Additional Road Taxes For Electric Vehicles??

Always a sticky topic.

Once people are taxed for a behavior they do less of it, so if people are taxed by the mile they will curb their driving, which lowers revenue to repair the roads, which drive up more taxes to compensate. You don't need GPS to see where this is going.

Incidentally, 90+% of road damage is due to commercial trucks, but passenger vehicle drivers take on the bulk of those taxes.

In a way we are seeing taxation by the mile whenever you see toll booths. The ePass is making that more acceptable because you don't have to stop and you don't feel the financial pain (sort of like the IRS taking their taxes directly from your paycheck).

Once ePass starts to saturate the driving public it becomes easy to set up more toll booths because the need to man them evaporates and the people are simply taxed by the state reaching into their pockets invisibly as they pass by.

I think that the current system can easily maintain our roads, even with shrinking revenue from EV if the government simply stopped spending our tax money in frivolous ways, such as spending $40,000 for every child that is now crossing the US/Mexico border.

Our government already subsidizes big oil, so there is waste everywhere.

Congress only works 110 days a year and everyone of those dorks has an office, staff, free this and that. Their office budgets are almost $1.5 million a year, each.

Insurance companies jack up your rates if you drive more the 100 miles a year

so I think a reasonable tax on road wear would be fair.

Agreed!

Yep let's make all road private. That way any one who owns property along a road can charge a toll. I own about 1000 yds along a major route both side. So I figure $1 a car $10 a truck. If everyone gets in on it we'll all be wealthy or no one will be going any where. But its only a dream and most roads are public and paid with gas tax though not enough to pay for them since most people what the service for free.

What wasteful and stupid spending is done with the Federal Highway Fund?

I was thinking of a general trimming of wasteful spending not limited to any particular segment of government spending.

The theory is, you do not need to pay 100% of highway maintenance and improvements from simply fuel taxes.

If a more balanced and frugal approach to government spending was taken as a whole it would not only go toward balancing the budget, but funding the things government really needs to fund.

Legislators typically look at the problem of having too many things they have spent tax money on as a problem of insufficient funds. This is one way legislators balance the budget (by levying additional taxes), but they also additionally borrow nearly half the revenue they collect so they can do even more spending.

My approach is to reevaluate the budget to fit the amount of incoming revenue. In the old days we called that living within our means.

Finally, raising taxes on EVs is simply silly. As one person already pointed out, EVs represent about 0.6% of the total number of vehicles in the US.

There are about 225,000 EVs in the USA. The projected federal budget shortfall for 2015 is $20 billion.

In order to meet that shortfall every current EV on the road would need to pay a back tax of $89,000. We know EVs are not responsible for the shortfall.

That same shortfall passed evenly among every registered passenger vehicle in the US would be $80. Excluding all EVs would raise that figure 48 cents per passenger vehicle or a total $80.48 each.

So, I just don't see why people are tying their colons in knots over EVs lack of paying a gas tax.

I agree 100% concerning EV there simply isn't the numbers to make a difference for taxes. Highway funding needs to stay dedicated to highway funds at this point in time its totally underfunded so the repairs aren't getting done because they are spending in there means.

Actually you half right. There are many projects on the books that have been cancels or delays close to 75%. Your correct if the project has started as in shovels in the ground the money has been already put aside for it, but because of the short fall the projects I'm working on now are projects put on the books in 2011. That's three years ago and these are small projects 1-5 million dollars bigger ones usually talk up to 7-10 years for the funding to get there. Not sure what law your dreaming up.

Second paragraph you are incorrect they own the interstate system and most other public infrastructures and pay the states to maintain them.

Feds don't own Indian reservations they are their own sovereign nation. Again most are owned by the feds rent to the states to maintain.

If its not pump up by 2015 92% of road projects will be delayed even further and n new ones canceled. On existing shovel in the ground projects will be completed which is already 72% less than 1996.

Based on what FHWA along with a number of other public and private highway and infrastructure organizations are showing a major short fall coming up. The only way they will get the 14B which is a drop in the bucket about two states budgets put together.

Not sure where your getting this info but its closer to 45% overall some states 69%.

As AH and others note, EV's are not a viable tax base. However there are other reasons we impose taxes. One is to discourage. Another is punitive. If taxes were only used to raise revenue for specific purposes....

But that's just crazy talk, I know.

R

As shown your gas tax are, but obvious to small amount.

"...Congress only works 110 days a year..."

.

Bite your tongue! Look at the damage they do in just 110 days! Why would you even hint at the possibility that we might need more of their sage 'solutions' to problems that would have likely gone unnoticed by lesser eyes.

The damage they do is because of inept, self serving, self centered, dysfunctional, do nothing incompetence.

They can only bicker and insult each other.

Are you referring to the members of Congress or more likely the people that hired them?

Congress. The people who hired them are merely lazy and ignorant.

'...do nothing incompetence...'

.

...would that it were.

.

The incompetence is demonstrated far too well in the far too many things they do. Their action is far worse than do nothing.

Yes, down your way you have the SunPass system on your toll roads. Up here in Martyland, we use the more common EZPass system for electronic toll collection. But after our megalomaniacal governor more than doubled the tolls on all the bridges and tunnels in Martyland, I have now dubbed the system "EZCash".

Martin Owe'Malley has raised taxes and fees on virtually everything in this state and yet has done nothing to improve efficiency or fiscal prudence within the state budget. He spent $125 Million on the computer program to sign up people for the ACA that had to be scrapped. His lieutenant governor was supposedly heading that up. They then had to spend another $30 Million plus to implement the system the Connecticut is using. And then the Lt. Gov. who botched the ACA implementation won the Democrat gubernatorial primary, which in Martyland, is effectively the same as winning the general election. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

There is no such thing as accountability in government. Especially with an essentially ignorant electorate uninformed by a disinterested if not biased media. If you ran a business and blew $125 Million, you would be shown the door. Disgusting.

Please, please, please, whatever you do, do not vote for Martin O'Malley for anything. Not even dog catcher. He is going to make a run for Prez in 2016. It's the worst kept secret in Martyland but he's been ignoring important issues in this state for the last two years while he is on the national circuit plastering his smug face every place he can.

Eric Burdon sums up my feelings about Maryland with "We Gotta Get Out of This Place".

Taxation systems vary from country to country:

• In the UK, a road vehicle is subject to a mandatory annual safety inspection, called the MoT Test, once it reaches three years old, and successful completion of the safety assessment is a requirement to obtain a tax disc, which must be displayed on the vehicle to which it relates. Vehicles that are light on carbon dioxide emissions pay less per year on the tax disc than a heavier emitter. Once a vehicle reaches 25 years of age it passes into a no-fee category for its tax disc though still subject to annual MoT Test inspection. Vehicles over another age limit are deemed to be classic vehicles, usually well-cared-for by their keepers, and are not subject to the MoT Test though a no-fee tax disc is still required to be displayed. In addition to the tax disc, petrol/gasoline and diesel road fuels themselves are heavily taxed, persuading vehicle users towards more fuel-efficient vehicles in the long term.

Efficiency is an Engineering-based technical topic; taxation is an opinion-based topic of lesser concern, largely determined by representatives of the electorate.

" In addition to the tax disc, petrol/gasoline and diesel road fuels themselves are heavily taxed, persuading vehicle users towards more fuel-efficient vehicles in the long term."

And that is the gist of the post, part of the taxes on Gasoline and Road Deisel (as opposed to the red-dyed Farm Deisel) in the US is a 'road tax.' Plug-in electrics would not be using Gasoline from the pump, and therefore would not be paying this tax, even though they still use the road like the gasoline cars. The 'additional road tax' would be, in a sense, taking the estimated per-mile tax built into the Gasoline purchases and applying it to electric vehicles so they would 'pay their fair share.'

The problem here is trying to determine what is 'fair,' and there's no easy answer. I see it like the Health Insurance costs. Is it 'fair' to take more money from women than men because women have er, 'additional health issues' that men do not have, or is it 'fair' to charge the same cost to both genders in the same age/health bracket, meaning that men are now paying for services they will never use, like that pap test thing (granted, that would mean women are also paying for prostate exams, but from what I've read, the costs of the 'women only' services outweigh the costs of the 'me only' services by at least 2 to 1 (I'm deliberately underestimating here avoid starting a flame war)).

On the one hand, you are taking more money from a group that traditionally makes less than the average, and you are doing it solely based on gender, which is the DEFINITION of 'sexual discrimination.' On the other hand, you are making another group pay for things they don't need, again based solely on gender, which is again 'sexual discrimination.'

