Post by Peter Trei Post by email@example.com Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by Peter Trei Post by Robert Woodward Post by Paul S Person Post by email@example.com Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Post by email@example.com
Which country are you in? I believe in a mixed economy, like they have
in India and USA. Government should focus on public goods (like
knowledge, national security etc.) and public services (like public
transportation, social services etc.) Both businesses and governments
have strength and weakness.
Do please take your belief and put it on the shelf where it
belongs. We are not talking religion here. We are talking hard
objective facts. Governments are terrible at funding science.
They are terrible at doing basic fundamental research. And
they are terrible at "public services." Glance at the post office
in any country in the world, and compare it to FedEx.
It is fact that the USA has a mixed economy. USA has excellent road
infrastructure. And who built them?
We /used/ to have an excellent road infrastructure.
That is because the road maintenance has been underfunded for decades
(two reasons, the gas taxes haven't kept up with inflation and car
engines have gotten more efficient).
Electric cars are starting to add to the problem. States vary wildly in how
they treat them; in many states, you pay nothing, as I do in MA. Some other
states are punitive, charging up to $200/year or 3x what equivalent ICE cars
typically pay in gas taxes.
Assuming the equivalent ICE car gets the 2025 CAFE standards requirement is
somewhat questionable. I'm assuming the "average" buried in the acronym eluded
them as did the concept of "fleet". I have serious doubts that the average ICE
vehicle is going to double from its current 25 MPG to over 50 in the next five
years. They're also ignoring the federal gas tax in their calcuations.
Texas is one of the states with a proposed surchage ($200) which the site
shows as "212% above" the gas tax, meaning an average tax paid of $64.10.
A quick search showed per capita miles driven in Texas at 16000 and average
fuel economy of new ICE vehicles around 25 MPG, for a yearly consumption of
640 gallons. Fuel tax in Texas is $0.20/gallon state and $0.184/gallon federal,
for an annual tax of $245.76. I see a slight discrepancy.
You're looking at the wrong number.
Interesting...this is the page that Wikipedia links to when giving the
From context they're including cars, SUVs and light trucks.
AFAICT most of the projected increases over the next few years come from
the assumed increase in electrics and pluggable hybrids and the inclusion
of MPGe in the economy averages.
I'd like to see some confirmation of that; anecdotally, I rented ICE vehicles
twice last fall on trips, a Sentra and a Fiesta, and they both got close to
Some of the data is CAFE values, which have even less correspondence to
reality than the EPA values. For example, if I understand correctly in
the CAFE calculations zero emission vehicles count as more than 1 vehicle
sold and, to a lesser extent, so do hybrids. The multiplier decreases by
time and total number of ZEV/hybrid sales by the manufacturer. Also the
CAFE MPG values tend to be significantly higher than the EPA values for
the same vehicle, especially since the EPA changed their methodology to
be closer to real-world results and the CAFE calculation didn't.
Post by Peter Trei
But more to the point, we're still using almost 1000x more energy from
petroleum for transport than energy from electricity, to I don't think EVs
Overall usage has to deal with the 15+ year (and increasing) average lifetime
of a passenger vehicle. ICE vehicles being sold now are likely to be on the
road for two decades. It takes a tremendous increase in fuel prices to
compensate for a car payment. Electrics were around 1.5% of sales in 2018,
but they have an outsize effect with MPGe ratings around 4 times the best
non-hybrid ICE vehicles and 6-8 times typical trucks and SUVs, plus any
Post by Peter Trei Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
When I say 'equivalent', I mean a vehicle of about the same weight, which is
the major determinate of road wear per mile.
Ideally, you'd want to factor in both weight and distance driven. There
are proposals for a distance based tax in some places, but ignoring
weight also leads to unfairness - a Ford Fiesta causes much less road wear
than an F-450.
My undestanding is that while the F-450 causes more wear than the Fiesta,
the wear from either is negligible compared to "big rigs". In our area
there's also a significant amount of seasonal damage (vertisols are the
bane of roads and foundations).
Yeah, its politics, and not ideal. You occasionally see signs on the back of
big listing how much tax they pay per year - its typically in the low 5
Post by email@example.com
Doing it by distance also leads to privacy issues, since some of the proposals
want universal GPS tracking by the State so taxes can be apportioned. Big
Brother is smiling.
I've seen other suggestions, like making it payable yearly as part of the
registration renewal. In places that have yearly inspections, logging the
mileage could be part of the inspection process. The concern with that is
that it doesn't account for people that do a lot of driving in multiple
states...only the registering state gets the funds.
My guess is it balances out pretty well - just do it by weight and distance
driven. (I keep forgetting that some states don't have yearly inspections).
I'm in Texas, but have friends and family in Oklahoma. Oklahoma used to have
inspections, but there was a huge battle years ago that ended with the entire
system being eliminated. The station owners didn't want to do inpsections for
the long-unchanged state fee ($5, i think?) and the legislature refused to
authorize an increase.
In Texas I'm pretty sure the mileage already gets reported to the state.
Registration can't be renewed unless there's a successful inpsection logged
less than (IIRC) 90 days prior. Registration is also proof of inspection.
Post by Peter Trei
Another way to do it would be to tax tires; the wear done to them by the
road may be a pretty good proxy for the wear they do to the road. Downside
would be that it would incentivize people to drive tires bald. Perhaps some
kind of rebate on tread left on the tire being replaced?
I think that could get really complicated. For one thing, I haven't noticed
a substantial difference in tread life between our passenger cars (around
3500 lbs) and our truck (over 8000 lbs). There's a bigger difference on the
same car depending on the model and type of tire. The stock tires on the
truck lasted about 35,000 and were replaced because of age (sidewall cracks)
rather than treadwear. OTOH I've run Pirellis that only lasted 15,000 (but the
vehicle they were on cornered a lot better than the truck).
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com