greyhoundsA limited access Interstate is a different road. It's an avenue of commerce. As such, it should properly be supoorted by the commerce it carries.
Many Interstates have state and U.S. routes paralleling them. What would prevent trucks from using these roads? Am I wrong in thinking these roads fall into the "common use" category?.
James
schlimm greyhoundsoltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear? Of course when Smith wrote that, the only way a user fee could be charged was the method used for 100's of years - tolls - on roads and rivers. There was no fuel to tax other than oats and hay. Once fuel-burning vehicles were developed for the roads, it became (and remains) much easier to simply tax the fuel.
greyhoundsoltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?
oltmanndgreyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man. Or, better yet, a toll based on weight and capacity consumed. Or even better, why not just privatize them and let them charge what the market will bear?
greyhoundsActually, Adam Smith did deal with this issue. He wrote that "Intercity" improved roads should be paid for from tolls based on the weight of the vehicle. That Mr. Smith, he certainly was a clever, insightful man.
Of course when Smith wrote that, the only way a user fee could be charged was the method used for 100's of years - tolls - on roads and rivers. There was no fuel to tax other than oats and hay. Once fuel-burning vehicles were developed for the roads, it became (and remains) much easier to simply tax the fuel.
Oh, Beelzebub!
I've never seen anyone miss the point more completely. Just because you say it's "easier" to "simply tax the fuel." doesn't mean that we're not GREATLY HARMED by the fact that the dang government relies on fuel taxes.
Let me try to explain again. A toll is directly related to the use of a specific road. (If you think about it, which you obviously have not done, railroads are basically similar to Smith's private canal system.. You might try thinking of JB Hunt paying the BNSF to move a container. The difference between doing that and using a canal boat is not significant.)
Conversely, a fuel tax in no way relates to the use of a specific road. A housewife using local public streets to bring home food pays the same fuel tax as a trucker using a limited access Interstate.. Now, why does this matter?
It matters because the local road network is a "common use" facility that is necessary for life. Again, such a network is necessary for public safety serivices to function, utility crews to do their repair work, mail to be delivered, and that housewife to bring home the food. It's fitting to use a "common" tax for a "common" good, such as local roads. That would be your fuel tax used to support local roads.
A limited access Interstate is a different road. It's an avenue of commerce. As such, it should properly be supoorted by the commerce it carries. Fuel taxes can not do this because they can not be linked back to any specific road. What fuel taxes do is create a "Pot 'O Money" for politicians to play with. And thy tend to waste the "Pot". (For reference see the "Earmarks" in the just passed "Defense Appropirations Bill", the Illinois State Government, whatever.)
You could also read the actual words in "Wealth of Nations". Try pages 916-924 of the Bantam Classic edition. They speak to the subject and are relavent to railroading today.
Tolls on Interstate Highways directly link benifits to costs and optimize economic outcome. Fuel taxes do not do that. It's obvious than you can not, or refuse to, understand that benefits and costs should be linked to produce the greatest posible economic benifits for a nation.
I did get a chuckle out of the "Hay Tax" thing. It's nonsense, but funny.
UlrichPopulation centralization planning should be on any agenda to reduce global warming also. Encourage people to move to the cities...save the environment..cut taxes..a win win win all 'round..
It may work on paper, although I wonder about infrastructure even then. The larger the city the more infrastructure and its maintenence ends up costing. Expenses will always trump in these climates. The cities up north that you mention may benefit from just being the main commercial areas around there---and their size is not hug either---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
BucyrusIt will also save money in replacing costly LRT and other transit systems. The traffic management potential of this new system will make private automobiles on roadways into the new mass transit system. In the irony of all ironies, roads and cars will become the new mass transit. The roads and cars will remain the same, but the driving habits and road usage will change. It will make rail and buses obsolete except for people who are unable to drive. And for that limited purpose, rail and bus may be overkill. Rail certainly would be overkill.