So we've got the same problem with the electric vehicles. Make them pay a 'gasoline tax' on gasoline they do not buy, or make the gasoline cars pay for the wear and tear the electric cars put on the road. Although here we have a third option, remove the road tax from the gasoline price ("making gas cheaper, yay!") and impose a road tax on all vehicles based on odometer readings ("new tax, BOOO!!!"). Even that isn't truly 'fair,' since it places an undue burden on vehicles that drive for a significant portion off-road. None of the road tax money goes to maintaining the dirt roads and 'two-tracks' of the back country, but vehicles that spend the majority of their time there, not adding to the wear and tear of the paved roads, are paying to maintain roads they don't use. The 'fairest' situation I could come up with would be the least popular of all: removing the road tax entirely ("cheaper gas, yay!") and making every maintained road a toll road, so you pay for the road maintenance as you go ("making free roads into toll roads, BOOOO!!!!!!!").

Only to the end of this year. October or November sees the start of a new scheme where discs are not used, and prepaid tax will be refunded when the car is sold, with the new owner being responsible for the tax from day 1 of ownership. So another stealth increase in taxes, as only full months are refunded (or pay monthly), but any car sold at any time other than midnight on last day of month will gain the Treasury two months' tax revenue that month.

Governments often use incentives of one kind or another to influence public behavior.... they are usually temporary or goal oriented and when the targeted behavior reaches the desired goal, or public outcry demands change, then the fee's are normalized.....usually...Dependence on fossil fuels is a habit that has no end game, just nightmare scenario's....The Government, imo, would be negligent to ignore the problem....So I think any tools it can use to effect change should be utilized, in a 'non-painful as possible', way....

As far as I know, the drivers of electric vehicles do not pay any road taxes.

Plus they get a big income tax break for buying the vehicle.

no

I'm all for it. The last tax increase was 1993 to 18.5 cents per gallon for gas diesel is 28 cents. Yet the cost of building roads increase every year. Cost of materials, salaries, cost of fuel, cost of equipment etc. All going up except the revenue to pay for it. Then add in electric cars and vehicles with higher mpg just compounds the situation. Today the fed gas tax can only be used on a quarter the number of highways and bridges in 1993. Then the public wonders why states are losing the battle to keep up with road repairs let alone the building of new structures.

While the tax may have stayed the same, it seems that the total miles driven has not been a constant.

It seems the the recession is the real culprit for revenue, not EVs and hybrids, which account for about 3% (at best) of the total of all vehicles on the road today.

So why is there this perception that that EVs and hybrids are such a threat to life on the road as we know it?

Maybe its a lot of wishful thinking, but it seems to be more of a straw man argument for all our transportation financial ills.

Since about 1973 the total number of miles driven by all vehicles has increased about 5 times. That does equate to more gas and diesel purchased and more tax revenue collected, but it is not a 1:1 ratio, as fuel economy improvements cut into that number.

Lastly, about 11% to 15% of gasoline tax is used to prop up public transportation, which fails to break even every year. Amtrak being the poster child for how to run a business in the red.

Agreed the down turn since 2007 has also greatly reduced revenues coming in.

Pretty much we are forcing our government to run our 2014 infrastructure on a 1993 budget and asking why its not working and why every state is in the red or has infrastructure that is falling apart. According to the Congressional Budget Office in 2015 92% of all projects will have to be cut in order for the Highway Trust Fund to stay in the black.

Just think about it try and run your house hold now on what you were making back in 1993.

Asphalt pavement in 1993 $15.00 a ton

Asphalt pavement in 2014 $115.00 a ton

Concrete 5000 psi 1993 $46.00 a cubic yard

Concrete 5000 psi 2014 $80.00 a cubic yard

Equipment increase 3x more compared to 1993

Labor in 1993 $8.50 nonunion $16.00 union per hour

Labor in 2014 $18.00 nonunion $32.00 union per hour

Average cost per lane mile 1993 $300,000

Average cost per lane mile 2014 $2 million

Annual Federal Gas Tax Revenue:

1993 $27 billion

2013 $42 billion

62% is used for new infrastructure, 26% maintenance, 10% local grants, 1-2% administration.

100% of the revenue is split up among the states for infrastructure use.

