Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue(carwow.co.uk)
carwow.co.uk
Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue
https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/how-to-replace-fuel-duty-and-road-tax
359 comments
>>>> I hate that it's being used as an argument against cyclists: "get off the road, you don't pay road tax". This of course also ignores that most adult cyclists also own a car.
Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Income taxes cover a fair amount of road construction. The county bike paths have a fee. We're not allowed to ride on the Interstates, and we tend to avoid "big" roads for safety / comfort reasons.
My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking.
Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Income taxes cover a fair amount of road construction. The county bike paths have a fee. We're not allowed to ride on the Interstates, and we tend to avoid "big" roads for safety / comfort reasons.
My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking.
Some motorists seem to forget that cyclists don't need a 30m wide, 40cm thick, heavily reinforced highway with stabilized foundation that has to be revised every year to account for the damage caused by heavy vehicles.
The costs of a cycling path that support the same flow of people is negligible compared to that of a corresponding highway.
The costs of a cycling path that support the same flow of people is negligible compared to that of a corresponding highway.
No one ever says "why don't we charge pedestrians fees for sidewalks," for good reason. Bike infrastructure should be thought of as the same way. A paved bike path is going to be like a sidewalk: it will last as long as the elements permit it no matter the amount of usage it sees. Versus a road used for vehicular traffic that is heavy enough to degrade the road, that sort of usage makes a lot more sense to tax.
That isn't true. Pedestrians put more pressure on the ground than cars do. Google it if you don't believe me.
The reason sidewalks last so long is they're made of cement rather than asphalt. If you made roads out of cement they would last just as long if not longer.
And the reason they make sidewalls out of cement is they have to. If they made then out of asphalt they would decay very quickly.
The reason sidewalks last so long is they're made of cement rather than asphalt. If you made roads out of cement they would last just as long if not longer.
And the reason they make sidewalls out of cement is they have to. If they made then out of asphalt they would decay very quickly.
"Google it if you don't believe me."
Or, just calculate it?
Car contact patch is 4 x 160cm2. https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=... Car avg. weight is 1800kg. https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-car-weight/
Pressure = 28kPa
Human is 100cm2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedobarography Average human weight is 75 kg.
Pressure = 8.5kPa.
So it's simply not true what you say.
Or, just calculate it?
Car contact patch is 4 x 160cm2. https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=... Car avg. weight is 1800kg. https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/average-car-weight/
Pressure = 28kPa
Human is 100cm2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedobarography Average human weight is 75 kg.
Pressure = 8.5kPa.
So it's simply not true what you say.
People don't normally walk barefoot.
Run the numbers for high heels, and keep in mind they might put their entire weight on the heel.
Run the numbers for high heels, and keep in mind they might put their entire weight on the heel.
Have you ever seen an asphalt bike lane age? It never gets potholes. The top layer just expands and contracts or is invaded with tree roots. Over time the elements wear out the tar and the gravel loosens.
Compare that to a road where the truck literally forms grooves into the asphalt. It ripples like the viscous material it is in those conditions under multiple tons of weight. An intersection by me looks like its plaid with the grooves from perpendicular trucking traffic. And cement roads do last a long time but they aren't indestructible. I live on one. Trucks damage them and crack them up over time and the city has to fill in potholes. The more construction going on the more damage. Any big apartment build just destroys the concrete apron and sidewalk on the lot with the equipment because its that heavy. Orders of magnitude heavier than any human on a bike can be.
Compare that to a road where the truck literally forms grooves into the asphalt. It ripples like the viscous material it is in those conditions under multiple tons of weight. An intersection by me looks like its plaid with the grooves from perpendicular trucking traffic. And cement roads do last a long time but they aren't indestructible. I live on one. Trucks damage them and crack them up over time and the city has to fill in potholes. The more construction going on the more damage. Any big apartment build just destroys the concrete apron and sidewalk on the lot with the equipment because its that heavy. Orders of magnitude heavier than any human on a bike can be.
Only if they are all wearing high heels...
It isn't pressure that typically causes damage though, it is shear stress or frictional power.
The thick, heavily reinforced roads with stabilized foundations generally have much nicer surfaces to cycle on than narrow cycle paths though, at least around here. Probably because a lot of the deterioration is caused by weather rather than traffic and the cost reduction is mostly through having lower standards and accepting more deterioration.
I'd take a rough separated cycle path over a shared car road any day.
Depending on what type of bike you have. On a mountain bike, anyday. On a road bike with paper thin tyres that easily puncture, maybe not so much.
Bikes are a lot less delicate than people seem to think. My daily driver has road bike rims and tires. They're quite durable. The region has some bike paths that are crushed limestone on hard clay, and sometimes I find myself on gravel roads, off-road shortcuts, or even "easy" mountain bike trails.
The main issue is comfort. Riding rough roads on hard tires gets old after a while. Also, real MTB'ing, where the trails are designed to be challenging, is its own beast.
I also prefer avoiding car traffic if possible.
The main issue is comfort. Riding rough roads on hard tires gets old after a while. Also, real MTB'ing, where the trails are designed to be challenging, is its own beast.
I also prefer avoiding car traffic if possible.
It's me that is not durable, if I had to ride daily on 80psi road tires I'd shake to bits!
Funnily enough I do MTB, and I have a full suspension and a fully rigid frame both offering their own challenges.
Funnily enough I do MTB, and I have a full suspension and a fully rigid frame both offering their own challenges.
Road bikes aren't really designed for being in traffic in the first place so that places some of the downsides of that on the user. I've used one for many years, so don't get me wrong, I love riding one but it is abundantly clear to me that when my bike tires fits into the slots of a drain that that is my problem and not the problem of whoever designs and maintains the road.
In many places a road bike isn't actually street legal (no bell, no fenders, no lights, of course you could add those).
In many places a road bike isn't actually street legal (no bell, no fenders, no lights, of course you could add those).
It sounds peculiar that some places would have requirements for bells and fenders in order for a bike to be "street legal"; this strikes me as more of a quaint historical holdover than anything else. Some cyclists might be more comfortable with ringing their bell a than raising their voice if they need to urgently signal the attention of another road user, but a requirement for a bell on any bike is mystifying to me. Likewise fenders; cycling on wet roads can cause dirty water to be sprayed onto a vehicle that is driving close behind a cyclist, but people don't tend to cycle on road bikes in wet weather in the first place (unless their bike has been adapted), and people should maintain a safe stopping distance, especially in wet conditions. But the use of lights when cycling at night is a perfectly reasonable legal requirement (more or less universal in my experience), and perfectly effective temporary lights can be easily attached to road bikes if necessary.
Just put some good tires on your road bike and you wont deal with flats. I have used gatorskins which have always been indestructable, tubes last for years and are only replaced when I put new tires on the bike. I'm moving to the continental gp5k for the next set because apparently the puncture resistance is good enough these days in those more standard road bike tires. Unless you manage to hit an upright nail you shouldn't worry too much.
Usually the concern is getting hit by car traffic.
At least in the US, drivers don’t drive well around cyclists, and sometimes that’s intentional to boot. Better to not share the road with people who are actively trying to hurt you with a metal object weighing several thousand pounds.
At least in the US, drivers don’t drive well around cyclists, and sometimes that’s intentional to boot. Better to not share the road with people who are actively trying to hurt you with a metal object weighing several thousand pounds.
Definitely concur, for commuting I ride a pretty wide tire for that reason. I've actually really enjoyed cross-bikes for city commuting, since they're designed for a bit more of a pliable ride and more comfort while still running pretty fast overall.
No they don't, cyclists prefer concrete bike paths which both last longer and have a smoother surface.
> The costs of a cycling path that support the same flow of people is negligible compared to that of a corresponding highway.
That's not true The ground pressure of a bicycle is higher than the ground pressure of a car.
Some bike tire pressures exceed 100 psi. Only the largest trucks have ground pressures that high. A typical passenger vehicle has a pressure of around 36 psi.
The ground pressure of someone in heels is even higher than that. There's a reason sidewalks are made of cement while roads can be made of cheaper asphalt.
That's not true The ground pressure of a bicycle is higher than the ground pressure of a car.
Some bike tire pressures exceed 100 psi. Only the largest trucks have ground pressures that high. A typical passenger vehicle has a pressure of around 36 psi.
The ground pressure of someone in heels is even higher than that. There's a reason sidewalks are made of cement while roads can be made of cheaper asphalt.
Ground pressure is not the only way a road wears.
> My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking.
Would you like to calculate how much those tomatoes would cost, if everybody were paying their fair share of road wear?
Based on [1] this first result on Google, a truck can carry about 300,000 tomatoes. I don't think those tomatoes are going to add up very soon. A loaded truck of about 80,000 pounds (11.5 times the weight) would have 17490 times the road impact compared to the same trip driven back home. Distributed over 300,000 tomatoes, the cost wouldn't be all that much. Despite inefficient engines and truck construction, bulk transport is actually very efficient. Generally speaking: the bigger the trailer, the better, even with the weight increase.
Even better would be using this as an incentive to expand and improve the quality of the much more efficient rail network (or transport over waterways, where available) to improve the entire supply chain. That would require the government to act in the interest of its people, though, so I don't think we'll see the effects of such a programme too soon if it ever makes it.
Every tax-paying citizen is already paying this heavy price! Only instead of the damage inefficient transport causes to our infrastructure being reflected in our everyday expenses, it's hidden from plain sight in taxes.
The only industry I'd expect to see killed by paying for road damage would be package delivery vans. They're driving long distances with comparatively almost no weight at all for the convenience of not needing to go to a centralized store to pick up your stuff. With the way Amazon and friends have their drivers pee in bottles, I don't see why we should subsidize those vans.
[1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434...
Even better would be using this as an incentive to expand and improve the quality of the much more efficient rail network (or transport over waterways, where available) to improve the entire supply chain. That would require the government to act in the interest of its people, though, so I don't think we'll see the effects of such a programme too soon if it ever makes it.
Every tax-paying citizen is already paying this heavy price! Only instead of the damage inefficient transport causes to our infrastructure being reflected in our everyday expenses, it's hidden from plain sight in taxes.
The only industry I'd expect to see killed by paying for road damage would be package delivery vans. They're driving long distances with comparatively almost no weight at all for the convenience of not needing to go to a centralized store to pick up your stuff. With the way Amazon and friends have their drivers pee in bottles, I don't see why we should subsidize those vans.
[1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434...
The issue isn't that 17490 / 300000 is a small number. The issue is that the road wear is not being paid by the entity creating that wear, and is disproportionately being borne by those actually trying to solve climate change problems by driving smaller, electric vehicles.
If there is currently not enough taxes being collected to maintain the roads, then start taxing those who do the most damage. That entity can then amortize the tax over their 300,000 tomatoes.
If there is currently not enough taxes being collected to maintain the roads, then start taxing those who do the most damage. That entity can then amortize the tax over their 300,000 tomatoes.
The problem with that is that the heavy electric cars are actually damaging the road more than their ICE counterparts because of their huge batteries. For some countries this isn't much of a problem, just buy a normal car instead if an SUV and you should get the cost difference back, but for others the mileage of current smaller electric cars just isn't practical.
We could make exemptions for electric vehicles powered by green energy like we do right now for trucks and other large equipment, but that'll mostly hit the poorer populations who can't afford an electric car. Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.
A future where everyone drives electric is going to be more expensive because of electric car technology. I'd say pay the difference with two different taxes: one for car weight/wheel load, another for pollution through (similarly hefty) gas taxes. Heavy EVs pay extra for the road damage, ICEs pay for their pollution to encourage cleaner cars, and heavy SUVs/pickup trucks pay both.
We could make exemptions for electric vehicles powered by green energy like we do right now for trucks and other large equipment, but that'll mostly hit the poorer populations who can't afford an electric car. Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.
A future where everyone drives electric is going to be more expensive because of electric car technology. I'd say pay the difference with two different taxes: one for car weight/wheel load, another for pollution through (similarly hefty) gas taxes. Heavy EVs pay extra for the road damage, ICEs pay for their pollution to encourage cleaner cars, and heavy SUVs/pickup trucks pay both.
> Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.
> Would you like to calculate how much those tomatoes would cost, if everybody were paying their fair share of road wear?
The cost is already there, it's just extracted through taxes rather than through increased prices of transported goods.
The advantage of shifting maintenance costs over to those creating those costs in the first place is that it allows the market to properly optimize for those costs. If transporting those tomatoes by rail is actually cheaper overall once you factor in road maintenance costs, but you aren't charging those costs to the trucking companies, then they're just going to keep shipping tomatoes by truck even though it's less efficient. The invisible hand of the market cannot optimize for costs it doesn't know about.
The cost is already there, it's just extracted through taxes rather than through increased prices of transported goods.
The advantage of shifting maintenance costs over to those creating those costs in the first place is that it allows the market to properly optimize for those costs. If transporting those tomatoes by rail is actually cheaper overall once you factor in road maintenance costs, but you aren't charging those costs to the trucking companies, then they're just going to keep shipping tomatoes by truck even though it's less efficient. The invisible hand of the market cannot optimize for costs it doesn't know about.
That sounds interesting, do you have some more infos about this, how the 4th power comes about? I don't have any intuition why it would be that "high". Or some keywords to lead my google searches ;)
Study is here https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf
But raw data is hard to find
But raw data is hard to find
> Road wear grows at the 4th power of vehicular weight, assuming similar tire pressures.
That's fascinating, is there an equation for road wear in relation to vehicle weight and other factors?
--- EDIT ---
Ten seconds after I posted this, I see somebody else also asked this question and there is this link.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
The fourth power rule, I guess it was empirically measured.
That's fascinating, is there an equation for road wear in relation to vehicle weight and other factors?
--- EDIT ---
Ten seconds after I posted this, I see somebody else also asked this question and there is this link.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
The fourth power rule, I guess it was empirically measured.
Don't worry, I wasn't opposing the subsidy, just calling it for what it is. In a sense I'm helping reduce road wear by riding a bike. ;)
> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes.
Not true for a lot of states. Property tax is not used for roads. Georgia pays for roads using gas taxes and road use fees like registration (tolls contribute a very small amount). Florida is similar but they are much more toll heavy. Alabama is similar as too. All 3 states are in the top 10 roads in America[1]. I believe Georgia plans to charge higher registration fees for EVs at some point.
[1] https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-condition...
Not true for a lot of states. Property tax is not used for roads. Georgia pays for roads using gas taxes and road use fees like registration (tolls contribute a very small amount). Florida is similar but they are much more toll heavy. Alabama is similar as too. All 3 states are in the top 10 roads in America[1]. I believe Georgia plans to charge higher registration fees for EVs at some point.
[1] https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-condition...
Georgia is 3rd in Federal road subsidies:
https://www.ajc.com/news/feds-transportation-spending/
Usage/registration fees pay for less of roads than people think.
There is also this: https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
There is also this: https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/
It really depends on the road in question. I've absolutely voted for city bond projects paid for by property taxes which paid to redo intersections and sections of roads maintained by the city. There are county roads which are maintained by the county which gets most of its funding from property taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle registration taxes. Sure, some funding for some of these projects also come from the state's budgets which is often backed by gas taxes, some funding is from federal sources often by gas taxes, but some of it does come from my property taxes.
Then there are state roads, which are almost entirely funded from state and federal (gas) taxes, and federal roads which are almost exclusively funded from gas taxes.
On an average day the roads I personally drive on are probably at least 50% funded from property and sales taxes paid by my neighbors and me. Most of my miles driven are almost exclusively on streets managed by my city. For my neighbors commuting deeper into the city driving on a US highway, its probably closer to 5-10% coming from property and sales taxes.
Then there are state roads, which are almost entirely funded from state and federal (gas) taxes, and federal roads which are almost exclusively funded from gas taxes.
On an average day the roads I personally drive on are probably at least 50% funded from property and sales taxes paid by my neighbors and me. Most of my miles driven are almost exclusively on streets managed by my city. For my neighbors commuting deeper into the city driving on a US highway, its probably closer to 5-10% coming from property and sales taxes.
EV fees are already much higher than the state gas tax they replace in many places, especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. The idea EVs get a free pass is a myth.
> especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery.
I don't understand, do you pay an extra tax on the battery? Sales & property tax on a $60k car should always be the same, regardless of powertrain.
I don't understand, do you pay an extra tax on the battery? Sales & property tax on a $60k car should always be the same, regardless of powertrain.
The electric car I drive (LEAF) costs about $12K-15K more than the roughly comparable ICE car (Versa). Taking the lower estimate, the sales tax difference in my state is $750, which is the state gas tax on just over 3100 gallons or about 100K miles of gasoline purchased for the car.
Yup, and consider that sales tax applies any time the car is sold, and often cars are sold multiple times in their lives.
I'm guessing the argument is that EV's cost more upfront (since they include a battery, etc), but have a lower cost of use. Since you get charged sales tax on the upfront cost, EV's get charged sales tax on a larger percentage of the overall "ownership cost" of the car.
Exactly. With gas cars, you pay for gasoline over time. With electric cars, you pay about 50/50 upfront on battery & over time on electricity. EV owners are being punished for paying for part of the “fuel” costs upfront. For whatever reason, capital costs for consumers are penalized with taxes more than incremental operating costs.
I mean, we don’t charge lower gas taxes to luxury cars because they pay more upfront, so I don’t know why this is now an expectation for EVs. And we’ve never had flat taxes for sales; gas is actually the only exception in the US I’m aware of, but that’s probably because of the price volatility of gas making a percentage tax hard to budget for.
> For whatever reason, capital costs for consumers are penalized with taxes more than incremental operating costs.
How so? Is the gas tax lower than the purchase taxes?
How so? Is the gas tax lower than the purchase taxes?
Yes, plus personal property tax. If I own the car for 8 years before selling it and the battery is about $10,000 In value and the sales tax rate is 6% or so, the tax I’m paying is already equal to the gas tax I already typically would pay driving a 30mpg the average number of miles per year in a typical state. And some localities have personal property taxes, and that $10,000 battery often puts the car in a higher bracket, so you end up paying a 4% personal property tax EVERY YEAR on the battery, which is about 5 times what state gas tax would be.
