How to fund roads and ensure electric vehicles pay their share

January 4, 2019 by Stephen Kulieke, UC Davis
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Since electric vehicles use no gasoline, their drivers pay no gasoline tax. And as more people drive EVs, gas-tax revenue for road repairs is dwindling. So how can California and the rest of the country avoid road-funding shortfalls and ensure that EV drivers pay their share of needed repairs?

A research report submitted to the California Legislature this week by the University of California, Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies proposes an : Switch EVs to a mileage fee while continuing to have gasoline-powered cars pay gasoline taxes.

Gas tax or mileage fee?

Many states, including California, have opted for the easy way out—charging an extra registration fee for . But that is not a sustainable or effective solution, according to report author Alan Jenn, a UC Davis research scientist with the Plug-In Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center.

"The California zero-emissions vehicle registration fee doesn't support the long-run funding of transportation infrastructure, nor is it equitable for drivers of electric and hydrogen vehicles," said Jenn.

Others argue that the gas tax must be replaced by a mileage-based fee as soon as possible to avert increasing shortfalls in road funding. But switching from the gas tax to a mileage fee would be technically and administratively difficult.

"California now has the opportunity to support alternative funding mechanisms," Jenn said. "Our study finds that a per-mile road charge, designed specifically for zero-emission vehicles, is a relatively low-cost and to funding our roads."

The proposed transition is expected to cost less, be easier to administer and provide a smooth transition away from gas taxes. The report concluded that a mileage-based user charge would be the easiest and least costly way of addressing the long-term decline of gas taxes.

The report, "Assessing Alternatives to California's Electric Vehicle Registration Fee," was requested by the California Legislature.

Explore further: Study shows tax on plug-in vehicles is not answer to road-funding woes

Related Stories

Why you should—and shouldn't—buy an electric car

February 21, 2018

California was on track to meet Gov. Jerry Brown's initial goal for putting 1.5 million environmentally friendly vehicles on the road by 2025, a new report says, but then Brown upped the target.

Recommended for you

Privacy becomes a selling point at tech show

January 7, 2019

Apple is not among the exhibitors at the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show, but that didn't prevent the iPhone maker from sending a message to attendees on a large billboard.

China's Huawei unveils chip for global big data market

January 7, 2019

Huawei Technologies Ltd. showed off a new processor chip for data centers and cloud computing Monday, expanding into new and growing markets despite Western warnings the company might be a security risk.

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2019
No science in this article. The oil industry wants to hurt electric vehicle (EV) sales and use as much as possible to keep making their dirty money, including finding sneaky ways to increase costs for EV owners cloaked in fairness arguments. By the way, have you ever noticed Republicans only make fairness arguments that ultimately favor their donors like the Koch Brothers and the oil industry?

At least a couple fatal flaws with their conclusion. First, why should EV owners contribute to tax subsidies to the oil industry if they are not using their oil? As an EV owner I want a tax credit for my share of the billions or trillions of dollars worth of tax breaks the oil industry gets worldwide.

https://en.wikipe...ubsidies

Second, scientists and others have determined that we have this a big problem called Global Warming. Owners of electric vehicles deserve a BIG TAX CREDIT for every mile they drive without producing greenhouse gases.
carbon_unit
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2019
The fossil fuel industry should not get ANY tax credits/subsidies, period. That's a separate issue from how EVs should pay for road infrastructure. A tax as a function of mileage and maybe vehicle weight seems reasonable. I hope this doesn't evolve into something like intrusive monitoring though.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2019
That's a separate issue from how EVs should pay for road infrastructure.


As Benjamin Martin said in the movie, The Patriot, "I consider them to be linked."

The author here wants us to believe that EV owners should pay additional road taxes as a matter of fairness, but the author ignores there is zero fairness in EV owners paying income taxes and other taxes to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, not to mention the taxes that go to defense expenditures to protect foreign fossil fuels. Instead of diverting my income tax and other taxes to pay the Koch Brothers and Exxon, how about diverting it to pay for roads instead?

