The electric car has dropped out of favor in Denmark(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The electric car has dropped out of favor in Denmark
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-02/denmark-is-killing-tesla-and-other-electric-cars
346 comments
So the cost of electric cars tripled (due to a near-200% import tax imposition) and it only dropped sales to 1/3 what they were? The fact that this didn't wipe them out entirely is telling
The article describes the tax changes as a phase out, from 2016 (presumably late in the year since the changes were made in 2015) to 2020.
The prices did not immediately triple.
The prices did not immediately triple.
Triple price and 1/3 quantity directly follows the linear demand curves they teach in Economics 101.. not sure what else you were expecting.
Linear doesn't mean slope = -1, though.
Also, you can fit just about anything to two points.
Hey, that's an interesting question: is there anything you can't fit to two arbitrary points?
Seems like with compression, x/y offsets, and rotation you could fit just about curve.
Seems like with compression, x/y offsets, and rotation you could fit just about curve.
In general on the plane, you can fit a polynomial of n-1 degree exactly to n distinct points (i.e. it will pass through those points)
This least to an easy way to demonstrate the evils of over-fitting :)
This least to an easy way to demonstrate the evils of over-fitting :)
A single point
There is no reason why that demand curve should be linear and often isn't.
And in economics 102 they teach you that price elasticity of demand is rarely if ever at unity, and it's not generally even a linear function. For a good like Tesla, this is especially true, because income distribution is close to a normal distribution, not a uniform one (which is the circumstance where you would expect to see linear price elasticity of demand).
That's not even Econ 102, that's.. week 4 of Econ 101.
And in the real world you learn that price elasticity is a suggestion rather than a law.
It's probably a law of nature that prices won't stabilize somewhere where you could triple the price and sell 1/3 the quantity. At the higher price, revenue would be the same, but you only had to produce 1/3 of the goods, so profit is higher.
So if you were ever in this situation, you would probably expect price to rise until the slope of the demand curve changes.
So if you were ever in this situation, you would probably expect price to rise until the slope of the demand curve changes.
> Triple price and 1/3 quantity directly follows the linear demand curves they teach in Economics 101.. not sure what else you were expecting.
It doesn't follow a linear demand curve, because we only have two data points (any two points can define a line, so we'd need at least one more to estimate the second derivative).
Furthermore, linear demand curve doesn't mean that the price elasticity of demand is 1 - and in fact, unit elasticity would be quite surprising, and it would generally not be desirable for Tesla[0].
But finally, Economics 101 classes don't teach linear demand curves. Every introductory economics textbook I've seen draws them this way because it's easier and it doesn't change the math at the introductory level, but every single one also introduces the concept with an indicator that it's drawn this way for convenience, not because they are teaching linear models.
[0] You can come up with somewhat exogenous reasons for wanting to operate in the unit-elastic or inelastic portions of the demand curve, based on the venture model of optimizing for brand penetration, but it's not the place that they'd financially be able to or want to operate in the long run.
It doesn't follow a linear demand curve, because we only have two data points (any two points can define a line, so we'd need at least one more to estimate the second derivative).
Furthermore, linear demand curve doesn't mean that the price elasticity of demand is 1 - and in fact, unit elasticity would be quite surprising, and it would generally not be desirable for Tesla[0].
But finally, Economics 101 classes don't teach linear demand curves. Every introductory economics textbook I've seen draws them this way because it's easier and it doesn't change the math at the introductory level, but every single one also introduces the concept with an indicator that it's drawn this way for convenience, not because they are teaching linear models.
[0] You can come up with somewhat exogenous reasons for wanting to operate in the unit-elastic or inelastic portions of the demand curve, based on the venture model of optimizing for brand penetration, but it's not the place that they'd financially be able to or want to operate in the long run.
Right. Increase price and introduce pricing/cost uncertainty, and you have fewer buyers. Sounds about right to me. Sounds like Econ 101 to me as well. When someone dresses up info from a 101 level college course as a headline, it says to me either, "slow news day" or "hit piece."
The prices rose around 20% and only for the more expense ones. Apparently that was enough to stop the sales immediately.
Probably people knew about it and bought their cars before the 20% tax increase
All the media fuss was about dropping the tax-exemption completely. As I remember, you had to read the news about it very carefully to see that they did a gradual phase-out of 20%/yr or so.
It actually turned out that the change caused the EV sales all but stop completely (quite to the surprise of the tax authorities). So they're looking at re-exempting a few thousand cars every month.
Fun fact: The danish nickname for the tax authorities is "Skattefar", "Taxdaddy" - and it's the name of their twitter account: https://twitter.com/Skattefar
It actually turned out that the change caused the EV sales all but stop completely (quite to the surprise of the tax authorities). So they're looking at re-exempting a few thousand cars every month.
Fun fact: The danish nickname for the tax authorities is "Skattefar", "Taxdaddy" - and it's the name of their twitter account: https://twitter.com/Skattefar
Nail on the head. When your concern is cost, electric vehicles just don't make sense. I drive 5-10 thousands miles a year, and at $2/gallon gas, I'm looking at a total expense of 4-500 dollars per year.
To illustrate, I recently spec'd out a honda civic, with the base model costing $19k USD, and looking at even hybrids like the chevy volt and prius, I'm basically paying a premium of $4k to $15k for what amounts to a nominal gain in mileage. It just doesn't make sense when the civic is cheaper and more fun to drive (huge consideration when you spend more than 10 minutes commuting every day.) Drop the honda to a fit, and the straight IC is even more of a hands-down winner.
Mileage standards are probably the most effective tool at reducing automobile emissions, and I wish more people costed that out and understood the economic impact, especially on poor people, before coming to any debate on the subject.
Edit: I realize this is more of an american perspective on an article about a european problem. I wish I could bike safely where I live, but the infrastructure costs would probably be tremendous given how spread out everything is here.
To illustrate, I recently spec'd out a honda civic, with the base model costing $19k USD, and looking at even hybrids like the chevy volt and prius, I'm basically paying a premium of $4k to $15k for what amounts to a nominal gain in mileage. It just doesn't make sense when the civic is cheaper and more fun to drive (huge consideration when you spend more than 10 minutes commuting every day.) Drop the honda to a fit, and the straight IC is even more of a hands-down winner.
Mileage standards are probably the most effective tool at reducing automobile emissions, and I wish more people costed that out and understood the economic impact, especially on poor people, before coming to any debate on the subject.
Edit: I realize this is more of an american perspective on an article about a european problem. I wish I could bike safely where I live, but the infrastructure costs would probably be tremendous given how spread out everything is here.
The Nissan Leaf is a shockingly good deal right now if you can deal with the limited range. We got it as a second car, and the deal was $2,500 down, $200 per month for three years. And California has a $2,500 subsidy that effectively drops the price to $0 down if you income-qualify. And PG&E has a $500 subsidy, and they'll also lower your rates.
If you get all the subsidies, you're looking at less than $2,500 per year. I think that most people will save $500+ on gas and oil changes and PG&E rates, so for the three years, let's say that you pay $6,000 all in.
Essentially any new car will lose $6,000 in value over three years. You could lower your TCO by buying used, for sure, but if you care about worn finishes, little QOL things like bluetooth audio and reasonably good climate control, and lower risk of inconvenient maintenance, then I think the Leaf is pretty amazingly good.
IF you can deal with a 90 mile range. That's the big killer. But as a second car or for some people, it's kind of amazing.
If you get all the subsidies, you're looking at less than $2,500 per year. I think that most people will save $500+ on gas and oil changes and PG&E rates, so for the three years, let's say that you pay $6,000 all in.
Essentially any new car will lose $6,000 in value over three years. You could lower your TCO by buying used, for sure, but if you care about worn finishes, little QOL things like bluetooth audio and reasonably good climate control, and lower risk of inconvenient maintenance, then I think the Leaf is pretty amazingly good.
IF you can deal with a 90 mile range. That's the big killer. But as a second car or for some people, it's kind of amazing.
Are you saying that PG&E's EV-A rate is "lowering" your rates?
I think that's only true from 11pm-7AM, which obviously is good if you're charging an EV, but it compensates by raising your daytime rates, which isn't a good deal for most people with more traditional domestic electric workloads.
So I wouldn't exactly interpret this as a straightforward "lower your rates". Or am I missing something?
I think that's only true from 11pm-7AM, which obviously is good if you're charging an EV, but it compensates by raising your daytime rates, which isn't a good deal for most people with more traditional domestic electric workloads.
So I wouldn't exactly interpret this as a straightforward "lower your rates". Or am I missing something?
It depends entirely on your schedule. There are a lot of people who are at work/commuting from 8-6 every weekday. IF no one is home during those hours, your power usage drops to just maintenance power for fridges and the like. The hours from 6pm-10pm are a bit of a challenge, but with some minor load shifting (start the dishwasher and clothes dryer at 10pm before bed), you can get some savings on TOU.
A few years back SCE had a EV-TOU plan that was peak hours only from 10am-6pm, and it was very easy to save money on that plan.
A few years back SCE had a EV-TOU plan that was peak hours only from 10am-6pm, and it was very easy to save money on that plan.
My attempts to be terse were misleading. We have very little daytime electricity use, as our house is empty during the day. I apologize if I misled anyone.
No worries! I just bought an electric car and have been investigating this intensively, I genuinely wanted to know if I’d missed a better option than EV-A!
Right now with our relatively limited driving, it appears E6 is better for me, but I’m sure if you drive enough, the 50% discount at night is worth it.
Right now with our relatively limited driving, it appears E6 is better for me, but I’m sure if you drive enough, the 50% discount at night is worth it.
Where did you get that deal for a Nissan Leaf at 2500+36*200=9700? That's sweet. Any extra payment at the end of 3 years? Do you own the battery?
The leaf is for sale in Belgium at €32-38K.
The leaf is for sale in Belgium at €32-38K.
I assume aetherson is effectively leasing, not buying. So after 3 years you don't own the battery, or in fact the car.
Which is why the relevant comparison point is how much a car you actually buy would drop in price.
Which is why the relevant comparison point is how much a car you actually buy would drop in price.
>IF you can deal with a 90 mile range. That's the big killer. But as a second car or for some people, it's kind of amazing.
But what about my life in wide open spaces...
But what about my life in wide open spaces...
> Nail on the head. When your concern is cost, electric vehicles just don't make sense.
I agree with this. Electric cars are still affordable only to the affluent. Even a Nissan Leaf costs over $30k.
> I drive 5-10 thousands miles a year, and at $2/gallon gas, I'm looking at a total expense of 4-500 dollars per year.
This, however, seems really optimistic. 10k miles for $500 in gas assumes $2/gallon and 40 mpg, which is the EPA rating for highway miles in a Civic. Most people are driving >10k miles/year. Most people don't spend 100% of their miles on open highway at optimal speed, nor do most people drive a new car with max efficiency. And most people don't have $2/gallon gas even in the US (the average is closer to $2.50 currently).
Driving 12-15k/year, getting 25mpg, paying $2.50/gallon, you'd be looking at $1200-$1500/year for gas. That's still not enough to offset the difference in an electric car unless you assume long ownership and no major costs to, say, replace the battery pack at 5 years.
I agree with this. Electric cars are still affordable only to the affluent. Even a Nissan Leaf costs over $30k.
> I drive 5-10 thousands miles a year, and at $2/gallon gas, I'm looking at a total expense of 4-500 dollars per year.
This, however, seems really optimistic. 10k miles for $500 in gas assumes $2/gallon and 40 mpg, which is the EPA rating for highway miles in a Civic. Most people are driving >10k miles/year. Most people don't spend 100% of their miles on open highway at optimal speed, nor do most people drive a new car with max efficiency. And most people don't have $2/gallon gas even in the US (the average is closer to $2.50 currently).
Driving 12-15k/year, getting 25mpg, paying $2.50/gallon, you'd be looking at $1200-$1500/year for gas. That's still not enough to offset the difference in an electric car unless you assume long ownership and no major costs to, say, replace the battery pack at 5 years.
> Electric cars are still affordable only to the affluent.
I just now ran a Carfax report and found no fewer than 7 electric Ford Focus cars within 50 miles of my zipcode for less than $15k used. Two of them are less than $10k. Not sure what "affluent" means to you.
I just now ran a Carfax report and found no fewer than 7 electric Ford Focus cars within 50 miles of my zipcode for less than $15k used. Two of them are less than $10k. Not sure what "affluent" means to you.
Set the goalposts and we can discuss it. If we're talking new cars, I think >$30k is for the affluent. If you want to consider used cars, maybe they become more attainable, but the supply is tiny (literally 50x as many used IC focuses as used electric focuses near me) and there's still a premium for the equivalent car (~20% from what I see).
I can buy a 2013 electric Focus for $13k. I can buy a 2012 BMW 328i for $14k. Are BMWs also affordable now?
I can buy a 2013 electric Focus for $13k. I can buy a 2012 BMW 328i for $14k. Are BMWs also affordable now?
> Are BMWs affordable now?
A 5 year old base 3-series has always been affordable, unless you include maintenance and the price/availability of parts.
A 5 year old base 3-series has always been affordable, unless you include maintenance and the price/availability of parts.
Older BMW's have relatively high maintenance costs which is a real issue.
Not sure about that Focus, but electric cars have vastly fewer moving parts which should help quite a bit.
Not sure about that Focus, but electric cars have vastly fewer moving parts which should help quite a bit.
Older electric cars eventually need a complete battery pack replacement which is not a trivial cost. I don't know what the lifespan of the battery pack in a Focus is, though.
On an older focus that's not nearly the issue vs longer range electrics it's ~23 kWh * $150/kwh ~= 3,450$ and dropping.
I know people that spent that much just replacing a BMW's transmission. Yea, not free but everything else should be cheap so maintenance costs are likely to be far less over the next 5 - 10 years.
I know people that spent that much just replacing a BMW's transmission. Yea, not free but everything else should be cheap so maintenance costs are likely to be far less over the next 5 - 10 years.
To be clear, I'm not actually advocating that used BMWs are affordable.
Edit: I do wonder how many of these "cheap" electric cars will ever have a replacement battery pack. When your car value drops below $5000, are you really going to spend $3000 (guesstimate including labor) to replace the battery?
Edit: I do wonder how many of these "cheap" electric cars will ever have a replacement battery pack. When your car value drops below $5000, are you really going to spend $3000 (guesstimate including labor) to replace the battery?
Sure, I just meant if the TCO is around 1k/year higher on the BMW they are not really equivalent options for most people.
Anyway, this might change if they are more common, but for now used electrics seem to have a significant price premium suggesting people think replacing older battery packs is probably a good long term deal.
Anyway, this might change if they are more common, but for now used electrics seem to have a significant price premium suggesting people think replacing older battery packs is probably a good long term deal.
> used electrics seem to have a significant price premium suggesting people think replacing older battery packs is probably a good long term deal.
Maybe. Depends on how you interpret the numbers. The electric Focus seems to command a premium of ~20% over the SE for a comparable used car near me, but the MSRP is >50% over the SE new. So you could see that as used buyers believing that the electric is worth 20% more than the comparable used IC, or you could see that as buyers believing that the a value of an electric drops much more rapidly than the value of an IC. Maybe after a couple more years these lines cross and the IC commands a premium. I honestly don't know.
