What are some alternative means of funding roads/highways?

[GaryV]

[snark] Maybe the DOT could hold bake sales at these new service plazas to increase their revenue. [/snark]

[kalvado]

[snark] Maybe the DOT could hold bake sales at these new service plazas to increase their revenue. [/snark]

You are not the first to come up with idea, though

[kalvado]

Prices are set by what a buyer will pay, not by the supply. No amount of supply of anything can set the price for something no one desires. The only impact supply has is the establishment of a floor.

Nowhere have I claimed markets are perfectly efficient, that is a strawman. They do however always seek equilibrium which is fundamentally close enough for our purposes here.

Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it right (see OPEC's historic ability to affect prices through supply...or the U.S.' use of agricultural subsidies...).  Your argument regarding rents and service plazas are based upon a perfect implementation of the heuristic principles you parrot.

The idea that our markets in reality always seek equilibrium is absolutely not founded in our country in a lot of cases given that businesses have rigged them through legislation and other means to maximize their profits.  Our government is not providing the environment needed so markets operate like they do in economics textbooks (i.e., the criteria for market operation are not being met).

trimmed extra quoting so shit throwing circus   standup show discussion may continue in a readable fashion.

[HighwayStar]

We've discussed the service plaza thing before. They're entirely logical on closed-system toll roads, especially when exiting and re-entering can incur a higher toll than going straight through. It makes for a more captive audience because of the convenience factor, and with that captive audience you get predatory pricing. And some of the service plazas have problematic left exits and entrances.

They're less workable on free routes, because they compete with privately-owned businesses at the exits, which would employ a full-court legislative lobbying press against any efforts for the government seeking to compete with them. And the businesses would have more competitively-priced products. It's not really a great inconvenience to get off the interstate to get gas or food.

The only reason I stop at the service plaza on the Western Kentucky Parkway is basically for novelty reasons, and if I need to pee. Otherwise, I will usually stop at Central City or Leitchfield if I need gas or want a bite to eat, and if I'm going east, I try to hold out until Elizabethtown because there are so many more options and gas is usually cheaper. I'm not a fan of the short acceleration area to merge back into the road into the fast lane. The only saving grace is that the road is not all that heavily traveled.

Government-run businesses on interstates competing with private businesses at the exits isn't going to be a windfall.

predatory pricing

Its this kind of jaberwocky terminology that makes it hard to accept your conclusions at face value.
I 100% agree that on toll roads the convenience factor is higher with fewer exits being in place, that is not up for dispute.

However, there is no reason that on road plazas cannot displace off highway plazas either. I would imagine the model would be analogous to Hotelling's linear city, ie. there is a location of consumers on the road, and firms seek to be as close to them as possible.

Importantly, the assumption that prices need to be higher on the roadway need not hold for these new plazas. Firms locating on the highway could simply price match and be at a considerable advantage. In that case the rental value of the facilities should be equal to the off highway alternatives.

If we assume that the number of locations is comparable to Flying J + Loves, and a 5% take on the revenue as rent, that still generates $40B*5% or 2 Billion dollars a year, which is not a negligible sum.

Also this Government-run businesses on interstates competing with private businesses at the exits isn't going to be a windfall. is misunderstanding the proposition. I am not proposing the government run businesses on the interstates, I am proposing the government auction the operating rights/rents, etc. to private corporations for limited periods for on highway plazas.

In the long run, I would expect these on highway plazas to displace most of the off highway plazas. There are other pressures which bear on this, locals often oppose off highway projects, building them as part of the highway itself would offer additional separation from communities. And the federal government can use eminent domain to obtain property in areas where a private corporation would be unable to build a plaza on its own.

Lets put it so - whatever costs and profits at the off-highway business going to be, on-highway business would face same costs and would need to bring same profit, plus whatever outlay to a highway fund would be. Only thing you can play with is rent/tax on a parcel within ROW. I don't believe it will be a significant benefit. So price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be. If you propose  eminent domain, you'll have to endure many expensive lawsuits eating up profit for quite some time. That's if (big if!) eminent domain for a restaurant would survive in court.

What? None of that made any sense at all.
So price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be.
That fails on multiple levels.
First, prices are set by what a buyer will pay, not by costs, this is the first lesson of Econ 101.
Second, rent "off highway" is not free, it is also a cost.
So even if we assume no difference in the reservation price of buyers, the on highway facilities should rent for at least what the off highway facilities rent for.

