But it’s not just changing the collection method. Direct tolls incur fewer variables, and don’t cause a raise in taxation demand on fuel due to more efficient fuel usage. A road user would simply pay according to how far they travel, not how much or how little fuel they use.[/quote]
Distance travelled probably won’t correlate very well to system demand/imposed cost.
An HGV has a much greater axle weight, takes up a lot more space, and causes much more structural damage per km, than my Skywing, or a motorcycle does.
This is already (crudely) acknowledged in the different toll rate that HGV’s and buses pay, but I’d bet that fuel consumption allows a much closer correlation with system demand.[/quote]
An unladed lorry/truck/wagon is actually far more destructive than a laden one due to its stiffer springs not managing to absorb its weight impact on the road. The studies I was offered on this subject, quite a few years ago suggested that a typical unladen articulated truck caused roughly the same amount of damage on a given stretch of motorway (U.K.) as around 100,000 cars travelling over the same distance at the same cruising speed.
This was one reason why truck companies were faced with heavy anual road taxes, but yes, again a toll collection method would be necessary for such vehicles, and weight correlation in this case might offer a more accurate guide. I’d have to go back to the studies on this one though to be sure.
And fuel consumption is likely to correlate quite well with vehicle weight, so it’d provide an efficient and economic proxy for it.
It won’t deal with your empty bouncy truck syndrome, but you’re going to need quite sophisticated algorithms and instrumentation to cope well with that one.
Fuel consumption would also correlate with higher acceleration, braking and cornering forces, which seem likely to cause more road wear than steady state cruising.
And fuel consumption is likely to correlate quite well with vehicle weight, so it’d provide an efficient and economic proxy for it.
It won’t deal with your empty bouncy truck syndrome, but you’re going to need quite sophisticated algorithms and instrumentation to cope well with that one.
Fuel consumption would also correlate with higher acceleration, braking and cornering forces, which seem likely to cause more road wear than steady state cruising. [/quote]
In the case of trucks, they are more fuel efficient and provide less revenue in the form of tax, whilst they are doing the most amount of damage.
They do less damage, the more fuel they use due to typically being laden during those circumstances. You don’t need sophisticated algorithms to know this as these studies had been done long ago.
But it’s not just changing the collection method. Direct tolls incur fewer variables, and don’t cause a raise in taxation demand on fuel due to more efficient fuel usage. A road user would simply pay according to how far they travel, not how much or how little fuel they use.[/quote]
You must know that you are fighting a losing argument when you talking about the difference in fuel economy between laden and unladen trucks. The same truck is laden part of the time and unladen part of the time. That’s how it works.
The reason that tolls suck is that a significant portion is lost due to the collection whereas this is almost a non issue with fuel tax. it also sucks to slow down at the collection points. Maybe in the future it will be completely electronically integrated and these two are less of an issue.
[quote=“sulavaca”]In the case of trucks, they are more fuel efficient and provide less revenue in the form of tax, whilst they are doing the most amount of damage.
They do less damage, the more fuel they use due to typically being laden during those circumstances. You don’t need sophisticated algorithms to know this as these studies had been done long ago.
[/quote]
The sophisticated algorithm/instrumentation would be required if you wanted your toll charge to directly reflect the amount of damage done on a given journey. Do try and keep up.
As Abacus points out below, the loaded/unloaded thing will average out anyway.
If you want to charge in direct proportion to the damage done, then the truck toll rate will have to be what, 5,000 times the car rate?
Might be some political/environmental fallout from that, unless the car rate is very, very low.
Trucks don’t use the M6 bypass because they won’t pay, so a damage-based truck rate is likely to force trucks off the motorways on to (currently “free”) surface roads.
Probably more expedient to call it an indirect transport subsidy, such as you, IIRC, got perilously close to advocating above.
Fuel charging would still effectively be a subsidy for trucks, but probably a less massive one than they recieve currently.
Sorry, but that’s not always how it works. You are perhaps assuming that all trucks make one laden trip and return unladen, which may result in a perfect average, but this isn’t true. Truck companies may often especially try to reduce the costs of their operations by keeping their trucks laden as much of the time as possible.
Do trucks travel unladen? Certainly they do, but the number of kilometers a truck travels laden as opposed to unladen will usually vary per truck. The distance a truck travels laden and unladen will generally differ between companies, and even individual trucks. Have you ever seen [quote=Truck scale - Wikipedia]weigh bridges[/quote] before? A truck’s load is often valued by it’s weight. That weight can be deducted from the total weight of the truck, in order to calculate a payment for the product(s) delivered.
To offer a possible quick solution as to how trucks may be tolled with weight as a factor, a simple job might be to attach a fixed level gauge to a truck’s body and axle, which could provide a quick reference as to the laden weight of a truck. This could be referenced when passing through a manual toll for example, the same gauge might initiate a signal in the case it is either underweight or overweight in the case of a digital toll.