And keep in mind many states already charge EV owners a high registration fee that more than makes up for the lack of state gas taxes. So sales tax plus personal property tax plus EV registration fee… you’re already paying nearly an order of magnitude more than the typical consumer pays state gas tax.
It’s a pretty stupid idea to charge far more taxes for far lower emissions vehicles if you think climate change is real. Regardless of your rationale about use taxes or whatever. It’s just stupid.
And keep in mind many states already charge EV owners a high registration fee that more than makes up for the lack of state gas taxes. So sales tax plus personal property tax plus EV registration fee… you’re already paying nearly an order of magnitude more than the typical consumer pays state gas tax.
It’s a pretty stupid idea to charge far more taxes for far lower emissions vehicles if you think climate change is real. Regardless of your rationale about use taxes or whatever. It’s just stupid.
Well I'd never heard of personal property tax before! So people are taxed for owning things, that they paid tax on when they bought them? I can see how that devalues an electric car vs an ICE alternative.
Yes, it’s pretty bad. It’s like a wealth tax for the middle class, and a pretty high rate, too.
At the state level, sure, but local roads are paid for by local governments using local general taxes, no? A random suburban residential street is not usually getting gas tax money.
A random suburban residential street could get away with being repaved every 100 years. The ones in my neighborhood bear contractor stamps from the 1920s at least. A big source of road wear is trucking traffic and usually truck routes are along state routes that get state gas tax funding for maintenance at least.
The amount of road funding in the US that comes from gas taxes and road fees varies by state between 1/3 to 2/3. Georgia is one of the lower and funds 40% of road spending from gas taxes, road fees, and tolls (using 2017 numbers.) [0]
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/mapping-h...
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/mapping-h...
> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use.
This isn’t true where I live. Taxes on gasoline purchases pay for the roads.
This isn’t true where I live. Taxes on gasoline purchases pay for the roads.
Gas taxes are a small portion of road costs, and are only for state roads. Cities generally don't receive road subsidies from the state. Cyclists drive on city roads, and city roads are generally paid for with property taxes or local sales taxes (if your city has them). And cyclists cause zero damage to roads, unlike cars or trucks
Really, cyclists are getting shafted because they have to pay for so many roads they can't use.
Really, cyclists are getting shafted because they have to pay for so many roads they can't use.
I'm pretty sure I know more about my area than you do and we do NOT use property taxes to pay for roads here. Property Taxes are used for things like:
* The general fund.
* Grants.
* Costs associated with assessing and collecting taxes.
* Justice Courts.
* Education.
Not maintaining local roads.
* The general fund.
* Grants.
* Costs associated with assessing and collecting taxes.
* Justice Courts.
* Education.
Not maintaining local roads.
Then your city is the exception to the rule and can be dismissed as an outlier.
Ah, I see. I’m wrong, unless I’m correct, in which case I’m irrelevant.
Now you got it.
>My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking.
Which is itself a net subsidy for all sorts of other economic activity.
It's subsidies all the way down.
Which is itself a net subsidy for all sorts of other economic activity.
It's subsidies all the way down.
Indeed - if heavy trucking is subsidised then eventually the prices you're paying for something are lower.
bicycle and pedestrians could be exempted from a road tax based on fairly simple assumption: the wear and tear is minimal compared to a car. It wouldn't even surprise me if the wear and tear is so small that it can't even be measured.
But I could be wrong. It would be interesting to hear if heavy bike/pedestrian roads have higher road maintenance than those that are used lightly. My guess would be that the major wear and tear comes from nature, water in particular, which mean wear and tear isn't based on usage.
When it come to tire pollution those would be better taxed on the tires themselves. Bike tires tend to be much much smaller than cars so the taxation wouldn't be that big of a deal to cyclists.
But I could be wrong. It would be interesting to hear if heavy bike/pedestrian roads have higher road maintenance than those that are used lightly. My guess would be that the major wear and tear comes from nature, water in particular, which mean wear and tear isn't based on usage.
When it come to tire pollution those would be better taxed on the tires themselves. Bike tires tend to be much much smaller than cars so the taxation wouldn't be that big of a deal to cyclists.
I think road wear is axle weight to the fourth power. So lorries are massively more damaging than cars. And cars are massively more damaging than bikes. Anecdotally the issue with bike and pedestrian paths is intruding vegetation which slowly narrows the width.
It's not just a matter of "massively more" -- with those numbers the damage from anything other than large commercial vehicles is a rounding error which, if accounted for proportionally, would cost more money to collect than the amount collected.
It's the fourth power of axle load according to the AAHSO report (https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-...)
A 30-ton 5-axle HGV would be 6 tons per axle, a BMW 7-Series would be 1 ton per axle, and a heavy cyclist on a heavy bicycle would work out to around 0.05 tons per axle, so while a car might cause ~1/1000th of the wear of a heavy truck, a bicycle would cause less than 1/100000th of the wear that is caused by a car, and that's before you consider the wear that's caused according to the speed that a vehicle is traveling (it is roughly linear). So while it might conceivably be possible to tax motorists according to the level of damage that they cause to roads (with trucks paying far more than they do now, and with revenues not exceeding the costs of collection), it certainly wouldn't be possible to tax cyclists.
A 30-ton 5-axle HGV would be 6 tons per axle, a BMW 7-Series would be 1 ton per axle, and a heavy cyclist on a heavy bicycle would work out to around 0.05 tons per axle, so while a car might cause ~1/1000th of the wear of a heavy truck, a bicycle would cause less than 1/100000th of the wear that is caused by a car, and that's before you consider the wear that's caused according to the speed that a vehicle is traveling (it is roughly linear). So while it might conceivably be possible to tax motorists according to the level of damage that they cause to roads (with trucks paying far more than they do now, and with revenues not exceeding the costs of collection), it certainly wouldn't be possible to tax cyclists.
The point is that it's not worth doing even for cars. If the toll for the truck was $50, the proportional toll for the car would be one half of one cent.
On the other hand, trucks are often speed-restricted and the tax might need to be on the order of $50k for a 60-foot truck (which would still equate to around $50 for a car). The costs would be passed down to all of the things that trucks are used for, so I suppose the average person wouldn't really pay any less for combined transport+groceries+fuel+household goods, but it might incentivize the use of smaller trucks with lighter axle loads, but that would also mean more drivers/poorer fuel efficiency/more accidents per ton per mile. At the least we should be mindful of the way that motorists are providing a subsidy to the logistics industry (which we indirectly benefit from, as well).
It most certainly would not cost $50k for any size truck to travel down one road once, which is what matters if you're paying the cost to build infrastructure to track usage.
It might cost a semi truck $50k a year, but this also points in the direction of not tracking specific usage even for trucks: Just check the odometer during the annual inspection and then distribute the highway funds to states proportionate to estimated use.
Toll collection is stupid inefficient and privacy invasive.
It might cost a semi truck $50k a year, but this also points in the direction of not tracking specific usage even for trucks: Just check the odometer during the annual inspection and then distribute the highway funds to states proportionate to estimated use.
Toll collection is stupid inefficient and privacy invasive.
Yes, obviously I was talking about an annual charge ("a tax") based on vehicle road wear; I don't think anyone had suggested that we charge a truck driver $50k for driving down one road, once. It's very common for the odomoters of heavy goods vehicles to be checked and for mileages to be logged regularly (this is probably a legal requirement in many cases, if not just a standard industry practice). I agree that toll collection would be unsuitable. My point was that charges for the use of large goods vehicles would need to be orders of magnitude higher than they are now, but that the charges for cars would still be sufficient to more than cover the cost of collection.
And if people wanted, the President of the National Cycling Federation could present the Secretary of Transportation with a $5 bill in an annual ceremony.
And if people wanted, the President of the National Cycling Federation could present the Secretary of Transportation with a $5 bill in an annual ceremony.
I'd rather pay costs where they're owed personally
Dealing with government and taxes there is one additional factor to consider. The government can give tax cuts to targeted groups if they consider it beneficial to society.
So let say the truck has a $5000 tax to pay for yearly wear and tear on roads, but they also get a $5000 tax cut to reduce costs in the transportation sector. That will leave cars to still pay their road tax, even if in comparison they would be a tiny portion of the total road tax.
So let say the truck has a $5000 tax to pay for yearly wear and tear on roads, but they also get a $5000 tax cut to reduce costs in the transportation sector. That will leave cars to still pay their road tax, even if in comparison they would be a tiny portion of the total road tax.
But if you want a general subsidy then you collect the money from a broad based tax like general income tax or sales tax, not low-efficiency road tolls.
Except not all roads are built to handle heavier vehicles, such roads experience significant wear from common weight automobiles. I don't think the cost of maintenance for such roads is a rounding error.
Most roads are built to handle heavier vehicles and the few exceptions rarely if ever see enough traffic to result in maintenance costs not dominated by nature and weather.
There is no road tax, only vehicle excise duty which bicyclists dont pay. It goes straight into the treasury so it's not even really "used" per se it's just a way of exerting downward pressure on inflation (which is how it should be, IMHO).
thats a strangely abstract way of looking at it. i think of it as a way to capture some of the externalities of car use, the environmental, social and public health damage.
The obvious way to do that is via the fuel tax, where the more you pay the more you use.
The reality is probably that it's not that well coupled to any cause, and really it's just a way to farm money from the majority of the country, who need to use motor transport to live their lives. The advertised political reason will change depending on the concerns of the populace at the time.
The reality is probably that it's not that well coupled to any cause, and really it's just a way to farm money from the majority of the country, who need to use motor transport to live their lives. The advertised political reason will change depending on the concerns of the populace at the time.
> bicycle and pedestrians could be exempted from a road tax based on fairly simple assumption: the wear and tear is minimal compared to a car. It wouldn't even surprise me if the wear and tear is so small that it can't even be measured.
Isn't car wear and tear minimal to HGV wear and tear?
Isn't car wear and tear minimal to HGV wear and tear?
> bicycle and pedestrians could be exempted from a road tax based on fairly simple assumption: the wear and tear is minimal compared to a car. It wouldn't even surprise me if the wear and tear is so small that it can't even be measured.
That is the case, which came as a surprise to me.
For things like the road bed, where the force from the surface is going to be spread out more, I'd expect the car to do more damage because total weight would be all that mattered.
But for damage at or near the road surface I'd have expected bikes to do more.
My reasoning was simple: although cars weigh a lot more they are spreading that weight over a larger contact area.
My car for example has four tires each at a pressure of 32 PSI. My bike, before I replaced the tires with wider tires, had two tires each at 110 PSI. Any given small patch of road I drive or ride over would only get about 29% as much force on it from the car as it would from the bike at any given time a tire is on that patch of road.
It would get that force for more time from the car than from the bike if the car is going less than ~3.4 times the speed of the bike and for less time if the car is going faster than that, and more different small patches of road would get force from the car than would get force from the bike.
This is similar to why if I were to put a flat metal plate on my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would not hurt, but if I were to set hold a dagger against my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would likely hurt a lot.
But something is wrong with my reasoning, and it turns out that road damage goes as something like the fourth power of the vehicles axel weight. Whether the tires are narrow high pressure tires or wide low pressure tires, from what I've read, is not relevant.
I'm not sure if that is because I was just wrong about top layer damage, or if it is just that lower level damage is just much more important and expensive, so any difference in top layer damage due to tire size is lost in the noise.
That is the case, which came as a surprise to me.
For things like the road bed, where the force from the surface is going to be spread out more, I'd expect the car to do more damage because total weight would be all that mattered.
But for damage at or near the road surface I'd have expected bikes to do more.
My reasoning was simple: although cars weigh a lot more they are spreading that weight over a larger contact area.
My car for example has four tires each at a pressure of 32 PSI. My bike, before I replaced the tires with wider tires, had two tires each at 110 PSI. Any given small patch of road I drive or ride over would only get about 29% as much force on it from the car as it would from the bike at any given time a tire is on that patch of road.
It would get that force for more time from the car than from the bike if the car is going less than ~3.4 times the speed of the bike and for less time if the car is going faster than that, and more different small patches of road would get force from the car than would get force from the bike.
This is similar to why if I were to put a flat metal plate on my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would not hurt, but if I were to set hold a dagger against my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would likely hurt a lot.
But something is wrong with my reasoning, and it turns out that road damage goes as something like the fourth power of the vehicles axel weight. Whether the tires are narrow high pressure tires or wide low pressure tires, from what I've read, is not relevant.
I'm not sure if that is because I was just wrong about top layer damage, or if it is just that lower level damage is just much more important and expensive, so any difference in top layer damage due to tire size is lost in the noise.
> Any given small patch of road I drive or ride over would only get about 29% as much force on it from the car as it would from the bike at any given time a tire is on that patch of road.
...
> This is similar to why if I were to put a flat metal plate on my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would not hurt, but if I were to set hold a dagger against my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would likely hurt a lot.
This is because your chest is weak and soft in comparison to the incompressible metal plate or dagger blade, which is not analogous to the situation on the road. A better analogy would be poking yourself with the tip of an al dente noodle compared to the load transmitted by a large, spongy slice of bread. Neither is going to hurt you in any way.
Whether your tire is transmitting 110 psi or 32 psi doesn't matter much because the compressive strength of Portland cement concrete is ~4000 PSI and the compressive strength of bituminous pavement is ~500 PSI.
However, soil bearing loads are on the order of 15-50 psi under constant loading, and can act as a spring or can yield at much lower transitory loads. The dirt beneath the pavement (or rather, the dirt beneath the gravel beneath the pavement) gives easily, so instead of asking the concrete to survive the compression forces caused by the contact patch, you're asking it to form a beam/plate that spreads the loads over a broad area, and asking that beam to resist deflection rather than crushing. The real damage, and the reason that damage scales with the fourth power of axle loading, is caused when a large truck rolls over the road, the ground shakes, and the roadbed flexes down into the soil under the axle and back up after it passes.
Try to imagine riding your road bike over a piece of cardboard laid on the sand. That wrinkling and creasing is much closer to actual road wear patterns than a dagger cutting your chest.
...
> This is similar to why if I were to put a flat metal plate on my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would not hurt, but if I were to set hold a dagger against my chest and set a bowling ball on top it would likely hurt a lot.
This is because your chest is weak and soft in comparison to the incompressible metal plate or dagger blade, which is not analogous to the situation on the road. A better analogy would be poking yourself with the tip of an al dente noodle compared to the load transmitted by a large, spongy slice of bread. Neither is going to hurt you in any way.
Whether your tire is transmitting 110 psi or 32 psi doesn't matter much because the compressive strength of Portland cement concrete is ~4000 PSI and the compressive strength of bituminous pavement is ~500 PSI.
However, soil bearing loads are on the order of 15-50 psi under constant loading, and can act as a spring or can yield at much lower transitory loads. The dirt beneath the pavement (or rather, the dirt beneath the gravel beneath the pavement) gives easily, so instead of asking the concrete to survive the compression forces caused by the contact patch, you're asking it to form a beam/plate that spreads the loads over a broad area, and asking that beam to resist deflection rather than crushing. The real damage, and the reason that damage scales with the fourth power of axle loading, is caused when a large truck rolls over the road, the ground shakes, and the roadbed flexes down into the soil under the axle and back up after it passes.
Try to imagine riding your road bike over a piece of cardboard laid on the sand. That wrinkling and creasing is much closer to actual road wear patterns than a dagger cutting your chest.
This analysis based on tire pressure seems faulty. If you place your hand on a bike tire, you do not experience thousands of pounds of force.
To estimate the pressure exerted on the road, you want to compare vehicle system weight/tire contact area. Velocity also plays a role.
To estimate the pressure exerted on the road, you want to compare vehicle system weight/tire contact area. Velocity also plays a role.
Sure, the contact patch is a good bit smaller on a bike than a car, but people don't usually weigh 5,000lbs.
I'd much rather get run over by average person on a bicycle than get run over by a car.
I'd much rather get run over by average person on a bicycle than get run over by a car.
That's because you aren't a smooth surface :) Because of your shape (and I admit I'm making an assumption here) you will experience pressure spikes due to the fact that different bits of you stick out. E.g. knees due to their shape will experience much higher pressure. A road won't do that.
>My car for example has four tires each at a pressure of 32 PSI.
The air pressure of your car/bike tires doesn't matter - all tires could be flat. Try comparing (vehicle weight + your weight) / (vehicle contact surface area) where vehicle is either your car or your bike.
The air pressure of your car/bike tires doesn't matter - all tires could be flat. Try comparing (vehicle weight + your weight) / (vehicle contact surface area) where vehicle is either your car or your bike.
For tires that support the vehicle via air pressure in the tires, contact area is roughly weight supported by tire / air pressure in tire [1].
[1] http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2013.web.dir/connor_matt...
[1] http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2013.web.dir/connor_matt...
When the tire is flat it is being supported by the sidewalls and by the wheel.
And if you notice the contact patch of a flat tire is much larger.
The ground pressure of any vehicle is almost exactly equal to the psi. With the exception of force carried by the sidewalls.
And if you notice the contact patch of a flat tire is much larger.
The ground pressure of any vehicle is almost exactly equal to the psi. With the exception of force carried by the sidewalls.
Having lived in New York with really high rates of pedestrians, sidewalks are never being replaced from normal wear and tear from use.
Usually it’s
* retrofitting for ADA compliance
* fixing heaving from freeze-thaw
* fixing heaving from the root systems of trees in street planters
Usually it’s
* retrofitting for ADA compliance
* fixing heaving from freeze-thaw
* fixing heaving from the root systems of trees in street planters
> There is no "road tax" in the UK, is it?
Vehicle Excise Duty since 1920 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
Road funding in the UK is just from the general pot of tax money.
There are a lot of anti-cyclist types in the UK that always incorrectly (or ironically, correctly) claim that cyclists don't pay road tax (no one does) and therefore shouldn't use the road, even though just about every cyclist is an adult that pays UK tax.
