The claim that gas taxes "pay for roads" & electric cars get a "free ride" is bullshit

[Hiawatha Pete]

As someone who drives a hybrid and who would love to drive an EV someday, I've run into this argument several times.

1) First off, the simple fact is gas powered cars require fuel infrastructure. Infrastructure like big tanker trucks that pound the roads to bits - with one truck causing as much road damage as 9,600 cars:

Page 23 "Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford"
http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

Electric cars don't require fuel trucks, and so are are responsible for far less highway damage than fossil fuel powered cars.

2) The claim that gas taxes pay for the roads is B.S.
Gas taxes come nowhere near to covering the cost of highway maintenance.

As an example, between 41 and 55 percent of Wisconsin’s road money comes from non-users: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/12/12/transit%E2%80%99s-not-sucking-the-taxpayer-dry-roads-are/

Here in Canada, government spending on roads is $29 billion tax dollars/yr.

"Even adding revenues from permit, licence and other fees collected by all levels of government, the total revenue from road users amounts to only $15.5 billion
per year across Canada.

More than $13 billion per year –nearly half – of the annual spending on roads is subsidized by other revenue sources":

https://web.archive.org/web/20190718002019/https://www.thecostofsprawl.com/report/the-costs-of-roads-and-highways.pdf

13 billion tax dollars per year from other revenue sources - like property taxes - which every homeowner must pay.

Regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.

Regardless of whether they even drive at all.

[moniss]

1. Let me

start by saying that I had a Volt from when they first came out. I would also clarify some of the info here. First of all it is agreed that terms like "free ride" etc. are not accurate. Similarly saying that fuel taxes pay for roads should actually be phrased as "help pay the cost". The GAO document that is referenced here is about 40 years old or so and the thrust of the document was not about trucks per se but "overweight" trucks. Described in the document as those exceeding legal weight restrictions. During the time period the document was generated the factors involving trucks and weights were far different than today. First of all the trucks themselves had predominantly leaf spring suspensions and those made any "on-board" devices to tell the driver his weights difficult at best and any available (strain gauge technology etc.) were not very accurate. However by the late '80's and early '90's air suspension systems were becoming the norm and gauges and measuring devices were developed that measured pressure differentials and gave a more accurate reading. Also truck-stops availed themselves of installing more accurate platform truck scales that drivers could use and determine their weight. Prior scales had been hit or miss. Government also greatly expanded the number of weigh/inspection stations located on highways and enforcement fines for exceeding legal limits were made large enough that more and more people in the trucking industry became very focused on making sure that they were within legal limits. The problem has been greatly reduced as a percentage of trucks inspected compared to the era of the GAO document. Lastly I would point out that infrastructure like roads etc. is in fact used by everyone even if they have no vehicle. Anything in a store moved to that store by a vehicle using the roads. We all benefit from having roads just like we all benefit from having schools even if we don't have children. The things that infrastructure and schools provide gives benefits to all of us in our daily lives whether that's goods we purchase or medicine, technology etc. that the people educated in the schools discover, develop and provide to us in hospitals and clinics. The list of benefits for people from these investments that we make as a society is nearly endless. Paying for them is the responsibility of everyone. It is not a matter of trucks versus cars or us versus them. It's a matter of we.

[Random Boomer]

2. Paragraphs are your friend

I think there was a lot of good information in your post, but I couldn't make it through the dense text block. Paragraph breaks really help make long posts more readable so more people get your message.

[moniss]

4. I know

and it has been one of my struggles in writing (no joking) to figure out the how and where. My junior high English teacher wept often and began to drink heavily until I was gone.

[hunter]

11. Hit "ENTER" twice at the completion of each sentence.

The results are better than a big wall of text.

It works for me.

Later, you can polish the text by consolidating some of the sentences into paragraphs of three to five sentences.

But you don''t have to.

[Hiawatha Pete]

5. Does not refute my point

Which was not "cars versus trucks" but that ALL forms of transport require government spending and it's disingenuous to single out electric cars as the only vehicles requiring such. At no point whatsoever did I ever say that roads have no value.

The percentage of my property taxes allocated to road maintenance is constant month to month. Same as my neighbors with a similar sized house, even though
I drive only a couple miles to the local VIA Rail station and take a commuter train, and they drive all the way to work in their gasoline powered car.

In effect - a constant fixed charge to use the roads regardless of how much or how little we use it and regardless of what type of vehicle we drive..

So that's what my argument was: don't tell me that hybrid and electric car users don't pay for the roads - we do.

And that goes for public transit as well, with my VIA train having a cost recovery ratio of over 80%
( https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/via-rail.21060/page-333#post-1407472 ) while roads are lucky if they do 50%.
All this ignoring the fact that in Canada, railroads - including VIA - pay $1.2 billion per year in property taxes INTO our economy and also benefit non-users (including highway users) by saving untold millions in wear & tear on our roads.

