No Hybrid Fee Petition (purchase, camps, inspectors)

[marie5v]

Originally Posted by z28lt1

I think the point is that the hybrid uses less gas, and therefore pays less gas tax, so they need to make it up with a fee. In theory, a regularly fueled vehicle that uses the road an equal amount has already paid its fair share of taxes.

I do agree with UHgrad, that the whole hybrid/non hybrid thing was always somewhat of a farce. Regularly cars that got 35 mpg couldn't use HOV lanes but Hybrids that got 22 could. This fee discriminates the other way, regular cars that get good gas mileage aren't penalized but hybrid's that don't are.

Finally, note that this should not just be about "tearing up the roads". It is also just about taking up space and using roads. A true usage fee would need to take so many things into account, size, weight, miles driven, and the hardest one, where they were driven. For the "where driven" component, consider the cost to build and maintain roads. If it is in the middle of nowhere, you have to pay to build and maintain a road that so few people will use, the people that do use it, have a high cost of road mile driven. On the other hand, in the highly congested areas, they need to continue to build more roads to handle all the traffic, also a high cost of road per mile driven. The cheapest is probably the stable moderately populated areas, where new roads won't need to be built, and there is enough "users" to spread the maintenance across. All this isn't to say that's how we should do it. It's just to show that any usage based fee has way too many variables that things like a registration fee or gas tax won't cover, but they are generally workable simplified solutions.

I would not mind at all paying a "road usage and maintenance" fee or something like that. Especially if everyone paid it. It's the fact that I have to pay double for my electric car because I am not using gas that just ticks me off to a very high degree.

[UHgrad]

Originally Posted by marie5v

I would not mind at all paying a "road usage and maintenance" fee or something like that. Especially if everyone paid it. It's the fact that I have to pay double for my electric car because I am not using gas that just ticks me off to a very high degree.

How have you been paying double for an electric car? If you don't use gas you have essentially been using the roads for free (aside from vehicle registration) as you did not pay the gas tax at all but still drove on the roads.

Originally Posted by marie5v

I agree with that. It just makes no sense to penalize people for making a choice that is good for all of us. Cleaner air, less reliance on fossil fuels. This kind of partisanship is so bad for our country, and this is a perfect example of it.

It is not moralizing, it is raising revenue from people that use the roads. There is nothing partisan about it. If you want to moralize then push for a carbon tax, this is a transportation bill designed to fund roads and other transportation initiatives. THey are really two separate arguments all together. You are not being penalized for making a choice, you are being assessed a fee because you are not contributing as much to the roads as the rest of the users are. I think the fee is disproportionately large (see my previous post) but it is not some conservative conspiracy, it is just math.

[UHgrad]

Originally Posted by z28lt1

I think the point is that the hybrid uses less gas, and therefore pays less gas tax, so they need to make it up with a fee. In theory, a regularly fueled vehicle that uses the road an equal amount has already paid its fair share of taxes.

I do agree with UHgrad, that the whole hybrid/non hybrid thing was always somewhat of a farce. Regularly cars that got 35 mpg couldn't use HOV lanes but Hybrids that got 22 could. This fee discriminates the other way, regular cars that get good gas mileage aren't penalized but hybrid's that don't are.

This hits the nail on the head, thats why my Chevy Metro is so sweet! I get good mileage like a prius so I pay little gas tax, but I am also not classified as a hybrid/alternative fuel vehicle so I don't pay the fee. In essence I will be not be paying my "fair share" of the transportation costs in the state. Although one could argue that my little 1900lb car on 13" tires doesn't damage the roads much either so maybe it is fair, if everyone had little cars like mine instead of these giant 3000lb Prius there wouldn't be so many potholes, lanes could be narrower, parking spaces could be smaller, and all of that would save money.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by stpickrell

I have owned a hybrid since 2004 and have no objection to paying this fee. I use less gas than other motorists, so why shouldn't I pay?

I just bought a new compact with energy saving features, but its conventionally powered. Its uses less gas for each mile driven than lots of others. If I drove it all on highways its mileage would not be that much less than that of a Prius. And of course the larger hybrids don't get the same mileage a Prius does, IIUC.

So no, this is not really about making up for missing gas tax revenues due to using less gas. If we really wanted to do that, we would look at a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) tax. This is an attack on SLL (stuff liberals like).

[CAVA1990]

Would it make sense then for the state to pay you to register a gas guzzling RV?

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by UHgrad

This hits the nail on the head, thats why my Chevy Metro is so sweet! I get good mileage like a prius so I pay little gas tax, but I am also not classified as a hybrid/alternative fuel vehicle so I don't pay the fee. In essence I will be not be paying my "fair share" of the transportation costs in the state. Although one could argue that my little 1900lb car on 13" tires doesn't damage the roads much either so maybe it is fair, if everyone had little cars like mine instead of these giant 3000lb Prius there wouldn't be so many potholes, lanes could be narrower, parking spaces could be smaller, and all of that would save money.

