• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One Hand Gives, One Hand Takes Away

Cassandra said:
So how do you feel about the giant subsidy that tractor trailer's receive?


https://www.vabike.org/vehicle-weight-and-road-damage/


"Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars (p.23 of study, p.36 of PDF).

The study assumed a fully loaded tractor-trailer at 80,000 pounds, and a typical passenger car at 4,000 pounds. That’s 20 times difference in weight, but the wear and tear caused by the truck is exponentially greater."
Click to expand...

What about what I wrote makes you think I'd think differently about trucks?

As a general rule I'm in favor of people paying for the services and infrastructure they use including upkeep. That would mean trucks paying more for using highways since trucks obviously cause more road deterioration than cars.

The excerpt talks about road damage caused by 80,000 tractor trailers being equivalent to the damage caused by 9600 cars. That's a nice bit of information but it doesn't at all speak to how much of that cost trucks are avoiding so it's impossible to judge whether there is a "subsidy" or not. All we know from the information provided is that trucks do more damage and that it's likely more than we would assume from the weight difference alone.

I'd also point out that the linked GAO report is almost 40 years old and some of the data it references, including the 9600 car number, is nearly 60 years old. A lot has changed in the intervening years making drawing any conclusions based on this one study iffy at best. The situation could be worse or better today. No way to know.

I didn't read the entire study, it's 150 pages, but I did read the summary and it doesn't speak about trucks getting a giant subsidy but about over-weight trucks causing excessive road damage - presumably in excess of the usage fees they're paying. The states that something like 22% of trucks are overweight. That certainly sounds like an enforcement issue, but it hardly sounds like a subsidy to the trucking industry.
 
Gaius46 said:
What about what I wrote makes you think I'd think differently about trucks?

As a general rule I'm in favor of people paying for the services and infrastructure they use including upkeep. That would mean trucks paying more for using highways since trucks obviously cause more road deterioration than cars.

The excerpt talks about road damage caused by 80,000 tractor trailers being equivalent to the damage caused by 9600 cars. That's a nice bit of information but it doesn't at all speak to how much of that cost trucks are avoiding so it's impossible to judge whether there is a "subsidy" or not. All we know from the information provided is that trucks do more damage and that it's likely more than we would assume from the weight difference alone.

I'd also point out that the linked GAO report is almost 40 years old and some of the data it references, including the 9600 car number, is nearly 60 years old. A lot has changed in the intervening years making drawing any conclusions based on this one study iffy at best. The situation could be worse or better today. No way to know.

I didn't read the entire study, it's 150 pages, but I did read the summary and it doesn't speak about trucks getting a giant subsidy but about over-weight trucks causing excessive road damage - presumably in excess of the usage fees they're paying. The states that something like 22% of trucks are overweight. That certainly sounds like an enforcement issue, but it hardly sounds like a subsidy to the trucking industry.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you misread the piece or if your post contains a typo you did not intend, but the article states that ONE fully loaded 5 axle tractor trailer does the same damage as 9,600 cars. Tractor trailers have not changed that much and passenger cars still average about 4,000 lbs. Certainly, not all trucks are fully loaded so let say most of them average 40,000 lbs. That means that each one does the same damage as 4,800 cars. Since you are big on fairness, clearly the trucking industry is paying massively too little for road repair , shifting the burden to the rest of us.

This is one of the ways that gov't gives with one hand while taking away in a manner that most people barely realize. If we factored all the costs (accidents, noise, pollution..) of moving goods by road rather than rail, maybe our Repub "friends" would not be so hostile to maintaining and improving our rail system.
 
I support a flat percentage tax on motor fuel. Such a tax does little to diminish consumption, and it acts as a de facto automatic fiscal stabilizer. When the economy is running hot, and prices are higher, the tax pulls more revenue into government. However, when the economy is struggling from a shock to demand, the tax pulls in less revenue as prices are lower. Congress would also need the option of suspending the tax during supply shocks.

The problem arises as to how we fund motor vehicle infrastructure as efficiency and substitutes lower gasoline required per distance traveled.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you can explain that......

And I have no problem with taxes aimed at providing revenue towards things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. I also do not mind those taxes targeting the people that use those things that the government is supposed to fund. Such as roads. It's fair as it targets everyone that uses the roads while leaving those that don't use the roads alone.
Click to expand...

Not when lots of road use taxes levied on motor fuel go to fund alternate city transit systems and even bicycle trails. Taxes go where the voters' (allegedly) representatives say they go - not based on where they came from or their initially stated purpose.
 
Cassandra said:
I don't know if you misread the piece or if your post contains a typo you did not intend, but the article states that ONE fully loaded 5 axle tractor trailer does the same damage as 9,600 cars. Tractor trailers have not changed that much and passenger cars still average about 4,000 lbs. Certainly, not all trucks are fully loaded so let say most of them average 40,000 lbs. That means that each one does the same damage as 4,800 cars. Since you are big on fairness, clearly the trucking industry is paying massively too little for road repair , shifting the burden to the rest of us.

This is one of the ways that gov't gives with one hand while taking away in a manner that most people barely realize. If we factored all the costs (accidents, noise, pollution..) of moving goods by road rather than rail, maybe our Repub "friends" would not be so hostile to maintaining and improving our rail system.
Click to expand...

I did read the information about the wear and tear of one truck as compared to cars. My issue is that statement is that without knowing what trucks pay - gas taxes, registration fees, additional taxes that trucking companies pay etc - it's impossible to judge whether the industry gets a subsidy or not and if they do by how much.