You need to stop being so naive. This is all about who wins and who loses and has zero to do with what is fair. If it was about fairness, then all aspects would be taken into account, including the fact that we a facing an ecological catastrophe that EVs mitigate and ICE vehicles aggravate.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2019
Mileage taxes are a death to privacy, because they require online tracking of where each vehicle is traveling to avoid cheaters rolling back their meters.

There won't be effective monitoring of who uses the data and for what purpose, since the authority that could check the state for abuse is the state itself. The people subjected to such surveillance cannot opt out or change providers if they find the state data privacy policy lacking.

Equally well, the system would be trivial to hack: just clip the antenna off. Okay, then you need to get online authorization to even start the car... and you know how that ends.

And, the taxes collected off of fuel and vehicles aren't earmarked for the road maintenance budget - they're typically used for anything but! Cars are just the governments' cash cow.
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2019
Besides, the heavier commercial vehicles tear up the roads disproportionately anyhow, since the relationship between road wear and axle load is non-linear. The heavy goods transports are actually causing much of the wear, but they pay little of the taxes because the businesses can write them off if they pay any in the first place.

So the heavy taxation on private cars is largely misplaced and misused. The system simply isn't doing what it says it is doing. The debate shouldn't be whether electric cars should be taxed, but rather whether any cars should be taxed by mileage or fuel - if you want to raise money for maintaining the road infrastructure, raise it from the property and business owners who need the infrastructure for access. They're the reason why the cars are on the roads in the first place.

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2019
Well, we did for a while. They were doin' OK. But then they looked at all that money they were "wasting" and went and bought some Senators.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2019
Californicate's new dilemma. Have they tried putting a state tax on marijuana usage? Now there's a huge source of revenue.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2019
By far, the greatest subsidy from the US Taxpayers to the Carbon Industries ate through the global distribution of American Military Forces & Covert Operations to protect the world-wide-web of Carbon conglomerates from recalcitrant natives.

Who have this silly idea that their native resources should somehow benefit the native peoples.
What rubbish!

That is most definitely "Not The American Way".
They damn well better get use to eating the scraps that fall from our dinner tables.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2019
Mark Thomas before you go crying about "Unfair Subsidies" to the oil and gas companies remember these companies pay huge income taxes to the federal government. Please show me where wind and solar projects pay any income taxes at all. Show me where Tesla pays any income tax.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jan 06, 2019
I'd be OK with a mileage based tax. We have a word for this (Verursacherprinzip) which not-very-correctly translates to "polluter's principle".
It basically means: The one who does the damage should pay for the damage. So if you drive more - and thereby cause more road degradation - you should pay more.

While it's probably easier to tax by weight I think it's perfectly doable to also include distance in countries that have mandatory technical checkups (e.g. in germany we have a biannual mandatory technical checkup and emissions test of our cars at which time the odometer could be read)
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2019
MR166, before you go crying about the "huge income taxes" the oil and gas companies pay, show me where they are doing something about the massive damage their products are causing other than trying to cover it up and confuse the uneducated with half truths and lies.

Oil is a big business whose purpose is to make profit, nothing more. We can only trust them to do what benefits them the most and expect nothing more. So of course they are going to do everything they can to keep selling their products, no matter how much damage is occurring.

You have to live is this world too, MR166, maybe it is time for you to wake up to what is happening.
Mark Thomas
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2019
AAP, verursacherprinzip sounds fair. I will start paying a few dollars for every 1,000 miles I drive to offset the damage done riding around in a car once the oil industry undoes at least a half century of damage they have knowingly done to Earth's climate. However, I won't be holding my breath for this to occur.
Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2019
I realize these issues can be complicated, but here is how to see through the web of lies . . . ALWAYS ASK WHO ULTIMATELY BENEFITS AND HOW MUCH. Here the oil industry is doing everything they can to slow EVs, like eliminating incentives and adding road taxes. These proposals have nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with oil company profits.

