# New Tax on hybrid cars



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 29, 2013)

I think a much better way of funding road work would be to impose an import tax on imported oil.that way oil companies would be incentivized to produce and sell domestically produced oil that had NO TAX.
ALso i dont think they should put any new taxes on electric cars as long as they still subsidize oil, still import oil and until electric cars reached a certain market share like 25% or more.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/04/28/hybrid-taxes-gas-tax-highway-funding/2110297/


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 29, 2013)

How about taxing tires instead of gas?  If you drive more, you wear out your tires faster.  If you drive aggressively you wear your tires out faster.  You can buy tires that will last an extremely long time, but there are trade offs in the performance of the tires.  The obvious downside of this is you would be looking at $1000 for a tire.

Hybrids and electric cars do use the road.  I see no reason why they shouldn't be required to help pay for the building and maintenance of them.  

Matt


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 29, 2013)

The big picture is getting away from a single energy source for transportation,much more important than making hybrid owners "pay the freight" at least for now with alternative propulsion in its infancy and barely cost effective on startup.


----------



## semipro (Apr 29, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> How about taxing tires instead of gas?


Interesting idea, I kind of like it. You're right though. It would probably create a heck of a market for used or illicit tires since the cost for new ones would be so high.
Unintended consequence would be diminished safety though as folks try to get every last mile out of worn tires.



EatenByLimestone said:


> Hybrids and electric cars do use the road. I see no reason why they shouldn't be required to help pay for the building and maintenance of them.


Agreed, just not more than the other non-hybrid vehicles as is now the case in VA where I live (and drive a hybrid).

Ultimately, road fees should be based on mileage driven and vehicle weight.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 29, 2013)

semipro said:


> Ultimately, road fees should be based on mileage driven and vehicle weight.


Bingo, vehicle weight does more road damage than any other factor other than miles+weight. Large trucks do the most road damage by far over any other type of vehicle. THey do also pay very high license fees.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 29, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> How about taxing tires instead of gas?



It never ceases to amaze me... people talk endlessly about government waste and overspending in general terms, but every time a specific example arises, they talk about what new thing we should tax.

How about finding a way to build roads for less?  If you cut the average crew of five down to the one guy who's actually working, and eliminate the four standing there watching him, you'd have an overnight direct labor savings of 80%.  No new tax needed.


----------



## lukem (Apr 29, 2013)

I believe the "tire lobby" in DC is pretty strong, believe it or not.  Tire tax would never fly even if it was a good idea.

Taxing hybrids sounds like an even worse idea.

I'm with Joful.  It wasn't that long ago I watched a state highway "crew" remove a single standing dead tree from a roadside.  They rolled up with no less than 6 guys in two gigantic trucks.  It took them 6 hours for what amounted to simple chop and drop.  Not bragging here, but I could have easily done the job in an hour by myself and hauled it off in a Ford Ranger.  Instead they used probably $1,000 in labor and burned $100 in diesel.  There's an amazing amount of gov't waste out there.


----------



## semipro (Apr 29, 2013)

Joful said:


> It never ceases to amaze me... people talk endlessly about government waste and overspending in general terms, but every time a specific example arises, they talk about what new thing we should tax.


In my case anyway, I wasn't talking about a "new" tax, I was talking about one to replace the existing "at the pump" tax though I didn't explain that.


----------



## firebroad (Apr 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> I believe the "tire lobby" in DC is pretty strong, believe it or not. Tire tax would never fly even if it was a good idea.
> 
> Taxing hybrids sounds like an even worse idea.
> 
> I'm with Joful. It wasn't that long ago I watched a state highway "crew" remove a single standing dead tree from a roadside. They rolled up with no less than 6 guys in two gigantic trucks. It took them 6 hours for what amounted to simple chop and drop. Not bragging here, but I could have easily done the job in an hour by myself and hauled it off in a Ford Ranger. Instead they used probably $1,000 in labor and burned $100 in diesel. There's an amazing amount of gov't waste out there.


But are you sure they were State Employees, and not untrained prisoners?  In my state we use a lot of those guys.  And it would be cost effective, if you don't take into consideration that you are not giving the job to a tree expert...


----------



## firebroad (Apr 29, 2013)

...But you know, why don't they just quit taxing the $#!t out of the people and learn to economize like the rest of us?


----------



## lukem (Apr 29, 2013)

firebroad said:


> But are you sure they were State Employees, and not untrained prisoners? In my state we use a lot of those guys. And it would be cost effective, if you don't take into consideration that you are not giving the job to a tree expert...


 
Definitely state employees.  Prisoners are in orange jumpsuits, even if they are on a work release program.

1 guy to run the saw.  1 guy to put wood in the truck.  1 guy to supervise saw operator.  I guy to supervise wood loader.  A driver for each truck...that's 6.  Sounds right.


----------



## firebroad (Apr 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> Definitely state employees. Prisoners are in orange jumpsuits, even if they are on a work release program.
> 
> 1 guy to run the saw. 1 guy to put wood in the truck. 1 guy to supervise saw operator. I guy to supervise wood loader. A driver for each truck...that's 6. Sounds right.


Yep, that's State Employee procedure.  Segregation of duties.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 29, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Bingo, vehicle weight does more road damage than any other factor other than miles+weight. Large trucks do the most road damage by far over any other type of vehicle. THey do also pay very high license fees.


 

I'm not convinced that large trucks automatically do more damage.  It would seem to me that the damage would related to the weight spread out on the individual contact patches of the tire.  The size and amount of the contact patches would determine the damage.  The small car may weigh much less, but have fewer square inches of tire touching the pavement to spread the weight out.  A larger vehicle may have more square inches of tire touching the ground therefore any square inch may have fewer pounds of pressure on it.  A Prius weighs much less than a dually, but the dually has larger tires and 6 of them to help distribute the weight.  

