16 ms·

> Uber and Lyft “are using public roads, and the profit is going to their companies,” Phil Washington, Metro’s chief executive, said at a recent meeting. Publi

> Uber and Lyft “are using public roads, and the profit is going to their companies,” Phil Washington, Metro’s chief executive, said at a recent meeting. Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays. California has gasoline taxes of: * 55.22c per gallon (second only to Pennsylvania) * 18.4c per gallon (federal) * 2.25% sales tax Additionally, taxing only ridesharing companies may increase incidences of drunk driving. Is another, poorly conceived, tax really a solution? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Many Uber/Lyft/taxis cars are fuel sipping Toyota Priuses. Fuel taxes break down as fuel economies reach a certain point. Yes, it is not just Uber drivers using Priuses, but it is a substantial problem that has increased road usage without the same corresponding increases in fuel tax revenues. Of course electric presents even bigger problems that many states now have a surcharge on them during registration. It is obvious that fuel taxes are going to be outdated in 10 years or so as EVs become more popular. Real-time tolling has been suggested as an alternative to this problem in Europe, but that probably wouldn't fly in the states.
- modeless 8y ago
  If efficient cars are a problem, tax efficient cars, not Uber. But given CA's environmental goals, this would be counterproductive.
  - bsder 8y ago
    Efficient cars aren't the problem. The problem is that Uber/Lyft drivers "cruise" when the demand is slack rather than park. So, for certain areas and times (generally about a hour before when that area is about to go from slack to busy), your street becomes a never-ending stream of ridesharing cars--generally doing stupid traffic maneuvers when they finally get summoned.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      > The problem is that Uber/Lyft drivers "cruise" when the demand is slack rather than park Isn't the whole point that the apps limit cruising time? I recall a study that claimdd the average traditional taxi cruises for half an hour on average between each trip. Are there plans to tax traditional cabs by an amount commensurate with their cruising time? If not, this legislation seems more like protectionism for traditional cabs.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Are there plans to tax traditional cabs by an amount commensurate with their cruising time? Traditional taxis already pay a steep annual franchise fee to the city (even after it was cut down on recent years, probably in part because less-taxed rideshares reduced the level of franchise fee that was supportable).
        manfredo 8y ago
        Franchise fees also benefits the taxi companies. It constrains the supply to taxis, thus shielding the taxi companies from potential competition. They're paying for protection from competition.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Franchise fees also benefits the taxi companies. In the presence of a substitute service not subject to them, they do not. Actually, since there seems to be both a non-automatic approval process and a franchise fee, they don't really even without such competition; the approval process shields them from competition, the franchise fee is a pure cost. (Of course, there is a linkage between the two, but as long as the process is in place, incumbent taxi firms benefit from minimizing the fee.)
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Yes, I mentioned that is already beginning to happen. > But given CA's environmental goals, this would be counterproductive. That is irrelevant, we are reaching a point where taxation on road miles driven vs. fueled used becomes unavoidable. What will wind up happening is that efficient and clean energy vehicles will still need to be taxed to account for usage, while less efficient vehicles will be taxed even more (to discourage use).
    - briandear 8y ago
      Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? If they are already paying more for fuel, doesn’t that already “tax” them more? It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? Internalizing the environmental externalities of operating them. > If they are already paying more for fuel, doesn’t that already “tax” them more? Fuel taxes are a mechanism for the additional (that is, beyond road usage, in the context of the grandparent post) taxes on inefficient vehicles. > It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people. That's actually a reason you might want a method other than exclusively fuel taxes to implement the additional taxation (which may be via, say, a means tested tax subsidy for purchase of more efficient cars, rather than directly another extra tax on inefficient ones), because fuel taxes are operations taxes but don't directly effect purchases (they may be taken into account, but the poor who feel they need a car will often buy what they can afford up front even if it is not fully rational because real people tend to fall short of rationality in some predictable ways, and discounting deferred costs is a big one.)
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        > Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? Taxation serves two purposes: (a) to fund roads, and (b) to discourage society damaging behavior. For (a), we need to tax all vehicles, for (b), we need to tax some vehicles more than others. > It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people. True. Perhaps the efficiency tax can be built into the initial new car purchase while the use tax is ongoing (those old cars will eventually fall apart or fail an emissions test anyways and be taken off the road). Anyways, these things can be worked out.
  - 2dollars27cents 8y ago
    As others have mentioned, taxing efficient cars doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe tax actual miles traveled instead? That would solve the problem of increasing efficiency and also decrease the value of loitering and cruising in-between pick-ups.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      That is on the table in Europe with real-time tolling based on miles driven.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Wait, how would taxing miles traveled decrease the value of loitering between pick-ups?
    - beerlord 8y ago
