you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 228 points 2 years ago (71 children)

There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance. The question came up about EVs. There were discussions about how to include EVs in the taxation system so they would pay for their fair share of the road. One of the options was to impose a tax attached to your vehicle registration based upon the weight of the vehicle. The greater the weight, the more wear and tear it produces on the road surface. This might be one solution to the barrier problem, namely moving the extra cost to the reason for the extra cost.

  • source
  • hideshow 71 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 2 years ago* (41 children)

    The "problem" with that tax is that if it's applied fairly, it gets very big very fast. The damage to the road goes up with weight, but not linearly. Not a square factor, either. Not even cube. It's to the fourth power.

    Start applying that to long haul trucks and the whole industry will be bankrupt in a month. The implication being that we are all subsidizing that industry with taxes on roads. Including that one trucker with a "who is John Galt?" sticker on the back.

    That said, this is also a very good argument for improving cargo trains to the point where most long haul trucking goes away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 2 years ago

    And frankly, I'm really ok with this.

    Trains should be the backbone for shipping. They are WAY more fuel efficient, like 3 to 4x more efficient than shipping by truck. Rail requires far less maintenance. And there's always the option install a 3rd rail and use electricity instead of fossil fuels to ship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    Speaking of road tax, you know that bad-faith argument about how cyclists need to pay our "fair share?" Well, I would be happy to pay 1¢ for my 10 kg bicycle if everybody with a car had to pay fairly by weight^4^.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Maybe it's because I don't really know anyone passionate on either side of this issue, but I've never heard of this argument. I know you said it's a bad faith argument, but I can't really imagine what a cyclist's fair share would be aside from maybe widening a road to add a bike lane lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    No reason the tax had to scale exactly to match the damage though. At least make it painful enough so people consider whether a larger vehicle is worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What I'm suggesting is to ramp up the tax on roads over several years in order to pay for the initial outlay on new train infrastructure. Then you don't need 90% of the trucking industry at all.

    Which would be great for many other reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    Train infrastructure is being removed around the world - good luck convincing people to build more.

    The fact is a train turns one trip into three trips - truck to the railway station, train to another station, truck to the final destination. That often adds days to what otherwise might be a 3 hour delivery - because trains are only cheap if you send about a hundred or so trucks full of cargo on a single trip.

    Only really makes sense for really long trips but more and more of those are done by ship or airplane. Trucks aren't going anywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What if it's not a larger vehicle, but transitioning from a petrol burning vehicle to an electric vehicle?

    We don't want to give people reasons to hold on to old combustion vehicles any longer than they have to, but the roads of course need to be made safe for passengers and pedestrians and wildlife, I agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago*

    If they hold on to their existing vehicle than thats just another upside. If they buy a new gasoline car instead of an EV this is bad. But EVs dont have to be insanely heavy if we stop the whole cars getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger crap. They will still be heavier than their gasoline counterpart but one solution might be 2 tax brackets: One for gasoline cars and one for evs that has the same taxation levels but allows for, lets say, 500kg more weight in them

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So much of that freight should be moved by rail.

    Tax based on weight to 4th power would work if we nationalized railways like roads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Only if rail can figure out their shit and hire enough workers and give them all time off. Too many train derailments from precision scheduled railroading.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    And now you starve. None of the stores will stay open long without them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That should mean they don't go bankrupt though. If their service is vital, people will pay for it even if the prices rise. It would mean an increase in prices for goods admittedly as the stores try to recoup the increased logistics costs, but intuitively I'd imagine the financial impact on the end customer wouldn't be as much because they're paying for the road upkeep either way, just via higher taxes in the current state and via increased prices in the new one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Long haul trucking shouldn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    As a truck driver, I would like to ask, how would you acquire all the “stuff” you have bought over the years? I am reasonably sure most of it was not produced locally to you. And the raw materials almost certainly aren’t locally sourced. Trucking and logistics generally has its issues, and you only have glimpsed a fraction of them, but it is absolutely necessary for modern society. Unless you’re proposing we kill off 2/3rds of humanity and go back to hunter-gatherer. Not a fan of that idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    He's proposing trains should do the 'Long Haul' portion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Which have their own issues. Namely, to my knowledge, upfront cost and lack of flexibility. I’m sure there are others.

    Here in the US, you are unlikely to find enough people willing to think far enough ahead for that to happen. Too many emotions guiding actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The cost has already been paid. Even small farming communities have rail line access that's mostly been abandoned because the line owners switched business models.

    As for flexibility, again, that's mostly an issue with how rail line management has evolved. From shorter more frequent trains to ultra long infrequent trains. Mostly to cut the cost of staffing.

    The solution is simple, nationalize the rail service. Put it under the USPS and have them figure out scheduling to optimize the speed of goods shipping.

    The current state of the rail system is entirely due to the monopolistic nature of ownership. The incentive is to increase prices as much as possible while shipping to the fewest stops possible. Profit motives are in direct conflict with generalized shipping.

    The reason trunking works today is the public nature of roads. Well, why shouldn't rail lines be equally public? We practically gave the property away to the current rail owners with the notion it was for the public good... They've failed that.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [+] 21 points 2 years ago (12 children)
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I think you make want to go the other way. Making tires more expensive wont make people choose smaller cars, they will choose worse tires. And then they will crash into you because they cant stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's a good rule not to make essential safety items more expensive. Because consumers in general will always choose a cheaper, less safe option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    yeah if anything a subsidy for safer tires and doing proper maintenance on brakes and other safety system would be what you want.

    what is subsidized, there is more of than there otherwise would be

    and the opposite is true for what is taxed.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Sorry, the tax is a great idea but taxing the tires is a terrible idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I think he is close though with his initial train of thought. I remember doing some research on this many years ago and road wear does not scale linearly with weight. All other variables being equal a 1,000lb load going across a stretch of road 10 times does less damage than a 10,000 pounds load going across the same stretch once. So what we should really be doing is looking at semi trucks and the heaviest of consumer vehicles. It would theoretically make consumer goods go up in price a little, but it's not like that cost isn't already being paid/subsidized by consumers in other ways.

    Maybe it would even push the use of railroads for goods even more than it is used now.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    There was a discussion a couple of years ago around gasoline taxes and how they are supposed to pay for roadway maintenance.

    I just want to point out, even if they're supposed to, gas taxes do not pay for roadway maintenance, not by a long shot

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Some states do exactly that, or did back in the day. 30-years ago in Oklahoma, an old 2-ton dump truck with an antique plate was $20, a new Corvette $600. I think Texas flipped that and charged by weight vs. value.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    And the heavy vehicles get classified as light cargo so are largely exempt from those taxes. They're promoting and building heavy "cargo" vehicles specifically because they get exemptions for fuel efficiency and taxes (depending on location).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In the country I reside, everyone pays for the roads through income tax. Vehicle owners pay emissions tax. I think this is fair since everyone relies on the roads even if they never travel down a road themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    An alternative idea that I mentioned on a thread yesterday about vehicles with high bumpers, adjust the license class system to be more strict regarding vehicles. You already have to have extra training in a different license to run transport vehicles or semi trucks you should have to do the same with large vehicles, I'm not saying ban every pickup truck out there because I fully agree that trucks are a hard requirement especially in snow covered States like mine but there is a difference between having a pickup truck and having a monster truck at least in my opinion heavier or taller than low end transport vehicles

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)