undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjeroenhd3y ago0 comments

Based on [1] this first result on Google, a truck can carry about 300,000 tomatoes. I don't think those tomatoes are going to add up very soon. A loaded truck of about 80,000 pounds (11.5 times the weight) would have 17490 times the road impact compared to the same trip driven back home. Distributed over 300,000 tomatoes, the cost wouldn't be all that much. Despite inefficient engines and truck construction, bulk transport is actually very efficient. Generally speaking: the bigger the trailer, the better, even with the weight increase.

Even better would be using this as an incentive to expand and improve the quality of the much more efficient rail network (or transport over waterways, where available) to improve the entire supply chain. That would require the government to act in the interest of its people, though, so I don't think we'll see the effects of such a programme too soon if it ever makes it.

Every tax-paying citizen is already paying this heavy price! Only instead of the damage inefficient transport causes to our infrastructure being reflected in our everyday expenses, it's hidden from plain sight in taxes.

The only industry I'd expect to see killed by paying for road damage would be package delivery vans. They're driving long distances with comparatively almost no weight at all for the convenience of not needing to go to a centralized store to pick up your stuff. With the way Amazon and friends have their drivers pee in bottles, I don't see why we should subsidize those vans.

[1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434...

0 comments

dotancohen3y ago

The issue isn't that 17490 / 300000 is a small number. The issue is that the road wear is not being paid by the entity creating that wear, and is disproportionately being borne by those actually trying to solve climate change problems by driving smaller, electric vehicles.

If there is currently not enough taxes being collected to maintain the roads, then start taxing those who do the most damage. That entity can then amortize the tax over their 300,000 tomatoes.

jeroenhdOP3y ago

The problem with that is that the heavy electric cars are actually damaging the road more than their ICE counterparts because of their huge batteries. For some countries this isn't much of a problem, just buy a normal car instead if an SUV and you should get the cost difference back, but for others the mileage of current smaller electric cars just isn't practical.

We could make exemptions for electric vehicles powered by green energy like we do right now for trucks and other large equipment, but that'll mostly hit the poorer populations who can't afford an electric car. Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.

A future where everyone drives electric is going to be more expensive because of electric car technology. I'd say pay the difference with two different taxes: one for car weight/wheel load, another for pollution through (similarly hefty) gas taxes. Heavy EVs pay extra for the road damage, ICEs pay for their pollution to encourage cleaner cars, and heavy SUVs/pickup trucks pay both.

dotancohen3y ago

  > Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.

Those general goods will reflect the cost of actually getting them to the store. Why should I subsidize pornography magazines, canned pork, and other items that I don't use? Just have everybody pay their fair share of road wear, or at least as close to it as possible, and let the costs trickle down. If some items, e.g. baby diapers or bread, are deemed to be worthy of subsidy then directly subsidize them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dotancohen3y ago

If there is currently not enough taxes being collected to maintain the roads, then start taxing those who do the most damage. That entity can then amortize the tax over their 300,000 tomatoes.

jeroenhdOP3y ago

dotancohen3y ago

  > Tacking road maintenance costs onto other general goods in the form of taxes disproportionately hits people who try to avoid using a car for the environment and the liveability of their city, for example by taking public transport or a bike.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse