I mean sure, it's not perfectly, 100% fair, but do you have a better plan, or just complaints? Because rural populations seem to want to have their cake and eat it too - living in a rural area to save money and have additional space, without wanting to pay for the extremely expensive roads that enable their lifestyle, or even to admit that it's infeasible for everyone to live that way
More driving both increases the likelyhood of damages to vehicles or people, and makes this a useage-based fee - so while not perfect, it's the closest we can realistically get without becoming mired in PR mis-understandings or complications, technicalities, and enforcement difficulties.
Rural populations do not have "their cake". They are already charged high prices for goods and transport and punished for not living in unhealthy dense urban environments. This just boosts their cost of living even more. Some people like things like fresh air, space and feeling a connection to the area they live in.
It seems that our rulers want little more than us living in tiny microhomes in filing cabinets, staring at a screen all day for all our needs, while they get to enjoy the countryside as some kind of safari park where they can do what they want. Or at best trapped into some panopticon where you will be prevented from travelling more than a few miles/kilometres away. Most modern urban environments are soul-destroying hellscapes which is why some people don't want to live in them.
Yep you can look up a car's MOT status publicly, including their mileage history at each inspection. I wonder if they'll send a bill from that report, or expect garages to act as tax collectors.
Though currently you don't need an MOT until a vehicle is 3 years old, so they'll to add something there.
Does it matter if the car is electric or not so much for road tearing? I'd thought the wheels and engine capabilities would matter more, but I'm not car expert.
EVs on average are heavier than ICE vehicles, and road damage scales with weight very quickly, but that’s not to say EVs are out there tearing up all the roads. Semi-trucks, construction equipment, heavy machinery towing, etc all do way way more damage than passenger vehicles by a wide margin.
> EVs on average are heavier than ICE vehicles, and road damage scales with weight very quickly
So then tax based on weight if that's the differentiator of the damage done? I guess in combination with mileage would make most sense, and add in a scale based on net worth too to make it extra goodie.
Historically, we've taxed based on gasoline usage, which is a pretty decent proxy for both weight and distance traveled, so it ends up being a road use tax. EVs don't use gas, so we need to introduce new road use taxes specifically for them.
Where this new fee has issues is that it would charge EV owners roughly double the average amount paid by ICE owners in federal fuel tax, and wouldn't consider how much driving a given EV is actually doing.
I wonder if it makes more sense to just add a tax on tires. Tire wear for most vehicles should be proportional to actual weight [1] and mileage, modulo tire quality. So just slap a tax on each tire quality type and there is no need for a system to record the mileage and weight of every car.
[1] Commercial vehicle weight is strongly determined by the cargo load.
If we go by the fourth power rule that is usually cited, it is kind of shocking how fast damage goes up with weight.
For example if you replaced a typical 40 ft transit bus containing 60 passengers going from point A to point B with those same 60 passengers in 60 subcompact electric SUVs, such as Hyundai Kona SELs, the 60 cars going from A to B would do do about 1% of the road damage that the bus would.
This also leads to an interesting possibility. Suppose you had a large city where everyone was driving the ICE version of the Hyundai Kona SEL, and then they all switched to the electric version. The electric version is ~500 pounds heavier than the ICE version, and by the 4th power rule would cause about 70% more road damage than the ICE version.
However, gasoline use in that city would plummet, and so the number of miles driving by the gas tanker trucks that supply the gas stations would plummet to.
Those trucks are way way way heavier than cars. The reduction in road damage from those trucks driving less would in many cases outweigh the increase in damage from everyone switching to a car that weighs ~500 pounds more.
18 wheeler type trucks do over 80% of the damage to roads. They could pay for it all and we'd all simply share the cost in the price of goods, and collection would be vastly simpler and cheaper.
But, there wouldn't be the opportunity for asking for political favors, so don't expect anyone who likes you having to beg to champion such a process.
so $130 for most drivers is actually a bargain in the US too.
I’d have to drive an EV about 35% more miles each year to make it to break even on tax versus our 35 mpg ICE car. It’s no bargain, it’s punishment for driving an EV.
EVs are also much harsher on roads because of their weight.
My Hyundai Ioniq 5 weighs less than the most popular vehicle in the US: the F-150. I don’t see those getting special taxes.
How do you pay more taxes on EVs when you factor in gas taxes?
Huh? Simple math?
$MILES_PER_YEAR/$200 (EV tax in WA) vs. $GALLONS_USED * $0.18 in the ICE car. I pay more in taxes to run the EV in a year than I do for equivalent miles in a 35mpg ICE. IOW, if I drove the Scion xB all the time, I’d pay less tax.
The alternative is them checking the odometer each year on the EVs, which would be fairer, but I feel like Americans would complain that’s an invasion of their privacy or something. Or it would upset the rural voters who have disproportionate power in this country.
Modern cars are full of phone home shenanigans, many of them with cameras and ToS that allow them to observe everything and sell all of the data to anyone that can rub two cents together. IIRC laws coming into effect next year mandate even more of it. If Americans care about privacy of their cars they have a funny way of showing it. The odometer read would actually be a great privacy improvement compared to that.
I think they should just tax tires. It sounds easier to administer and if it was a natural tax it would alleviate the main weakness it seemed to have: That's you buy your tires in the state with the lowest tire tax.
I drove 15,000 miles last year and paid 33.3 cents per gallon to my state. That’s around 833.33 gallons of gas so I paid about $278 dollars. $20 more. Assuming 18mpg.
For an EV I’d pay $258.90 extra to register.
My state must be factoring in average miles driven to come up with the $258 number instead of charging per mile driven.
The weight gap between EV and ICE is often exaggerated.
In fact, within ICE vehicles, the gap between sedans/hatchbacks/compact crossovers and giant SUVs and trucks is larger, and yet for some reason we aren’t taxing drivers of Suburbans and F-150s accordingly.
If we applied this logic fairly we should be pushing people to right-size their vehicles regardless of fuel type.
Keeping things simple and calculating the axle weight to the fourth powers of both vehicles, the F-150 causes 5.4x the road wear of the Honda Accord while using only 1.6x the gas.
The reason this doesn't matter so much, though, is that the types of trucks used for shipping goods, when loaded, cause on the order of 10^4 the road wear, dwarfing any differences between standard commuter vehicles, which is why commercial trucks have to stop at weigh stations.
The big trucks also have a lot more tires / tire surface area, to mitigate that. IIUC, the weigh stations are to ensure they aren’t overloading the truck, so that road wear is comparable instead of being that vastly greater
Redditors claim there is no evidence the weight is relevant to the wear rate of the roads, since weights have become comparable to a similar car and generally less than the average ICE truck, but that the superior acceleration of EV can be harsher on intersections https://www.reddit.com/r/electriccars/comments/1do2rtu/what_...