Yet none of this matters to the conservatives here who are trying to kill not only electric vehicle incentives but public transport as well.

[moniss]

10. I truly

tried to make it clear that I am not "refuting" you but simply clarifying some of the info you posted and giving some further insight about trucks and weights. I really haven't seen any conservatives here trying to kill off electric vehicles but then again I just stick to the home page and latest threads. The argument of "I pay over here so I shouldn't have to pay any more from some additional tax, levy or fee" is simply going around the mulberry bush because eventually it all has to come from somewhere. Keep in mind that I said right away that I have been an owner of an EV and I do support them. But EV supporters should be careful in making the arguments about diminished infrastructure needs etc. to support them. There are many costs and factors for them including the resources for mining the special metals, battery recycling/disposal, power generation (whether solar/conventional combo it still will require a great deal of building out infrastructure) and we need to be realistic in our assessments and arguments for these changes in transportation. It will take a massive effort now to make the changes we need to make in order to reduce our annual carbon pollution in a major way. It must be done but it will only come at a large cost. A state that changes to mostly EVs with the same annual registration fee as a regular car will experience a massive drop in the revenue collected from the purchase and use of fossil fuels. Some states here say they already notice an impact. So the money has to come from somewhere and if EV vehicles do not pay an increased registration fee or levy of some sort then it has to come from other tax sources including raising the taxes on wealthy tax evaders as I stated and possibly the property taxes etc. that you mentioned. As I said in the beginning it is best to be more clear and accurate when using terms about these things. It is incorrect to say that an EV buyer doesn't pay taxes that help support roads. But it would be correct to say that an EV largely(except for any levy for tires) doesn't generate money for the roads simply through its' use while a conventional vehicle does.

[Hiawatha Pete]

17. The 'batteries require mining' argument is a fossil fuel industry talking point

Electric motors are 80% efficient.
ICE's 25%.

More than offsets any one-time emissions from metal mining and production (which ICE cars also require).

And EV owners pay licensing and registration fees too.

[moniss]

26. Sorry

I just saw this message or I would have replied earlier. Yes I know about all of the efficiency etc. but my point in bringing these other matters to the fore is that strictly from an engineering evaluation sort of study you would look at all of the necessary inputs for each type of vehicle from raw materials all the way through to end of life disposal/recycling etc. Then you would also look at infrastructure costs etc. All of this would be interpreted on a cost per mile basis and must include environmental costs of each vehicle type and infrastructure needed from cradle to grave.
Usually, given the evolving technology, this sort of examination would best be repeated every couple of years or so. As an example we have made huge reductions in nitrogen oxide and combustion product particulates in trucking. That does not mean we don't move to electric trucks it simply means that when looking at calculations of environmental costs it would change that portion. An analogy would be solar and how the old studies. from when it was way more expensive to produce solar panels etc., are dishonestly used by opponents of solar and the fossil fuel industry to try and say it is too costly. You and I know that the cost of solar is a fraction of what it used to be and all of the honest current studies reflect that change.
I don't know about Canada, but an interesting phenomena here in the states is that in the very conservative state of Iowa they have been going like mad for many years on installing windmills and now solar. As an example, I don't like huge concentrated feeding operations but more and more of these that are being built are including several acres for solar installation that powers the whole operation. A drive through most of Iowa will have a person close to large windmill installations within a short time. All in a state that would throw the label "liberal" on me in a second and turn their children's heads so as not to gaze upon the "heathen".

[Hiawatha Pete]

9. "Government also greatly expanded the number of weigh/inspection stations"

Paid for by taxes from everyone - including electric car drivers whose vehicles do not require tanker trucks to keep them fueled.

And that "1 truck equals same impact as 9600 cars" is for a truck loaded in accordance with the federal weight limit - i.e. for a "legal" truck, not an overweight one. The laws of physics haven't changed since the report was issued, heavier vehicles cause more wear & tear on the roads than lighter ones.

[moniss]

12. That supposed study

is questionable to begin with because it first of all looks like it was submitted as some sort of talking presentation with all sorts of handwritten notes among the typing. You truly don't think that when the rapid expansion of weigh stations took place in the '80s and early '90s that EV buyers were contributing to them do you? The EV came a bit later. I get it that you hate trucks but for heavens sake man nobody has argued that the wear from a truck is only that of a car. I really don't want to go any further with this because I don't believe you are looking for a discussion but rather an argument. Have a nice night in the Great White North.

[Hiawatha Pete]

18. Those weigh stations cost money to maintain to this day.

And I don't mind paying for them, or to maintain roads if it will keep people safe, and if you think I hate trucks then you fail to see my point - which is that gas powered cars require fueling infrastructure that EV's do not. And I do not care at all for the accusatory tone.