As to lawsuits, the simple answer is for the government to fiat it through. The highways are a national security matter, simply change the law so no one can sue to impede their construction.

When you take Economy 151 next semester, they may tell you how business expenses have to correlate with prices and ability to do business in a given market...

I passed the 100 series courses long ago kid. And your assertion still incorrect, prices are set by what a buyer will pay. That does not change no matter what econ course you take.
Proof? You cannot sell goods/services to buyers at a price higher than they are willing to pay. End of discussion.
Now, if the cost of providing a good/service is higher than the price buyers are willing to pay, then it does not come into existence. But all prices ultimately rest on what a buyer will pay, not what it cost you to provide the good/service.
And to tie this back to the original point, even if we have to establish a price "floor" based on costs, then the assertion you made, that price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be then implicitly requires that the companies off the highway are paying 0 in rent.
Now, if you are telling me you have access to prime interstate side real estate that rents for 0 then we can go into the truck stop business and be millionaires. 

Egads.  Somebody missed the "aggregate" in their P/Q graphs in Econ 101.

Nope, aggregating willingness to pay into a demand curve does not change that fundamental fact. You still end up setting prices based on demand of the buyers. Notice that in a competitive market, the equilibrium price is such that the last buyer is the one that is just barely willing to pay. You never end up with buyers paying more than they are willing, aggregated or not. 

You're ignoring the supply side...

The supply side does not set the price, it only sets a price floor. Ever heard of price discrimination?
In any case, my above point about rent is explicitly about supply and why we can be comfortable with the rent being the same on and off highway.

Neither supply nor demand sets the price independently of each other.

It's also seeming like you think markets are efficient in reality.  Any economics professor worth their salt will tell you that the examples in your textbook are simply heuristic.

Prices are set by what a buyer will pay, not by the supply. No amount of supply of anything can set the price for something no one desires. The only impact supply has is the establishment of a floor.

Nowhere have I claimed markets are perfectly efficient, that is a strawman. They do however always seek equilibrium which is fundamentally close enough for our purposes here.

Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it right (see OPEC's historic ability to affect prices through supply...or the U.S.' use of agricultural subsidies...).  Your argument regarding rents and service plazas are based upon a perfect implementation of the heuristic principles you parrot.

The idea that our markets in reality always seek equilibrium is absolutely not founded in our country in a lot of cases given that businesses have rigged them through legislation and other means to maximize their profits.  Our government is not providing the environment needed so markets operate like they do in economics textbooks (i.e., the criteria for market operation are not being met).

No, but repeating a correct statement is sometimes the only recourse when someone continues to confuse the issue at hand.
I am actually very familiar with OPEC/TX RRC history and again you are misrepresenting what they do. They can choose to restrict supply, or say that they will only offer petroleum at x price, but that does not set the price, consumers do that by being willing to buy at that price.
Do you think that a country which had no use for oil would have its oil price "set" by OPEC or anyone else? Of course not. The buyer sets the price by their willingness to pay.


The idea that our markets in reality always seek equilibrium is absolutely not founded in our country in a lot of cases given that businesses have rigged them through legislation and other means to maximize their profits

Once again you are jumbling up separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Markets are still seeking an equilibrium in that case, the equilibrium seeking does not go away simply because the legislature imposes a rule of some kind. It may change the point of the equilibrium that is being sought, but not the act of seeking it.
Also firms are ALWAYS supposed to seek profits, so the last portion of that is tantamount to saying the sky is blue or water is wet.

Our government is not providing the environment needed so markets operate like they do in economics textbooks (i.e., the criteria for market operation are not being met).

Wrong and strawman. The government does not provide the criteria needed to always get a completely unregulated, perfect competition outcome, but it does provide the environment required for equilibrium seeking markets. Seeking equilibrium does not require perfect competition

[hbelkins]

...in the case of service plazas improve traveler experiences.

I disagree with that assertion. Service plazas may work if there is a captive audience -- say, a long rural stretch of toll road with few commercial services, or if it's a closed-system toll road that makes exiting and entering inconvenient -- but in any other case, they don't improve the travel experience. At a service plaza, you get one gas station with no opportunity for competitive pricing. You get one convenience store; again with no opportunity for competitive pricing. (And that leaves out the fact that C-stores charge more than, say, Dollar Generals or Family Dollars for like items). You get one burger place, one sub place, maybe one pizza place, and so on.