That does not sound feasible or desirable. If there were no transit, given expected growth in population, have you considered how many more traffic lanes would be needed? And what about people who work, but would have a hard time affording the sort of vehicles that would be used? Are you suggesting that the cost of giving and collecting on traffic tickets equals $25+ bil. plus the fines generated by the traffic courts?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
OK - but if we do what Ulrich suggests - then what do we do about the people who perform and manage the vital economic activiites that just have to occur in the rural areas, almost by definition - like farming ? You know - growing and harvesting our food ? Do they become just a terrestial version of an outpost on the Moon - mere colonists who tend to and subsist off the land ? Except that we'd have to pay them quite a bit more to compensate them for their remote and isolated, lonely, and more expensive and difficult lifestyle, lack of amenities, long travel times, etc. It may come to that, though - many other traditionally rural activities are either gone - such as lumbering - or relocated or concentrated into smaller areas - such a mining or cattle-raising, etc.
- Paul North.
jeaton schlimm BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars. If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private. It is an interesting idea and the technology is there, but at what price? The numbers I have seen indicate that there are about 250 million registered vehicles on the road. If it only cost $100 to equip each vehicle to record the mileage, that is a total bill of $25 billion for that part alone. In addition, I am sure that the cost of the equipment and people to set up the process and then collect and disburse the tax would add $ billions. The goal of setting up a user fee schedule to reflect the actual cost burden of a given vehicle on the road it uses is laudable, but it is certainly going to cause some shift in the tax burden. There will be winners and losers. Perhaps the total amount collected will be no greater than present revenues from gas taxes, but do you really think you can convince the person who winds up paying more for the new highway tax that he has not been subject to a tax increase?
schlimm BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars. If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private.
BucyrusWhat I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars.
If so, why not simply raise the tax per gallon to make up for the shortfall? Or if you don't want to add a burden on truckers, etc., then adjust rates so there is a differential between commercial vehicles and private.
It is an interesting idea and the technology is there, but at what price? The numbers I have seen indicate that there are about 250 million registered vehicles on the road. If it only cost $100 to equip each vehicle to record the mileage, that is a total bill of $25 billion for that part alone. In addition, I am sure that the cost of the equipment and people to set up the process and then collect and disburse the tax would add $ billions.
The goal of setting up a user fee schedule to reflect the actual cost burden of a given vehicle on the road it uses is laudable, but it is certainly going to cause some shift in the tax burden. There will be winners and losers. Perhaps the total amount collected will be no greater than present revenues from gas taxes, but do you really think you can convince the person who winds up paying more for the new highway tax that he has not been subject to a tax increase?
It will cost a lot of money, but it will compensate by saving money previously spent on traffic law enforcement and traffic court.
It will also save money in replacing costly LRT and other transit systems. The traffic management potential of this new system will make private automobiles on roadways into the new mass transit system. In the irony of all ironies, roads and cars will become the new mass transit. The roads and cars will remain the same, but the driving habits and road usage will change. It will make rail and buses obsolete except for people who are unable to drive. And for that limited purpose, rail and bus may be overkill. Rail certainly would be overkill.
Even though this is being put forth as merely a different way of collecting the tax, I would not be surprised if it does increase the tax. The level of micro management that this new system would provide will probably lead to a whole new dimension of behavioral pricing.
It will, no doubt, indeed be used to encourage fuel conservation, leading to less driving. Conservation pricing will make every mile you drive cost more than the previous mile. Then it will increase the fare to cover the fixed cost of the system bureaucracy as fee collection drops from conservation.
schlimm UlrichHere in Canada rural populations are decreasing...look at Thunder Bay..Sudbury..North Bay...as people move out you have fewer locals to support services. I think market forces have been causing that trend for a long time. Has the mining and smelting around Sudbury shrunk? I remember flying over that area years ago on a flight abroad and was struck by the clear area around Sudbury.
UlrichHere in Canada rural populations are decreasing...look at Thunder Bay..Sudbury..North Bay...as people move out you have fewer locals to support services.
I think market forces have been causing that trend for a long time. Has the mining and smelting around Sudbury shrunk? I remember flying over that area years ago on a flight abroad and was struck by the clear area around Sudbury.