“Fighting a loosing argument” would seem to suggest that you have compelling evidence to the contrary. I believe I have already shown however how fuel usage alone does not simply equate to road surface wear and tear.
To be off topic for a moment, I just realized something about the English expression “fighting a loosing argument.” Surely if you are fighting a loosing argument, then you are winning are you not? Fighting with a loosing argument, would seem to suggest that the fight is un-winnable. Hmmm. Why do we use this expression in this manner?
Yes, private enterprises are FAR more efficient than government, overall. They make mistakes, but then they fall on their own swords. The present system however encourages big business to make cockups because the governments are there to stuff them full of taxpayer’s money when they don’t work out.[/quote]
In the (last, but probably not as in final) Great Depression, private enterprise didn’t just “fall on thier own swords”. EVERYONE fell on thier swords. Eventually, people were beating thier ploughshares into swords all over the world, just so they could fall (or be pushed) on them.
So you’re saying that private enterprise is the dogs bollocks, but sometimes it disappears up its own arsehole and needs a government enema in the form of handouts (which you strongly disapprove of) or a global war to fix it.
You probably strongly disapprove of global war too, (unless it could somehow be privatised, robber-baron stylee.)
Or trucks could simply be charged based on loading and distance travelled. I have been keeping up as this was my suggestion.
Please read above. Regardless of the average fuel consumption of a truck, less fuel consumed results in a higher degree of road damage. Are you still trying to suggest that a lower tax to trucks is necessary when they consume less fuel and create more damage? That doesn’t seem like an effective method at all to me. In fact, quite the opposite.
As you say, it is impossible to determine the exact amount of damage done, and I haven’t suggested that we use any complicated algorithms in order to conduct a basic road tax. Its a given that such vehicles as tanks and trucks create more damage to the road than cars. It should then be a given that these types of vehicles must be charged their fare share for road usage. I think that there is a distinct enough difference between an articulated truck and a five door passenger car for example. If I were a road construction company and toll collector, then I would charge my customers according to their demand, the same way in which most products are charged. You can suppose what that rate might be, but it depends largely on the companies which would be maintaining the road.
As a car owner, do I want to be subsidizing trucks for their road usage? Well I subsidize them anyway whenever I purchase a product which was transported by a truck. This is how direct subsidization works.
Well calculating costs per vehicle, per distance travelled only passes on the cost of road building and maintenance to the motorist. If that discourages some motorists from driving, then so be it, but subsidizing roads through indirect taxes is only creating or supporting a less efficient and direct form of taxation. This method does not reward fuel efficiency, and does not reward trucking companies who use more efective routes and transportation plans.
Trucks might not use the M6 simply because not all roads have tolls, so they can use other roads free of charge. In some cases, using a less direct route which costs more fuel may offset the cost of the toll. Public roads however are not directly subsidized proportionately by trucking companies. This is why it’s cheaper for trucks to destroy them and then have the rest of the public pay for it.
I have experienced first hand the devastating effect of a trucking company’s operations on a small public road as I used to live next to one, both before and after they started operations.
We used to have a road which didn’t cause our cars to tram and require early suspension replacement. The local council couldn’t repair the stretch of road often enough because they didn’t have the budget.
Yes, private enterprises are FAR more efficient than government, overall. They make mistakes, but then they fall on their own swords. The present system however encourages big business to make cockups because the governments are there to stuff them full of taxpayer’s money when they don’t work out.[/quote]
In the (last, but probably not as in final) Great Depression, private enterprise didn’t just “fall on their own swords”. EVERYONE fell on their swords. Eventually, people were beating their ploughshares into swords all over the world, just so they could fall (or be pushed) on them.
So you’re saying that private enterprise is the dogs bollocks, but sometimes it disappears up its own arsehole and needs a government enema in the form of handouts (which you strongly disapprove of) or a global war to fix it.
You probably strongly disapprove of global war too, (unless it could somehow be privatised, robber-baron stylee.)
Theres no pleasing some people.[/quote]
The last American great depression was not caused by a failing free market. In fact it was the opposite way around. It was government who was responsible through allowing the Federal Reserve to stifle the money supply and thus kill the free market. Under a free market gold standard this would not have happened.
In this recent depression, the government are producing I.O.U.s in the form of bonds to the Fed and China. This debt is purchased and the result is a fresh round of money supply in the form of U.S. bills to the world. This reduces the value of each currency unit and the result is inflation. Why do the big businesses demand bailouts from government? Because they can. Should they? No. It’s not the government’s job to run the economy. Government isn’t a business, and should never be one. It’s only the government’s job to apply the constitution and the laws of the land, not create their own zombie market which is bought and paid for by taxpayers, regardless of their interests.