Maybe. Depends on how you interpret the numbers. The electric Focus seems to command a premium of ~20% over the SE for a comparable used car near me, but the MSRP is >50% over the SE new. So you could see that as used buyers believing that the electric is worth 20% more than the comparable used IC, or you could see that as buyers believing that the a value of an electric drops much more rapidly than the value of an IC. Maybe after a couple more years these lines cross and the IC commands a premium. I honestly don't know.
This is complicated by the dramatic drop in new batters.
If a new x kwh battery pack cost 10k then but a new xkwh battery pack is only 4k new today then predicted deprecation calculations should arguably be based on the 4k price not the 10k initial price unless you expect such dramatic price drops to continue.
In any case, I think the current used prices would be vastly lower if people expected the kind of range and lifetime limitations you get from not replacing the batteries.
If a new x kwh battery pack cost 10k then but a new xkwh battery pack is only 4k new today then predicted deprecation calculations should arguably be based on the 4k price not the 10k initial price unless you expect such dramatic price drops to continue.
In any case, I think the current used prices would be vastly lower if people expected the kind of range and lifetime limitations you get from not replacing the batteries.
[deleted]
I just bought a 2015 Nissan Leaf that just came off lease with 20k miles on it for $12000. I financed it for the credit bump and the monthly payment is $240 a month. That is about $80 more a month than I was paying on gas and full coverage insurance is about the same as my old car (2007 Accord).
It has a 70k warranty on all major systems and 2 years of road side assistance. Which reminds me I can remove that from my insurance coverage and save about $15 a month.
I was spending over $1000 a year maintaining my old car so for the same or less expense I now have what I consider a much nicer car and modern features. It's also a lot more fun to drive.
It has a 70k warranty on all major systems and 2 years of road side assistance. Which reminds me I can remove that from my insurance coverage and save about $15 a month.
I was spending over $1000 a year maintaining my old car so for the same or less expense I now have what I consider a much nicer car and modern features. It's also a lot more fun to drive.
I find it interesting that these electric cars are dropping so much and value in the first three years. More than half. And that's on dealer resell, not the trade-in value. Last time I bought a three-year-old car, the dealer resell price was about 75% of the original retail.
From what I understand it's partially because of the uncertainty of unproven technology, and partially because a lot of people bought them for the tax breaks.
Nissan didn't (and still might not) have active cooling in their batteries and was seeing high failure rates in states like Arizona. Because of this, Nissan ended up extending battery warranties to 8 years / 100,000 miles. Basically if there is anything wrong with the battery or it's capacity drops below 9 bars (starts at 12), then Nissan will replace it.
Combined state and federal deductions on EVs were up to 50% of the purchase or lease price of a Leaf and could be deducted over several years. This combined with annual fuel savings when gas was $4 a gallon meant people could drive a new car for little more than the cost of insurance since Nissan was including free charging at qualified stations for 2 years. So a lot of Leafs were bought or leased and being dumped on the market now that all the incentives are drying up.
Nissan didn't (and still might not) have active cooling in their batteries and was seeing high failure rates in states like Arizona. Because of this, Nissan ended up extending battery warranties to 8 years / 100,000 miles. Basically if there is anything wrong with the battery or it's capacity drops below 9 bars (starts at 12), then Nissan will replace it.
Combined state and federal deductions on EVs were up to 50% of the purchase or lease price of a Leaf and could be deducted over several years. This combined with annual fuel savings when gas was $4 a gallon meant people could drive a new car for little more than the cost of insurance since Nissan was including free charging at qualified stations for 2 years. So a lot of Leafs were bought or leased and being dumped on the market now that all the incentives are drying up.
Absolutely agreed with all of this, and well done on the analysis--you backed out my back-of-the-envelope numbers.
Gas has been ~$2 where I live for a very long time, and you're right, I'm closer to 5 than 10k miles, and much of it is city.
I don't travel much though. :-)
Gas has been ~$2 where I live for a very long time, and you're right, I'm closer to 5 than 10k miles, and much of it is city.
I don't travel much though. :-)
>> I drive 5-10 thousands miles a year, and at $2/gallon gas
I assure you that even at nearly $8/gallon over here, an electric vehicle still didn't make much sense when we were buying a new car last year. Even the cheapest Leaf was so much more expensive than a well specced VW Polo that it made no sense to go electric, we did the calculation and the difference in price would not be returned in the savings over the time we are likely to keep the car for.
I assure you that even at nearly $8/gallon over here, an electric vehicle still didn't make much sense when we were buying a new car last year. Even the cheapest Leaf was so much more expensive than a well specced VW Polo that it made no sense to go electric, we did the calculation and the difference in price would not be returned in the savings over the time we are likely to keep the car for.
> what amounts to a nominal gain in mileage.
A Prius is 46 combined, the Civic is only 32 combined (as per fuelly). The base Civic uses 50% more fuel than a Prius, I'd hardly consider that "nominal", that's the difference between a 6.2L V8 powered Corvette (22 combined on fuelly) and a Civic.
Another way to look at it is, $2/gallon gas in a Prius is $3/gallon in a Civic.
A Prius is 46 combined, the Civic is only 32 combined (as per fuelly). The base Civic uses 50% more fuel than a Prius, I'd hardly consider that "nominal", that's the difference between a 6.2L V8 powered Corvette (22 combined on fuelly) and a Civic.
Another way to look at it is, $2/gallon gas in a Prius is $3/gallon in a Civic.
Sure, but, as (s)he said, (s)he drives 5-10K miles / year. For 10K miles, that's a difference of less than 100 gallons of gas per year, meaning less than $400 / year in gas for the Civic vs the Prius. ~$1 / day probably isn't going to drive behavior change or a willingness to spend more for an otherwise-inferior car.
> When your concern is cost
Not everyone's concern is solely cost, of course. Some of us are happy to pay a little more for a car that eliminates our families largest contribution to global warming. Yes, new Tesla's and other EVs are not cheaper than ICE vehicles today. The Model S has only been available for 5 years. You can't expect EVs to beat ICE vehicles with over 100 years of engineering from minute 1. Give it some time.
Not everyone's concern is solely cost, of course. Some of us are happy to pay a little more for a car that eliminates our families largest contribution to global warming. Yes, new Tesla's and other EVs are not cheaper than ICE vehicles today. The Model S has only been available for 5 years. You can't expect EVs to beat ICE vehicles with over 100 years of engineering from minute 1. Give it some time.
Absolutely agreed that not everyone's concern is cost. I don't live an affluent area, however. I'm lucky to have a job with benefits, if that tells you anything. I can't imagine my neighbors caring too much.
At 5K-10K miles per year, you'd almost be better off with delivery, Lyft and rental cars ...
Depends on your circumstances. I'm something under 10K but I have basically no delivery and very limited Uber/Lyft available. When I do weekend activities, I often want an SUV outfitted for my needs. If I did rent a car, I'd have to get a cab or something. This isn't even back of beyond but it's exurban and there's no way I could do without my own car in my driveway even though my mileage is modest.
Why do you assume I live in an urban area where those are options?
5-10K miles per year and quoting highway mileage numbers?
Even elderly drivers that I know in rural areas in the US have a difficult time staying in 5K-10K miles per year.
Someone living in a rural or suburban area in the US has a 30 mile round trip for just about anything. Even 3 trips a week would put you above 5K miles. And you won't be getting 40mpg on those roads.
So, either you really don't do much (possible) at which point delivery probably suffices as you have minimal needs.
Or, you don't have to drive very far, which would tend to place you in a dense suburb or urban setting.
Or, you could, of course, simply be one of the lucky people who live in a rural/sparse suburban setting that just happens to have everything you need within a walk or very short drive. Those places do exist--the number of people who have the opportunity to live in them is very small, however.
Even elderly drivers that I know in rural areas in the US have a difficult time staying in 5K-10K miles per year.
Someone living in a rural or suburban area in the US has a 30 mile round trip for just about anything. Even 3 trips a week would put you above 5K miles. And you won't be getting 40mpg on those roads.
So, either you really don't do much (possible) at which point delivery probably suffices as you have minimal needs.
Or, you don't have to drive very far, which would tend to place you in a dense suburb or urban setting.
Or, you could, of course, simply be one of the lucky people who live in a rural/sparse suburban setting that just happens to have everything you need within a walk or very short drive. Those places do exist--the number of people who have the opportunity to live in them is very small, however.
I just bought a VW Caddy, but was also struggling with the decision as I thought about going electric. However, what I personally need is a minibus form factor to sleep in the back, 500km range to go to the alps and back and preferably at less than 30k Euros. Like many other city dwellers in Europe, I don't need a car in the city, prefer to take my bike or public transport, I only need it for weekend trips and vacations. I guess quite a lot of people in my part of town act similarly, even though we should be the most interested in electric cars, all being eco-minded and such.
Have you looked into a Chevy volt. 53 miles electric, 44mpg on gas (something like 400 mile range with both fuel sources).
Unlike the Prius it only has an electric drive train with a gas generator.
And it's a hatchback with the seats folded you might just be able to sleep.
Unlike the Prius it only has an electric drive train with a gas generator.
And it's a hatchback with the seats folded you might just be able to sleep.
Are you thinking of the Bolt?
The volt is a sedan, but only 2 seats in the back split by a center console. I don't think that'd be very comfortable without an air mattress.
The volt is a sedan, but only 2 seats in the back split by a center console. I don't think that'd be very comfortable without an air mattress.
Volt is a hatchback compact sedan. It has no center console splitting the back seats anymore.
Here's an image of the new 2016/2017 volt with its seats folded down: http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2016/0...
Here's an image of the new 2016/2017 volt with its seats folded down: http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2016/0...
Cool, thanks! That's a lot different than I remembered. Good to know.
I'm curious: why not simply rent a van whenever you go on a trip?
Because, if you frequently sleep in your van, being able to customise it to your needs is important, like building in a bed, stove, heater, cupboards and so forth. Renting a full camper van every weekend/holiday would be prohibitively expensive and not fully customised to your taste.
My guess is the OP is a climber or similar and has pretty specific van needs.
My guess is the OP is a climber or similar and has pretty specific van needs.
Speaking for German prices, because it eventually adds up, specially taking into consideration that to be on the safe side it is better to have full coverage insurance.
With own car one pays insurance once, while renting the insurance gets payed every single time it gets rented.
Not going full coverage is an open game as they will charge for any little new scratch the car might get, no matter how tiny.
Meanwhile, I have been in countries where the only thing that matters is that the car is returned in one piece still.
With own car one pays insurance once, while renting the insurance gets payed every single time it gets rented.
Not going full coverage is an open game as they will charge for any little new scratch the car might get, no matter how tiny.
Meanwhile, I have been in countries where the only thing that matters is that the car is returned in one piece still.
Dont buy comprehensive insurance top up cover from the car hire company. Use a third party insurer. e.g. insurance4carhire.com Same price for a year of 'super cover' as for about 4 days cover from the car hire company.
I doubt any of the car dealers here work with such type of companies, and in any case I usually don't thrush they would properly handle the case when called to act upon.
Surely that's anti-competitive behaviour; it's not up to the car rental to choose whether or not they deal with your insurers. In fact they deal with you (as if you weren't insured), and you claim from your excess insurance. See e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance...
In Germany you cannot rent a car without insurance from the dealer, there is no way for them to deal with us as if we hadn't one.
The car hire company never knows that you have it because the insurance you take out is for the excess only, not the full legally required car insurance. Most hire cars come with a basic insurance included in the cost, but with a massive excess charge if you damage the car. When you hire the car you accept the massive €2000 (or whatever) excess. If you need to make a claim, you reclaim the cost of the excess from the third party insurer and pay this to the car hire company. The third party insurance costs ~€40 per year. This is a much cheaper way of reducing your excess to a manageable amount than taking out the €15/day 'super cover' option from the car hire company.
EDIT: The car hire companies make a massive profit on the 'super cover' optional insurance.
If you are worried about the provenance of a financial services company, there are usually national regulators who maintain registers of companies that have to abide by certain standards. You should check that an insurer is on this register before taking out a policy, as well as checking to see if there are a lot of complaints about them on the internet.
EDIT: The car hire companies make a massive profit on the 'super cover' optional insurance.
If you are worried about the provenance of a financial services company, there are usually national regulators who maintain registers of companies that have to abide by certain standards. You should check that an insurer is on this register before taking out a policy, as well as checking to see if there are a lot of complaints about them on the internet.
Thanks, I will need to research into it.
The idea is to go nearly every weekend - as a climber living in Munich, all those lakes and the mountains offer enormous weekend potential. As someone else deduced already, I'll be building some platform in the back and add curtains, something I can't be putting in a rented van.
> "I just bought a VW Caddy, but was also struggling with the decision as I thought about going electric."
If you don't mind doing the work yourself, and don't mind a range lower than 500km a day, you can get something like this for less than 30k Euros. For example:
http://hackaday.com/2017/05/17/solar-powered-camper-is-a-mag...
If you don't mind doing the work yourself, and don't mind a range lower than 500km a day, you can get something like this for less than 30k Euros. For example:
http://hackaday.com/2017/05/17/solar-powered-camper-is-a-mag...
Also, giving tax breaks on luxury cars means shiftig wealth from the poor to the rich.
The tax on cars is largely for environmental/societal reasons. Pollution is an expensive, damaging externality for society largely caused by cars; the infrastructure for a car culture is VERY expensive to maintain; car-dependent cities are less attractive to live in.
A single-digit sales tax or registration fee does not cover these costs to society caused by car owners. Therefore, these costs must be covered by the general fund: from income, payroll, and business taxes. These all apply equally whether or not you own a car, so if you don't buy a car, you're still paying for the environmental cost of having one but not getting the benefits.
Denmark has done a smart thing by placing high taxes on cars. Reasonable taxation policy helps make this decision more rational. The flat tax usually makes sense because cheap cars are likely to be low-powered sub-compacts, which have a smaller impact, while expensive luxury cars are more likely to be high-powered, heavy, large vehicles.
But EVs (and hybrids, to a lesser extent) break this model. They are expensive, but environmentally friendly. It makes sense to encourage their adoption through tax breaks. That is not a shift of wealth from the poor to the rich, it's an intelligent exception in a model intended to shift costs away from all of society to the source of those costs.
A single-digit sales tax or registration fee does not cover these costs to society caused by car owners. Therefore, these costs must be covered by the general fund: from income, payroll, and business taxes. These all apply equally whether or not you own a car, so if you don't buy a car, you're still paying for the environmental cost of having one but not getting the benefits.
Denmark has done a smart thing by placing high taxes on cars. Reasonable taxation policy helps make this decision more rational. The flat tax usually makes sense because cheap cars are likely to be low-powered sub-compacts, which have a smaller impact, while expensive luxury cars are more likely to be high-powered, heavy, large vehicles.
But EVs (and hybrids, to a lesser extent) break this model. They are expensive, but environmentally friendly. It makes sense to encourage their adoption through tax breaks. That is not a shift of wealth from the poor to the rich, it's an intelligent exception in a model intended to shift costs away from all of society to the source of those costs.
> But EVs (and hybrids, to a lesser extent) break this model. They are expensive, but environmentally friendly.
Not quite. EVs reduce direct pollution, but there are still a lot of negative externalities. There are obvious ones relating to the manufacture and also to then still requiring energy.