Does anybody care to make measurements of the contact patches of a dually and a Prius to test this?  Does anybody drive a Peterbuilt that we can measure the contact patches just for giggles?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 29, 2013)

Joful said:


> It never ceases to amaze me... people talk endlessly about government waste and overspending in general terms, but every time a specific example arises, they talk about what new thing we should tax.
> 
> How about finding a way to build roads for less? If you cut the average crew of five down to the one guy who's actually working, and eliminate the four standing there watching him, you'd have an overnight direct labor savings of 80%. No new tax needed.


 

I'm not the one whining about the extra charge for hybrids.  Tough roads will take those hybrids off the road long before many other vehicles are taken out by them.

I'm offering an alternative way to raise the revenue needed to fix the roads.  

I thought we were trying to think outside the box on this board.


----------



## semipro (Apr 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> Definitely state employees. Prisoners are in orange jumpsuits, even if they are on a work release program.
> 
> 1 guy to run the saw. 1 guy to put wood in the truck. 1 guy to supervise saw operator. I guy to supervise wood loader. A driver for each truck...that's 6. Sounds right.


The one that kills me is the one sitting in the truck watching everyone else work with his/her motor running and the AC/heat on.


----------



## semipro (Apr 29, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I'm not convinced that large trucks automatically do more damage. It would seem to me that the damage would related to the weight spread out on the individual contact patches of the tire. The size and amount of the contact patches would determine the damage. The small car may weigh much less, but have fewer square inches of tire touching the pavement to spread the weight out. A larger vehicle may have more square inches of tire touching the ground therefore any square inch may have fewer pounds of pressure on it. A Prius weighs much less than a dually, but the dually has larger tires and 6 of them to help distribute the weight.
> 
> Does anybody care to make measurements of the contact patches of a dually and a Prius to test this? Does anybody drive a Peterbuilt that we can measure the contact patches just for giggles?


I agree but didn't want to get lost in the "weight" versus "force per area" details in my post.  Suffice it to say that factors other than just mileage impact road wear.


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 29, 2013)

Most folks dont know it but every barrel of foreign oil has a "tax" called a RIN on it that goes in a fund to subsidize renewable liquid fuels for transportation. Unfortunately no company has figured out a way of making renewable fuel competitive even with subsidies. To date several companies have faked it and got lots of money out of the fund (and also got caught)

http://gas2.org/2013/03/11/clean-fuels-lead-to-dirty-money-fraud/

In New Zealand they pay high gas taxes plus and cost per mile driven. The odometers are checked when the cars are inspected yearly.


----------



## begreen (Apr 29, 2013)

WA state is already proposing an excise (license) tax on hybrids and electrics.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 29, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I'm offering an alternative way to raise the revenue needed to fix the roads.



I am, too:  reduce waste and spending.



EatenByLimestone said:


> I thought we were trying to think outside the box on this board.



At this point, in our country, my statement is "out of the box."


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 29, 2013)

lukem said:


> There's an amazing amount of gov't waste out there.


No argument on that point. It is proven big trucks do the most road damage. THe truckers know this as well otherwise they would be fighting those very high registration fees they pay.
Also thats what those weigh stations are for on the interstate,not only to see if the truck is overloaded generally but also to see if there is more than the legal weight on any one tire.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Apr 29, 2013)

I don't think they are as worried about road damage as they are about an overloaded truck not being able to stop in a reasonable distance.

 The truckers aren't fighting the registration fees because they are passing the cost on to us.  We are happily paying the high registration fees when we buy the goods they are moving.  It's kind of like taxing a corporation.  They aren't absorbing the cost, they are passing it on to the consumer.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 30, 2013)

At the legal weight a large truck exerts over 2 tons per tire on the road ,a typical car about 1/4 that much. Plus large trucks are run almost continuously day and night putting a lot of miles as well.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 1, 2013)

Not per tire.  That isn't an accurate measurement since tires do not come to a point beneath the vehicle.  How many lbs per square inch of contact?  There is a flat patch at the bottom of each tire where the weight is spread out.  The only way to calculate true road wear is to calculate the weight on the total area.  

For instance, my truck is an '04 Ram 1500.  I just measured the contact patch of a front tire at 205X265mm.  That's about 8.125" x 10.5" which equals 85.3 square inches.  A rear tire's contact patch was 190x165mm... 7.5X10.5 or 78.75 square inches.  157.5 +170.6 = 328.1 square inches to distribute the 6650lbs that DOT says my truck weighs.  That's 20.3lbs per square inch.  

I run the max tire pressure of 45psi in my tires to minimize rolling resistance.  DOT says I should put only 35psi in my tires.  That would increase my contact patch and lower the amount of pounds that my truck puts on each square inch of pavement.  Maybe it would move it to 17lbs per square inch or so?  Maybe I should deflate my tires and measure it sometime.

Somebody with a hybrid measure your contact patch and then look at the door sticker to find the weight.  I'd be interested to see how many pounds per square inch one of them puts down.  Since hybrids are set up for decreased rolling resistance and have small tires I'd bet that it's more pounds per square inch than one would think.  


Matt


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 1, 2013)

Ok, I had to go to Lowes and pick up bean seeds for the garden.  There is a Toyota dealership around the corner from Lowes so I stopped in and confused the salesman there.  

