The only problem I see with this is that it will sort the burden of this tax from vehicle users to consumers. My guess is that people who drive lots are statistically now likely to be wealthy.
Define “drive lots”. Working class citizens can easily have 60 mile commutes for work. Add in road trips for vacations and families are easily throwing down hundreds of thousands of miles. I wouldn’t say they’re are wealthy.
If you’re actually wealthy, you’d be flying for any significant distances.
From the last link since it’s long. Vmt is vehicle miles traveled, and pmt is person miles traveled:
Tldr: road usage is higher for higher income people, but it makes up a smaller percentage of their income. Reducing transportation costs has a greater benefit for low income households than high income households.
The problem is that long term, subsidizing driving makes everything worse and more expensive, especially for low income folks. So while considering effects of policy on low income folks is good, we should not look at this and conclude that eliminating marginal driving costs is a good thing.
So, in principle I agree. However, drawing road maintenance funding from something other than a regressive tax isn’t the same as subsidization. It similarly lowers the burden on some, but it’s just shifting it to those both more able to shoulder the burden, and those more responsible for it. They’re also the most able to find alternative modes of transport, since freight rail actually exists in a consistent way across the country, and last mile freight delivery is a continued use case for city roads even if we massively reduce our individual reliance on automobiles.
Secondly, it’s worth noting that this isn’t just automobile costs, but these reports also cover transportation in general. The cost of transportation is more of a burden for low income folks regardless of mode. Before we start considering denying relief or actively disincentivising one mode of transport, we need to ensure that an alternative actually exists. Without that step you’re not reducing our reliance on cars, your just punishing poor people for society not caring about light rail or walkable cities.
My city has a pretty good bus system compared to most, and there are parts of town that are practically unreachable without a car, and actually unreachable in a safe fashion in the winter. As a quick reference, I looked up the bus route for getting to my doctor’s office by 7am, which isn’t unreasonable for some of the businesses near it.
For reference, the walking instructions involve a fair bit of time on a pedestrian hostile bit of road with a lot of trucks and no sidewalks. It’s forecast to be roughly 9°F during that time and snowing.
It does only take an hour by bus if you can show up at eight instead.
All that to say, I’m 100% in favor of getting rid of cars. We just need a society where I can get to my doctor’s office without one first.
And even then, trucks should still pay for maintenance.
I think all these policy nudges need to happen in tandem. We can update how we tax vehicle use while shifting that money to transit, and doing zoning reform. If we wait until there is a perfect bus route everywhere before charging something resembling market rate for clearly unsustainable vehicle use, nothing will ever change. We can use the funding to help low income folks specifically, sure. I’m approaching this more from a traffic violence and climate change angle though. The status quo isn’t acceptable and already imposes tremendous burden on society.
I’d prefer a carbon fee and dividend as the main policy personally, but in the meantime I’ll keep advocating for anything that incentivizes less driving. Maintenance to me has to be tied to use, and we can figure out how to do that fairly without making unlimited driving approach zero marginal costs. Things will get a whole lot worse for low income folks if we do nothing.
I don’t think doing it at the same time works because it takes much longer to setup any form of mass transit, and far longer to make areas livable without a car. It’s not about waiting until there’s a perfect bus route, just making sure people have anything viable before we start pushing them to stop using what they have. Leave for work eight hours before you start, risk your life walking on the highway in the snow, or get fired just isn’t a choice we can put on people, especially when we’ve tied food, medical and housing assistance to working literally any job that will hire you.
Tying it to vehicle weight and miles traveled and only for commercial vehicles is tied to usage. Cars just don’t matter from a road wear perspective. The marginal cost of driving is the operating and maintenance costs for the vehicle.
Low income people are already good at budgeting those costs because travel consumes so much of their budget.
Of course cars matter for road maintenance. They’re the reason we have so many roads and so many lanes in the first place. We wouldn’t need near the infrastructure to support just commercial vehicles. We would have massive amounts of prime real estate if we didn’t waste it all on parking lots and lanes. Your 8 hour bus anecdote isn’t really relevant here - nothing will change overnight, but over time long car trips (especially in oversized vehicles) should cost more. People can adapt by buying lighter more efficient vehicles, and switch to other options as they become available. You think it’s expensive now, just wait until another decade or two of climate change impacts happens.