I certainly expect the UK, and every other country to tax EVs by mileage within a decade, and additionally toll charge on major routes, almost certainly via cameras (to also fine you for speeding), or require all cars to have a GPS blackbox (which let's face it, isn't expensive now).
Vehicle Excise Duty since 1920 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
Road funding in the UK is just from the general pot of tax money.
There are a lot of anti-cyclist types in the UK that always incorrectly (or ironically, correctly) claim that cyclists don't pay road tax (no one does) and therefore shouldn't use the road, even though just about every cyclist is an adult that pays UK tax.
I certainly expect the UK, and every other country to tax EVs by mileage within a decade, and additionally toll charge on major routes, almost certainly via cameras (to also fine you for speeding), or require all cars to have a GPS blackbox (which let's face it, isn't expensive now).
In Australia and I imagine the UK, infrastructure is paid for by the municipalities from their own budgets, a portion of which is granted to them from the federal government. Larger projects are usually taken on by the state. These budgets come out of general tax revenue, which is paid by everyone via GST and income tax. So cyclists absolutely pay, and in many many cases, they're paying to build infrastructure they don't even use. The unfair burden usually goes toward the cyclist, who's historically been shortchanged on infrastructure for cycling.
Registration goes toward running the registration apparatus, not into infrastructure. That's another misconception. The other contribution is from fuel sales taxes/excises, and that goes into general tax revenue as well, so is not explicitly set aside for road projects. Negating the potential income from fuel sales taxes, is all the fossil fuel subsidies, what once was 15bil income, after subsidies of 12bil, is now just 3billion in income from fuel taxes. So the money comes in from the consumer, and goes straight out to the fossil fuel industry through industry fuel tax credits. Absolutely bullshit, but it also means there's not much left of that fuel tax income to pay for infrastructure.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart....
Ultimately a cyclist will pay the same amount of tax, minus the fuel taxes, and get just a scrap of that tax spent back on cycling.
Registration goes toward running the registration apparatus, not into infrastructure. That's another misconception. The other contribution is from fuel sales taxes/excises, and that goes into general tax revenue as well, so is not explicitly set aside for road projects. Negating the potential income from fuel sales taxes, is all the fossil fuel subsidies, what once was 15bil income, after subsidies of 12bil, is now just 3billion in income from fuel taxes. So the money comes in from the consumer, and goes straight out to the fossil fuel industry through industry fuel tax credits. Absolutely bullshit, but it also means there's not much left of that fuel tax income to pay for infrastructure.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart....
Ultimately a cyclist will pay the same amount of tax, minus the fuel taxes, and get just a scrap of that tax spent back on cycling.
It's very odd they used the term Road Tax. It's always been known as Vehicle Tax for the very reason you've pointed out. Hence why you don't need to pay tax to ride a bicycle on the road.
The other area they are losing out not mentioned in the article is Benefit in Kind tax for EVs used as company cars. At some point, that will also need to end and be more in alignment with ICE vehicles.
The other area they are losing out not mentioned in the article is Benefit in Kind tax for EVs used as company cars. At some point, that will also need to end and be more in alignment with ICE vehicles.
It's a handy dog whistle so we know they are part of the car lobby
edit: spelling
edit: spelling
When you try and look for dog whistles everywhere the world becomes a useless cacophony of high pitched screeching. Road tax and vehicle tax are used pretty much interchangeably and I wouldn't read into the word choice any more than I'd read into the results of the coin toss.
*listen
You're being pedantic. Odds are your brain parsed the article from visual input not audio. It could go either way depending on which linguistic hard line you want to take.
or it could simply be that the commonly used term for Vehicle Excise Duty is "road tax" (even if it's technically incorrect)
not everything is a conspiracy
not everything is a conspiracy
commonly used by people who disingenuously use it's etymology to imply that all 'road users' (by which they mean cyclists) rather than 'vehicle users' should pay it
I don't see anything in the article that suggests the author wants that to happen?
these hysterical responses say more about you then the people you're demonising
these hysterical responses say more about you then the people you're demonising
I dont think a carsalesman is going to feel overly demonised by being reffered to as part of the car lobby. He does know better than to conflate road and vehicle tax however.
when you can't get the name of the duty right (it's a duty, not a tax), it seems a bit rich to complain about others getting it wrong
let alone accusing them of dog-whistling
let alone accusing them of dog-whistling
You also don't need to pay it to own a vehicle. You are allowed to own a vehicle without paying this tax as long as you promise not to drive it on the road (SORN). So by that logic it's not a vehicle tax either.
Also, bicycles are vehicles. So surely they should pay Vehicle Tax as well?
A more accurate name would be the "Using a Motorized Vehicle on the Public Road Tax". Let's abbreviate it by dropping all but the last two words. :)
Also, bicycles are vehicles. So surely they should pay Vehicle Tax as well?
A more accurate name would be the "Using a Motorized Vehicle on the Public Road Tax". Let's abbreviate it by dropping all but the last two words. :)
"Which was great to get the initial people to convert, and get the infrastructure in place. But now it's time to tax them. "
Maybe in Norway, and only Norway. Every other nation should be quadrupling-down on EV incentives. Or 10 fold. Or 20.
Maybe in Norway, and only Norway. Every other nation should be quadrupling-down on EV incentives. Or 10 fold. Or 20.
Road tax needs to be morphed into road-usage tax, based on time of day, location, axle weight, and distance.
It should be prohibitively expensive to use congested freeways and city streets during peak hours, but free at all other times.
Road expansion is justified based on peaks of usage - so by smoothing out these peaks, we can save significantly on the need to build more roads. Trip length can also scale non-linearly based on congestion: 10-20% more cars than capacity can result in 50% longer trips.
It should be prohibitively expensive to use congested freeways and city streets during peak hours, but free at all other times.
Road expansion is justified based on peaks of usage - so by smoothing out these peaks, we can save significantly on the need to build more roads. Trip length can also scale non-linearly based on congestion: 10-20% more cars than capacity can result in 50% longer trips.
Why?? EVs aren’t good for the environment at all. Why push for them??
Why are we continuously subsidising the car industry?
Why are we continuously subsidising the car industry?
It's a combination. Revenues gathered via road tax have a provision for older/more polluting cars so you pay less the newer your vehicle, essentially. Some of the money is used to fund the maintenance of highways, though.
Local roads are funded by council tax, so this probably dispells the anti-cycling argument because presumably the cyclists do pay council tax (unless they're on motorways which is another issue.)
Local roads are funded by council tax, so this probably dispells the anti-cycling argument because presumably the cyclists do pay council tax (unless they're on motorways which is another issue.)
> Some of the money is used to fund the maintenance of highways, though.
Only in the sense that some of all tax money is used in that way - VED just gets pooled with all tax income, none of it is 'ring fenced' for any specific purpose. That's why the idea of 'road tax' is so annoying, since it implies it's to be used for a specific purpose.
Only in the sense that some of all tax money is used in that way - VED just gets pooled with all tax income, none of it is 'ring fenced' for any specific purpose. That's why the idea of 'road tax' is so annoying, since it implies it's to be used for a specific purpose.
"Road tax" is a _tax_ you have to pay in order to use the _road_. It's the most natural name for it, which is why people call it that.
Despite the words they use, it's not a vehicle tax: you can own a vehicle without paying it as long as you declare that you will not use the vehicle _on_the_road_ (a.k.a., make a Statutory Off Road Notification). It's a tax for using the roads. A road tax.
That the government don't ring-fence it to use on road maintenance is irrelevant.
Despite the words they use, it's not a vehicle tax: you can own a vehicle without paying it as long as you declare that you will not use the vehicle _on_the_road_ (a.k.a., make a Statutory Off Road Notification). It's a tax for using the roads. A road tax.
That the government don't ring-fence it to use on road maintenance is irrelevant.
> That the government don't ring-fence it to use on road maintenance is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to the quoted section, which is the only thing the previous poster was replying to.
It's not irrelevant to the quoted section, which is the only thing the previous poster was replying to.
motorways, not highways
No, it's highways because not all highways (major roads and motorways) are motorways.
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highways-england
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highways-england
It's a vehicle tax.
It's depending on emissions at the moment as a way to encourage vehicles with low/no emissions but there is no reason for EV to keep being exempt.
The issue in term of tax revenue is fuel duty and VAT on fuel. I'm suspecting that once transition is advanced enough they'll find ways to add tax on charging points/electricity used for charging, or an actual road tax on mileage or whatnot.
It's depending on emissions at the moment as a way to encourage vehicles with low/no emissions but there is no reason for EV to keep being exempt.
The issue in term of tax revenue is fuel duty and VAT on fuel. I'm suspecting that once transition is advanced enough they'll find ways to add tax on charging points/electricity used for charging, or an actual road tax on mileage or whatnot.
The “pollute more from the tires being heavier” is a myth, by the way. There was an article that circulated claiming this, but they never actually measured the tire pollution of electric cars, just extrapolated from ICE cars with really terrible and ultimately false arguments. Electric cars tend to use low rolling resistance tires (potentially less wear… if you’re experiencing less rolling resistance, that means less energy ends up being used to produce wear, so less wear occurs… in part due to geometric effects and partly due to composition of the tires). Electric cars are also fairly comparable in curb weight due to massive weight reductions elsewhere, plus improved traction control (and the more gentle regenerative braking) means less wheel slippage and wear. And it assumes ICE cars are operating at full emissions-control mode which is also untrue especially on startup or in cold weather or if using diesel. It also assumes tire wear mass is all minute particles of the same problematic effects of ICE exhaust particles, which is a bad assumption for multiple reasons (for one, it ignores empirical measurements of particle sizes), and it ignores gaseous emissions entirely in the calculation, many of which are very problematic like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides of various types, components of gasoline such as benzene and xylene and toluene, ozone (a major component of smog), etc. It also ignores the near absence of break wear in electric cars, thus the absence of silica dust (or iron oxide dust, or whatever the brakes and the rotors are made of, etc).
In short, it is misinformation.
In short, it is misinformation.
> Electric cars are also fairly comparable in curb weight due to massive weight reductions elsewhere,
Seriously, this meme needs to die. A Tesla model 3 is the same weight as a BMW 340, and the model 3 is hundreds of pounds lighter than an SUV like the BMW X3.
Batteries are heavy, but so are gas engines & transmissions.
Seriously, this meme needs to die. A Tesla model 3 is the same weight as a BMW 340, and the model 3 is hundreds of pounds lighter than an SUV like the BMW X3.
Batteries are heavy, but so are gas engines & transmissions.
> A Tesla model 3 is the same weight as a BMW 340
Sure, but its also 500-1200lbs heavier than a Civic depending on the trims of each which has very similar utility to an M3 and is much closer in TCO to a model 3 than a 340 or an X3 is.
We shouldn't be having our cake and eating it too by saying "electric cars are more expensive but the TCO so much lower than ICE that its worth it" and then make comparisons to ICE vehicles at the MSRP of the EV.
Sure, but its also 500-1200lbs heavier than a Civic depending on the trims of each which has very similar utility to an M3 and is much closer in TCO to a model 3 than a 340 or an X3 is.
We shouldn't be having our cake and eating it too by saying "electric cars are more expensive but the TCO so much lower than ICE that its worth it" and then make comparisons to ICE vehicles at the MSRP of the EV.
The point is that ICE cars and electric cars are comparable in weight. There are some ICE cars lighter than an electric car, and some ICE cars heavier than an electric car. Some of that is just due to the fact that electric cars are new, and haven't moved into the "ultra light sporty car" segment with the civic or Miata.
The point is you don't see a BMW go down the road and freak out about how heavy it is. But there is this meme in everyone's mind that EV's tire polution is much much worse than ICE because EVs are much much heavier. They aren't.
The point is you don't see a BMW go down the road and freak out about how heavy it is. But there is this meme in everyone's mind that EV's tire polution is much much worse than ICE because EVs are much much heavier. They aren't.
> The point is that ICE cars and electric cars are comparable in weight.
My point is that this just isn't true in the general sense. I didn't choose the Civic because its an "ultra light sporty car" I chose it because it's in a very similar class of car to the model 3 and moves a lot of units, but you could look at the Camry, Corolla, Accord, or Altima and see that the heaviest trims of all 5 (including hybrids) all weigh less than the lightest model 3 currently available.
Those 5 cars cover every sedan on the top 25 sales list other than the Model 3. I'm sure there are tons of luxury sedans that weigh more than the Model 3, but their total number of units is much smaller than any of the 6 cars we're talking about and their TCO is massively higher as well. So if you weigh the average comparable vehicle on the road the Model 3 will weigh more, and the Model 3 is one of the lightest 250+ mile EVs! the Polestar 2 weighs 4400 lbs!
FWIW I agree that the tire pollution thing is a silly aspect to focus on when comparing EVs and ICE, especially considering a lot of people who believe the lie that it makes EVs worse overall are probably driving a mall crawler or bro-dozer that weighs 5000+ lbs.
https://insideevs.com/news/527966/electric-cars-from-heavies...
My point is that this just isn't true in the general sense. I didn't choose the Civic because its an "ultra light sporty car" I chose it because it's in a very similar class of car to the model 3 and moves a lot of units, but you could look at the Camry, Corolla, Accord, or Altima and see that the heaviest trims of all 5 (including hybrids) all weigh less than the lightest model 3 currently available.
Those 5 cars cover every sedan on the top 25 sales list other than the Model 3. I'm sure there are tons of luxury sedans that weigh more than the Model 3, but their total number of units is much smaller than any of the 6 cars we're talking about and their TCO is massively higher as well. So if you weigh the average comparable vehicle on the road the Model 3 will weigh more, and the Model 3 is one of the lightest 250+ mile EVs! the Polestar 2 weighs 4400 lbs!
FWIW I agree that the tire pollution thing is a silly aspect to focus on when comparing EVs and ICE, especially considering a lot of people who believe the lie that it makes EVs worse overall are probably driving a mall crawler or bro-dozer that weighs 5000+ lbs.
https://insideevs.com/news/527966/electric-cars-from-heavies...
It should be noted that weight has been dropping YoY and is expected to drop further when M3 gets a structural battery pack. Those drop the weight not only because there's now no longer a structure the battery is bolted to, it is the structure, but also because the weight drop lowers the batteries needed to get comparable range (further reducing weight).
Model Y is the first tesla vehicle with a structural pack.
I expect that other EV manufactures will eventually follow suit. Why wouldn't they? Less batteries and materials is a win win.
Model Y is the first tesla vehicle with a structural pack.
I expect that other EV manufactures will eventually follow suit. Why wouldn't they? Less batteries and materials is a win win.
Unfortunately most of the benefits of structural battery packs haven't materialized yet based on the stats Tesla submitted to the EPA. The Austin Model Y is 25 lbs lighter but has 14kWh less capacity and 51 fewer miles of range. Part of this is probably the battery chemistry being used in the current 4680 cells and as the chemistry improves they may catch back up in range to the non-structural 2170 packs but they have a really really long way to go before they get to the range increase and weight decrease they promised at battery day. That or some aspect of the EPA numbers are massively wrong but I feel like we would have heard from Elon about that by now.
https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/u1926z/confirm...
https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/u1926z/confirm...
They’re going with cheaper (but safer and longer lasting) 100% Cobalt and Nickel-free LFP cells, right? That could explain it.
It’s comparing to a similar performance ICE vehicle. Model 3 is much higher performance than the civic, more comparable to the BMW.
Sure, and the Civic Type-R has a 0.8 second faster 0-60 than an SR+ M3 while weighing 550 lbs less and beats the Model 3 Performance at Nurburgring by over a minute while weighing over 1000 lbs less. All while having a $10k-20k lower MSRP. the Type-R is only 15 seconds behind a model S plaid at nurburgring which is more than 50% heavier.
But beyond that, if the only thing you ever try to compare is 0-60 performance then EVs always have an upper hand because it is one of their primary strengths, and that's great! But cars are much, much more than their 0-60 (as evidenced by a fwd car with a 5.0s trouncing an awd car with 3.1s on the track) and for many people TCO, utility, creature comforts, reliability, etc. are more important comparisons.
But beyond that, if the only thing you ever try to compare is 0-60 performance then EVs always have an upper hand because it is one of their primary strengths, and that's great! But cars are much, much more than their 0-60 (as evidenced by a fwd car with a 5.0s trouncing an awd car with 3.1s on the track) and for many people TCO, utility, creature comforts, reliability, etc. are more important comparisons.
> All while having a $10k-20k lower MSRP
Civic Type-R is a 40k car, just like the model 3 and it probably has high markups above the MSRP on average.
Civic Type-R is a 40k car, just like the model 3 and it probably has high markups above the MSRP on average.
The cheapest model 3 on Tesla's website right now is $47k MSRP, the 2021 Type-R MSRP was $38k (there is no 2022) and the Performance Model 3 is $63k.
So my bad its $9k-$25k MSRP, not that the minutiae of pricing is that important for this comparison. It was just to note that Honda isn't winning on weight by spending a fortune on materials or manufacturing like if I had compared the Model 3 to some supercar.
So my bad its $9k-$25k MSRP, not that the minutiae of pricing is that important for this comparison. It was just to note that Honda isn't winning on weight by spending a fortune on materials or manufacturing like if I had compared the Model 3 to some supercar.
The Model 3 was still just $39,490 in 2021. So 1K MSPR difference and it did 0 - 60 in about the same time as the type r (5.3s)
Performance isn't relevant.
> Electric cars tend to use low rolling resistance tires (potentially less wear… if you’re experiencing less rolling resistance, that means less energy ends up being used to produce wear, so less wear occurs… in part due to geometric effects and partly due to composition of the tires). Electric cars are also fairly comparable in curb weight due to massive weight reductions elsewhere, plus improved traction control (and the more gentle regenerative braking) means less wheel slippage and wear.
