4 ms·

Couldn't you just raise the yearly tax on having a(n electric) car in that case?

• Shivetya 11y ago
  road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. you would of course still keep the other fees associated with vehicles like tag fees and such. with regards to the article, charging should not be free in public spaces. that alone would cut down on some of the abuse. Electric cars need a very clear and obvious indicator for charge state as well - that is communicated back to the charger and visual to any who walk up. Likely a standard is going to be needed
  • masklinn 11y ago
    > road taxes should be done for mileage as that more accurately measures their use and impact of roads. Not at all. Axle load has a completely outsized impact on road wear. Civil engineers use a fourth power law to estimate road wear with respect to axle load: if you double the mileage you double road wear, but if you double the axle load (assuming constant axle count) the road wear is multiplied by 16. Put in numbers, a Model S has an axle load of 1T (2T on 2 axles). A fully loaded 18-wheeler is limited to 36T (80000lbs) on 5 axles or a 7.2T average axle load. The road wear impact of the 18-wheeler compared to the Model S is 2.5 * 7.2^4 (2.5 times the number of axles and axle load ratio raised to the 4th power), or about 6700 times that of the Model S. It's actually slightly higher than that as 18-wheelers have 4 7.7T axles and 1 5.5 axle rather than 5 7.2T axles, the estimate is closer to 7500. Your standard 2T sedan has to drive for 7500 miles to generate the road wear a loaded 18-wheeler generates every mile. Assuming your 2T sedan lives for 150000 miles, it's had the same road wear impact as 20 miles of a loaded 18-wheeler. When it comes to road wear and maintenance, mileage-based pricing and taxes are trucking subsidies.
    • mattmanser 11y ago
      Trucking subsidies? I find that a bit of a strange attitude. Without the roads there would be no deliveries. No deliveries, no industry. No industry, no jobs. So of all the things to call it, a trucking subsidy seems a very loaded description.
      • URSpider94 11y ago
        Just because we need trucks doesn't mean that we should subsidize them. If trucks paid their fair share of road repair costs, then those costs would be allocated into the costs of goods and services accordingly, while gas and fuel taxes on personal vehicles could decrease. One might argue that this is a more "fair" distribution of costs.
        • klipt 11y ago
          Do we really need all those trucks? Trains can ship goods, and rail is much cheaper to maintain than roads.
          • gohrt 11y ago
            There is no train station at my house.
            • masklinn 11y ago
              Trucks don't come to your house either. But more to the point, actual trucking costs would increase the appeal of trains for long haul, while keeping trucks (possibly smaller) for shorter hops between train depots and distribution centers (aka stores).
      • morgante 11y ago
        It's accurate to call it a subsidy. That doesn't mean it's bad. I personally think it's definitely a valuable subsidy.
      • masklinn 11y ago
        > Trucking subsidies? I find that a bit of a strange attitude. What else would you call the artificial lowering of trucking and truck-hauled goods prices through passing a significant subset of trucking costs directly onto taxpayers instead of reflecting said costs in hauling prices? > Without the roads there would be no deliveries. No deliveries, no industry. No industry, no jobs. I'm not sure what comment you're replying to here, but it certainly isn't mine.
• Sembiance 11y ago
  In North Carolina they already do that. I pay an extra $100 a year because I own an electric car.