Washington man recieves $18,000 bridge toll bill

[Pete from Boston]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

[kkt]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

So what could we do about that?  Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration?  Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?

I hope the answer is NOT "spend billions of $ to track every vehicle everywhere it goes every minute of every day like Stasi's wet dream".

[J N Winkler]

So what could we do about that?  Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration?  Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?

I hope the answer is NOT "spend billions of $ to track every vehicle everywhere it goes every minute of every day like Stasi's wet dream".

Those are two possible solutions, and personally I like the idea of charging the electric utilities because that is the closer analogue to off-the-rack taxation of motor vehicle fuels, which is how the gas tax is collected these days.

The larger concern, as I see it, is that political polarization is so bad these days that we are likely to end up backing into Stasiland solutions like GPS tracking.  However, I think we have at least another 20 years to go before it becomes urgent to replace a tax on liquid motor fuels as the mainstay of our highway funding system.

[jeffandnicole]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

[1995hoo]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

So what could we do about that?  Annual fee for electric grid powered vehicles as part of the annual registration? Charge electric utilities a fee according to the estimated number of electric vehicles in their service area?

....

Virginia tried the suggestion in boldface a year or two ago for alternative-fueled vehicles, including hybrids, and wound up repealing it because people bitched so much. There was a bunch of bleating about "I bought this car because it saves money on gas and I'm doing the right thing. Why should I be penalized?" Not surprisingly, the politicians did a lousy job explaining it. They needed to stand up and say, for example, "Your Civic hybrid puts the same amount of wear and tear on the road as a standard gasoline-powered Civic, yet you're paying less in gas tax to maintain the roads. There needs to be a more equitable way of paying for wear and tear and this is the solution we've developed because this tax makes up for the difference." They also needed to do a better job of explaining that it wasn't aimed just at hybrids. As Pete from Boston notes, you have electric cars. There are other alternative fuels as well–CNG and propane are two good examples–that likewise aren't subject to the gas tax. The politicians needed to stand up and explain that those vehicles' owners need to contribute to road maintenance as well. There are more alternative-fuel vehicles on the roads than you might expect, especially in areas where they are eligible for an HOV-lane exemption.

Of course people would still complain, but if they'd said something along the lines of what I just said it would at least make sense.

[lordsutch]

Georgia is planning a $200 annual fee ($300 for commercially-registered vehicles) for vehicles that don't pay gas tax, which is about the equivalent of the proposed 29.2¢/gallon state gas tax on around 700 gallons of gasoline per year. Assuming that someone who buys a Leaf or Tesla would instead buy an efficient compact or hybrid (say 40 mpg average), you're looking at the equivalent of the tax on driving 28,000 miles within Georgia in an efficient gasoline-fueled car–an average of 77 miles per day of driving.

Maybe people who commute from Macon to Atlanta each day and back would come out ahead (which you could barely do with a Leaf, if you could get a full charge at home and work each day), but I'm guessing most anyone else would get soaked at this tax rate. Then again, in Georgia there's also a massive state income tax credit for buying an all-electric car (up to $7500, non-refundable but spreadable over three years) in addition to the federal incentives, so this fee is basically just clawing back some of that over the life of the car.

Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/

[PColumbus73]

For the question about fixing electric cars driving for free:

How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?

If California (38 Million people) were to charge a $0.01 tax per mile, and everyone drove an average of 15,000 miles per year, the state would earn nearly $6 Billion dollars annually.

[NE2]

Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/

Norris had allegedly folded each bill so tightly that it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."

If you're doing the math, that means that it would take 3,600 minutes — or 60 hours, longer than a work week — to unfold the bills.

In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.

[Pete from Boston]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

[UCFKnights]

Georgia is planning a $200 annual fee ($300 for commercially-registered vehicles) for vehicles that don't pay gas tax, which is about the equivalent of the proposed 29.2¢/gallon state gas tax on around 700 gallons of gasoline per year. Assuming that someone who buys a Leaf or Tesla would instead buy an efficient compact or hybrid (say 40 mpg average), you're looking at the equivalent of the tax on driving 28,000 miles within Georgia in an efficient gasoline-fueled car–an average of 77 miles per day of driving.

