You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The next worst option is just to use the odometer and a pay a per mile fee, which could vary based on basic curb weight (use VIN) or registered weight. You can either just suck up cross-border travel, or states that implement fees can try and make some reciprocal arrangement. (Fuel taxation also has some cross-border issues, though not as much..)A little late to the fun on this thread. A couple years ago there was an ad in the local newspaper looking for volunteers for a study, run by the, "Eastern Transportation Coalition", for a Mileage-Based User Fee.
The main landing page is at The Eastern Transportation Coalition MBUF Pilot - Paving the way to fair transportation funding..
The States involved go from Texas, around the Florida peninsula, and up to Maine.
The ideas are fairly straightforward. People with petroleum-based vehicles pay taxes at the pump. Got a big vehicle? One ends up using more fuel. Small vehicle? Less fuel. Drive a lot? Use more fuel. Drive hardly at all? Use tiny amounts of fuel. Since the taxes go with the fuel, as much as we all don't like hydrocarbons around here, the money more or less tracks usage, wear, and tear on the roads. So, in this imperfect world, taxing at the pump isn't half bad.
Extraordinarily high MPG vehicles like, say, a Prius, tend to throw sand in the gears; plug-in hybrids tend to throw pebbles; and BEVs flat-out hit the gears like metal bars. At the top end of, "whoa, there!" we have a fully loaded Tesla Semi as Exhibit A: Big semis definitely damage roads more than itty bitty sporters, and, well, there one is.
The Coalition study, in which I participated, was kind of interesting. No actual money changed hands, although I think I got something like a $50 gift card at the end. There were various methods of collecting data, including sticking a module into the OBDII port in those cars that supported same. For a Tesla, they asked for (and got) access to the Tesla Mothership and recorded one's mileage.
At the end of every month one would get an electronic "bill" (remember, no money is changing hands, here) where the mileage recorded would be multiplied by a cents-per-mile number provided by the State in which one lived. I vaguely remember that Pennsylvania was the highest at $0.10/mile; others were as low as $0.02/mile.
With the Tesla, there was no GPS involved, so I was being "charged" for trips outside of the State, which I thought mildly unfair. I would rather have any travel in a given state, sent to that state, rather than the one I lived in.
I have no idea how any of this integrates with toll roads.
Heavier vehicles got a higher charge than lighter vehicles, so they were trying to account for that. There's also a semi-related bunch of studies where people are thinking about getting Big Trucks involved with this approach.
There were surveys done at the beginning, middle, and end of the study, mostly asking how people felt about the whole MBUF business.
From my view, the most "fair" approach would involve GPS working out where one was. But that brings up the Big Objection: Some government agency having data on where, exactly, one was at every instant. The danger of getting hit by speeding fines or just being tracked by some out-of-control bunch of three-letter agencies whose records, shall we say, aren't the best when it comes to not making $RANDOM mistakes.
In which case the registration fee approach taken by a bunch of states sounds like the next worst option.
For what it's worth, I think that Virginia is using some form of MBUF these days.The next worst option is just to use the odometer and a pay a per mile fee, which could vary based on basic curb weight (use VIN) or registered weight. You can either just suck up cross-border travel, or states that implement fees can try and make some reciprocal arrangement. (Fuel taxation also has some cross-border issues, though not as much..)
You could layer on a commercial and optional program that goes into more detail using GPS to distribute fees better.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but unless we should _all_ be paying fixed fees, I don't want a road pricing system that strongly discourages low mileage drivers from buying used EVs.
Yes-a-butta.Montana - $130 extra per year for full EV's - $70 extra for PHEV's.
NO tax incentives for EV purchases.
Trying to initiate $.03 per KWH on top of basic EV charging stations. (don't know if it is implemented yet.)
would be better, in my opinion, if the amount paid per year in road taxes was based upon a function of the distance driven and the weight of the BEV.
I agreed with a good portion of this. I’m more than fine to pay $130 a year.Yes-a-butta.
There is this fundamental problem with roads and EVs: The roads have been, historically, funded by User Fees in the presence of state and federal gas taxes. Before EVs (and probably PHEVs) the bigger a car was, the more damage it did to the roads, and the worse MPG the car would get: This resulted in the damaging vehicles paying more for the damage they did which, frankly, is fair. And if one drives a lot and does more damage to the roads, then, via the gas tax, one would pay more for all that gasoline/diesel one was burning and, again, that was fair.
One can argue about whether there's waste in government, or if the government is siphoning off gas taxes to pay for general revenue, and the usual: But, by and large, the system tended to work.
With the advent of BEVs and PHEVs the system breaks down. A straight Hybrid can be considered just a better ICE vehicle and, well, it bends the rules a little: A PHEV or BEV just breaks the rules completely. Those roads have to be funded somehow.