Compare that to a busy highway exit where you might find three or four gas stations of different brands, two or three burger places (McD, BK, Wendy's), a couple of sandwich shops (Subway and Penn Station), and so on. The traveler gets a choice. And it's really not much more difficult to exit the freeway to patronize one of those establishments than it is to stop at a service plaza.

I don't think service plazas, with the state either leasing storefront locations or becoming the franchisee and running the businesses itself, would be a financial windfall.

And I'm still a fan of managing costs for highway work vs. increasing revenues.

[HighwayStar]

...in the case of service plazas improve traveler experiences.

I disagree with that assertion. Service plazas may work if there is a captive audience -- say, a long rural stretch of toll road with few commercial services, or if it's a closed-system toll road that makes exiting and entering inconvenient -- but in any other case, they don't improve the travel experience. At a service plaza, you get one gas station with no opportunity for competitive pricing. You get one convenience store; again with no opportunity for competitive pricing. (And that leaves out the fact that C-stores charge more than, say, Dollar Generals or Family Dollars for like items). You get one burger place, one sub place, maybe one pizza place, and so on.

Compare that to a busy highway exit where you might find three or four gas stations of different brands, two or three burger places (McD, BK, Wendy's), a couple of sandwich shops (Subway and Penn Station), and so on. The traveler gets a choice. And it's really not much more difficult to exit the freeway to patronize one of those establishments than it is to stop at a service plaza.

I don't think service plazas, with the state either leasing storefront locations or becoming the franchisee and running the businesses itself, would be a financial windfall.

And I'm still a fan of managing costs for highway work vs. increasing revenues.

No one is holding you hostage, you can get off the highway if you please. But many people are not cheap enough to care if the gas is an extra 3 cents a gallon or that soda would have been 10 cents cheaper if they got off an exit, went through 2 lights and bought it at 7-11.
It absolutely improves traveler experiences because travelers can now choose for themselves which they want.
And of course, without resorting to the old proof, the prices on the highway can only be higher if people's reservation prices are higher, so if as you insinuate their reservation prices are not higher for whatever reason then they won't have to pay extra (speaking in aggregate of course, I am sure a few people will be complaining how expensive they are no matter what, right along with how when they were a kid you could buy the entire Hershey's firm for only a nickel).
Or have you considered another possibility, where they prove so popular that the holders of the fuel station rights can bargain a large contract for fuel and get the price lower than off highway stations? (similar to how Costco, Walmart, and Sam's Club do).


And I'm still a fan of managing costs for highway work vs. increasing revenues.
Why not do both? They are not mutually exclusive. If you can trim 1 Billion of wasted spending, and I can pull 1 Billion in rental revenues then we have 2 Billion to put towards finally finishing I-70.

[Rothman]

We've discussed the service plaza thing before. They're entirely logical on closed-system toll roads, especially when exiting and re-entering can incur a higher toll than going straight through. It makes for a more captive audience because of the convenience factor, and with that captive audience you get predatory pricing. And some of the service plazas have problematic left exits and entrances.

They're less workable on free routes, because they compete with privately-owned businesses at the exits, which would employ a full-court legislative lobbying press against any efforts for the government seeking to compete with them. And the businesses would have more competitively-priced products. It's not really a great inconvenience to get off the interstate to get gas or food.

The only reason I stop at the service plaza on the Western Kentucky Parkway is basically for novelty reasons, and if I need to pee. Otherwise, I will usually stop at Central City or Leitchfield if I need gas or want a bite to eat, and if I'm going east, I try to hold out until Elizabethtown because there are so many more options and gas is usually cheaper. I'm not a fan of the short acceleration area to merge back into the road into the fast lane. The only saving grace is that the road is not all that heavily traveled.

Government-run businesses on interstates competing with private businesses at the exits isn't going to be a windfall.

predatory pricing

Its this kind of jaberwocky terminology that makes it hard to accept your conclusions at face value.
I 100% agree that on toll roads the convenience factor is higher with fewer exits being in place, that is not up for dispute.

However, there is no reason that on road plazas cannot displace off highway plazas either. I would imagine the model would be analogous to Hotelling's linear city, ie. there is a location of consumers on the road, and firms seek to be as close to them as possible.

Importantly, the assumption that prices need to be higher on the roadway need not hold for these new plazas. Firms locating on the highway could simply price match and be at a considerable advantage. In that case the rental value of the facilities should be equal to the off highway alternatives.

