Featured EV road tax fees

trucking lobby is very powerful.

 

Agree that some variant of odometer reading is probably the best approach.

One of several possibilities to do this that didn't get mentioned are state weigh stations. Here in California, there are plenty of Caltrans weigh stations. They could be one of several options for a quick drive in/out check and never have to get out of the vehicle. The existing agents could quickly verify mileage, VIN, plates, upload the data to the DMV for payment at the drivers convenience, and you're back on the road.

Benefits:
-small cost to manage program
-small increase in government labor force
-requires very little change in infrastructure
-no GPS tracking expenses or privacy issues
-accurately captures economic costs

Other thoughts:
-it's not a perfect system for those who spend many interstate miles, so mileage should probably be charged to the state the vehicle is registered in; if most states do this, it's not a big problem

 

One of the slides from the link, "When discussing road wear cars don't matter: road damage is effectively caused by trucks."

Now, cars need to kick into the kitty because they do benefit from having roads, and shifting all the cost to trucks would just result in everyone paying for the roads through increased prices on goods. I include pick ups, vans, and SUVs up to the 1500 class with cars. These are mostly not carrying heavy loads, but just a single person. Like most actual cars, and some actual cars weight more than an SUV. I'd put them all into one category to keep the tax simple.

I don't know much about the trucking industry, but I think it might not need a per mile tax. Discussions about per mile taxes is because there is a growing number of cars that can't be taxed for road use through fuel use. That isn't the case in regards to commercial trucks yet. There is also few high efficiency types, like hybrids, on the roads. Even with efficiency improvements, these trucks still use a lot of fuel.

If fuel taxes are kept in place when a per mile tax is introduced, then tractor trailers could continue paying road use taxes through fuel taxes. For local trucks, it becomes a question of how many BEV ones are out there.

 

This make a lot of sense also because roads have finite lifespans regardless of any vehicle traffic. Those who put more miles on roads get proportionately more utility from them. This would be captured in the total mileage factor of a road tax.

Economically, matching the negative externality to the source would be optimal. Tax payers already pay for it in a more generalized way. While the price of goods would likely go up, this should be matched by a decrease in taxes elsewhere that currently pay to build and maintain roads. A phase in period would be appropriate to prevent shocks.

I agree with Viton (Ohio State data) that “public policy should provide incentives for truckers to distribute their loads over as many axles as possible, and to use tandem axles.” This would save heavy truckers significantly on a proportional road tax weight component compared to maintaining a low axle, low tandem situation.

I would not get rid of the weight factor on commuter vehiles, however. As you mentioned in the Timmers and Achten (2016) paper, there are significant PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with resuspension and they claim this is directly and linearly related to the weight of the vehicle.

I see a road tax as a way to tax negative externalities directly or closely related to road use. A fuel tax should continue as it can accurately and efficiently tax the negative externalities of fossil fuel emissions. EVs have none at their non-existent tail pipe, so would pay a road tax as ICE vehicles would.

The additional of a road tax can capture the negative externalities of the costs to build the road, the significant emissions of building the road itself, the costs to repair/resurface the road, but also the PM emissions from resuspension, tire wear, and brake wear. PM is a big deal in cities and especially in places with inversion layer trapping like here in California.

Agree that if we are looking at the weight factor, and go just on road damage from weight, commuter vehicles would probably pay no more than a few dollar per year from this component. Heavy trucks of course, would pay many thousands. Although, for comparison, consider that the average commercial truck already spends ~$50k/yr in fuel. The Real Cost of Trucking - Per Mile Operating Cost of a Commercial Truck - TruckersReport.com.

But as pointed out by Timmers and Achten, we still have to consider the resuspension part of weight and this is not captured in a fuel tax. For this reason, I think commuter vehicle weight should be a significant factor in a road tax, at least as PM is concerned. Based on Timmers and Achten, a 6k pound vehicle should be charged double that of a 3k pound vehicle for the resuspension component and probable a little more for the excess tire wear.

I therefore favor not lumping together all commuter vehicles as being in the same weight class and think society stands to gain from transportation and environmental efficiency gains by encouraging commuters and truckers to choose the right vehicle for the job.

 

The link of the resuspension of road dust and weight is from field measurements, and doesn't account for the aerodynamics of the vehicles. Of the general vehicle population, heavier vehicles have worse aerodynamics. This results in more turbulent wakes, which is the force causing the resuspension. The Model S and X are heavy cars, but their cleaner wakes means they will resuspend less dust than other cars of their weight.

If you want a tax to factor in the increased resuspension emissions, CdA is probably the metric to use. I don't know if this has been studied though.

My call for ignoring weight is really to avoid playing political favorites. Truck registration is higher in cost than car one in Pennsylvania, and vehicle weight is sited has the reason. Our Ranger weighed about the same as the Prius, but it cost more to register, because it was a truck. Loaded to its max gross weight, it was still lighter than a Tahoe. The Tahoe registered as a car for the lower fee, because Pa called it a station wagon.

 

CdA intuitively seems like it would be a significant factor, especially at high speeds, and usually is correlated to vehicle weight, but certainly there are exceptions as you note.

After you previously posted the resuspension link, I recalled an interesting resuspension phenomenon at our local park. The park has a dirt parking lot that has not been paved and vehicles typically transverse it around 5mph. One of the reasons the article caught my attention was that I notice the heavier vehicles kick up a lot more dust from the tires (not wake). Not just the worst big utility trucks that are sometimes there, but heavier weight vehicles like big SUVs and trucks.

Not sure this is directly related to the vehicles weight or indirectly from the larger tire contact patch. But there must be something to the vehicles weight also.

Will have to keep my eyes out for any Teslas to see if lower CdA but heavier vehicles are doing this too.

 

I expect the larger tire patch plays a part, but trucks and SUVs also have more ground clearance. That could lead to more turbulent airflow underneath to stir up dust. The higher stance also means more of the wheel is directly in the air stream, and larger wake for the wheel could occur.

Too bad EPA grants have been stopped.