blownout cylinder Bucyrus n012944It would be nice if all expressways became tollways. I believe that not only all expressways, but all other public roads will become toll roads within a decade or less under a fully automated system, which will include standard tracking, pricing, and billing equipment in every car. Non-congestion will be rationed by price. The more you pay, the closer to the speed limit you can drive. I heard that one type of "drive by wire"(?) method had even been considered a few years ago by at least one manufacturer with that in mind--as a tracking system. One would/could see a set of alternatives being made---but still paying a set fee based on distance as well---
Bucyrus n012944It would be nice if all expressways became tollways. I believe that not only all expressways, but all other public roads will become toll roads within a decade or less under a fully automated system, which will include standard tracking, pricing, and billing equipment in every car. Non-congestion will be rationed by price. The more you pay, the closer to the speed limit you can drive.
n012944It would be nice if all expressways became tollways.
I believe that not only all expressways, but all other public roads will become toll roads within a decade or less under a fully automated system, which will include standard tracking, pricing, and billing equipment in every car. Non-congestion will be rationed by price. The more you pay, the closer to the speed limit you can drive.
I heard that one type of "drive by wire"(?) method had even been considered a few years ago by at least one manufacturer with that in mind--as a tracking system. One would/could see a set of alternatives being made---but still paying a set fee based on distance as well---
I am talking about a tracking system built into every car as mandatory equipment as a component of our privilege to drive. This is moving forward on many fronts, and when it comes to fruition, it will revolutionize traffic management and infrastructure funding. Technologically, it is an idea whose time has arrived.
I believe it will totally eclipse the current movement to get people out of their cars and into mass transit. Public roads with real-time user fees, and cars with an operator overlay system will become the new mass transit. Certainly it will open brand new vistas for the micromanagement of truck tolls and fees.
Not only will drivers pay per mile, tolls will vary according to congestion of the route, size of the vehicle, fuel consumption, the number of passengers in the vehicle, and purpose of the trip.
In what might be the only intelegent statement being made on here in 2 days, and several pages but just what does tolls and the highway system haft to do with trains . this topic is way off course, and the only thing it has in common is your trying to link trailers and railroads, just my 2 cents
BucyrusNot only will drivers pay per mile, tolls will vary according to congestion of the route, size of the vehicle, fuel consumption, the number of passengers in the vehicle, and purpose of the trip.
Just those costs alone could very easily take out unneccessary trips without too much hassle. Couple that with automatic routing of destinations and you would end up with a drive by wire system. The question that I'm thinking about is how is that going to effect mostly rural traffic---hmmm.
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/
wabash1 In what might be the only intelegent statement being made on here in 2 days, and several pages but just what does tolls and the highway system haft to do with trains . this topic is way off course, and the only thing it has in common is your trying to link trailers and railroads, just my 2 cents
I think it may be that the connection is through the cost of tolling on the trucking industry---if it gets burdensome then the intermodal system will come into its own---
The insurance company I work for, along with other insurance carriers, has such a system being tested.
It records the miles you drive, where you drive, and how you drive. If you're doing 55 in a 45 MPH construction zone it will nag you to slow down. The idea is that it will allow insurance to be priced exactly according to the amount of driving and the "style" of driving. (These relate to the risk assumed by the insurance carrier.)
Of course, the insurance company can't force you to use such a device. They will just give you a discount if you do. The vehicle operator or owner will have to decide if the discount is worth it. I can see it becomming almost universal in commercial trucking.
Paul_D_North_Jr [snip] . . . There was at least 1, and possibly several demonstration projects of this kind of thing in the 1970's - my memory is hazy, but I'm thinking MILW, Rock Island, IC, etc. . . .
The train they call Sprint Trains, April 1981 page 26 Milwaukee Road's new piggyback trains ( "DOLZALL, GARY W.", MILW, TOFC, TRN )
Paul_D_North_Jr [snip] . . . I happen to think that a more up-to-date 'demonstration project' kind of operation for - say, 1 year - would go a long ways towards proving, publicizing, and 'de-bugging' the concept - set up a service along a selected corridor, give it a decent budget to cover any operating losses and a reasonable profit to the railroad(s) involved, and some additional capital and subsidy money to adjust operations as experience dictates and to deal with the back-haul and other short-term and temporary traffic, directional, and routing challenges or issues, etc. - Paul North.
- Paul North.