http://www.pressr...ric-cars

From the link below, I understand the oil industry bought and paid for a Senator from Wyoming, i.e., John Barrasso was a top 5 recipient and got $426,150 in 2017-2018, In return, Barrasso submitted a bill to end EV subsidies. Again, this has NOTHING to do with fairness and everything to do with oil profit. The hypocrites even had language in the bill about not supporting a mature industry like EVs (not true) and ignore the massive support the very mature oil industry receives.

https://www.opens...hp?ind=E
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2019
MR166, before you go crying about the "huge income taxes" the oil and gas companies pay,

Pay? Companies like Exxon have entire years where they just pay negative(!) tax. E.g. Exxon paid negative tax from 2008 through 2010. In Australia it looks like they paid -5% last year. Yes. That's NEGATIVE 5%.
I dunno about you, but that's a taxrate I'd like to see once in a while (I pay 42% which is maximum.)
https://grist.fil...port.pdf
Now another word for 'negative tax' is: huge subsidy via taxpayer money.

In total gas/oil companies received welfare to the tune of 24bn$ (counting taxes they SHOULD have paid and the additional handouts by the taxpayer to them over and abovet that)

If that isn't a 'subsidy' then i don't know what is. And that for a business type which has beeen around for well over a century. If they still can't survive without subsidies then the oil/gas business model maybe isn't so hot?
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2019
We should also consider "why" there should be Public Funding for roads & bridges & public transit & other Public Interest infrastructure.

Selfish, self-serving reasons.

You & all your neighbors want to travel, where ever you want, when ever you want.
You want the paramedics & the firetrucks to be able to reach your home for emergencies.
You want your PO, UPS, FedEx deliveries, direct to your door & on time.

You want food delivered to your grocery store & parts to your mechanic. & you damn well want those today!

Now lets see the cravenly excuses from denierbots against our expectations.
Mark Thomas
not rated yet Jan 06, 2019
NEGATIVE 5%. . . . I dunno about you, but that's a taxrate I'd like to see once in a while

Me too! Heck, I would be thrilled to pay a positive 5%. Of course they do pay substantial sums to buy off politicians to get deals like that. So the oil companies with negative tax rates are concerned about me paying road taxes. The legal doctrine of "unclean hands" or the principles behind it appear to be in play here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2019
Soon enough all cars will be connected to the internet of things and owners can be taxed directly and immediately for mileage, tire wear, excessive speeding. Travel on various routes can also be taxed automatically as the toll roads are now.

This will be more inevitable when cars begin driving themselves. Ownership and leasing will be passe. Vehicles eventually will become entities into themselves, be paid for their work much the same as humans are now, and will be paying income tax, directly and immediately, to replace revenues lost from the dwindling human workforce. They can also pay for their own storage, upkeep, and recycling.

Dont believe me?

"Bill Gates, who said in an interview with Quartz: "Right now if a human worker does $50,000 worth of work in a factory that income is taxed. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you'd think we'd tax the robot at a similar level."

Cheating and mistakes and loopholes will disappear. Revenues will soar.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
ALWAYS ASK WHO ULTIMATELY BENEFITS AND HOW MUCH


Good point. So I ask myself who benefits more, The oil industry with the few hundred dollars I spend directly and indirectly that makes its way to their pockets, or my family and I?

Don't for a moment think that I am an apologist for BIG OIL, I want it gone as much as anyone can, but I am afflicted with a fairness gene which nags at me like the conscience characters in the cartoons.

Sure, the oil industry rakes in the money, but among the things in return I get bananas and oranges in the winter, escape to warm resorts from the ice and snow, rapid response in case of emergency, any type of food I crave at any season of the year. It's quite likely that most of us would not even exist if it were not for the lifestyles made possible by the access to energy by our parents, grand-parents, great-grand-parents, etc.

cont.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
cont.

As always, there are trade-offs and the worst is pollution that causes health damage and many kinds of damage to the environment.

However, we now have what our parents did not have as little as thirty years ago: access to renewable energy and the ability to store energy. We now have technology that allows us to migrate to renewable energy for our homes and our cars and trucks.

