Federal Highway Bill Extends New User Fee to Electric Vehicles

[wdolson]

Just another thought with a federal tax on EVs. The Tesla is the only EV that uses the interstate highway system to any extent. The majority of other EVs are local city cars that mostly drive on roads maintained by city and state entities.

Trucks do the most damage to roads, but snow tires can do damage too. There are stories around here about it every year when state law requires snow tires removed by April 1. Small cracks started by snow tires can turn into pot holes over time. One of the worst problem with roads in the US is the lack of maintenance. With regular maintenance, infrastructure goes much longer without needing major repairs, but cash strapped government organizations from local to the federal level have skimped on repairs which has led to slowly worsening crisis.

I hope Tesla is doing at least some lobbying in various capitols about EV taxes. The infrastructure to support them could help a lot of economies, but the oil lobby wants to see them killed. Over taxing them is one tactic. Superchargers and other EV charging stations create a captive audience for road side shops and restaurants. If you know your stuck somewhere for 40 minutes or so, might as well get a meal, or check out the local tourist trap shop. That's an incentive for state lawmakers who can bring some pork back to their districts.

 

[CmdrThor]

Just another thought with a federal tax on EVs. The Tesla is the only EV that uses the interstate highway system to any extent. The majority of other EVs are local city cars that mostly drive on roads maintained by city and state entities.

I drive on interstates all the time in my LEAF. Certainly don't go to other states in it, but I use the interstate nonetheless.

 

[wdolson]

I've read 70% of the upkeep budget for interstates is footed by the feds, but I haven't seen anything about who is responsible for what. Most American cities of any size have some interstate running through them, but I think my point is that even if EV users use their local interstate freeway/expressway, they don't travel between cities on the interstate system as much as other car type users do.

Sorry for being inaccurate.

 

[jerry33]

I've read 70% of the upkeep budget for interstates is footed by the feds, but I haven't seen anything about who is responsible for what. Most American cities of any size have some interstate running through them, but I think my point is that even if EV users use their local interstate freeway/expressway, they don't travel between cities on the interstate system as much as other car type users do.

I'd suggest that Tesla owners travel more between cities on interstates than ICE car owners do.

 

[wdolson]

Possibly, hard to say though. Non-ICE cars are still such a small minority, they are down in the noise.

 

[Tripple_T]

So reading this thread and the one about CA trying to pass a similar bill. I can't stop thinking about the impacts down the road (pun intended). A common argument is that trucks and commercial vehicles do not pay a proportionate amount to the damage they cause. (Most will agree with that statement.) This makes the price to ship materials via trucks less expensive than other more efficient options (IE: Rail). Some impacts of increasing the fees on truck would be:

1. Cost of shipping via truck would increase.
2. Less taxes would be required to maintain roads (notice I didn't say they would reduce them.)
3. Alternative transportation methods would be used / explored (our rail systems have struggled for years because trucking is so cheap)
4. Less items would be shipped via truck
5. Less truck driving jobs
6. More alternative shipping jobs (rail / ship)
7. Less wear on roads
8. Lower demand on diesel fuel
9. Lower emissions from trucks
10. Increased emissions from alternative shipping (many are much more efficient than trucks)

Honestly, I've always wondered why rail isn't used more. The only reason I can come up with is that trucking cost less. However, trucking shouldn't cost less. It only costs less because we are all subsidizing their road access fees.

 

[wdolson]

Actually the US rail network has essentially been at 100% capacity for almost 20 years now. US railroads were almost bankrupt in the 1980s, but with containerized freight, several Asian companies realized the cheapest way to ship goods to Europe (including cars) was to ship them to the west coast of the US, put them on trains, ship them across the country, then load them back onto ships on the east coast. It revived the US rail industry.

I first heard this from my father who is a life long rail fan and has followed the industry since the 30s. It was later confirmed by a friend who was in the freight forwarding business. You don't see a sea of trains moving down a stretch of tracks every minute is because the network can only have so many trains on it at one time for safety reasons as well as trying to maintain peace with all the towns and cities the trains have to pass through. We have a BNSF mainline going through town here and they schedule the bulk of trains in the middle of the night to reduce car traffic snarls. With more precise computer control they might be able to squeeze a few more trains onto the same rails, but complaints from towns paralyzed with train crossings closed would go up.

Oh and the US does have a problem with diesel. It doesn't have the refining capacity to make enough gasoline and diesel, so most diesel is refined elsewhere and imported in an already refined state. That makes it much more expensive than diesel in most other countries. I read about that a few years ago, the problem may have been solved now, but it was a problem then.

 

[Tripple_T]

More demand for rail would allow an increase in capacity. The rail companies keep the capacity around 90% on purpose. They maintain their own routes/rails. If they keep to many open it will cost them to much in maintenance. That is one of the benefits of rail. They have incentives to keep rail / routes to a minimum. Increase demand and you will see them finding ways to move more trains at the least cost. It might be better scheduling or it might be more tracks...either way...it won't be an additional burden on our highways...

 

[jerry33]

Oh and the US does have a problem with diesel. It doesn't have the refining capacity to make enough gasoline and diesel, so most diesel is refined elsewhere and imported in an already refined state. That makes it much more expensive than diesel in most other countries. I read about that a few years ago, the problem may have been solved now, but it was a problem then.

I though it was heating oil that competed with diesel. Historically, in the summer diesel prices are at or a bit below the cost of regular gas. In the winter they are significantly higher than regular gas.

 

[wdolson]

I believe heating oil and diesel are very similar products. There may be some American refineries producing diesel now, there wasn't much domestic refining a few years ago.