Do we need to go this deep into our analysis? I would think ((pi*radius^2)-(pi*(radius-tread_depth)^2))*width/miles would tell us pretty much everything we need to know about tire emissions, and most EV owners in my experience will acknowledge spending much more on tires for the same # of miles or spending the same for a good bit less # of miles. I'm not sure what the dimensional differences are on your average EV tire purchase versus your average ICE tire purchase, but if we look at model 3 base tires vs civic touring tires (biggest stock civic tire sold):
M3: 235/45R18 10/32 (Primacy MXM4)
Civic: 235/40R18 9/32 (Eagle Sport A/S)
so at least as far as stock tires M3 should have more total tread than a similarly sized/similar TCO vehicle given the larger aspect ratio and deeper tread depth. Unfortunately I can't find any non-anecdotal data on how many miles they would each get.
Of course I agree with pretty much everything you said but I do think tires are an important conversation to have around EVs, particularly when prices come down and budget conscious buyers start putting cheap, loud, fast wearing tires on their EVs.
Do we need to go this deep into our analysis? I would think ((pi*radius^2)-(pi*(radius-tread_depth)^2))*width/miles would tell us pretty much everything we need to know about tire emissions, and most EV owners in my experience will acknowledge spending much more on tires for the same # of miles or spending the same for a good bit less # of miles. I'm not sure what the dimensional differences are on your average EV tire purchase versus your average ICE tire purchase, but if we look at model 3 base tires vs civic touring tires (biggest stock civic tire sold):
M3: 235/45R18 10/32 (Primacy MXM4)
Civic: 235/40R18 9/32 (Eagle Sport A/S)
so at least as far as stock tires M3 should have more total tread than a similarly sized/similar TCO vehicle given the larger aspect ratio and deeper tread depth. Unfortunately I can't find any non-anecdotal data on how many miles they would each get.
Of course I agree with pretty much everything you said but I do think tires are an important conversation to have around EVs, particularly when prices come down and budget conscious buyers start putting cheap, loud, fast wearing tires on their EVs.
I don't think torque, tire compound and driving habits can be ignored in a serious analysis.
Also, cheap tires tend to have harder, longer lasting compounds.
Also, cheap tires tend to have harder, longer lasting compounds.
I was including all three of those in the "per mile" piece of the equation since we are looking at products in aggregate. If EVs generally cause people to accelerate harder than if they bought an equivalent ICE then that would be reflected in the reduced tire life and if chosen tire compound decreases wear then that would be reflected as well.
That said tire compound could be more or less dense or have more or less of an effect on the environment per unit so that wouldn't be captured, and low torque EVs would most likely have less wear/mile so the categorization of just EV vs ICE might be too broad.
That said tire compound could be more or less dense or have more or less of an effect on the environment per unit so that wouldn't be captured, and low torque EVs would most likely have less wear/mile so the categorization of just EV vs ICE might be too broad.
> Lots of budgets are now off because they estimated X amounts from cars using toll roads, but half of them don't pay the price.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Income from toll roads in Oslo was 1 billion NOK lower per year than budgeted, after the electric car boom and their free/subsidized passing.
https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/vil-fjerne-bompengerabatten-f...
That alone almost collapsed the whole Oslo city government, actually. As they had to negotiate with the national government and neighbor districts on how various infrastructure projects could be finished.
Was quite a big deal this spring.
https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/vil-fjerne-bompengerabatten-f...
That alone almost collapsed the whole Oslo city government, actually. As they had to negotiate with the national government and neighbor districts on how various infrastructure projects could be finished.
Was quite a big deal this spring.
The point of road taxes is to pay for maintenance and expansion. Roads break down over time if you do not maintain them.
this is paid out of local taxation. Which is why pedestrians, cylists, equestrians, tractors, cows and ducks are allowed to used the road.
There is no such thing as road tax.
There is no such thing as road tax.
Dunno how it works in UK, but in US, there are local roads, state roads, and federal roads. There are also local, state, and federal gas taxes that vary by jurisdiction. The funds from these gas taxes are used to finance new highway and roadway construction and maintenance of existing roads. Sometimes, a special tax is levied at the local level for specific local roadway projects. But the big infrastructure projects are almost entirely paid for by gas taxes.
Either way, the point of the tax has never been to "punish pollution".
Either way, the point of the tax has never been to "punish pollution".
> the big infrastructure projects are almost entirely paid for by gas taxes.
About 50% is probably correct: http://www.financingtransportation.org/funding_financing/fun...
There is such thing as a road tax and not all roads allow cows and ducks and lions and bears. Note the sign on the highway onramp that says something like "no pedestrians or cyclists" and the fact that every car on the road has to pay a yearly fee in order to not be impounded by the local government for neglecting to pay for fees that go on to maintain the roads.
trunk roads and motorways are definitely not paid out of local taxation
[deleted]
Roads break down over time primarily as a function of vehicle weight. Most road taxes (especially gas taxes) are poor proxies for vehicle weight taxes. It's probably time to reconsider vehicle weight taxes.
> This of course also ignores that most adult cyclists also own a car.
What does owning a car have to do with it? If you own two cars, or a car and a scooter, you still have to pay taxes for both to be on the road, don’t you?
EDIT: I forgot to mention, where I live taxes aren’t collected as a “fee for polluting.” They’re to keep roads maintained and improve them. This often includes special bike lanes that bicyclists do nothing to pay for.
What does owning a car have to do with it? If you own two cars, or a car and a scooter, you still have to pay taxes for both to be on the road, don’t you?
EDIT: I forgot to mention, where I live taxes aren’t collected as a “fee for polluting.” They’re to keep roads maintained and improve them. This often includes special bike lanes that bicyclists do nothing to pay for.
That's my point, though. When I'm on a bike and someone shouts at me to get off the road because I don't pay for it and they do, they are wrong. I pay the same as they do, I just choose to use my bike every day to commute.
But that isn't what you said. You said that people who were complaining that bicyclists don't pay their fair share for the roads are wrong because most bicyclists own a car too. I responded to that argument and not the moved goal post you're presenting here.
I have honestly no idea what you're trying to convey. I didn't move any goalpost, I tried to restate my point since you missed it completely. Don't argue in bad faith, please.
so perhaps its also time for the government to admit that the prior taxes didnt have ANYTHING to do with environment, but just a way to justify money grabbing to spend on their own worthy causes?
Cars are a huge burden on health, safety, environment and quality of life.
It has never been a secret that governments tax cars to subsidize causes that should partially compensate the indirect damage that cars do to their countries.
We saw this play out with the money from tobacco settlements a few decades ago; states see sin taxes as a windfall that can substitute for sustainable budgeting.
No, it's the opposite. You don't want people to drive because of the environment, health, noise, road "accidents" killing people, how it destroys cities etc. So the taxes are a direct incentive to find alternative modes of travel.
step 1: ICE cars are bad for the environment! we must add taxes
step 2: ICE cars are bad, electric cars good. We remove taxes for electric cars
... too many people get electric cars ...
step 3: its time to start taxing electric cars... reasons!
translation: governments likes to take money from its citizens that it can spend on whatever it deems worthy, and will happily come up with a reason, sometimes justified, sometimes not.
step 2: ICE cars are bad, electric cars good. We remove taxes for electric cars
... too many people get electric cars ...
step 3: its time to start taxing electric cars... reasons!
translation: governments likes to take money from its citizens that it can spend on whatever it deems worthy, and will happily come up with a reason, sometimes justified, sometimes not.
Not really. They exist because cars are required. If we all became able to live our lives purely with cycling then cycling would be taxed.
> There is no "road tax" in the UK, is it? It's a fee for polluting, not using the road.
It is not what you call it, but what you spend it on.
It is not what you call it, but what you spend it on.
And it’s part of general taxation…
Roads are funded partly out of local taxes, and partly out of general taxes - there’s no hypothecation of ‘road tax’ paying for roads
Roads are funded partly out of local taxes, and partly out of general taxes - there’s no hypothecation of ‘road tax’ paying for roads
> I hate that it's being used as an argument against cyclists: "get off the road, you don't pay road tax".
It's really more that many cyclists are in the way and aren't going the speed limit. You end up holding up a lot of traffic that is forced to go slower and that's annoying to everyone. to be frank, when you're driving a car a person on a bike taking up the entire road is annoying. This is why people really dislike bikes - they get in the way of people trying to get somewhere.
It's really more that many cyclists are in the way and aren't going the speed limit. You end up holding up a lot of traffic that is forced to go slower and that's annoying to everyone. to be frank, when you're driving a car a person on a bike taking up the entire road is annoying. This is why people really dislike bikes - they get in the way of people trying to get somewhere.
That's a nasty bias you have. Cyclists are clearly also "people trying to get somewhere". I'd argue they're trying harder than you are.
I won't defend all cyclists, some of them have bad etiquette for sure. I certainly don't have traffic piled up behind me. But I'd argue they've inconvenienced you far less than your car infrastructure has inconvenienced them. I promise if they had a separated fast bike lane to use, they'd be using that instead of getting blasted by cars and trucks and dealing with people angry they're late for their next stoplight.
If you want cyclists off your road, then you should be lobbying for better cycling infrastructure.
I won't defend all cyclists, some of them have bad etiquette for sure. I certainly don't have traffic piled up behind me. But I'd argue they've inconvenienced you far less than your car infrastructure has inconvenienced them. I promise if they had a separated fast bike lane to use, they'd be using that instead of getting blasted by cars and trucks and dealing with people angry they're late for their next stoplight.
If you want cyclists off your road, then you should be lobbying for better cycling infrastructure.
The cyclists in the US I see in a suburban area are almost all doing it for exercise (pretty obvious from the getup), not to get somewhere.
In a more downtown area it's obviously different.
>dealing with people angry they're late for their next stoplight.
Sounds like you have some nasty bias yourself.
In a more downtown area it's obviously different.
>dealing with people angry they're late for their next stoplight.
Sounds like you have some nasty bias yourself.
Few people cyclists in the U.S.A. suburs are cycling for transport instead of sport... because of the infrastructure. Only mad cyclists dare their life for it!
The danger while cycling is not the bike or falling down, it's the motorized users.
The danger while cycling is not the bike or falling down, it's the motorized users.
> The cyclists in the US I see in a suburban area are almost all doing it for exercise (pretty obvious from the getup), not to get somewhere.
That might change if there was more dedicated bike lanes.
That might change if there was more dedicated bike lanes.
And why are people driving? Is their goal so much holier than whatever reason the bicyclist is out biking?
Don't live your life thinking everything revolves around you.
Don't live your life thinking everything revolves around you.
> Sounds like you have some nasty bias yourself.
Like most bike commuters I also drive, I know exactly what's waiting for anyone who's decided to be aggressive on their way past, and it's the next stop light. I'll probably see them there, and it'll be super awkward.
Like most bike commuters I also drive, I know exactly what's waiting for anyone who's decided to be aggressive on their way past, and it's the next stop light. I'll probably see them there, and it'll be super awkward.
As a cyclist, I am also trying to get somewhere, and I don't enjoy being on the road with motorists either.
Based on your comment, I have to assume we live in different areas. I live in the city, and generally it is better and faster to bike because one can bike almost as fast as a car due to not needing to wait for traffic and there's no need to find parking at the destination. From my POV, the motorists I have to share the road with are driving on low throughput streets and generally don't belong on the streets I am traveling down.
Do you live out in the country with 2 lane roads? A small town?
Based on your comment, I have to assume we live in different areas. I live in the city, and generally it is better and faster to bike because one can bike almost as fast as a car due to not needing to wait for traffic and there's no need to find parking at the destination. From my POV, the motorists I have to share the road with are driving on low throughput streets and generally don't belong on the streets I am traveling down.
Do you live out in the country with 2 lane roads? A small town?
I take the subway when in the city or a taxi if it’s faster. People on bikes get hit all the time and police investigations nearly always find the bike rider at fault.
The town I’m in outside the city is not a small town. There’s very little that’s more annoying than a group of spandex clad Tour de France wannabes taking up the entire road so they can cosplay.
The town I’m in outside the city is not a small town. There’s very little that’s more annoying than a group of spandex clad Tour de France wannabes taking up the entire road so they can cosplay.
> police investigations nearly always find the bike rider at fault.
Source please. Sounds like a confirmation bias on your part.
> There’s very little that’s more annoying than a group of spandex clad Tour de France wannabes taking up the entire road so they can cosplay.
You sound jealous. Get a hobby yourself, perhaps?
Source please. Sounds like a confirmation bias on your part.
> There’s very little that’s more annoying than a group of spandex clad Tour de France wannabes taking up the entire road so they can cosplay.
You sound jealous. Get a hobby yourself, perhaps?
> many cyclists [...] aren't going the speed limit.
It's a speed upper limit, not a minimum. Are you upset when an agricole machine is using the public roads?
This "annoyance" against people not travelling at the speed limit on public roads is based on a lack of time management and the expectation that the road is empty. This is a selfish point of view.
When I want to control my travelling time, I walk or cycle. When I want comfort, I use public transportation or my car.
It's a speed upper limit, not a minimum. Are you upset when an agricole machine is using the public roads?
This "annoyance" against people not travelling at the speed limit on public roads is based on a lack of time management and the expectation that the road is empty. This is a selfish point of view.
When I want to control my travelling time, I walk or cycle. When I want comfort, I use public transportation or my car.
> Are you upset when an agricole machine is using the public roads?
Nope.
1) Any tractor I've been behind on a public road will pull over to let traffic pass by when possible.
2) Tractors obey all traffic lights and laws and behave predictably.
3) I've never seen a tractor driver act aggressively towards a car.
Nope.
1) Any tractor I've been behind on a public road will pull over to let traffic pass by when possible.
2) Tractors obey all traffic lights and laws and behave predictably.
3) I've never seen a tractor driver act aggressively towards a car.
Cyclists are are smaller and easier to pass than tractors. Cyclists are better than obeying traffic laws than drivers. Multiple police surveys confirm it. Finally cyclists are subject of so much abuse and straight up murder attempts on the road that it's reasonable to expect them "acting aggressively towards a car". I mean if you come swinging a heavy object next to me I may lose my cool as well.
1) Cyclist are on the right side of the road (not against the ditch/gutter/curb...), and easy to see past them to know if you can safely pass them.
2) Most cyclist do, some do not, same as drivers 3) Same as 2), and cyclist can be aggressive when your life is at stake. I think drivers mostly forget they are in charge of a dangerous machine.
2) Most cyclist do, some do not, same as drivers 3) Same as 2), and cyclist can be aggressive when your life is at stake. I think drivers mostly forget they are in charge of a dangerous machine.
>It's a speed upper limit, not a minimum. Are you upset when an agricole machine is using the public roads?
This is an infantile way of framing it. 99.9999% of road users (all types) DGAF what you do as long as you meed expectations for your type of traffic.
Pretty much nobody gets angry at slower traffic (tractors, cyclists, commercial vehicles) so long as it is meeting their expectations for what it is. If you drive a normal car and try and act like something slower don't be surprised when it pisses people off. Likewise if you cycle or have to operate heavy machinery on road and try and act like a car outside of some narrow circumstances don't be surprised when it pisses people off.
This is an infantile way of framing it. 99.9999% of road users (all types) DGAF what you do as long as you meed expectations for your type of traffic.
Pretty much nobody gets angry at slower traffic (tractors, cyclists, commercial vehicles) so long as it is meeting their expectations for what it is. If you drive a normal car and try and act like something slower don't be surprised when it pisses people off. Likewise if you cycle or have to operate heavy machinery on road and try and act like a car outside of some narrow circumstances don't be surprised when it pisses people off.
But then you look at the average speed of cars and you realize that in most urban area it is roughly the same as the cyclists.
How many stupid motorists kept screaming their engine when I was commuting just to pass me then come to a screetching halt behind other cars at the next traffic light while I just pass them back to the front of the line.
How many stupid motorists kept screaming their engine when I was commuting just to pass me then come to a screetching halt behind other cars at the next traffic light while I just pass them back to the front of the line.
leaving aside the fact that the speed limit is an upper bound on speed not mandatory… on my bike i’m more regularly held up by cars (often a single occupant) than i am by cyclists when driving my car. but overwhelmingly its cars holding up other cars.
hell hath no fury like a mildly inconvenienced motorist
You could spend eternity studying how some people feel aggressively about cyclists. Would be great to understand the crux of it. Fairness (road taxes), jealousy (skipping lights, getting ahead of traffic), shame (should I be exercising too?), otherness.
It seems to mostly be annoyance that they have to share the road. Cyclists aren't zooming along at 44MPH on a 35MPH road. Other motorists are also in their way. Automobile commercials always depict an idyllic empty road just for you.
Not sure it's just an annoyance at sharing the road - like you said, there are other motorists. You don't see epic forum rage-discussions about garbage trucks holding up traffic, street-sweepers, buses, parking lanes that revert at rush hour. Those get discussed, but there always seems to be a special rage reserved by some people for cyclists - the quiet, small road users. I think you could explain a lot about a large segment of people by isolating and understanding this.
If I'm held up by a cyclist, I think "Good on them, they're braver and fitter than me."
If I'm held up by a cyclist, I think "Good on them, they're braver and fitter than me."
I think people are starting from the wrong end of the problem. It appears we have two types of roads, access roads (think last mile roads in residential or rural areas) whose replacement cycle is driven by useful life vs usage. Then we have high throughput roads, that have enough volume to require usage driven replacement cycles. So if those access roads are y% of the miles and x% of the cost, then a vehicle “access” tax should be levied to cover that part of the system, and toll/usage based tax should be levied to maintain the usage based part of the system.
Side note: to adjust for the pollution CO2 element you could add a tax to the wholesale price per MW of electricity based on generation type, in addition to a lower, purely pollution priced gas tax
Side note: to adjust for the pollution CO2 element you could add a tax to the wholesale price per MW of electricity based on generation type, in addition to a lower, purely pollution priced gas tax
Under this model you should also account for the amount of damage done by the vehicle. Which scales with the fourth power of axle load, i.e. ~100% of the road damage is caused by large commercial vehicles, to the point that collecting it from passenger vehicles isn't even worth the collection infrastructure. It certainly isn't worth the privacy cost.
Even if a road never sees a single truck, it will still need to be replaced and/or repaired eventually. Things like the freeze-thaw cycle destroy roads too.
Which has nothing to do with usage, so shouldn't be priced with usage.