But car culture itself has all sorts of issues, no matter the drive train: it encourages bad urbanism and sprawl (with large environmental impact), encourages inefficient land use via extensive parking, it taxes the infrastructure, it encourages bad health, and also some direct accidents.
Not quite. EVs reduce direct pollution, but there are still a lot of negative externalities. There are obvious ones relating to the manufacture and also to then still requiring energy.
But car culture itself has all sorts of issues, no matter the drive train: it encourages bad urbanism and sprawl (with large environmental impact), encourages inefficient land use via extensive parking, it taxes the infrastructure, it encourages bad health, and also some direct accidents.
"there are still a lot of negative externalities"
True. but luckily most people don't commute by car here in Denmark, bike infrastructure is close to perfect. And most energy is renewable, so it's not as bad as it could have been.
True. but luckily most people don't commute by car here in Denmark, bike infrastructure is close to perfect. And most energy is renewable, so it's not as bad as it could have been.
Why the downvotes? Building and maintaining big roads, bridges, parking spaces has a huge social and environmental impact compared to increasing public transportation.
Public transportation is preferable to cars, but let us not paint electric cars as having any more negative externalities than their internal combustion brethren.
(The steel/aluminum/plastics of a car's exterior/interior/chassis are shared by cars regardless of drive train and still the overall impact of those materials dwarfs the environmental impact of battery technologies.)
(The steel/aluminum/plastics of a car's exterior/interior/chassis are shared by cars regardless of drive train and still the overall impact of those materials dwarfs the environmental impact of battery technologies.)
> let us not paint electric cars as having any more negative externalities than their internal combustion brethren.
I wrote:
> EVs reduce direct pollution, but there are still a lot of negative externalities.
I wrote:
> EVs reduce direct pollution, but there are still a lot of negative externalities.
Sorry, I wasn't specifically directing that comment at you. There are a lot of people that will read what you wrote and assume you mean there are more negative externalities than the equivalent internal combustion car. Certainly you see that sort of talk/mythology a lot lately. I read your comment that way at first, but realized that was not what you had meant, but I can certainly see people downvoting it for assuming that is what you meant.
People don't like to be reminded that buying mansions with solar shingles and electric sports cars are far more about making consumers feel good than about meaningfully saving the planet in any sense.
Trickle down environmentalism is just like regular trickle down economics.
Trickle down environmentalism is just like regular trickle down economics.
It's a digression, the topic is brought up in nearly every HN thread where somebody mentions the word "car," the ensuing discussions generally have the character of a religious debate, and that comment brings nothing new to the discussion. Being correct isn't enough to make a comment worthwhile.
ETA: For what it's worth, I think the downvotes on this comment are fair too. It doesn't need to be reiterated that tired, off-topic comments are tired and off-topic every time somebody makes one. I answered because I feel bad when I see somebody confused, but this is another example of a comment that probably deserves to be downvoted even though it's correct.
ETA: For what it's worth, I think the downvotes on this comment are fair too. It doesn't need to be reiterated that tired, off-topic comments are tired and off-topic every time somebody makes one. I answered because I feel bad when I see somebody confused, but this is another example of a comment that probably deserves to be downvoted even though it's correct.
Then you should downvote the GP claiming that EVs should receive taxes subsidies becayse they "are environmentally friendly".
"environmentally friendly" here means shifting pollution from the rich to the poor, i.e. from our western European cities to the countries where all the materials needed to produce the batteries and light-weight chassis are mined:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19830232
Myth: The Tesla uses a lot of graphite in their battery, which contributes to China’s pollution problem.
Actually: The logic here is: “Tesla batteries use graphite; the world’s biggest source of graphite is in China; China has terrible pollution; therefore, Tesla is partially responsible for China’s pollution.” Except when I did some digging, I learned that Tesla uses synthetic graphite made mostly in Japan and Poland, and that the average Model S uses 100kg of it. That 100kg lasts for ten years, so the amount of graphite used to make a Model S is similar to the amount you’d use if you had a few barbecues a year.
Actually: The logic here is: “Tesla batteries use graphite; the world’s biggest source of graphite is in China; China has terrible pollution; therefore, Tesla is partially responsible for China’s pollution.” Except when I did some digging, I learned that Tesla uses synthetic graphite made mostly in Japan and Poland, and that the average Model S uses 100kg of it. That 100kg lasts for ten years, so the amount of graphite used to make a Model S is similar to the amount you’d use if you had a few barbecues a year.
There are pollution issues related to rare earth materials, and aluminium also requires a lot of energy.
But the big issue is still car culture and related energy waste, urban development and health issues.
But the big issue is still car culture and related energy waste, urban development and health issues.
> car-dependent cities are less attractive to live in
That's a nice rationalizing lie we like to tell ourselves; they are not nice to live in, but we vastly prefer them to be that way and get very, very angry if something is not car-accessible.
That's a nice rationalizing lie we like to tell ourselves; they are not nice to live in, but we vastly prefer them to be that way and get very, very angry if something is not car-accessible.
No we don't. Danish people are supposed to be the happiest on earth, and Copenhagen is definitely not a car-dependent city.
Speaking more generally, I'd say few cities in Europe fit your description. Within the city limits I think people pretty much expect cars to be the least practical mode of transport. Very few shops have parking lots, and getting around is very slow. It's probably true in the US though.
Speaking more generally, I'd say few cities in Europe fit your description. Within the city limits I think people pretty much expect cars to be the least practical mode of transport. Very few shops have parking lots, and getting around is very slow. It's probably true in the US though.
London is not a wonderful place to live in any more (immo) but would be infinitely worse if it required a car to move around usefully.
Thankfully the one thing that this place gets right is the range and organisation of Public Transport.
Thankfully the one thing that this place gets right is the range and organisation of Public Transport.
What people want is car accessibility for their car in particular, but none of the pesky traffic that results from other people having cars. In other words, a fantasy.
This is why I like to remind people of Tesla's true innovation: finding government tax credits and giving consumers a way to spend them on Tesla.
This comment makes no sense. Tesla doesn't find government credits and build a car accordingly. Tesla makes an electric car. Government, which represents their tax base, had decided to provide tax incentives to encourage EV sales. These are mutually exclusive. No one is stopping GM from converting their entire fleet to electric and take advantage. If this is the only innovation, it should also be relatively easy for anyone to start electric car company and start making money. I would encourage you to start one
Yep. These sort of new vehicle EV incentives are pointless hand outs to car companies and auto dealer associations, funded by the tax dollars of citizens that are often too poor to afford to buy a new car in the first place.
A more effective policy at encouraging the growth of the EV sector would be a road pricing system where non-EV cars pay higher fees.
This sort of policy would have the added bonus of incentivizing people into public transit and active transportation, which is ultimately better for the environment than buying an EV car.
A more effective policy at encouraging the growth of the EV sector would be a road pricing system where non-EV cars pay higher fees.
This sort of policy would have the added bonus of incentivizing people into public transit and active transportation, which is ultimately better for the environment than buying an EV car.
"Also, giving tax breaks on luxury cars means shiftig wealth from the poor to the rich."
Not quite ...
If you taxed poor people to subsidize luxury cars (a regressive tax) then you would indeed shift wealth from the "poor" to the "rich".
However, if you tax rebate the "rich" to subsidize luxury cars you are instead shifting less wealth from rich to poor than you used to.
Maybe you should or should not do these things - I'm not going to debate that here - but I think that distinction is important and interesting ...
Not quite ...
If you taxed poor people to subsidize luxury cars (a regressive tax) then you would indeed shift wealth from the "poor" to the "rich".
However, if you tax rebate the "rich" to subsidize luxury cars you are instead shifting less wealth from rich to poor than you used to.
Maybe you should or should not do these things - I'm not going to debate that here - but I think that distinction is important and interesting ...
Not possible. The poor pay very little in taxes (the bottom 40% pay less than 5% of income taxes collected), and the rich pay most of them (the top 5% pay 55% of income taxes collected).
Yes, it puzzles me that my government sponsors people who fancy changing their car for an EV up to 10000 € (!) per EV (and considering the prices of EVs, they have to be rather wealthy to afford them even with the sponsoring), while cutting welfare for any stupid reason for people who have no other income (yearly welfare being around 5000-6000€...).
Giving away money worth 2 years of welfare to people who don't need money and just want to dump a car that still perfectly works sounds just crazy to me.
Giving away money worth 2 years of welfare to people who don't need money and just want to dump a car that still perfectly works sounds just crazy to me.
Yes, rolling back the tax discount on EVs should remove the last fragment of the fig leaf that those taxes have any environmental purpose whatsoever.
Cars in general are bad for the environment. The discount was about being quite a bit less bad, but EVs are still bad.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536854
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536854
That may be the case, but the Danish vehicle tax has not made a meaningful dent in neither car ownership nor usage.
If it's an import tax, it only applies to cars imported from outside the EU. I don't know if Denmark has any car factories, but there are plenty of affordable cars being produced in the EU.
I had a look, Denmark only have small boutique manufacturers eg: http://www.zenvoautomotive.com/en/specs/
It could have had a factory for a foreign brand, though if I had to guess, I would expect that they don't have one. Still, Denmark is an EU member, so imports of German cars should be free.
But as I understand, it's not really an import fee but a registration fee, which probably means you also have to pay it for domestically manufactured cars.
But as I understand, it's not really an import fee but a registration fee, which probably means you also have to pay it for domestically manufactured cars.
>it's not really an import fee but a registration fee
Indeed, it is payed even if you live in Denmark, go buy a car in Germany, drive it back to Denmark yourself, and want to use it there.
Indeed, it is payed even if you live in Denmark, go buy a car in Germany, drive it back to Denmark yourself, and want to use it there.
Its not an import tax, its a registration tax, for getting danish plates etc. We have a seperate sales tax/VAT/import tax of 25%. If you import a car from inside the EU, you will pay the same taxes.
Dane here as well. We own a Peugeot iOn which we bought for $15,000 a few years back. At the time it was about two years old but hadn't driven very far. The price and size is about the same that you'd pay for very low-end gasoline driven cars in Denmark. I don't regret buying it as it's very fun to drive. On the flip side, the range isn't that far, only about 60 miles, so it's nice for commuting and short trips, but we need our MPV as a fallback for longer trips.
Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make was that there are electrical cars in a lot of different price ranges these days. The old car manufacturers are trying to board the train as well, with varying commercial success. It's not all Tesla.
Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make was that there are electrical cars in a lot of different price ranges these days. The old car manufacturers are trying to board the train as well, with varying commercial success. It's not all Tesla.
That's why they are doing the Model 3.
The Model 3 is nowhere close to an affordable car for your average car buyer e.g. Corolla owners.
It's likely to be about 62,000$ here in Australia before any options or upgrades, so that's with no autopilot and the smallest battery. Still a luxury car, in fact, with some options expensive enough to trigger the Luxury Car Tax, which kicks in at $75,525.
When you can get a brand new Suzuki Swift for 15,000 you really have to ask yourself how much you care about electric.
It's likely to be about 62,000$ here in Australia before any options or upgrades, so that's with no autopilot and the smallest battery. Still a luxury car, in fact, with some options expensive enough to trigger the Luxury Car Tax, which kicks in at $75,525.
When you can get a brand new Suzuki Swift for 15,000 you really have to ask yourself how much you care about electric.
It's the charging that worries me. I live in a 45 year-old house with old wiring of 120V/60Hz only the stove is 240Hz. If I got an electric vehicle I'd like to put in a 240V outside plug but cost would be nuts. But even just charging such an EV over old wires is worrying. It may cost thirty thousand to get the house rewired.
Plus the liability of having a 240V outside plug may be against the building code. The weather here can really destroy anything outside.
As much as I like them the "care and feeding" and overall maintenance of an EV is way beyond my means or anyone else in my minimum wage blue collar town.
Plus the liability of having a 240V outside plug may be against the building code. The weather here can really destroy anything outside.
As much as I like them the "care and feeding" and overall maintenance of an EV is way beyond my means or anyone else in my minimum wage blue collar town.
> But even just charging such an EV over old wires is worrying. It may cost thirty thousand to get the house rewired.
Why would you rewire the house to run a 240V plug for your car? That's nuts. You'd add a dedicated 240 circuit. You're probably still looking at a a minimum of $1k and likely in the $3-5K range, especially if your panel needs to be updated/expanded, but there's no reason you'd need to rewire your whole house for this. As for the outdoor outlet, there are exterior rated outlets (and presumably exterior rated chargers). Code isn't the concern.
Why would you rewire the house to run a 240V plug for your car? That's nuts. You'd add a dedicated 240 circuit. You're probably still looking at a a minimum of $1k and likely in the $3-5K range, especially if your panel needs to be updated/expanded, but there's no reason you'd need to rewire your whole house for this. As for the outdoor outlet, there are exterior rated outlets (and presumably exterior rated chargers). Code isn't the concern.
Yep, you just run a fresh 240 line direct from your panel to your parking space, bypassing the aging interior wiring all-together. The plug is also not really an issue, as if you're fresh-running a line for this, you'd just hardwire a weather-resistant EVSE (like the ClipperCreek HCS-40) into that circuit, and you're golden.
Assuming you have a free breaker spot. ~50 year old circuit breaker is probably already tied up 100%.
It is full and old 100A I think. Like I say it's an old house early 1970s.
My reasoning is I may as well change the panel and house wiring while the electrician is there. It's a small house so really it would be more efficient to get it all done at once.
My other concern is the growing number of things using power. When the house was built TV, fridge, stove, washer, dryer, lights, furnace and water heater. Now there's Xbox consoles, big TVs, computers, cellphones charging, A/C units.
This is small town Canada too probably more expensive than the US unless I can get a good buddy electrician after hours deal.
My reasoning is I may as well change the panel and house wiring while the electrician is there. It's a small house so really it would be more efficient to get it all done at once.
My other concern is the growing number of things using power. When the house was built TV, fridge, stove, washer, dryer, lights, furnace and water heater. Now there's Xbox consoles, big TVs, computers, cellphones charging, A/C units.
This is small town Canada too probably more expensive than the US unless I can get a good buddy electrician after hours deal.
I hear you on changing it out. My house was built in 85, with 100A service, only about 20 circuits total. Going to put in a 200A box before I finish the basement and slowly re-allocate to separate circuits over time.
I haven't gotten bids yet to know for myself, but assuming you feel confident enough to do the wiring after the new box install, it shouldn't be outlandish price-wise, even in CA.
I'm only doing that because I don't want to mess with the live feed from the street, though I did watch some electricians replace my mains breaker. Their solution was being very careful with rubber gloves and rubber-handled-pliers, but I just don't think that's for me :).
I haven't gotten bids yet to know for myself, but assuming you feel confident enough to do the wiring after the new box install, it shouldn't be outlandish price-wise, even in CA.
I'm only doing that because I don't want to mess with the live feed from the street, though I did watch some electricians replace my mains breaker. Their solution was being very careful with rubber gloves and rubber-handled-pliers, but I just don't think that's for me :).
Probably $500 or so if you need a breakout panel installed. Unless you need a full panel replacement or a service upgrade, getting a spot for the breaker probably isn't prohibitively expensive.
