Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm using some basic averages and probably should have 4000lbs, for example the hybrid with battery doing very short trips might be getting 100MPG.
Only a plugin hybrid with short trips might be doing 100MPG. Less than 5% of all hybrids on the road are plugin hybrids. A traditional hybrid will actually get worse mileage with short trips. Just like a traditional car, a hybrid will burn extra fuel on a high idle to pre-heat the engine in order to bring it to optimal running temperature.
If you're going to say that we should tax cars that get high mileage, that's one thing (and still not that reliable). But to tax hybrids just because they are hybrids is with no merit.
Before I address your statement. Lets imagine a world without cars altogether. What would the roads look like? How expensive would the roads be?
The truth is, not only are bike lanes much more narrow than streets. But an actual separated bike path is far cheaper to build even in the same total surface area. A road is usually "very thick" and heavily reinforced. Because trucks up to 80,000 pounds drive on the roads/interstates.
Most bike lanes are made of very thin and cheap asphalt.
Your basic argument is "Bicycles need roads. Without cars paying for the roads, bikes wouldn't have anything to ride on. Thus the cost of building roads should fall on each road user equally. Including bicyclists."
What you should remember is, the average cost of building a two-lane bike lane is about $135,000 per mile. It is about $10 million per mile for a four-lane interstate. That is a factor a 74 to 1.
The issue we have, is that cities are going to build the roads to accommodate cars/trucks regardless. Since the bicycles can use the streets, in most cases, the bicycles simply use the streets. The city sees no reason in building extra dedicated bike lanes.
Regardless. If we consider the fact that "transportation related fees" already pay such a small percentage of the total cost of buildings roads. Then all things considered, in most parts of the country, people who ride bicycles are already paying significantly more than their fair share to fund the roads.
I'll concede that bicycles shouldn't get out of paying altogether. But if you consider the actual costs of building dedicated bike lanes vs city streets, and on top of that consider the weight of a bicycle(IE the damage it does to the streets). I would say the difference between what a Hummer should pay and what a bicycle should pay would be at least a difference of 100 to 1, if not more.
Despite all that post, I did not say "equally" anywhere, did I? And how do you know there are no dedicated bike lanes in Milwaukee (the city referenced in the OP)?
The bigger point, which many people on here don't seem to understand, is that roads are part of a city's infrastructure. Even back in the Old Testament, cities had roads, and there were roads between cities as well. The Romans built roads which are still in use today in parts of England. Before there were cars, there were still conveyances, e.g. horses and wagons, riding horseback or on donkeys, etc, all of which required roads of some sort. Interestingly, the article said that while Wisconsin just passed an amendment prohibiting the use of fuel tax money for any purpose other than roads, general fund money is also transferred to the road budget.
"Also last week, voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution that bars siphoning money from the transportation fund to pay for general state operations. That was done in response to a series of transfers over several years by Doyle and lawmakers that totaled more than $1 billion.
In recent years, officials have reversed the flow, with money now going from the general fund to the transportation account, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Since 2003, the transportation fund has netted $313 million in general tax money, after accounting for the transfers out of the transportation fund.Also last week, voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution that bars siphoning money from the transportation fund to pay for general state operations. That was done in response to a series of transfers over several years by Doyle and lawmakers that totaled more than $1 billion."
So everyone is paying for roads. The hybrid owners are not getting a free ride (pun intended).
The change would raise the price at the pump by about 5 cents per gallon, said Gottlieb. The typical driver would pay about $27 a year more in gas taxes because of it, he said.
The tax increase would be bigger for diesel fuel, rising by about 10 cents a gallon. That's aimed at having semitrailers and other heavy vehicles pay more because they put more wear on roads, Gottlieb said. Owners of passenger vehicles that use diesel fuel would be able to claim a credit to offset some of the fuel taxes they would pay.
The annual vehicle registration fee would remain flat, at $75 a year. But those who drive hybrid and electric vehicles would have to pay an additional fee of $50 a year. That is meant to ensure those drivers pay their share for roads because they use less fuel and thus pay less in gas taxes, Gottlieb said.
Note that the date is nearly 3 years ago and that O'Malley is governor of Maryland and a Democrat.
A number of States led by Democrats have proposed increasing the State gasoline tax to offset the loss of tax revenues due to lower fuel mileage standards and the use of hybrid or electric vehicles.
The bigger point, which many people on here don't seem to understand, is that roads are part of a city's infrastructure. Even back in the Old Testament, cities had roads, and there were roads between cities as well. The Romans built roads which are still in use today in parts of England. Before there were cars, there were still conveyances, e.g. horses and wagons, riding horseback or on donkeys, etc, all of which required roads of some sort. Interestingly, the article said that while Wisconsin just passed an amendment prohibiting the use of fuel tax money for any purpose other than roads, general fund money is also transferred to the road budget.
So everyone is paying for roads. The hybrid owners are not getting a free ride (pun intended).
They aren't getting a completely free ride. No one is getting a free ride. But that wasn't my argument.
For instance, people who don't drive or ride a bicycle pay for the roads. Even if I lived "off the grid" and never left my house, I have to pay for the roads in some way or another(especially property taxes).
