SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pat Garofalo writes in an op-ed in US News & World Report that with the recent drop in oil prices, there's something policymakers can do that will offset at least some of the negative effects of the currently low prices, while also removing a constant thorn in the side of American transportation and infrastructure policy: Raise the gas tax. The current 18.4 cent per gallon [federal] gas tax has not been raised since 1993, making it about 11 cents per gallon today, in constant dollars. Plus, as fuel efficiency has gotten better and Americans have started driving less, the tax has naturally raised less revenue anyway. And that's a problem because the tax fills the Highway Trust Fund, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, broke so that in recent years Congress has had to patch it time and time again to fill the gap. According to the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman, if Congress doesn't make a move, "it will fumble one of those rare opportunities when the economic and policy stars align almost perfectly." The increase can be phased in slowly, a few cents per month, perhaps, so that the price of gas doesn't jump overnight. When prices eventually do creep back up thanks to economic factors, hopefully the tax will hardly be noticed.
Consumers are already starting to buy the sort of gas-guzzling vehicles, including Hummers, that had been going out of style as gas prices rose; that's bad for both the environment and consumers, because gas prices are inevitably going to increase again. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, taxes last year, even before the current drop in prices, made up 12 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, down from 28 percent in 2000. And compared to other developed countries, US gas taxes are pretty much a joke. While we're at it, an even better idea, as a recent report from the Urban Institute makes clear, would be indexing the gas tax to inflation (pdf), so this problem doesn't consistently arise. "The status quo simply isn't sustainable, from an infrastructure or environmental perspective," concludes Garofalo. "So raise the gas tax now; someday down the line, it will look like a brilliant move."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by emg on Thursday November 13 2014, @11:53PM
The vast majority of wear and tear on the roads comes from trucks, not cars. This is obvious to anyone of clue, since road wear increases with the fourth power of vehicle weight, and trucks weigh a heck of a lot more than cars.
Or you could just look at those deep ruts in the roads that are right about the same width as a big truck's wheelbase.
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @12:11AM
> The vast majority of wear and tear on the roads comes from trucks, not cars. This is obvious to anyone of clue
Are you arguing that the number of trucks has not increased proportionally to the number of cars on the road?
Or is it that you are just not someone of clue?
(Score: 1) by Paradise Pete on Friday November 14 2014, @01:12AM
Why would it necessarily be proportional? More individuals owning cars doesn't, by itself, create a proportional demand for large trucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @01:54AM
Unless there has been a significant increase in vehicles per capita (currently the same as it was circa 1998) it is to be expected that the number of trucks would increase in proportion to the number of cars since trucks are primarily used to service the commercial need of the population.
Of course what really matters isn't the number of vehicles, it is the number of miles driven. The number of miles driven in personal vehicles has dropped significantly since roughly 2010 but the population has not. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the proportion of truck-miles driven has increased relative to the number of the car-miles driven, making highway repairs even more underfunded.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @02:55AM
it is to be expected that the number of trucks would increase in proportion to the number of cars since trucks are primarily used to service the commercial need of the population.
Ok, there's two obvious problems here. First, your expectations aren't relevant. Second, even if your opinion was completely correct, that still doesn't explain why the US should increase its gasoline tax (much less have one in the first place). After all, since the "expectation" is proportional to the population, then why not have the gas tax per person rather than per gallon?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @03:03AM
> First, your expectations aren't relevant.
Fuck your bullshit. Prove the expectation wrong or at least offer reasoning why it should be wrong. Empty snark is for assholes who prefer invective over thought.
> After all, since the "expectation" is proportional to the population, then why not have the gas tax per person rather than per gallon?
Yeah we should just tax people directly and forget about a usage-based tax for using up resource.
With logic like that you can't be older than 14 years old.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @05:08AM
Prove the expectation wrong or at least offer reasoning why it should be wrong.
Don't care. It's not my expectation nor, even if true, is it relevant to the subject.
Yeah we should just tax people directly and forget about a usage-based tax for using up resource.
A fuel tax is not a usage tax either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:14AM
> Don't care. It's not my expectation nor, even if true, is it relevant to the subject.
What a pissy little fucktard you are. Yes, the fact that trucks beat roads more than cars do and that there is every reason to believe that the number of trucks on the road has increased at the same rate as the number of cars on the road has nothing to do with the topic. I am totally the one who brought trucks in the first place here. Just some random bullshit I felt like throwing out there to distract us from the callow wisdom of a 14-year old assburger.
> A fuel tax is not a usage tax either.
Assburger for the lose! Unless you plan on drinking that fuel it is effectively usage tax.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @05:32AM
Yes, the fact that trucks beat roads more than cars do
[...]
Unless you plan on drinking that fuel it is effectively usage tax.
Your whole argument was that taxes pay for road use, particularly, road maintenance. You also grant that "trucks beat roads more". Fuel taxes don't address that maintenance-focused usage and hence, aren't usage taxes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @07:35AM
(Score: 1) by Gertlex on Friday November 14 2014, @12:26AM
Fair point. I was musing that the increased wait of consumer vehicles would equal more wear, but that effect is probably small, relative.
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday November 14 2014, @10:29AM
Google for ``road wear relation to vehicle weight''
"""
1.
