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.
As soon as an economical battery is developed with a range of 300 km and charge time of five minutes, gasoline is doomed. And with it, the gasoline tax as a method of funding highways. Even now it only covers at best half the cost. Mileage fees are the way to go. They can implement peak charges as well.
The biggest two problems with modernizing our freeways are efficiency and eminent domain.
Many highway jobs today are workfare. We do not design roads to last years. In some cases we rebuild only to have to re-rebuild months later. Of course, for many highways, the culvert and drainage systems have long outlasted their usefulness. The highways have to rebuilt from the ground up and not just a thin layer of asphalt to make the road look good (temporally). The drainage system affects the length of time that any paving will last. It is not cost effective to have our DOT work crews throw thin layers of asphalt over these ailing roads.
As far as eminent domain: We cannot improve if we are forever tied up in court. I know that improvements have to be fair and that landowners have to be reasonably compensated for their losses. But the system is top heavy with lawyers - we do a great job of compensating lawyers and a terrible job of working for the future.
One other problem I did not mention was the EPA. They also have gotten out of control and they have brand new guidelines about ready to affect all construction.
As soon as an economical battery is developed with a range of 300 km and charge time of five minutes, gasoline is doomed. And with it, the gasoline tax as a method of funding highways. Even now it only covers at best half the cost. Mileage fees are the way to go. They can implement peak charges as well.
This is being considered already by our state, in California, and Oregon has a pilot project already running due to the loss of funds caused by more efficient vehicles. The cost is 1.5 cents per mile, or about $150/year for the driver doing 10,000 miles. Here (55.9 cents/gallon tax) that would be a saving to me of about $40/year on two cars, an increase of $100 on the 3rd.
This is being considered already by our state, in California, and Oregon has a pilot project already running due to the loss of funds caused by more efficient vehicles. The cost is 1.5 cents per mile, or about $150/year for the driver doing 10,000 miles. Here (55.9 cents/gallon tax) that would be a saving to me of about $40/year on two cars, an increase of $100 on the 3rd.
Glossing over the privacy issue for a moment, the idea of per-mile fees bothers me; it is a disconnect between actual usage of state-maintained roadways and fees. So if I drive a lot, but never leave city- or county-maintained roadways, I pay the state for infrastructure I don't use. And while there is a "public good" argument in support of that, such an argument usually goes much too far, well beyond it making actual sense.
Instead, let California toll it's freeways, let the counties figure out their situations, and the cities their own for their local roads.
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.
)