So, $130/year for a full EV and $70 for a PHEV sure doesn't seem out of line. I mean: The mileage part of the gas tax isn't there, but some kind of fee sounds reasonable.
I did a little calculation recently. In NJ, they're talking about doing Something about the road taxes with respect to BEVs. Let's suppose one is driving an M3 with 250 W-hr/mile and it's being driven 15,000 miles a year. Cost of electricity 'round these parts is $0.18/kW-hr. Then, the cost of just driving the car for those 15,000 miles is:
15,000 miles * 0.25 kW-hr/mile * $0.18/kW-hr = $675.
Now, consider an ICE car getting 30 MPG. And let's say that gas is $3.00/gallon. Then, for that car, the cost of driving it around that 15,000 miles is:
15000 miles / (30 miles/gallon) * $3.00/gallon = $1500
Now, for the tricky bit. In NJ, of that $3.00/gallon, the state gas tax is $0.432 per gallon and the federal gas tax is $0.184/gallon. That's a $0.616/gallon tax. So, for that car, paying its fair share of keeping the roads repaired (and new ones built), both federal and state, is
15000 miles/(30 miles/gallon) * $0.616 = $308.
So, it really should be costing the BEV a total of $308 + $675 = $983 for driving that 15,000 miles a year. Still cheaper than driving the ICE, but not by as much.
Getting off with $130/year in Montana for a BEV sounds like highway robbery, given that BEVs are heavier than the usual auto.
It would be better, in my opinion, if the amount paid per year in road taxes was based upon a function of the distance driven and the weight of the BEV.
Comments?
I do not entirely agree with this analysis. Gasoline vehicles cause damage that goes beyond road use as ICE vehicles cause air pollution, including, of course, carbon dioxide. In my opinion it is insufficient to simply compare road use fees generated by gasoline taxes to arrive at what would be considered a reasonable road use fee for a BEV. BEV's provide a societal benefit, and missing from all of these calculations is the environmental cost of ICE vehicles imposed on everyone. Therefore there are good reasons to provide incentives for BEV's, such as relief from road use costs. If there is to be a road use fee imposed on my Tesla, then there should also be a carbon tax imposed on each and every ICE vehicle. Perhaps we need to completely rethink how our road and highway systems are funded.Yes-a-butta.
There is this fundamental problem with roads and EVs: The roads have been, historically, funded by User Fees in the presence of state and federal gas taxes. Before EVs (and probably PHEVs) the bigger a car was, the more damage it did to the roads, and the worse MPG the car would get: This resulted in the damaging vehicles paying more for the damage they did which, frankly, is fair. And if one drives a lot and does more damage to the roads, then, via the gas tax, one would pay more for all that gasoline/diesel one was burning and, again, that was fair.
One can argue about whether there's waste in government, or if the government is siphoning off gas taxes to pay for general revenue, and the usual: But, by and large, the system tended to work.
With the advent of BEVs and PHEVs the system breaks down. A straight Hybrid can be considered just a better ICE vehicle and, well, it bends the rules a little: A PHEV or BEV just breaks the rules completely. Those roads have to be funded somehow.
So, $130/year for a full EV and $70 for a PHEV sure doesn't seem out of line. I mean: The mileage part of the gas tax isn't there, but some kind of fee sounds reasonable.
I did a little calculation recently. In NJ, they're talking about doing Something about the road taxes with respect to BEVs. Let's suppose one is driving an M3 with 250 W-hr/mile and it's being driven 15,000 miles a year. Cost of electricity 'round these parts is $0.18/kW-hr. Then, the cost of just driving the car for those 15,000 miles is:
15,000 miles * 0.25 kW-hr/mile * $0.18/kW-hr = $675.
Now, consider an ICE car getting 30 MPG. And let's say that gas is $3.00/gallon. Then, for that car, the cost of driving it around that 15,000 miles is:
15000 miles / (30 miles/gallon) * $3.00/gallon = $1500
Now, for the tricky bit. In NJ, of that $3.00/gallon, the state gas tax is $0.432 per gallon and the federal gas tax is $0.184/gallon. That's a $0.616/gallon tax. So, for that car, paying its fair share of keeping the roads repaired (and new ones built), both federal and state, is
15000 miles/(30 miles/gallon) * $0.616 = $308.
So, it really should be costing the BEV a total of $308 + $675 = $983 for driving that 15,000 miles a year. Still cheaper than driving the ICE, but not by as much.
Getting off with $130/year in Montana for a BEV sounds like highway robbery, given that BEVs are heavier than the usual auto.
It would be better, in my opinion, if the amount paid per year in road taxes was based upon a function of the distance driven and the weight of the BEV.
Comments?