A 2010 Prius weighs 3980 lbs!  Those batteries must be heavy!  It runs on 195/65/R15s and the front has a contact patch of 150X195. 6"x 7.75" = 46.5 sq inches. Double that gives you 93 sq inches. The back has a contact patch of 110X195.  4.25X7.75= 32.9 sq in.  Doubling it gives 65.875 sq inches.   Adding the total square inches for front and back gives us 158.875 sq inches.  3980/158.875 =25.05 lbs per square inch.  







That 2010 Prius puts more wear on the road than my full size truck!  


I checked a 2013 Prius' footprint also.  The door was locked so I couldn't check the weight, but the tires were the same size.  From the factory the front had a contact patch of 120X195.  The back had 170X195.  They moved a lot of weight to the back! Maybe a full gas tank? Ok, assuming the same weight on the door tag these are the numbers I get.  (Due to the difference in the contact patches there is either a big difference in the tire's sidewall stiffness or the car weighs more.)  Front: 4.5*7.75*2=69.75 sq inches.  Rear: 6.75*7.75*2= 104.625 square inches.  This will give us 174.375 square inches of contact patch. 3980/174.375=22.824 lbs per square inch.  




Both vehicles put more wear on the road than my truck.    I'd like to see more hybrids.  


I drive a Toyota Yaris for/at work.  It's a POS, but it might be interesting to see how the weight is distributed.  It would be interesting to see how a small car that doesn't have 2 propulsion systems in it fares.   I'll report back tomorrow on it.


 Matt


----------



## semipro (May 1, 2013)

Way to go Matt. I love the inquisitive, hands-on, confusing-the-saleman approach.

So let's take a fully loaded 18 wheeler. If we assume the contact patch area is 100 in^2 per wheel with 18 wheels and a load of 80,000 lb. then you get about 45 lb/in^ or over twice the area loading of your Ram truck. The big question there is the assumption of the contact patch size and that weight is distributed equally among wheels.

I was thinking the same as you that it all came down to load per area. Then I started suspecting it might be more complex than that and might go as deep as geo-technical issues having to do with load distribution and road bed construction.
I spent a little time looking around and came across at least one credible reference indicating that attribution of road damage is more complex than that. Check out http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 1, 2013)

Quote
The need for road surface maintenance is greatly attributable to the heaviest vehicles. Based on the findings of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test, damage caused by heavy trucks was long thought to increase with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. This means that one axle of 10 tons on a heavy truck was 160,000 times more damaging to a road surface than an axle of 0.5 tons (car scale).End quote

160,000 times more damaging to the road tha a car ! I rest my case.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 1, 2013)

On the way back I saw a tanker filling up the tanks of a gas station.  I actually thought of pulling over and asking to measure tires.  :D

I bet that the load isn't carried equal in most 18 wheeler trailers.  With the rear tires so far back there has to be a lot of tongue weight.  Gasoline tankers also appear to carry more than one grade of fuel so they must be partitioned for it.  I imagine they carry more 87 than 89 or 92/93 also.  I was hoping there was some guy on the board who drove them.  

Maybe there is a civil engineer on the board who could enlighten us about different types of road damage?  Since you see different road ratings for sections of road there has to be differences in foundations, but assuming the road isn't abused by a vehicle too heavy for it, how does it wear?  

Matt


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 1, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Quote
> The need for road surface maintenance is greatly attributable to the heaviest vehicles. Based on the findings of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test, damage caused by heavy trucks was long thought to increase with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. This means that one axle of 10 tons on a heavy truck was 160,000 times more damaging to a road surface than an axle of 0.5 tons (car scale).End quote
> 
> 160,000 times more damaging to the road tha a car ! I rest my case.


 

Before you rest your case maybe you can explain it in more detail.  

Thank you beforehand.

Matt


----------



## semipro (May 1, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> On the way back I saw a tanker filling up the tanks of a gas station. I actually thought of pulling over and asking to measure tires. :D
> 
> I bet that the load isn't carried equal in most 18 wheeler trailers. With the rear tires so far back there has to be a lot of tongue weight. Gasoline tankers also appear to carry more than one grade of fuel so they must be partitioned for it. I imagine they carry more 87 than 89 or 92/93 also. I was hoping there was some guy on the board who drove them.Matt


Interesting related item.  I was once told that tankers carried only the low and high grades in the tankers with two respective tanks at gas stations. The mid-grade fuel is made at the pump by mixing the low and high grades.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 2, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Before you rest your case maybe you can explain it in more detail.
> Thank you beforehand.
> Matt


You would have to ask these people to explain their test. Im just quoting the article.   
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) road test.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (May 2, 2013)

Having a hard time with a big rig putting the same psi down on a road as a vehicle myself. For most of the year we drive the oil leases with 4x4 pickups, mud flying everywhere mind you. A triple axle tractor with a triple axle trailer tries the same road and down to the axles/frame she goes & out come the D8's to pull her out. Just can't see how those two vehicles are putting down anywhere near close to the same psi on the road.


----------



## jharkin (May 2, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I'm not convinced that large trucks automatically do more damage. It would seem to me that the damage would related to the weight spread out on the individual contact patches of the tire. The size and amount of the contact patches would determine the damage. The small car may weigh much less, but have fewer square inches of tire touching the pavement to spread the weight out. A larger vehicle may have more square inches of tire touching the ground therefore any square inch may have fewer pounds of pressure on it. A Prius weighs much less than a dually, but the dually has larger tires and 6 of them to help distribute the weight.
> 
> Does anybody care to make measurements of the contact patches of a dually and a Prius to test this? Does anybody drive a Peterbuilt that we can measure the contact patches just for giggles?


 
LIme and Semipro-

I think you have your math worng..