In the free market, a service or product is paid for according to demand. Typically in a free market the cost of products and services are reduced to the consumer as competing companies endeavor to produce a product or service which is superior in function or price over their competitor.
Why did the U.S. suffer a housing market bubble, and resulting price collapse and looming debt default? Because they had Fanny and Freddy. Government money backing institutions. The government eliminated the free market. They provided public coffers to the private sector. A cookie jar with an endless supply of free cookies.
ICRT aired an info-commercial this evening, presented in English by the CEO or similar of the ETC Empire announcing … Yes, the “Pay per distance” approach which will come in effect in 2013 somewhere.
A bit late - as always here- but at least a fair system. Use more, pay more.
Now, let’s await numbers on next year congestion on the tollfreeways - and potential increase of accidents , being the downside as (some) Taiwanese tend to be the Dutch among the Asians ( a Dutch guy confessed)
[quote=“ceevee369”]Time for an important announcement:
ICRT aired an info-commercial this evening, presented in English by the CEO or similar of the ETC Empire announcing … Yes, the “Pay per distance” approach which will come in effect in 2013 somewhere.
A bit late - as always here- but at least a fair system. Use more, pay more.
Now, let’s await numbers on next year congestion on the tollfreeways - and potential increase of accidents , being the downside as (some) Taiwanese tend to be the Dutch among the Asians ( a Dutch guy confessed)[/quote]
Not sure I understand what “Pay per distance” approach means in this context, but I assume it means all road travel will be monitored (by an in-car device?) and charged per kilometer.
If so, then I suppose that’s fair (though equivalent fairness could be achieved more simply by a fuel tax, see above).
What bothers me is not fairness/unfairness, its intrusion (because unecessary and pervasive monitoring is involved. That kind of thing should ALWAYS be opposed.) and expense (because I’m skeptical that the tax-take will be kept constant by scrapping car taxes, for example).
In personal terms, IF there are any compensatory fixed-tax reductions, and IF I don’t have to pay for their spy-in-the-cab, its likely to benefit me, because I do very low miles.
Nothing so complicated. Usually, you pick a ticket in the first booth when you enter the highway and you keep it. Then when you exit the highway, you return the ticket, they calculate how many distance you travelled, and they charge you for it.
The vehicles with an automated paying system don’t have to do anything, the system already is able to track them and charge them.
We’ve had this toll system in Catalonia for years, and it works. Just don’t count on the tax deductions, there won’t be any. The government is all about earning, and that’s it.
Nothing so complicated. Usually, you pick a ticket in the first booth when you enter the highway and you keep it. Then when you exit the highway, you return the ticket, they calculate how many distance you travelled, and they charge you for it.
The vehicles with an automated paying system don’t have to do anything, the system already is able to track them and charge them.
We’ve had this toll system in Catalonia for years, and it works. Just don’t count on the tax deductions, there won’t be any. The government is all about earning, and that’s it.[/quote]
That’s not much different to the existing system, except that (taking your explanation at face value) there’d have to be a booth at every exit, increasing costs and delays significantly.
Don’t think that’s what the poster I was responding to meant, though, since he was assuming increased freeway traffic. That seems to imply ALL road mileage becomes directly charged.
That’s how it works, with a booth at every exit. But there aren’t many delays, really… unless EVERYONE tries to exit at the same place. And probably there will be more automated pay adopters, if they really want to go faster.
The bottom line is… those who pick the highways will end up paying more than they do now. That’s how it works.
Ain’t place for a booth at every exit like done in France and Spain. That would require a lot of tight timelined investment which is not in the plans from the transportation yuan my colleagues told me.
Somewhere above is a picture of the drive thru ETC bridges, which are the same as on the SYS highway now.
But I have no clue how they will find a solution for non ETC sticker equipped cars
"per entry to distance " is the right term. Not a
Not a lot of info but the “advertising” of audio-visual equipment enjoyment in-car sounds scary…
Dodd they really promote ETC by saying you can continue watching your Digital TV or DVD , not needing to stop at a booth?
Or am I missing something?
Anyone heard when the “per km” charging will start? Supposed to be 2013 I think, but haven’t seen any sign of the infrastructure going up at entrances / exits.
As long as the government is involved it isn’t going to be a pay per distance charge at all.
It won’t be fair at all.
The reason?
Drivers on infrequently travelled routes would then start complaining that those routes to be charged fairly, would be charged at many times the price of more frequently travelled routes. This is exactly what happened with the U.S. railways back in the day.
In this case, the government are still going to subsidise routes less travelled with the money from routes more travelled.
I will eat my hair if I’m wrong on this. It’s just going to tax some people more to cover the costs of others.
I will still prefer the day that we have private companies run roads and ACTUALLY charge people for what they use. It will be more efficient, and fairer.
Why do we use this expression in this manner?