If you want to tax vehicle weight, go ahead. This doesn't do that. And my strong sense is that the mini cars do not get significantly better mileage than the more efficient compacts. Though they do take up less parking space. Of course we can't shrink the size of demarcated parking spaces till all vehicles are small (or enough are to paint minicar spaces, as a few places have compact car spaces).
Thats even more true of lane widths - as long as some folks driver hummers, pickups, and of course commercial trucks, the number of mini cars vs compacts won't impact lane widths. As a cyclist I'd love it if we could (and use that pavement space for bike lanes) but we've got to be realistic.

[UHgrad]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

If you want to tax vehicle weight, go ahead. This doesn't do that. And my strong sense is that the mini cars do not get significantly better mileage than the more efficient compacts. Though they do take up less parking space. Of course we can't shrink the size of demarcated parking spaces till all vehicles are small (or enough are to paint minicar spaces, as a few places have compact car spaces).
Thats even more true of lane widths - as long as some folks driver hummers, pickups, and of course commercial trucks, the number of mini cars vs compacts won't impact lane widths. As a cyclist I'd love it if we could (and use that pavement space for bike lanes) but we've got to be realistic.

I don't get to tax anything, I just get an insignificant vote for the people that do. If I was making the laws there would be a carbon tax, a weight tax, congestion pricing, and a vehicle mileage tax. But I'm not the king so...

I'm just saying that this whole thing is a lot more nuanced that folks want to admit and I am tired of listening to smug hybrid owners complain when they are getting their vehicle purchases subsidized by the government already, their vehicles weigh more than their non-hybrid counterparts due to large battery packs and complicated drivetrains, and on average pay less gas tax for a comparable vehicle yet still use the roads just as much. I think this fee is too large, but I think it is in principle a way to get everyone to pay their "fair share" for the roads that we all use and benefit from.

While I have provided examples of regular fuel cars that get better mileage than some hybrids, overall people buy vehicles in sizes that fit their lifestyle... and comparing a hybrid to a non-hybrid of the same model will yield a situation where the hybrid owner pays significantly less gas tax. Comparing a regular hyundai elantra to a hybrid durango is useful in some regards, but lets be honest... people are not going out and deciding between regular elantras and hybrid durangos. People are choosing between hybrid elantras and regular elantras or hybrid durangos and regular durangos depending on the size of vehicle they think suits their needs. And when you make such a comparison, the hybrid will pay less gas tax across the board. The government even has a website telling us as much.

Hybrid Compare

So while I don't agree that this fee is the best way to handle the disparity and I think the fee is to large, these assertions that it is some conspiracy against "stuff liberals like" is pretty hard to defend. It is ironically, an attempt to get people to pay their "fair share" of taxes on the roads that they use, that just so happens to **** off the crowd that typically wants other people to pay their "fair share" of taxes.

[Caladium]

If the objective is to pay more for heavier cars, then say so. Charge a fee based on car weight. If the objective is to pay more for the amount of mileage driven, then say so. Charge a fee based on miles driven (could be noted during inspection).

If the objective is to lash out against some federal regulation--that seems worrisome to me. If the governor is angry about a federal regulation, work to remove it. "I'll show you, I'll create an additional stupid regulation" is not the sort of attitude I want from my governor.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by UHgrad

While I have provided examples of regular fuel cars that get better mileage than some hybrids, overall people buy vehicles in sizes that fit their lifestyle... and comparing a hybrid to a non-hybrid of the same model will yield a situation where the hybrid owner pays significantly less gas tax. Comparing a regular hyundai elantra to a hybrid durango is useful in some regards, but lets be honest... people are not going out and deciding between regular elantras and hybrid durangos. People are choosing between hybrid elantras and regular elantras or hybrid durangos and regular durangos depending on the size of vehicle they think suits their needs. And when you make such a comparison, the hybrid will pay less gas tax across the board. The government even has a website telling us as much.
.

if this is about "fair share" than comparing a hybrid SUV to a conventionally powered compact is absolutely fair. Narrowing it to the choices people make is only relevant if its about changing incentives, and AFAIK no on supporting the provision has said they want to reduce the incentive to purchase hyrids.

I remain convinced that this is a conspiracy against "smug" people - "smug" almost always referring to things done by "progressives" - buying a cup of fair trade coffee is "smug" but sending money to a religious mission to convert central american peasants, is never "smug".

[pcity]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Exactly. Not all that different from the games played in pre-war Germany. Jews have to pay an extra fee to own a radio just because they're Jews, that sort of thing.

Did you really just compare hybrid owners in VA with Jews in Nazi Germany?