At first I thought that dip matched when gas prices started to seriously climb, but the 'year without a winter dip in gas prices' was the 2004-2005 winter season. that dip DOES line up with the 'restore to sanity' event, when gas went from a record high down to pre-2004 levels.

As for the fear-mongering over the EV being a threat to well-maintained roads, I have a list of suspects who would benefit from this misinformation:

- Big Oil

- ...

Um, sorry about that, I thought the list was longer, I'm not even sure I can call a group of one item a 'list.' Perhaps if I broke it down by company and OPEC nation it would look longer.

I wonder. Oil companies are having a hard time keeping up with demand. EVs are not a threat now nor will they for some time to come for a whole host of reasons already discussed on this forum.

Or, oil companies want us to believe that they, "are having a hard time keeping up with demand."

Think excuse to frack here.

Exactly.

They always want to claim they 'cannot keep up with demand' so they can go despoil more untouched National Park land and keep jacking up prices.

OPEC uses a similar line, "We must stick to our quotas and not pull more than x% of our reserves per year."

A) Their 'Reserves' have stayed at a constant level or INCREASED since around 1988, despite the amount pulled out and the lack of discovery of new fields.

B) ALL OPEC nations exceed their quotas 'on the side' to make more money with 'secret sales' that don't show up on the 'official' ledger.

Yes, if I was a business selling tires I would want to stock more tires than I can ever sell, just so I can be called Big Tire.

Think about it. Why would you want to stock more SKUs than you need? You do realize that it costs money to drill and store crude?

Indeed. What's wrong with storing it in situ until needed.

It costs money. You also pay taxes on stock at the end of your fiscal year. I know I do. Government encourages "Just in Time" stock keeping and it makes sense not to have to do excessive inventory control and storage for things you don't need.

I think when lyn said 'storing In Situ' (s)he meant 'storing it in the ground where it was discovered.

The problem with that is that the oil company typically does now own the land the well is on, they are merely 'renting' the land for an annual fee and a percentage based off the amount of oil/gas extracted. So it makes 'good fidcal sense' to pull the oil out as fast as possible so you don't have to stay longer than you have to, or renegotiate the lease for another term of 'residency.'

That makes sense.

Sorry, I meant just leaving it in the ground. In terra?

No, In Situ was correct, that means 'In its original position or place.'

"...That does equate to more gas and diesel purchased and more tax revenue collected, but it is not a 1:1 ratio, as fuel economy improvements cut into that number...."

.

Hmm. Maybe the emissions regulations do make sense... as protection against fuel tax revenue losses.

.

Fairly effective too...

It will be interesting to see how the new CAFE standards do with respect to the next generation of vehicles and economics in general.

Typically, each new standard has brought about innovation to improve not only the fuel economy, but the functionality of the vehicle.

The latest standards are a bit more of a dramatic change. Sort of like, if a little bit is good, then a lot is better approach.

So, yes, emission standards do make sense, but we don't know where the sweet spot is as far as rate of change. I guess we will find that out.

I'm not convinced the emission standards make sense. It seems fairly clear that fuel economy of the entire US fleet has not improved appreciably levels thirty years ago. Thirty years!

.

I think a lot off the responsibility that can be placed fairly with emission regulations. I'm not suggesting we don't need some, but when you end up with rules so restrictive that fuel economy doesn't improve over a three decade period, something is very wrong. Burning more fuel less efficiently seems like a stupid way to reduce emissions.

.

Consider Europe's fleet. Are we really keeping things clean by requiring components that make it so difficult to improve efficiency?

An excellent point in some cases. My 2002 GMC 2500 diesel pickup gets better mileage than one 8 years newer for that very reason- restrictive emission control systems and designs. Only recently are they beginning to do better!!

I think part of the problem is that there is still a hefty number of older legacy vehicles on the road. Newer, high mileage vehicles just have not displaced enough vehicles to make a huge difference in the aggregate of over 250 million passenger vehicles in the US.

Also, about 50% of new vehicle sales are trucks and SUVs, which dance to a different drummer when it comes to CAFE standards.

Additionally, the large numbers of SUVs and trucks have forced a redesign in cars, making them both larger and heavier than subsequent generations. Part of that is simply the US prefers very large cars, but I remember driving small cars that weighed no more than 2,000 to 2,400 pounds when I first got my license. Now the 2014 Honda Accord weighs in at nearly 3,200 lbs.

