change people's decisions in these matters to favor more fuel-efficient vehicles and shorter commutes.

Perhaps, if followed with conviction, and I'm not opposed to an aggressive Carbon Tax, at the producer level. But I don't think it needs to be tied to road funding.
 
The rise of EVs is about to upset the apple cart as far as using fuel taxes to fund road construction and maintenance, which is unfortunate as it was one of the few examples of where directed taxation really worked to charge people for infrastructure in proportion to their use of the infrastructure.
The proper way to fix this, rather than introducing an absurdly high fixed registration fee for EVs, is to replace the registration fee with a "weight-distance charge". Instead of paying for a fixed time, you would pay to register your vehicle until a certain mileage. Your rate would also depend on the weight of your vehicle - heavy trucks that take up more space and cause far more damage to roads would pay more than small cars. Under that system, $1000 would keep your Leaf registered for about 50,000 miles, regardless of how long it takes you to drive that far.
 
We haven't seen any recent updates on this topic and with a quick look through this thread didn't see this mentioned ... Pritzker (IL State Gov for those who don't know) has a different proposal that includes lots more for ICE autos as well as an at least 'reasonable' annual fee of $250 vs $1,000 ... I say reasonable only in that it doesn't severely penalize EV driver's ... still of course discourage a bit vs. a very low current fee every 2-years (which I've personally enjoyed since buying my first EV back in '11). I've copied the section on cars below; EV fee would be $51 more than any ICE newer than 3-years old. He has MANY more taxes proposed than just for car registrations ... Illinois insanity at its best!!

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/pritzkers-19-different-tax-and-fee-hikes-total-6-9-billion/


Nearly double maximum vehicle registration fee ($490 million)

The preliminary capital plan would also hike vehicle registration fees, imposing a new cost structure based on the age of the car. The current annual fee of $101 would jump to $199 for vehicles 3 years old or newer, $169 for vehicles 4-6 years old, $139 for vehicles 7-11 years old, and $109 for vehicles 12 years and older.

The $199 registration fee for newer vehicles would be higher than any neighboring state and third-highest in the nation, according to Ballotpedia research. Illinois’ vehicle registration fee was just $79 as recently as 2009.

15-fold increase in electric vehicle registration fee ($4 million)

The registration fee for electric vehicles would rise to $250 per year from $34 every other year.
 
Titanium48 said:
The rise of EVs is about to upset the apple cart as far as using fuel taxes to fund road construction and maintenance, which is unfortunate as it Is a false pretense .

Above is false and a red herring,
excluding California the 20 year old road funding crisis has nothing to do with EVs.

There is less than 1% of EVs on roads in all areas outside California and pure BEV sales are actually falling in many areas including Wisconsin.

Because many standard metrics lump anything with a plug together (also counting just sales not differentiating new Vrs used sales) you can’t draw meaningful conclusions beyond the fact there are only 15,000 EVs in Illinois which is a very very small number

To put things into perspective
New York which is #2 in EV sales sold 1/10 the number sold in California
Outside California EVs are nearly irrelevant and selling in unstable numbers
 
GCR:
Illinois drops proposed $1,000 EV registration fee to $248
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1123418_illinois-drops-proposed-1000-ev-registration-fee-to-248

. . . the legislature imposed a new registration fee of $248 on electric cars as part of a sweeping measure to build income for the state's highway funds.

The new fees may still come as a shock to electric-car owners, who previously paid just $17.50 before, while other drivers paid $98. Instead of paying less, electric-car drivers now pay more.

The measure also raises registration fees on gas cars to $148, and more significantly doubles the state's gas tax to 38 cents per gallon. . . .

It's unclear whether the $1,000 fee for EVs, which seemed a punitive sum designed to discourage electric-car sales, was ever serious or if it were intended to lessen the burn from the extra $100 fee now levied on EVs. In any case, Illinois now joins North Dakota, Washington state, and others in charging EVs more up front.
Now this makes a lot more sense. While I think the most equitable solution is to go to a weight-based mileage fee, this will work and is a lot less hassle.
 