But while we are not yet advanced enough to use renewables for aircraft or for ocean freight or even for agriculture field machines, we can use RE for our homes, our cars, our railroads, and for our inter-urban and inter-state trucking.

We have the ability, if not always the will, to make our cities and our highways combustion vehicle free zones. But in order to do that we have to accept that the onus is on us to stop using fossil fuel.

cont.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
cont.

A market needs sellers and buyers. If either is absent, the market ceases to exist.

Thus, for me the answer to the question posed above is that at this stage we all still benefit to some extent from the FF industry. To believe otherwise is either ignorance or denial.

To make FF disappear, we simply must stop using it - make the market disappear. If people won't buy a product, no one will make it.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
how can California and the rest of the country avoid road-funding shortfalls and ensure that EV drivers pay their share of needed repairs?


Step 1. Eliminate the road-tax; replace it with a carbon levy.
Step 2. Raise the annual registration fee.
Step 3. Increase sales tax to compensate for 'lost' road tax.

Discuss -
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
So I ask myself who benefits more . . . The oil industry . . . or my family and I?


So in your mind it all boils down to a few hundred bucks buying oil for conveniences like fruit in winter, but you ignored the looming ecological catastrophe that is unfolding before our eyes. You either don't understand or believe you are insulated enough not to care (or both). You have air conditioning, so screw everyone else, right? Thank goodness you and your family will never have to worry about rising seas, spreading insects like pine beetles, spreading diseases, coral die offs, fires, rapidly intensified hurricanes and killer heat waves. Not to mention decreased crop productivity, loss of water in some locations, floods in others, likely conflicts and wars as people try to move poleward to survive, etc. Yep, you and all your descendants will never have to go outside and are completely immune to what is happening on Earth, right?
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
To make FF disappear, we simply must stop using it - make the market disappear.


Wow, you solved global warming with one comment, you must be a goddamn genius! Yes, it is so so simple. Why could nobody see that before? Thank goodness the oil companies are not doing everything they can to prevent that. Thank goodness everyone else fully understands what is at stake and are trading in their ICE vehicles for electric vehicles. Thank goodness more technology does not have be developed to completely replace fossil fuels. Thank goodness voters don't elect leaders like Trump and believe, "global warming is a Chinese hoax."

Let me help you here, simple in concept does NOT mean simple to achieve in the real world. You also could have written, to permanently end war, we simply need to stop killing each other. At the very best, that is only the beginning of the analysis, not the final conclusion.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2019
A mileage tax is most fair, collected in the yearly license renewals. I have two electric vehicles, and have been worried about this problem of funding roads.

A tax based on weight and mileage is most fair.
Mark Thomas
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
Opioids fueled a doubling of suicides and overdoses in the US


dustywells has a solution for this and here is his formula:

"To make (blank) disappear, we simply must stop using it - make the market disappear." So all these drugs users have to do is simply stop using drugs! Here is the link so dustywells can tell us all how to fix the drug problem too.

https://medicalxp...ses.html
gkam
1.8 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2019
This is not an academic exercise: When others find out the benefits of electric transportation, they will buy EVs as fast as they can make them.

We have to prepare now.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
Cool down, Mark. Your question was: "WHO BENEFITS... " as opposed to "Who is harmed"

Don't jump down my throat because you don't like my answer. Park your bias for a moment and read my entire series of comment. I am as much in favor of cutting off our dependency on oil as anyone, but also recognize that it can not be done 'cold turkey.'

Of course the health of my family is important, perhaps not to you, but it is to me. Without global transportation our grocery stores could only carry seasonal or heavily processed foods and our nutrition would suffer.

As yet, air travel and ocean freight still need oil for their engines. Maybe next year (or at least maybe soon) we can electrify those as well, but right now my family still receiving benefits from the global use of oil for transportation. That answers your question.

cont.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
cont.