Agree, seems like access rates and toll rates should scale with vehicle weight, but that the slope would be lower in access rates than usage rates.
The actual problem is that government is going to lose 35 billion per year in tax revenue, and they are trying to prevent that. What they actually spend that money on is secondary, they just need a good story to tell to their voters :)
Lol - yep, people always struggle with the concept of fungibility in this context. It’s like when we give $1b of food aid to a country and prescribe it can’t be spent on military hardware, and pretending we didn’t just free up $1b for military spending…
Everyone always seems to jump from general schemes (road tax, fuel duty) to Orwellian tracking (GPS everywhere). Seems like a simple scheme of mileage tracking and net charge tracking would do. You then have an overall energy use / mile figure that you can use to price each mile so people who buy more efficient cars are rewarded, and then charge by total number of miles, so people who do fewer miles pay less.
Too many unknowns with the mileage solution. The most obvious for me is travelling abroad - travelling by car between EU countries is not uncommon. Another issue is that the mileage of the car is not very hard to modify. In Eastern Europe, buying a second-hand 10 year old car, imported from Germany, is almost funny because most seem to be around 90-100 000 miles (140-160 000 km), while looking for the same make and model in a German auto website will show most cars have double the mileage.
Do you think that people should only withdraw exactly what they deposited from Social Security? Do you think that a patient should pay 100% of their healthcare costs under socialized medicine?
I find it so strange that roads aren't viewed as a public service, and instead should be taxed (regressively) to cover the cost of the road by those using it.
I'm fine paying fully for my own road use, as long as I can stop paying for all the government services I don't use. But as long as the government is taking half of my paycheck, providing me with roads is the bare minimum they could give in return.
I find it so strange that roads aren't viewed as a public service, and instead should be taxed (regressively) to cover the cost of the road by those using it.
I'm fine paying fully for my own road use, as long as I can stop paying for all the government services I don't use. But as long as the government is taking half of my paycheck, providing me with roads is the bare minimum they could give in return.
The difference between roads and other things you mentioned is that current road infrastructure, especially in cities have huge costs for health, lifestyle, mental health. I don't want cars in cities and if I have to have them I want car owners to pay the full cost of making city life way worse hoping alternatives emerge.
You can make that argument about anything, though.
You need roads to have a civilization, otherwise you have no way to transport the goods you consume, or get to the hospital quickly, etc. What you're arguing is that you don't like the current implementation.
I don't like the current implementation of medicare / medicaid / social security. It definitely is suboptimal for people's (mental) health, including those in my family. It still comes out of my paycheck. It's also an order of magnitude more than whatever gas taxes and tolls I pay.
That's just the nature of living in a democracy. If everyone paid for exactly the services they used, taxes wouldn't exist.
I just find it curious that people on HN rally against the cost of roads, when they absolutely benefit from the roads being there. Military, SS, or Medicare are services that the average citizen doesn't use at all, and cost much much much more than roads.
You need roads to have a civilization, otherwise you have no way to transport the goods you consume, or get to the hospital quickly, etc. What you're arguing is that you don't like the current implementation.
I don't like the current implementation of medicare / medicaid / social security. It definitely is suboptimal for people's (mental) health, including those in my family. It still comes out of my paycheck. It's also an order of magnitude more than whatever gas taxes and tolls I pay.
That's just the nature of living in a democracy. If everyone paid for exactly the services they used, taxes wouldn't exist.
I just find it curious that people on HN rally against the cost of roads, when they absolutely benefit from the roads being there. Military, SS, or Medicare are services that the average citizen doesn't use at all, and cost much much much more than roads.
Social programs I don't benefit from don't hurt me. They just cost me. Roads as currently implemented make my life way worse. That's the distinction people see.
That's mostly because the concept of tracking has been pushed over and over again politically, it just never made it. It has been on the agenda in NL since the mid 1980's.
Another easy way is to tax wear items accordingly and have inspections maintaining their condition for safety. E.g. EVs are heavier and wear down tires more than lighter cars. The state could implement a tax on tires and mandatory inspections for tread depth like they do with smog checks for emissions in gas cars. They could use the same testing infrastructure and just stock every location with a penny to measure tread. Heavy users of the roads will see a lot of wear on their tires and will be paying more into this tax accordingly in order to have a legally safe vehicle to drive, just like how owners of ancient cars that are more likely to be polluting need to take special care that the emissions controls are in good maintenance so that they pass smog.
It would also be beneficial to incentivize better vehicle choices at the point of sale. Ebikes should be subsidized to the point of being free or nearly so. Other evehicles should be taxed extremely high per pound of mass. A family of four should therefore naturally gravitate toward a compact hatchback over a massive SUV that weighs twice as much like they do today when there is no incentive for getting a smaller vehicle.
It would also be beneficial to incentivize better vehicle choices at the point of sale. Ebikes should be subsidized to the point of being free or nearly so. Other evehicles should be taxed extremely high per pound of mass. A family of four should therefore naturally gravitate toward a compact hatchback over a massive SUV that weighs twice as much like they do today when there is no incentive for getting a smaller vehicle.
Tire tread is kind of a dangerous measure; you don’t necessarily want everyone switching to a super hard tire. Basically you can trade tread wear for stopping distance.
Tire tread is already something that is measured on the books legally speaking but is never enforced really as such. You do need to legally maintain tread. As far as compounds go once again that's something that regulation can enforce. I don't think today that people are buying hard tires that are apparently too hard for the purpose of getting less wear out of them.
Every single car should be tracked at all times. They are a deadly weapon, kill a million people every year around the world, and seriously injure many more.
Google Maps almost does this.
A good point. This sounds like the kind of thing that could be incorporated into a mileage reading at the annual vehicle inspection (which I assume the USA has??). Vehicles which are for entirely private-road use don’t get inspected, so that’s ok. Or they are specially classified somehow.
Everyone else just accepts that what the system lacks in accounting for private road use, is made up for in simplicity and cheapness of administration.
Everyone else just accepts that what the system lacks in accounting for private road use, is made up for in simplicity and cheapness of administration.
> annual vehicle inspection (which I assume the USA has??)
Hah. Washington state doesn't even test for emissions, let alone do a vehicle inspection.
Hah. Washington state doesn't even test for emissions, let alone do a vehicle inspection.
there's a couple of edge cases for odometer based tracking, namely private roads and tracks (e.g. racing)
Would you trust a government imposed GPS based tracking system to properly account for those edge cases? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Also, those aren’t exempted under the current gas tax model anyway, so why bother?
Also, those aren’t exempted under the current gas tax model anyway, so why bother?
I would indeed prefer the odometer based solution to the GPS
but it's not perfect
(and you are currently exempted from the gax tax model if you have a electric vehicle on private roads / tracks, I doubt too many are affected by this though)
but it's not perfect
(and you are currently exempted from the gax tax model if you have a electric vehicle on private roads / tracks, I doubt too many are affected by this though)
> you are currently exempted from the gax tax model if you have a electric vehicle on private roads
Private roads are irrelevant - electric vehicles don't pay gas tax, that's the point of this whole conversation.
Private roads are irrelevant - electric vehicles don't pay gas tax, that's the point of this whole conversation.
> Private roads are irrelevant - electric vehicles don't pay gas tax, that's the point of this whole conversation.
uh, yes?
which wouldn't be the case if we switched to a tax based on an odometer
that's the point of this whole conversation.
uh, yes?
which wouldn't be the case if we switched to a tax based on an odometer
that's the point of this whole conversation.
I would prefer freedom and privacy to both "solutions".
Tracks could be handled by having an official reading when entering and leaving the track, then make the difference deductible from your "miles tax".
Similar stuff for entering and leaving the country.
Not sure how I would approach private roads.
Similar stuff for entering and leaving the country.
Not sure how I would approach private roads.
It's not really an edge case. Everyone drives on paved private property (parking lots and the like). A flat 2% mileage reduction per year is probably enough to cover this for the vast majority of people. So if someone drives 10,000 miles a year, you'd charge them for 9800 miles with the assumption that they drove about 200 miles on private property that year.
Maybe not a long term alternative but taxing drivers behaviour via extreme penalties rather than the type of fuel or vehicle they use would not only raise revenue but may also encourage people to drive in a safer and more fuel-efficient manner?
For example, overtaking a cyclist regardless of the fact that you are already approaching a stop junction should result in a fine of at least £10,000.
Tailgating in a dangerous and aggressive manner, £50,000.
From everyday observation, this would raise a few billion in no time at all and price some very stupid and aggressive people off the roads entirely.
For example, overtaking a cyclist regardless of the fact that you are already approaching a stop junction should result in a fine of at least £10,000.
Tailgating in a dangerous and aggressive manner, £50,000.
From everyday observation, this would raise a few billion in no time at all and price some very stupid and aggressive people off the roads entirely.
You will NEVER catch the perpetrator. Period. Also the cost of enforcement will quickly outpace any revenue gained, as council's parking enforcements has shown.
Even when caught says on CCTV, there's no guarantee you can find and fine the driver. There are over half a million uninsured cars on the UK streets at any time. Twice that many uninsured drivers. Even getting them to pay for insurance is hard enough, how difficult do you think it'd be to get them to pay £10k fine?
Even when caught says on CCTV, there's no guarantee you can find and fine the driver. There are over half a million uninsured cars on the UK streets at any time. Twice that many uninsured drivers. Even getting them to pay for insurance is hard enough, how difficult do you think it'd be to get them to pay £10k fine?
> 'Even getting them to pay for insurance is hard enough, how difficult do you think it'd be to get them to pay £10k fine?'
In a lot of cases the fine for having no insurance is lower than the insurance would have cost.
In other words, the system is seriously f*d up and needs to be changed.
In a lot of cases the fine for having no insurance is lower than the insurance would have cost.
In other words, the system is seriously f*d up and needs to be changed.
Driving without insurance should be a jailable offence and needs to be taken far more seriously. You are at risk of not having coverage when you cause significant injury or death to someone. If a breadwinner for a family is no longer able to work, the verdict may be more than you can earn in a lifetime which makes you into some sort of debt slave. Not having insurance when you can inflict severe harm on other people is quite dystopian.
> If a breadwinner for a family is no longer able to work, the verdict may be more than you can earn in a lifetime which makes you into some sort of debt slave.
the bigger issue is the breadwinner's family will go from middle class to living in poverty. The types that don't pay insurance are not gonna pay court settlement in a timely manner.
the bigger issue is the breadwinner's family will go from middle class to living in poverty. The types that don't pay insurance are not gonna pay court settlement in a timely manner.
Database of all cars. All penalties are assigned to the car and are to be paid on yearly inspection. If not paid, the car isn't allowed on the road.
If the owner of the car let someone else drive it then it's their issue to resolve.
We just need political will which isn't there. It's not a technical problem to solve.
If the owner of the car let someone else drive it then it's their issue to resolve.
We just need political will which isn't there. It's not a technical problem to solve.
This sounds good until you realize it's extremely regressive and will cause the average offender to go into a debt spiral.
It doesn't sound good at all, it sounds absolutely tyrannical.
These sorts of articles have always confused me. This would be a great problem to have! If gas usage gas halves then double the tax, and so on. Once gas taxes are 10-20x what they are today, we can talk about how to find replacement revenue.
Also; the annual ongoing damage Britain is incurring from burning fossil fuels is already way above 35 billion pounds. Focusing on where the money for those repairs is coming from is probably more important.
Also; the annual ongoing damage Britain is incurring from burning fossil fuels is already way above 35 billion pounds. Focusing on where the money for those repairs is coming from is probably more important.
that aint going to work... if the tax doubles, people will start to revolt. Taxis, Trucks, Van drivers and anyone who either 1) cant afford a new electric car, or 2) cant buy one one for one reason or another (distance they travel, stuff they carry, etc) are going to be very pissed off. And if more people do go an buy electric cars, your still in the same boat...
That would make the gas tax a tax on the poor, whom cannot afford electric cars
The truly poor can't afford a car regardless, especially not at 2GBP/L gas prices already.
Tax vehicles based on actual wear to the road surface and add it to the annual tag renewal. Of course, that would stop us from conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of road wear comes from semi-trucks and other heavy vehicles.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that roads have terrible capacity as a transport system and therefore many many many miles of terribly expensive road only exist to accommodate the space taken up by a comparatively small number of vehicles, with semi-trucks and other heavy vehicles often a minority.
Count the heavy vehicles: https://twitter.com/urbanthoughts11/status/11912952051876864...
Don't get me wrong, the tax system is setup as a massive subsidy to trucking on roads that should be eliminated so this stuff can move onto trains where it belongs for everything but the last mile, but a big part of the cost is also just the space and area consumed by it all.
Count the heavy vehicles: https://twitter.com/urbanthoughts11/status/11912952051876864...
Don't get me wrong, the tax system is setup as a massive subsidy to trucking on roads that should be eliminated so this stuff can move onto trains where it belongs for everything but the last mile, but a big part of the cost is also just the space and area consumed by it all.
Imho individual cars should be banned except maybe for people with disabilities. They simply make people hateful, angry at everyone and generally unhappy. And an awful lot of space is wasted for them to stay parked most of the time.
Between 15 to 50% of the existing roads should be dedicated to non motorized use (depending on the geography, moutains can pose some challenges at times), the rest to a dense network of autonomous buses and last miles autonomous delivery trucks. Long range goods transport should be allowed only on railways, we could remove space used by multilane highways to reallocate them to rail.
Between 15 to 50% of the existing roads should be dedicated to non motorized use (depending on the geography, moutains can pose some challenges at times), the rest to a dense network of autonomous buses and last miles autonomous delivery trucks. Long range goods transport should be allowed only on railways, we could remove space used by multilane highways to reallocate them to rail.
Imho individual cars should be banned except maybe for people with disabilities.
Append "in any area with a population density over 5,000 per square mile" and I'd agree with you.
Append "in any area with a population density over 5,000 per square mile" and I'd agree with you.
That seems to be the point of road diets. Removing free and easy parking on public right of ways, 25 MPH speed limit, narrow lanes, adding prominent pedestrian crossings. All that combined has the dual effect of making cities livable when dismounted and discouraging automobile through traffic.
People with disabilities would be much happier if no one can drive in cities. Running a mobility scooter, a wheelchair or an electric wheelchair would be so much easier. Cars are especially bad for people with disabilities and not only because many of them can't drive at all.
Came here to say the same thing. Road wear comes from heavy transport fleets, not commuter vehicles, so all of the infrastructure to monitor semis and tax shipping fuels is already in place.
The shipping industry doesn't want to pay that tax, which is why they're lobbying to pass the tax onto the rest of us.
Privatize profits, socialize costs.
The shipping industry doesn't want to pay that tax, which is why they're lobbying to pass the tax onto the rest of us.
Privatize profits, socialize costs.
I would guess that huge SUVs and enormous trucks represent a not-insignificant proportion of road wear, since those vehicles are more common than semis.
Agreed that a road wear tax based on weight makes sense though. It might make sense to use a function of weight + miles driven per year to get an even more accurate measurement of road wear contribution.
Agreed that a road wear tax based on weight makes sense though. It might make sense to use a function of weight + miles driven per year to get an even more accurate measurement of road wear contribution.
That would just result in a trivial tax for personal vehicles and high taxes on heavy trucks (which would just get passed on resulting in more or less a consumption tax, which isn't necessarily bad but that's outside scope for here)
Additionally, despite a lot of people saying they want to use taxes to "handle externalities" or some other sort of "pay per usage" type manner like that what they actually want is to tax people who are on the fence between bus pass and used cheap car solidly into the bus pass camp and taxing for road wear would not accomplish that.
Additionally, when it comes to all forms of public infrastructure there's a common good argument to be made for a tax that's effectively very flat. The whole point of government funded things is that we all kick in a little and then all can use the resulting things as much or little as we want and that this low cost per use has societal benefits.
Edit:
For these kinds of activism driven discussions it's generally accepted that road wear is correlated to weight ^4
cyclist -> 100 ^4
(very) compact car -> 1000 ^4
electric hummer -> 5000 ^4
medium duty commercial truck -> 10000^4
Pick what you think is a reasonable bill for any one of those and then compute what the resulting bill for the others would be. Even if you want to do variable rate monkey business you're gonna have a hell of a time overcoming the whole "^4" bit.
Additionally, despite a lot of people saying they want to use taxes to "handle externalities" or some other sort of "pay per usage" type manner like that what they actually want is to tax people who are on the fence between bus pass and used cheap car solidly into the bus pass camp and taxing for road wear would not accomplish that.
Additionally, when it comes to all forms of public infrastructure there's a common good argument to be made for a tax that's effectively very flat. The whole point of government funded things is that we all kick in a little and then all can use the resulting things as much or little as we want and that this low cost per use has societal benefits.
Edit:
For these kinds of activism driven discussions it's generally accepted that road wear is correlated to weight ^4
cyclist -> 100 ^4
(very) compact car -> 1000 ^4
electric hummer -> 5000 ^4
medium duty commercial truck -> 10000^4
Pick what you think is a reasonable bill for any one of those and then compute what the resulting bill for the others would be. Even if you want to do variable rate monkey business you're gonna have a hell of a time overcoming the whole "^4" bit.
That would just result in a trivial tax for personal vehicles and high taxes on heavy trucks (which would just get passed on resulting in more or less a consumption tax)
That is the entire point. Why are we subsidizing other peoples' bad decisions? If you want to go shop for fast fashion every other day or drive a 9,036-pound electric Hummer the rest of us should not pay the price for your jackassery.
That is the entire point. Why are we subsidizing other peoples' bad decisions? If you want to go shop for fast fashion every other day or drive a 9,036-pound electric Hummer the rest of us should not pay the price for your jackassery.
I think you’re trivializing the effect that shipping costs have on every day necessities. Far more trucks haul produce and other groceries around my neighborhood than ‘fast fashion’, and as we are seeing right now significant increases in those prices have an outsized effect on the most vulnerable.