I'm not sure how the mine is doing although from the news I get..not too well at all. There will always be mining and lumber towns as long as there is a need for raw resources... so small towns won't completely vanish although living in a small town will become more expensive..thereby accerating the move to urban centers for most who don't need to live there. This is probably good news for railroads as moves between large urban centers works well. Here in Canada we rely more heavily on rail for that reason.. very little trucking between Ontario nad western Canada for example becuase the rail connections are quite good and trucks can't touch the rates.
Not a bad idea though...Newfoundland has done just that by encouraging people to live in the larger urban centers in order to reduce the cost of maintaining services to those small outlying towns. Here in Canada rural populations are decreasing...look at Thunder Bay..Sudbury..North Bay...as people move out you have fewer locals to support services. Population centralization planning should be on any agenda to reduce global warming also. Encourage people to move to the cities...save the environment..cut taxes..a win win win all 'round..
PDN: I threw in the line about 'persuading' those in rural communities to move to places with larger populations because I heard just that very suggestion from a Toronto based urban planner!! LOL!! I guess he was poking that at those who moved out into the rural area to 'get away from the Big City'----or at least I HOPE that was so----
As to the I-95 scenario---I think that was an 'interesting' place to put it------we paid a fair price for that trip through----
some states like KY, OR, NY levy weight mile/ton mile taxes...although no one that I know of is a fan of these taxes it is a smart way to tax because it does not involve the expenditure of tolling roads nor are revenues dependent on the consumption of fuel. NY has a rather cumbersome formula that applies to non thruway miles and can be calculated using different methods that take into account the carrier's operations. KY, in contrast is simplier...all you do is multiply the rate per mile by the number of miles driven in the state to come up with the amount owing. The weight/ton mile tax is a much better alternative to tolls..I really don't see why more states don't do this as collections and auditing for accuracy are fairly simple compared even to the IFTA fuel tax reconcilation.
blownout cylinder [snip] As far as truck traffic is concerned----the vast rural reaches have next to no RR traffic and here is where I see toll roads becoming a real issue. Are we going to see a penalization of those in rural communities---so as to 'persuade' them into moving into larger and larger centers? Hence into using the car less? [snip]
That's been exactly a major objection to instituting tolls for I-80 across northern Pennsylvania - the effect on the folks up there who have no other convenient alternate route to get from one place to another up there. Which ignores what they did before the I-road was built and completed . . . but I digress . . .
Or, do what Delaware did for I-95. The toll plaza there is basically right at the Maryland state line - so intrastate I-95 traffic to the Newark exit (University of Delaware, among many others) is free - but those durn out-o'-staters pay in full . . . And the locals can always take adjacent and parallel U.S. 40 (which was functionally replaced by I-95) across the border instead - for free - or some 'backwoods' roads, too.
schlimm BucyrusHowever, when someone buys a car that gets a relatively higher number of miles per gallon, they are, in effect, evading part of their responsibility to pay for the roads. Now, it is true that a smaller fuel-efficient car is going to probably be lighter weight than average, and therefore produce relatively less wear and tear on the roads. But the difference between road wear produced by light weight cars and heavier cars is not that great, and it is already compensated for in the variation of license fees. No comment on your suggestion about fuel-efficient cars. But in Illinois at least, all cars, SUV's and RV's all pay around $100 per year for license plates regardless of weight. Commercial vehicles have a very different and pretty expensive schedule.
BucyrusHowever, when someone buys a car that gets a relatively higher number of miles per gallon, they are, in effect, evading part of their responsibility to pay for the roads. Now, it is true that a smaller fuel-efficient car is going to probably be lighter weight than average, and therefore produce relatively less wear and tear on the roads. But the difference between road wear produced by light weight cars and heavier cars is not that great, and it is already compensated for in the variation of license fees.
No comment on your suggestion about fuel-efficient cars. But in Illinois at least, all cars, SUV's and RV's all pay around $100 per year for license plates regardless of weight. Commercial vehicles have a very different and pretty expensive schedule.
This is not my suggestion. This idea about solving the road tax shortfall being produced by fuel-efficient cars has been developed in conjunction with state governments, and has been widely publicized. Their rationale is exactly as I described it.