      And unless we want to have ugly metal gantries everywhere, we are going to need to accept that the Government will need to be able to monitor our car's location at all times... via built-in transmitters also linked to the payment infrastructure. We will probably also need a way to communicate pricing. All of this will also need to be digital for autonomous vehicles. We should probably start working on some open standards for it all...
    - jdhn 8y ago
      I'm real curious as to how taxing miles travelled would work, especially if you travel between states. Would you have to keep track of how many miles you drove in State A and State B, and how would you pay State B if you lived in State A? Since we'd need to replace the federal fuel tax as well, would the federal government require states to hold yearly odometer inspections, or would you have to fill out a form on your yearly taxes stating how far you drove? I supposed that these questions could be solved by utilizing GPS, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the government tracking the movements of my vehicle.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        I'm real curious as to how taxing miles travelled would work, especially if you travel between states. Trucks have been doing it for years with transponders in the cabs. That's how when a semi fills up with fuel in one state and ends its trip in another state the state in between still gets some fuel tax to pay for road maintenance.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If efficient cars are a problem, tax efficient cars California already does that. (ZEVs pay a supplemental $100 annual fee.)
- stale2002 8y ago
  Efficient cars cost the city less money. This is because efficient cars are usually smaller, and cause much less damage to the roads. It is a good thing for society that they are using Priuses. It makes road maintenance cheaper. Why should we be trying to lose money, by discouraging behavior that helps the city out? IE, fuel efficient, smaller cars.
  - javagram 8y ago
    Hybrid cars like the Prius actually weigh more because of the weight of the batteries. Tesla cars other than the roadster are also huge and heavy.
    - robotresearcher 8y ago
      2019 models curb weight, base model data from Google: Corolla: 2,840 lbs Prius L: 3,075 lbs Camry: 3,241 to 3,572 lbs Model 3: 3,686 lbs Model S: 4,769 lbs
      - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        Upvote for providing data, instead of guessing! We should encourage more of this behavior.
- whalesalad 8y ago
  Do you want EV adoption or fuel revenue? Choose one.
clay_the_ripper 8y ago
Agreed. This sounds like a tax that will generate money for the govt and nothing else - it’s not like suddenly people are going to stop going places when the price goes up a tiny amount since there are no viable alternatives to driving in LA, either rideshare or private car.
- sbarre 8y ago
  > since there are no viable alternatives to driving in LA, either rideshare or private car. The article seems to imply otherwise, that tons of money has been spent on improving public transit. Not agreeing with you or the article either way, just pointing that out.
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    Seems like the article is going out of its way to make public transit sound attractive with phrasing like "Metro’s sprawling bus network". Anecdotally, nobody I know in LA considers public transit as a realistic option and they routinely make jokes about how bad it is.
    - deaddodo 8y ago
      LA Public Transit is fine if you have a very specific set of routes (WeHo/Hollywood<->SFV, Pasadena<->SFV, Most anywhere<->downtown, etc); but it's terrible for one off/ad hoc routes or uncommon commutes.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      Anecdotally, everyone I know considers LA mass transit to be a viable option. This ranges from professionals like doctors and lawyers to the homeless. I know a number of transplants from NYC, Chicago, and DC who ditched their cars after they moved to LA because it's possible to get everywhere worth going by Metro.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Exactly. I could understand if the tax were tailored to the ostensible goals: - No Uber taxes outside of rush hour, since they're not contributing to congestion then. - Money is specially allocated to mass transit projects and subsidies for Uber pools/Lyft lines at rush hour where they are carrying multiple passengers. But of course, that's not the proposal, it's just another golden goose.
ars 8y ago
They really said that? Your local pizza place also uses public roads, and they get the profit. What kind of stupid.........sigh. The point of having public roads is that it benefits the city by increasing economic output. Did he forget that there are PEOPLE in those Uber and Lyft cars? Those same people he is supposed to serve? Or does he think the cars are driving around for no purpose making profit the whole time?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Did he forget that there are PEOPLE in those Uber and Lyft cars? Those same people he is supposed to serve? Many of them are tourists or business visitors, not the people local government is supposed to serve. Local government fees designed to milk those people (which incidentally also hit residents) are not at all unusual.
- liability 8y ago
  Politicians don't serve the people, they serve themselves and seek reelection. Sometimes it happens to be the case that seeking reelection motivates serving the people, but that is nothing more than a happy coincidence. Sometimes a dictator earnestly wants to help his people; that too is a happy coincidence. The genuinely altruistic politician in a democracy is no more common than a genuinely altruistic dictator.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, No, they aren't, at least in California; fuel excise taxes (and diesel, but not gasoline, sales tax) are a part of road funding, but other sources, including general revenue (largely, sales taxes and personal and corporate income tax), are used. EDIT: Not that taxing ride-sharing is likely to reduce congestion. It plausibly could increase it, if it induces residents of mostly walkable communities (which, sure, LA has fewer of than it should) who might otherwise rely on ride-sharing for occasional car needs to instead keep a personal vehicle, which then tends to encourage additional, less-necessary driving.
thegayngler 8y ago
Something else to consider is that traffic was bad way before ride sharing companies started popping up. Secondly, additional taxes will ultimately end up being paid for by people who do not own a vehicle. A better way to help alleviate traffic conditions is to raise gas taxes across the board or maybe just using the tax dollars more efficiently to build public transportation like trains on top of the existing infrastructure that cars typically use. I don't know why California is wasting time on obviously bad legislation. Why do they feel the need to consider the crazy option?