Fear of imposing any marginal costs on low income folks is a pro car argument. Taking your argument further, why not get rid of all gas taxes and road fees and just go 100% on making cars as cheap to operate, all in the name of equality? Surely you can see this is wrong direction.
Even non drivers end up benefiting from freight hauling. Without it, we’d all have to go and pick things up. Centralizing the taxation for upkeep, even though it will get passed on to consumers actually seems like a fairly balanced idea on the surface.
It’s a new idea to me, and I haven’t picked it apart much yet though.
Playing with it in my head as I write, the only real hole I can see is with goods that are so essential that even a small increase in cost becomes a bigger burden on lower incomes. But negating the taxes for those items in specific should remove that burden, so things like food don’t get absurd.
Since it would also solve for part of the increased administration costs, since expanding an existing system is easier than creating a new one, it’s just as viable as taxing the “fuel” by metering recharging.
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like a viable option once exactly which goods need to be either tax exempt, or taxed at a lower rate
I’m not sure that your guess is correct. The gass tax is an example of a regressive tax. Higher income people are generally more able to work from home, and own higher efficiency vehicles. Even ignoring efficiency, a person making $200k would pay the same for road maintenance as a person making $30k. As a proportion of income, the tax hits lower income people harder.
At the same time, we don’t actually want to penalize people for having more efficient cars. So dropping the tax on individuals and shifting it to the main driver behind road wear makes sense. The cost will inevitably be passed on to consumers, but spreading $60 billion over all the products sold in the US in a year is a smaller burden for low income people, particularly if weight is factored in.
“we don’t actually want to penalize people for having more efficient cars”
Yes we do - more efficient cars is not the same as more efficient means of transport, and even electric cars have far higher emissions per person than buses or trains or bikes or walking.
Everyone has this weird mental block where they can’t imagine a solution that’s not cars (mainly because our built environment is mostly roads), but the reality is that electric cars are just a stopgap except for in the boonies, and in those cases using petrol isn’t that big of a deal anyway (it’s ~10% of the population so it’s only a tiny fraction of the car-emissions problem, air pollution is less because there are fewer cars and fewer people nearby, and EVs are more expensive because you can’t just drive a cheap short-range city-car like the Nissan Leaf). So rural transport emissions should be a low priority IMO.
To be clear, I’m all for taxing the shit out of commercial trucks too. Most of that shit should be put on rail (and it would, if we focused on improving rail infrastructure like we currently focus on improving highways), and so should most car drivers.
You misunderstand my intent with that sentence. We don’t want to punish someone for having an EV as opposed to an ICE vehicle. If someone is buying a car, we would prefer to gently nudge them towards the more efficient vehicle, if only through the savings of efficiency.
I’m entirely aware of the alternatives to cars, and would rather we have those. However, we don’t live in a world yet where cars are only needed for rural populations and we won’t get to that world in the timeframe where we need to figure out road maintenance financing, which is currently based on gasoline sales. So we should figure out the current finance issue in a way that doesn’t punish people for picking the best available option, even if it’s not the best possible option. Or at least doesn’t punish them more than the worse options.
Perhaps it would help nudge more sustainable transport systems. While being a tax for road infrastructure wear and tear, it can effectively be a bit of a carbon tax too.
Now, the rail infrastructure and operators in North America are abysmal, but our countries were literally built by rail, I don’t see why we can’t continue to use rail as a more sustainable alternative to longer haul trucking. Rail operators being inept shouldn’t be an excuse to explore these options.
My guess is that people who drive lots are statistically now likely to be wealthy.
Nope, lol.
For close to 15 years I had a 110 mile daily commute (round trip) to work because I lived in the boonies. Was/am totally not wealthy. That was just required driving and no pleasure trips, extra trips, etc.
The only problem I see with this is that it will sort the burden of this tax from vehicle users to consumers. My guess is that people who drive lots are statistically now likely to be wealthy.