Yet it is EV's that are being singled out by conservatives (on both sides of the border) who call green initiatives 'subsidies" rather than the investments they are.
https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/ontarios-new-government-kills-ev-rebates-lowers-gas-prices
https://www.wsj.com/articles/killing-the-electric-car-credit-1512943468

I've written letters to my representatives here explaining why EV's should be made a larger part of the transport mix.

If you would rather spend your energy making unfounded accusations when all I am trying to do is raise awareness of environmentally responsible transportation, then I have no desire to continue this conversation either.

Good night in the Land of the Free.

[hwmnbn]

3. Thanks for the info...

You never know when this will be handy talking to a wingnut..

[Hiawatha Pete]

6. No problem! that's why I posted it

[Finishline42]

7. The fees some states charge for hybrid car owners is unfounded in reality.

What's the difference between a hybrid that gets 40 mpg and a ICE vehicle that gets 40 mpg? Neither uses much gas.

The main reason gas tax revenue isn't keeping up with needs is the general increase in MPG in almost all product lines. Big cars and trucks get a lot better mpg than they did in the early 2000's.

Over the road tractor trailers use to get 4 to 5 mpg but now 8 to 10 mpg. And that's for a vehicle that probably travels close to 200,000 miles a year. Imagine the hole in revenues that has created.

We should go to a miles traveled tax but have it broken down in weight classes (the heavier the vehicle the more the tax). Have an odometer reading when you register you car each year with a reconciliation when you transfer it.

[Hiawatha Pete]

8. If EV's ever become the majority...

(or even before that point is reached) a VMT (Vehicle miles traveled) fee or tax might be the way to go as a replacement for the gas tax. And yes it should be broken down into weight classes as the laws of physics haven't changed -heavier vehicles are responsible for more wear & tear on the roads than lighter ones.

[moniss]

13. One

last thing to say. You have no idea the huge differential in taxes and fees paid by a truck versus a car.

[Hiawatha Pete]

16. Actually I do. And could that be to help partially offset the cost of road maintenance?

"One analysis contends freight-hauling trucks cause 99 percent of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35 percent of the maintenance."

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks-destroy-our-roads/

[moniss]

19. These claims get tossed around all over

and usually fall flat when put under tough analysis. But I still think you have no idea how big the differential is and has been. It should be large of course but most people have no idea the many thousands of dollars a year a truck pays in taxes and tolls towards the roads. They do not cause 99 per cent of the wear on roads. People with an ax to grind have been ginning up these supposed "studies" for decades. But when you ask them how come roads in rural areas that see very little truck traffic compared to interstates etc. are crumbling and nearly impassable at the posted speed they have no intelligible answers. As I said before trucks cause more wear. Nobody disputes that. Is it anything like this hysterical crap from somebody like Bruce Murphy? Not even close. As I also said before the question is how much in total is needed and how to apportion that out. It really comes down to the fact that most of the wealthy do not want to pay. I paid a good deal of money every month for my EV and my extra insurance costs but I was glad to do it in order to show support for the concept. Most people here in the US don't know that a good deal of the money from highway tolls, fuel taxes etc. is siphoned off to be used for bike trails, hiking trails, nature trails, tourist facilities, school spending etc. Our courts determined long ago that even if the government collects money and it is called a highway tax/toll it does not have to be spent on what the government aid it would be used for. I know that is as wrong-headed as can be but that's what we have. But I am thankful that the powers that be in Canada are no longer able to try and shove that awful Alberta tar sand through a pipe across our land here.

[Hiawatha Pete]

20. Well we agree on one thing, good riddance to the Alberta Tar sands

Stupid hyper-inflated petro dollar did nothing but kill exports & manufacturing here in Ontario anyway. We are all well rid of it (Canada and the US) and the environmental damage it would have caused.

While on the topic of revenue streams and supposed diversion of money, here in Canada, railroads pay 1.2 billion/yr in track property & other taxes into our economy. And do you think any of that goes into a dedicated trust fund like the Highway Trust fund in the US?