stefan_ 8y ago
Fuel taxes do not come remotely close to funding the roads.
shereadsthenews 8y ago
Fuel tax revenue and other direct user fees like annual registration in California amount to less than 25% of what the state and its cities pay to maintain the roads and streets. Roads are massively subsidized from general revenues. If you are proposing a $5/gallon fuel tax then I completely agree. That would be about equivalent to what other rich countries tax motor fuel and consistent with the state's greenhouse gas emission goals.
- SilasX 8y ago
  That's misleading -- yes, in the aggregate, gas taxes cover only part of the expenses, but that's not because of personal cars. Damage on the roads -- and thus maintenance costs -- scales with the 4th power of weight per axle. So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error. If you were to apportion out the maintenance cost due to personal cars, they are overpaying.
  - xster 8y ago
    Are there studies for how these measure up in practice? Also curious about wear per weight characteristics between concrete and asphalt.
  - shereadsthenews 8y ago
    That's not really the view from a city budget. Cities don't have that many truck routes and their costs are dominated by maintaining streets where virtually all the traffic is light vehicles. For the state it is a bigger problem because almost all state route are truck routes.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Even then, the same phenomenon means that the dominant source of damage to those streets is the delivery vehicles; smaller cars still cause a disproportionately small fraction of the damage and are overpaying via taxes. Ubers are not externalizing here.
updateYourMind 8y ago
This is a very bad solution, especially as share rides decrease the number of cars when people use uber pool
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  If you believe that Uber and Lyft are decreasing the number of cars on the road, then taxing them to "free up congested roads" is misguided, as it will have exactly the opposite effect.
- crummy 8y ago
  Not sure on the accuracy of this report but there are some indications that Uber, etc increase the number of cars on the road: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-lyft-creating-traffic-cities-bruce-schaller-2018-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-lyft-creating-traffi... I think the implication is that people with cars keep using them and people without cars use Uber instead of alternative transport.
- thisisweirdok 8y ago
  Talk to anyone with a reasonable public transit system about how ridesharing is clearing up the roads (spoiler alert: it's not, they're decreasing public transit ridership and contributing to a constantly worsening congestion issue).
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Perhaps public transit systems could look into what ride-sharing is doing, what elements of it are so appealing to users, and if there’s any similar actions they could offer to make public transit more appealing.
    - thisisweirdok 8y ago
      The problem is that ride sharing isn't providing a service with a realistic and sustainable price. In Boston I can get a 15 minute Uber pool trip door-to-door for $3. They're undercutting public transportation and traditional taxi services that need to operate with a realistic budget that isn't fueled by billions of VC dollars.
conanbatt 8y ago
Gotta tax drunk driving.
baroffoos 8y ago
This seems to be a recurring problem. We have all these subsidies and taxes that penalize or prioritize certain kinds of actions instead of charging everything at its true cost. This means the government is forcing a certain kind of solution to the problem rather than charging the problem makers the cost of their problem. A better solution would be to charge all drivers the exact cost to run their cars including all road maintenance for the roads they use and the cost to the health system and environment that their cars create. Then provide multiple options such as rail and bike lanes. People will naturally gravitate to the best solution. I often see complaints about how this will raise the cost of products like food because they need a lot of road and fuel resources. But the thing is you already pay for this cost through other means. By charging the true cost the price of an apple may go up but the price in your tax goes down. And this way the seller of the apple is now incentivized to source the apple locally and reduce the transport costs because its no longer paid for by everyone.
- SethTro 8y ago
  This is very hard to implement; How do you amortize startup costs (building the roads, buying new paving trucks) vs maintenance costs (raw cement, human, cost @ year 1, cost @ year 10, cost to replace the system after X years). Do you penalize users/tax payers who have a lower use and less scaled systems? (e.g. should it cost more to mail my grandmother a letter because her post office is less at scale than mine?) Do you increase the costs if some of your users leave (and risk even more attrition)? This has been investigated in depth with schools and local businesses. Gov gives them a sweetheart deal with the hope that they contribute back and as the deal get's less good (and Gov starts ramping taxes to deal with paying infrastructure costs) businesses leave. For me the natural conclusion is the government has to provide some balancing (rain day funds, progressive taxes, ...)
vkou 8y ago
> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays. California has gasoline taxes of: Even in California, collected gas taxes do not remotely approach the cost of construction and repair of roadways.
mlindner 8y ago
Thank you for bringing this up. Uber and Lyft are already taxed. Taxing them more doesn't solve anything.
whalesalad 8y ago
Not to mention Uber and Lyft drivers are wholly responsible for vehicle fees, maintenance, registration, their cellular data plans, wear and tear. California is out of control with it’s liberal tax policies. I spent the first twenty years of my life here and every time I return back I start to remember why I left.
thisisweirdok 8y ago
eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Uber undercuts both public transit and traditional taxi services with prices that are unsustainable and can't provide a living wage for their drivers. This was OK initially because taxis in many places were benefiting from localized monopolies and also screwing many drivers, but in the long run it means Uber kills all the competition and then just jacks prices back up anyway. I don't dig the drunk driving fear mongering either. If I hired the homeless $3 a trip to carry drunk people home that doesn't mean my exploitative program should suddenly be free of municipal adjustment.
dfilppi 8y ago
Agreed. Also consider that using taxation as a punitive tool is both immoral and ignores the fact that the government doesn't deserve the resulting revenue.
lr 8y ago
NYC streets are worse because of 250,000+ (obviously, not all at the same time) Uber/Lyft/Via/etc. vehicles being on the streets. I don’t care if there is demand, they have made congestion worse, period. I think all municipalities should treat all “private”, “shared”, whatever you want to call them, car services just like taxis, and require them to be painted a special color. You know not to travel too closely behind a taxi because they could stop or swerve at any moment. Unless you look at the very fine print on the license plate (and this is only in cities that require these cars to register), you do you know it is a car for hire, and to not follow too closely, unless you want to be blocked while they pick up a fare. How is it that these upstarts can “disrupt” an entire industry, and have a significantly lower barrier to entry than the incumbent? I say, require them all to be painted pink!
nodesocket 8y ago
> Uber and Lyft “are using public roads, and the profit is going to their companies,” Using this logic, they should be taxing all companies that use public roads (food delivery, package delivery, service companies), instead they are specifically cherry picking Uber and Lyft to target. These sort of anti-business policies are causing companies and people in masses to flee California and New York. Perhaps that is the goal.
rb666 8y ago
Fuel is still extremely cheap in the US compared to more modern countries. It does not cover proper infrastructure, as can be witnessed in the US anywhere.
RegicidalManiac 8y ago
California's only solution to all problems is tax people more. The original problem does not get solved but the tax money is used to create more problems (like the high-speed train) that make the original problem look good. As if 4x rents were not good enough to harass poor folks these anti-poor moves by fat rich politicians is the bane of california
danjayh 8y ago
Also, they plan to tax ride sharing (which people have shown demand for) and use the money to improve public transit infrastructure (which people have shown distaste for). Why, why, aren't taxes like this directed to improve the infrastructure for the services that are being taxed? Elon Musk is on the right track - build out more roads, under the city, to improve capacity and reduce congestion. Don't burn the money on a service with ridership numbers that are in freefall. Imagine if a private company substantially raised the price of its premier product (streaming movies, for example) to build tons of infrastructure for the product that nobody wants (DVD distribution hubs, for example) and neglected to build out the infrastructure required for the product in demand. It'd be gone overnight. This is absolute insanity. The real solution: - Tax all road users - most easily accomplished through license/registration taxes (IE, you pay an annual fee for a sticker that gives you permission to drive your car/bus/truck in the taxed area) and fuel taxes - By statute, require the money to be spent to improve/expand the road infrastructure - Where pollution is a problem, (optionally) spend a portion of the tax to build out EV infrastructure, and encourage EV use by charging reduced fees to EV users - Subsidize use of ride-sharing type services for people who would normally use public transit services This would provide efficient, clean, point-to-point transit services for ALL users. Economically disadvantaged folks could finally stop paying the hidden 'poor people transit tax' (increased transit times).
jandrewrogers 8y ago
> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes Some States do, California does not. The underlying issue is that California roads can infamously cost an order of magnitude more to build and maintain per mile than the same road segment in other States (e.g. interstate highways). It is possible to pay for roads with fuel and use taxes, in some other States it is a constitutional requirement, but the extreme cost of roads in California make it difficult to fund the DoT that way and there is no evidence that California is going to curtail the obvious waste anytime soon.
- swebs 8y ago
  >The underlying issue is that California roads can infamously cost an order of magnitude more to build and maintain per mile than the same road segment in other States Why is that? It's not like they have harsh winters like New England or anything.
ozzyman700 8y ago
In my opinion, all taxes besides a land value tax are poor solutions. rent is the final resting place of capital generated by labor and land combined. Taxing unused land higher than used land forces landowners to sell the land to someone who could use the land productively enough to afford the tax bill. All of taxes deter productivity from increasing. It is better to tax the land date trees grow on, than to tax the output of the trees themselves.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Lots of ways around that just demolish any buildings stick some goats on to graze and call it a farm "get oorf moi land revenue - waves shotgun"
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Is "drunk driving" the new "the children"?
omouse 8y ago
Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays Do Uber and Lyft pay those drivers' fuel costs?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Many Uber/Lyft/taxis cars are fuel sipping Toyota Priuses. Fuel taxes break down as fuel economies reach a certain point. Yes, it is not just Uber drivers using Priuses, but it is a substantial problem that has increased road usage without the same corresponding increases in fuel tax revenues. Of course electric presents even bigger problems that many states now have a surcharge on them during registration. It is obvious that fuel taxes are going to be outdated in 10 years or so as EVs become more popular. Real-time tolling has been suggested as an alternative to this problem in Europe, but that probably wouldn't fly in the states.