Regardless of the actual size of the tire, contact patch roughly equals the load on the tire divided by the inflation pressure in PSI. This is why offroaders deflate their tires to drive on sand - it increase the contact patch.


So if you have a 3000 lb Prius, and its tires are inflated to 30psi, there is 100 in2 of contact patch devided over 4 tires, each doing pressing down with a force of 30 lb (see the psi).


Then you have your loaded 80,000lb 18 wheeler which runs 80+psi in its tires. 80,000/80 = 1,000 in2 of contact patch each applying 80 lb of force on the road.

Not even a contest...


----------



## jharkin (May 2, 2013)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I bet that the load isn't carried equal in most 18 wheeler trailers. With the rear tires so far back there has to be a lot of tongue weight. Gasoline tankers also appear to carry more than one grade of fuel so they must be partitioned for it. I imagine they carry more 87 than 89 or 92/93 also. I was hoping there was some guy on the board who drove them.


 
The difference in weight between a gallon of 87 and a gallon of 93 is negligible - only a couple of ounces. 89 is made at the pump by mixing the other 2 grades.

You are right the weight per axle is different. There are different limits for the steering and drive axles. The steering axles carry the least, the axles at the back of the trailer more, and the drive axles at the tongue carry the most, as they are taking a lot of the trailer weight and a lot of the cab/driveline weight (this is good for drive traction).

Take a look at a typical layout:







notice the overhang at the back? This puts slightly more of the trailer weight (assuming its equally loaded) over the rear trailer axles, to partially offset the extra cab weight at the drive axles.




> Maybe there is a civil engineer on the board who could enlighten us about different types of road damage? Since you see different road ratings for sections of road there has to be differences in foundations, but assuming the road isn't abused by a vehicle too heavy for it, how does it wear?


 
No matter how light the vehicle, every time a loaded tire passes along a road its applying and releasing a force on the road surface which causes the pavement to flex very slightly. Even if each flex is extremely small, over time the cumulative effects of all those flexing events (fatigue) builds up until cracks, etc form.


----------



## semipro (May 2, 2013)

jharkin said:


> I think you have your math worng.. Regardless of the actual size of the tire, contact patch roughly equals the load on the tire divided by the inflation pressure in PSI. This is why offroaders deflate their tir


So you're saying if the tire pressure is halved the contact patch doubles?
I agree that lower pressure results in more contact area but doubt the relationship is linear.
The structure of the tire itself also acts to support the load.

Edit: Found this:
From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_patch
_Statically, the size, shape, and pressure distribution are functions of many things,the most important of which are the load on the tire and the inflation pressure:_

_The larger the load on the tire, the larger the contact patch._
_The larger the inflation pressure, the smaller the contact patch._
_Unfortunately, these two properties are not linearly proportional to the area of the contact. Put another way, a 10% change in load or inflation pressure usually does not result in a 10% change in the contact patch.[2] This makes intuitive sense, because while the load or pressure of a tire can be altered freely, the contact patch size will always be limited by the tire geometry._

Tire pressure really has nothing to do with our original discussion though, or very little. The weight of the truck divided by the contact area yields loading in force per unit area....period. As mentioned earlier some tires likely are loaded more than others though.


----------



## jharkin (May 2, 2013)

You are right Semipro that it is not a linear relationship. If tires where just squishy innertubes it would be but in the real world sidewall stiffness, etc plays a role. BUt still, There is no doubt a semi is doing more damage. Even if you could mathematically prove one Prius tire causes damage than 1 semi tire (which I highly doubt but am open to being proved wrong), the semi is still giving the road 18 poundings to the Prius' 4.


----------



## Jags (May 2, 2013)

semipro said:


> I spent a little time looking around and came across at least one credible reference indicating that attribution of road damage is more complex than that. Check out http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm


 
Take a piece of cling wrap from your cupboard.  Stretch tight.  Apply a single pound in the center square inch.  Now apply 10 pounds over the center 10 square inches.  Not the same thing.


----------



## semipro (May 2, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Even if you could mathematically prove one Prius tire causes damage than 1 semi tire (which I highly doubt but am open to being proved wrong), the semi is still giving the road 18 poundings to the Prius' 4.


Actually, I showed above (post 25) that one semi tire does create more load-per-unit-area than does a Prius so we're in agreement.


----------



## semipro (May 2, 2013)

Jags said:


> Take a piece of cling wrap from your cupboard. Stretch tight. Apply a single pound in the center square inch. Now apply 10 pounds over the center 10 square inches. Not the same thing.


Agreed but I'm not sure your point.


----------



## Jags (May 2, 2013)

semipro said:


> Agreed but I'm not sure your point.


 
That using a base line of pounds per square inch isn't the only factor.  Total pounds can have a much more damaging effect.  10 pounds on that cling wrap would have caused catastrophic failure.


----------



## semipro (May 2, 2013)

See my posts 16, 25, 34. 
I'm not sure where we're in disagreement.


----------



## Jags (May 2, 2013)

semipro said:


> See my posts 16, 25, 34.
> I'm not sure where we're in disagreement.


 
No, no...I believe that WE are on the same page.  My post above was simply another way to illustrate that Pounds per square inch is not the only thing to take into consideration. It was not pointed at you (or anyone for that matter).


----------



## semipro (May 2, 2013)

Jags said:


> No, no...I believe that WE are on the same page. My post above was simply another way to illustrate that Pounds per square inch is not the only thing to take into consideration. It was not pointed at you (or anyone for that matter).


Sorry for any misunderstanding. 
I'd like to blame it on the communication mode but I don't do much better in person.