Europe has always been under a different model as their fuels are so much more heavily taxed and have been for decades. Europeans have always driven smaller, lighter vehicles. Even their trucks are smaller.

Shoot, my first car in 1984 was a 1975 VW Rabbit that weighed about 1,750 lbs but it was getting lighter every day with all the rust that was falling off of it. It lived its hard life on the salt encrusted Southeast Expressway commuting into Boston for its first 9 years. I became quite good at fashioning fenders using hardware cloth, Tiger Hair fiberglass filler and Bondo. A little paint and it looked fine from a 20 ft radius.

But interestingly enough, with that two-barrel Zenith carburetor, I was lucky to get 25 MPG on the highway. But back then, you could still buy leaded gasoline and my cat had totally fallen apart so I just removed the fill restricter and put 89 leaded in it.

When I replaced the notoriously soft valve guides, I took the head to the machinist and had them shave 40 thou off it raising the compression nicely. With the higher compression, tweak the timing a bit, I managed to raise the mileage to 29 MPG on the highway and I was thrilled. Part of the problem with that car and mileage was the 4 speed manual. The mileage probably would have been a lot better with a taller 5th gear. It buzzed mercilessly at 70 mph.

When major suspension parts began to break away from the body in 1987, I sadly had to scrap the little car even though that little 1.5 liter pulled like a raped ape even at 176K miles. Hard to believe I only owned it for three years and 50K miles. Seemed a lot longer than that back then but I did learn a lot about auto mechanics from that hand-me-down from my parents.

Great story.

Cars that get lighter to help offset wear in other areas likely to be detrimental to economy, merciless buzzing to discourage driving at speed that consume fuel more quickly, simplicity that encourages DIY fuel efficiency improvements...that type of forward thinking seems absent in today's models. Maybe is isn't the fault of regulations after all, maybe there is a lack of inspiration among the designers.

The biggest problem with regulations is that they give too many constraints to innovation. The lean-burn cars of the early to mid 80s had very low noxious exhaust emissions, but had to be retuned richer when the catalyst exhausts were mandated. This resulted in a 10% increase in fuel used in the later models.

In Europe also the cars get bigger from one generation to the next, eventually leading to a 'new' bottom-end model: the same size as the first generation of the third-generation model it slips in below.

Size creep seems to happen every where. I remember test driving an Accord back in '87. It was a compact car. I didn't fit in it very well. I'm somewhat long torso. My hair rubbed the headliner even with the seat adjusted down. The new Accords now are just a notch under a Crown Victoria. I was shocked to see how big the new Accords are now.

Both State and Federal Governments have been recklessly using our tax dollars paid to provide services such as infrastructure maint. (not to mention the jobs they would Create)f or just about everything but, what we paid them in for.

I for one do not want to pay taxes anymore until they start spending the money as it was intended, to benefit the American people and build a strong, safe country.

Nod to AH on the economic terrorists sneaking across the border. Send them back asap!

One quarter of the Highway Trust fund gets used for mass transit, funding--metro lines etc….That is one big chunk of change….

In the US...

The National Highway Trust Fund (where gas tax dollars go) has nothing but IOU's in it, just like the Social Security Trust Fund and the FAA aviation infrastructure trust fund. All that money has been raided by the politicians to support other interests other than what was intended.

Until we get politicians who will spend the money as it is/was originally intended I will not support any new tax initiatives. PERIOD.

Hooker

Highway Trust Fund hasn't been raid since all funds are account for use on Highway projects as stated above its just totally under funded. The public has been total hood winked by the anti government regime so prevelent on this blog instead how about using facts since after all this is a engineering blog not an anti-government one.

From wikipedia (which admits that this needs accreditation):

"The Fund receives hypothocated tax revenues derived from excise taxes on highway motor fuel and truck related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and heavy vehicle use. Money goes to the general treasury but is then credited to the fund."

We can pretty much argue bookkeeping tricks til doomsday but the highway fund is pretty much broke like all other federal "set asides".

Also:

"hood winked by the anti government regime so prevelent on this blog"

Sorry, I do my political research elsewhere, not "on this blog"!

Hooker

You do know what hypothocated means don't you? It means a fund that is dedicated to one purpose and can not be used for anyother. In this case to try and pay for highway funds. As stated from my previous post the problem is there isn't enough going in to fund for what is needed so taxes should be increased or simple make every public road a toll road. Interesting fact I read concerning the op concerns. Since less than ".64%" of the cars on the road in the USA are electric I see no concern of them after road conditions. So why go after such an small population since its real not going to matter?