modeless 8y ago
If efficient cars are a problem, tax efficient cars, not Uber. But given CA's environmental goals, this would be counterproductive.
- bsder 8y ago
  Efficient cars aren't the problem. The problem is that Uber/Lyft drivers "cruise" when the demand is slack rather than park. So, for certain areas and times (generally about a hour before when that area is about to go from slack to busy), your street becomes a never-ending stream of ridesharing cars--generally doing stupid traffic maneuvers when they finally get summoned.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > The problem is that Uber/Lyft drivers "cruise" when the demand is slack rather than park Isn't the whole point that the apps limit cruising time? I recall a study that claimdd the average traditional taxi cruises for half an hour on average between each trip. Are there plans to tax traditional cabs by an amount commensurate with their cruising time? If not, this legislation seems more like protectionism for traditional cabs.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Are there plans to tax traditional cabs by an amount commensurate with their cruising time? Traditional taxis already pay a steep annual franchise fee to the city (even after it was cut down on recent years, probably in part because less-taxed rideshares reduced the level of franchise fee that was supportable).
      - manfredo 8y ago
        Franchise fees also benefits the taxi companies. It constrains the supply to taxis, thus shielding the taxi companies from potential competition. They're paying for protection from competition.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Franchise fees also benefits the taxi companies. In the presence of a substitute service not subject to them, they do not. Actually, since there seems to be both a non-automatic approval process and a franchise fee, they don't really even without such competition; the approval process shields them from competition, the franchise fee is a pure cost. (Of course, there is a linkage between the two, but as long as the process is in place, incumbent taxi firms benefit from minimizing the fee.)
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Yes, I mentioned that is already beginning to happen. > But given CA's environmental goals, this would be counterproductive. That is irrelevant, we are reaching a point where taxation on road miles driven vs. fueled used becomes unavoidable. What will wind up happening is that efficient and clean energy vehicles will still need to be taxed to account for usage, while less efficient vehicles will be taxed even more (to discourage use).
  - briandear 8y ago
    Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? If they are already paying more for fuel, doesn’t that already “tax” them more? It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? Internalizing the environmental externalities of operating them. > If they are already paying more for fuel, doesn’t that already “tax” them more? Fuel taxes are a mechanism for the additional (that is, beyond road usage, in the context of the grandparent post) taxes on inefficient vehicles. > It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people. That's actually a reason you might want a method other than exclusively fuel taxes to implement the additional taxation (which may be via, say, a means tested tax subsidy for purchase of more efficient cars, rather than directly another extra tax on inefficient ones), because fuel taxes are operations taxes but don't directly effect purchases (they may be taken into account, but the poor who feel they need a car will often buy what they can afford up front even if it is not fully rational because real people tend to fall short of rationality in some predictable ways, and discounting deferred costs is a big one.)
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      > Why should less efficient vehicles be taxed more? Taxation serves two purposes: (a) to fund roads, and (b) to discourage society damaging behavior. For (a), we need to tax all vehicles, for (b), we need to tax some vehicles more than others. > It seems like such a tax is regressive — rich people can buy new efficient cars more easily than poor people. True. Perhaps the efficiency tax can be built into the initial new car purchase while the use tax is ongoing (those old cars will eventually fall apart or fail an emissions test anyways and be taken off the road). Anyways, these things can be worked out.
- 2dollars27cents 8y ago
  As others have mentioned, taxing efficient cars doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe tax actual miles traveled instead? That would solve the problem of increasing efficiency and also decrease the value of loitering and cruising in-between pick-ups.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    That is on the table in Europe with real-time tolling based on miles driven.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Wait, how would taxing miles traveled decrease the value of loitering between pick-ups?
  - beerlord 8y ago
    And unless we want to have ugly metal gantries everywhere, we are going to need to accept that the Government will need to be able to monitor our car's location at all times... via built-in transmitters also linked to the payment infrastructure. We will probably also need a way to communicate pricing. All of this will also need to be digital for autonomous vehicles. We should probably start working on some open standards for it all...
  - jdhn 8y ago
    I'm real curious as to how taxing miles travelled would work, especially if you travel between states. Would you have to keep track of how many miles you drove in State A and State B, and how would you pay State B if you lived in State A? Since we'd need to replace the federal fuel tax as well, would the federal government require states to hold yearly odometer inspections, or would you have to fill out a form on your yearly taxes stating how far you drove? I supposed that these questions could be solved by utilizing GPS, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the government tracking the movements of my vehicle.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      I'm real curious as to how taxing miles travelled would work, especially if you travel between states. Trucks have been doing it for years with transponders in the cabs. That's how when a semi fills up with fuel in one state and ends its trip in another state the state in between still gets some fuel tax to pay for road maintenance.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If efficient cars are a problem, tax efficient cars California already does that. (ZEVs pay a supplemental $100 annual fee.)
stale2002 8y ago
Efficient cars cost the city less money. This is because efficient cars are usually smaller, and cause much less damage to the roads. It is a good thing for society that they are using Priuses. It makes road maintenance cheaper. Why should we be trying to lose money, by discouraging behavior that helps the city out? IE, fuel efficient, smaller cars.
- javagram 8y ago
  Hybrid cars like the Prius actually weigh more because of the weight of the batteries. Tesla cars other than the roadster are also huge and heavy.
  - robotresearcher 8y ago
    2019 models curb weight, base model data from Google: Corolla: 2,840 lbs Prius L: 3,075 lbs Camry: 3,241 to 3,572 lbs Model 3: 3,686 lbs Model S: 4,769 lbs
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Upvote for providing data, instead of guessing! We should encourage more of this behavior.
whalesalad 8y ago
Do you want EV adoption or fuel revenue? Choose one.