The current system might cause the entire economy to spend more on transportation overall. A 2 times as heavy truck might be able to transport 3 times as much as a "baseline" truck (these numbers are off, but it usually scales sublinearly), but it causes 16 times the wear of one trip. That means that switching to that heavier truck model causes 5.333 times of the wear on your country's roads. Now if you let everyone pay a mostly flat tax, it means that there is no motivation for logistics companies to have a larger number of trucks, because it means they have to pay for more drivers, etc.
Say that all logistics companies switch to the bigger trucks and now only pay half of their costs, so e.g. 3 billion instead of 6 billion per year. Now assume that road maintenance used to cost 1 billion annually. With the new system it will cost 5.33 billion. So you have savings by the logistics companies of 3 billion per year contrasted by additional maintenance expenses of 4.33 billion per year. So your economy now spends 1.33 billion more per annum on transport, if it's through a higher base rate on your car's license or through more income taxes being redirected for road maintenance instead of building schools or whatever.
These numbers are totally made up for me, and were only meant to demonstrate that not internalizing externalities can lead to inefficiencies.
It's true that if you increase taxes for heavy trucks, customers will notice it via grocery store price increases. That's maybe the problem why it's not being done, because voters notice it way less that a road repair is more expensive and thus a school can't be renovated or something.
Say that all logistics companies switch to the bigger trucks and now only pay half of their costs, so e.g. 3 billion instead of 6 billion per year. Now assume that road maintenance used to cost 1 billion annually. With the new system it will cost 5.33 billion. So you have savings by the logistics companies of 3 billion per year contrasted by additional maintenance expenses of 4.33 billion per year. So your economy now spends 1.33 billion more per annum on transport, if it's through a higher base rate on your car's license or through more income taxes being redirected for road maintenance instead of building schools or whatever.
These numbers are totally made up for me, and were only meant to demonstrate that not internalizing externalities can lead to inefficiencies.
It's true that if you increase taxes for heavy trucks, customers will notice it via grocery store price increases. That's maybe the problem why it's not being done, because voters notice it way less that a road repair is more expensive and thus a school can't be renovated or something.
Correct, and this is something people often fail to understand about the free market. The market is making optimizations like the one you just suggested above (using smaller trucks over larger ones) constantly, innovating to reduce costs in thousands of ingenious little ways no single person could possibly come up with on their own. And those optimizations aren't just confined to first order effects, they cascade across the entire market. A small change to the cost of transportation by truck will, over time, result in the entire economy making millions of small adjustments to optimize for that cost.
But the market can't optimize for a cost it doesn't know about. If you're just funding road construction and maintenance with income taxes and people aren't paying those costs in proportion to usage, then there's zero reason for the market to do anything to try to reduce those costs.
But the market can't optimize for a cost it doesn't know about. If you're just funding road construction and maintenance with income taxes and people aren't paying those costs in proportion to usage, then there's zero reason for the market to do anything to try to reduce those costs.
I can't find any data on what products make up what proportions of the gross weight of land shipping. Without that data it's not productive to debate who would be most hurt by shipping trucks losing their road-wear subsidy.
> Without that data it's not productive to debate
It sure is convenient that it's "not productive" to debate one of the biggest and most obvious downsides to what you're advocating for.
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the people who have a 4Runner for a household with one kid but their stupidity might just be collateral damage of an otherwise decent overall system.
It sure is convenient that it's "not productive" to debate one of the biggest and most obvious downsides to what you're advocating for.
Don't get me wrong, I loathe the people who have a 4Runner for a household with one kid but their stupidity might just be collateral damage of an otherwise decent overall system.
It sure is convenient that it's "not productive" to debate one of the biggest and most obvious downsides to what you're advocating for.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I can't find data backing up your statement. It would be good if you were right because that would mean the world as it is currently is slightly better than if I was right.
Regardless, disincentivizing total shipped mass is not entirely a bad thing. It disincentivises planned obsolescence and poor quality products in favor of reliable, repairable goods.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying I can't find data backing up your statement. It would be good if you were right because that would mean the world as it is currently is slightly better than if I was right.
Regardless, disincentivizing total shipped mass is not entirely a bad thing. It disincentivises planned obsolescence and poor quality products in favor of reliable, repairable goods.
I think you’re underestimating how fourth powers work. If you want to charge a 10,000 pound hummer $1000/year to provide substantial disincentive then you end up charging a five axel semi trailer (75,000 pounds) $3,164,000/year. That obviously doesn’t work.
Why doesn't it work? Those vehicles would either need to add more axles[1], or you'd spread the same shipment over more lighter vehicles.
Such a tax should be as close to an approximation of the actual cost of road maintenance, full stop. If it makes certain vehicles uneconomical that's the intended effect.
Of course you'd want to grandfather in such a drastic policy change, or phase it in at some % per year.
1. Taxing this based on axle weight is also stupid. In reality road wear is a function of tire width/shape/size etc., speed and numerous other factors.
Such a tax should be as close to an approximation of the actual cost of road maintenance, full stop. If it makes certain vehicles uneconomical that's the intended effect.
Of course you'd want to grandfather in such a drastic policy change, or phase it in at some % per year.
1. Taxing this based on axle weight is also stupid. In reality road wear is a function of tire width/shape/size etc., speed and numerous other factors.
I think the actual measurement is off. If a single truck did over $3 million in road damage per year we’d have far worse infrastructure problems than we do. Chances are if you tax road damage you’re charging the hummer $10/year and the truck $31,700 or so.
Let's leave the specific numbers aside and just assume that there's a huge gap, e.g. ~$10 to ~$30k. You still haven't explained why that "doesn't work".
Clearly it would make some truck operations uneconomical, but that's a feature. The assumption is that the cost is being paid today, but it's effectively a subsidy that society is paying for.
Even if someone's going to argue that trucking is so critical to society that the trucks can't pay their fair share of road maintenance this way of doing it still seems dumb.
If you're paying ~$30k/yr for road maintenance per truck I'm willing to bet that you could e.g. spend ~$10k/yr to retrofit the truck to be gentler on the road (e.g. just adding an extra axle), and then use the remaining money to more directly subsidize trucking.
Clearly it would make some truck operations uneconomical, but that's a feature. The assumption is that the cost is being paid today, but it's effectively a subsidy that society is paying for.
Even if someone's going to argue that trucking is so critical to society that the trucks can't pay their fair share of road maintenance this way of doing it still seems dumb.
If you're paying ~$30k/yr for road maintenance per truck I'm willing to bet that you could e.g. spend ~$10k/yr to retrofit the truck to be gentler on the road (e.g. just adding an extra axle), and then use the remaining money to more directly subsidize trucking.
I think if it creates a substantial disincentive for fuel efficient transportation we are going to end up making global warming far worse as we go to many more smaller vehicles for most transportation.
Road wear isn't the only consideration though. Cars take up space on the road while driving, and as anyone who's ever been in a traffic jam knows, there is a limited amount of road space available.
Maybe it'd make sense for trucks to fund the majority of wear-induced maintenance costs, but for new construction and improvement projects (e.g. increasing the number of lanes on a highway) cars should pay a significant portion of that.
Maybe it'd make sense for trucks to fund the majority of wear-induced maintenance costs, but for new construction and improvement projects (e.g. increasing the number of lanes on a highway) cars should pay a significant portion of that.
While we are at it, add tax for other externalities such as noise and air pollution.
I hear road wear scales with the fourth power of vehicle mass.
Found this discussion while looking for a source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25171899
Ah, thanks that’s where I must’ve read it.
That's why a bike lane, being a fraction of a highway's thickness, doesn't need maintenance for decades.
In California a bike lane is probably good forever once its laid. There are vehicular roads in my neighborhood that are from the 1920s. These are roads that see construction vehicles and cement trucks abusing them for the past 100 years to infill more housing into the neighborhood, along with your standard semitruck based home movers, delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, fire, etc, and still work fine for roads.
A bike lane on the other hand deals with at most probably a 300lb vehicle. Bike lanes in CA especially would probably last as long as the Appian way if not longer.
A bike lane on the other hand deals with at most probably a 300lb vehicle. Bike lanes in CA especially would probably last as long as the Appian way if not longer.
You could also tax semitruck brakes and tires accordingly, and inspect them for tread and pad depth at weigh stations and during registration.
Does not the switch to electric vehicles offer indirect savings elsewhere, making the £35B deficit less? For example, a reduction in air pollution leading to better health and less NHS use, less greenhouse emissions leading to less spent of fighting that uphill battle, less fuel being imported giving various third-order effects.
Last time I looked into this the subsidies were set so that the country as a whole roughly broke even.
Less pollution, lower health costs, living longer, less carbon, less imports, higher efficiency, cheaper energy, cheaper transport.
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/8/4/996/pdf
e.g. the above suggests the owner saves about $6000 and society gets another $10000 dollars on top, over 10 years, 120,000 miles.
But, we'd do even better if we incentivise people to walk, cycle and use public transport because the health benefits of excercise.
So I'm happy with 'road tax' returning for EVs, but mostly because road tax for ICE should always have been much higher than it ever was. Hopefully, e-cargo bikes and similar are incentivise by whatever the new scheme is.
Less pollution, lower health costs, living longer, less carbon, less imports, higher efficiency, cheaper energy, cheaper transport.
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/8/4/996/pdf
e.g. the above suggests the owner saves about $6000 and society gets another $10000 dollars on top, over 10 years, 120,000 miles.
But, we'd do even better if we incentivise people to walk, cycle and use public transport because the health benefits of excercise.
So I'm happy with 'road tax' returning for EVs, but mostly because road tax for ICE should always have been much higher than it ever was. Hopefully, e-cargo bikes and similar are incentivise by whatever the new scheme is.
Why not just tax the tires? Seems like they are good indicator on how much you are using roads and how many miles you drove etc.
(Safety maybe an argument. Don't do it so people don't drive on shitty old ones)
That should work in places that have good inspection requirements.
The downside is that it would penalize soft rubber as well as the usage of winter tires.
The downside is that it would penalize soft rubber as well as the usage of winter tires.
UTQG can be a factor in the calculation. Use a formula to normalize all tires to UTQG1000 before applying the tax.
There's a pollution aspect to be considered as well. Soft rubber tires are more polluting. Would using summer/winter tires change things? Yes you'd pay the tax on 2 pairs of tires but your wear/replacement interval would be prolonged on both sets wouldn't it?
An old tire buyback program would be better for road safety.
Or just look at the odometer each year at the MOT
Aside from the safety factor, tires do have an expiration date, like with most things tires are rated for time and mileage. ie 5 years or 50,000 miles
Now most people only replace them at the milage limit like their oil because they run out their miles faster but for some people (like me) I tend to replace things on time more often because I do not drive that much
Now most people only replace them at the milage limit like their oil because they run out their miles faster but for some people (like me) I tend to replace things on time more often because I do not drive that much
> ie 5 years or 50,000 miles
It also depends on the make and where you live. I stretched my Yokohama's out to ~80k miles with good tread still left when I replaced them. But I live in the southern part of the US, so we don't have to deal with snow and ice cycles that cause tires to wear faster.
It also depends on the make and where you live. I stretched my Yokohama's out to ~80k miles with good tread still left when I replaced them. But I live in the southern part of the US, so we don't have to deal with snow and ice cycles that cause tires to wear faster.
Heat breaks down rubber as well having "good tread" is not the only failure point or wear indicator, a tire can be bad while having "good tread"
Of course, I inspect my tires weekly looking for sidewall damage, dry rot, and other various deformities. I also rotate my tires fairly frequently (every 8-10k miles usually coincides with oil change)
Nice idea. Add a wear indicator and some DRM to it, and a modern service-based industry is born.
For the road wear — tax the tires proportional to the tire weight. But that most likely would mean few-fold increase in the tire cost and may impair road safety. Easier to add an annual fee proportional to the square of fully loaded vehicle mass. Would be about £1k/yr on average. Less for smaller cars, more for larger ones.
If implemented properly and adjusted for mileage, this would have interesting impacts on both the cost of EVs as well as the cost of liquid fuels.
EVs tend to be heavier, so they'd pay more on average.
OTOH, fuel transport trucks are very heavy and fully taxing based on the square of fully loaded weight would increase transport costs significantly. This would end up getting passed on to ICE vehicle users.
This solution works, IMO.
EVs tend to be heavier, so they'd pay more on average.
OTOH, fuel transport trucks are very heavy and fully taxing based on the square of fully loaded weight would increase transport costs significantly. This would end up getting passed on to ICE vehicle users.
This solution works, IMO.
Big problem with taxing more heavy trucks is that price will get moved on customers, which will move it on end users. And because almost everything is transported by a truck into shops, which will cause hike in prices for goods in shops - you are now punishing poor.
You should make it proportional to the miles driven. Someone who does 1,000 miles a year causes far less wear than someone doing 30,000 miles a year
That's the crazy thing about vehicle excise duty, if you do 1,500 miles a year you might use 300 litres of petrol (about £150 tax), but you could be paying another £160 in VED, making the total tax 20p per mile
Meanwhile someone doing 30,000 miles at the same mpg will be paying about 10p per mile
That's the crazy thing about vehicle excise duty, if you do 1,500 miles a year you might use 300 litres of petrol (about £150 tax), but you could be paying another £160 in VED, making the total tax 20p per mile
Meanwhile someone doing 30,000 miles at the same mpg will be paying about 10p per mile
I wouldn't mess with the tires. It creates financial incentives to compromise on safety by using old tires, avoiding buying separate summer/winter tires, may create a black market for untaxed tires without quality control, etc.
Then you can do what was done when these things came up for emissions and have tire checks along with your smog checking. Tread depth doesn't even need a fancy inspection site. A parking officer could easily be checking tread depth while they are also looking for double parked cars and out of registration tags.
I think it’d be pretty bad to penalize electric cars based on weight squared unless fossil fuels are eliminated from transportation. Then I agree.
It's not really a penalty. Road repair costs are real and you should be paying your share proportional to your usage of the road and the amount of damage your vehicle causes.
When ICE are the only game in town, a fuel tax is a simple solution because larger more damaging vehicles are generally less fuel efficient. The downside is that anyone using fuel for non-ICEV usage is unfairly taxed.
Perhaps putting the tax on tires is the solution because tire wear tracks to usage and vehicle weight as well? You can still have a fuel tax to penalize ICE in addition.
When ICE are the only game in town, a fuel tax is a simple solution because larger more damaging vehicles are generally less fuel efficient. The downside is that anyone using fuel for non-ICEV usage is unfairly taxed.
Perhaps putting the tax on tires is the solution because tire wear tracks to usage and vehicle weight as well? You can still have a fuel tax to penalize ICE in addition.
Fuel taxes WERE ALWAYS supposed to be a conservation measure and Pigouvian tax on pollution AS WELL AS a use tax. So a replacement tax that doesn’t have the same effect of taxing CO2 emissions is effectively subsidizing CO2 emissions compared to the status quo.
That seems like a bad idea.
That seems like a bad idea.
I don't think anyone was suggesting what you're calling a bad idea.
Why not? Penalize all vehicles based on weight squared. People shouldn't be moving to electric cars if they actually are concerned about climate change. They should strive to replace as many trips as possible with bike commuting and letting the car they already own and works fine sit in the garage collecting dust, versus willing a new one into existence from parts extracted from around the earth and perpetuating an autocentric and consumptive lifestyle.
Because then you’re effectively subsidizing CO2 emissions by penalizing the significantly lower emissions vehicles.
Why should society be subsidising road damages by penalizing light cars?
It is giving people an incentive to buy larger range electric cars which also need more resources for batteries. Lighter electric cars can also use smaller motors for the same acceleration.
It is giving people an incentive to buy larger range electric cars which also need more resources for batteries. Lighter electric cars can also use smaller motors for the same acceleration.
I have nothing against incentivizing smaller electric cars. But the problem is folks will just buy fossil fuel cars of the same class because they’re slightly lighter (also can be weighed with an empty gas tank).
So what placing wrong incentives because they neutralise a bad incentive in one component is still bad.
You aren't penalizing the lower emissions vehicles such as ebikes and regular old bikes which is the point. Switching to a 5000lb EV that you exchange every lease isn't the solution.
A road or car tax doesn’t have to go away just because the car is electric no? Am I missing something?
As for the fuel tax, why not make up for it with an increase in car tax once sufficient adoption is reached? Once 80% of cars are electric, the car tax increases by an amount required to make up for the average revenue from fuel. At that point, electric cars pay just a high car tax and fossil fuel cars pay both the high car tax and the fuel duty, further incentiveiseing the switch to electric.
Am I missing something? What would be the issues with this approach?
As for the fuel tax, why not make up for it with an increase in car tax once sufficient adoption is reached? Once 80% of cars are electric, the car tax increases by an amount required to make up for the average revenue from fuel. At that point, electric cars pay just a high car tax and fossil fuel cars pay both the high car tax and the fuel duty, further incentiveiseing the switch to electric.
Am I missing something? What would be the issues with this approach?
VED (Vehicle Exercise Duty), as it is currently known, is now based on emissions. It would be a hard sell to undo that, and base it on something else (like vehicle weight/size/etc). The most acceptable way to tax EVs at this point is probably taxing at the charging point.
Add an additional VED component for road damage, which is vehicle miles times the fourth power of axle load.
There isn't a way to do that without HGVs (heavy goods vehicles) paying practically all of the annual VED.
It's pretty clear that "smart chargers" will become "smart tax revenue generators" in the near future.
It's pretty clear that "smart chargers" will become "smart tax revenue generators" in the near future.
Completely absence from this are the loss due to lower Benefit in Kind (BIK) for Electric vehicles, and First Year Allowances for EV purchases. Driving an EV means only paying 1-2% per year tax compared to 30-40% for a locally polluting vehicles. First Year allowances mean you claim back 100% of the cost of the EV to offset any taxable income.
These business rates mean owning an EV outright as a normal employee is very dumb. Would you rather pay £300 per month for a PCP on a Zoe, or £150 a month for a Taycan as a company car?
These business rates mean owning an EV outright as a normal employee is very dumb. Would you rather pay £300 per month for a PCP on a Zoe, or £150 a month for a Taycan as a company car?