What I was complaining about wasn't whether or not hybrid or electric car owners were paying "any tax". I was complaining that the sources of funding for public roads are incredibly disproportionate. If the cost of roads to the individual user don't stay proportionate to the actual use of the roads. Then some people are paying far too much, and some people are paying far too little.
It is a matter of both fairness, and efficiency.
If someone isn't paying enough, then the cost to use the road is lower than it otherwise would be. Encouraging him to "overuse" the road. While if someone is having to pay far too much, it can discourage him from using the roads at all.
My main complaint is that, electric cars are not paying anywhere near their share of the costs to use the roads. This means that the cost of the roads is being transferred to "others". And in most cases, it is the poorer classes who drive less fuel efficient cars, and can't afford the very high expense of buying an electric car.
The cost to drive in America for even someone with low incomes is very high. A young male working minimum wage might expect to pay $1,000 a year in tag and insurance alone. Even if he only drove to and from work. If he has to take a loan out for his car it could be thousands of dollars a year just to be able to drive.
My point of view is that, I want to lower the cost of driving for low-income people. And I especially don't like the cost of roads being transferred increasingly to poor people as the rich people are the only ones capable of buying hybrids/electric cars and largely avoid paying the taxes to support the roads. On top of that, there is no reason to subsidize any vehicle, you just encourage people to drive more, leading to road congestion, and the need to build bigger and bigger and bigger roads.
The current tax structure for funding roads is incredibly regressive. It is embarrassing that anyone would defend such a terrible regressive tax system which hurts those with low-incomes the most.
Then you have the audacity to complain about people who ride bicycles. The form of transportation someone typically uses when he can't even afford to drive a car.
I would love if everyone paid a proportionate amount of money for the cost of building the modes of transportation. Of course, I don't think government is capable of creating any sort of proportionate system. Which is why I'm a big supporter of "free-market roads".
That is what is being suggested. The weight of the vehicle and mileage be taxed. That way a light vehicle such as a bike doesn't have to pay as much as a truck.. as it should be.
No, they should be receiving more tax credits than they already get.
Everyone who uses a service should pay for it. Of course that flies in the face of give me something free liberals who think the world owes them something.
And some people are getting 100 and 200MPG if they are only using them for short trips. Anybody with hybrid is still paying some fuel tax but certainly not as much as someone else with a gasoline powered car, all electric vehicles pay $0. Ideally the fuel tax is replaced with a per mile tax based on the weight of the vehicle.
They want us to use less petroleum and when we do upon their mandates, costing us the consumer for the needed technology, they finally see past the tip of their noses as it hits them square. They re losing revenue.
They aren't getting a completely free ride. No one is getting a free ride. But that wasn't my argument.
For instance, people who don't drive or ride a bicycle pay for the roads. Even if I lived "off the grid" and never left my house, I have to pay for the roads in some way or another(especially property taxes).
What I was complaining about wasn't whether or not hybrid or electric car owners were paying "any tax". I was complaining that the sources of funding for public roads are incredibly disproportionate. If the cost of roads to the individual user don't stay proportionate to the actual use of the roads. Then some people are paying far too much, and some people are paying far too little.
It is a matter of both fairness, and efficiency.
If someone isn't paying enough, then the cost to use the road is lower than it otherwise would be. Encouraging him to "overuse" the road. While if someone is having to pay far too much, it can discourage him from using the roads at all.
My main complaint is that, electric cars are not paying anywhere near their share of the costs to use the roads. This means that the cost of the roads is being transferred to "others". And in most cases, it is the poorer classes who drive less fuel efficient cars, and can't afford the very high expense of buying an electric car.
The cost to drive in America for even someone with low incomes is very high. A young male working minimum wage might expect to pay $1,000 a year in tag and insurance alone. Even if he only drove to and from work. If he has to take a loan out for his car it could be thousands of dollars a year just to be able to drive.
My point of view is that, I want to lower the cost of driving for low-income people. And I especially don't like the cost of roads being transferred increasingly to poor people as the rich people are the only ones capable of buying hybrids/electric cars and largely avoid paying the taxes to support the roads. On top of that, there is no reason to subsidize any vehicle, you just encourage people to drive more, leading to road congestion, and the need to build bigger and bigger and bigger roads.
The current tax structure for funding roads is incredibly regressive. It is embarrassing that anyone would defend such a terrible regressive tax system which hurts those with low-incomes the most.
Then you have the audacity to complain about people who ride bicycles. The form of transportation someone typically uses when he can't even afford to drive a car.
I would love if everyone paid a proportionate amount of money for the cost of building the modes of transportation. Of course, I don't think government is capable of creating any sort of proportionate system. Which is why I'm a big supporter of "free-market roads".
The Tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, which says that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource. The term is taken from the title of an article Hardin wrote in 1968, which in turn is based upon an essay by a Victorian economist on the effects of unregulated grazing on common land.
They want us to use less petroleum and when we do upon their mandates, costing us the consumer for the needed technology, they finally see past the tip of their noses as it hits them square. They re losing revenue.
Your progressives minds, hard at work.
If you think thecoalman is a "progressive" you don't get around these forums much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
