Don't most states use tax revenue from gasoline sales to help fund their road construction and maintenance work? And there is Federal taxation as well for US road infrastructure. Can't help but wonder, with the growing number of Teslas and other EVs that will be purchased in the next few years, how states and Feds will make up for the revenue loss And what the impact will be. (Sorry if this issue has already been discussed but I didn't see a thread)
Loss of Gas Tax Revenue For Roads
- Thread starter AZGirl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Yes, it has been discussed, but mostly buried in other posts. Some have posted that some states are charging a flat yearly fee on EVs.
Others have talked about a pay per use model where you will be required to input odometer readings and pay proportionately.
Some states charge registration fees based on vehicle weight (heavier has more wear and tear). Don't know if that translates to the roads themselves.
I'm guessing that when it comes to taxing citizens for stuff, the govnment will not have much problems figuring out how to get more income.
We shall see...
Xenoilphobe
Active Member
In Virginia they charge an EV tax on the registration every year. That's in addition to an annual property tax that all vehicles pay in Virginia. Additionally we get a annual "safety" inspection "tax", and for those that drive ICE's they get a every two year emissions "tax". As well as a tax on tire disposal and oil disposal. Also if you drive the car you can't move in the DC area without paying another tax called tolls... which requires another tax called the smart tag.
Believe me everyone has their hand out for money and when they see the Tesla they wrongly assume you should be paying more...
Believe me everyone has their hand out for money and when they see the Tesla they wrongly assume you should be paying more...
Lloyd
Well-Known Member
Some states have already placed additional "fees" for EV's to make up for lost gas tax revenue. They (government entities) originally wanted to promote the adoption of clean driving by giving the adopter a small tax break as an incentive. As there are more EV's on the road, more states will add "fees" to make up for the loss. That said, we are not talking about a lot of money. The average car in a year pays about $100 in gasoline taxes for about 15,000 miles of driving, which is what California charges EV's on their registration annually.
We should be charging the heavy trucks more in road fees as that is where the majority of road damage ocurrs from. I have heard from others that 1 Semi = about 1000 passenger cars in damage to the roadway per mile.
We should be charging the heavy trucks more in road fees as that is where the majority of road damage ocurrs from. I have heard from others that 1 Semi = about 1000 passenger cars in damage to the roadway per mile.
cpa
Active Member
Some of us (myself, Rubber Toe, Ohmman) volunteered for the California Road Charge Pilot project. This is a trial to charge a fee per road mile instead of the usual road tax that is part of the retail cost of fuel. No money will actually change hands in this trial, but the trial is underway to determine if the State of California will abandon the gasoline fuel tax and replace it with a mileage tax.
This pilot program has a number of reporting options. One is manual reporting by submitting odometer readings. Another is to have a GPS device installed in your car to track your "on-road, in-state" driving. The third option is to have the car's built in telemetry send mileage data. There is a method to adjust for out-of-state driving for the latter option. Other options under consideration will be a weekly/monthly/annual pass for unlimited mileage, so no reporting is required. This test project is due to end in March 2017.
Oregon already has a mileage option that is live. I recall that only a couple thousand individuals have signed up for it, however. They get billed monthly for their mileage driven, and the receive credits for the gasoline tax paid at the pump.
Personally, I think that this is the future. Despite individuals who fear Big Brother and all, it seems the most equitable. It is hard to justify a fixed rate per gallon of fuel when cars can obtain anywhere from 12 to 40+ miles per gallon for driving the same distances.
This pilot program has a number of reporting options. One is manual reporting by submitting odometer readings. Another is to have a GPS device installed in your car to track your "on-road, in-state" driving. The third option is to have the car's built in telemetry send mileage data. There is a method to adjust for out-of-state driving for the latter option. Other options under consideration will be a weekly/monthly/annual pass for unlimited mileage, so no reporting is required. This test project is due to end in March 2017.