----------



## Mykayel (Jun 30, 2013)

Did someone ask for a civil engineer??  I design structures, not pavement for a living, but I still remember my classes I took and in reality this is a structural question anyway.  The size of the contact patch doesn't really matter its the total load from each axle that matters, so it is the big trucks that destroy the roads, cars really don't do anything.

 Lets talk about concrete (asphalt is a little different as it is 'flexable' but similar concepts apply).  Concrete is very strong in compression but only has about 1/10th its strength in tension (called its modulus of rupture).  So if a tire is inflated to 35psi (or 100psi) this load over the contact area is very small compared to its compressive strength of about 4000psi (can be much higher but this is about normal strength).  But this stress on the concrete doesn't really matter as concrete is good in compression.  What matters is the tensile stresses that are created.  Think of a patch of pavement as a beam that has to span from one section of soil (the compacted rock sub-base) to another patch of soil on each side of the axile load.  The total load of the axle causes the pavement to bend and creates tensile stresses on the bottom side of the concrete.  You could put some ultimate load that would cause the pavement to crack from this flexural bending stresses (the tensile stresses on the bottom side of the pavement).  But what causes pavements to fail is fatigue, the loading and unloading stresses.  And the larger the loading and unloading cycles are (i.e. the larger the total axle load is) the sooner it will fail in the flexural failure I described.  A car's axle is so light compared to a big truck, that the amount of fatigue it induces on the pavement is virtually zero compared to the amount that a truck puts on the pavement.  The axle load is what matters, not the load on the contact patch.  The other thing that causes concrete to fail is the freeze thaw cycles and issues at the joints between pavement pieces.

If we really wanted to tax vehicles based on the wear and tear they put on the roads, then we wouldn't tax cars at all, we would only tax trucks.  But the 'problem' is everyone including passenger vehicles benefit from the roads and use the roads.  So the passenger vehicles should have to pay for something, especially to help build new roads.  In my opinion, each vehicle (other than big trucks) should pay the same registration fee and there shouldn't be a use tax.  Everyone benefits from the entire system of roads.  But at the same time it only makes sense to have a little bit of a use tax as certain people benefit more from using the road system more.  The easiest way to do that is a fuel tax or a per mile tax.  I don't think its right for hybrid/electric cars to get a special tax because they use less fuel, based on this logic all fuel efficientvehicles should have a special tax.  If a state is going to have a special tax, I think they really should just do tax per mile on a yearly basis for all vehicles.


----------



## begreen (Jul 1, 2013)

Problem with the tax per mile is that some vehicles do a lot of out of state travel. It would hit the snowbirds traveling back and forth from NY to Florida harder for example.


----------



## PapaDave (Jul 1, 2013)

As far as the road damage thing goes, drive your personal vehicle on a patch of dirt road or gravel drive or asphalt.
Then, invite a semi to drive on the same surface. Wait for a nice rainy day, or after a decent rain.
Your answer is in the result.
Any vehicle using the roads should be taxed in some way to help pay for the road and it's maintenance. Hybrids/electrics don't pay as much as a gas/diesel vehicle, but may drive as much or more.
Tax per mile wouldn't only be tougher on snowbirds.......folks who drive from metro Detroit to my neck of the woods for recreation might also pay more, just as they do now.
Should we have to pay fuel tax for lawn mower use.....chainsaw.....tractor, or any other device or vehicle that never sees or uses a road? I think not.
I don't have an answer to the question of how to tax road use, but lots of questions come up when the discussion starts.


----------



## btuser (Jul 2, 2013)

Taxed per mile and paid every year when you register/inspect you car.  Some of the money would get kicked upstairs to pay for interstates and whatnot.  As far as out-of-state travel states would have to eat it, but it's in essence people bringing business/money into the state so other than a few extra in-coming toll roads I don't see it being a problem.  People are gonna flip when it costs $2k to register a car.  

I'm not going to let them put a meter in my car to let them know where I've been.  Already got cell phone for that.


----------



## Grisu (Jul 2, 2013)

I know I am asking for some beating but I would suggest: Increase the gasoline tax to offset the decline in revenue and push more people to buy fuel efficient cars. Do it in steps until most people drive high-mpg cars, but revenue stays the same. Advantages: Less pollution, less consumption of non-renewable fuels, less money going out of the country to buy oil (net import oil in 2012: 2.7 billion barrels; at $90 per barrel = $243 billion in "exported" dollar; US trade deficit 2012: $540 billion; that means oil imports are responsible for 45% of the trade deficit).


----------



## begreen (Jul 2, 2013)

They will do more than flip. It already costs $2450 just in sales tax to buy a $25K car in the Seattle area. The last time the excise tax on car sales was even moderately high ($600 on a $30K car) a voter initiative killed the excise tax and left the entire transportation structure floundering (it still is in a world of hurt). Personally I would love to end the initiative process all together in this state. It is nothing but mindless populism. Most of the time folks don't even know what they are asking for or the consequences if the initiative passes.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 2, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I know I am asking for some beating but I would suggest: Increase the gasoline tax to offset the decline in revenue and push more people to buy fuel efficient cars. Do it in steps until most people drive high-mpg cars, but revenue stays the same. Advantages: Less pollution, less consumption of non-renewable fuels, less money going out of the country to buy oil (net import oil in 2012: 2.7 billion barrels; at $90 per barrel = $243 billion in "exported" dollar; US trade deficit 2012: $540 billion; that means oil imports are responsible for 45% of the trade deficit).