Define “drive lots”. Working class citizens can easily have 60 mile commutes for work. Add in road trips for vacations and families are easily throwing down hundreds of thousands of miles. I wouldn’t say they’re are wealthy.
If you’re actually wealthy, you’d be flying for any significant distances.
deleted by creator
maybe you’re right. i would like to see some research about road usage and wealth and the correlation between the two before changing this law though.
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/ida7-k95k
https://www.bts.gov/data-spotlight/household-cost-transportation-it-affordable
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/chap3.cfm
From the last link since it’s long. Vmt is vehicle miles traveled, and pmt is person miles traveled:
Tldr: road usage is higher for higher income people, but it makes up a smaller percentage of their income. Reducing transportation costs has a greater benefit for low income households than high income households.
Fair enough, thanks for informing me.
The problem is that long term, subsidizing driving makes everything worse and more expensive, especially for low income folks. So while considering effects of policy on low income folks is good, we should not look at this and conclude that eliminating marginal driving costs is a good thing.
So, in principle I agree. However, drawing road maintenance funding from something other than a regressive tax isn’t the same as subsidization. It similarly lowers the burden on some, but it’s just shifting it to those both more able to shoulder the burden, and those more responsible for it. They’re also the most able to find alternative modes of transport, since freight rail actually exists in a consistent way across the country, and last mile freight delivery is a continued use case for city roads even if we massively reduce our individual reliance on automobiles.
Secondly, it’s worth noting that this isn’t just automobile costs, but these reports also cover transportation in general. The cost of transportation is more of a burden for low income folks regardless of mode. Before we start considering denying relief or actively disincentivising one mode of transport, we need to ensure that an alternative actually exists. Without that step you’re not reducing our reliance on cars, your just punishing poor people for society not caring about light rail or walkable cities.
My city has a pretty good bus system compared to most, and there are parts of town that are practically unreachable without a car, and actually unreachable in a safe fashion in the winter. As a quick reference, I looked up the bus route for getting to my doctor’s office by 7am, which isn’t unreasonable for some of the businesses near it.
For reference, the walking instructions involve a fair bit of time on a pedestrian hostile bit of road with a lot of trucks and no sidewalks. It’s forecast to be roughly 9°F during that time and snowing.
It does only take an hour by bus if you can show up at eight instead.
All that to say, I’m 100% in favor of getting rid of cars. We just need a society where I can get to my doctor’s office without one first.
And even then, trucks should still pay for maintenance.
I think all these policy nudges need to happen in tandem. We can update how we tax vehicle use while shifting that money to transit, and doing zoning reform. If we wait until there is a perfect bus route everywhere before charging something resembling market rate for clearly unsustainable vehicle use, nothing will ever change. We can use the funding to help low income folks specifically, sure. I’m approaching this more from a traffic violence and climate change angle though. The status quo isn’t acceptable and already imposes tremendous burden on society.
I’d prefer a carbon fee and dividend as the main policy personally, but in the meantime I’ll keep advocating for anything that incentivizes less driving. Maintenance to me has to be tied to use, and we can figure out how to do that fairly without making unlimited driving approach zero marginal costs. Things will get a whole lot worse for low income folks if we do nothing.
I don’t think doing it at the same time works because it takes much longer to setup any form of mass transit, and far longer to make areas livable without a car. It’s not about waiting until there’s a perfect bus route, just making sure people have anything viable before we start pushing them to stop using what they have. Leave for work eight hours before you start, risk your life walking on the highway in the snow, or get fired just isn’t a choice we can put on people, especially when we’ve tied food, medical and housing assistance to working literally any job that will hire you.
Tying it to vehicle weight and miles traveled and only for commercial vehicles is tied to usage. Cars just don’t matter from a road wear perspective. The marginal cost of driving is the operating and maintenance costs for the vehicle.
Low income people are already good at budgeting those costs because travel consumes so much of their budget.
Of course cars matter for road maintenance. They’re the reason we have so many roads and so many lanes in the first place. We wouldn’t need near the infrastructure to support just commercial vehicles. We would have massive amounts of prime real estate if we didn’t waste it all on parking lots and lanes. Your 8 hour bus anecdote isn’t really relevant here - nothing will change overnight, but over time long car trips (especially in oversized vehicles) should cost more. People can adapt by buying lighter more efficient vehicles, and switch to other options as they become available. You think it’s expensive now, just wait until another decade or two of climate change impacts happens.
