6 ms·

That creates a whole different problem. Gasoline taxes are a major contributor to infrastructure. If everyone moves to EVs, we need a an alternative, like a mil

by bumby 1y ago

That creates a whole different problem. Gasoline taxes are a major contributor to infrastructure. If everyone moves to EVs, we need a an alternative, like a mileage tax.

stickfigure 1y ago
That is an entirely separate issue and would need to be addressed even if the mandates were to be magically effective.
- bumby 1y ago
  It’s directly related to your point about increasing gas taxes as an incentive to build demand for EVs (and eventually reduce gas tax revenue). If it gets to the point where the only people paying gas taxes are ICE hobbyists, the scale won’t support the needs of infrastructure.
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem. I don't see why this is relevant to the topic at hand. My point is that if you want to shift the whole state from gas to electric vehicles, there's a smart way and a dumb way. California is picking the dumb way.
    - bumby 1y ago
      >If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem Yes. The point is you shouldn’t trivialize the problem and need to account for second order effects. If you want to mandate EVs, fine, but now you have to solve the problem of reduced infrastructure funding when it’s already below sustainment levels. That doesn’t sound very smart, and you can’t just hand wave the problem away. Other people in the thread have pointed out it’s “dumb” to levy an EV tax without understanding they are related.
      - stickfigure 1y ago
        Find some other thread to argue that point in. It's not relevant in this thread, which leads with "If we want people to move to EVs..."
        bumby 1y ago
        Your gatekeeping keeping is both unwarranted and against the HN guidelines of fostering curious conversation. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or discussing in bad-faith, but I’ll make the relevance explicit: >"If we want people to move to EVs..." …then we need to understand and address the positive and negative externalities. Those include the tax revenue lost from gasoline taxes.
neltnerb 1y ago
What we need is fewer roads to maintain, but as you say a whole different problem. It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes in a year is probably close. Meanwhile state and local governments (alone) spend over $200B on road maintenance and construction while the federal government spent about $60B on the interstates. $80B is a lot, but if gas taxes covered even just car infrastructure it'd be an extra $1 a gallon already. Even without EVs. In case anyone was under the misapprehension that roads are budget neutral. Frustrating (to get more off track) that other transit is expected to somehow be profitable when roads are subsidized so heavily. I wish it wasn't so critical for our supply chain, EV trucks probably works a lot better between a train terminal and final destination than it does hauling across I-40. Sources: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline... https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/DOT_Budget_Highlights_FY_2025_508.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/D...
- chneu 1y ago
  Oh wow I've never thought of it the way you did, that roads are subsidized so heavily vs public transit being expected to break even. That's a great take. Thanks.
  - bumby 1y ago
    I think the argument is that roads contribute more to the overall economy than public transit.
    - neltnerb 1y ago
      And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do. We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives. But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads. I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in. Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?

by bumby 1y ago

That creates a whole different problem. Gasoline taxes are a major contributor to infrastructure. If everyone moves to EVs, we need a an alternative, like a mileage tax.

stickfigure 1y ago

That is an entirely separate issue and would need to be addressed even if the mandates were to be magically effective.

bumby 1y ago
It’s directly related to your point about increasing gas taxes as an incentive to build demand for EVs (and eventually reduce gas tax revenue). If it gets to the point where the only people paying gas taxes are ICE hobbyists, the scale won’t support the needs of infrastructure.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem. I don't see why this is relevant to the topic at hand. My point is that if you want to shift the whole state from gas to electric vehicles, there's a smart way and a dumb way. California is picking the dumb way.
  - bumby 1y ago
    >If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem Yes. The point is you shouldn’t trivialize the problem and need to account for second order effects. If you want to mandate EVs, fine, but now you have to solve the problem of reduced infrastructure funding when it’s already below sustainment levels. That doesn’t sound very smart, and you can’t just hand wave the problem away. Other people in the thread have pointed out it’s “dumb” to levy an EV tax without understanding they are related.
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      Find some other thread to argue that point in. It's not relevant in this thread, which leads with "If we want people to move to EVs..."
      - bumby 1y ago
        Your gatekeeping keeping is both unwarranted and against the HN guidelines of fostering curious conversation. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or discussing in bad-faith, but I’ll make the relevance explicit: >"If we want people to move to EVs..." …then we need to understand and address the positive and negative externalities. Those include the tax revenue lost from gasoline taxes.

neltnerb 1y ago

What we need is fewer roads to maintain, but as you say a whole different problem. It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes in a year is probably close. Meanwhile state and local governments (alone) spend over $200B on road maintenance and construction while the federal government spent about $60B on the interstates. $80B is a lot, but if gas taxes covered even just car infrastructure it'd be an extra $1 a gallon already. Even without EVs. In case anyone was under the misapprehension that roads are budget neutral. Frustrating (to get more off track) that other transit is expected to somehow be profitable when roads are subsidized so heavily. I wish it wasn't so critical for our supply chain, EV trucks probably works a lot better between a train terminal and final destination than it does hauling across I-40. Sources: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline... https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/DOT_Budget_Highlights_FY_2025_508.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/D...

chneu 1y ago
Oh wow I've never thought of it the way you did, that roads are subsidized so heavily vs public transit being expected to break even. That's a great take. Thanks.
- bumby 1y ago
  I think the argument is that roads contribute more to the overall economy than public transit.
  - neltnerb 1y ago
    And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do. We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives. But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads. I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in. Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?