While I don't claim to be an expert on policy, perhaps a $0.65/gal tax which funds public transit would be a better use of this increase in cost.
I think you're vastly underestimating the positive externalities of high gas prices.
It's annoying that this disproportionately hurts poorer residents but so do cars. Cars are just very very bad for society, while I think in an ideal world we would make public transit so good that it wouldn't make sense to own a car, going about it by making car ownership non-viable so that we're forced to invest more in public transit is also workable. At least this hits you a lot harder if you drive an SUV/truck.
We should also do an odometer x weight based tax to adequately punish electric car owners.
1. Larger than almost all EU countries
2. a lot of farmland
3. Have higher salaries (so bigger budgets)
4. Is extremely mountainous, more so than most US states.
There's a reason it's a multi- decade long initiative just to make a high speed railroad and it's not just the politics of manging all that land.
>We should also do an odometer x weight based tax to adequately punish electric car owners.
California wants to be mostly FEV by 2045. That's a horrible idea unless you care more about road construction than the environment.
And spoilers: we can build more robust roads. We don't becsuse the peope judged it cheaper to repave pavement than take that extra effort.
That aside, I'm curious about this point in response to my tax suggestion.
> California wants to be mostly FEV by 2045. That's a horrible idea unless you care more about road construction than the environment.
I'm not sure I follow how that shakes out, can you elaborate?
I've lived in every major metro in California. There is no chance that public transportation will be viable for most people in those cities in my lifetime.
If it's not dense enough to support city services like a functional bus system, that's just suburban sprawl or maybe a town.
You give government right of first refusal on any low density property for sale in california, you get rid of sfh zoning, re-zone anything within 1Km of public transport as high density, and then build mid-rise high density buildings everywhere as you massively expand public transport network.
Within a decade you could have dense efficient cities all over california.
So you think your plan is going to work in, say, Alpine county, CA, with its 1.6 people per square mile? Its largest city has 163 people in it.
How is a high-density mid-rise apartment building going to help the people there? Do they really need a train or bus system there? How are you going to make their community better by getting rid of SFHs?
California is a big place, and a lot of it is very, VERY rural. There's no one-size-fits-all fix. San Francisco solutions aren't going to work in rural CA.
This is the government using the stick when they should try and use the carrot.
> This is the government using the stick when they should try and use the carrot.
You can provide as much carrots as you want and people will still say it's not enough. Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation (which would be >$10/gallon if you bake CO2 emission and health costs in).
If we want to talk about externalities in a balanced way, we can’t pick and choose. You can’t just recognize CO2 from burning gas or specific health issues, because that is the same as artificially picking what you want to allow and not allow. You have to also price in the externalities and opportunity costs of the alternative. In the case of electric vehicles, it is everything from raw materials (mining), to the reduced quality of life due to limited range of EVs, to child labor in the supply chain, to the geopolitical implications of using certain battery suppliers like CATL, to pollution (not just greenhouse gases from car production or electrical utilities but other environmental pollutants as well), to increased tire wear from heavier vehicles, and more. Maybe no on wants to pay the true cost of fossil fuels but no one wants to even talk about the true cost of EVs let alone pay it. I don’t know which is “better” but I suspect the math will be more complicated and not support heavyweight taxation.
I was ready to buy an FEV this year. Instead, my company laid me off to get record profits, my state and country gaslit me to belive unemployment is low and the economy is great (while also taking about mysterious headwinds. Almost like we're heading towards a recession...) , and the job market went from an annoying but reasonable hoop to a whole-ass circus.
I've been getting spanked all year and people are asking me why I'm destroying the environment with my 2008 Sedan? Clearly no one wants me to even afford rent at this point.
- The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, and has not increased to account for inflation
- Vehicles are more fuel efficient than in the past, which has reduced the demand for gas by the gallon on an individual basis.
- The cost of infrastructure materials has increased (e.g., building new roads and bridges)
There is a very decent argument to be had that nobody is actually paying the societal cost of driving, that all of society just loses value by driving. In other words, each mile you drive in your car incurs costs on the rest of society that nobody directly pays, and therefore everyone pays.
I’m all for public transit and California needs more of it. At the same time, gas is really bad and so perhaps deserves a stick, just like cigarettes?
I think GP's point about funding public transit is reasonable - a huge chunk of Californians can't afford an EV right now given that the cheapest one on the market is like a good $10k more expensive than the cheapest gas sedans.
2023 Chevy Bolt EV, 37,000 miles, $15,600 in LA.
Or, a 2020 with 27,000 miles for $13,500.
2021 Tesla Model 3, 24,000 miles, $22,000
2022 Kia Niro EV, 21,000 miles, $18,400
2020 Tesla Model Y, 48,000 miles, $26,800
Gasoline cars to compare:
2020 Toyota Corolla, 66,000 miles, $17,800
2020 Honda CR-V, 44,000 miles, $23,800
2021 Nissan Sentra, 41,000 miles, $16,500
It seems to me that EVs depreciate so much faster than gasoline cars that they're almost always cheaper with lower miles than an equivalent gasoline car. The only strong exception seems to be the Tesla Model Y.
Anyway, I agree that California especially needs to greatly expand public transit. But I think it's notable that at this point cost isn't really a major negative to EV ownership.
I think those older EVs have short impractical range, that's why they are cheap?
I do not own EV, but people have range anxiety on reddit.
yes, but it will charge fast up to 80%, and will charge slow after that, so it is question of how much time you waste.
It's faster to just charge multiple times rather than spend time charging above 80%.
Yes, I think range concerns are mostly about long road trips.
Sometimes it seems like people forget just how far 100+ miles is.
Okay, sure, an EV with 230 miles of ideal range is really more like 150-180 miles given that you're not charging up past 80% regularly and given not-always-ideal conditions.
But that's a lot of miles. That could be 3 straight hours of highway driving.
I know for me, personally, with my gasoline car I can count on one hand the number of times I've driven more than 3 hours in one day in the past year.
Also, range anxiety is mostly for those who is taking road trips, not for everyday commute. And there are other factors: model3 is 10k more expensive than civic hybrid, electricity cost in California (as example from references on car prices above) is over the top.
And sure electricity cost in California is through the roof but so is gasoline right? It’s a full dollar and a half per gallon higher than Texas according to GasBuddy.
Let’s not forget about overnight off-peak EV rates that are half or less than the day rates.
And then you get other benefits to EV ownership like a reduced maintenance schedule, no oil changes, if you have charging at home you never go to a gas station again unless you’re on a long trip. Saves you time.
> And sure electricity cost in California is through the roof but so is gasoline right?
Gasoline maybe more expensive by 30%, but electricity N times. Last time I plugged numbers in some calculator, it was more expensive to charge Tesla on supercharger. If you have house with solar roof, or can charge off-peak, numbers could be different.
Someone who can’t afford a car at all and takes the bus isn’t affected by gas prices, and raising/lowering gas prices won’t help them afford a car significantly more easily.
Gasoline is essentially the smallest cost related to vehicle ownership.
I don't see much/any state subsidies in your link. I think they are all canceled.
There already is major support. Even Republicans in California (different agenda than republicans in national politics) support it.
But those riders had no other options. In CA the better option is right there in front of your house, with highways crisscrossing every which way to get you on your way.
This is not "public transit", it's public toilet, public unsupervised mental health shelter.
Why not raise the price in urban areas, where pollution is greater, as is the standard of living? Then throw in some more public transportation to make up for the difference. The lone white boy chugging gas in rural California and living paycheck to paycheck can probably take a break, and his emissions, I suppose, are largely irrelevant.