As we move to electric cars, a tax on vehicle miles travelled is inevitable. But why not make it a vehicle pound-miles travelled tax, where the mileage rate is adjusted by the weight of the car. Since heavier cars, and especially trucks, wear down the roads faster, it would be fairer.
I suspect the reason why is because the proponents of a mileage tax are often the same people who want to discourage car usage and feel drivers don't pay their "fair share", and sticking drivers with a big bill for driving would be a way to do those things.
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2021, 10:24:35 PM
I suspect the reason why is because the proponents of a mileage tax are often the same people who want to discourage car usage and feel drivers don't pay their "fair share", and sticking drivers with a big bill for driving would be a way to do those things.
How do you propose we pay for the roads without gas taxes?
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
.... Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
....
I'm cautious about making this comment because it could be perceived as political and relating to a highly-charged issue in the news, but I think it's a fair and legitimate comment to make: GPS tracking devices pose all sorts of huge problems because of societal concerns and the potential for misuse. I know I've mentioned this before. I used to work with a black guy (his race is relevant for a reason that will become clear) who thought the idea of GPS trackers for mileage-taxation purposes was a great idea until I said to him, "So, let me pose a hypothetical to you. You're at home one night and the police come to the door and say, 'Mr. Smith [name changed here], there has been a crime spree in Potomac, Maryland. Your car's GPS tracking shows that you've been in that neighborhood three times in the past week. That's a white neighborhood and you're a black man, so it looks suspicious to us that you were there. Explain yourself.' " His eyes got really big and he conceded that it's probably not all that far-fetched a scenario and he was suddenly a lot less enthusiastic about GPS tracking. (He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
I've argued that for Massachusetts' excise tax, which is paid based on the age of the vehicle not its weight.
I am totally against a mileage based tracking system, which is a tracking/civil rights nightmare concocted by a guy who needed a pizza chain to fill potholes in his city.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 01:19:01 PM
I've argued that for Massachusetts' excise tax, which is paid based on the age of the vehicle not its weight.
I am totally against a mileage based tracking system, which is a tracking/civil rights nightmare concocted by a guy who needed a pizza chain to fill potholes in his city.
I was assuming a flat fee per mile automatically billed by your odometer.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
So is internet, and yet rural broadband is a thing in at least one state infrastructure plan and in Biden's proposed plan. And have you never heard of the Green New Deal? I proposed nothing that hasn't been officially proposed before by elected officials. And if it's really so much of a problem, feel free to put it all to transportation then.
As for fuel cells being too expensive, just like with electric car batteries, I imagine that is largely a problem of interest/scale, not an invariant issue. Hydrogen cars just don't have their equivalent of Elon Musk pushing things forward.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
So is internet, and yet rural broadband is a thing in at least one state infrastructure plan and in Biden's proposed plan. And have you never heard of the Green New Deal? I proposed nothing that hasn't been officially proposed before by elected officials. And if it's really so much of a problem, feel free to put it all to transportation then.
As for fuel cells being too expensive, just like with electric car batteries, I imagine that is largely a problem of interest/scale, not an invariant issue. Hydrogen cars just don't have their equivalent of Elon Musk pushing things forward.
Every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make hydrogen fuel cells work since the 1950s.
And I oppose the GND.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 03:10:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
So is internet, and yet rural broadband is a thing in at least one state infrastructure plan and in Biden's proposed plan. And have you never heard of the Green New Deal? I proposed nothing that hasn't been officially proposed before by elected officials. And if it's really so much of a problem, feel free to put it all to transportation then.
As for fuel cells being too expensive, just like with electric car batteries, I imagine that is largely a problem of interest/scale, not an invariant issue. Hydrogen cars just don't have their equivalent of Elon Musk pushing things forward.
Every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make hydrogen fuel cells work since the 1950s.
And I oppose the GND.
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example,
Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 31, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
As we move to electric cars, a tax on vehicle miles travelled is inevitable. But why not make it a vehicle pound-miles travelled tax, where the mileage rate is adjusted by the weight of the car. Since heavier cars, and especially trucks, wear down the roads faster, it would be fairer.
What about a combination of that plus what we have now? Not one or the other? :hmmm:
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
I've not read this book, but I agree with kernals here. There is absolutely no comparison between the old lead acid battery technology used in early electric vehicles and modern lithium-based batteries. It would be impossible to create a lead acid battery system with the endurance and capabilities of either ICE vehicles of the time or electric vehicles today.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 07:38:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
I've not read this book, but I agree with kernals here. There is absolutely no comparison between the old lead acid battery technology used in early electric vehicles and modern lithium-based batteries. It would be impossible to create a lead acid battery system with the endurance and capabilities of either ICE vehicles of the time or electric vehicles today.