Fear of imposing any marginal costs on low income folks is a pro car argument. Taking your argument further, why not get rid of all gas taxes and road fees and just go 100% on making cars as cheap to operate, all in the name of equality? Surely you can see this is wrong direction.
Eh, I don’t know that it’s unfair though.
Even non drivers end up benefiting from freight hauling. Without it, we’d all have to go and pick things up. Centralizing the taxation for upkeep, even though it will get passed on to consumers actually seems like a fairly balanced idea on the surface.
It’s a new idea to me, and I haven’t picked it apart much yet though.
Playing with it in my head as I write, the only real hole I can see is with goods that are so essential that even a small increase in cost becomes a bigger burden on lower incomes. But negating the taxes for those items in specific should remove that burden, so things like food don’t get absurd.
Since it would also solve for part of the increased administration costs, since expanding an existing system is easier than creating a new one, it’s just as viable as taxing the “fuel” by metering recharging.
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like a viable option once exactly which goods need to be either tax exempt, or taxed at a lower rate
I’m not sure that your guess is correct. The gass tax is an example of a regressive tax. Higher income people are generally more able to work from home, and own higher efficiency vehicles. Even ignoring efficiency, a person making $200k would pay the same for road maintenance as a person making $30k. As a proportion of income, the tax hits lower income people harder.
At the same time, we don’t actually want to penalize people for having more efficient cars. So dropping the tax on individuals and shifting it to the main driver behind road wear makes sense. The cost will inevitably be passed on to consumers, but spreading $60 billion over all the products sold in the US in a year is a smaller burden for low income people, particularly if weight is factored in.
Fair point, I think I might be persuaded
“we don’t actually want to penalize people for having more efficient cars”
Yes we do - more efficient cars is not the same as more efficient means of transport, and even electric cars have far higher emissions per person than buses or trains or bikes or walking.
Everyone has this weird mental block where they can’t imagine a solution that’s not cars (mainly because our built environment is mostly roads), but the reality is that electric cars are just a stopgap except for in the boonies, and in those cases using petrol isn’t that big of a deal anyway (it’s ~10% of the population so it’s only a tiny fraction of the car-emissions problem, air pollution is less because there are fewer cars and fewer people nearby, and EVs are more expensive because you can’t just drive a cheap short-range city-car like the Nissan Leaf). So rural transport emissions should be a low priority IMO.
To be clear, I’m all for taxing the shit out of commercial trucks too. Most of that shit should be put on rail (and it would, if we focused on improving rail infrastructure like we currently focus on improving highways), and so should most car drivers.
You misunderstand my intent with that sentence. We don’t want to punish someone for having an EV as opposed to an ICE vehicle. If someone is buying a car, we would prefer to gently nudge them towards the more efficient vehicle, if only through the savings of efficiency.
I’m entirely aware of the alternatives to cars, and would rather we have those. However, we don’t live in a world yet where cars are only needed for rural populations and we won’t get to that world in the timeframe where we need to figure out road maintenance financing, which is currently based on gasoline sales. So we should figure out the current finance issue in a way that doesn’t punish people for picking the best available option, even if it’s not the best possible option. Or at least doesn’t punish them more than the worse options.
Perhaps it would help nudge more sustainable transport systems. While being a tax for road infrastructure wear and tear, it can effectively be a bit of a carbon tax too.
Now, the rail infrastructure and operators in North America are abysmal, but our countries were literally built by rail, I don’t see why we can’t continue to use rail as a more sustainable alternative to longer haul trucking. Rail operators being inept shouldn’t be an excuse to explore these options.
Nope, lol.
For close to 15 years I had a 110 mile daily commute (round trip) to work because I lived in the boonies. Was/am totally not wealthy. That was just required driving and no pleasure trips, extra trips, etc.
You understand the difference between ‘statistically’ and ‘in my own singular personal experience’, right?
I do, but I also know that I’m not alone in that experience.