Maybe people who commute from Macon to Atlanta each day and back would come out ahead (which you could barely do with a Leaf, if you could get a full charge at home and work each day), but I'm guessing most anyone else would get soaked at this tax rate. Then again, in Georgia there's also a massive state income tax credit for buying an all-electric car (up to $7500, non-refundable but spreadable over three years) in addition to the federal incentives, so this fee is basically just clawing back some of that over the life of the car.

Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/

The government has decided that they wanted to push us to cleaner cars with less environmental impact, so they give us a subsidy. Then they decide that its unfair that we get a subsidy on the road usage, so we get a penalty.

It really makes no sense at all. To me, it seems we should simply remove the tax credits for the efficient cars, and redirect that money into the DOT. That will pay for the wear and tear the vehicle causes, and leaving the gas tax in place allows us to have an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars. Infact, a more fair incentive, as the "subsidy" you get is based on how much greenhouse emissions you avoid.

I'd also argue that the gas tax is more fair then a mileage based tax as well. As mentioned, all electric vehicles generally cannot travel very far, and generally tend to be much lighter, causing much less wear and tear on the roadways.

Likewise, the less efficient vehicles tend to cause much more wear and tear on our roadways, in addition to the environmental damage they cause, as they are usually heavier, meaning more weight to damage to roadways, or older, meaning its much more likely to have problems that damage the roadways (and more severely pollute the environment). They're also more likely to need emergency services (accidents tend to be more severe, breakdowns are more likely, etc)

And I'm not being biased for personal reasons, I have an old sedan currently, and am looking at getting an F350 for my work, so a milage based tax would likely benefit me more then a gas based one, but I know that 350 will do a lot more damage then any Tesla, which in reality, causes very little wear and tear.

So the gas tax actually puts the incentives right where we generally seem to want them while being relatively fair. Of course, if we do get to a point where an alternative fuel becomes a majority (and not just increases in efficiency, that should just be met with a higher gas tax), then an alternative method needs to be explored, but I think we all know we're quite a ways off from that.

[lordsutch]

In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.

Hey, the bills (unlike pennies) say they're "legal tender," even if you have to spend six minutes unfolding the things to read the text.

[vdeane]

How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?

How would you account for driving out of state?  If you're from a cheap state like NJ, it would work out great, but people from states like CA and NY would really get screwed under that system.

[corco]

After seeing this thread run on for three pages and delve deeply into the legal aspects of debt collection, I have a question:  why do we still believe in the fairy tale that tolls--however paid--will finance the infrastructure we need?

None of these issues surface if the money is just collected at the gas pump, without all the faff and bother of contracts--express or implied--between the motorist and the highway provider.

Gas tax is becoming increasingly inequitable way of charging users. Currently, Tesla drivers use untolled roads for free.

So do bicyclists, and they are increasingly demanding more and more of the road and their ability to use it, and have priority over everyone else as well.

Your other points aside, bicyclists don't have priority over anybody at all here. They have the same rights of way that automobile drivers have.

A 40 pound bike also weighs 1.3% what a 3000 lb car does, and the weight is where road damage/maintenance needs really come in.

[PColumbus73]

How about requiring a vehicle inspection that includes an odometer reading when you renew the license plate each year? And from the odometer reading assess a flat tax based on miles driven?

How would you account for driving out of state?  If you're from a cheap state like NJ, it would work out great, but people from states like CA and NY would really get screwed under that system.

It could work if a percentage of the tax collected in each state went to the Federal Government.

