Makes a bit more sense than charging by how efficient it is at burning gas. Costs should be skewed so that commercial operators who are causing 99% of the road damage, are paying to fix it; not passenger/commuter vehicles that weigh <10,000lbs.
The problem with that is it becomes a regressive tax that impacts the price of all goods transported by truck and raises the prices of basic necessities.
I think the suggestion I saw that all road maintenance should be paid from the general fund makes the most sense.
further disincentives to having more than 2 kids.
further inceitive for rich people to buy bigger cars, as they will be bigger status symbols for those with the write offs.
I used to drive a 1996 VW Passat. If I drove reasonably on the highway, I could average about 57 mpg per tank. I thought that was great, so my next car was a 2006 VW Jetta. That car only got 40 mpg at its best, but that was pretty good comparatively, so I accepted it. The newer TDIs were rated even lower, and then mostly went away, so I got a Honda. It only gets 23 mpg. Each of these cars has also been shorter between maintenance cycles, and with a shorter overall expected lifespan. I don't know what's going on with the regulatory landscape that cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and less efficient (by mile), but it seems like there's plenty of room for improvement. The fact that this is proposed by automakers, though, makes me extremely skeptical.
wouldn't miles driven matter as well? i could drive under 5k miles a year but pay more because my car weighs more then my neighbor who drives 20k miles a year and lets say he has a lighter weight car...
6 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 23.9 ms ] threadI think the suggestion I saw that all road maintenance should be paid from the general fund makes the most sense.