clay_the_ripper 8y ago

Agreed. This sounds like a tax that will generate money for the govt and nothing else - it’s not like suddenly people are going to stop going places when the price goes up a tiny amount since there are no viable alternatives to driving in LA, either rideshare or private car.

sbarre 8y ago
> since there are no viable alternatives to driving in LA, either rideshare or private car. The article seems to imply otherwise, that tons of money has been spent on improving public transit. Not agreeing with you or the article either way, just pointing that out.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  Seems like the article is going out of its way to make public transit sound attractive with phrasing like "Metro’s sprawling bus network". Anecdotally, nobody I know in LA considers public transit as a realistic option and they routinely make jokes about how bad it is.
  - deaddodo 8y ago
    LA Public Transit is fine if you have a very specific set of routes (WeHo/Hollywood<->SFV, Pasadena<->SFV, Most anywhere<->downtown, etc); but it's terrible for one off/ad hoc routes or uncommon commutes.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Anecdotally, everyone I know considers LA mass transit to be a viable option. This ranges from professionals like doctors and lawyers to the homeless. I know a number of transplants from NYC, Chicago, and DC who ditched their cars after they moved to LA because it's possible to get everywhere worth going by Metro.
SilasX 8y ago
Exactly. I could understand if the tax were tailored to the ostensible goals: - No Uber taxes outside of rush hour, since they're not contributing to congestion then. - Money is specially allocated to mass transit projects and subsidies for Uber pools/Lyft lines at rush hour where they are carrying multiple passengers. But of course, that's not the proposal, it's just another golden goose.

ars 8y ago

They really said that? Your local pizza place also uses public roads, and they get the profit. What kind of stupid.........sigh. The point of having public roads is that it benefits the city by increasing economic output. Did he forget that there are PEOPLE in those Uber and Lyft cars? Those same people he is supposed to serve? Or does he think the cars are driving around for no purpose making profit the whole time?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Did he forget that there are PEOPLE in those Uber and Lyft cars? Those same people he is supposed to serve? Many of them are tourists or business visitors, not the people local government is supposed to serve. Local government fees designed to milk those people (which incidentally also hit residents) are not at all unusual.
liability 8y ago
Politicians don't serve the people, they serve themselves and seek reelection. Sometimes it happens to be the case that seeking reelection motivates serving the people, but that is nothing more than a happy coincidence. Sometimes a dictator earnestly wants to help his people; that too is a happy coincidence. The genuinely altruistic politician in a democracy is no more common than a genuinely altruistic dictator.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, No, they aren't, at least in California; fuel excise taxes (and diesel, but not gasoline, sales tax) are a part of road funding, but other sources, including general revenue (largely, sales taxes and personal and corporate income tax), are used. EDIT: Not that taxing ride-sharing is likely to reduce congestion. It plausibly could increase it, if it induces residents of mostly walkable communities (which, sure, LA has fewer of than it should) who might otherwise rely on ride-sharing for occasional car needs to instead keep a personal vehicle, which then tends to encourage additional, less-necessary driving.

thegayngler 8y ago

Something else to consider is that traffic was bad way before ride sharing companies started popping up. Secondly, additional taxes will ultimately end up being paid for by people who do not own a vehicle. A better way to help alleviate traffic conditions is to raise gas taxes across the board or maybe just using the tax dollars more efficiently to build public transportation like trains on top of the existing infrastructure that cars typically use. I don't know why California is wasting time on obviously bad legislation. Why do they feel the need to consider the crazy option?

stefan_ 8y ago

Fuel taxes do not come remotely close to funding the roads.

shereadsthenews 8y ago

Fuel tax revenue and other direct user fees like annual registration in California amount to less than 25% of what the state and its cities pay to maintain the roads and streets. Roads are massively subsidized from general revenues. If you are proposing a $5/gallon fuel tax then I completely agree. That would be about equivalent to what other rich countries tax motor fuel and consistent with the state's greenhouse gas emission goals.