Oregon already has a mileage option that is live. I recall that only a couple thousand individuals have signed up for it, however. They get billed monthly for their mileage driven, and the receive credits for the gasoline tax paid at the pump.
Personally, I think that this is the future. Despite individuals who fear Big Brother and all, it seems the most equitable. It is hard to justify a fixed rate per gallon of fuel when cars can obtain anywhere from 12 to 40+ miles per gallon for driving the same distances.
nexsuperne101
Closed
1semi = 1000 cars worth of damage to roads? how come? Semi's here weigh 44 tonnes (96,800lb), which on average is approximately 30 times the weight of a car. The Semi has more axles to spread the weight (typically 6 axles, vs 2), so the weight per axle is roughly 16,100lb. A car would be about 1,500lb per axle, so maybe they mean that a semi does 10 times as much damage as a car.
Until they have a flat, or the tire pressures are unequal between the two duals, then the damage increases. Also truck tires run at a much higher pressure than car tires do, so they put a lot more pressure on each square inch of road. 1000 cars worth is probably a best-case scenario.
I would think that damage isn't linear.. 2000lb of force is not 2x the damage of 1000lb of force.
Correct. In addition, the force is spread through a cone from the contact area to the substrate. The slope of the cone depends on the stacking ability of the materials used. With dual tires, the cones overlap very quickly.
Ideally, trains (or ships where water transport is feasible) would carry most freight and trucks only a small minority. That would lower total transportations costs.
they will be moving towards a pay as you go model, they will tax your car by the miles driven regardless of the method of propulsion. I believe GA already taxes EVs $200 a year in lieu of fuel taxes
I don't think they can go by miles. I live near Kansas City. This is a city and Metro area split by a state line. If I work and shop downtown, but live just a few miles over in Kansas, who do I pay?
I think a flat yearly fee, or one by vehicle mass, is the way to go.
I think a flat yearly fee, or one by vehicle mass, is the way to go.
I paid my $150 flat fee which if my math is correct is a LOT less than I'd normally pay.
So I expect to see that fee go up as the years go on.
I'm okay with a flat fee that's based on weight. I'm not okay with miles based because a lot of us put a ton of miles on our cars outside of our home state.
So I expect to see that fee go up as the years go on.
I'm okay with a flat fee that's based on weight. I'm not okay with miles based because a lot of us put a ton of miles on our cars outside of our home state.
Damage to the road scales with the fourth power of axle load, according to the usual rule of thumb. So a 96800 pound semi with 5 axles probably does 27749 times as much damage as a 5000 pound car with 2 axles. A bit less, since the fourth power rule isn't quite right, but close.
Repeat: that's 27,000 times as much damage. We really should charge the road tax entirely to semis.
Repeat: that's 27,000 times as much damage. We really should charge the road tax entirely to semis.
Last edited:
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
In effect heavy trucks are being subsidized by relatively low fuel taxes, compared to the road damage they do. However, since nearly all the goods we buy are transported by trucks, the real beneficiaries of the subsidy are the consumers of the transported products.
From an economics point of view it would be more efficient if vehicles, including heavy trucks, paid a share proportionate to the damage done. But, overall, the lower cost to trucking companies, in not paying for the road damage they cause, is eventually passed on to all of us in the form of a lower transportation cost of the goods we buy.
Just another way of looking at the truck road damage subsidy.
My concern is that by not taxing the semi trucks higher that we're making cargo cheaper to ship by truck than by train.
I5 is literally packed with Semi trucks going from Seattle to Portland yet it's right alongside a rail line.
While true, the real effect of this policy is to reduce the volume of cargo on more environmentally friendly trains and ships (river ships, not ocean ones).
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Good point! That's a reason why it would be more economically efficient to apportion the road building/maintenance tax based on the damage caused by that class of vehicle.
Dr. Pete
Member
Oregon is still running a pilot project using a device plugged into the OBD II port of the vehicle. It incorporates GPS data, so as to determine the number of out-of-state miles, which are excluded from the calculations.
Similar threads