Adding that I am consequently culpable for floods, droughts, storms, insect infestations, wildfires, etc. is simply a silly attempt at self aggrandization by shifting your feelings of guilt and helplessness onto me and I refuse to accept your accusation.

If you even glance at history beyond the last twenty-five years, you will find that all the weather extremes existed well before the current propaganda war. Even if you are not religious, you must be aware of the Bible which is a somewhat garbled historic account of floods, droughts, storms, insect infestations, etc.

That was with a very small human population and without fossil fuel.

Is that just a COINCIDENCE??
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
Furthermore, why should you or I be made to feel guilty for the stupidity of others?

Are we personally responsible for cities that are flooded because they are built on flood-plains or are built so close to sea-level that they fear tidal surge? Then evaluate the wisdom of spending trillions to rebuild in those same locations.

Are we personally responsible for farming practices that deplete aquifers and lead to drought and bankruptcies?

Are we individually responsible for hurricane damage due to inadequate building codes or an unwillingness to reduce debris damage with hurricane fences?

All these disasters and many others are due to human greed and stupidity, not to CO2.

Who benefits? Insurance companies and those who invest in them.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
is simply a silly attempt at self aggrandization


Wrong. Your analysis is childish and fundamentally flawed. How could you completely miss we have an increasingly serious environmental problem that WILL affect your family and mine and yet you could not see past fresh fruit in three straight comments.

Dude, let me give you hint. People who are actually smart don't need self aggrandizement. Maybe this is because they are increasingly surrounded by people who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. In truth, it is goddamn frustrating. I watch the problems mounting year by year, decade by decade, for well-established scientific reasons that any high school graduate ought to be able to understand, yet we here in the U.S. managed to elect a buffoon who tells us global warming is a Chinese Hoax. Oil companies buy politicians and promote EV taxes and the dimwitted accept them as fair because they are not able to see the big picture.
dustywells
not rated yet Jan 07, 2019
Opioids fueled a doubling of suicides and overdoses in the US


dustywells has a solution for this and here is his formula:

"To make (blank) disappear, we simply must stop using it - make the market disappear." So all these drugs users have to do is simply stop using drugs! Here is the link so dustywells can tell us all how to fix the drug problem too.

https://medicalxp...ses.html


OK, Mark, you have just convinced me that PhysOrg is still a troll hotbed.

Maybe I'll try commenting here again in another six months - - or maybe not.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2019
dustywells, I probably went off on your comments a little harder than usual, my apologies, nothing personal. In truth, I am becoming increasingly worried that we are in deeper trouble than we had realized and I am concerned that we can ill afford less than clear thinking on this subject.

Let's stop dancing around this and be completely honest. We have some clean technologies, but when will CO2 levels ACTUALLY level off and fall? If you take a hard look at the world today, you should be concerned about the answer to that question. Maybe the human race will catch a break and stumble onto a technological miracle, but right now that appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Decades ago I hoped that fusion would fill that role, but now it looks like solar, wind, lithium batteries and LED lights are what we have that actually works. It is going to take time to switch the world over these to such a degree that CO2 levels begin to fall, and the oil industry will fight it.
carbon_unit
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2019
To make FF disappear, we simply must stop using it - make the market disappear. If people won't buy a product, no one will make it.
The basic problem with all this is that markets do not take into account societal values/costs of economic activities. Business are strictly interested in generating profit and tend to take a short term view. While there are activists, consumers typically follow the same sort of selfish buying strategies. That an economic activity is damaging to the society at large does not enter the picture. Thus the need for regulations and financial incentives (subsidies) and penalties (taxes) on certain activities. Tilt the playing field if you will, for society's benefit. FF should be penalized because of the high externalized costs, instead of being subsidized. RE should be subsidized for now to kick start an industry that will help avoid disaster.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2019
The Electrifying Mistake

Making electric cars free
That was their first mistake

As electric cars are heavier
they wear out the road faster
That was their second mistake

As they convert
coal
oil
gas
to electricity
they use more fuel
That was their third mistake

Now that electric cars
have entered every ones conscience as free
That was their forth and most calamitous mistake
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
granville583762, you need to get out more.