SilasX 8y ago
That's misleading -- yes, in the aggregate, gas taxes cover only part of the expenses, but that's not because of personal cars. Damage on the roads -- and thus maintenance costs -- scales with the 4th power of weight per axle. So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error. If you were to apportion out the maintenance cost due to personal cars, they are overpaying.
- xster 8y ago
  Are there studies for how these measure up in practice? Also curious about wear per weight characteristics between concrete and asphalt.
- shereadsthenews 8y ago
  That's not really the view from a city budget. Cities don't have that many truck routes and their costs are dominated by maintaining streets where virtually all the traffic is light vehicles. For the state it is a bigger problem because almost all state route are truck routes.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Even then, the same phenomenon means that the dominant source of damage to those streets is the delivery vehicles; smaller cars still cause a disproportionately small fraction of the damage and are overpaying via taxes. Ubers are not externalizing here.

updateYourMind 8y ago

This is a very bad solution, especially as share rides decrease the number of cars when people use uber pool

thaumasiotes 8y ago
If you believe that Uber and Lyft are decreasing the number of cars on the road, then taxing them to "free up congested roads" is misguided, as it will have exactly the opposite effect.
crummy 8y ago
Not sure on the accuracy of this report but there are some indications that Uber, etc increase the number of cars on the road: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-lyft-creating-traffic-cities-bruce-schaller-2018-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-lyft-creating-traffi... I think the implication is that people with cars keep using them and people without cars use Uber instead of alternative transport.
thisisweirdok 8y ago
Talk to anyone with a reasonable public transit system about how ridesharing is clearing up the roads (spoiler alert: it's not, they're decreasing public transit ridership and contributing to a constantly worsening congestion issue).
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Perhaps public transit systems could look into what ride-sharing is doing, what elements of it are so appealing to users, and if there’s any similar actions they could offer to make public transit more appealing.
  - thisisweirdok 8y ago
    The problem is that ride sharing isn't providing a service with a realistic and sustainable price. In Boston I can get a 15 minute Uber pool trip door-to-door for $3. They're undercutting public transportation and traditional taxi services that need to operate with a realistic budget that isn't fueled by billions of VC dollars.

conanbatt 8y ago

Gotta tax drunk driving.

baroffoos 8y ago

This seems to be a recurring problem. We have all these subsidies and taxes that penalize or prioritize certain kinds of actions instead of charging everything at its true cost. This means the government is forcing a certain kind of solution to the problem rather than charging the problem makers the cost of their problem. A better solution would be to charge all drivers the exact cost to run their cars including all road maintenance for the roads they use and the cost to the health system and environment that their cars create. Then provide multiple options such as rail and bike lanes. People will naturally gravitate to the best solution. I often see complaints about how this will raise the cost of products like food because they need a lot of road and fuel resources. But the thing is you already pay for this cost through other means. By charging the true cost the price of an apple may go up but the price in your tax goes down. And this way the seller of the apple is now incentivized to source the apple locally and reduce the transport costs because its no longer paid for by everyone.

SethTro 8y ago
This is very hard to implement; How do you amortize startup costs (building the roads, buying new paving trucks) vs maintenance costs (raw cement, human, cost @ year 1, cost @ year 10, cost to replace the system after X years). Do you penalize users/tax payers who have a lower use and less scaled systems? (e.g. should it cost more to mail my grandmother a letter because her post office is less at scale than mine?) Do you increase the costs if some of your users leave (and risk even more attrition)? This has been investigated in depth with schools and local businesses. Gov gives them a sweetheart deal with the hope that they contribute back and as the deal get's less good (and Gov starts ramping taxes to deal with paying infrastructure costs) businesses leave. For me the natural conclusion is the government has to provide some balancing (rain day funds, progressive taxes, ...)

vkou 8y ago

> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays. California has gasoline taxes of: Even in California, collected gas taxes do not remotely approach the cost of construction and repair of roadways.

mlindner 8y ago

Thank you for bringing this up. Uber and Lyft are already taxed. Taxing them more doesn't solve anything.

whalesalad 8y ago

Not to mention Uber and Lyft drivers are wholly responsible for vehicle fees, maintenance, registration, their cellular data plans, wear and tear. California is out of control with it’s liberal tax policies. I spent the first twenty years of my life here and every time I return back I start to remember why I left.