Bucyrus Please understand, I am not advocating this. On the contrary, I fear it like the plague because I see it going far beyond just being a tax-collecting device. This technology built into everyone’s car is a control freak’s dream. It will price-ration where you drive, when you drive, and how fast you drive. Once it knows where you drive, it is only a short hop to factoring in your need to drive. Certainly, in this brave new era of scarce resources, recreational driving will become a thing of the past. I don’t see this becoming a fully automated, hands-free driving system that takes over the entire operation of a vehicle. That would be a quantum leap beyond the system I see coming in the near term. GPS is not accurate enough to guide a vehicle on the roads we have. What I do see, however, is an automated system that will completely manage your driving privilege and fees, along with limiting your speed to the limit, limiting your rate of acceleration, and monitoring compliance with traffic signals. There will be no need for speed bumps. The automatic system will simply slow your vehicle down to the speed you would drive if there were a speed bump there.
The issue here is speed then. If so, then the best approach would be to literally force manufacturers to build what are basically egg cars and have the trucks in a completely seperate lane. The devices that some have in fact advocated are in some ways already here---breathelyzer devices that simply shut the car down such that the drunk cannot start the car for instance. My new car has a device in it that will disable the car if someone tries to steal the dang thing. I've already seen attempts to make it illegal to modify a vehicle in any way and there have been a lot of laws struck down for that-----It is essentially about who controls these devices. And, like it or not, does enter into the dangerous realm of political power. If, as BUCYRUS states, these devices do become used more then what?
As far as truck traffic is concerned----the vast rural reaches have next to no RR traffic and here is where I see toll roads becoming a real issue. Are we going to see a penalization of those in rural communities---so as to 'persuade' them into moving into larger and larger centers? Hence into using the car less? I do remember a SF novel that spoke of summat just recently---of course I don't have it here now---grumble snort
All the talk about toll roads and the perception of increased taxes plus the idea being floated around about 'priveliging' driving--say, as oppsed to driving b/c nessecity and the devices that are now doing some of what are being discussed has me wondering----who will control that much power --??
schlimm I've been speculating as to the desires posted in this thread to make some/all highways toll roads? Why? If the desire is to make it user fee-based, why change the system in place that already takes in to account miles driven, weight, etc. - the stated goals - at the expense of installing new devices to do the same thing that fuel taxes already do? Fuel taxes also provide an incentive for greater fuel efficiency, which would seem to be a worthwhile goal.
I've been speculating as to the desires posted in this thread to make some/all highways toll roads? Why? If the desire is to make it user fee-based, why change the system in place that already takes in to account miles driven, weight, etc. - the stated goals - at the expense of installing new devices to do the same thing that fuel taxes already do? Fuel taxes also provide an incentive for greater fuel efficiency, which would seem to be a worthwhile goal.
Your take on this is exactly the way people who buy highly fuel-efficient cars look at it. There are already carrots and sticks to get people to conserve fuel, and more are on the way. However, the gas tax has not been put in place to play that role. It is to pay for roads. Basing it on a percentage of fuel used is just a convenient and practical way to levy and collect it. Technically, it is a tax related to road use, so the actual miles driven on the roads would be the truest reflection of that use. However, with no practical way of measuring that, the usage of fuel is the next best indicator of miles driven on the roads.
However, when someone buys a car that gets a relatively higher number of miles per gallon, they are, in effect, evading part of their responsibility to pay for the roads. Now, it is true that a smaller fuel-efficient car is going to probably be lighter weight than average, and therefore produce relatively less wear and tear on the roads. But the difference between road wear produced by light weight cars and heavier cars is not that great, and it is already compensated for in the variation of license fees. When you get into the weight levels of truck compared to cars, the road wear and tear factor becomes much more significant. But still, road maintenance is only one part of the cost. One could argue that every car driver should pay the same to cover the cost of the basic creation of the road they use.
Based upon this overall rationale for the gas tax, if you solved the problem of tax avoidance by highly fuel efficient vehicles by simply raising the fuel tax, then it would be unfair to drivers of cars with average fuel economy. This is why the tax-per-mile concept is seen as the optimum method of levy and collection of road use tax. But the real impetus behind it is the arrival of the GPS / computer technology needed to execute it.