Making electric cars free . . That was their first mistake


Wrong, nobody has, or ever will for the foreseeable future, ever make that mistake.

As electric cars are heavier . . . they wear out the road faster


Wrong. Yes they are a little heavier than a comparable sedan, but folks are going to bigger and heavier trucks and SUVs not sedans. Ford is going to stop making sedans by 2022.

As they convert .... coal, oil, gas ... to electricity ... they use more fuel


Wrong. Electricity from solar and wind are generally cheaper and don't have that problem. We still have nuclear too.

Now that electric cars ... have entered every ones conscience as free


Wrong Planet. Dude, the biggest complaint is that they are still initially pricey, not free! Now if you drive one long enough the gas & maintenance savings might outweigh the price, but trust me, they are NOT giving them away for free.
carbon_unit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
how can California and the rest of the country avoid road-funding shortfalls and ensure that EV drivers pay their share of needed repairs?
Step 1. Eliminate the road-tax; replace it with a carbon levy.
Step 2. Raise the annual registration fee.
Step 3. Increase sales tax to compensate for 'lost' road tax.
You seem to be trying to avoid a usage (mileage/weight) tax which seems fairest of all. Why should purchasers who drive little or not even own a car subsidize road infrastructure via sales tax?? A liquid fuel tax seems reasonable for the current non-EV fleet - reasonable approximation of use and incentivizes efficiency. Any kind of FF (not just transportation) should pay a carbon tax, might as well go to roads, I suppose. But there may be non-FF liquid fuels as well (solar->biogas?) which should not pay a carbon penalty. For EVs, probably will stick with mileage/weight. Perhaps have a modest base tax which all owners pay, but use should be primary.
carbon_unit
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
Heh, how would a plug-in hybrid be handled?? Has some gas usage and mostly electric usage. I certainly don't want to get to the point of having to submit detailed driving logs for tax purposes. I guess any sort of mixed fuel vehicle could pay on mileage/weight but would have to be exempted from at the pump taxes. Perhaps just going to mileage/weight for all is the most sensible thing to do, eventually.
carbon_unit
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
Grrr, if I live in one state, but do a lot of driving in other states, how do the other states get some revenue?? Pump taxes approximate that distribution. Perhaps EVs should have plug taxes? Private chargers would have to track usage and public chargers would collect an additional amount for the tax...
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
Granville you need to get out more
I will take your advice Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas> Wrong, nobody has or ever will make that mistake
Wrong Planet Dude the biggest complaint is that they are still pricey but trust me, they are not giving them away for free

They have the tesla gull wing electric car and its race car companion in the Lion Yard in Cambridge
A mere snip for the very basic model at over £80,000
It is a very nice car
Unfortunately for me it is to low as a Tiguan dsg is more suitable
Tesla said the lithium nitrate batteries are still working at over 80% after over 7years
And it charges up at home and at those rare charging points
As in Cambridge and Newmarket £80,000+ is mere pocket money for some and those who dote
on those sleek million dollar four legged creatures that proudly walk the main roads of Newmarket
but
Mark Thomas for you and I, starting at £80,000+ is beyond the reach of mere mortals
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
Private chargers would have to track usage and public chargers would collect an additional amount for the tax


You could probably do that at a Tesla supercharger, but many of the thousands of small Tesla and ChargePoint chargers (J1772) are free to the user and have no provision for assigning usage fees and/or taxes. On top of that, most of us charge at home, unless traveling, so it would be tough to enforce.

We need to encourage EVs and since a carbon tax is not going to happen in the U.S. for the foreseeable future, you can consider the tax savings a fair incentive for EV owners there.

Again, it is a nice academic question to precisely balance fairness here, but you keep ignoring the looming environmental catastrophe.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
Turnpike roads
carbon unit> Grrr, if I live in one state, but do a lot of driving in other states, how do the other states get some revenue?? Pump taxes approximate that distribution. Perhaps EVs should have plug taxes? Private chargers would have to track usage and public chargers would collect an additional amount for the tax...

