3 ms·

Interesting idea. Apparently road damage goes up with the 4th power of the weight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Interesting idea. Apparently road damage goes up with the 4th power of the weight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law) Really trucks are probably not paying their fair share in that regard. I wonder how it would be implemented in practice given how variable vehicle weights are depending on how they are being used. Weigh stations like they use for trucks? It might also be a solution for gas taxes being insufficient to maintain roads as vehicles transition to electric. And in concert with the much higher weight of electric vehicles due to batteries still sucking at power density (maybe it would increase interest in things like aluminium-air)

chongli 2y ago
Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.
- eldaisfish 2y ago
  Tying a tax to distance travelled requires accurate reporting of distance travelled. How is that not a perverse incentive?
  - chongli 2y ago
    We shouldn't care if you want to buy a 10,000 lb electric truck if you leave it parked in your driveway all year round. If we're not taxing based on distance then the perverse incentive is to drive big trucks until they fall to pieces.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    Easy in places where it requires annual safety checks
    - airstrike 2y ago
      which is really most anywhere these days, is it not? having lived in different states in different countries, this was always the case for me, but then again that's still a small sample size
- dragontamer 2y ago
  I love pushing "Tire Taxes". We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire). So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to exactly the amount of particles emitted. No weight^4th power required. The tire wear directly correlates to the pollution we care about. So tax / measure the tires directly, don't do anything else that's more indirect.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Doesn't account for road wear or pedestrian risk, though.
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      I have to imagine that if Car X wore out 5kg of rubber, that it would have had half the impact of another Car Y that wore out 10kg of rubber. Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.
      - positr0n 2y ago
        But rubber does not damage concrete, it's the weight of the vehicle that damages the concrete. As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.
        dragontamer 2y ago
        I'm not saying "rubber damages concrete" any more than current gas taxes say "gasoline damages concrete". I'm saying the degregation of rubber is (likely) in direct correlation to the amount of road damage. (Much like gasoline is in direct correlation to miles-traveled, and thus is also an indirect measurement of road damage) There's no need for causation in this discussion. Correlation is enough to be worthy of a good tax design.
digitalsushi 2y ago
a civie engineer told me an overloaded 18 wheeler is about the same as 8,000 passenger vehicles making the same trip on the tar.
smileysteve 2y ago
US Federal Gasoline taxes haven't been raised since 1993; meanwhile US interstate systems and bridges are receiving C- rankings. This was the case before the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Model S, much less 5% adoption of new car sales being electric. There is a ~$186B dollar annual shortfall in federal (road maintenance - excise tax revenues)

chongli 2y ago

Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.

eldaisfish 2y ago
Tying a tax to distance travelled requires accurate reporting of distance travelled. How is that not a perverse incentive?
- chongli 2y ago
  We shouldn't care if you want to buy a 10,000 lb electric truck if you leave it parked in your driveway all year round. If we're not taxing based on distance then the perverse incentive is to drive big trucks until they fall to pieces.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  Easy in places where it requires annual safety checks
  - airstrike 2y ago
    which is really most anywhere these days, is it not? having lived in different states in different countries, this was always the case for me, but then again that's still a small sample size
dragontamer 2y ago
I love pushing "Tire Taxes". We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire). So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to exactly the amount of particles emitted. No weight^4th power required. The tire wear directly correlates to the pollution we care about. So tax / measure the tires directly, don't do anything else that's more indirect.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Doesn't account for road wear or pedestrian risk, though.
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    I have to imagine that if Car X wore out 5kg of rubber, that it would have had half the impact of another Car Y that wore out 10kg of rubber. Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.
    - positr0n 2y ago
      But rubber does not damage concrete, it's the weight of the vehicle that damages the concrete. As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.
      - dragontamer 2y ago
        I'm not saying "rubber damages concrete" any more than current gas taxes say "gasoline damages concrete". I'm saying the degregation of rubber is (likely) in direct correlation to the amount of road damage. (Much like gasoline is in direct correlation to miles-traveled, and thus is also an indirect measurement of road damage) There's no need for causation in this discussion. Correlation is enough to be worthy of a good tax design.

digitalsushi 2y ago

a civie engineer told me an overloaded 18 wheeler is about the same as 8,000 passenger vehicles making the same trip on the tar.

smileysteve 2y ago

US Federal Gasoline taxes haven't been raised since 1993; meanwhile US interstate systems and bridges are receiving C- rankings. This was the case before the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Model S, much less 5% adoption of new car sales being electric. There is a ~$186B dollar annual shortfall in federal (road maintenance - excise tax revenues)