No longer targeting EVs but still brain dead. A rational tax would recognize the outsized effect of tyre load on road wear and shift most of the burden to its source: trucks
 
SageBrush said:
No longer targeting EVs but still brain dead. A rational tax would recognize the outsized effect of tyre load on road wear and shift most of the burden to its source: trucks
True, but then everyone would wind up paying more for everything they bought, as opposed to not doing so and mostly ignoring the road maintenance issues, as we've been doing. And of course that would also penalize BEV trucks, if they based the fees on empty rather than gross weight.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
No longer targeting EVs but still brain dead. A rational tax would recognize the outsized effect of tyre load on road wear and shift most of the burden to its source: trucks
True, but then everyone would wind up paying more for everything they bought, as opposed to not doing so and mostly ignoring the road maintenance issues, as we've been doing. And of course that would also penalize BEV trucks, if they based the fees on empty rather than gross weight.
It is not a good idea to externalize costs. Not with pollution, not with AGW, and not with trucks.

When the true cost of truck use shows up in the price of goods people will make choices. They might buy local. Trucks might add axles and wheels. Trains may become price competitive. The market will (eventually) respond efficiently.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
No longer targeting EVs but still brain dead. A rational tax would recognize the outsized effect of tyre load on road wear and shift most of the burden to its source: trucks
True, but then everyone would wind up paying more for everything they bought, as opposed to not doing so and mostly ignoring the road maintenance issues, as we've been doing. And of course that would also penalize BEV trucks, if they based the fees on empty rather than gross weight.
It is not a good idea to externalize costs. Not with pollution, not with AGW, and not with trucks.

When the true cost of truck use shows up in the price of goods people will make choices. They might buy local. Trucks might add axles and wheels. Trains may become price competitive. The market will (eventually) respond efficiently.
The market will only respond efficiently if the public wants it to, and so far there's little evidence for that. As for trains, the issue isn't whether they're price competitive (for long runs; for shorter runs trucks are cheaper), it's trying to be time-competitive that hurts them.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
It is not a good idea to externalize costs. Not with pollution, not with AGW, and not with trucks.

When the true cost of truck use shows up in the price of goods people will make choices. They might buy local. Trucks might add axles and wheels. Trains may become price competitive. The market will (eventually) respond efficiently.
The market will only respond efficiently if the public wants it to, and so far there's little evidence for that.
If nothing else, you can count on Merkins to seek out the lowest price. If often means shoddy goods like a Nissan car or a GM ignition switch or a flight of industry to China and a Walmart everywhere but it does drive market efficiency to insane levels.

'Business' is cut-throat in America. If you do not see that you should get out a bit more.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
It is not a good idea to externalize costs. Not with pollution, not with AGW, and not with trucks.

When the true cost of truck use shows up in the price of goods people will make choices. They might buy local. Trucks might add axles and wheels. Trains may become price competitive. The market will (eventually) respond efficiently.
The market will only respond efficiently if the public wants it to, and so far there's little evidence for that.
If nothing else, you can count on Merkins to seek out the lowest price. If often means shoddy goods like a Nissan car or a GM ignition switch or a flight of industry to China and a Walmart everywhere but it does drive market efficiency to insane levels.

'Business' is cut-throat in America. If you do not see that you should get out a bit more.
That was my point.
 
And mine too.
When truckers are paying their currently externalized costs, transportation will seek solutions. It might be less use of trucks, but my guess is more axles and more wheels. It will only happen when costs are not swept under the carpet.
 
SageBrush said:
And mine too.
When truckers are paying their currently externalized costs, transportation will seek solutions. It might be less use of trucks, but my guess is more axles and more wheels. It will only happen when costs are not swept under the carpet.
More axles and wheels can help with axle weight, but then you get into gross weight limits on bridges and overpasses, which would still require you to limit the max. gross, thus reducing the payload and raising the cost of shipping (not to mention increasing the cost of trailers, further boosting the shipping cost). Assuming that politicians can ever be convinced to raise weight-based fees to make trucks pay their full share, I suspect that won't occur until we see a large % of autonomous long-haul trucks in the fleet. That way, the companies can offset the higher road fees by eliminating the cost of drivers, and the weight/space dedicated to them.
 
Back
Top