Im right with you Grisu, Its simple and effective,the heavy gas guzzlers(which incidentally do more road wear) pay the most tax and it will hasten new tech into place faster such as the one listed. Even though i drive 2 gas guzzlers im all for rewarding those who dont.
http://gm-volt.com/2013/07/02/a-lit...ve-a-volt-120-miles-aer-seven-years-from-now/
New tech could wean us off all kinds of oil not just foreign oil.


----------



## pyroholic (Jul 2, 2013)

PapaDave said:


> Should we have to pay fuel tax for lawn mower use.....chainsaw.....tractor, or any other device or vehicle that never sees or uses a road? I think not.
> I don't have an answer to the question of how to tax road use, but lots of questions come up when the discussion starts.


 

Is there such a thing as off-road gasoline just as there is off-road diesel.  I've never seen it.  Seems that an awful lot of gasoline gets put into OPE and such each year.


----------



## bmblank (Jul 2, 2013)

I have an idea, why don't we raise taxes on hybrids and use that money to pay for the tax incentive for people to buy hybrids!


This whole thing is ridiculous.


----------



## btuser (Jul 2, 2013)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im right with you Grisu, Its simple and effective,the heavy gas guzzlers(which incidentally do more road wear) pay the most tax and it will hasten new tech into place faster such as the one listed. Even though i drive 2 gas guzzlers im all for rewarding those who dont.
> http://gm-volt.com/2013/07/02/a-lit...ve-a-volt-120-miles-aer-seven-years-from-now/
> New tech could wean us off all kinds of oil not just foreign oil.


 
Foreign oil is not the enemy.  Canada and Mexico would be plenty happy to sell their oil to Chindia.  The devaluation of our currency (because we lose the petrodollar) will drive people to electric cars much faster than tax+spend manipulation.


----------



## Grisu (Jul 2, 2013)

btuser said:


> Foreign oil is not the enemy. Canada and Mexico would be plenty happy to sell their oil to Chindia. *The devaluation of our currency* (because we lose the petrodollar) will drive people to electric cars much faster than tax+spend manipulation.


 
Then we better get our trade deficit under control. Right now, we give to our foreign trading partners more $ then they can spend by buying American made products and that since 1980. I don't have the time to add everything up but by now foreign countries must hold somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 trillion dollar. Now imagine you are an oil producer somewhere and those guys come waving with their green paper bills to buy more oil. You probably just open the shed, show them the stashes of $-bills you have there and tell them to stuff their greenbacks in ... you know where. Right now we are lucky that our trading partners invest their dollar only in US treasuries and US stocks. If they ever decide to use all that money to buy real goods and services you will see prices go through the roof. The other option is they exchange the dollar for the currency of a country that can actually sell them something with the result that the $ exchange rate will tank. Neither of the two options sound really appealing, I guess.

*The continuous trade deficit is a real problem in contrast to the government debt!*


----------



## btuser (Jul 3, 2013)

Grisu said:


> I don't have the time to add everything up but by now foreign countries must hold somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 trillion dollar.


It's over 90 trillion dollars.  Our government debt isn't  anywhere close to the actual amount.  It's potentially much higher, considering a majority of financial contracts are written with dollars.


----------



## Grisu (Jul 3, 2013)

btuser said:


> It's over 90 trillion dollars. Our government debt isn't anywhere close to the actual amount. It's potentially much higher, considering a majority of financial contracts are written with dollars.


 
?? Where did you get that number? Overall US debt is around $60 trillion and certainly not all held by foreigners and $30 trillion would still be missing. I estimated that the trade deficit sine 1980 was approx. $300 billion per year for 32 years which makes roughly $10 trillion. That is probably overestimating it as the huge deficits of $500 billion and more did not start before 2000.


----------



## Foragefarmer (Jul 4, 2013)

The article posted is misleading in so many ways it is not funny.

It says gas tax should change to a percentage tax from a certain number of cents per gallon. Well that is what Virginia did.

It also failed to mention that while the gas tax was reduced, the tax on diesel was increased. So it is not just hybrid and electric cars picking up the slack, the majority of the slack is being picked up by diesel vehicles.

It makes the Gov. sound evil because he is a Republican. But fails to mention the transportation bill was a bipartisan compromise bill that had the overwhelming support of Dems. in the legislature. The tea party was incensed over the bill to the point that the Gov. is damaged goods; although he was already starting to look like damaged goods over something else, and they got two major Rep. backers of the bill defeated in the primaries.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 5, 2013)

Yeah but Virginia raising the sales tax and lowering gas taxes for road funds is a crock. Just ask somebody that drives about nine miles a week. Me. 

Taxing toilet paper to build roads? Excuse me but...


----------



## begreen (Jul 5, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> Yeah but Virginia raising the sales tax and lowering gas taxes for road funds is a crock. Just ask somebody that drives about nine miles a week. Me.
> 
> Taxing toilet paper to build roads? Excuse me but...


Put it that way and it sounds like an ass-fault exchange program.


----------



## Grisu (Jul 5, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> Taxing toilet paper to build roads?


 
Of course the voted for this, given how much sh.. they are producing.


----------



## Foragefarmer (Jul 5, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> Yeah but Virginia raising the sales tax and lowering gas taxes for road funds is a crock. Just ask somebody that drives about nine miles a week. Me.
> 
> Taxing toilet paper to build roads? Excuse me but...



I agree it is a crock,but y'all NOVA types needed to be appeased.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 5, 2013)

Foragefarmer said:


> I agree it is a crock,but y'all NOVA types needed to be appeased.


 

And got a higher sales tax in the bill than you did. Different taxes based on where ya live. Cheaper exactly 15 miles East of me. If I lived six miles farther South I would have a .7 less sales tax under this cluster.