As long as road use construction and maintenance are partially funded by gas taxes, all vehicles that use roads should pay their fair share somehow, including EVs. Since EVs don't buy gas, a fee with registration makes sense. Road taxes have never come anywhere close to funding roads, so rethinking that funding has been an issue for decades, before EVs ever appeared. I pay an extra $179/year in my state, a little excessive but that's OK.I do not entirely agree with this analysis. Gasoline vehicles cause damage that goes beyond road use as ICE vehicles cause air pollution, including, of course, carbon dioxide. In my opinion it is insufficient to simply compare road use fees generated by gasoline taxes to arrive at what would be considered a reasonable road use fee for a BEV. BEV's provide a societal benefit, and missing from all of these calculations is the environmental cost of ICE vehicles imposed on everyone. Therefore there are good reasons to provide incentives for BEV's, such as relief from road use costs. If there is to be a road use fee imposed on my Tesla, then there should also be a carbon tax imposed on each and every ICE vehicle. Perhaps we need to completely rethink how our road and highway systems are funded.
I do not entirely agree with this analysis. Gasoline vehicles cause damage that goes beyond road use as ICE vehicles cause air pollution, including, of course, carbon dioxide. In my opinion it is insufficient to simply compare road use fees generated by gasoline taxes to arrive at what would be considered a reasonable road use fee for a BEV. BEV's provide a societal benefit, and missing from all of these calculations is the environmental cost of ICE vehicles imposed on everyone. Therefore there are good reasons to provide incentives for BEV's, such as relief from road use costs. If there is to be a road use fee imposed on my Tesla, then there should also be a carbon tax imposed on each and every ICE vehicle. Perhaps we need to completely rethink how our road and highway systems are funded.
Well, friend, I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Though I do understand your point, I see see a direct connection between subsidies for ICE vehicles (free pollution, no tax on the 20 lbs of CO2 emitted per gallon), and subsidies for EVs (relief from some, not all, road use taxes). If one believes that each should pay for what they use, then eliminate all subsidies and allow market forces to control. Otherwise, it makes sense to provide incentives for EVs to hasten adoption and eliminate fossil fuel vehicles.We know that EVs are less environmentally damaging than ICE vehicles, but to me that's unrelated to whether or not they should pay for road maintenance.
My opinion (because everyone likes lots of those ) is that each thing should pay for itself. EVs not paying for roads because they pollute less just doesn't make sense to me. It's how government got so convoluted to begin with.
Well, friend, I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree on this. Though I do understand your point, I see see a direct connection between subsidies for ICE vehicles (free pollution, no tax on the 20 lbs of CO2 emitted per gallon), and subsidies for EVs (relief from some, not all, road use taxes). If one believes that each should pay for what they use, then eliminate all subsidies and allow market forces to control. Otherwise, it makes sense to provide incentives for EVs to hasten adoption and eliminate fossil fuel vehicles.
Apparently Norway uses use tolls to finance road construction and maintenance:I’m sure this can be easily looked up but I’m curious how other countries, especially Nordic countries like Norway are doing this. They have transitioned to like 80+% BEV sales and huge % of total vehicles are BEV.
Obviously they are a lot smaller and lots of other differences but just curious how they made this transition.
Norway uses a combination of fuel taxes, registrations and toll roads.I would imagine that Nordic countries never tied building and maintaining roads to their gas tax.
While there is something clean about gas tax paying for roads, the vast majority of what taxes pay for does not work that way because it can't. So they just pay for roads out of the general budget which is so logical that I can't stand it.
As most everyone knows, the real issue with road maintenance is not cars - it is trucks. And sure, they pay a lot of taxes but not enough for their damage.
We somehow tie house value to paying for schools which is the opposite of anything that a Nordic country would do.
Stop trying to make paying for societal necessities logical in some way - you just create new problems that create more complexity trying to fix. And in the process, you make government more powerful and more susceptible to outside moneyed influence.
That's the quick impression that I got by doing a Google search. Especially on the toll roads.Norway uses a combination of fuel taxes, registrations and toll roads.
...
So, there's an argument that the societal benefits of transportation infrastructure should be paid for society at large, i.e., the general taxation fund. I think I disagree with that; I like the idea of competition for money (i.e., greed) is a better tool than a more central planning approach.
At one time there was floated this idea that All Roads Should Be Toll Roads. And, I guess if a mileage-based fee was used generally, that would fit. But, at the time, and in practice, that "All Roads" bit has been done in a truly irritating way: I'm looking at you, Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Illinois, where wildly expensive new toll roads were built in parallel with purposely hamstrung "freeways", so one could either sit in traffic for 40 minutes or speed on through with a $10 donation to government.. and I find it unlikely that those $10 fees were going for the roads, but were probably going to a general fund somewhere. A rather regressive tax, since using those expensive roads hurts the poor much more than the rich.