WA Senate passes $100 annual electric car fee

[ToddRLockwood]

The problem I see is that plug-in hybrids could get away without paying their fair share if they stay within the battery range an don't buy much gas.

That aside, I could see charging EVs an annual road tax based on MPGe and miles driven, interpolating from the cents-per-gallon rates that gas powered cars pay. Since non-EVs are paying based on gasoline consumption, this seems like a fair solution. Otherwise, they could switch all vehicles over to an annual road tax based on mileage and vehicle weight.

 

[ElSupreme]

The right sort of tax for road construction and maintenance is USE tax, in the form of tolls. We have plenty of those in Florida, and will not be happy if something like this comes here. There aren't so many in Washington (although I was shocked at the amount of the tolls on the 520 bridge when they came into existence from $0). California also has very few tolls...

Tolls are not really a good way to pay for roads. They can be a fast way to pay for expensive bits of roads. I benefit from roads that I never drive on, and may never drive on. Others drive on those roads to get to places that help me.

I am really glad there is a road to the Tesla factory. Even though I most likely will never drive on it. And everyone in Atlanta will benefit from that road from lower air pollution when I get my car, so everyone in Atlanta will benefit from it.

Can there be bad roads. Probably. But infrastructure in general benefits everyone, even if they don't use the infrastructure personally.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Instead of mandating things for EVs that people don't want, I think mandating all cars use a common built in toll mechanism makes more sense. Something like EZtag but without the big sticker in your window. That would make things easier going from state to state when collecting tolls and funding roads.

I agree we shouldn't be singling out different vehicles for different tax treatments. Technology will make this much easier to implement. A device that is plugged into the car once a year and transmits mileage might help mitigate privacy concerns about "Big Brother" watching my every move. Of course it would be nice if when our governments collect "road taxes" that they would actually spend that revenue on fixing our ailing roads.

Larry

 

[Discoducky]

This $100 fee is fine, but it would be better if the fee was based on the amount of damage done to the roads, toxic runoff/air pollution generated and noise pollution. For passenger vehicles, take the surface contact area of the tires and divide weight.

With EV's on the road you won't need runoff detention ponds for the oil/gas pollution into the water table or pollution credits from the federal government.

And WA State has this crazy law allowing studded tires which have destroyed the highways with deep ruts (nearly 2 inches on I-90). I'm still amazed that studded tires are legal here since they do incredible damage to the driving surface while greatly increasing the noise pollution, safety of the roads as there are huge ruts that collect rain/oil causing hydroplaning and are difficult to drive on when changing lanes. Not to mention there is a study done 11 years ago that basically disproves their effectiveness against newer winter/all-season tires:


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/551.1.pdf (PDF warning)

The issues surrounding studded tire performance and safety are complex. From the standpoint of traction alone, studded tires, when new, often provide some benefit over other tire types on ice-covered roads when the temperature is near freezing. However, the advent of the new studless tires has diminished the marginal benefit, and recent studies suggest that the infrequent, narrow range of conditions necessary for benefit from studded tires may not outweigh their detrimental effect on traction in dry or wet conditions on certain pavement types. In addition, a host of primary and secondary safety factors are related to studded tire use, many of which are very difficult to quantify, including facets of driver behavior and safety perception[/QUTOE]

 

[jerry33]

This $100 fee is fine, but it would be better if the fee was based on the amount of damage done to the roads, toxic runoff/air pollution generated and noise pollution. For passenger vehicles, take the surface contact area of the tires and divide weight.

The problem with doing that is that highway trucks would then have to pay their fair share--which would be far more than they are currently paying.

 

[Doug_G]

The problem with doing that is that highway trucks would then have to pay their fair share--which would be far more than they are currently paying.

Yes and that is, in effect, a huge subsidy for truck transport. If that subsidy were removed perhaps we would have a resurgence in a far more efficient means for shipping goods, namely railroads.

 

[vfx]

Had to share this related:
http://www.kgw.com/news/Wash-reps-email-drawing-ire-from-bike-community-194553321.html

Rep. Ed Orcutt (R-Kalama) said in an email to bike shop owner Dale Carlson that, “since CO2 is deemed a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride.”