Comparing Wyoming and California let's assume the following:

The mileage tax rate set in both states is $0.01/mile

The average miles driven for vehicles registered in both states is 15,000 miles

The Federal Government gets 10% of the tax from both states

Wyoming- Pop. 580,000~

Tax owed from each driver = $150

Tax collected = $87 Million - $8.7 Million (To Feds) = $78,300,000 to Wyoming

------------------------------------------

California- 38 Million~

Tax owed from each driver = $150

Tax collected = $5.7 Billion - $570 Million (to Feds) = $5.13 Billion to CA

If this were the case in all 50 states, the Feds would get $4.74 Billion.


This is only for personal vehicles. The states could tax vehicles in four tiers:

Personal Cars/Trucks- $0.01/mile, 10% to Feds

Livery Vehicles (Taxis, Limos, Buses)- $0.015/mile, 10% to Feds

Medium Duty Commercial (Vehicles 14,001-19,500lbs.)- $0.02/mile, 25% to Feds

Heavy Duty Commercial (Vehicles 19,501+)- $0.03/mile, 50% to Feds

These are just idea figures.

[Pete from Boston]

How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?

[PColumbus73]

How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?

I would say, group them with either the Medium or Heavy Duty Tier. I say that because under this tax plan, the tax would be owed to the state the vehicle it is registered in, whether it's Florida, or Montana. And considering that these 'apportioned' vehicles would be doing a large amount of business outside the vehicle's registered state, it would make since that more of the mileage tax would be paid to the Federal Government.

[Pete from Boston]

How do "apportioned" vehicles do it now?

I would say, group them with either the Medium or Heavy Duty Tier. I say that because under this tax plan, the tax would be owed to the state the vehicle it is registered in, whether it's Florida, or Montana. And considering that these 'apportioned' vehicles would be doing a large amount of business outside the vehicle's registered state, it would make since that more of the mileage tax would be paid to the Federal Government.

No, I mean, how do they do it right now, and could this inform a broader solution?

[PColumbus73]

Doing a quick search, it looks like Apportioned Vehicles are charged a tax based on their weight and not their mileage.

[Pete from Boston]

I thought it would be easier to ask than research, but I seemed to recall that there was a formula that apportioned the vehicle's taxes among the jurisdictions it traveled.

Weight is part of a fair measure, since it correlates to road wear, but it is usually accounted for in fuel consumption.

[jakeroot]

I think we may have left the toll-fine discussion behind at this point, but I want to discuss my experience with WSDOT.

A couple years ago, I crossed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I wasn't supposed to be in Gig Harbor that day, and unfortunately when I crossed the bridge, I wasn't paying attention to the lanes splitting off to the right to the tollbooths (so I could pay off-the-grid), and I crossed through the Good-to-Go/Pay by Mail section instead. The issue wasn't the increased cost, but now my mother was going to get a letter in the mail from WSDOT in a couple weeks telling her that one of her cars crossed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, despite the fact that she works nowhere near the bridge and I was supposed to be in school. Long story short, she got the letter, told me I should stop being so fucking lazy and stop at the tollbooths, and I paid the toll online. Phew. I'm glad this letter was not part of the group of people who don't seem to receive their tolls in a timely manner (instead receiving a letter with the toll + a late fee), as I'm sure that would have got her attention and increased her likeliness to question me about my whereabouts on that day.

Anyways, fast forward a couple of years to October of 2014. During a roadmeet with Alps and Kacie Jane, I crossed the SR 520 bridge (this thread's original bridge in question) in my Grandpa's beautiful burgundy Toyota Sienna, with my "family's" Good to Go Pass on the windshield (I just taped it on). I thought all was well until early December, when my grandpa received a toll violation in the mail. The toll violation was for A) failure to pay original toll + violation of using Good-to-Go Pass on a car not on the Good-to-Go pass account, and B) a late a fee for not paying the original toll + violation when they originally sent it out.

My Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him, (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).

So, in summary, for everything the state does wrong, the citizen does something wrong as well. Thus far, things seem to be balancing out. But, I'm not sure how long this "we both fucked up, oh well" attitude can last if WSDOT plans on adding more toll facilities (as they currently plan on doing):

[empirestate]

Apropos the legal tender discussion, don't try this at home: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/03/texas-man-arrested-after-attempt-to-pay-taxes-with-dollar-bills/

Norris had allegedly folded each bill so tightly that it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."