Our national passenger rail service and one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport must beg the fed's every year for the measly 200mil in operating funding it gets, a meager sum that would be more than offset by the railroad property tax - and less than 1% of the funding given to other modes-roads, air transport, marine terminals bike paths ect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160602103158/http://www.comt.ca/english/statistics.pdf

[moniss]

21. Madness

to be sure. Our supposed "Trust Fund" gets used by many things other than roads and bridges. I want people to adopt EVs as rapidly as possible. One thing that doesn't get discussed here in the US is the huge percentage of people who live in apartment complexes and what will be necessary for them to move quickly to EVs. Most of these older complexes were put in without a thought for future changes in the parking area. Once the owners of the buildings are faced with a big cost to put in charging stations for the place you can bet they will jack the rent which is already too high here in the US compared to incomes. An average 1 bedroom apartment in an older complex in a relatively safe area goes for $800 per month or better. New complexes are going for $1200. People would buy a house but the market is so high that by the time you figure it all out you are almost worse off except for the hope of getting equity back if you sell. So there is much to think about with all of this. We must do it but we must also confront related issues as well. Similarly when people talk about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. I'm all for alternatives but here in the upper Midwest in the winter I don't know if anybody has really thought about the water coming out of the tailpipe on them. Do we have a collection device installed for the winter or do we just keep dumping water on the road and dealing with the ice we create? Do we keep on using more and more chemicals to treat the slick roads and keep causing more damage to vehicles and roadways/bridges? Many things will confront us as we make the necessary shift rapidly enough to have an effect on our annual carbon emissions. This would have been much easier had we here in the US listened to President Carter years ago who tried to get us to take seriously the need for adoption of alternatives.
As my German great-uncle used to say "Too soon oldt, too late schmart."

[Hiawatha Pete]

23. Unfortunately...

I think that EV's are going to be mostly a middle class person's game for some time, and out of reach for many working class people.

Fuel cell cars are a dead end, IMHO. Battery electrics are the more viable alternative.

Some, like your plug in hybrid Volt I believe, have the option for level 1 120-volt chargers that plug into a standard wall socket - which might be somewhat easier for property owners to install but still by no means free.

The cost of the cars themselves also needs to come down if they are to be made more accessible. The EV (and hybrid) rebates helped somewhat but our idiot con govt here in Ontario govt killed them. Got my pure (not plug in) hybrid without any rebates. It was a less expensive option than an EV.

[Finishline42]

25. I agree

Fuel cells are just another way to keep people going to their energy stations to buy a product that speculators can profit from.

Batteries are the key to EV's and I expect innovation to reduce the cost and weight.

[Hiawatha Pete]

24. Finally ...

Last edited Mon Jun 21, 2021, 06:45 PM - Edit history (6)

on the rural roads outside town in this neck of the woods with a house every quarter or half mile, heavy vehicles (trucks, farm equipment, school buses ect) account for a far larger percentage of the traffic compared to urban & suburban areas.

The following article from pavement interactive and study from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rutgers University, NJ indicates heavy vehicles like trucks & buses are responsible for a majority of pavement damage
https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/equivalent-single-axle-load/

https://rits.rutgers.edu/files/impactofbuses.pdf

Buses are another issue: The following report provided by the City of Spokane indicates that heavy traffic – most notably bus traffic, is a major factor in the life of a street and that the average EMPTY bus is equivalent to nearly 3,000 cars in terms of damage imparted to the pavement infrastructure: http://www.inlandrail.org/documents/FactPaperForHeavyAxleLoads.pdf

Regardless of what percentage of heavy vehicle traffic is trucks vs buses, and regardless of which sources (written by qualified civil engineers) one chooses to believe or not believe, I stand by my argument that gas powered cars require heavy transport to fuel them that EV's do not. And there is a cost to maintain the supporting infrastructure for that transport (like there is for all modes of transport).

So it's ridiculous for certain politicians & special interests to single out EV's as 'tax guzzlers' when, as you've alluded to in your initial reply, taxes are part of the price of living in a civilized society.

Welcome to DU by the way.

[moniss]

14. Few

trucks put on anything close to that in miles per year. I know the manufacturers of engines and transmissions and trucks talk about their increased fuel mileage but if you talk to the people who run them you'll find it's more like 6 to 8 mpg. There are a few people who really get aggressive with driving for maximum fuel economy and they can squeak a little more out but they aren't the rule. A big problem over the years has been that the Federal fuel tax per gallon hasn't increased for a very long time. Many of the states have likewise not kept pace with inflation and funding needs. So now here we are in a society that behaves in truly baffling ways. So we get vehicles with increased mpg and then we immediately go about raising all of the speed limits way up which only serves to burn more fuel and create more pollution. The foot of society has so many bullet holes in it that it can't hold a sock.

[Finishline42]

22. I was off by what looks to be double

Google says >>> How Many Miles do Truckers Drive Each Year? Drivers can clock in anywhere from 80,000 to 110,000 miles annually. Although, there are certainly truckers on load boards who break closer to 125,000 a year .Apr 8, 2019

Trucks pay a lot of fuel taxes because they drive a lot.

Tolls are the same function, which I agree with. Tolls are a way to get the people that use the road or bridge to pay for the building and maintenance. The argument that they use to be free doesn't hold anymore because it use to be cheaper to build and maintain.