But muh evil oil companies.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 03:10:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
So is internet, and yet rural broadband is a thing in at least one state infrastructure plan and in Biden's proposed plan. And have you never heard of the Green New Deal? I proposed nothing that hasn't been officially proposed before by elected officials. And if it's really so much of a problem, feel free to put it all to transportation then.
As for fuel cells being too expensive, just like with electric car batteries, I imagine that is largely a problem of interest/scale, not an invariant issue. Hydrogen cars just don't have their equivalent of Elon Musk pushing things forward.
Every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make hydrogen fuel cells work since the 1950s.
And I oppose the GND.
Meanwhile Japan has a big push for hydrogen fuel cell cars, which do, in fact, exist. The main impediment is the lack of refueling stations, but a government program to build out a network of stations and promote buying the cars in tandem would fix that.
Interesting how your opposition the Green New Deal doesn't have any bearing on the reality that government can invest in infrastructure that's owned/run by private companies.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 07:38:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
I've not read this book, but I agree with kernals here. There is absolutely no comparison between the old lead acid battery technology used in early electric vehicles and modern lithium-based batteries. It would be impossible to create a lead acid battery system with the endurance and capabilities of either ICE vehicles of the time or electric vehicles today.
One thing both of you should keep in mind is that the current model of widespread private ownership of automobiles wasn't how things were originally envisioned to go. In fact, it was inconceivable before Henry Ford came along! Before Ford, the consensus was that only rich people would own cars, and everyone else would sign up for services like Zip Car.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 03:10:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 12:54:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Well, for electric cars, the easiest way would be to put a per-kwh tax on electricity. It wouldn't be perfect, since it would hit non-road use as well, but if the funds were split between transportation and maintaining/improving the electric grid (particularly green power/improved resiliency), it could work. Better than slapping everyone with a big bill generated from odometer readings or a GPS tracking device, at least.
This is one reason why I would prefer we all switch to hydrogen fuel cell cars rather than electric - they function just like ICE cars, only without the emissions. Electric cars, on the other hand, function differently, with implications for both road funding and how we travel.
The power grid is managed by private companies. Your utility bill is already paying the cost of improving and maintaining the grid.
Fuel cells are too expensive and storing hydrogen is very difficult
So is internet, and yet rural broadband is a thing in at least one state infrastructure plan and in Biden's proposed plan. And have you never heard of the Green New Deal? I proposed nothing that hasn't been officially proposed before by elected officials. And if it's really so much of a problem, feel free to put it all to transportation then.
As for fuel cells being too expensive, just like with electric car batteries, I imagine that is largely a problem of interest/scale, not an invariant issue. Hydrogen cars just don't have their equivalent of Elon Musk pushing things forward.
Every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make hydrogen fuel cells work since the 1950s.
And I oppose the GND.
Meanwhile Japan has a big push for hydrogen fuel cell cars, which do, in fact, exist. The main impediment is the lack of refueling stations, but a government program to build out a network of stations and promote buying the cars in tandem would fix that.
Interesting how your opposition the Green New Deal doesn't have any bearing on the reality that government can invest in infrastructure that's owned/run by private companies.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 07:38:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
I've not read this book, but I agree with kernals here. There is absolutely no comparison between the old lead acid battery technology used in early electric vehicles and modern lithium-based batteries. It would be impossible to create a lead acid battery system with the endurance and capabilities of either ICE vehicles of the time or electric vehicles today.
One thing both of you should keep in mind is that the current model of widespread private ownership of automobiles wasn't how things were originally envisioned to go. In fact, it was inconceivable before Henry Ford came along! Before Ford, the consensus was that only rich people would own cars, and everyone else would sign up for services like Zip Car.
Citation needed
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
That's pretty much my point, though. They sucked in no small part because not "every automobile engineer and their mother" was trying to make electric cars work. I mean, one of the big reasons batteries have improved in recent years is because of computers and phones and so on, and not cars.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 08:46:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 01, 2021, 04:28:58 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on April 01, 2021, 03:33:04 PM
And every automobile engineer and their mother has tried to make electric cars work since the 1800s. It's only with the recent push for improving electric technologies that they've become competitive with internal combustion engine cars.