The average price of a new car is $33,560. That's much more than a Corolla and not much less than a base Model 3.
plus the model 3, like all current EVs, is still highly limited it. It makes a great commuter car but any trip requiring a recharge will quickly show you the limitations of such. Have more than one recharge and you best have the time. Figure four hours at best on road and one off; superchargers require close to an hour to full charge and add in time to and from it based on where you are going.
When I mentioned "At best" EVs suffer disproportionately from the effects of cold weather, the colder the worse it gets and elevation changes aren't your friend either.
I am really curious what the average pricing will be on IIIs. I do remember Tesla talking about how you could get into a S for a little over 60 yet it always seemed people just talk about the 90k and up versions.
When I mentioned "At best" EVs suffer disproportionately from the effects of cold weather, the colder the worse it gets and elevation changes aren't your friend either.
I am really curious what the average pricing will be on IIIs. I do remember Tesla talking about how you could get into a S for a little over 60 yet it always seemed people just talk about the 90k and up versions.
Occasional long distance travel in a Tesla, using the superchargers, is a fine thing. A supercharger stop is generally 15-25 minutes, not an hour -- charging is fastest if you charge only enough to get to the next one. And they're conveniently placed on major travel routes.
So, basically, your complaints are all things that most Tesla owners don't complain about. Almost every discussion about electric cars features a subthread with the same back and forth about these same topics. No sign of any learning.
Ah well.
So, basically, your complaints are all things that most Tesla owners don't complain about. Almost every discussion about electric cars features a subthread with the same back and forth about these same topics. No sign of any learning.
Ah well.
This argument is a no-go here in Canada, where distance between reasonably large cities can easily range in the few hundreds kilometers.
Assuming that by "few hundred" you mean more than 400 km, sure, many countries have long trips in sparsely populated areas that aren't going to work for electric cars. That comes up in most electric car threads, too.
Tesla and other EV car companies successfully sell cars in Canada, so apparently it's not all Canadians: http://www.fleetcarma.com/ev-sales-canada-2016-final/ In fact the market share of EVs in Canada is similar to the US.
Tesla and other EV car companies successfully sell cars in Canada, so apparently it's not all Canadians: http://www.fleetcarma.com/ev-sales-canada-2016-final/ In fact the market share of EVs in Canada is similar to the US.
Of course, most of Canadian population lives in cities. Also, people who have the means to buy a Tesla have also the mean to have a second ICE car, thus making this a non-problem. However, commuters who have to live outside of the cities won't have that option. Heck, their apartment complex aren't even wired.
Yes, that's also a traditional comment in every EV-related Hacker News discussion.
I'd be surprised if Canada was that different than the US: some apartment complexes will install chargers because it will eventually be an important amenity (that's why I have chargers at my apartment complex), some communities will start requiring them for new construction (Palo Alto does this already), you'll find chargers installed for on-street parking (already happening various places), and eventually the government will probably mandate installing chargers in all larger parking lots (probably when EVs are a lot more popular than today.)
Another place you might charge is at work. Facebook has ~ 170 chargers at their headquarters, last I looked. They're ahead of the curve, but you'll find that more and more over time.
I'd be surprised if Canada was that different than the US: some apartment complexes will install chargers because it will eventually be an important amenity (that's why I have chargers at my apartment complex), some communities will start requiring them for new construction (Palo Alto does this already), you'll find chargers installed for on-street parking (already happening various places), and eventually the government will probably mandate installing chargers in all larger parking lots (probably when EVs are a lot more popular than today.)
Another place you might charge is at work. Facebook has ~ 170 chargers at their headquarters, last I looked. They're ahead of the curve, but you'll find that more and more over time.
probably gonna be another recurrent comment, but Facebook and Palo Alto are hardly a generalization of a trend, more of an exception actually.
By all means, if you want to be skeptical about these examples, go right ahead! You might be able to find similar Canadian examples if you looked, who knows.
The Supercharge network also won't be free to use with the Model 3.
It has 215 miles(346 km) range. For a long distance trip I would plan a 30 min break after every ~ 300 km of driving.
Why? That's just a hour and a half to two hours of highway driving.
Bladder. Sore/stiff muscles. Eye fatigue. People certainly love their 6+ hour non-stop drives enough to keep doing them, but my human body likes to stand up, stretch, maybe relieve itself every couple of hours.
Yeah, I didn't mean to drive for 6 hours straight, but at least 3 is the norm.
My experience is that the normal reality is that your first stop is after about 2.5 hours, because you leave with a 100% charge from home, then you stop about every 1.5-2 hours, depending on supercharger placement and destination. That worked out pretty well for the 6.5 hour drive that I did most recently, with two stops one way (up into the mountains), and one returning (downhill helped with range). I think it would be more impactful on 10+ hour drives, but still within the realm of reasonable. If you are someone who does 10 hour drives regularly, then EVs aren't for you.
We should be talking about range, not hours of driving. I'm regularly driving 600km/day, but on a highway, in 160-250 km/h range (my car says that average speed of my last trip to Berlin was 218 km/h). I can't go 3 hours at this speed because I would run the battery dry, and stopping for charging prolongs the trip by at least 2 to 3 hours. Time is money, and I'd rather spend this time with my family or working, not waiting to charge.
I know that EVs aren't for me, that's actually what I'm trying to show. Some people have the feeling that charging is just a little inconvenience and everyone should buy one. For someone like me, charging doubles the trip.
I know that EVs aren't for me, that's actually what I'm trying to show. Some people have the feeling that charging is just a little inconvenience and everyone should buy one. For someone like me, charging doubles the trip.
You are certainly an outlier in the discussion.
There are range extended EV options (the Volt/Ampera, for instance) to at least use battery for part of the trip.
It certainly doesn't have to be all or nothing right now. You are enough of an outlier you might never be satisfied, but that shouldn't stop you from trying for a middle ground.
There are range extended EV options (the Volt/Ampera, for instance) to at least use battery for part of the trip.
It certainly doesn't have to be all or nothing right now. You are enough of an outlier you might never be satisfied, but that shouldn't stop you from trying for a middle ground.
There are people that wish to tax conventional vehicles relentlessly. I feel the need to mention my case in the discussion because while I'm most certainly an outlier there (and in the general population), I know there's still a lot of us, and that the tax has the potential to ruin life of these people.
Me personally, I have an EV Smart that I use in my home city. I love electric vehicles, but there are use cases when they just can't be used.
Me personally, I have an EV Smart that I use in my home city. I love electric vehicles, but there are use cases when they just can't be used.
Model 3 is $35,000 before incentives.
https://www.tesla.com/model3
https://www.tesla.com/model3
Right. Now add the 180% taxation: $98,000. Not THAT far off the 110k you're replying to.
Where is that 180% taxation on EVs? In Denmark?
Yes, as per the article
Oh wow. So, to get the figure after tax, you're multiplying by 2.8, not by 1.8? That's even worse than I imagined. I suppose that when we talk about a 6% registration tax in my state, that's unambiguously multiplying the end cost by 1.06, or 106% - but I'd assumed that they were inflating the figure by using the multiplier directly. That's astonishing!
Still, doesn't this also apply to the cheaper cars? You're getting a Pugeot 208 for not $20k but $56k. While the difference between sticker price and post-tax price is smaller in proportion with the cost of the cars - $63k vs $36k - that's still $56k... for a Pugeot.
Still, doesn't this also apply to the cheaper cars? You're getting a Pugeot 208 for not $20k but $56k. While the difference between sticker price and post-tax price is smaller in proportion with the cost of the cars - $63k vs $36k - that's still $56k... for a Pugeot.
There are a number of EVs available in the $20-40k price range. A majority of them in fact. In the US we have the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Bolt. In Europe the two have a number of other options available as well. The Renault Zoe is like a more affordable Leaf. I'm not sure what the VW eGolf clocks in at over there but it's probably in the neighborhood.
So yeah, just because the Model S is a luxury car, don't make the mistake of assuming all other EVs are too.
Here in the US if you can find a used Nissan Leaf you can get a really good deal.
So yeah, just because the Model S is a luxury car, don't make the mistake of assuming all other EVs are too.
Here in the US if you can find a used Nissan Leaf you can get a really good deal.
The Leaf is $40 - 45.000 in Denmark, so that's within range of most I would think, it's just that you can get bigger/better cars for the price. The Bolt isn't available in Denmark, it's under the Opel brand here and Opel won't sell it in Denmark because they priorities countries with an "ambitious policy".
> $40 - 45.000 in Denmark, so that's within range of most I would think
Wikipedia says $42K is the mean after-tax annual income in Denmark. Median will be a bit lower. So maybe not as many Danes are in that market as you think.
Wikipedia says $42K is the mean after-tax annual income in Denmark. Median will be a bit lower. So maybe not as many Danes are in that market as you think.
If it makes you feel any better, the Bolt was designed here in Michigan and won't be on sale here until later this year because they're targeting California and other markets first.
GM has opened up orders nationwide with delivery dates starting in August.
https://electrek.co/2017/06/09/gm-chevy-bolt-orders-nationwi...
https://electrek.co/2017/06/09/gm-chevy-bolt-orders-nationwi...
> I'm not sure what the VW eGolf clocks in at over there
Ca. 35 000 EUR in Germany (which means less in the rest of the world, for whatever reason).
Ca. 35 000 EUR in Germany (which means less in the rest of the world, for whatever reason).
I'm not sure what the VW eGolf clocks in at over there but it's probably in the neighborhood.
In Sweden the eGolf is about SEK 400k ($45k) compared to about SEK 220k ($25k) for the Zoe.
In Sweden the eGolf is about SEK 400k ($45k) compared to about SEK 220k ($25k) for the Zoe.
But Denmark is special, cars are taxed insanely high [0]. For cheap cars (~11.000 EUR) its double the price, for more expensive cars its 150% now and used to be 180%.
[0] https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with-denmark...
[0] https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with-denmark...
There's Nissan Leaf
Which in March 2018 will go 200 miles on a single charge
Unfortunately a garbage car in every sense. Tiny range around half that of a Model 3 - at 172km I can't drive to the airport and back without charing - no supercharging equivalent, ugly, no autopilot or equivalent, tiny, and cheaper than a Tesla Model 3 but not by much.
Oh and it's been withdrawn from sale entirely in Australia.
Oh and it's been withdrawn from sale entirely in Australia.
"No supercharging equivalent". Wow, so I have been charging my car, for free, in 20 minutes, using the powers of my imagination.
Ugly is relative, so I'll concede the point.
Tiny? I've transported a chest freezer on mine. If anything, it has more cargo space than a Nissan Rogue, which is supposed to be an SUV.
Your right that autopilot doesn't exist. You know what else doesn't exist? The Model 3.
Ugly is relative, so I'll concede the point.
Tiny? I've transported a chest freezer on mine. If anything, it has more cargo space than a Nissan Rogue, which is supposed to be an SUV.
Your right that autopilot doesn't exist. You know what else doesn't exist? The Model 3.
It has an important advantage over the Telsa Model 3, if you need to go anywhere anytime soon.
What's that? Like I said, it's been withdrawn from sale entirely in my country and they imply it's never coming back. At least the Model 3 is confirmed to be available next year if you preordered.
The Leaf exists, and it existed for years. Since its existed for years, we pretty much know exactly what we're gonna get.
In contrast, as of today, the Model 3 doesn't even exist.
Personally speaking, I don't buy the first model of any car anyway. If I were seriously considering the Model 3, I wouldn't plan on buying it till 2019 at the earliest. That would give Tesla enough time to work out the issues that the first batch of cars will inevitably have.
No car company has ever launched a new model line without issues. The issues may be major, or minor (like doors or windows not closing properly... rattles and that sort of thing). Inevitably, the first year or two are basically a public beta-test. For what basically amounts to a dozens-of-thousands of dollars investment, I want to make sure the car manufacturing company gets it right.
In contrast, as of today, the Model 3 doesn't even exist.
Personally speaking, I don't buy the first model of any car anyway. If I were seriously considering the Model 3, I wouldn't plan on buying it till 2019 at the earliest. That would give Tesla enough time to work out the issues that the first batch of cars will inevitably have.
No car company has ever launched a new model line without issues. The issues may be major, or minor (like doors or windows not closing properly... rattles and that sort of thing). Inevitably, the first year or two are basically a public beta-test. For what basically amounts to a dozens-of-thousands of dollars investment, I want to make sure the car manufacturing company gets it right.
You can buy a used Leaf in Australia no problem. Better get-there functionality than an unreleased car.
https://www.carsales.com.au/car/nissan/leaf/
https://www.carsales.com.au/car/nissan/leaf/
So it isn't a fit for you, but I know folks who really like theirs and crow about not having to visit a superfund site (gas station) ever.
Using words like "garbage" when it simply doesn't appeal to you - that's not exactly adding to the S/N ratio here.
Using words like "garbage" when it simply doesn't appeal to you - that's not exactly adding to the S/N ratio here.
Have you driven one? It's a great city car that also performs well on freeways.
No it isn't. One of the most important traits a car can have for highway driving in the US is quick acceleration for safe onramping and lane changes. I drove a friend's Leaf for about a week back in January, and I can comfortably say it performed worse in this regard than my previous car, a 2004 Honda Civic, which only had 117 hp.
My experience has been very positive with the Leaf. Acceleration is more than adequate by my standards, and I generally have 65-70% remaining after my 28 mile commute. I wouldn't want it to be my only car, but it does its job well, and for a very low price.
The Leaf has modest acceleration, but 0-60 in 10 seconds is far from dangerous. Your Civic will do that sprint in just over 9 seconds with a manual; it's typical to add a second or two to the times of automatic cars of that era.
Not sure which model you drove, but with eco mode off, the Leaf's acceleration is nothing short of impressive.
I bought a used Leaf with 19k miles for $8500; so I can buy 8 of those for a current Tesla. The larger charge port is 50 kW.
The stats are a bit misleading. Of course the sales for Jan 2017 will be low if it was known beforehand that Q4 2016 would be the last moment that electric cars were not fully taxed. Everyone who was planning to purchase an electric car would make sure to buy it in Q4 2016 and not in Q1 2017.
This doesn't tell much about the future of electric cars sales in Denmark; after a while the sales will recover again and only then we will know if they have dropped comparing to the earlier numbers or not.
This doesn't tell much about the future of electric cars sales in Denmark; after a while the sales will recover again and only then we will know if they have dropped comparing to the earlier numbers or not.
I can confirm. I work with some Danes, one of whom bought a Tesla under this regime. There was a mad scramble to purchase Teslas before Q1 2017, which also shifts the numbers even more as people who weren't planning to buy before 2017 were incentivized to do so.
Not only that - judging from used car websites in Denmark around the time, quite a few people seemed to have bought Teslas with expectation that they could sell them at a higher price after the tax increase. If I remember correctly it was initially rumored that the tax increase would not have been gradual.
Right? Plus it looks like there's a seasonal increase towards the end of the year- should probably be compared against ice cars.
In one form or another, this is something electric car companies need to build into their expectations.
Petrol taxes (exempt by default), sales taxes, road taxes & such add up to a sizeable tax revenue source. In many places they are linked to road/transport budgets. The tax breaks that electrics have been getting were implemented when the segment was so small that it didn't matter. Once electrics reach double-digit market share, they are probably unsustainable. They will probably need to find a replacement for petrol tax too.