If we assume that the number of locations is comparable to Flying J + Loves, and a 5% take on the revenue as rent, that still generates $40B*5% or 2 Billion dollars a year, which is not a negligible sum.

Also this Government-run businesses on interstates competing with private businesses at the exits isn't going to be a windfall. is misunderstanding the proposition. I am not proposing the government run businesses on the interstates, I am proposing the government auction the operating rights/rents, etc. to private corporations for limited periods for on highway plazas.

In the long run, I would expect these on highway plazas to displace most of the off highway plazas. There are other pressures which bear on this, locals often oppose off highway projects, building them as part of the highway itself would offer additional separation from communities. And the federal government can use eminent domain to obtain property in areas where a private corporation would be unable to build a plaza on its own.

Lets put it so - whatever costs and profits at the off-highway business going to be, on-highway business would face same costs and would need to bring same profit, plus whatever outlay to a highway fund would be. Only thing you can play with is rent/tax on a parcel within ROW. I don't believe it will be a significant benefit. So price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be. If you propose  eminent domain, you'll have to endure many expensive lawsuits eating up profit for quite some time. That's if (big if!) eminent domain for a restaurant would survive in court.

What? None of that made any sense at all.
So price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be.
That fails on multiple levels.
First, prices are set by what a buyer will pay, not by costs, this is the first lesson of Econ 101.
Second, rent "off highway" is not free, it is also a cost.
So even if we assume no difference in the reservation price of buyers, the on highway facilities should rent for at least what the off highway facilities rent for.

As to lawsuits, the simple answer is for the government to fiat it through. The highways are a national security matter, simply change the law so no one can sue to impede their construction.

When you take Economy 151 next semester, they may tell you how business expenses have to correlate with prices and ability to do business in a given market...

I passed the 100 series courses long ago kid. And your assertion still incorrect, prices are set by what a buyer will pay. That does not change no matter what econ course you take.
Proof? You cannot sell goods/services to buyers at a price higher than they are willing to pay. End of discussion.
Now, if the cost of providing a good/service is higher than the price buyers are willing to pay, then it does not come into existence. But all prices ultimately rest on what a buyer will pay, not what it cost you to provide the good/service.
And to tie this back to the original point, even if we have to establish a price "floor" based on costs, then the assertion you made, that price on plaza would be higher by whatever that highway outlay would be then implicitly requires that the companies off the highway are paying 0 in rent.
Now, if you are telling me you have access to prime interstate side real estate that rents for 0 then we can go into the truck stop business and be millionaires. 

Egads.  Somebody missed the "aggregate" in their P/Q graphs in Econ 101.

Nope, aggregating willingness to pay into a demand curve does not change that fundamental fact. You still end up setting prices based on demand of the buyers. Notice that in a competitive market, the equilibrium price is such that the last buyer is the one that is just barely willing to pay. You never end up with buyers paying more than they are willing, aggregated or not. 

You're ignoring the supply side...

The supply side does not set the price, it only sets a price floor. Ever heard of price discrimination?
In any case, my above point about rent is explicitly about supply and why we can be comfortable with the rent being the same on and off highway.

Neither supply nor demand sets the price independently of each other.

It's also seeming like you think markets are efficient in reality.  Any economics professor worth their salt will tell you that the examples in your textbook are simply heuristic.

Prices are set by what a buyer will pay, not by the supply. No amount of supply of anything can set the price for something no one desires. The only impact supply has is the establishment of a floor.

Nowhere have I claimed markets are perfectly efficient, that is a strawman. They do however always seek equilibrium which is fundamentally close enough for our purposes here.

Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it right (see OPEC's historic ability to affect prices through supply...or the U.S.' use of agricultural subsidies...).  Your argument regarding rents and service plazas are based upon a perfect implementation of the heuristic principles you parrot.

The idea that our markets in reality always seek equilibrium is absolutely not founded in our country in a lot of cases given that businesses have rigged them through legislation and other means to maximize their profits.  Our government is not providing the environment needed so markets operate like they do in economics textbooks (i.e., the criteria for market operation are not being met).

No, but repeating a correct statement is sometimes the only recourse when someone continues to confuse the issue at hand.
I am actually very familiar with OPEC/TX RRC history and again you are misrepresenting what they do. They can choose to restrict supply, or say that they will only offer petroleum at x price, but that does not set the price, consumers do that by being willing to buy at that price.
Do you think that a country which had no use for oil would have its oil price "set" by OPEC or anyone else? Of course not. The buyer sets the price by their willingness to pay.