This is debatable. For example, Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America argues that the rise of the gasoline powered car derived more from cultural factors than technological ones.
And it's wrong. Lead acid batteries suuuucked
That's pretty much my point, though. They sucked in no small part because not "every automobile engineer and their mother" was trying to make electric cars work. I mean, one of the big reasons batteries have improved in recent years is because of computers and phones and so on, and not cars.
I'm sure Thomas Edison tried very hard to find a better battery.
EDIT: He did (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210223-the-battery-invented-120-years-too-soon)
And as you can see from this 1969 infomercial, General Motors, the largest privately owned manufacturing concern in the world by far at the time, did explore it
.
Here's a 1979 Popular Science (https://books.google.com/books?id=kAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=popular+science+sodium+sulfur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqm6Otr97vAhWZG80KHTnqCQoQ6wEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%20sodium%20sulfur&f=false) article about electric cars
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.
As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.
I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.
The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 01, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.
As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.
I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.
The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.
A flat fee levied per pound per mile travelled would not be a privacy violation. There'd just be a transponder in your car that would beam to your state's DMV how far you've driven, multiplied by the weight of your vehicle, and they'd bill you. E-Zpass creates more privacy issues than this.
And this would be a true user fee, reflecting your use of the roads and how much wear you're putting on them.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:44:03 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 01, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.
As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.
I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.
The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.
A flat fee levied per pound per mile travelled would not be a privacy violation. There'd just be a transponder in your car that would beam to your state's DMV how far you've driven, multiplied by the weight of your vehicle, and they'd bill you. E-Zpass creates more privacy issues than this.
And this would be a true user fee, reflecting your use of the roads and how much wear you're putting on them.
If you think that won't be a privacy violation, I have several bridges to sell you. At least if a state, say Massachusetts, wanted to do this, you could easily log the annual mileage at the annual state inspection without tracking anyone's movements. The government doesn't need to be encouraged to pull this crap.
E-Z Pass is voluntary. And yes, I "illegally" traveled to CT in December and actually took US 20 between Sturbridge and Auburn each way because reasons.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 02, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:44:03 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 01, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.
As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.
I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.
The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.
A flat fee levied per pound per mile travelled would not be a privacy violation. There'd just be a transponder in your car that would beam to your state's DMV how far you've driven, multiplied by the weight of your vehicle, and they'd bill you. E-Zpass creates more privacy issues than this.
And this would be a true user fee, reflecting your use of the roads and how much wear you're putting on them.
If you think that won't be a privacy violation, I have several bridges to sell you. At least if a state, say Massachusetts, wanted to do this, you could easily log the annual mileage at the annual state inspection without tracking anyone's movements. The government doesn't need to be encouraged to pull this crap.
E-Z Pass is voluntary. And yes, I "illegally" traveled to CT in December and actually took US 20 between Sturbridge and Auburn each way because reasons.
How would Massachusetts know that you travelled to Connecticut based purely on your mileage?
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)
I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.
My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:58:32 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 02, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 07:44:03 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 01, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
A big reason the Golden Age of EVs didn't last is because most of rural America wasn't electrified at that point and so the cars were mostly confined to urban areas and upper-class buyers. Petroleum cars became popular because gas is easier to store and transport, meaning they were more accessible to rural and middle-class buyers.
As for VMT taxes for private light vehicles, most of the proposals I've seen out there seem unworkable for various reasons described at length in this forum, the main ones being personal privacy or effectiveness of enforcement. I think they're politically a nonstarter in most cases, with the removal of tax incentives for EV adoption upsetting the left, and imposition of government monitoring for purposes of tax collection upsetting the right.
I think a more politically palatable solution to this solution would be something like the one proposed by vdeane where a per-kwh tax is levied on provider utility companies (and in most cases passed on to end consumers) with funds split between improving transportation infrastructure and improving grid infrastructure. This setup would leave in place the incentive structure as the old gas tax system (pay for what you use, encourage more efficient use, etc) and would be less intrusive and thereby easier to accomplish politically. A well-written bill could also tax cleaner sources of energy at a lower rate, giving providers financial incentive to switch.