Please understand, I am not advocating this. On the contrary, I fear it like the plague because I see it going far beyond just being a tax-collecting device. This technology built into everyone’s car is a control freak’s dream. It will price-ration where you drive, when you drive, and how fast you drive. Once it knows where you drive, it is only a short hop to factoring in your need to drive. Certainly, in this brave new era of scarce resources, recreational driving will become a thing of the past.
I don’t see this becoming a fully automated, hands-free driving system that takes over the entire operation of a vehicle. That would be a quantum leap beyond the system I see coming in the near term. GPS is not accurate enough to guide a vehicle on the roads we have. What I do see, however, is an automated system that will completely manage your driving privilege and fees, along with limiting your speed to the limit, limiting your rate of acceleration, and monitoring compliance with traffic signals. There will be no need for speed bumps. The automatic system will simply slow your vehicle down to the speed you would drive if there were a speed bump there.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Trouble is Al 99% of all Produce grown in CA leaves CA the day it is PICKED and less than 3 days later it is in the Warehouse that ordered it. There is NO WAY IN HELL In State trucks can carry all the produce to out of state transload points to reload to trucks that will carry it to the final points. CARB and you know who I am talking about screwed the big puppy dog here. Especially with their mandating retrofitting all reefer units to ULEV standards. Each reefer unit costs 50K to replace plus you have to have the tractor to pull it at 130K each then the crap CARB wants to reduce drag at 20K that only save 4-5K over the life of the trailer.
Everyone wonders why Truckers are about to explode and shutdown it is IDIOTS that run CARB and PATT and CRASH and other groups. Are you aware that for the 6th time in less than 10 years the FMCSA has been forced to rewrite the HOS regulations because some Ambulance chasing Atty won an injunction against the ones they spent millions of dollars to write. For 70 years we had the same ones now we are going to go what is next. EPA said engines that could get 12 MPG and they did going down the road produced to much CO2 so they were forced to redo the computers and we saw MPG drop to 6 if we were lucky all of this is in the last 7 YEARS. The Goverment and so called Saftey groups were all they are is Lawyers against trucks that what they want is the Highways to be free for cars to run 100 MPH and yet have the trucks on the side hidden from view.
The other part of the equation is what about out of State trucks will they have to comply with the new California emission standards, The answer is yes which should bring a flood of new business to BNSF and UP hauling trailers in and out of California. This will put many truckers out of business or else they are going to have to meet the California emission laws. I personally think there will be tractor rental places in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona for truckers to haul into California depending on the rental price. That will just add additional costs for the consumer. I think many truckers will go out of business and the RRS will have more business than they can handle.
Al - in - Stockton
I did a very quick poll of greyhounds Idea of making all interstates tollways with no recourse and then not raising the rates to cover the shippers that use OTR trucking would not pay for the increased costs we that are in that Industry KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NOT. Here was what the drivers stated 100% STATED IF THE GOVERMENT DID THIS THAT THEY WOULD SHUT DOWN AND SIT AND SHOW THE IDIOTS IN CONGRESS AND THE STATEHOUSES HOW MUCH POWER THE TRUCKERS ACTUALLY HAVE. We could shut down the RR industry also why No Spare Parts No fuel for cars so people can not GET TO WORK.
The ton mile tax is used in NY OR and WA and the companies HATE IT. My last trip into NY was 560 miles total length cost my company close to 700 dollars in HUT this was in 1999 they have raised it higher since then. Now that Idiot in the Statehouse is wanting to BAN trucks from all routes but the Thruway and Rt2 in plus any interstates unless loading or unloading. He states it is for saftey however a memo was leaked it states it is for REVENUE.
One would be very hard pressed to offer truck service levels via rail.. there are certainly cost advantages to rail in some select lanes...but you give up service levels and flexibility. Over the road service is often spectacular...overnight door to door delivery to points within a 1000 miles radius of loading is quite common... and often the expected norm. And trucks have also benefitted from technological advances which have improved fuel economy and decreased operating cost. Mandating one mode over another would be the wrong approach.. let the market sort it out...we live in a free market so that's what's supposed to happen. No doubt fuel cost, labour shortages, and environmental factros will all come into play over the next decade and beyond.