thisisweirdok 8y ago

eeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Uber undercuts both public transit and traditional taxi services with prices that are unsustainable and can't provide a living wage for their drivers. This was OK initially because taxis in many places were benefiting from localized monopolies and also screwing many drivers, but in the long run it means Uber kills all the competition and then just jacks prices back up anyway. I don't dig the drunk driving fear mongering either. If I hired the homeless $3 a trip to carry drunk people home that doesn't mean my exploitative program should suddenly be free of municipal adjustment.

dfilppi 8y ago

Agreed. Also consider that using taxation as a punitive tool is both immoral and ignores the fact that the government doesn't deserve the resulting revenue.

lr 8y ago

NYC streets are worse because of 250,000+ (obviously, not all at the same time) Uber/Lyft/Via/etc. vehicles being on the streets. I don’t care if there is demand, they have made congestion worse, period. I think all municipalities should treat all “private”, “shared”, whatever you want to call them, car services just like taxis, and require them to be painted a special color. You know not to travel too closely behind a taxi because they could stop or swerve at any moment. Unless you look at the very fine print on the license plate (and this is only in cities that require these cars to register), you do you know it is a car for hire, and to not follow too closely, unless you want to be blocked while they pick up a fare. How is it that these upstarts can “disrupt” an entire industry, and have a significantly lower barrier to entry than the incumbent? I say, require them all to be painted pink!

nodesocket 8y ago

> Uber and Lyft “are using public roads, and the profit is going to their companies,” Using this logic, they should be taxing all companies that use public roads (food delivery, package delivery, service companies), instead they are specifically cherry picking Uber and Lyft to target. These sort of anti-business policies are causing companies and people in masses to flee California and New York. Perhaps that is the goal.

rb666 8y ago

Fuel is still extremely cheap in the US compared to more modern countries. It does not cover proper infrastructure, as can be witnessed in the US anywhere.

RegicidalManiac 8y ago

California's only solution to all problems is tax people more. The original problem does not get solved but the tax money is used to create more problems (like the high-speed train) that make the original problem look good. As if 4x rents were not good enough to harass poor folks these anti-poor moves by fat rich politicians is the bane of california

danjayh 8y ago

Also, they plan to tax ride sharing (which people have shown demand for) and use the money to improve public transit infrastructure (which people have shown distaste for). Why, why, aren't taxes like this directed to improve the infrastructure for the services that are being taxed? Elon Musk is on the right track - build out more roads, under the city, to improve capacity and reduce congestion. Don't burn the money on a service with ridership numbers that are in freefall. Imagine if a private company substantially raised the price of its premier product (streaming movies, for example) to build tons of infrastructure for the product that nobody wants (DVD distribution hubs, for example) and neglected to build out the infrastructure required for the product in demand. It'd be gone overnight. This is absolute insanity. The real solution: - Tax all road users - most easily accomplished through license/registration taxes (IE, you pay an annual fee for a sticker that gives you permission to drive your car/bus/truck in the taxed area) and fuel taxes - By statute, require the money to be spent to improve/expand the road infrastructure - Where pollution is a problem, (optionally) spend a portion of the tax to build out EV infrastructure, and encourage EV use by charging reduced fees to EV users - Subsidize use of ride-sharing type services for people who would normally use public transit services This would provide efficient, clean, point-to-point transit services for ALL users. Economically disadvantaged folks could finally stop paying the hidden 'poor people transit tax' (increased transit times).

jandrewrogers 8y ago

> Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes Some States do, California does not. The underlying issue is that California roads can infamously cost an order of magnitude more to build and maintain per mile than the same road segment in other States (e.g. interstate highways). It is possible to pay for roads with fuel and use taxes, in some other States it is a constitutional requirement, but the extreme cost of roads in California make it difficult to fund the DoT that way and there is no evidence that California is going to curtail the obvious waste anytime soon.

swebs 8y ago
>The underlying issue is that California roads can infamously cost an order of magnitude more to build and maintain per mile than the same road segment in other States Why is that? It's not like they have harsh winters like New England or anything.

ozzyman700 8y ago

In my opinion, all taxes besides a land value tax are poor solutions. rent is the final resting place of capital generated by labor and land combined. Taxing unused land higher than used land forces landowners to sell the land to someone who could use the land productively enough to afford the tax bill. All of taxes deter productivity from increasing. It is better to tax the land date trees grow on, than to tax the output of the trees themselves.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Lots of ways around that just demolish any buildings stick some goats on to graze and call it a farm "get oorf moi land revenue - waves shotgun"

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

Is "drunk driving" the new "the children"?

omouse 8y ago

Public roads are supposed to be paid for through fuel taxes, which every Uber and Lyft driver pays Do Uber and Lyft pay those drivers' fuel costs?