Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

So the damage is virtually all from large trucks, with sedans and SUVs as a rounding error.

Which is why the California tax on gasoline is 48.7¢/gallon and the California tax on diesel fuel is 67¢/gallon.[1]

Federal tax on gasoline is 18.4¢/gallon, and diesel fuel is 24.4¢/gallon.[2]

I'm not defending the trucking industry. I think more stuff should go by train instead. But truck fuel is taxed more heavily than car fuel. (For those of you in other countries, the number of cars running on diesel in the United States is about 3%.)

[1] http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/formspubs/l561.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

View on HN

It’s taxed slightly more heavily. But trucks cause literally thousands of times more damage than cars.

They also require more gas per mile. It seems like it should roughly add up to paying a few more times than cars (they're a few times less fuel efficient).

Yes, the average car in the US gets about 25MPG, while the average tractor trailer is 6MPG, so about 4x the fuel per mile. Accounting for the higher tax rate, they’re paying maybe 5x the tax per mile, while causing maybe 5,000x the damage.

You could tax trucks like 1000 times more. But don't expect the butter and milk to stay the same price.

Butter and milk that don't have to travel as far by road would be cheaper. So much of our national Walmartification is possible because of roads are subsidized.

No, it would not be cheaper. It is not cheaper today and making food today is profitable (and possible) only thanks to economy of scale. Automation on this level is not here yet.

> don't have to travel as far by road

It doesn't have to. It can (and it does because it's better).

The point may be that they should not be this price to begin with.

Externalities that aren't properly accounted for (and paid for) end up causing inefficiency.

The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance.

Then many trucks could be adjusted to have more axles and lighter loads, saving money on both ends.

The end result is a better system.

Maybe eventually the cost will go down for milk because we chosen more efficient ways of transporting milk?

Is this some kind of joke? If the taxes already cover 25% of the expenses then adding 1000x on top means you would tax 249 times more than you need. To make it fair you first have to give truck fuel an adequate tax (so it covers 100%) and then divide this tax by 1000 for light vehicles.

If you think it's a joke you're taking the words far too literally.

"like 1000 times more" is not a full proposal. Yes you would reduce car taxes appropriately. Yes you would figure out the actual amount to balance the budget.

> The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance.

This would adversely affect the poor as they drive less and still need milk.

There are much better ways to help the poor than by subsidizing trucking.

My point is you can't just look at something and not take into account where else it may impact.

Also, we need to get much better at helping the poor.

My point is that “it will hurt the poor” is a very old and very tired response to proposals that externalities should be accounted for in the cost of goods.

Part of getting better at helping the poor is helping them directly rather than using extremely inefficient and indirect subsidies on various industries to do so.

literally anything that has any negative effect will affect the poor more because the rich have more resources to mitigate the negative effects.

so unless you have a solution with no drawbacks, there's nothing you can do to not 'affect the poors'

The reduction in sales taxes would more than make up for it.

We’re paying for it either way. I’d rather the payment be apportioned by the extent to which you use products that have to be transported that way; it gets the incentives right.

And you do get a better MPG with Diesel so it should to be fair be taxed more.

Those taxes should be proportional to the wear, otherwise it remains unbalanced.

If we are talking about maintenance costs, sure trucks should pay their share, but congestion (the reason to build additional roads) is caused primarily by passenger cars.

Congestion doesn't drive maintenance costs. It may drive infrastructure needs but that is an entirely different problem, and one which taxing conpanies such as Uber and Lyft actually help to lower.

What is more expensive, train or road maintenance? What gets better total utilization rates?

Road gets you everywhere, rail only gets you to the nearest terminal. Depending on the signalling system used rail can have a higher capacity from terminal to terminal, leaving the 'last mile' (which in reality is more likely to be the last 100 miles) to be travelled by road. Road needs more maintenance and the work itself is more labour-intensive.

Imagine a package-switching network comprising an (electrified) rail backbone with roads spreading from terminal nodes to the destination points, fully automated package store-and-forward, electric self-driving trucks.

This would cost loads of money and loads of jobs. It might also solve parts of the problem. Maybe Amazon's successor is already thinking of something like this?

> Road gets you everywhere, rail only gets you to the nearest terminal.

That is not true. Road gets you to where the road serves, just like rail. With a good enough coverage, virtually all transportation needs are met.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com