The idea that our markets in reality always seek equilibrium is absolutely not founded in our country in a lot of cases given that businesses have rigged them through legislation and other means to maximize their profits

Once again you are jumbling up separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Markets are still seeking an equilibrium in that case, the equilibrium seeking does not go away simply because the legislature imposes a rule of some kind. It may change the point of the equilibrium that is being sought, but not the act of seeking it.
Also firms are ALWAYS supposed to seek profits, so the last portion of that is tantamount to saying the sky is blue or water is wet.

Our government is not providing the environment needed so markets operate like they do in economics textbooks (i.e., the criteria for market operation are not being met).

Wrong and strawman. The government does not provide the criteria needed to always get a completely unregulated, perfect competition outcome, but it does provide the environment required for equilibrium seeking markets. Seeking equilibrium does not require perfect competition

There is no difference between suppliers seeking a price floor and buyers seeking a price ceiling.  Both affect where the supply and demand curves will meet.  Your description that buyers just set the price is simply incorrect and strange.

As for your other calisthenics to defend your point, I think at this time you've broken your back.

[HighwayStar]

There is no difference between suppliers seeking a price floor and buyers seeking a price ceiling.  Both affect where the supply and demand curves will meet.  Your description that buyers just set the price is simply incorrect and strange.

Nope, there is a significant difference. Suppliers cannot determine a price other than a floor. Consumers DO determine the price outside the floor. One has a single point control, the others control everything above that. And notice, when any transaction actually occurs, it happens at the price the CONSUMERS set, not the ones the suppliers set.

As for your other calisthenics to defend your point, I think at this time you've broken your back. 

[hbelkins]

Why not do both? They are not mutually exclusive. If you can trim 1 Billion of wasted spending, and I can pull 1 Billion in rental revenues then we have 2 Billion to put towards finally finishing I-70.

There's as much chance of finishing I-70 from its current terminus at the Park & Ride within the city limits of Baltimore as there is of finishing I-40 through Overton Park in Memphis, or I-95 through Washington DC. The chances are zero for any of the projects. The locals have made their decisions.

[HighwayStar]

Why not do both? They are not mutually exclusive. If you can trim 1 Billion of wasted spending, and I can pull 1 Billion in rental revenues then we have 2 Billion to put towards finally finishing I-70.

There's as much chance of finishing I-70 from its current terminus at the Park & Ride within the city limits of Baltimore as there is of finishing I-40 through Overton Park in Memphis, or I-95 through Washington DC. The chances are zero for any of the projects. The locals have made their decisions.

Decisions can be overruled, local decisions matter until Washington decides otherwise, then locals have to just do as they are told. 

Interestingly, I recall seeing this old news clip on some wolves that were being killed in New Mexico by local ranchers, and some bureaucrat got up and made a statement to the effect of "a few people here can't nullify what 90% of Americans want", I say I think that would be excellent to apply to the highways as well.

[Life in Paradise]

Suggestion for alternative road funding:  Tires
Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires based upon (will need to be researched) the mileage expectancy of a particular tire as well as its load bearing basis (to take care of trucks' heavy road usage).  This would be a major hit initially (alas a phase in), but it would allow fuel to go down, include electric vehicles since they also run on tires, new car tire cost could be included at time of purchase, and would hopefully be able to appropriately compensate for road usage. Plus your teenager burning rubber would definitely feel the pain replacing his/her tires.  Now to get the states to jump on board...all would need to otherwise you would have "tire havens" where the cost of tires would be less.

[hotdogPi]

Why do we need to phase out the gas tax? More efficient vehicles costing less is a benefit, not a drawback.

[HighwayStar]

Why do we need to phase out the gas tax? More efficient vehicles costing less is a benefit, not a drawback.

No its a drawback. They still take up space on the roads and wear at the surface, they need to pay for that.
If you had no gas tax, to the extent they are truly more efficient, they would reap the actual benefit of that efficiency. But the status quo is creating an artificial efficiency based on taxes that needs to be fixed.

[HighwayStar]

Suggestion for alternative road funding:  Tires
Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires based upon (will need to be researched) the mileage expectancy of a particular tire as well as its load bearing basis (to take care of trucks' heavy road usage).  This would be a major hit initially (alas a phase in), but it would allow fuel to go down, include electric vehicles since they also run on tires, new car tire cost could be included at time of purchase, and would hopefully be able to appropriately compensate for road usage. Plus your teenager burning rubber would definitely feel the pain replacing his/her tires.  Now to get the states to jump on board...all would need to otherwise you would have "tire havens" where the cost of tires would be less.