Of course my house would be in the down range portion of the Quantico firing range.


----------



## Foragefarmer (Jul 5, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> And got a higher sales tax in the bill than you did. Different taxes based on where ya live. Cheaper exactly 15 miles East of me. If I lived six miles farther South I would have a .7 less sales tax under this cluster.
> 
> Of course my house would be in the down range portion of the Quantico firing range.



I know, but I got a larger fuel tax since I drive a diesel.


----------



## Hogwildz (Jul 6, 2013)

Matt, trucking companies may pass on some transportation costs, but the owner operator does not. He eats licensing, fees, fuel, maintenance etc.
Now getting the illegal alien truck drivers to pay taxes and spend money in the US economy rather then send every cent back home to (pick any other country of your choice) would be a good start. They also drive the pay of hauling freight down, cause they will do it for much less than a US citizen trucker can afford to.
Fed law states all commercially licensed truck drivers be able to read, write & speak English, I assure you this law is not well enforced.
If big brother would work on enforcing laws already in place, rather than making new ones, this would settle itself. Same goes for taxes. Rather than make new taxes, why not start adjusting tax laws to kill corporate oversees accounts etc. Don't think to tax the working class more, make the corps who have the most money, yet pay the least taxes, pony up their share.
Taxing tires would not be such a great idea if you had to drive for a living. I do, and I see no reason why I should have to pay more than anyone else because I drive a lot for a living.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 24, 2013)

Why not just tax all vehicles with a high annual tax of $2,500 per vechicle? This wouldn't effect the rich b/c they have the money to just pay it and really they are only 1% of America's population. So in the big picture they aren't doing as much harm as the rest of the 99% of the people.  This would be hitting the middle and lower class people more which is good b/c they are driving the older less earth friendly cars to begin with. But in the long run they would be saving more money, they just don't relies it.  We are all in it together and it would make people not want to own cars and make people move into the cities and use their bikes which are earth friendly and more importantly no carbon emissions. It would make us use less oil too. There would be less pollution and people would be more healthy.  Wouldn't this be great?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 24, 2013)

Hybrid cars are by definition lighter weight and do minimal road damage. We have had a need for a long time to get solitary drivers OUT of gas guzzlers and into hybrids and high MPG cars. Taxing these further would be counter productive. IMO. THis coming from someone driving 2 gas guzzlers. IF gas taxes were higher, it might make economic sense for me to switch. At current prices it does not.


----------



## begreen (Dec 24, 2013)

Weight is relative to size. Electric cars are heavier due to battery weight. That said I don't think they should be taxed until there is a meaningful percentage on the road. Most electric car owners also have an ICE vehicle so it's not like they aren't paying road taxes.


----------



## semipro (Dec 24, 2013)

begreen said:


> Most electric car owners also have an ICE vehicle so it's not like they aren't paying road taxes.


Exactly!
My hybrid gets about 27 MPG.  I still buy gas, more than many more fuel efficient non--hybrids.  
Yet I pay extra for registration of my hybrid in VA?  Go figure. Thanks Governor McDonnell.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 25, 2013)

I think hybrid should be taxed a lot more or maybe just made illegal to have. If you are concerned about waste what do you think they do with the batteries in those cars? The amount of batteries these cars have is plain wasteful and all the toxicants that go along with them.  It is sorta like the CFL bulbs with all the mercury in them. Just doesn't make sense.

But in both cases people think they are saving the planet when they buy these cars and bulbs.

By the way 27 mpg isn't good at all for a car like that.


----------



## Jags (Dec 26, 2013)

Before jumping to conclusions, maybe some education on battery recycling and even the life cycle of a vehicle should be in order:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 26, 2013)

I think the use of hybrids and now the GM volt has been instrumental in gasoline usage not increasing so much in recent years. May have kept the lid on prices to some extent.
Although in not a fan of imports the prius deserves much of the credit for that.


----------



## Vic99 (Dec 26, 2013)

Pruning, CFLs actually use less mercury (Hg) than traditional incandescents.  A typical CFL has 3-4 mg of Hg.  Most of our electricity comes from coal.  When coal is burned Hg is given off and falls as a particulate contaminating soil and bodies of water.   That's where a fair amount of Hg in edible fishes comes from.  Pregnant women and kids are particularly susceptible to the nervous system issues.

Since it takes less electricity to run a CFL than it does an equivelant incandescent, you are actually releasing less Hg into the envi.  You can find a lot on this, but here's just one source:

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/files/lightbulbmercury.pdf

Of course CFLs aren't perfect.  LEDs could be the way to go as the price comes down.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 27, 2013)

Vic99 said:


> Of course CFLs aren't perfect.  LEDs could be the way to go as the price comes down.


Got 3@ 40 watt equiv for $20 at Costco and 7@ 60w Equiv from my electric company free. Cost is in range right now.


----------



## Vic99 (Dec 27, 2013)

Got one free myself during an energy audit.  $10-13 is the best price I've seen here so far.  Haven't tried Costco, though.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 27, 2013)

Vic99 said:


> Got one free myself during an energy audit.  $10-13 is the best price I've seen here so far.  Haven't tried Costco, though.


3 for 20 is $6.66 each So not too bad.


----------



## semipro (Dec 28, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> I think hybrid should be taxed a lot more or maybe just made illegal to have. If you are concerned about waste what do you think they do with the batteries in those cars? The amount of batteries these cars have is plain wasteful and all the toxicants that go along with them.  It is sorta like the CFL bulbs with all the mercury in them. Just doesn't make sense.
> 
> But in both cases people think they are saving the planet when they buy these cars and bulbs.
> 
> By the way 27 mpg isn't good at all for a car like that.