"So why go after such an small population since its real not going to matter?"

Obviously, it is politically motivated.

My guess is that there will be a backlash toward taxing EVs since they are already heavily subsidized by tax payer money, so the effort will fail.

Once it is demonstrated that they can't tax EVs, then the only choice is taxing everyone else, "What else can we do?", cried the Senator...

We do need to increase the funding some how. Since we are about 10 yrs in the red in revenues for highways. If we would have increase it by 1.5 cents every 5 years we would have been in the black. I guess a couple more bridges will have to fall and in order to ride on a highway you'll need a 4x4 before the public realizes something needs to be done.

We can always just borrow more money.

We are only borrowing about 46% of every federal dollar spent, so we have another 54% to go.

Then why haven't they. If that was true. Every state would be getting something towards roads from the federal government. As of right now their are only two states that are in the black for major road construction and maintenance projects. Nevada and California because both where smart enough to know in order to keep up with there infrastructure a fuel tax increase was necessary.

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. My reply was being cynical.

However, if I understand your point correctly I might point out that you are oversimplifying the problem.

Every state has its own set of unique problems and dynamics. What works for California is not necessarily going to work for another state. In fact, this is why the founding fathers delegated so much power to individual states rather than all power to a central government.

Until you really analyze all the contributing factors for each state it is not always correct to throw a blanket statement out and assume that it works fine for everyone else.

Specifically addressing your point about raising taxes, in some places, for example, raising taxes may generate more economic problems than it fixes.

It is pretty simple we are talking about federal gas tax. What have you been too king about?

Sorry. I am confused. The Federal tax is the same for every state, correct? How does that make one state smarter than the next?

You specifically cited California and Nevada being smarter and in the "black" with regard to highway maintenance (Post #54).

Then you went on to say that because California knew or realized a a fuel tax increase was necessary that it implies that this was the reason both Nevada and California are in the "black".

What am I missing?

Because the fed hasn't increased in 11 yes they have been increasing to meet their needs most states aren't doing that and rely heavily on the feds. AZ is a great example. Their total tax tax is $.32 its been like that since 93

That's because that state contribution toward roads is about twice the amount that the Federal government pumps into roads.

Some states simply do a better job of funding the roads. Is that smart? Maybe, but I don't see a reason to run to the Federal government because some states do not have or are not willing to pay enough for roads.

Interstates and US routes and most bridges are not funded with state funding. So should we shut them down. Turn them into toll roads?

I think that is not true unless they are on federal land or a military base. States are required to maintain all of the rest of the roads.

Our place in SW Minn. is close to the South Dakota border. The roads in SD are better. Whenever I go across the border it is obvious.

There are many factors for this. How many lane miles of roads does SD have compared to Minn?

Don't have a clue, don't really care.

Maybe another reason the roads are crap??

I don't think so. I could waste the time to look up "lane miles" of the two states and then I'd know, what? Nothing of any use.

Or, I could call Senator Franken who is my Minnesota Senator and ask him why the roads are so crappy. Do you suppose for a second that that would suddenly solve the problem?

You may, or may not, be correct in your statements about financing, as well as the other claims you have made.

If, as you say, "lane miles" determine the condition of roads, should I lobby to have some roads in Minn. plowed up and abandoned so that the roads I use are better?

This is beginning to remind me of one of the reasons these discussions degenerate into useless debates.

Just saying your right people don't care could be a good reason why the roads are crap. Side note: number of lane miles are a major factor in the calculations in determining the amount of highway tax funds each state gets. There are a couple other factors in the formula. Sorry for saying anything. Since everyone else here works on highway projects and I'm blowing smoke.

Well if, "number of lane miles are a major factor in the calculations in determining the amount of highway tax funds each state gets", why do I notice a difference when I cross the border from one state to the other?

I don't work on highway projects, I just drive on the highways.

I also know that the horse is well out of the barn. And not likely to be brought back any time soon.

I'll be watching from the sidelines.

We both live in AZ. AZ has around 24,000 state maintained line miles. PA has 128,000 lane miles. Lane miles help determine how much federal tax money goes to a state. More money for roads usually equates better chance of better roads.