The main problem with HFC vehicles is not really packaging, implementation, or current infrastructure (A 2021 Toyota Mirai is a nice ride if you live in California), but the fact that roughly 95% of current Hydrogen production capacity is sourced from fossil fuels in some way, making its status as a "clean" fuel somewhat dubious. "Clean" methods, such as electrolysis of water, are available, but they're not as efficient as current methods and currently not cost-practical in most regions without subsidies. Long-term reliability of HFC vehicles is also uncertain, because IIRC all HFC models currently available in the US are lease-only programs at the moment.
A flat fee levied per pound per mile travelled would not be a privacy violation. There'd just be a transponder in your car that would beam to your state's DMV how far you've driven, multiplied by the weight of your vehicle, and they'd bill you. E-Zpass creates more privacy issues than this.
And this would be a true user fee, reflecting your use of the roads and how much wear you're putting on them.
If you think that won't be a privacy violation, I have several bridges to sell you. At least if a state, say Massachusetts, wanted to do this, you could easily log the annual mileage at the annual state inspection without tracking anyone's movements. The government doesn't need to be encouraged to pull this crap.
E-Z Pass is voluntary. And yes, I "illegally" traveled to CT in December and actually took US 20 between Sturbridge and Auburn each way because reasons.
How would Massachusetts know that you travelled to Connecticut based purely on your mileage?
They wouldn't, but they could by tracking me via E-Z Pass, hence I opted not to use it. That's my point, your idea has no opt-out and 100% chance for government abuse, which is going to get MUCH worse over the upcoming years.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)
I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.
My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
I was assuming the car would be weighed when it got registered.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 02, 2021, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)
I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.
My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
I was assuming the car would be weighed when it got registered.
Every vehicle curb weight is public available. No need to weigh anything. The GVWR is on the door jam sticker as well, which is just curb weight + carrying capacity.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 02, 2021, 08:11:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 10:29:15 PM
I'd be mildly interested in seeing how the fat activists (the ones who complain about Southwest requiring them to buy two seats if they can't fit in one seat, for example) would react to that.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 01, 2021, 12:47:11 PM
(He was also exceptionally obese to the point of having weight-related medical problems, so the "vehicle weight" issue might be of interest to him as well.)
I would imagine for purely practical reasons, vehicle weights would be binned in such a way that a variance of a few hundred pounds would still result in the tax paid being the same regardless of the weight of the vehicle. It doesn't make much sense to go through the administrative overhead of weighing individual cars on every trip to calculate the exact share of taxes owed–making passenger vehicles pass through weigh stations isn't likely to be very popular, anyway.
My guess would be this would be implemented as sedans/coupes pay one price, SUVs and trucks pay another, and then anything larger than an SUV is required to pass through the scales and pay a more precise price.
NY already charges registration fees based on vehicle weight: https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/registration-fees-use-taxes-and-supplemental-fees-passenger-vehicles
In airplane world, maximum certified weight is what used for billing purposes.
So nothing new really...
I wish they could've made steam power work. Steam engines are quiet, clean, can run on almost any fuel, and don't need gears. But they have enough mechanical complexity to be satisfying to enthusiasts, unlike boring electric power.
The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Quote from: 3467 on April 03, 2021, 03:17:53 PM
The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Taxes to encourage domestic manufacturing.
I am from the government, and I am here to help you. But this drifts off into politics, so back to topic:
funding roads via user fees - gas tax, tolls, mileage tax - has the advantage of creating a somewhat isolated spending category, with at least
some protection of funds redistribution. Same principle works, for example, for social security While current administration seems to be on a generous side with respect to sending money towards infrastructure, I would prefer to have well defined revenue stream as opposed to
funding due to lobbying efforts wise decision of those at power. At the end of the day, it is me the taxpayer who will be footing the bill anyway.
Quote from: kalvado on April 03, 2021, 03:55:57 PM
Quote from: 3467 on April 03, 2021, 03:17:53 PM
The current plan isn't being funded by user fees at all But a reshuffling of corporate taxes. Much of that is to encourage domestic manufacturing.
Taxes to encourage domestic manufacturing.
I am from the government, and I am here to help you.
But this drifts off into politics, so back to topic:
funding roads via user fees - gas tax, tolls, mileage tax - has the advantage of creating a somewhat isolated spending category, with at least some protection of funds redistribution. Same principle works, for example, for social security While current administration seems to be on a generous side with respect to sending money towards infrastructure, I would prefer to have well defined revenue stream as opposed to funding due to lobbying efforts wise decision of those at power. At the end of the day, it is me the taxpayer who will be footing the bill anyway.
Infrastructure should be in quotes, because apparently nursing homes are now infrastructure.