Rebranding these as "externality taxes" is well & good, but it doesn't change the fact that government departments need the revenue, externalites or not. Countries can easily afford to "subsidize" electric to get from 0.4% adoption to 4%, but 40% is almost out of the question.
Then there's the regressive tax problem. Yuppies in Copenhagen will be driving tax free Tesla 3s while single mothers pay thousands to drive a Peugeot 206. Many countries implement new-car promoting policies (eg emission tax) of all sorts which are regressive. I doubt this will kill subsidies in itself, but combined with budget holes...
TLDR - Tax breaks are for infant industries. Tesla is launching a mass market car. This is no longer an infant industry.
Petrol taxes (exempt by default), sales taxes, road taxes & such add up to a sizeable tax revenue source. In many places they are linked to road/transport budgets. The tax breaks that electrics have been getting were implemented when the segment was so small that it didn't matter. Once electrics reach double-digit market share, they are probably unsustainable. They will probably need to find a replacement for petrol tax too.
Rebranding these as "externality taxes" is well & good, but it doesn't change the fact that government departments need the revenue, externalites or not. Countries can easily afford to "subsidize" electric to get from 0.4% adoption to 4%, but 40% is almost out of the question.
Then there's the regressive tax problem. Yuppies in Copenhagen will be driving tax free Tesla 3s while single mothers pay thousands to drive a Peugeot 206. Many countries implement new-car promoting policies (eg emission tax) of all sorts which are regressive. I doubt this will kill subsidies in itself, but combined with budget holes...
TLDR - Tax breaks are for infant industries. Tesla is launching a mass market car. This is no longer an infant industry.
> Tax breaks are for infant industries.
I wish someone could tell that to agriculture or aviation or steel
I wish someone could tell that to agriculture or aviation or steel
> Rebranding these as "externality taxes" is well & good, but it doesn't change the fact that government departments need the revenue, externalites or not.
Well not every country charges 180% import taxes like Denmark but this comes with externalities as well.
Cars are so expensive that many people can't afford them (sales were 13x higher without the import tax that's a significant amount of cars not being purchased):
a) meaning poor people can't commute to work, limiting employment options to what is accessible by public transit or cycling
b) consumers are limited to shopping and domestic tourism accessible by transit/cycling
c) businesses that depend on delivery and shipping, or basic car travel, will have lower margins and less growth/employment
d) lower economic output means more dependency on gov social safety nets
e) Car companies can only sell a few already expensive electric cars, reducing economies of scale and R&D investment, further increasing the cost of electric cars and slowing their tech development
f) A big reduction in the surrounding support industries, fuel/electricity, car wash, gas stations, mechanics, car parts, etc
...but yes gov does need money, but the costs of doing so must be fully considered. Including measuring the ROI of various government agencies which this reduced economic output and greater dependency on social services are traded for.
Well not every country charges 180% import taxes like Denmark but this comes with externalities as well.
Cars are so expensive that many people can't afford them (sales were 13x higher without the import tax that's a significant amount of cars not being purchased):
a) meaning poor people can't commute to work, limiting employment options to what is accessible by public transit or cycling
b) consumers are limited to shopping and domestic tourism accessible by transit/cycling
c) businesses that depend on delivery and shipping, or basic car travel, will have lower margins and less growth/employment
d) lower economic output means more dependency on gov social safety nets
e) Car companies can only sell a few already expensive electric cars, reducing economies of scale and R&D investment, further increasing the cost of electric cars and slowing their tech development
f) A big reduction in the surrounding support industries, fuel/electricity, car wash, gas stations, mechanics, car parts, etc
...but yes gov does need money, but the costs of doing so must be fully considered. Including measuring the ROI of various government agencies which this reduced economic output and greater dependency on social services are traded for.
[deleted]
> Once electrics reach double-digit market share, they are probably unsustainable. They will probably need to find a replacement for petrol tax too.
I agree. What form would such a tax take? You could tax tires, which is stupid because it encourages people to buy less safe long-life tires, or you could roll it into property tax, or a VAT, or grocery tax, etc. Even a part of a sales tax could make sense, since logistics for the supplier is included in the cost of the product anyway. Logistical infrastructure tax makes sense.
What is best practice here?
I agree. What form would such a tax take? You could tax tires, which is stupid because it encourages people to buy less safe long-life tires, or you could roll it into property tax, or a VAT, or grocery tax, etc. Even a part of a sales tax could make sense, since logistics for the supplier is included in the cost of the product anyway. Logistical infrastructure tax makes sense.
What is best practice here?
Registration tax.
That tax could shift to a registration fee. In order for the EV to be licensed for road use, an annual registration fee could be applied, or increased if it already exists. Whether it is a flat fee or some other cost structure, it could be a suitable tax replacement.
Well…. the drop-in replacement for petrol tax would really be a per-km tax. Not the easiest to implement, but not impossible either.
I would think it would be a kWh tax...since actual mileage for an EV would vary based on local geography/traffic/weather etc in a similar fashion to MPG for ICE.
I live in Denmark. I still see a rapidly growing number of electric cars on the streets. It is just smaller, less expensive electrical cars that take over (Renault Zoe, WV e-UP, Nissan Leaf). I would venture to guess that Danes don't want to spend more than X kroner on a new car. And the Tesla price point broke that limit when the tax discount was removed.
Pronouncing the electric car uncompetitive over this is an exaggeration.
Pronouncing the electric car uncompetitive over this is an exaggeration.
The article doesn't say it lacks competition.
The decline in growth is entirely the result of the huge import tax:
> electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
This article is only looking at growth rates, not total sales by cost or by market position, so it wouldn't be a useful comparative metric anyway.
If anything, what it indicates is that they'd sell 10x more cars (both electric/gas) if it wasn't for the tax.
- 2600 sold in 2015 w/ 0% import tax
- 200 sold in 2016 w/ 180% import tax
The decline in growth is entirely the result of the huge import tax:
> electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
This article is only looking at growth rates, not total sales by cost or by market position, so it wouldn't be a useful comparative metric anyway.
If anything, what it indicates is that they'd sell 10x more cars (both electric/gas) if it wasn't for the tax.
- 2600 sold in 2015 w/ 0% import tax
- 200 sold in 2016 w/ 180% import tax
One thing that is worth mentioning: Denmark is one of the very few countries (two if I'm not mistaken) that takes cycling seriously. They also have good public transport compared to many other countries.
If your goal is to reduce car traffic overall then not subsidizing EV is more understandable.
If your goal is to reduce car traffic overall then not subsidizing EV is more understandable.
I've lived in Finland for a few months and indeed, the cycling infrastructure wasn't what I'm used to as Dutchman. You're either on the sidewalk or in the middle of traffic, both of which are undesirable. Most of the year it doesn't freeze so a bike is perfectly usable. Not as if people work out of the city anyway, a train goes like twice a day. And within the city where I was, it's perfectly doable from one end to the other twice a day.
Bikes work fine in icy weather if you put on studded tires. I like the Nokian Hakkapeliitta W106, coincidentally (?) made in Finland.
> Denmark is one of the very few countries (two if I'm not mistaken) that takes cycling seriously
Considering the cars have a 180% import tax, a big percentage of the population couldn't afford a car even if they wanted to. So I'd hope they take it seriously.
> They also have good public transport compared to many other countries.
Given that this portion wouldn't have a way to get around without it, this seems like an absolute necessity which isn't necessarily the case in other cities. Poor people need to get to work somehow and reach shopping centers and family/friends outside of walking/biking distance.
That said I'm fully in support buses/trains and biking. I bike everywhere and live in a city but still own a cheap car, which I still get a great amount of value out of and find indispensable. It is also important for my partners work who occasionally needs to drive to surrounding areas.
Considering the cars have a 180% import tax, a big percentage of the population couldn't afford a car even if they wanted to. So I'd hope they take it seriously.
> They also have good public transport compared to many other countries.
Given that this portion wouldn't have a way to get around without it, this seems like an absolute necessity which isn't necessarily the case in other cities. Poor people need to get to work somehow and reach shopping centers and family/friends outside of walking/biking distance.
That said I'm fully in support buses/trains and biking. I bike everywhere and live in a city but still own a cheap car, which I still get a great amount of value out of and find indispensable. It is also important for my partners work who occasionally needs to drive to surrounding areas.
I'm a dane and I never owned a car while I lived in Denmark. HOWEVER, there is a tendency to forget that not everyone lives in high density cities (where public transport is decent). In more suburban area, public transport is hopeless. You _have_ to have a car. Thus people drive, but they drive old cars. The 180% tax doesn't hurt people equally.
Here in Michigan our Republican government has instituted a regressive increase on EV license plate registration/renewal fees. The excuse is that EV owners don't pay the tax on fuel that petrol car owners do, but we still put wear on the road and therefore must pay the price. It's a load of crap though. Michigan's famously bad roads are not due to the very few EVs driving on them. It's semi trucks which are permitted to weigh far beyond what the road was engineered to handle. (Michigan has effectively no regulation of truck weight so the trucking companies overload their hauls and destroy our roads.)
We need electric self driving busses or similar, capable of moving large amounts of people frequently without the parking and other traffic related stress.
Electric busses self driving or not would not do you good in places where public transportation does not exist currently.
Busses with drivers electric or not are easy to implement and we have them today, but many places still lack good (or even acceptable) public transportation links for many reasons including lack of investment, high car ownership rates or as far as cities lack of urban planning, especially for older cities that were not had to be rebuilt after WW2.
Driverless busses would not really make a difference for any and many more root causes. They will reduce the cost of operating already existing bus networks with good traversability and optimized bus routes, they would not however magically help you to setup public transport where there has been none, in fact it might be more expensive to go driverless from the get go.
Busses with drivers electric or not are easy to implement and we have them today, but many places still lack good (or even acceptable) public transportation links for many reasons including lack of investment, high car ownership rates or as far as cities lack of urban planning, especially for older cities that were not had to be rebuilt after WW2.
Driverless busses would not really make a difference for any and many more root causes. They will reduce the cost of operating already existing bus networks with good traversability and optimized bus routes, they would not however magically help you to setup public transport where there has been none, in fact it might be more expensive to go driverless from the get go.
This only holds if you think driverless buses are simply a standard scheduled bus service with no human driver. But I can already imagine on-demand or dynamic bus dispatch/routing that could be an order of magnitude improvement in mass transit service level to some communities.
That isn't a bus, that is car hire.
Busses and other public transport work well because you have a route which makes it predictable people know when and where they can get onto a bus, and where they can get off and how long the ride will take.
There is no point of using 50+ people bus as an Uber.
A small car service would be better for that, it's also the reason why taxis do not use larger vehicles unless you book a special ride upfront.
Even with ride sharing it's often more efficient to have point to point transport when you are not using a route, or at best have only 1-2 stops on the way; in such case a bus is unnecessarily wasteful.
But yet again this isn't anything that cannot be done now without a driverless bus, you have GPS nothing stops public transport companies from implementing dynamic routes now the driver isn't the problem.
Most bus lines do have "dynamic" dispatching already BTW, peak hours tend to have more busses on a given route than off-peak hours, what you are suggesting is to have dynamic routes, which is basically Uber.
A small car service would be better for that, it's also the reason why taxis do not use larger vehicles unless you book a special ride upfront.
Even with ride sharing it's often more efficient to have point to point transport when you are not using a route, or at best have only 1-2 stops on the way; in such case a bus is unnecessarily wasteful.
But yet again this isn't anything that cannot be done now without a driverless bus, you have GPS nothing stops public transport companies from implementing dynamic routes now the driver isn't the problem.
Most bus lines do have "dynamic" dispatching already BTW, peak hours tend to have more busses on a given route than off-peak hours, what you are suggesting is to have dynamic routes, which is basically Uber.
If you put 20 people on that "car", it's a bus.
Small buses can adjust their route to get you reasonably quick point to point transport while still being collective transportation. I do agree that is something that could be done today, if only governments let people do it. No need for self driving buses.
Small buses can adjust their route to get you reasonably quick point to point transport while still being collective transportation. I do agree that is something that could be done today, if only governments let people do it. No need for self driving buses.
There are plenty of places that allow for small (van sized) private bus/shuttles to operate, they however do not seem want to go that route and usually either shadow existing bus route or have their own routes where buses do not usually go (and usually a mix of both).
The problem is that when you turn busses into cars for hire you end up in a situation where you'll get a lot of people pissed all the time.
Ride sharing with even 5 people that are not bound to the same destination is a nightmare.
Think about what happen when you have a bus with 18 people that is diverted because someone called it and then cancels it?
How do you plan stops? Uber can stop nearly anywhere a bus usually needs bus stop not just to not block traffic but because people need to be able to safely get on and off the bus which is much harder to do than with a car as a bus blocks the view much more than a smaller sedan.
Sorry; I'll buy a Tesla that works for Uber while you are at work all day long, I will not buy ridesharing with on-demand hailing and bespoke routes and destinations with 20 people on board.
The best thing you can do get working is a fixed route without fixed stops, and this works today it's called hop-on-hop-off busses and it works in many places including London.
The problem is that when you turn busses into cars for hire you end up in a situation where you'll get a lot of people pissed all the time.
Ride sharing with even 5 people that are not bound to the same destination is a nightmare.
Think about what happen when you have a bus with 18 people that is diverted because someone called it and then cancels it?
How do you plan stops? Uber can stop nearly anywhere a bus usually needs bus stop not just to not block traffic but because people need to be able to safely get on and off the bus which is much harder to do than with a car as a bus blocks the view much more than a smaller sedan.
Sorry; I'll buy a Tesla that works for Uber while you are at work all day long, I will not buy ridesharing with on-demand hailing and bespoke routes and destinations with 20 people on board.
The best thing you can do get working is a fixed route without fixed stops, and this works today it's called hop-on-hop-off busses and it works in many places including London.
This really sounds like a galloping case of "I can't imagine how it can work, so it can't work".
No that is we have models that work and models that do not.
Sure. Neither are bounded sets.
> Busses and other public transport work well because you have a route which makes it predictable people know when and where they can get onto a bus, and where they can get off and how long the ride will take
This is exactly the issue I'm referring to: the assumption that to be sufficiently usable, the route and frequency has to be pre-ordained, and that this is a necessary condition for acceptable mass transit.
That's the antithesis of on-demand.
> nothing stops public transport companies from implementing dynamic routes
Plenty of factors restrain an incumbent from innovating. Internally, their established processes, values, technology. Externally, the regulatory environment, existing infrastructure, market structure. Sounds like a ripe candidate for disruption to me.
This is exactly the issue I'm referring to: the assumption that to be sufficiently usable, the route and frequency has to be pre-ordained, and that this is a necessary condition for acceptable mass transit.
That's the antithesis of on-demand.
> nothing stops public transport companies from implementing dynamic routes
Plenty of factors restrain an incumbent from innovating. Internally, their established processes, values, technology. Externally, the regulatory environment, existing infrastructure, market structure. Sounds like a ripe candidate for disruption to me.
I wonder what the cost breakdown is between driver salaries and buying/maintaining the actual buses for bus routes today. I suspect that just getting rid of drivers won't save huge amount money, especially since driver-less buses will no doubt cost a lot more than 'normal' buses.
I'm not so sure about this, I figure bus drivers probably make.. 40? 50? thousand a year. I'd imagine bus maintenance is smaller than that.
In union environments the make a LOT more. They probably cost organizations on the order of $150,000 each.