More money for road would really only seem like it equated to a 'better chance of better roads', if it was actually more money per lane mile multiplied by an appropriate factor for road use and weather considerations.

.

In fact, it seems like, in the example suggested comparing AZ and PA, if the amounts spend on roads were the same per lane mile, AZ should have far better roads than PA since the population density is lower and it doesn't freeze as often.

I agree. Prevailing freeze/thaw conditions as well as the soil type, elevation changes, and even the volumes of traffic itself have a lot to do with road costs and maintenance.

Trying to simplify it by the number of miles of road would be nice, but can't be that realistic. Geography and usage has to play a significant role, too.

Fore example, I70 in Ohio is a major truck route and the cost per mile is much higher than some other interstates.

Ever infrastructure project I work on is federally funded. Interstates are 100% whether maintenance or new builds. Bridges unless privately owned. Correct states are required to cover(depending on the state 25%-50%) of the maintenance of all 100% owned roads. interstates states cover 0%-20%.

It looks like the Federal share may be 90%, give or take based on factors I am not aware of.

However, the same link seems to indicate that the states may have other financial obligations to the interstate.

Also, the actual maintenance is not consistent state to state. Just drive I95 north from Florida and a blind person can tell you the instant when you cross into South Carolina.

I am guessing that the states must have wide latitude to what level they maintain the road system, interstates included.

".... a blind person can tell you the instant when you cross into South Carolina...."

.

No kidding! And it's not a subtle 'hey we must have crossed into SC recently', either. There is a drop off that feels like a couple inches covering both lanes right around the time you see 'Welcome to South Carolina' Ka-Whump!

For the rest of the state, save some small areas of respite near the larger populations, the right lane continues with abusive pocks and holes. The left lane is somewhat better.

I always average about 5 to 10 mph faster through SC, because the left lane should be reserved for passing. Somehow, I don't think that will be enough to talk my way out of a ticket though.

Ah, the fond memories of driving white knuckles toward Asheville and back home through those roads...

Hooker and I are talking about the Federal Highway Fund which is fund and used very simply. Not sure what your talking about.

My vocabulary is quite good, thank you, as are my reading comprehension and writing skills.

Like I said, we can argue bookkeeping tricks all day. You say there isn't enough in the fund but my contention is that it doesn't matter because nothing is in it but "credits" anyway, just like the Social Security trust fund and the FAA infrastructure fund.

Hooker

So why disprove your first statement? LOL What "credit" they only can use what they get in nothing more nothing less. Its a fund that congress can't touch only the HWA can excess it nothing like social society.

Agree--Do a good audit of the prior funds that were sent to the Feds and the States, and make them show us where they got waylaid, squandered, stolen, misappropriated etc, Then, consider a new source of funding.. It was once stated that weight is the equalizer in road deteriorization, and ,if true, maybe that is how we should start "taxing" vehicles. Of course, in todays double speak, it wouldn't be a TAX. it would be a "User fee", etc.

Silly goose.

A "good" audit will waste at least $50,000,000.00 USD and make work for an entire building full of bureaucrats.

In the end, nothing will have changed, except we'll have spent our hard earned tax money, for squat!

Since I pay, in California, approx $ .66 per gallon in State and Federal fees, (second highest to New York), I would welcome an independent audit of the taxes. (1% of net inflows for 1 year) Going into the Feds books as to causes, it appears that the fuel efficiency mandates account for over 30 % of the decline in revenues taken in. Those requirements are to be upped to 50 mpg or so, by 2025, I believe, so if taxed by the gallon, it would still be the same amount/ mile driven. Roads will still deteriorate, no matter what the MPG. Also, as mentioned, the electric vehicle revolution , means no , or relatively fuel taxes taken in. The playing field must be leveled as to use of the roads and their maintenance. Ideas are to tax the tires, GPS systems measuring miles used, complex tables relating weight to fuel efficiency etc. etc. Maybe we should invade Iraq and seize their oil!

A tire tax seems like it would be the replacement that could most easily return to a cost per use philosophy.

Oh, lord. My rear tires only last one year. I get two years out of the fronts.

And I only drive 12,000 miles or less per year. Doesn't sound fair to me.

Buy better tires. ;>)

Define better?

I suspect his tires are among the best for what they are intended but getting 70,000 miles of use is just not a priority.