This was discussed earlier in the thread I believe. The reason you don't want to do this is it creates a perverse incentive for people to drive on balding/bald/duct taped tires. Taxing a safety feature is generally not a good idea.

[GaryV]

Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires

So instead of paying a small tax every week or month, someone will have to pay a huge tax once every X years.

The cost of tires is already high enough that people will try to get every last smidgen of tread wear out of them. Now they'll have to delay even more because they can't afford the price of the tires plus the tax.

[Rick Powell]

Why do we need to phase out the gas tax? More efficient vehicles costing less is a benefit, not a drawback.

No its a drawback. They still take up space on the roads and wear at the surface, they need to pay for that.
If you had no gas tax, to the extent they are truly more efficient, they would reap the actual benefit of that efficiency. But the status quo is creating an artificial efficiency based on taxes that needs to be fixed.

More efficient gas or diesel powered vehicles are inherently lower taxed. I guarantee the gas tax won't go away until there is no need for fuel when/if the fleet turns completely non-fossil fuel because too many things are dependent on fuel sales, including road construction and maintenance, sales taxes, transit subsidies and the like at the local, state and federal levels. Electric vehicle owners are already complaining about the higher yearly plate fees some states are charging, but there is no way to effectively tax electricity as fuel except at charging stations where maybe 10% of the use is from. With home charging, how is the meter gonna know what is charging your car vs. what is turning on the AC? The other alternative, mileage based tax, is practical but needs to overcome a lot of public skepticism in order to be initiated, and will need to transition from a fuel-based system of collection without perception of "double counting" mileage and fuel based taxes.

[HighwayStar]

Why do we need to phase out the gas tax? More efficient vehicles costing less is a benefit, not a drawback.

No its a drawback. They still take up space on the roads and wear at the surface, they need to pay for that.
If you had no gas tax, to the extent they are truly more efficient, they would reap the actual benefit of that efficiency. But the status quo is creating an artificial efficiency based on taxes that needs to be fixed.

More efficient gas or diesel powered vehicles are inherently lower taxed. I guarantee the gas tax won't go away until there is no need for fuel when/if the fleet turns completely non-fossil fuel because too many things are dependent on fuel sales, including road construction and maintenance, sales taxes, transit subsidies and the like at the local, state and federal levels. Electric vehicle owners are already complaining about the higher yearly plate fees some states are charging, but there is no way to effectively tax electricity as fuel except at charging stations where maybe 10% of the use is from. With home charging, how is the meter gonna know what is charging your car vs. what is turning on the AC? The other alternative, mileage based tax, is practical but needs to overcome a lot of public skepticism in order to be initiated, and will need to transition from a fuel-based system of collection without perception of "double counting" mileage and fuel based taxes.

More efficient gas or diesel powered vehicles are inherently lower taxed. Exactly, and this is an existing flaw with the gas tax.

Millage taxes are not really practical, too much incentive to cheat and roll odometers and other shenanigans.
Plate taxes are actually an excellent way to capture electric vehicle taxes, but they have the downside of taxing based on number of vehicles, rather than miles driven.


A per capita license tax might actually be a good solution, you pay it for having a drivers license, regardless of how many or what vehicle you own. EVs have to pay up, those of us that want to own more than one vehicle are not penalized for doing so, and people that don't own a vehicle but use another person's pay for their driving.

[Scott5114]

Fine private businesses $50 for each traffic control device they post that doesn't follow the MUTCD.

You'd make enough money off of Chick-Fil-A alone to build the rest of I-69.

[formulanone]

Suggestion for alternative road funding:  Tires
Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires based upon (will need to be researched) the mileage expectancy of a particular tire as well as its load bearing basis (to take care of trucks' heavy road usage).  This would be a major hit initially (alas a phase in), but it would allow fuel to go down, include electric vehicles since they also run on tires, new car tire cost could be included at time of purchase, and would hopefully be able to appropriately compensate for road usage. Plus your teenager burning rubber would definitely feel the pain replacing his/her tires.  Now to get the states to jump on board...all would need to otherwise you would have "tire havens" where the cost of tires would be less.