Lol.
Currently the average bus driver in a union-negotiated contract in Germany makes 29'000 EUR a year. Pre-Tax. Post tax, 21'000 EUR are left.
Overall, a transit company pays around 45'000 EUR a year for a bus driver. Unionized.
Currently the average bus driver in a union-negotiated contract in Germany makes 29'000 EUR a year. Pre-Tax. Post tax, 21'000 EUR are left.
Overall, a transit company pays around 45'000 EUR a year for a bus driver. Unionized.
Not in the US. D.C. Drivers routinely make six figures after you account for all the ways they game the overtime rules.
The driver is the main cost. Per bus you need multiple drivers to keep it running 16-20 hours per day, every day.
I would like to see the costs of the drivers vs the insurance and yearly settlement costs for the company.
Based on the numbers from the TFL for example while the drivers do cost they don't make up the bulk of the workforce.
Well go look it up and report back here.
Tfl is a bad example of a bus transit agency, because it really isn't one.
Tfl is a bad example of a bus transit agency, because it really isn't one.
I would reserve judgment then, because I could not find information that proves your initial assertion.
It seems that the only information which is available is from large nearly national public transportation providers like the TFL, HK Transport Department etc. TFL is a bus transit agency, its one of the largest bus operators in the world.
Looking at other companies like Arriva and NationalExpress which are large private bus operators again the drivers do not seem to be the bulk of their operating costs.
It seems that the only information which is available is from large nearly national public transportation providers like the TFL, HK Transport Department etc. TFL is a bus transit agency, its one of the largest bus operators in the world.
Looking at other companies like Arriva and NationalExpress which are large private bus operators again the drivers do not seem to be the bulk of their operating costs.
"Driver labor, and related time-based costs, are the dominant element – often 70% or more — of transit operating budgets in the developed world. The only exception is a fully automated driverless service, such as Vancouver’s SkyTrain."
- Transit Expert Jarret Walker http://humantransit.org/2011/07/02box.html
(I know making comments about downvotes is boring, but I always get downvoted a lot on HN on transit/urbanism issues, people here don't have much of a clue...)
- Transit Expert Jarret Walker http://humantransit.org/2011/07/02box.html
(I know making comments about downvotes is boring, but I always get downvoted a lot on HN on transit/urbanism issues, people here don't have much of a clue...)
That was a pretty useful breakdown, but I really wish he'd included some real world numbers.
I would also like to see those numbers since the various 'Statement of Accounts' we have from large public transportation agencies like the TFL show a different picture, even with nearly 30,000 bus drivers their salaries and related costs don't make up anywhere near 70% of the TFL bus operating budget.
If you run a very small public transport agency with only a handful of buses it might be the case.
If you run a very small public transport agency with only a handful of buses it might be the case.
...Like, you guys just want to create yourself an echo-chamber in which you can believe that EVs will magically solve all the negative externalities of driving.
On top of that, it allows for 9-seater minibuses with flexible, custom routes that largely replace cars.
How about driverless taxi-cabs then? You could call them driverless rentals.
That's Uber+, the sad truth is that with current economic model most of these "ride sharing" apps use the driver isn't that expensive.
Uber et. al are going for for the driverless because they know that the current exploitative model which ignores nearly every regulation isn't sustainable.
Uber et. al are going for for the driverless because they know that the current exploitative model which ignores nearly every regulation isn't sustainable.
Don't harsh their mellow, HN thinks driverless vehicles are going to "solve" mass transit. As if the driver were the biggest problem.
You under-estimate the power of public unions. There will never be any driverless public bus, even if it mean that the "driver" has nothing to do.
Taxing the purchase of a car seems non-sensical to me. It is not, so much, the ownership that is the problem, but the use of the car that creates congestion and health issues.
Tax fuel and bring in road pricing.
Tax fuel and bring in road pricing.
Taxing vehicle use is a great idea, but vehicle ownership also has negative externalities which means it is appropriate to tax buying or owning a car including:
- Polution created by making a car.
- Cost of parking, especially in cities:
- Polution created by making a car.
- Cost of parking, especially in cities:
- parking takes up space, making it harder to walk between things
- street parking is untidy / ugly
- street parking obstructs traffic, bike lanes and bus lanes
- the need for large parking lots drives up the cost of building, which is passed on to drivers and non-drivers alike
> - Polution created by making a car.
No different from making any other object - you might as well tax e.g. TVs if that's the rationale.
> - Cost of parking, especially in cities:
Agreed, but better solved by disallowing street parking and taxing land ownership. Again, tax the parts that introduce the negative externalities as directly as possible, otherwise you create perverse incentives.
No different from making any other object - you might as well tax e.g. TVs if that's the rationale.
> - Cost of parking, especially in cities:
Agreed, but better solved by disallowing street parking and taxing land ownership. Again, tax the parts that introduce the negative externalities as directly as possible, otherwise you create perverse incentives.
Agreed RE parking, but RE taxing TV - well, I'd say sure, tax it too. The more I think of it, the more it seems to me that a general CO₂ emission tax would help solve so many problems in the current world...
Most people who think about it and are not politicians seem to think that a carbon tax or a cap and trade system would be a very good tool to prevent global warming from getting even worse.
This is actually a significant problem in the UK. You could create a much better environment for pedestrians and cyclists if city streets weren't clogged with parked cars all the time.
Danish streets do seem to be much clearer, even in areas that have similar road conditions and population density to UK cities.
Danish streets do seem to be much clearer, even in areas that have similar road conditions and population density to UK cities.
I think the UK suffers from lack of 'cost for parking on public roads'. One proposal is to bring in a Location Specific Public Highways Parking Permit with discounts for residents without off-road parking as needed. Commuters could also purchase these permits at inflated prices.
Some cities in the UK already have that with "residents parking" - you prove to the local authority that you live in the area and you get to park in dedicated parking spaces that aren't available to non-residents.
And in Edinburgh when I lived there you had to pay for the permit, IF you could even get one because all the permits were taken up by the people who lived there already. Edinburgh has a lot of tenement housing (long rows of flats built before the car existed as a consumer good) so there isn't 1 space per domicile. It is common to drive around for 10 - 15 mins looking for a space.
Yeah - I was talking about Edinburgh where I lived in the centre for 30+ years. In some areas where there are only buildings on one side of the road the density of residents parking is actually fine - though I appreciate that most areas aren't like this.
They have these in Bath, where I live, but the issue is that they 'zone' an area and then shift the problem out of that zone into neighboring zones. Also residents parking usually only applies a restriction Mon-Sat 8:00-18:00.
I think we need to be more radical and apply zones across the whole of the city and apply restrictions 24/7. Discounts for a zone would apply if resident, no off road parking, and city car (no diesel/small).
Commuters would only be allowed permits if city car. Nottingham also brought in Workplace parking permits.
Cities have the infrastructure in place (good public transport combined with park and ride) to encourage people to leave their cars at the edge of cities. Residents within cities should not be driving to work within the city. Neither should parents be dropping kids off by car.
Naturally there are always people that need cars. Even Copenhagen cannot get below 9% car usage despite 62% of people cycling.
I think we need to be more radical and apply zones across the whole of the city and apply restrictions 24/7. Discounts for a zone would apply if resident, no off road parking, and city car (no diesel/small).
Commuters would only be allowed permits if city car. Nottingham also brought in Workplace parking permits.
Cities have the infrastructure in place (good public transport combined with park and ride) to encourage people to leave their cars at the edge of cities. Residents within cities should not be driving to work within the city. Neither should parents be dropping kids off by car.
Naturally there are always people that need cars. Even Copenhagen cannot get below 9% car usage despite 62% of people cycling.
> Pollution created by making a car
And yet, the tax is not specifically on the pollution. You could argue that this might be difficult to do in practice, but in any case such a pollution tax ought to also apply to other products like computers and TV's, which it doesn't.
The problem with a flat tax, is that it doesn't discourage anything other than buying a nice car. In general, an expensive car is not worse for the environment (including parking etc), than a cheap car. A large, bulky car might be that, but that's not what we're taxing here.
And yet, the tax is not specifically on the pollution. You could argue that this might be difficult to do in practice, but in any case such a pollution tax ought to also apply to other products like computers and TV's, which it doesn't.
The problem with a flat tax, is that it doesn't discourage anything other than buying a nice car. In general, an expensive car is not worse for the environment (including parking etc), than a cheap car. A large, bulky car might be that, but that's not what we're taxing here.
You can't selectively tax certain goods without creating a market failure.
E.g. if the purchase of cars isn't taxed I'll just import €10,000 of audio equipment by buying an old beater, then ripping out and selling the sound system and selling the car for scrap, while making a big profit because I'll be competing with local sellers that have to pay import tax on sound systems.
E.g. if the purchase of cars isn't taxed I'll just import €10,000 of audio equipment by buying an old beater, then ripping out and selling the sound system and selling the car for scrap, while making a big profit because I'll be competing with local sellers that have to pay import tax on sound systems.
This happens with cargo vans in the US, which are imported as passenger vans before being converted, to avoid a 25% tarrif on the import of cargo vans.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-...
However I'd challenge that this is a market failure - this is an example of the failure of a rules-based approach to regulation.
In countries which take a principles-based approach to regulation then the substance of the transation is considered as well as the form.
So this kind of nit-picking to circumnavigate the rules wouldn't have been allowed.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-...
However I'd challenge that this is a market failure - this is an example of the failure of a rules-based approach to regulation.
In countries which take a principles-based approach to regulation then the substance of the transation is considered as well as the form.
So this kind of nit-picking to circumnavigate the rules wouldn't have been allowed.
What would you call it then? Market failures can also be created by ineffective regulation, as is the case in my example.
Considering the substance of the transaction isn't a viable strategy, it might be possible at larger scales as in your Ford example, but individuals can and will find clever ways around tariffs that are impossible for the authorities to keep up with.
As an example, I lived in a European country where import tolls on bicycles were much higher than the import fees on spare parts, so if the price of shipping was low enough you could simply ask the seller to send over a bike in multiple packages marked as spare parts to evade the import fees.
How are you going to detect cases like that with perfect accuracy? You'd need some massive tracking system to figure out who bought what, and even then it could be trivially evaded by me and a friend buying 1/2 of two bikes each as spare parts and combining them after they've been imported.
Considering the substance of the transaction isn't a viable strategy, it might be possible at larger scales as in your Ford example, but individuals can and will find clever ways around tariffs that are impossible for the authorities to keep up with.
As an example, I lived in a European country where import tolls on bicycles were much higher than the import fees on spare parts, so if the price of shipping was low enough you could simply ask the seller to send over a bike in multiple packages marked as spare parts to evade the import fees.
How are you going to detect cases like that with perfect accuracy? You'd need some massive tracking system to figure out who bought what, and even then it could be trivially evaded by me and a friend buying 1/2 of two bikes each as spare parts and combining them after they've been imported.
Audio equipment is not taxed at 100%.
It doesn't need to be. Let's say it's taxed at 25%, then €10,000 of equipment costs €12,500 after the import fees, if I install that €10,000 of equipment in a shitty €1,000 car I've effectively got a €1,500 discount on the equipment and a free car to sell for scrap.
That's fraud, because that car would then be worth €11000 and should be taxed as such.
You think nobody tried to undervalue taxed imports yet? Probably a fraud as old as mercantilism.
You think nobody tried to undervalue taxed imports yet? Probably a fraud as old as mercantilism.
No, it's not fraud. Yes the car is now worth €11000, but it's not taxed on its ticket price, it's taxed on what it is. It's a car, and a car includes seats, a car stereo (albeit now a very expensive one), an engine etc.
Nobody's trying to undervalue the car as costing €1,000 with a €10,000 stereo, that would be fraud.
The point is that by introducing differences in what sort of taxes you have to pay for certain products you trivially open yourself up to legal tax evasion in the form of simply bundling higher cost items as part of products in lower tax categories.
Perhaps a better example: Let's say you have a 200% tax on cylindrical metal tubes, but a 10% tax on bicycles. A lot of people would now legally import bicycle frames, cut them apart, and evade the import fees without the authorities being able to do anything about it. There's nothing illegal about buying a bicycle frame, and there's nothing illegal about cutting apart your bicycle and re-using it for parts.
Nobody's trying to undervalue the car as costing €1,000 with a €10,000 stereo, that would be fraud.
The point is that by introducing differences in what sort of taxes you have to pay for certain products you trivially open yourself up to legal tax evasion in the form of simply bundling higher cost items as part of products in lower tax categories.
Perhaps a better example: Let's say you have a 200% tax on cylindrical metal tubes, but a 10% tax on bicycles. A lot of people would now legally import bicycle frames, cut them apart, and evade the import fees without the authorities being able to do anything about it. There's nothing illegal about buying a bicycle frame, and there's nothing illegal about cutting apart your bicycle and re-using it for parts.
Ah, I see where the confusion comes from. You mean when the audio equipment is taxed higher than the car.
I think OP did not mean "put 0 tax on cars" but rather remove the extra 100% tax on cars, so it's just taxed like any other product - i.e. just the same as tax on audio equipment. Then it would not matter.
I think OP did not mean "put 0 tax on cars" but rather remove the extra 100% tax on cars, so it's just taxed like any other product - i.e. just the same as tax on audio equipment. Then it would not matter.
In Europe there are no import taxes between member states though. I live in Lithuania and it's quite common for people to drive to Poland for larger purchases (e.g. kitchen appliances) where they are a lot cheaper. If you buy as a business you pay 0% VAT in the country of origin.
That's why regulators need to be smarter.
These taxes are from a time when cars were a status symbol; they're (most would say 'they were', but that I disagree with - nominally, yes, but I'm talking about popular support for the underlying sentiment) not so much a tax to stimulate environmentally responsible behavior as they are a tax to 'punish' ostentatious displays of wealth. It's the same as the 'BPM' tax here in the Netherlands. It's, at its core, a "protestant austerity" thing.
If the BPM isn't a tax to stimulate environmentally responsible behavior why is it a direct function of CO^2 emissions, with no tax payable on zero-emission vehicles, no matter how mch they cost or how much of a display of wealth the are?
1. https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontenten/...
1. https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontenten/...
Yes, that's what it is now nominally (especially now that it's directly related to CO2 emissions). But what I meant was - these taxes existed in a time when nobody cared about that. The BPM was even called a 'luxury tax'. It's a way to tax 'excessive' consumption, which is how cars were (are?) seen.
The justification, on the surface, has changed nowadays. My point was, though, that the relatively wide spread acceptance of this sort of tax is not because everybody is so environmentally conscious; it's because it's a function of the cultural instinct to 'punish' those who flaunt wealth. Or if you don't want to call it 'punishment', at least to make those who want to drive luxury cars pay more on top of the taxes they need to pay that also apply to other goods (i.e., VAT). I mean, if those taxes were to make those driving cars pay for the building of roads and to counter emissions, you'd charge a flat fee, or a per-kilometer fee. You wouldn't tax them proportional to the list price of the car. A 250k Lamborghini doesn't wear out roads more than a Kia, but it costs several times the purchase price of the Kia just in taxes.
So my remark was that, despite today's bend of environmentalism, these taxes need to be seen in the context of the broader societal mores of egalitarianism; or 'suppression of those that show wealth in socially not accepted ways', depending on how you want to spin it.