The thread was about saving fuel as a collective benefit to the country by shifting truck freight to rail, and accomplishing this by a public subsidy to rail to create the necessary new infrastructure. Part of the justification stated for the public subsidy was that trucks get a public subsidy, so rail should get one too. As I recall, you made the point that trucks pay fees for their use of public roads, so there is no public subsidy for trucks. Collectively paying for public roads led to the discussion of the possibility of private roads paid for by user fees, and paying tolls for premium fast lanes. I brought up a system that would track vehicles and charge all drivers the entire cost of roadways through tolls.
The closest we have come to implementing this system are several state proposals to eliminate the gas tax per gallon, and replace it with a tax per mile, which basically amounts to a toll. This system would require a state mandated GPS unit in every vehicle that would keep track of where each driver goes and the roads driven on. It would calculate a charge for the miles driven. When you go to a gas station to buy gas, the GPS unit would present a total bill for the mileage, and it would be paid when you pay for the gas purchase. Then the gas station would send the tax collected to the state. So you would be paying the tax at the gas station as you do now, but it would be a tax on miles driven rather than a tax per gallon of gas. Basically the new system would turn every road into a toll road, and turn every gas station into a tollbooth.
At the same time, there are many other ideas emerging that could be accomplished by a GPS tracker, and it would be ideal to combine them with the tax collection GPS device. One idea is congestion pricing that raises the amount of the toll as traffic congestion increases. Another idea is to automatically control the vehicle speed so it cannot exceed the speed limit. Another idea is to enforce eco driving, so drivers accelerate slowly and have less need for braking. Certainly this system will require your seatbelt to be fastened just to start the engine.
Railway Man I don't see how any of the Class 1s think of it the way you do, Greyhounds. Their public statements and visible actions are at odds with this ideology. RWM
I don't see how any of the Class 1s think of it the way you do, Greyhounds. Their public statements and visible actions are at odds with this ideology.
RWM
Well, then they're wrong. I'm countin' on you to go straitin' those boys out 'for they get in trouble. Go ahead and feel free to use my name. They'll sure come around. You go quick now! 'For they get in trouble!
Seriously, I woudn't expect any Class 1 railroad, or any hot dog stand for that matter, to run a business in accordance with an "Ideology". (Although I prefer to call it a reasoned line of thought based on years of experience, education and diligent analysis.)
I have made three points:
1) The market will configure the US intermodal network in a more efficiet and cost effictive manner than any government plan. I stand by that conviction and I am confident that "The Class 1's" would agree with my conviction on this issue.
2) If motor freight does receive a "subsidy" by "externalizing" certain costs, that "subsidy" is the result of a failure by the government(s) to properly price the use of their road networks. I offered toll financed intercity roads as a possible solution. (I did not mention "privatization") I don't think "The Class 1's" waste 10 seconds a year thinking about this. It's beyond their control and it would require a political fight to fix. They'd anger their own customers who either ship by truck or who are truckers. There are better things to occupy "The Class 1's" time.
3) The government should not provide a "Make Even" subsidy to the railroads. As in; "They subsidize the truckers so they should also subsidize the railroads to make things even." I disagree with this. Transportation uses our resouces (such as fuel) and subsidizing transportation causes the use of more of those resources than should be used. There are alternatives to transportation and transportation should be fully costed to the end user so as to "optimize" output relative to the required input of scarce resources. Creating a "dual subsidization" of both road and rail would make things worse.
#3 is where I part company with the railroad companies. They've got their hand out just like everybody else. I understand this. Their goal is to maximize the performance of their entity. If the government will hand over mega dollars without a lot of strings, the railroads will take it in order to achieve their goal. Heck Fire, if the government offered to give me money I'd sure just take it. But that wouldn't make it the right thing to do. It would just make me have more money. I'd go for that. But to give it to me or the railroad the government has to take it away from someone else. If I just took the money from someone else for myself without the government middleman I'd be a thief. The same holds true for the railroad.
But, with the government middleman it's "Legalized Theft". If a railroad decides it's in its best interest to "Get Government Money" to enlarge tunnel clearances or improve an intermodal terminal, and the government gives them the money, they'll of course justify it as being "The Right Thing To Do". And, of course, the people who no longer have the money they earned will do without.
That's why, at least according to yourself, I disagree with "The Class 1's" on this. Or, alternatively, "The Class 1's" disagree with me on this. Whatever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
"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
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.
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 --??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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----
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..
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.