http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/26/lawmakers-blow-opportunity-to-rethink-the-way-we-fund-our-roads Comments On: Lawmakers Blow Opportunity to Rethink the Way We Fund Our Roads by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 08:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
I suppose if you wanted to tax people's RVs that would make sense but even pickup trucks don't really fuck up the roads that much. Most damage is Semi's, Buses, government vehicles like Garbage Trucks and shit like that.

Think about the HUGE amount of spending to implement to a program like that. Tracking every vehicles weight, and mileage in order to tax people, fucking auditing people to make sure they actually drove that much, or people reducing weight to their cars. You'd have to have scales, fucking all sorts of shit.

FUCKING TERRIBLE idea. Seriously, The Stranger, shut the fuck up sometimes.
Posted by trenchgun]]> Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:39:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:40:11 -0800 The Stranger
You are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.
Posted by keshmeshi]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:42:19 -0800 The Stranger @27, are you assuming that they are getting studded tires and chains for free?

Of course not.
Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:52:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pridge Wessea]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:29:05 -0800 The Stranger
And you see you @23

That's not true, but mere facts never mattered to a Seattle "progressive," did they? You see, 99% of all vehicle-related pavement damage is caused by heavy trucks and buses. Differentials in weight among cars and light trucks is a bullshit way to allocate anything, because cars, light trucks (and motorcycles and bicycles) don't do any damage to pavement.


Posted by MrBaker]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:01:29 -0800 The Stranger Lighter and less expensive vehicles tend to use cheaper and less damaging tires, and tires wear by age or driving a bunch of miles.

What, no one puts studded tires on a Prius, or chains on their electric car?
Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:48:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:30:35 -0800 The Stranger
Yes, the gas tax pays for road maintenance, and yes, electric cars use the roads like everybody else. But they don't generate the same sort of external costs as their gas-fueled cousins, and with only about 1,600 of them currently registered in the state, the additional revenue is barely worth the effort of collecting it. It's just hard to see the value of levying this particular fee at this particular time.

This "hardly worth the time" thing is the same thing every person getting a little tax break in Olympia says. Hey, ST's B&O tax break is hardly anything.
The fact that it is hardly anything does not mean that it should not be collected.

We largely agree, except on your example and its use in your argument, other than that, ya, we need a better method for funding the roads we all benefit from.

Fwiw, Lighter and less expensive vehicles tend to use cheaper and less damaging tires, and tires wear by age or driving a bunch of miles.
Until somebody finds a replacement for tires we should tax them a lot. They already have a special tax applied for disposal (which is way too low).
Posted by MrBaker]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:57:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pridge Wessea]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:01:24 -0800 The Stranger Vehicle weight and mileage, which you mention, are good ways to tax for roads, and actually gas taxes do a semi-decent job of allocating those. Both have large impacts on wear and tear.

That's not true, but mere facts never mattered to a Seattle "progressive," did they? You see, 99% of all vehicle-related pavement damage is caused by heavy trucks and buses. Differentials in weight among cars and light trucks is a bullshit way to allocate anything, because cars, light trucks (and motorcycles and bicycles) don't do any damage to pavement.

Not that this would matter to a "progressive." For you, it's about hating cars, and especially hating SUVs and light trucks.
Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:46:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:42:01 -0800 The Stranger
It's illogical because the only vehicle damage done to pavement worthy of note is done by heavy trucks and buses. Bicycles, cars, and light trucks do no pavement damage. Ask any highway engineer. He'll explain the equations.

The difference between the weight of a bicycle, a car, and an SUV on a city street is akin to the difference between a fly, a sparrow, and a squirrel on a heavy tree branch. Only buses and heavy trucks do vehicle-related pavement damage. Virtually all other (non-vehicle) pavement damage is done by weather and utility crews.

Therefore, a weight-based system isn't logical, because vehicle weight has no relationship to maintenance issues. If that was going to be the basis for fees, then semitrucks and buses should be the only vehicles paying any road use fees.

The legality of a mileage-based fee is related to where the vehicles are driven. For the time being, given the battery ranges, EVs are driven almost exclusively in state. So a mileage fee on them would make sense. But for other vehicles, you have a big issue if Washington taxes miles driven in Oregon and California. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet the courts would have a field day with that whole idea.

Finally, as fairness is concerned, the only vehicles authorized to use the streets that are not taxes as vehicles are the Holy Bicycles. Seattle's freeloading, car-hating hypocritical "progressives" are fine with that, because fairness or equity never has, and never will, have anything to do with their concept of government.
Posted by Mister G]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:13:32 -0800 The Stranger
We used to have a hefty annual fee known as the MVET. (It was the replacement for the property tax on cars.) Then Tim Eyman got it repealed. (The Legislature should have known that was coming, since a similar tax was repealed in Virginia a couple of years earlier.) Why do people, and voters in particular, hate an annual fee? Because most folks don't notice it when they pay a couple of extra bucks each week in gas tax. When you make them pony up $1500 or $2000 all at once they freak. You may not have noticed, but most of us live paycheck to paycheck. We don't save an extra hundred dollars or so each month just to satisfy the ill-informed musings of efficiency theorists.

And what happens after the Son-of-MVET is repealed and there's no gas tax?
Posted by kk in seattle]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:49:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by schmacky]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:57:31 -0800 The Stranger
Both, plus vehicle weight, are pretty neatly and inviolably accounted for by the fuel tax, which needs to be a lot higher but doesn't require additional bureaucracy.

Worry about electrics when they exceed 10% or so of automobile registrations.
Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:43:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Goldy]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:41:57 -0800 The Stranger It's where the rubber hits the road, and big truck tires pay for the greater damage to roads.
Posted by MrBaker]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:34:39 -0800 The Stranger Even the guzzling trucks that got 18 mpg now get 24, when they get to 36, what then, Goldy?

At some point in the recent past existing methods to collect money to fund roads and transit will reach a point of resistance. Failing to address how to pay for this stuff now is stupid.

And Goldy, just because you prefer to incentivize this because you prefer it doesn't make it any better than some of the shit Republicans insist on incentivizing.
Shall we pull money out of the state general fund to make up the difference so you can feed your pet?

I don't think so.
Posted by MrBaker]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:28:45 -0800 The Stranger
I envision a world where there's such thing as a $1000 electric car. The state wants to tax that car 10% yet tesla roadster people get the same $100 fee? That's just fucking stupid. At least have the number based on something. Engine size? Street value? Miles driven? Anything? This isn't about who can afford what, it's about charging people the correct amount for what we see as their use of societies resources.
Posted by watchout5]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:28:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by BenY]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:28:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Beetlecat]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:26:42 -0800 The Stranger
The public is ready for this. All the trends and polling indicate that people grasp the need for substantive reform to our transportation system and funding, yet our chickenshit elected officials are still held hostage to the older generation's car-at-the-expense-of-every-other-mode mentality. It's maddening.
Posted by TVDinner]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:57:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Alice Dreger]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:47:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:45:42 -0800 The Stranger