The justification, on the surface, has changed nowadays. My point was, though, that the relatively wide spread acceptance of this sort of tax is not because everybody is so environmentally conscious; it's because it's a function of the cultural instinct to 'punish' those who flaunt wealth. Or if you don't want to call it 'punishment', at least to make those who want to drive luxury cars pay more on top of the taxes they need to pay that also apply to other goods (i.e., VAT). I mean, if those taxes were to make those driving cars pay for the building of roads and to counter emissions, you'd charge a flat fee, or a per-kilometer fee. You wouldn't tax them proportional to the list price of the car. A 250k Lamborghini doesn't wear out roads more than a Kia, but it costs several times the purchase price of the Kia just in taxes.
So my remark was that, despite today's bend of environmentalism, these taxes need to be seen in the context of the broader societal mores of egalitarianism; or 'suppression of those that show wealth in socially not accepted ways', depending on how you want to spin it.
Reading over the Wikipedia article[1] it seems that you're historically at least somewhat correct, since this tax used to be directly based on the price of the car, but since 2007 it's been partially and then in 2010 entirely based on CO^2 emissions.
There are other tolls & fees for owning a car in The Netherlands. I don't own a car, but from what I've read taken as a whole the tax policy here has nothing to do with "luxury", you're free to buy a million Euro gold-plated scooter.
It's meant to discourage excessively heavy vehicles and those who pollute more. Any sort of a flat fee that doesn't take into account the weight / size of the vehicle doesn't account for the disproportional cost to infrastructure incurred by larger & more polluting vehicles.
1. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belasting_van_personenauto%27s...
There are other tolls & fees for owning a car in The Netherlands. I don't own a car, but from what I've read taken as a whole the tax policy here has nothing to do with "luxury", you're free to buy a million Euro gold-plated scooter.
It's meant to discourage excessively heavy vehicles and those who pollute more. Any sort of a flat fee that doesn't take into account the weight / size of the vehicle doesn't account for the disproportional cost to infrastructure incurred by larger & more polluting vehicles.
1. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belasting_van_personenauto%27s...
"you're free to buy a million Euro gold-plated scooter."
Sure, and if you keep yourself warm at night by burning e50 bills, you won't be taxed extra, either. My point is not (or only partially) about the current tax, or how it's justified. My point is that the societal context in which these taxes were instated are a key point to understanding why things are the way they are. And the pertinent part of that context is Calvinistic austerity, which is ingrained in Dutch collective psyche. I know that there is significant cognitive dissonance among a large part of the Dutch population when someone claims that religion has shaped their world view in some way, especially among those that consider themselves 'atheistic liberals', but it's silly to deny it - there are tomes and tomes written about this in social science literature. I mean fuck - my wife gets almost angry when I claim that her world view is shaped in part by the society she grew up in, and therefore by religion, as much of Dutch society is influenced by Christianity one way or another. But objectively speaking, how can this point be denied?
Anyway, when the BPM was reformed a decade ago, the objective was to keep it 'fiscally neutral', meaning that the amount levied in total needed to stay (roughly) the same as it was before. So current rates are a direct consequence of the way it used to be. In Belgian law (where a similar thing happened in 2012 or 2013 I think) it's even more explicit; there a (what I think is a) regression formula is part of the law that determined the new calculation for the 'road tax' as it is called there. Tweaking the parameters in that formula until projected revenue matched historical revenue was essentially how those rates were determined. In such a case, how can one claim that it's really about environmental concerns? Of course the direction (towards 'polluter pays') is there; but again, my main point (but I'll agree that I'm probably burying it between all the tangents...) is that the real answer to the GP is: to understand the why of these taxes, you have to understand the society it operates in.
Sure, and if you keep yourself warm at night by burning e50 bills, you won't be taxed extra, either. My point is not (or only partially) about the current tax, or how it's justified. My point is that the societal context in which these taxes were instated are a key point to understanding why things are the way they are. And the pertinent part of that context is Calvinistic austerity, which is ingrained in Dutch collective psyche. I know that there is significant cognitive dissonance among a large part of the Dutch population when someone claims that religion has shaped their world view in some way, especially among those that consider themselves 'atheistic liberals', but it's silly to deny it - there are tomes and tomes written about this in social science literature. I mean fuck - my wife gets almost angry when I claim that her world view is shaped in part by the society she grew up in, and therefore by religion, as much of Dutch society is influenced by Christianity one way or another. But objectively speaking, how can this point be denied?
Anyway, when the BPM was reformed a decade ago, the objective was to keep it 'fiscally neutral', meaning that the amount levied in total needed to stay (roughly) the same as it was before. So current rates are a direct consequence of the way it used to be. In Belgian law (where a similar thing happened in 2012 or 2013 I think) it's even more explicit; there a (what I think is a) regression formula is part of the law that determined the new calculation for the 'road tax' as it is called there. Tweaking the parameters in that formula until projected revenue matched historical revenue was essentially how those rates were determined. In such a case, how can one claim that it's really about environmental concerns? Of course the direction (towards 'polluter pays') is there; but again, my main point (but I'll agree that I'm probably burying it between all the tangents...) is that the real answer to the GP is: to understand the why of these taxes, you have to understand the society it operates in.
That's very informative. Thanks, just to be clear I honestly meant my initial post as a question, not as a snarky rhetorical remark.
It's really interesting to know about the history behind something like an obscure tax, and how something like the EP directive to tax carbon emissions gets implemented as adjusting an existing tax with its own historical baggage at a level where it's exactly matching the revenue, but now ostensibly for a different purpose.
Unless the law changes though the tax will de-facto be phased out in the coming years/decades as zero-carbon vehicles get adopted, I wonder if that's something the people who made the change back in 2007/2010 explicitly had in mind or if it's an unintended emergent phenomena. It'll be interesting to see if the tax is allowed to go away or if there'll be another reform to tax luxury vehicles or something like that.
It's really interesting to know about the history behind something like an obscure tax, and how something like the EP directive to tax carbon emissions gets implemented as adjusting an existing tax with its own historical baggage at a level where it's exactly matching the revenue, but now ostensibly for a different purpose.
Unless the law changes though the tax will de-facto be phased out in the coming years/decades as zero-carbon vehicles get adopted, I wonder if that's something the people who made the change back in 2007/2010 explicitly had in mind or if it's an unintended emergent phenomena. It'll be interesting to see if the tax is allowed to go away or if there'll be another reform to tax luxury vehicles or something like that.
Denmark are taxing fuel and requires you to pay "vægtafgift" (weight-tax, based on how much your vehicle weighs) and "grøn ejerafgift" (green owner tax, how efficient your car is per liter of gasoline) to be allowed to drive on the roads.
For anyone interested, here is the govt. calculator in English (almost) for cost of import into Norway: https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/cars-and-other-vehicle...
Vægtafgift is not a thing anymore, there is only ejerafgift now.
More than half of the price of gas in Denmark is taxes.
Same in Germany, in 2014 it was 59%.
In 25 of 28 EU states fuel was even more expensive than in Germany.
The main harm from cars are co2 emissions, and electric car emissions are weighted to manufacturing and raw materials. So it makes sense to tax their purchase.
> Tax fuel
That accounts for fossil fuel cars but not electric ones.
> bring in road pricing
A fine idea except it's logistically difficult to implement tolls everywhere.
That accounts for fossil fuel cars but not electric ones.
> bring in road pricing
A fine idea except it's logistically difficult to implement tolls everywhere.
Well cars have odometers don't they, tax based on that.
Then you just create a different problem, or in case of Denmark, contribute to an existing one. You're going to make the poor worse of. Taxing on kilometers driven is unfairly hard towards those who cannot afford to live close to their place of employment.
To the wealthy it won't matter much if you tax the purchase of the car or the kilometers driven. Those making below the average salary are normally excluded from living in the center of the cities, and is in some cases even forced outside the bus routes. Also Danish public transit is notoriously bad outside the four largest cities.
To the wealthy it won't matter much if you tax the purchase of the car or the kilometers driven. Those making below the average salary are normally excluded from living in the center of the cities, and is in some cases even forced outside the bus routes. Also Danish public transit is notoriously bad outside the four largest cities.
> Then you just create a different problem, or in case of Denmark, contribute to an existing one. You're going to make the poor worse of. Taxing on kilometers driven is unfairly hard towards those who cannot afford to live close to their place of employment.
So is there a use for car taxes at all? We could always just tax the rich directly, if we don't care about tying the tax amount to road usage.
So is there a use for car taxes at all? We could always just tax the rich directly, if we don't care about tying the tax amount to road usage.
How is it any worse than the current tax on gas, though?
I don't know how it in in Denmark, but wealthy people often live in nice houses in the suburbs and commute by car. Here in Berlin at least that is the case. The fuel taxes are offset by tax deductions for commuter miles though.
With the way house prices are going, Amsterdam is rapidly turning into a city for rich people. There's a lot of rent-controlled housing, but waiting lists are more than 8 years on average. It's mostly the outskirts that are affordable, but not the center or the good neighbourhoods surrounding the center.
Well that true in Denmark as well, but both the city centers and the suburbs are pretty expensive, so risk getting pushed past those, and then you start getting into areas where public transport is basically non-existing.
People do drive abroad you know. If I do most(or any percentage) of my miles abroad why would I pay tax on those miles where the car is registered? Meantime, I buy the fuel in those other countries, paying tax there.
No idea how to solve that for electric vehicles. Presumably still at the point of charging.
No idea how to solve that for electric vehicles. Presumably still at the point of charging.
The consensus is around some sort of road pricing either through ANPR cameras or telematic boxes.
Fuel duty revenue in the UK is £28billion. That's a big hole to fill.
Fuel duty revenue in the UK is £28billion. That's a big hole to fill.
At the moment driving electric cars is so cheap because we buy electricity at domestic prices. It's as if we were buying utility oil(red diesel) for cars - then it would be stupidly cheap, no? There's a good reason it has been made illegal and you can't use heating oil for your car even though technically it would work just as well.
I suspect that eventually you will be able to charge your electric car only from an approved charger that bills you a higher-rate car tariff, just like you can only use fuel sold at a petrol station in your car.
As for the telematics - excuse me saying so, but the UK government can fuck off with suggesting even more surveillance, it's hard to fight off insurers installing telematics boxes as it is already.
I suspect that eventually you will be able to charge your electric car only from an approved charger that bills you a higher-rate car tariff, just like you can only use fuel sold at a petrol station in your car.
As for the telematics - excuse me saying so, but the UK government can fuck off with suggesting even more surveillance, it's hard to fight off insurers installing telematics boxes as it is already.
I get the concern about surveillence. But I can see some amazing benefits of treating cars and the road as a single connected system. You could hold vehicles at the journey start point until space on the road opens up. Or adjust speed limits in real time depending on conditions. And maybe even remove traffic calming by modifying user speeds. The free-for-all we have now is hopelessly disfunctional and drivers suffer from that.
Absolutely, and I agree with this sci-fi idea of an interconnected system which has only safety of everyone as a goal and everyone is better off for it. If that's possible, I'm happy to have it implemented tomorrow.
But right now as it stands currently, telematics boxes are nothing else but a greedy attempt to get more cash out of drivers - they collect proprietary data, ran through secret algorithms, to secretly decide whether your insurance should go up or not. Try getting a letter from your insurer telling you that your insurance will go up due to your "driving style" and then ask if they can explain what they mean by that. They can't. "the computer said so" is an absolutely fantastic excuse for these companies to make more money and I'm extremely cynical about it, even if we ignore the entire surveillance aspect for a second. The whole idea needs a lot more regulation/openness to be acceptable.
But right now as it stands currently, telematics boxes are nothing else but a greedy attempt to get more cash out of drivers - they collect proprietary data, ran through secret algorithms, to secretly decide whether your insurance should go up or not. Try getting a letter from your insurer telling you that your insurance will go up due to your "driving style" and then ask if they can explain what they mean by that. They can't. "the computer said so" is an absolutely fantastic excuse for these companies to make more money and I'm extremely cynical about it, even if we ignore the entire surveillance aspect for a second. The whole idea needs a lot more regulation/openness to be acceptable.
Are you suggesting the Danish should be taxed for travelling they might well have done in Sweden?
If the car was registered in Sweden they'd be paying tax there. If the per-mile tax is similar and there are a similar number of Danes driving in Sweden and Swedes driving in Denmark it evens out.
"The Danes" or "the Danish citizen".
"Danish" is an adjective or a cake.
"Danish" is an adjective or a cake.
I suspect, requiring all cars to have a telematic device is the answer here. Insurance companies are already using these and the behaviour of individuals drastically improves when one is installed.
This has an advantage in enabling provision of a device at country borders etc.
Another option is to develop a cheap Automatic Number Plate Camera and create a network of cameras across our road systems.
Both approaches not only allow road pricing strategies, but also address speeding.
This may be a bit big brother for some but this is pretty much the way I see us heading.
This has an advantage in enabling provision of a device at country borders etc.
Another option is to develop a cheap Automatic Number Plate Camera and create a network of cameras across our road systems.
Both approaches not only allow road pricing strategies, but also address speeding.
This may be a bit big brother for some but this is pretty much the way I see us heading.
a complete big brother
The future is going to be dreadful isn't it.
The future is going to be dreadful isn't it.
Blame the drivers. If most drivers weren't showing utter disregard to traffic laws pretty much all the time, there wouldn't be a dire need for ALPRs to curb speeding.
And if speed limits were set to what people really drive you would see a huge drop off in speeding! People ignore things that are increasingly obviously stupid. Any time a large majority of drivers are ignoring the rules it's an engineering problem, not a driver problem.
> People ignore things that are increasingly obviously stupid.
Except that if you look at it from a little higher vantage point than driver seat, it seems obvious that it's those people who are stupid.
Except that if you look at it from a little higher vantage point than driver seat, it seems obvious that it's those people who are stupid.
I basically agree, the problem is that we tend to say, "we want to make this road safe by making it tolerant of faster driving" which basically translates to encouraging faster driving because drivers base their speed on what feels appropriate.
Singapore is working on a GPS-based congestion charge http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/satellite-base...
Here in Portugal we have highways with automatic tolls using a small transponder. It is quite common.
You don't need the transponder; multiple of our highways already read the plates. Then if you don't check for outstanding payments, they'll send you a letter charging it plus and administrative fee - often higher than the toll itself!
It's literally highway robbery :|
It's literally highway robbery :|
Do that in a rental car and the fee doubles again. Cost me $25 to cross a minor bridge to save 2min in the middle of the night.
Well electricity is so heavily taxed in Denmark the price for electricity is multiplied multiple times over.
The actual cost like 90% of the price is taxes if I remember correctly.
So taxes for electric cars "Fuel" have already been accounted for.
Edit: grammar is hard
The actual cost like 90% of the price is taxes if I remember correctly.
So taxes for electric cars "Fuel" have already been accounted for.
Edit: grammar is hard
It's about 70%. If you only count the electricity specific taxes, it's around 50%.
Fresh numbers from todays elpris.dk - øre = Danish cents (yes, they are called ears).
Cost of production: 26,05 øre/kWh Transmission: 35,19 øre/kWh Taxes: 105,40 øre/kWh VAT (25,00 pct.) 41,66 øre/kWh
In total: 208,31 øre/kWh
Fresh numbers from todays elpris.dk - øre = Danish cents (yes, they are called ears).