Turnpike roads or toll roads are the answer
Then everyone gets their cut
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
Mark Thomas for you and I, starting at £80,000+ is beyond the reach of mere mortals


Agreed. However, my Tesla Model 3 cost $55,500, or about £43,500. Still a little pricey, but doable for me. Even less expensive Tesla Model 3s are available here and will be soon in your neck of the woods. Fantastic vehicle by the way. I recommend the long range battery with AWD (dual motor). Most people won't need the performance version, but get it if you have the means and inclination.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
This electric car has entered every ones conscience as free
Mark Thomas> many of the thousands of small Tesla and ChargePoint chargers (J1772) are free to the user and have no provision for assigning usage fees and/or taxes

Keep it up Mark; we all like this electric free world you're painting
If we can get this car charged for free
If we can get this electric car to run on the road tax free
£80,000+ is starting to look more palatable
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
Suitable models
Mark Thomas> Agreed. However, my Tesla Model 3 cost $55,500, or about £43,500. Still a little pricey, but doable for me. Even less expensive Tesla Model 3s are available here and will be soon in your neck of the woods. Fantastic vehicle by the way. I recommend the long range battery with AWD (dual motor). Most people won't need the performance version, but get it if you have the means and inclination

The model for me has to in the size of a Tiguan
its tyres have lasted into their 7th year
the most annoying thing is its window washing warning light keeps coming on
and that is it
so if there is an electric equivalent to the Tiguan
where its tyres last into their 7th year it charges up at home
as the tesla sales executive said the car does 300miles up hill down dale on a full charge
swapping this diesel engine for electric makes sense
as its only done 30,000miles in 6years
As an induction motor will last a life time
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
granville, if you like that, how about semi-retirement in a sunny local with the latest Tesla roof covering my entire home and more if needed in the backyard. Maybe even selling a little excess electricity back to the local utility for a tiny annual profit. No electric bill, no heating bill, no gasoline charges, no emissions testing, no oil changes, no engine problems, no guilt from emitting CO2 and a fine Tesla (or two) to drive around in as fast as I can safely get away with. Use advanced technology to run it all off of sunshine. The 21st century was supposed to be good, right?

I need to get back to work now and make that real!
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
These are teething problems
Crossing 600+ miles across America by car
is not as simple as filling your tank as diesels doing 50mpg fill up in seconds
whereas electric at the moment do not
as it is common to cross the Carolina's to New York state by car which is over 600miles
so this long range battery with AWD (dual motor) is more than an optional extra
so we can charge these extra batteries at home
The BP garages are going to be very miffed at the drop in their pump sales
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
I need to get back to work now and make that real!

Do just that Mark, this dream is coming true
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2019
granville, looking at a picture of a Tiguan, my guess is that the Tesla Model 3 will be roomy enough for you or close, but that is only a guess and you probably need to drive one to be sure. They are roomier than many expect because the electric motors are tiny compared to an ICE car, leaving more room in the expanded interior.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2019
It looks very nice
granville, looking at a picture of a Tiguan, my guess is that the Tesla Model 3 will be roomy enough for you or close, but that is only a guess and you probably need to drive one to be sure. They are roomier than many expect because the electric motors are tiny compared to an ICE car, leaving more room in the expanded interior.

Mark, unbelievably, there are 8 tesla superchargers in the Elveden Inn on the new A11 bypass
Gives a new meaning to drink and charge
things are looking up
http://www.elvedeninn.com/
UrFriendJim
not rated yet Jan 08, 2019
Business are strictly interested in generating profit ... consumers typically follow the same sort of selfish buying strategies. ... need for regulations and financial incentives (subsidies)


The biggest incentive for me is to get something better for less. In the long run getting an electric car is more convenient and much less costly. No more FF for me.

You are the market, I am the market. The market isn't some dingy, smoke-filled room where wizened old moguls make decisions.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.