10 ms·
I read somewhere that road damage caused by vehicles is not linear with weight. Heavy vehicles do much more damage. I can't cite a source, but I recall an exp
by recursive 6y ago
I read somewhere that road damage caused by vehicles is not linear with weight. Heavy vehicles do much more damage. I can't cite a source, but I recall an exponent between 3 and 4 on the leading term. With that in mind, everything but heavy freight is basically negligible. And then it's generally for businesses where privacy isn't so much of an issue.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoYou can also sidestep the privacy issue there, because large electric vehicles are likely to need special chargers. (How many kW do you need to charge a 1MWh battery in a reasonable amount of time?) And then you can levy road tax on large trucks per kWh at the charging point in the traditional way without even having to track everywhere they go.
- sokoloff 6y agoHow much privacy concern is there to have your odometer reading recorded annually in places that already do safety inspections? I mean, I've driven an average of 3400 miles per year on my car. Violate my privacy as much as you like with that data.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThere have been proposals to track the location of trucks at all times, presumably so that a truck that drives all over the country is paying road fees in the states where it's actually driving instead of to whatever other state it's registered in (which would presumably be the one with the lowest fees). Levying the fees at the charging point replicates the existing (imperfect but pretty good) model with fuel tax because you at least have to charge somewhere that you're actually driving that day, without the privacy implications of tracking the vehicle at all times.
- fuoqi 6y agoThis was one of the argued motivation for introducing the Platon system in Russia in addition to the fuel tax. It's an electronic toll system mandatory for trucks over 12 tons and costs every such truck ~5 USD cents per traveled km. Unfortunately it does not take into account current mass of a truck (probably because it's much harder to control and easier to cheat). Part of the proceedings goes to a federal fund for road maintenance, another one to the company (partially owned by an oligarch close to Putin) which has developed the system and currently maintenance it. This concession will work until 2027.
- cs02rm0 6y agoRoad damage isn't the only issue with weight though. There's safety, exhaust emissions, tyre and brake particles, noise, etc. I'm sure some of them don't have a linear relationship either. One of the biggest upsides to taxing vehicle weight could be to counter purchasing decisions that have shifted to larger vehicles that no longer comfortably fit in parking spaces but ride better over ridiculous speed bumps and give drivers literally the opportunity to look down on others. Taxing vehicle weight also doesn't have the privacy implications that taxing miles driven beyond fuel consumption does. It's always struck me as one of the more sensible aspects to tax. Add lightness, as I believe Colin Chapman put it.
- jb775 6y agoThis entire thread is flawed in two fundamental ways: 1) The primary concern here is per capita road damage. If that's agreed, why is the conversation not about improving the resiliency of roads? 2) Why would the adoption of new technology automatically subject you to draconian taxes that have nothing to do with that new technology? I understand infrastructure needs to be paid for, but this is simply a cash-grab by politicians. If people started jogging to destinations rather than use cars, would it be acceptable for the government to charge a "jogging transportation tax"?
- cellularmitosis 6y agoIs it known if this is purely a weight issue, or does weight distribution make a difference? If a large truck were equipped with twice as many tires at half the PSI, what difference would that make? I’ve seen weight limit signs on certain roads, I wonder if instead they should be PSI limits?
- berkes 6y agoI'd imagine a 20 tire truck of 1tonne roughly equals 5 4-tire cars of 200kg. So that would mean the first still has to pay 5x the tax of the latter.
- angry_octet 6y agoI object to this being framed in terms of vehicle mass, because what counts most is mass/area = ground pressure. Many big fat tires distribute the weight. It is also much more relevant in places with sub-zero nights, i.e. a thaw/frost cycle. In relatively warm places like Australia this effect does not occur. Roads are much cheaper per km than in places with snow/ice, even with heavy vehicles.
- tgb 6y agoA lot of road damage in some parts of the world is caused by nature itself, though. Even roads without any freight traffic get frost heaves.
- sagarm 6y agoMountain highways I've traveled have substantially more damaged right lanes from all the semis.
- chrismorgan 6y agoBut for Australia specifically (this article being about Australia), frost damage to roads is typically either non-existent or negligible. There aren’t many roads that are exposed to substantially freezing conditions often.
- zozbot234 6y agoThis is true, but some portion of road maintenance costs is independent from vehicle-caused wear-and-tear on the actual road surface. You would want this portion to be paid also by standard, non-commercial vehicles since these users are clearly receiving some value from the existence of a well-maintained road.
- adrianN 6y agoEverybody is receiving benefits from well maintained roads, just like everyone is receiving benefits from schools. Why special taxes for users unless you want to discourage use? Just pay for maintenance from the general budget.
- yarcob 6y agoBecause everyone benefits more from roads that are less congested. If everyone rode bikes or the bus 90% of the time, there would be mostly empty roads in the 10% of time that they do use a car. If you had to pay a significant price per km in congested areas, you'd probably drive less, but it would be a nicer experience when you do drive.
- perlgeek 6y agoIf you pay for maintenance from the general budget, you are allowing shipping companies (for example) to externalize cost that they incur on society. This is generally a bad thing, but very concretely it led to road traffic growing much faster than rail traffic (or canal ship traffic) even in countries with a very dense rail network.
- hnick 6y agoTrade and economy are vital for a modern society though. If costs were instead born by the shipping companies they'd be put into the price of goods sold. I can't help but see this as a regressive use tax in many ways, since it'll likely apply to lower value items at a higher proportion which is what poorer people would be buying. The end user pays in either case, but doing it through taxation policy allows for a measured approach.
- fennecfoxen 6y agoFourth power of the axle weight.
- adrianN 6y agoWikipedia says damage is proportional to axle weight to the 4th power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_weight#cite_ref-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_weight#cite_ref-13
- chrismorgan 6y agoI remember my dad telling me that when I was in my late teens. That it’s the fourth power startled me. To give an idea of what this means: For a 50 tonne semi-trailer with five axles, (⁵⁰⁄₅)⁴ = 10,000 units of damage. 2 tonne vehicle with two axles, 1 unit of damage. That one truck, only 25 times as heavy as a pretty heavy car, is doing 10,000 times as much damage to the road. Thus indeed if you have basically any heavy freight at all on a road, the rest is negligible.
- scrumbledober 6y agoI noticed while driving to Tahoe the last time that the right lane on the mountain roads was absolutely trashed in the tire path. I assume this is mostly due to chain usage, but it was incredibly more present in the right lane where semis drive.
- b212 6y agoWow, I always knew the semis are ruining roads but this 10k factor just blew me away, crazy! Thanks for a great post.
- brownbat 6y agoAnd, by implication, they're a massively higher contributor to local pollution. I was surprised to learn that most road pollution is no longer generated by tailpipes, but by the grinding of brake, tire, and road into dust through friction. Vehicle weight has an outsized effect there too.
- handol 6y ago> Thus indeed if you have basically any heavy freight at all on a road, the rest is negligible. Racetracks don't carry freight, but the surface does goes bad in a couple decades.
- beezle 6y agoOn an individual level perhaps so but probably not when you consider the number of cars vs the number of heavy transports.