Given that only two cars I've ever owned in 25 years of driving cost more than £300 to buy outright, I can't imagine paying £300 per month for any sort of vehicle.
Or... maybe national taxes should pay for national roads as a form of national infrastructure, state or county taxes paying for state or county roads and local taxes for local roads. Isn't this the way roads were paid for before widespread use of personal vehicles?
Roads are a shared benefit for all whether you own or drive a vehicle or not. Think of deliveries and public transport and other approaches in which you personally benefit. The idea of funding roads by virtue of fuel taxes always struck me as odd.
Roads are a shared benefit for all whether you own or drive a vehicle or not. Think of deliveries and public transport and other approaches in which you personally benefit. The idea of funding roads by virtue of fuel taxes always struck me as odd.
The problem is that removing all the various taxes on road use makes driving dramatically cheaper, which encourages people to drive, which will induce more traffic. It's the exact opposite direction we need to be going not just from an environmentalist pov, but its also counter to our urban planning goals as well.
To meet our goals we need to be doing the opposite, which is making private automobile use of the roads more expensive while creating more and better alternative transportation opportunities (ie. public transit, cycling).
Additionally if we shifted to other taxes, then this is a transfer of costs from relatively wealthy car owners to the relatively poorer who don't even own cars.
To meet our goals we need to be doing the opposite, which is making private automobile use of the roads more expensive while creating more and better alternative transportation opportunities (ie. public transit, cycling).
Additionally if we shifted to other taxes, then this is a transfer of costs from relatively wealthy car owners to the relatively poorer who don't even own cars.
It's a kind of substitute for tolls, an alternative pay-as-you-go system.
Edit: of course it neglects that not all roads are created equal, some have a much higher cost and value per passenger-mile (e.g. bridges)
Edit: of course it neglects that not all roads are created equal, some have a much higher cost and value per passenger-mile (e.g. bridges)
Tolls are paid by those who drive on the roads, not by those who benefit from the roads if they don't drive. That's why it's a shifted burden. Tolls and fuel taxes are paid by those who drive, not those who otherwise benefit. Just my opinion.
In the UK local council tax funds local roads, and national government (funded mainly from income tax, national insurance and VAT) funds major trunk roads.
How does that square with the main point of the article: "The UK government receives tax revenue from drivers of petrol and diesel cars via two key methods: fuel duty, which brings £28 billion a year into government coffers, and Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax), which nets roughly £7 billion. Combined, these sources make up 1.5% of the UK’s GDP and account for around 4% of all tax revenue."
Because that tax "funds" things like the police and defense
So auto-related taxes and fees fund policing and defense and general taxes fund roads. Sounds... convoluted. I reiterate that none of this really makes much sense, and I think we're seeing the end result of those policies.
No it doesn't, what's convoluted is this idea that taxes don't go into a general pot. In the US gambling wins are taxed, that money doesn't get spent on gambling related services, it goes into the general pot.
(Of course the idea of there being a "general pot" for a government that backs its own currency is a misnomer in any case)
(Of course the idea of there being a "general pot" for a government that backs its own currency is a misnomer in any case)
Oh dear. Somebody didn't pass the geometric sequence question on their GSCE maths paper.
The £35B revenue replaces itself, because money doesn't stop at its first use.
What you don't spend on fuel duty, you spend on something else, which is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid subject to PAYE, and profits to be earned subject to corporation tax. They then spend their increased income cause more tax to be raised and so on.
In other words the taxation just moves elsewhere in the spending/income chain. And that's because total tax take is a function of government spending and the desire of the non government sector to save or spend. The more the non-government saves the lower the tax take is as a percentage of government spending - pretty much regardless of tax rates.
Tax rates really just alter the distribution, and not so much the total.
The purpose of sin taxes is to discourage people from doing one thing and start doing another. There is no 'revenue', firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes!
Ideally sin taxes should be matched with virtue subsidies, so that people who are hard of accounting can see what is happening. For example a fuel duty should be hypothecated to an electric car subsidy and they then wane in lockstep with each other as the behaviour changes.
The £35B revenue replaces itself, because money doesn't stop at its first use.
What you don't spend on fuel duty, you spend on something else, which is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid subject to PAYE, and profits to be earned subject to corporation tax. They then spend their increased income cause more tax to be raised and so on.
In other words the taxation just moves elsewhere in the spending/income chain. And that's because total tax take is a function of government spending and the desire of the non government sector to save or spend. The more the non-government saves the lower the tax take is as a percentage of government spending - pretty much regardless of tax rates.
Tax rates really just alter the distribution, and not so much the total.
The purpose of sin taxes is to discourage people from doing one thing and start doing another. There is no 'revenue', firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes!
Ideally sin taxes should be matched with virtue subsidies, so that people who are hard of accounting can see what is happening. For example a fuel duty should be hypothecated to an electric car subsidy and they then wane in lockstep with each other as the behaviour changes.
Pretty sure that argument doesn't actually work, though the reason why is a little subtle. Sure, the money doesn't stop at its first use, but whatever goods or services the money is spent on by consumers do. That is, if this tax revenue isn't replaced by some other equivalent source of tax revenue its disappearance will increase the amount consumers have available to spend in nominal non-inflation-adjusted terms by £35 billion a year without creating any correspending increase in the goods or services available to purchase - the government still needs to do all the things that were "funded" by that fuel duty and road tax after all.
This is not in any way offset by the fact that whatever that money is spent on is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid that are subject to PAYE, and so on, even though it sems like it would eventually cause all the money to end up in the government's pockets anyway. The VAT when that money is initially spent is included in the £35 billion figure, and any taxes after the money is spent are irrelevant since the money had already become actual, final consumer spending involving actual consumption of goods and services.
This is a much more useful way to think about taxation and the need for tax. By your logic, the actual tax levels don't matter - 100% of money will end up in the government's pockets eventually after all.
This is not in any way offset by the fact that whatever that money is spent on is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid that are subject to PAYE, and so on, even though it sems like it would eventually cause all the money to end up in the government's pockets anyway. The VAT when that money is initially spent is included in the £35 billion figure, and any taxes after the money is spent are irrelevant since the money had already become actual, final consumer spending involving actual consumption of goods and services.
This is a much more useful way to think about taxation and the need for tax. By your logic, the actual tax levels don't matter - 100% of money will end up in the government's pockets eventually after all.
"without creating any correspending increase in the goods or services available to purchase"
Why would it not create more to purchase? If you go into a hairdresser with money in your pocket do they work harder to get the queue down or shut the shop and put the prices up.
The limit is actually available unemployment/underemployment, even now we still have millions without work that want it, less the increase in the level of saving. More saving = more space.
Hence when Tories decry their proposed tax cuts as 'debt fuelled', they really ought to hope that they are since that will reduce inflationary pressures.
Why would it not create more to purchase? If you go into a hairdresser with money in your pocket do they work harder to get the queue down or shut the shop and put the prices up.
The limit is actually available unemployment/underemployment, even now we still have millions without work that want it, less the increase in the level of saving. More saving = more space.
Hence when Tories decry their proposed tax cuts as 'debt fuelled', they really ought to hope that they are since that will reduce inflationary pressures.
> a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place.
Please explain this. Are you suggesting governments can just stop taxing, and print the money to pay their debts with no ill consequences?
Please explain this. Are you suggesting governments can just stop taxing, and print the money to pay their debts with no ill consequences?
I'm not an economist. But I can see inflation being thought of as a type of tax.
I'm not sure what kind of incentives that creates, and if those incentives are better or worse than the incentives existing taxes create.
So, maybe?
I'm not sure what kind of incentives that creates, and if those incentives are better or worse than the incentives existing taxes create.
So, maybe?
Off the top of my head, some results would be:
1. No one wants to lend to your country again because you paid them back with currency far less valuable than expected
2. Nobody wants to use your currency as a means of exchange in international transactions because it can fluctuate suddenly
3. Massive redistribution of wealth from savers and lenders to borrowers (maybe a good thing on the whole, but devastating for people headed into retirement)
4. Anything (including govt. programs) that aren't indexed to inflation are suddenly far less valuable
1. No one wants to lend to your country again because you paid them back with currency far less valuable than expected
2. Nobody wants to use your currency as a means of exchange in international transactions because it can fluctuate suddenly
3. Massive redistribution of wealth from savers and lenders to borrowers (maybe a good thing on the whole, but devastating for people headed into retirement)
4. Anything (including govt. programs) that aren't indexed to inflation are suddenly far less valuable
All of your post assumes that when government creates money, it causes inflation, and when private banks create money, it causes no inflation. No such distinction exists. Most money is created by private banks.
I know most money is created by private banks. But that is stable (it is assumed by ceteris paribus). If a government decided to stop taxing then that would be something new.
Is a good assumption that money created by private banks more stable than government created money? what economic mechanism provides such guarantee and what is the evidence?
Private banks used to be able to print their own currency completely: in one country each bank would have different money that coupd be redeemed for gold, and wasn't backed by the government. That was very unstable.
We basically stopped taxing multinationals after the end of cold war, we do have something new.
Private banks used to be able to print their own currency completely: in one country each bank would have different money that coupd be redeemed for gold, and wasn't backed by the government. That was very unstable.
We basically stopped taxing multinationals after the end of cold war, we do have something new.
I can't do any better than Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who explained it in the 1940s. [0]
[0] http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html
[0] http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html
People think government works like a household budget - it doesn't. Think about it - who controls how much money is the economy?
Does someone measure 'okay the economy has grown 5%, it needs 5% more money to be printed?" No, nobody does that.
If the government prints zero money, the money supply can still quadruple, because banks create money out of thin air.
Which is exactly what they did prior to 2008. The reason government had to 'print' miney in 2008 is that they were replacing all the 'unsupported' money that was creates by banks, and then suddenly imploded.
As soon as you suggest government should print money everyone starts screaming inflation, but when private banks do it, noone blinks an eye.
The rules that allow banks to create money have changed dramatically over the past 20 years, and nobody is even discussing it.
Does someone measure 'okay the economy has grown 5%, it needs 5% more money to be printed?" No, nobody does that.
If the government prints zero money, the money supply can still quadruple, because banks create money out of thin air.
Which is exactly what they did prior to 2008. The reason government had to 'print' miney in 2008 is that they were replacing all the 'unsupported' money that was creates by banks, and then suddenly imploded.
As soon as you suggest government should print money everyone starts screaming inflation, but when private banks do it, noone blinks an eye.
The rules that allow banks to create money have changed dramatically over the past 20 years, and nobody is even discussing it.
The money that banks create by fractional reserve lending is (at least somewhat) backed by real assets. The money that governemnt 'prints' is backed by nothing.
The money government prints is backed by the best asset of them all - the power to recover it as taxation.
Paying the tax to the tax collector is far cheaper than the alternative amount you end up paying to the bailiff when they confiscate all your assets.
Taxation is, ultimately, the only 'reserve' asset there is. And as you can see it is very definitely backed by real assets. All your real assets.
Paying the tax to the tax collector is far cheaper than the alternative amount you end up paying to the bailiff when they confiscate all your assets.
Taxation is, ultimately, the only 'reserve' asset there is. And as you can see it is very definitely backed by real assets. All your real assets.
We have not operated fractional reserve banking for generations.
A bank today can give out loans and mortgages without any assets.
https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10...
A bank today can give out loans and mortgages without any assets.
https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10...
Who says they have to spend that money? What if they instead throw it in a tax-free savings account and use it to buy stocks & bonds?
Buying stocks and bonds is spending the money. You've given the money to somebody else in exchange for something. Now they have the same choice as you did - spend or save.
If you save it in a tax free savings account even better. The bank holding the offsetting reserves then does the buying via the DMO cash management process.
If you save it in a tax free savings account even better. The bank holding the offsetting reserves then does the buying via the DMO cash management process.
UK fuel duty as a percentage: https://www.racfoundation.org/data/taxation-as-percentage-of... - currently about 45% down (amazingly) from more or less 60% since 2013.
I kind of understand your argument, but net-income in my pocket that's not spent on petrol will be spent on some sort of goods or services that has VAT on it, which is 20%. So, yes, I might spend more on goods and services, which might mean more computer shops, clothes shops or restaurants and take aways, and they in turn might grow the economy a bit, but would that convince the government to _not_ reintroduce some kind of road charging?
I kind of understand your argument, but net-income in my pocket that's not spent on petrol will be spent on some sort of goods or services that has VAT on it, which is 20%. So, yes, I might spend more on goods and services, which might mean more computer shops, clothes shops or restaurants and take aways, and they in turn might grow the economy a bit, but would that convince the government to _not_ reintroduce some kind of road charging?
>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes!
Soo much wrong here...
Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse (in the extreme)
governments SHOULD NOT use taxation to pick winners and losers, nor to legislate morality, they should use taxation ONLY to collect revenue to projects and programs approved by the people, and for no other purpose
Soo much wrong here...
Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse (in the extreme)
governments SHOULD NOT use taxation to pick winners and losers, nor to legislate morality, they should use taxation ONLY to collect revenue to projects and programs approved by the people, and for no other purpose
Taxing activities that have negative externalities is a positive use of taxation.
It's better than forbidding such behavior for many reasons. The simplest reason is that it's better to make revenue dis-incentivizing something bad (pollution) as opposed to dis-incentivizing something good (income).
It's better than forbidding such behavior for many reasons. The simplest reason is that it's better to make revenue dis-incentivizing something bad (pollution) as opposed to dis-incentivizing something good (income).
To the extent that I would agree, it would IMO only be ethical for a government tax negative externalities to directly pay for mitigation, control, etc , i.e a carbon tax that directly goes to carbon removal / capture.
taxing exernalties then using the money for unrelated projects i.e taxing cigarettes to pay for schools, is something I would oppose
taxing exernalties then using the money for unrelated projects i.e taxing cigarettes to pay for schools, is something I would oppose
Taxing negative externalities works to reduce those externalities even without mitigation though. I’d much rather have a government that taxes things we want less of than things we want more of. The status quo is income tax, which is far worse than any Pigovian tax.
How do you feel about relatively high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes? I enjoy a good beer, but I understand the reason for alcohol tax. Do you also favor low cigarette taxation? The "end of life" costs for heavy cigarette smokers cannot be overlooked! Also, the UK had a lot of success with the sugar tax.
I guess that depends on what you define as "success" going along with the not using taxes to legislate morality, I also do not believe it is the role of government to protect someone from their own bad choices (i.e sugar or cigarettes), going along with this is one of the reasons I oppose a single payer government run health care system in the US, because if we have a UK style health system then adding in all of these legislative actions to control every aspect of a persons life becomes a valid cost control argument
I dont want the government telling me what I can or can not eat, or setting tax policy on their recommendation. I also grew up with the food pyramid as the "government approved" diet that today most people agree is terrible, and if it did not directly cause it heavily aided in the obesity epidemic we have today (in the US).
Distrust in government is our (the US) founding principle, and I have a HEAVY distrust of all government experts. As one of our presidents famously said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"
I dont want the government telling me what I can or can not eat, or setting tax policy on their recommendation. I also grew up with the food pyramid as the "government approved" diet that today most people agree is terrible, and if it did not directly cause it heavily aided in the obesity epidemic we have today (in the US).
Distrust in government is our (the US) founding principle, and I have a HEAVY distrust of all government experts. As one of our presidents famously said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"
When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES.
(You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)
(You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)
>When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES.
As is the person who I was reply to, their comment was that the government should not need to view taxation as revenue, I disagree
>You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse
In the extreme of the parent comment, were a government ceases taxation (since they do not need the revenue) and just prints money to pay for everything the collapse of that currency is inevitable.
As is the person who I was reply to, their comment was that the government should not need to view taxation as revenue, I disagree
>You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse
In the extreme of the parent comment, were a government ceases taxation (since they do not need the revenue) and just prints money to pay for everything the collapse of that currency is inevitable.
53p (+20% VAT) per litre for a car that uses 7.5 litres per 100km is about £48/1000km.
The average UK mileage has dropped a lot over the years and is now just below 7000 miles a year. An odometer duty for that would be about £200, or £17 a month.
If HMRC bring in £35bn a year in fuel duty a year for 45m drivers (the number of people with active driving licenses) that’s more like £700 a head. Why the threefold difference?
The average UK mileage has dropped a lot over the years and is now just below 7000 miles a year. An odometer duty for that would be about £200, or £17 a month.
If HMRC bring in £35bn a year in fuel duty a year for 45m drivers (the number of people with active driving licenses) that’s more like £700 a head. Why the threefold difference?
Trucks/lorries might make up a big chunk of that revenue
The UK Government currently spends around £11 billion on roads, https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk... so the excess is a handy revenue stream which clearly it would lothed to give up.
That means the real opportunities with the switch to electrifying transportation, like moving freight traffic to rail will not be seized as that would entail even more spending. Instead we are stuck with the problem that every solution to climate change is along the same lines of "just like before but this time with electricity".
That means the real opportunities with the switch to electrifying transportation, like moving freight traffic to rail will not be seized as that would entail even more spending. Instead we are stuck with the problem that every solution to climate change is along the same lines of "just like before but this time with electricity".
> The UK Government currently spends around £11 billion on roads, https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk... so the excess is a handy revenue stream which clearly it would lothed to give up.
There's no excess when you account for the effects on climate. At some point, we'll have to pay to mitigate the impact of fossil-based transportation, and any operators in the industry (from oil extraction to road constructions) will be bankrupt unless we keep externalizing/socializing the costs and pretend climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
There's no excess when you account for the effects on climate. At some point, we'll have to pay to mitigate the impact of fossil-based transportation, and any operators in the industry (from oil extraction to road constructions) will be bankrupt unless we keep externalizing/socializing the costs and pretend climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions.
> The UK Government currently spends around £11 billion on roads
How much does it spend on secondary things? At least in Norway, I think the number is that even for a normal ICE vehicle and all it's costs, you're still not paying what the government actually spends in total. With something like $1000 per car or so.
Mostly because of secondary effects. Higher hospital costs vs what would have happened investing that money on public transport, walkable cities etc. Street parking is basically free compared to what that land is worth. Cost of accidents. Etc. etc.