As for the railroads, building a new line involves acquiring a lot of land and a lot of capital investment the bean counters at the railroads don't want to pay for. They can't get the land for free anymore like they did when the railroads were first built. The railroads have been rehabilitating and putting back into service abandoned lines that can be refurbished without costing an arm and a leg (like replacing a bunch of bridges) and they are expanding single lines into double lines where they have the right of way. There is a stretch of double line in this town they have used as a siding for many years, but I've heard they are investigating extending the double line out to some of the ports.

From what I've heard, the railroads would love to cut into the trucking business, they could significantly boost their revenue, but it probably isn't worth it if a new line costs several billion to build. They may also be afraid that if the Eurozone falls apart, it could trigger an economic crash in Europe which will mean fewer trains of stuff from Asia bound for Europe. Investing a lot of money to expand your business only to have your customer base shrink is the biggest nightmare any business owner has.

Greed drives way too much in this world, but sometimes things are the way they are for other reasons.

 

[cpa]

So reading this thread and the one about CA trying to pass a similar bill. I can't stop thinking about the impacts down the road (pun intended). A common argument is that trucks and commercial vehicles do not pay a proportionate amount to the damage they cause. (Most will agree with that statement.) This makes the price to ship materials via trucks less expensive than other more efficient options (IE: Rail). Some impacts of increasing the fees on truck would be:

1. Cost of shipping via truck would increase.
2. Less taxes would be required to maintain roads (notice I didn't say they would reduce them.)
3. Alternative transportation methods would be used / explored (our rail systems have struggled for years because trucking is so cheap)
4. Less items would be shipped via truck
5. Less truck driving jobs
6. More alternative shipping jobs (rail / ship)
7. Less wear on roads
8. Lower demand on diesel fuel
9. Lower emissions from trucks
10. Increased emissions from alternative shipping (many are much more efficient than trucks)

Honestly, I've always wondered why rail isn't used more. The only reason I can come up with is that trucking cost less. However, trucking shouldn't cost less. It only costs less because we are all subsidizing their road access fees.

One reason is that roads are everywhere and railroad tracks are not. Many highways in the west cross the Sierra Nevada and Continental Divide, but there are only a handful of rail lines crossing those mountain ranges. For products going long distances with convenient rail access and minimal switching of rail cars, rail is cheaper and quicker as the locomotives can continue 24 hours a day, stopping only to change crews and dropping/adding a few cars at a time. However, many situations involve shorter distances away from convenient rail access. (For example from the Port of Oakland on the AT&SF to the Central Valley, the rail line goes north along the south side of the Delta to Stockton before heading south to Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield and then across Tehachapi Pass for points east. It is faster and easier to use trucks to and from the Port of Oakland for destinations in the Central Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego and other places. For rail to reach Los Angeles, the switching yard is in Mojave, and I believe this delay would add to the shipping time.)

This is speculation on my part, and I trust a rail enthusiast will correct me if I am wrong!

 

[wdolson]

Good point about the limited rail over major mountain chains. The maximum grade a train can handle is lower than what a car can do, so a lot more care must be taken in designing rail lines over mountains. Both the Rockies and Sierras are very young mountains which mean rugged and steep. The Cascades are like that too.

The West is down to primarily two major railroads: BNSF and UP. The UP is the railroad that first cut through the Sierras parallel to modern I-80. There still is a route through the Sierras that way. UP bought Southern Pacific, which was the other major railroad in Southern California when I was a kid. The Gadsden Purchase which added the bottom portion of Arizona and New Mexico was made so SP could build a railroad south of the Rockies. That route is still open.

Tehachapi is a major route across the Sierras and both UP and BNSF use the route today. To get from the Bay Area to Los Angeles via rail, it is quicker yo take the UP route down the coast (parallels US 101) and goes through the campus of my alma mater Cal Poly SLO. That was an old SP route too. I remember seeing SP trains go through campus every day when I was in college.

Through the Cascades there is a route that parallels I-90 in Washington that BNSF re-opened in the last 20 years. I remember the news stories when they started restoring it, it was a minor Seattle news event (probably only noticed by people who knew anything about railroads). BNSF also owns the old Empire Builder route which goes through the Cascades near the Canadian border. I took the Amtrak train that runs that route from Milwaukee, WI to Seattle once. It was one of my best traveling memories.

The heaviest used routes through the Cascades are the two lines that run through the Columbia Gorge, which is the only place where you can get from the coast to the interior without climbing any serious mountains between Los Angeles and the Arctic Circle. BNSF has the tracks north of the Columbia River (Washington side) which run through my town. UP has the southern tracks that parallel I-84 on the Oregon side. The railroads prefer using lower altitude routes because the trains can move faster and they use less fuel. When trains move faster through a route, they can run more trains. I've been to the Tehachapi Loop a number of times and those heavily laden cargo trains are crawling through there. And that is a much easier climb than the one near Donner Pass further north. The Tehachapi Loop is a favorite with train spotters because long trains cross over themselves climbing the pass. The track does a big spiral to get altitude without making too steep a grade.

According to some sites listing the busiest ports in the US, Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA are top of the list. (Some lists combine them together, they are about as far apart as the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.) The reason they are very busy is the easy access to the old route through the Gadsden Purchase, which is a fairly low altitude run all the way across the southern US. The Bay Area has better quality port locations than Southern California, but the access to easy rail routes are less advantageous.

Wikipedia has the current route maps for BNSF and UP. The maps show fairly slim pickings between the west coast and across the Rockies when you compare it to the routes east of the Rockies which look like plates of spaghetti.