Right now the Trucking Industry as a WHOLE as an Operational Ratio of 98% that means 98 cents out of Every dollar goes to pay Taxes Fuel Maintance Wages Replacement costs for the current system. Yet people in power like State and Federal Goverments keep ramming costly regulations that US Counsumers refuse to pay for. You are aware that 2 years ago the fuel requirements were changed for the OTR trucking industry to ULSD from LSD doing that has cost over 20 BILLION in breakdown costs. Then now the EPA has mandated Diesel Particulate filters that will add another 5K a year in Maintance costs PER TRUCK just for the Filters not including the DPF Fluid that is prone to Freezing and is an Enviromental Hazard in its own right. Then there are Idiots that think forcing a driver to sleep with NO HEAT when it is 30 degrees is fine they pass laws that make it ILLEGAL TO TREAT A DOG THAT BAD BUT A MAN DOING HIS JOB HAS TO FREEZE. Then the other extreme is it can be 110 and they want you to sleep in a metal box with NO AIR CONDITIONING FOR 10 hours. BTW this is California rules which will more than likely be made Federal to SAVE THE PLANET.
Yet CARB the idiots in CA that created that No Idle law peroid the guy who wrote the Regulations and claimed to have a PHD in Enviromental Sciece was not even a Colledge Graduate. These idiots are the same ones that have dried out the Central Valley in CA to save a 2 inch Smelt costing the State of CA 4 Billion in Revenue this year ALONE. Add all the extra costs in and you can see why the truckers will Shut Down they are sick and tired of being shoved around. Sooner or later the OTR truckers will push back and when they do it will be bloody. We put up with Lane Restrictions Ambulance Chasing Attys Speed restrictions hell I can not name all of the crap the Goverment has done to us in the name of so called Saftey. Yet we meaning OTR truckers ask for all drivers involved in an accident involving a CMV or RR to have Manditory Drug testing the Goverment says NO not going to happen intrusive into the other party. We get in an accident and our lives are a open book yet we can get hit by a Drunk and still loose MILLIONS.
edbentonAs to Making all the Interstates Tollways will never happen. Why the trucks would shut down for that so fast your head would spin.
Why would the trucks shut down?
What I have described as the new mileage tax system brought about by charging tolls everywhere you drive is not intended to be a tax increase. In other words, it is not adding tolls on top of the road taxes you already pay, but rather, it is replacing road taxes with tolls that vary according to the value of the roadway driven on. The reason this is being proposed is not to acquire more revenue. It is being proposed as a remedy for declining fuel tax revenue that is occurring because of the trend of increasing gas mileage with cars.
The intent is to capture the same amount of tax revenue by shifting the tax from gallons of gas to miles driven. Ten years ago, this idea would have required a toll way structure with tollbooths on all roads in order to keep track of where people drive. Today, GPS is available to keep track of where people drive. So, nothing needs to be added to the roads.
However, a lot of people perceive this to be a tax increase, because they have grown accustomed to expecting that to be the motive behind most new ideas. People with fuel-efficient cars are particularly indignant about the idea because they feel they are being signaled out for punishment after taking the moral high road to better fuel economy. They refuse to acknowledge that their moral high road gives them no right to evade road tax, which buys the roads that are needed no matter what your fuel efficiency is.
The part that really gets people worked up about this idea, however, is the fact that the government will know everywhere you drive and when you drive there. The “Big Brother” aspect of this is quick to get peoples’ attention.
But here is the part that few people see yet: There is a boatload of traffic management ideas that, so far, have had no way of implementation. The closest they could get to some sort of automation was timing stoplights, or red light cameras, for instance. Once they get this new computerized GPS tracker built into every car as mandatory equipment, they will be able to monitor and enforce many aspects of traffic laws.
The days of cops pulling people over for traffic light infractions, writing tickets, and voluntary fine payment through a court system will be long gone. Instead, drivers will pre-pay a driving privilege deposit (DPD). Then and infractions will be automatically registered by the system, and the fine will be deducted from the DPD. If too many infractions are registered or if your DPD gets used up, your car won’t start. Driving with this new system will be like having a highway patrol officer riding with you in the front seat.