How much does it spend on secondary things? At least in Norway, I think the number is that even for a normal ICE vehicle and all it's costs, you're still not paying what the government actually spends in total. With something like $1000 per car or so.
Mostly because of secondary effects. Higher hospital costs vs what would have happened investing that money on public transport, walkable cities etc. Street parking is basically free compared to what that land is worth. Cost of accidents. Etc. etc.
I wonder about council spending on roads and spending by the devolved governments - are they included in that total?
> Smart home wallbox chargers could in theory tell the electricity grid it was a car being charged, but homeowners could just plug a three-pin extension lead into a normal socket to charge their car, circumventing any such communication between grid and charge.
To encourage folk to use their wall box, offer a discount rate in exchange for utility control of charging. That way load can be shifted off peak if needed.
To encourage folk to use their wall box, offer a discount rate in exchange for utility control of charging. That way load can be shifted off peak if needed.
All new chargers installed in the UK must now be smart, by law.
On top of that, it is ILLEGAL to sell and install dumb EVSEs. Does not apply to third party resales but if you can't find someone to install it, it's a moot point.
The "per unit of energy" pricing of liquid fuels is quite appealing as it encourages efficiency. Even when people are using electric cars, efficiency is beneficial.
I wonder if some sort of banded electricity pricing would work - you can consume x kWh at a lower price, and then a surplus tax applies. It's fairly easy to tax public charging. That would still encourage people to seek efficient EVs.
I wonder if some sort of banded electricity pricing would work - you can consume x kWh at a lower price, and then a surplus tax applies. It's fairly easy to tax public charging. That would still encourage people to seek efficient EVs.
You could achieve basically the same result by reading the odometer and giving discounts or premiums based on the make/model of the car. No need to measure/tier electricity usage.
That doesn't reward economical driving though. EVs have a very low efficiency penalty for high performance - an EV can be both highly efficient at 55mph and have 400 HP and 3s 0-60 times.
I’d like to see a parking tax. Currently if you go to the supermarket, it probably has a car park, which is paid for by all customers - including those without cars. Having a minimum cost to parking - through VAT or just a minimum fee a company has to charge - would make people reconsider their car use
I don't see a problem replacing fuel duty with an energy tax. Make it progressive. Let say the first 3000 kWh per year are priced at residential rate, apply higher rate above that. Households without a car will pay the same price as before. EV owners will pay a tax proportional to car usage.
If we revamp the fuel duty tax, why not introduce a carbon tax to pay for the impact of CO2 emissions on climate? This would make the fuel duty tax insignificant (the cost of climate change is more or less infinite now, given the current trends).
Then, we can rethink the whole system and realize road-based transportation with private cars is not sustainable. And then, we can forget about fuel duty / energy tax because we have whole societies to redesign :)
Then, we can rethink the whole system and realize road-based transportation with private cars is not sustainable. And then, we can forget about fuel duty / energy tax because we have whole societies to redesign :)
Personally I would support a uniform CO2 tax on everything, but I think it's more difficult to introduce and enforce. Energy tax + fuel duty can be a CO2 tax in disguise: there are already precise tools to measure and bill energy and fuel consumption, carbon intensity at any given time is known, and energy, heating and transportation are responsible for 73% of emissions.
What's left out is harder to monitor and regulate: agriculture (livestock, fertilizers, crop burning etc), construction and industrial processes, and waste. It may take a while before the society accepts that meat is never going to be that cheap again.
What's left out is harder to monitor and regulate: agriculture (livestock, fertilizers, crop burning etc), construction and industrial processes, and waste. It may take a while before the society accepts that meat is never going to be that cheap again.
Same issue here in Switzerland. I am sure this will popup in all countries that have stimulated these EVs via tax benefits.
Just bought mine (Audi e-tron) and am happily surprised by all the subsidies and rebates, but it is clear that does not scale.
Just bought mine (Audi e-tron) and am happily surprised by all the subsidies and rebates, but it is clear that does not scale.
A long article to just say, in the UK, the government will need to figure out how far you've driven an EV and charge you for that distance to replace the tax raised through fuel bought to travel the equivalent distance.
Odometer read when the car gets and MOT? Maybe, but I'd expect more cameras, because not only can you charge people for the distance they've driven, if they're average speed check ones, they can fine you at the same time for speeding (until that pesky speed limiter starts making an appearance on European, and by extension, UK roads).
Odometer read when the car gets and MOT? Maybe, but I'd expect more cameras, because not only can you charge people for the distance they've driven, if they're average speed check ones, they can fine you at the same time for speeding (until that pesky speed limiter starts making an appearance on European, and by extension, UK roads).
This debate is so tedious. Why not just slightly increase property tax or income tax? Why does it have to be usage based? Most other government services are done this way, we all benefit from having roads.
There are significant negative externalities to driving.
There are, however, much more significant positive intrinsic and extrinsic values to pervasive passenger and truck infrastructure than there are negative externalities.
Namely, it’s a fundamental underpinning of modern civilization.
Namely, it’s a fundamental underpinning of modern civilization.
transportation is fundamental, that its necessarily via incredibly space inefficient personal automobile is not.
It’s certainly fundamental to the world we live it as it exists today, and particularly in suburban / non-walkable environments.
With climate change, crime, and COVID I would say that those “space inefficient” personal transports will become even more fundamental, not less.
With climate change, crime, and COVID I would say that those “space inefficient” personal transports will become even more fundamental, not less.
It's the same issue in France now. Taxes on fuel/petrol brings in close to 30Bn euros per year.
The taxes actually make 60% of the price when buying fuel for your car. Currently the price of 1L of fuel in France is around 2.1 euros. That is 1.2 euros per liter is going straight to the government's coffers.
As always, I am expecting the French government to wake up sometime around 2030 and realize that the taxes are starting to bring in less and less money each year because more and more people are switching to EV.
Then there will be a big show from the politicians that the situation is dire and we need to make up the fall in revenue by reducing the social safety net once again for the lower wage earners.
As always the people with the lowest wages will be the one paying most taxes in the end. The reason for that being that if they can't afford to switch to an EV due to the prohibitive prices, then they will be the last ones on the line having to pay heavy taxes on petrol while the middle class who can afford it would have already switched a while ago.
Ergo we are creating a regressive tax on poor people.
As to where to find the revenue to make up the shortfall, that is going to be incredibly tough.
For starters France has been running a deficit forever and the debt as ballooned during COVID. Could it continue to do so? That seems unlikely because France has pledge to reduce its deficit to fall in line with EU regulations so France needs to tighten its belt somehow.
At the same time, it needs to increase the EV uptake to meet the climate action pledge so it can't start raising taxes on EV. Some subsidies may disappear but that is not going to be enough to plug the hole left by the fuel taxes.
It also can't raise the VAT which is currently at 20% and is a very unpopular measure who will surely lead to an election loss for the minority party in power currently.
It can't raise more taxes on the middle class as it's being squeezed like a lemon currently and would also lead to mass protests(see Yellow Vest protests of 2019 to get an idea of what could happen).
Some seem to think that an increase in Ev uptake will lead to savings elsewhere, in the healthcare costs for example.
But Those savings will not materialize until at least a few years after the transition to full EV has happened. Yes the air may be less polluted as the transition happens, but the damage is already done and those who suffered or are suffering due to air pollution currently will require indefinite ongoing care in the future which will be expensive.
The taxes actually make 60% of the price when buying fuel for your car. Currently the price of 1L of fuel in France is around 2.1 euros. That is 1.2 euros per liter is going straight to the government's coffers.
As always, I am expecting the French government to wake up sometime around 2030 and realize that the taxes are starting to bring in less and less money each year because more and more people are switching to EV.
Then there will be a big show from the politicians that the situation is dire and we need to make up the fall in revenue by reducing the social safety net once again for the lower wage earners.
As always the people with the lowest wages will be the one paying most taxes in the end. The reason for that being that if they can't afford to switch to an EV due to the prohibitive prices, then they will be the last ones on the line having to pay heavy taxes on petrol while the middle class who can afford it would have already switched a while ago.
Ergo we are creating a regressive tax on poor people.
As to where to find the revenue to make up the shortfall, that is going to be incredibly tough.
For starters France has been running a deficit forever and the debt as ballooned during COVID. Could it continue to do so? That seems unlikely because France has pledge to reduce its deficit to fall in line with EU regulations so France needs to tighten its belt somehow.
At the same time, it needs to increase the EV uptake to meet the climate action pledge so it can't start raising taxes on EV. Some subsidies may disappear but that is not going to be enough to plug the hole left by the fuel taxes.
It also can't raise the VAT which is currently at 20% and is a very unpopular measure who will surely lead to an election loss for the minority party in power currently.
It can't raise more taxes on the middle class as it's being squeezed like a lemon currently and would also lead to mass protests(see Yellow Vest protests of 2019 to get an idea of what could happen).
Some seem to think that an increase in Ev uptake will lead to savings elsewhere, in the healthcare costs for example.
But Those savings will not materialize until at least a few years after the transition to full EV has happened. Yes the air may be less polluted as the transition happens, but the damage is already done and those who suffered or are suffering due to air pollution currently will require indefinite ongoing care in the future which will be expensive.
It's easy just add it to income tax. That way it will be properly progressive instead of the regressive tax that it is now.
Would never for one second consent to the government tracking the location of every car, and would vote against any candidate who suggested such a thing.
The state I live in charges electric car owners an extra fee when registering their cars to make up for the loss of “gas tax” revenue.
Tax the oil companies for the difference.
impose taxes on yachts, property worth over £2M and other stuff the upper class buys.
How about the government just finds a way to make do?
It's kind of preposterous that we're staring an economic slowdown and high inflation in the face after decades of incomes flat-lining and the .gov is telling people to cough up more. I get that EV owners are statistically richer but you're not gonna change that by raising the TCO via taxes.
It's kind of preposterous that we're staring an economic slowdown and high inflation in the face after decades of incomes flat-lining and the .gov is telling people to cough up more. I get that EV owners are statistically richer but you're not gonna change that by raising the TCO via taxes.
How about the government just finds a way to make do?
On the other hand most of us would like (for example) a functioning NHS. That needs good people, good facilities, and the tax revenues to pay for both. There is a real and imminent danger that our whole public health system could collapse due to a mass exodus of skilled professionals who decide they've had enough. Arguably some parts of it already have.
Behind the headlines about Ukraine and COVID and Brexit and so on are numerous mostly overlooked yet very significant problems within our society and economy. Many of those problems are only going to get worse and by extension more expensive to eventually fix if they aren't dealt with soon enough.
If we're going to prevent those things from happening in the next few years then a lot of us are going to have to pay for it (whoever is leading the government for the next two years or after the next general election). Hopefully the less well-off who are already struggling will be looked after and the burden will fall on the better-off demographics. Of course most people don't want to pay more tax but I suspect many of those who could afford to do so without suffering too much would prefer that to the alternative of literally watching a family member die because there was no ambulance available when they called 999 in a medical emergency!
On the other hand most of us would like (for example) a functioning NHS. That needs good people, good facilities, and the tax revenues to pay for both. There is a real and imminent danger that our whole public health system could collapse due to a mass exodus of skilled professionals who decide they've had enough. Arguably some parts of it already have.
Behind the headlines about Ukraine and COVID and Brexit and so on are numerous mostly overlooked yet very significant problems within our society and economy. Many of those problems are only going to get worse and by extension more expensive to eventually fix if they aren't dealt with soon enough.
If we're going to prevent those things from happening in the next few years then a lot of us are going to have to pay for it (whoever is leading the government for the next two years or after the next general election). Hopefully the less well-off who are already struggling will be looked after and the burden will fall on the better-off demographics. Of course most people don't want to pay more tax but I suspect many of those who could afford to do so without suffering too much would prefer that to the alternative of literally watching a family member die because there was no ambulance available when they called 999 in a medical emergency!
Get your broader point about strained household budgets. But taxation is deflationary. Raising taxes lowers inflation.
Lol assuming inflation is caused by an increased money supply; not the material food shortage we are seeing.
Further, this type of taxation is a regressive tax.
Further, this type of taxation is a regressive tax.
> assuming inflation is caused by an increased money supply; not the material food shortage we are seeing
Doesn’t matter. Fiscal taxation (spending) reduces (increases) aggregate demand directly. No need for monetary transmission channels.
Doesn’t matter. Fiscal taxation (spending) reduces (increases) aggregate demand directly. No need for monetary transmission channels.
Except this taxation is supposedly going directly to spending on regular road maintenance. Which injects the funds directly back into the economy. Money supply isn’t changing here.
Even if it were, demand isn’t being reduced. They’re just forcing you to spend it on roads.
Even if it were, demand isn’t being reduced. They’re just forcing you to spend it on roads.
> this taxation is supposedly going directly to spending on regular road maintenance
Totally orthogonal. Spending is stimulative. Taxation is tightening. That the two are traditionally bundled is political convenience. We can rail against the spending bit as inflationary. My narrow point is that calling out tax increases vis-à-vis inflation is inchoate.
Totally orthogonal. Spending is stimulative. Taxation is tightening. That the two are traditionally bundled is political convenience. We can rail against the spending bit as inflationary. My narrow point is that calling out tax increases vis-à-vis inflation is inchoate.
Taxation doesn't change the amount of spending. It only changes who is doing the spending.
Here's an overview of the government expenditures: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-sta...
What should they cut? Every department will tell you they're underfunded.
What should they cut? Every department will tell you they're underfunded.
"Road tax" (a levy to cover the cost of maintaining the public highway) obviously needs to be extended to cover EVs at some point. I'm surprised it hasn't already.
However, broadly speaking: tax the thing you want less of.
There's various strategies being raised to cover this so-called "lost revenue", including the tracking of your home electricity usage via smart boxes to tax you on charging your own car (!!) and charging cars a per-mile-tax instead of on fuel.
But, if we're to believe that EVs are currently being incentivised because the Government wants to lower emissions (and thus avoid any costs of continued nationwide carbon reliance) then perhaps a study should be done to see if the cost-saving of people moving _away_ from ICEs outweighs the lost revenue of taxing petrol/diesel, in the long run.
However, broadly speaking: tax the thing you want less of.
There's various strategies being raised to cover this so-called "lost revenue", including the tracking of your home electricity usage via smart boxes to tax you on charging your own car (!!) and charging cars a per-mile-tax instead of on fuel.
But, if we're to believe that EVs are currently being incentivised because the Government wants to lower emissions (and thus avoid any costs of continued nationwide carbon reliance) then perhaps a study should be done to see if the cost-saving of people moving _away_ from ICEs outweighs the lost revenue of taxing petrol/diesel, in the long run.
> There's various strategies being raised to cover this so-called "lost revenue", including the tracking of your home electricity usage via smart boxes to tax you on charging your own car (!!) and charging cars a per-mile-tax instead of on fuel.
At the end of the day any implementation of the methods discussed lead to absolute tyranny.
To track per-mile-tax you’re going to have either government gps tracking in real-time or cameras tracking your ever my movement. Alternatively, the government will track and then likely limit power consumption for your cars.
This is the exact opposite of any free market. Effectively, you’re giving total control to the government around what movement you can make and/or you’ll have zero anonymity by law.
At the end of the day any implementation of the methods discussed lead to absolute tyranny.
To track per-mile-tax you’re going to have either government gps tracking in real-time or cameras tracking your ever my movement. Alternatively, the government will track and then likely limit power consumption for your cars.
This is the exact opposite of any free market. Effectively, you’re giving total control to the government around what movement you can make and/or you’ll have zero anonymity by law.
> To track per-mile-tax you’re going to have either government gps tracking in real-time or cameras tracking your ever my movement. Alternatively, the government will track and then likely limit power consumption for your cars.
Maybe I'm naive, but shouldn't an odometer reading do the job just fine?
Maybe I'm naive, but shouldn't an odometer reading do the job just fine?
We should split road taxes and carbon taxes, and ensure both revenue streams cover all the investment and expenses required for the sector but also to cover long-term effects on climate.
This way, we can spend the revenues from road taxes to build and maintain our infrastructure, and the realize that the latter will just make the whole car industry bankrupt overnight.
This way, we can spend the revenues from road taxes to build and maintain our infrastructure, and the realize that the latter will just make the whole car industry bankrupt overnight.
Perhaps if the UK government more competently spent it's money, it wouldn't need to replace the lost revenue.
The NHS track and trace app, which cost around GBP 40 billion, is an absolute sham.
I've worked with NHS trusts that are paying GBP 500 for each lightbulb replacement in a hospital, GBP 200 for a ream of paper, amongst other things.
The UK also rakes a significant amount from national insurance and income tax.
You can't just keep on taxing as a way to grease the wheels of an inefficient government machine. I bet if someone was to clean up the junky contracts that corrupt MPs have lumbered us with, we'd comfortably save more than GBP 35 billion a year.
The NHS track and trace app, which cost around GBP 40 billion, is an absolute sham.
I've worked with NHS trusts that are paying GBP 500 for each lightbulb replacement in a hospital, GBP 200 for a ream of paper, amongst other things.
The UK also rakes a significant amount from national insurance and income tax.
You can't just keep on taxing as a way to grease the wheels of an inefficient government machine. I bet if someone was to clean up the junky contracts that corrupt MPs have lumbered us with, we'd comfortably save more than GBP 35 billion a year.
Track and trace, including the free covid tests and the staff on the phone lines, cost about £40bn. There is a lot of spending inefficiency in government spending, including that programme, but to suggest that the app cost that much is disingenuous.
Norway have the same issues now. Almost all new cars are electric. You don't pay purchase tax / vat when buying it. Pay less on toll roads. Cheaper to use. Etc. etc.
Which was great to get the initial people to convert, and get the infrastructure in place. But now it's time to tax them. Lots of budgets are now off because they estimated X amounts from cars using toll roads, but half of them don't pay the price.
While they don't emit carbon dioxide, they are just as deadly as normal cars. Also pollute more from the tires being heavier. Just as noisy. Need the same expensive roads. And as all cars they ruin the city.