Cost of production: 26,05 øre/kWh Transmission: 35,19 øre/kWh Taxes: 105,40 øre/kWh VAT (25,00 pct.) 41,66 øre/kWh
In total: 208,31 øre/kWh
A lot of European countries have vignette stickers (often only for buses/HGVs), which are needed to travel on highways. The sticker attaches to the inside of the windscreen. The only infrastructure/logistics needed is to sell the stickers to fuel stations, and a few signs when entering the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_(road_tax)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_(road_tax)
The EU plans to introduce a common system for road charges in a couple of years:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/road-charging/news/fifteen-...
https://www.euractiv.com/section/road-charging/news/fifteen-...
180% import tax?! I'm not sure how that's possible. Are they sure it's not 18%? Cars are an international market, aren't they? Aren't they bound by rules from the WTO and the EU?
With that kind of import tax, I can imagine people can only afford to buy EU-manufactured cars. I hope Tesla hurries up with that European factory.
With that kind of import tax, I can imagine people can only afford to buy EU-manufactured cars. I hope Tesla hurries up with that European factory.
Taxes are high in Denmark, but this isn't _import_ tax, which seems to be something that is getting a lot of attention in the US at the moment. It applies to _all_ cars, but electric used to be exempt.
The tax is for "registration" when you purchase a car, and I think its primary (official) purpose is to limit the use of cars and pollution, as well as being aligned with the Scandinavian socialistic mind set -- If you can afford a luxury item such as an expensive car, you are also likely to be able to contribute more to society.
Obviously, people buy cheaper and smaller cars than in the US, so owning 1-2 cars is still quite common despite the high tax rate if you live outside the city centers and need a car.
Some countries have very high taxes on cars -- I think Singapore's is just as high if not worse.
The tax is for "registration" when you purchase a car, and I think its primary (official) purpose is to limit the use of cars and pollution, as well as being aligned with the Scandinavian socialistic mind set -- If you can afford a luxury item such as an expensive car, you are also likely to be able to contribute more to society.
Obviously, people buy cheaper and smaller cars than in the US, so owning 1-2 cars is still quite common despite the high tax rate if you live outside the city centers and need a car.
Some countries have very high taxes on cars -- I think Singapore's is just as high if not worse.
A note regarding the "Scandinavian socialistic mind set"; Sweden doesn't have a tax like that and buying a car there is taxed comparably to Germany (with a car price at ~ -2% compared to the EU average).
Sweden is huge and very sparsely populated, though. I can imagine reducing car use would severely limit people's mobility.
It's also noteworthy that Sweden has two major car brands: Volvo and Saab (does Saab still exist?). That's quite a lot for a country of 10 million people.
It's also noteworthy that Sweden has two major car brands: Volvo and Saab (does Saab still exist?). That's quite a lot for a country of 10 million people.
I believe the 180% used to be the highest band of a registration tax (now 150%) that has nothing to do with imports. Apart from that there is a much lower import duty for cars from outside the EU (10%?), which has to be in agreement with WTO rules (and other trade agreements).
So basically if the government of the country doesn't pay a huge part of the car (in cash or in tax deduction, or both depending of the country), the so called electric vehicle boom is not really happening.
It's sad. But expected.
It's sad. But expected.
Price really matters.
[1] https://www.marketplace.org/2016/01/08/world/georgia-ev-sale...
The car company that is going to win the most market share in the next 10 years is the one with the best self-driving system.
I don't know a lot of details about the technology, but Tesla seems to understand this, so this article seems to be about a small bump in the electronic car market in one smallish country.
I just can't see how people don't just share cars once the auto-pilot is developed enough to drive itself, right?
I don't know a lot of details about the technology, but Tesla seems to understand this, so this article seems to be about a small bump in the electronic car market in one smallish country.
I just can't see how people don't just share cars once the auto-pilot is developed enough to drive itself, right?
Denmark has the most expensive electricity in Europe.
Before someone jumps to conclusions: after taxes.
Tax and VAT is around 70% of the price paid per kWh for ordinary consumers.
Tax and VAT is around 70% of the price paid per kWh for ordinary consumers.
If any HN users are interested in car prices in Norway this is where you can see prices for new, used and leasing. This is the go-to (essentially only) marketplace for cars here : https://www.finn.no/car/used/search.html?filters=
Slightly off-topic, but is the name "finn" for the Norwegian site intentional?
It's the same word as "find", but yeah, a bit funny.
A nuclear-powered truck with a RBMK-type (think Davy Crockett) reactor (with the right economics of scale) might be so cheap to make, it would be more competitive than a gas-powered truck over its entire lifespan. But it wouldn't be environmental. Can't I make the same argument regarding gas/diesel cars?
Why would it not be environmental?
Each RTC would be a nuclear disaster ;)
Disposing of nuclear waste is not trivial.
Would be nice to have this productized and then miniaturized to fit under an engine cover: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...
The bomb? I can't figure out what joke you're making here. "the same argument" as what argument?
RBMK just like Chernobyl.
We won't really know this for a few years. The phasing out of the tax break was announced well ahead of time, so most people just made sure to buy one before it kicked in.
When Model 3 has been out for a year and people have gotten used to the new price points we can revisit the question.
When Model 3 has been out for a year and people have gotten used to the new price points we can revisit the question.
I am skeptical that a 180% tax on fuel-powered cars is good policy, however I can see the point given that Denmark is extremely concerned about the environment.
That said, I think that the same bracket on electric cars is a truly draconian measure.
That said, I think that the same bracket on electric cars is a truly draconian measure.
Cars cause other problems beside pollution (not that electric cars are pollution free). An over reliance on cars leads to sprawl, sprawl reduces quality of life. Accidents costs lives.
An over reliance on cars leads to sprawl, sprawl reduces quality of life
It must be so nice to have the wisdom needed to prescribe everyone else's lifestyle.
It must be so nice to have the wisdom needed to prescribe everyone else's lifestyle.
I'm not an expert on sprawl and QoL, but I'm pretty sure sprawl makes it harder to design effective public transportation (among other things). Likewise, the unavailability of effective public transit places a heavy reliance on personal transportation (i.e. cars), and by and large means long commutes in said car. Long daily commutes in a car don't sound very desirable, and probably do negatively impact QoL.
I would definitely prefer a longer commute coming from my single family home with a yard over being forced to use public transport and live in an apartment, and it's a preference shared by a large percentage of people.
The preference has been distorted by propaganda and coercive redistribution of wealth. https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/why-sprawl-was-cause...
Sure, I would like my own single family home, as long as I have access to all the other people and activities that make life worthwhile. Even better, I would like to have a castle in the wilderness, permitting no entrance without permission, with a teleporter so I can instantly commute to civilization.
In the real world, we balance the things that we desire with what we need and what we can pay. Would you want to live in a single-family home if you had to pay what it really costs? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidd...
In California, some of us recognize that castles are sprawl that destroys the wilderness. http://www.sfhac.org
Sure, I would like my own single family home, as long as I have access to all the other people and activities that make life worthwhile. Even better, I would like to have a castle in the wilderness, permitting no entrance without permission, with a teleporter so I can instantly commute to civilization.
In the real world, we balance the things that we desire with what we need and what we can pay. Would you want to live in a single-family home if you had to pay what it really costs? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidd...
In California, some of us recognize that castles are sprawl that destroys the wilderness. http://www.sfhac.org
The implied argument here is that suburban living is subsided by others, while urban living is not. This simply not true.
Just as one example, the light rail lines in my metro does not even make enough in fares to cover operating expenses (which is actually a stated goal of out MetroTransit authority), much less their initial construction or ongoing maintenance costs.
Just as one example, the light rail lines in my metro does not even make enough in fares to cover operating expenses (which is actually a stated goal of out MetroTransit authority), much less their initial construction or ongoing maintenance costs.
Both are subsidized by unlimited debt financing. The difference is that car-free cities are physically possible to do without subsidy, mainly having a corruption problem, while suburbs as we know them are not.
In particular, mass transit works if the average number passengers per mile is pretty high. The most obvious way to do that is to have a lot of homes and destinations close to each other, so the cars have a lot of passenger trips per vehicle trip. And then to take care of crowding, they can have higher frequency service and longer hours, which make mass transit more attractive, allowing more people to take transit instead of cars. Transit and housing are interconnected.
If you start from a sprawled, low-density city, then light rail doesn't work economically.
In particular, mass transit works if the average number passengers per mile is pretty high. The most obvious way to do that is to have a lot of homes and destinations close to each other, so the cars have a lot of passenger trips per vehicle trip. And then to take care of crowding, they can have higher frequency service and longer hours, which make mass transit more attractive, allowing more people to take transit instead of cars. Transit and housing are interconnected.
If you start from a sprawled, low-density city, then light rail doesn't work economically.
If you start from a sprawled, low-density city, then light rail doesn't work economically.
Bummer.
Bummer.
Nope, they put it into a very dense area. And again, their stated goal is to keep the amount of fares collected lower than their operating costs.
Ah, your previous statement was unclear. I thought that 100% farebox recovery was a goal, but it is not.
Again, corruption covered by unlimited debt financing. It’s like the US has the worst version imaginable of all sorts of common things. Of course the LRT is not going to make back its costs if it’s not even designed to make back its costs. The best it can do is to be more efficient at getting people to their destinations than spending that amount on roads and parking garages.
Passenger rail used to be a profitable privately financed business, but they all went bankrupt because car infrastructure was massively subsidized, surface rail was missing its schedules due to congestion from cars, and operators were forbidden by law from charging enough to cover their expenses. Now, the existing public transit systems are subsidized by the government, with a few profitable routes that require a lot of unprofitable routes to make them viable; and a farebox recovery ratio of 35% is considered pretty high.
Also, I have learned not to trust Americans when they use words like “very dense.” Looking at ZipAtlas.com, the densest zip code in the Minneapolis-St Paul area has a bit less than 16,000 people per square mile. I think of San Francisco as being not very dense, and it averages over 18,000 people per square mile; over 53,000 in the densest zip code.
Again, corruption covered by unlimited debt financing. It’s like the US has the worst version imaginable of all sorts of common things. Of course the LRT is not going to make back its costs if it’s not even designed to make back its costs. The best it can do is to be more efficient at getting people to their destinations than spending that amount on roads and parking garages.
Passenger rail used to be a profitable privately financed business, but they all went bankrupt because car infrastructure was massively subsidized, surface rail was missing its schedules due to congestion from cars, and operators were forbidden by law from charging enough to cover their expenses. Now, the existing public transit systems are subsidized by the government, with a few profitable routes that require a lot of unprofitable routes to make them viable; and a farebox recovery ratio of 35% is considered pretty high.
Also, I have learned not to trust Americans when they use words like “very dense.” Looking at ZipAtlas.com, the densest zip code in the Minneapolis-St Paul area has a bit less than 16,000 people per square mile. I think of San Francisco as being not very dense, and it averages over 18,000 people per square mile; over 53,000 in the densest zip code.
...probably do negatively impact QoL.
With all due respect, there are about 5,999,999,998 people on Earth who didn't ask you or the grandparent poster.
With all due respect, there are about 5,999,999,998 people on Earth who didn't ask you or the grandparent poster.
Luckily, using the power of statistics we can get results using only a small number of people that are nevertheless valid for the whole population with reasonably high probability. There have been some studies regarding commuting time and well-being, for example [1], that show that longer commutes impact well-being negatively. Sprawl tends to increase commute times.
[1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt...
[1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt...
What is this "commuting" you speak of? I have to agree, it doesn't sound very pleasant.
Should people only voice their opinion after the people of the world have had a vote on whether they're interested in it? Because I don't remember voting on your opinion either.
Make you a deal: you can live in the type of community you want, and I will live in the type I want, and we won't try to block eachother's pursuit of happiness.
Then we don't need to conduct a poll to determine what lifestyle everyone else is going to be forced into.
Then we don't need to conduct a poll to determine what lifestyle everyone else is going to be forced into.
I'm not seeing opinions being voiced in this thread. I'm seeing them stated as objective facts.
You're entitled to your opinions, and maybe you're even entitled to your own facts in this remarkable age in which we find ourselves living. But either way, when you presume to speak for others, you should expect to be called out for it. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing
You're entitled to your opinions, and maybe you're even entitled to your own facts in this remarkable age in which we find ourselves living. But either way, when you presume to speak for others, you should expect to be called out for it. "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing
> "Quality of life" is a pretty subjective thing
It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean you can't know anything about it. You can research subjective things by asking people how they feel about their quality of life. How happy they are. It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work.
It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean you can't know anything about it. You can research subjective things by asking people how they feel about their quality of life. How happy they are. It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work.
It turns out that in general, people with long commutes in areas dominated by cars are less happy than people who bicycle to work.
Hmm. Maybe you're right. That sounds entirely free from the possible influence of any additional factors.
Hmm. Maybe you're right. That sounds entirely free from the possible influence of any additional factors.
When pedestrians start killing drivers at the rate drivers kill pedestrians, your comment will make more sense.
I hope you don't expect to bring the rest of the world on board with your thinking. You've got a lot of work ahead of you, if so.
I don't, because I'm a cynical pessimist, but that doesn't counter my point.
Also, the world isn't my problem, just my neighborhood, and there we're making a lot of progress.
Also, the world isn't my problem, just my neighborhood, and there we're making a lot of progress.
Every law does that. And sprawl does have negative consequences on others, it's not a simple sin tax.
Is there clear evidence that this reasoning justifies such a ginormous tax rate?
It looks to me a lot about the story that if you run, you'll sweat. If you sweat, you'll take a cold. If you take a cold, you'll sneeze. If you sneeze, you'll catch pneumonia. And if you catch pneumonia you'll die. So don't run.
It looks to me a lot about the story that if you run, you'll sweat. If you sweat, you'll take a cold. If you take a cold, you'll sneeze. If you sneeze, you'll catch pneumonia. And if you catch pneumonia you'll die. So don't run.
There's a lot of evidence on how bad sprawls are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_density
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2011/06/fun-with-urban-trans...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_density
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2011/06/fun-with-urban-trans...
The 180% is a good way to get people in the direction you want. The danger is that it's a huge income which the state cannot afford to lose. Because the state will still have to buy the roads for electric cars.
I think most western states are struggling with how to transcend from living off income and environmental taxes to living off something else though, as automation and green tech frees us from former burdens.
I think most western states are struggling with how to transcend from living off income and environmental taxes to living off something else though, as automation and green tech frees us from former burdens.
High tax rates on cars weren't set because of the environment, it's a relic of post WW2 austerity when cars and other luxury items were excessively taxed and in many places they still are.
Well, this tells us the price point electric cars have to hit to be viable.
We need electric busses, not cars.
The Electric cars aren't selling because only a few people can afford spending $110.000 car, more than a house in some parts of the country. Even when the subsidy was in place most of the buyers were relatively wealthy people.
You can question the Danish taxation of cars if you want, but what's killing Tesla and others is the high price. The best selling car in Denmark in 2016 was the Peugeot 208 at $20.000. If electric cars are to take of they need to hit the $20.000 - $40.000 price range.
Tesla is a luxury which sold well among the well of segment of the population, when they were given a discount on the taxes, by the government.