If that ever occured look for a Nationwide SHUTDOWN. OTR Trucking companies and Drivers are tired of being looked at like a Freaking ATM for the states to fix their Budgets. Everyone is aware how little Food Gasoline and other Supplies the Major Cities have on hands correct. NYC Chicago Boston Philly Atlanta Dallas and Denver all have less than a week of USABLE Food supplies. The Gas supply is less than 4 days. You can refine it all you want however without the trucks hauling it to the stations your screwed. Here is a clue on how tight Grocery Stores run Albertsons nationwide has a 2 day turnaround on all fresh meats and produce in the warehouses frozen is one week. That give you a clue how JIT food is in this nation. More than once I would deliver to a Warehouse a load of Strawberries and see them pulled off my trailer and be put on the trailers next to mine going to the stores.
edbenton After reading this thread I have a few points to make. 1 most OTR trucks get between 6-8 MPG going down the road depending on lad and trailer type. Van style like reefers and dry box get better than a Flatbed or Tanker trailer.
Ed, thanks for weighing in with your viewpoint - exactly what I was hoping for !
edbenton As to Making all the Interstates Tollways will never happen. Why the trucks would shut down for that so fast your head would spin. You are aware that the Normal Fuel and Road tax bill for a Otr truck that travels 100K miles a year is over 35,000 year. [snip]
That works out to about 35 cents per mile. Fuel - which includes those fuel taxes again - would be around 50 cents per mile, 'depending'. So the taxes don't seem too outrageous to me compared to that.
What's a typical 'per mile' rate these days ? I paid between $3 and $4 about 18 months ago for 3 very light 1-way loads from Pittsburgh to Allentown, so I'm thinking it is between $1.50 and $2 per mile ?
If all the roads were made tollways at around 35 cents per mile - which is roughly comparable to the Pennsylvania Turnpike's 41 cents per mile that I worked out above ($148 for 360 miles) - that would about double that expense item to $70,000 per year for each 100,000 mile-per-year OTR truck, but if passed through into the mileage rate, would increase the total by only 1/3 to 1/5 or so. It should/ would inevitably be reflected in the truck rates/ prices, and next passed on to the shippers, then their customers and eventually us consumers, but that's a rational outcome - we all pay more. But some marginal truck traffic would get diverted to rail, and there then should also be more funds to repair and maintain the roadways/ infrastructure, which is also needed. If that's what it takes and really results, that's OK by me.
edbenton The PA Pike was expensize 10 years ago for trucks and is even worse today. Ask Ohio what happened when they raised their prices in the 90's to pay for adding a 3rd lane 80% of drivers that would have taken the OH TP before jumped off and ran across 30 or 20 across Ohio instead. Indiania is having the same problem now.
That mirrors what RWM said to me a few posts above - that shippers/ truckers will always find a cheaper alternative route - no one should rely or count on having a 'lock' or monopoly on a seemingly good or 'best' one. And that also supports what greyhounds is saying about making all of them tollways - then, there is no 'free' or cheaper alternative route to be found - the toll has to be paid, whichever route is taken. Same result will occur, then.
Thanks again, Ed, for the real-world insights and data - even though I suspect you won't like much of what I'm saying.
After reading this thread I have a few points to make. 1 most OTR trucks get between 6-8 MPG going down the road depending on lad and trailer type. Van style like reefers and dry box get better than a Flatbed or Tanker trailer. As to Making all the Interstates Tollways will never happen. Why the trucks would shut down for that so fast your head would spin. You are aware that the Normal Fuel and Road tax bill for a Otr truck that travels 100K miles a year is over 35,000 year. Greyhounds why you only get dinged for 50cents is simple IPASS the box you have gives a DISCOUNT only to CARS. However if you drive a truck you pay the price that IL Tollway Auth says that at that time you need to pay with no discount.
The PA Pike was expensize 10 years ago for trucks and is even worse today. Ask Ohio what happened when they raised their prices in the 90's to pay for adding a 3rd lane 80% of drivers that would have taken the OH TP before jumped off and ran across 30 or 20 across Ohio instead. Indiania is having the same problem now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.