Vehicle Weight and Road Damage - Virginia Bicycling Federation
www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/
* Cached
* Similar
2 Dec 2009 ... According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive ... the wear
and tear on roads is related to the 4th power of the relative loads.
"""
Sounds like an appropriate reference, yay! Now let's go read it...
"""
Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars (p.23 of study, p.36 of PDF).
The study assumed a fully loaded tractor-trailer at 80,000 pounds, and a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds. That’s 20 times difference in weight, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater.
"""
Which throws up warning signs. As anyone even vaguely numerate knows, the the 4th power of 20 is 160000. And 9600 != 160000, that's more than an order of magnitude out. Which puts me into adversarial mode, I don't trust them with numbers. In which case I have to also point out the "exponentially greater" which in the hands of the innumerate means "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, I just want to frighten you into believing my bullshit".
I'll now go and follow the link to the actual report, and see how badly the Virginia Bullshitting^WBicycling Federation have misreported it.
Note - I've only ever been a 2-wheeled road user, I am not anti-bicyclist, I'm anti-innumeracy and anti-bullshit.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday November 14 2014, @01:54PM
From the linked PDF:
"""
The American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials reported that concentrating large amounts of weight on a single axle multiplies the impact of the weight exponentially.
"""
Fuuuuuck. The stupid runs deep. Then again, this isn't the primary source, this is a document from a biased party who wants to influence the law-makers. So no better than a lobbyist. And therefore to be expected to be propagating innumerate bullshit.
Later:
"""
... five-axle tractor-trailer ... 80,000-pound gross weight limit. [snip loads] Engineering data shows that a five-axle tractor-trailer loaded to the federal weight limits causes as much pavement damage as at least 9600 automobiles.
"""
So that's the origin of the 9600 figure, "Engineering data". No citation provided.
Also:
"""
Although the damage resulting from heavy and overweight trucks cannot be precisely quantified, engineering data [yes, him again] shows that it is extensive. The impact of weight on highways is shown by the effects of the 1975 increases in truck weight limits, which shortened the serviceable life of highways and bridges and ...
"""
*BUT* earlier:
"""
The recent severe winters of 1976-77 and 1977-78 caused unusually high damage
"""
So the 1975 increase in truck weight limits might not be the thing most responsible for the damage.
At least on page 23 they explain the logic behind the 9600, which isn't so far off the 4th power law - because the 20x weight is distributed over 2.5x as many axles. I calculate 11100, given their figures, which is close enough. On that page they also indicate that the report (not scientific study, just report) justifying the "exponential" growth in damage comes from 1962. I'm pretty sure back than that there was far more rail haulage back in those days, and the roads wouldn't have been designed for so much road haulage.
However, there's more bullshitting on page 24, where their graph supposedly shows "exponentially" increasing damage. However, the bars are for 5, 10, and 20 axles. They're showing linear increase, you've just chosen numbers of axles that grow exponentially.
I freaking hate policy papers. I've never encountered a policy paper that wasn't written to deceive. If I read any more, I'm going to be shouting at the screen!
ARGH!!! Page 27
ARGH!!!! Page 30
Stop, Phil, STAAAAHHP!!!!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Jtmach on Friday November 14 2014, @02:35PM
No mod points, currently. So, thank you for taking the time to research and post. It was very interesting.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 15 2014, @01:12AM
I wanted to know, I had to delve. Alas, I still haven't found the root of the 4th power law claim. I'm not denying it, I just want facts. However, the fact that I've traced things back to 1962 and still not found an original source is worrying.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by carguy on Saturday November 15 2014, @02:04AM
for FatPhil -- here is a bibliography that will get you started into the engineering research on road damage,
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~djc13/vehicledynamics/proj8.html [cam.ac.uk]
If you are into road design/construction or suspension design, there is a lot of interesting reading here.
I've read papers (don't remember which ones now) that even claim the damage is proportional to axle-load^5 (!!) A lot depends on the details of the truck and suspension. For example, a suspension that lets the tires & axle bounce up and down (poorly damped) after hitting a bump, then delivers a number of "hammer blows" (speaking colloquially) to the road.
There are test centers where known pavement constructions are worn out in reasonably controlled (and accelerated) experiments, here is one in USA, there are others around the world,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/labs/pavement/ [dot.gov]
The test wheels/tires go back and forth, 24/7 while the test pavement is observed.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 15 2014, @09:38AM
Dear mods - give carguy mod-points NOW!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by carguy on Saturday November 15 2014, @02:52PM
For your cobbled roads, a lot probably depends on the base material under the road, how thick and how well packed/tamped. One thing that is almost guaranteed -- if you limit the truck traffic to very low speeds (guessing 15-20 mph?) then suspension dynamics will be minimal. At low speed, the road damage will come from simple static loading and unloading of each stone/brick as each tire passes over. You could even make some slo-mo video (high frame rate) of trucks at higher speeds, to show how the tires bounce and slam into the road--might be useful at a town board meeting?
No mod points (yet), but don't really need them.
I bill by the hour too, but keeping the neighborhood nice also rates pretty high on my list.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 14 2014, @06:26PM
Which is why trucks pay a Heavy Vehicle Use Tax -- based on weight -- in addition to the fuel tax.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm [dot.gov]