This was discussed earlier in the thread I believe. The reason you don't want to do this is it creates a perverse incentive for people to drive on balding/bald/duct taped tires. Taxing a safety feature is generally not a good idea.

It's also not terribly fair if you pick up a nail or other road hazard. The risk is roughly equal to everyone, though hanging out by home improvement stores and home building sites seem to increase one's chances a bit...

Tires already come with a scrap / disposal fee in almost every state, though it's nominal ($1-4). Not sure if doubling it for the sake of infrastructure would really help nor hurt much; I doubt too many would put off tires over a $4-10 increase, but a slight increase in used tire sales might occur.

[hbelkins]

Suggestion for alternative road funding:  Tires
Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires based upon (will need to be researched) the mileage expectancy of a particular tire as well as its load bearing basis (to take care of trucks' heavy road usage).  This would be a major hit initially (alas a phase in), but it would allow fuel to go down, include electric vehicles since they also run on tires, new car tire cost could be included at time of purchase, and would hopefully be able to appropriately compensate for road usage. Plus your teenager burning rubber would definitely feel the pain replacing his/her tires.  Now to get the states to jump on board...all would need to otherwise you would have "tire havens" where the cost of tires would be less.

This was discussed earlier in the thread I believe. The reason you don't want to do this is it creates a perverse incentive for people to drive on balding/bald/duct taped tires. Taxing a safety feature is generally not a good idea.

It's also not terribly fair if you pick up a nail or other road hazard. The risk is roughly equal to everyone, though hanging out by home improvement stores and home building sites seem to increase one's chances a bit...

Tires already come with a scrap / disposal fee in almost every state, though it's nominal ($1-4). Not sure if doubling it for the sake of infrastructure would really help nor hurt much; I doubt too many would put off tires over a $4-10 increase, but a slight increase in used tire sales might occur.

I came here to suggest diverting the waste tire disposal fee from that fund to the Road Fund.

Very few times in my life have I ever paid the disposal fee, because I've most always kept my old tires and brought them home with me.

[HighwayStar]

Suggestion for alternative road funding:  Tires
Remove/phase out the federal tax for gasoline/diesel and subsequently replace/phase in a tax on tires based upon (will need to be researched) the mileage expectancy of a particular tire as well as its load bearing basis (to take care of trucks' heavy road usage).  This would be a major hit initially (alas a phase in), but it would allow fuel to go down, include electric vehicles since they also run on tires, new car tire cost could be included at time of purchase, and would hopefully be able to appropriately compensate for road usage. Plus your teenager burning rubber would definitely feel the pain replacing his/her tires.  Now to get the states to jump on board...all would need to otherwise you would have "tire havens" where the cost of tires would be less.

This was discussed earlier in the thread I believe. The reason you don't want to do this is it creates a perverse incentive for people to drive on balding/bald/duct taped tires. Taxing a safety feature is generally not a good idea.

It's also not terribly fair if you pick up a nail or other road hazard. The risk is roughly equal to everyone, though hanging out by home improvement stores and home building sites seem to increase one's chances a bit...

Tires already come with a scrap / disposal fee in almost every state, though it's nominal ($1-4). Not sure if doubling it for the sake of infrastructure would really help nor hurt much; I doubt too many would put off tires over a $4-10 increase, but a slight increase in used tire sales might occur.

I came here to suggest diverting the waste tire disposal fee from that fund to the Road Fund.

Very few times in my life have I ever paid the disposal fee, because I've most always kept my old tires and brought them home with me.

At least you can get around that, the stupid battery fee is baked into the price of the thing so you can't doge it.

[hotdogPi]

so you can't doge it.

(by vdeane)

[HighwayStar]

so you can't doge it.

(by vdeane)

Although I was thinking of dodge, I think you could also doge the core charge on a battery, maybe by taking the core out of an old battery, putting sand in, and turning that in as the core, so you get to keep the core and not pay a new core charge. That would be much doge.

[hbelkins]

Why would anyone want to keep the old battery core? Anytime I need a battery for anything, be it a vehicle or a farm/garden implement, I just take an old one to the store and drop it off when I'm picking up the new one.

[HighwayStar]

Why would anyone want to keep the old battery core? Anytime I need a battery for anything, be it a vehicle or a farm/garden implement, I just take an old one to the store and drop it off when I'm picking up the new one.

First, so  you don't have to pay that stupid core charge.
Second, battery cores can be useful for materials salvage, such as when you want to create a weight for ballast, etc.