If you're doing the math, that means that it would take 3,600 minutes — or 60 hours, longer than a work week — to unfold the bills.

In other words, it has nothing to do with legal tender. Neither does the guy who emptied a bag of pennies on the floor.

Yes, the quoted offense was criminal trespass, not tax delinquency. The reporter alludes to possible delinquency, if the deadline for payment elapses while your remission is being counted, but that's just journalistic speculation; it isn't reported to have actually occurred.

[J N Winkler]

My Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).

I wonder if he would have been able to see the violation by logging in to his G2G account (I assume it is possible to log in) before a notice plus late fee was generated.  Frankly, if I were living in the Seattle area and had a G2G transponder, I would probably have a script set to run every day to log in to my account and take a snapshot of recent charges so that if WSDOT (or, rather, its G2G contractor) tried to slap on late fees before giving me an opportunity to pay, I would be able to prove bad faith.

So, in summary, for everything the state does wrong, the citizen does something wrong as well. Thus far, things seem to be balancing out. But, I'm not sure how long this "we both fucked up, oh well" attitude can last if WSDOT plans on adding more toll facilities . . .

I am not sure things are "balancing out" when the design of a tolling system results in a situation where a brief period of transponderless commuting results in penalties that not only are more than ten times the cost of the unpaid tolls, but are also equal to the MSRP of many brand-new cars.  This is a system so lacking in elementary failsafes that it is almost besides the point whether the charges are fair or just in terms of contract law.  This situation also highlights how tolling is even more regressive than the gas tax, not just because of double-charging and the higher mileage increment, but also because the theoretical possibility of payment in arrears encourages hard-up motorists to think of the tolling authority as a payday lender.

[jakeroot]

My Grandpa tells me they never once sent anything in the mail until the letter in December with the three bills on it (toll + unregistered vehicle + late fee). I'm tempted to believe him (not just because he has nearly a perfect credit score), but given the things I've heard about WSDOT, he's probably not bullshitting me about never receiving the first letter. But with that said, I'm sort of at fault for not reading the rules beforehand and not adding his van to the account (which would have avoided the whole mess).

I wonder if he would have been able to see the violation by logging in to his G2G account (I assume it is possible to log in) before a notice plus late fee was generated.

The toll cameras scanned the tag and the plate, and the system returned an error along the lines of "this vehicle does not exist on the scanned tag's account". I reckon the state is assuming the actual owner of the vehicle is more likely to pay up than the account admin, who may or may not have authorized the use of the tag.

FWIW, he does not use G2G. The only toll he pays is the Tacoma Narrow Bridge, and he just uses the tollbooth. Typical old person.

[SP Cook]

First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need.  If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes.  Roads are infrastructure.  All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system.  Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these.  Which is fine.  If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway.  And pay for it.

But alternatives just won't work.  First, as this thread outlines, "toll by plate" and such is unenforceable.  A mandatory nationwide transponder system has too many bad implications.  Big Brother for one, but more importantly and likely are the self-appointed do-gooders who decide, being your betters, that you really don't need to live, go, work, where they think you shouldn't and the transponder doesn't let you.  As far as higher registration fees, the issue there is you cannot trust government.  They will hike your fees, and keep the gas tax too, and spend it elsewhere.

[Pete from Boston]

First, of course, the current gasoline tax is more than sufficient to pay for all the roads we will ever need.  If we would just spend 100% of it on roads, an 0% of it on urban transit schemes.  Roads are infrastructure.  All benefit everyone, event if you never actually use a particular one, as it is a part of the national economic system.  Communal transit schemes, however, only benefit people who use these.  Which is fine.  If you want to ride the subway, ride the subway.  And pay for it.

I would be happy to pay for it as long as road users pay for the benefit they get from transit users not being on roads that are politically infeasible to expand to accommodate the million or so extra vehicles daily.