27 MPG is good for an SUV that seats 7, is 4WD, and tows well.  I bought it with the intent of conversion to plug-in to take advantage of power from future PV panels. 

I suspect your sources of info may be badly biased.  Batteries are recyclable and electric vehicles and energy efficient bulbs impact the environment less when life cycle analyses are considered.  Life cycle (cradle to grave) costs are the key.  All too often we only consider the immediate costs of something. 

There's no doubt that the materials/processes used in making electric vehicles need to be improved to lessen environmental impact.  But the only way these will be improved is if we invest in their development through purchase.  Like energy efficient bulbs, the initial investment in CFLs resulted in better CFLs and the  development of LEDs.  No manufacture wants to invest in a product that can't be sold because the price is too high.  The popularity of CFLs demonstrated that bulbs costing more than a buck apiece were marketable and that some were willing to invest in the present to save in the future.


----------



## begreen (Dec 31, 2013)

One-liner knowledge of technologies is not too helpful for making policy decisions. CFLs, hybrids, electric cars are starting to make a difference. Conservation is our easiest path toward reduced energy consumption and emissions.


----------



## billb3 (Jan 3, 2014)

lukem said:


> Definitely state employees.  Prisoners are in orange jumpsuits, even if they are on a work release program.
> 
> 1 guy to run the saw.  1 guy to put wood in the truck.  1 guy to supervise saw operator.  I guy to supervise wood loader.  A driver for each truck...that's 6.  Sounds right.




no police detail ?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 5, 2014)

ok here's your solution. states tax cars based as "property" with registration fees. if you look at the percentage of hybrids on the road a very slight bump on all registrations would cover the difference in what's lost in consumption or "at  the pump" taxes, now the roads do have to be paid for and eventually when gas is the lesser used mode of fueling transportation a different solution would be necessary. by then the solution would be to shift the "gas tax" to the electric bill, or a tax on the power drawn at charging stations and such, still the inherent problem  with taxes for road upkeep based on a tied to transportation  its going to be hard to find an equitable solution with electric as the mounted battery seems to be the choice of the manufacturer (a mistake I think, here's why and what I think would be a workable model)

imagine all electric cars having a standard battery, same hookup same size etc. like a "d cell" in flashlights. cars would be built with a "cassette" battery access, or more like an 8 track where a car running low on power could pull into a service station, and the battery would be swapped out with a charged one for a fee plus the differential cost between the power in the old battery and the new just like topping off a tank of gas.

for this to work the batteries would have to be standardized and would also have to be mounted in such w way that they could be swapped relatively easily with say a lift of sorts that an attendant can operate to facilitate a quick change. THEN the power could be taxed and still allow the "station" to be competitive depending on how they received or generated the power they sold , be it solar or on the grid. transactions can be tracked. now, many folks would "plug in " at home to avoid the higher cost of a charge , but it would still catch a larger percentage than it will with the hard mounted battery setups of most cars today. AND it would eliminate one of the big issues with electrics, the worry about a battery going bad and not holding a charge as long with age. the stores would always have as many batteries to "sell" as they start with as they would get one when the sold one so no need for a user level core charge , the stations could pay a core to acquire the "starter" batteries and be able to return bad ones for replacement if they receive a bad one which could then be recycled


----------



## semipro (Jan 5, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> ok here's your solution. states tax cars based as "property" with registration fees. if you look at the percentage of hybrids on the road a very slight bump on all registrations would cover the difference in what's lost in consumption or "at  the pump" taxes, now the roads do have to be paid for and eventually when gas is the lesser used mode of fueling transportation a different solution would be necessary. by then the solution would be to shift the "gas tax" to the electric bill, or a tax on the power drawn at charging stations and such, still the inherent problem  with taxes for road upkeep based on a tied to transportation  its going to be hard to find an equitable solution with electric as the mounted battery seems to be the choice of the manufacturer (a mistake I think, here's why and what I think would be a workable model)
> 
> imagine all electric cars having a standard battery, same hookup same size etc. like a "d cell" in flashlights. cars would be built with a "cassette" battery access, or more like an 8 track where a car running low on power could pull into a service station, and the battery would be swapped out with a charged one for a fee plus the differential cost between the power in the old battery and the new just like topping off a tank of gas.
> 
> for this to work the batteries would have to be standardized and would also have to be mounted in such w way that they could be swapped relatively easily with say a lift of sorts that an attendant can operate to facilitate a quick change. THEN the power could be taxed and still allow the "station" to be competitive depending on how they received or generated the power they sold , be it solar or on the grid. transactions can be tracked. now, many folks would "plug in " at home to avoid the higher cost of a charge , but it would still catch a larger percentage than it will with the hard mounted battery setups of most cars today. AND it would eliminate one of the big issues with electrics, the worry about a battery going bad and not holding a charge as long with age. the stores would always have as many batteries to "sell" as they start with as they would get one when the sold one so no need for a user level core charge , the stations could pay a core to acquire the "starter" batteries and be able to return bad ones for replacement if they receive a bad one which could then be recycled


Check out Better Place and their recent bankruptcy.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 5, 2014)

Home/work chargers can be cheap if mass produced in a standard format....and have Fast Chargers on the interstate...80% charge in the time it takes my kids to drink their milkshakes.

Done.


----------



## WiscWoody (Jan 26, 2014)

firebroad said:


> ...But you know, why don't they just quit taxing the $#!t out of the people and learn to economize like the rest of us?


Make the multi national companies pay what they should be paying.no more Cayman PO boxes allowed to use as the company address


----------