And while I agree that more stuff should be moved by rail you can't move everything that way. We do not have a rail system that would allow delivery by rail to every point in the country from where it then becomes feasible to use trucks for local-only deliveries and building one comes with it's own set of costs that may be more than what it costs to maintain the interstate system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not when lots of road use taxes levied on motor fuel go to fund alternate city transit systems and even bicycle trails. Taxes go where the voters' (allegedly) representatives say they go - not based on where they came from or their initially stated purpose.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hard to untangle all that. Funding things like alternate transit or bike trails theoretically reduces wear and tear on roads because there are less cars, reducing upkeep costs while reducing emissions. I don't think you can just assume that using fuel taxes in to fund trains actually taxes drivers more than they otherwise would be.
 
Gaius46 said:
It's kind of hard to untangle all that. Funding things like alternate transit or bike trails theoretically reduces wear and tear on roads because there are less cars, reducing upkeep costs while reducing emissions. I don't think you can just assume that using fuel taxes in to fund trains actually taxes drivers more than they otherwise would be.
Click to expand...

Theoretical is nice but let's look at reality. Most road "wear and tear" is done by trucks and other heavy vehicles - that "wear and tear" is not reduced by adding bike trails, city buses or subways (which replace only lighter commuter vehicles).

In fact, city buses, being much heavier, add to "wear and tear" over the lighter vehicles that they replaced. Note than many city bus stops require more expensive and reenforced concrete pads (rather than cheaper asphalt paving) because of the constant added heavy vehicle braking and acceleration over those areas.

Every "commuter" vehicle that stops (or reduces) motor fuel usage decreases the road use tax revenue much more than it reduces "wear and tear" on roadways.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Theoretical is nice but let's look at reality. Most road "wear and tear" is done by trucks and other heavy vehicles - that "wear and tear" is not reduced by adding bike trails, city buses or subways (which replace only lighter commuter vehicles).

In fact, city buses, being much heavier, add to "wear and tear" over the lighter vehicles that they replaced. Note than many city bus stops require more expensive and reenforced concrete pads (rather than cheaper asphalt paving) because of the constant added heavy vehicle braking and acceleration over those areas.

Every "commuter" vehicle that stops (or reduces) motor fuel usage decreases the road use tax revenue much more than it reduces "wear and tear" on roadways.
Click to expand...

I thought fuel taxes were used to fund expensive capital projects, like rail, and not relatively inexpensive buses though I could be wrong there. But your point is well taken.
 
Gaius46 said:
I did read the information about the wear and tear of one truck as compared to cars. My issue is that statement is that without knowing what trucks pay - gas taxes, registration fees, additional taxes that trucking companies pay etc - it's impossible to judge whether the industry gets a subsidy or not and if they do by how much.

And while I agree that more stuff should be moved by rail you can't move everything that way. We do not have a rail system that would allow delivery by rail to every point in the country from where it then becomes feasible to use trucks for local-only deliveries and building one comes with it's own set of costs that may be more than what it costs to maintain the interstate system.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that hard to surmise. The average tractor trailer gets 6mpg. The average light duty vehicle gets 26.4 mpg. So the tractor trailer is spending 4.4 times as much in gas tax per mile but doing hundreds of times (at least) more damage to the roads and adding a great deal more pollution. Yes, of course rail transport cannot do it all but at its darn stupid to have trucks doing the majority of long haul transport .



https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/tran...-is-more-efficient-for-freight-truck-or-train

"However, there are those that say that there is a much more efficient way to move freight across our country, and that’s the railroad. The Association of American Railroads estimates that on average, a freight train can move 1 ton of freight about 484 miles on just one gallon of fuel. That, as well as other factors, was enough to convince the “Oracle of Omaha,” Warren Buffet, to invest in the rails in 2009.
In a deal that sparked much discussion and debate, Buffett bought out the remaining 77 percent of shares that his company did not own of BNSF Railway Co. in 2009. “It’s an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States,” he said at the time. Why? Because, he said, trucks have reached their peak of efficiency, and trains have not. Long-haul trains are three times more fuel efficient than trucks, says Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF. With oil prices climbing and not showing signs of falling anytime soon, that number is attractive to the shipper and, of course, the environment."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Theoretical is nice but let's look at reality. Most road "wear and tear" is done by trucks and other heavy vehicles - that "wear and tear" is not reduced by adding bike trails, city buses or subways (which replace only lighter commuter vehicles).

In fact, city buses, being much heavier, add to "wear and tear" over the lighter vehicles that they replaced. Note than many city bus stops require more expensive and reenforced concrete pads (rather than cheaper asphalt paving) because of the constant added heavy vehicle braking and acceleration over those areas.

Every "commuter" vehicle that stops (or reduces) motor fuel usage decreases the road use tax revenue much more than it reduces "wear and tear" on roadways.
Click to expand...

So then it is logical to have a dedicated additional tax based on weight since trucks underpay for the wear that they are responsible for and the current strategy gives truckers a competitive boost over rail transport.
Ultimately, Congress needs to raise the gas tax or levy a different kind of tax earmarked for infrastructure spending


https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...rk-because-politicians-broke-it/#16487c246bf1

"Beginning in 1957, gas tax revenues were funneled directly into the federal Highway Trust Fund. Over the years, lawmakers raised the tax numerous times, ensuring that the trust fund would have enough money to pay for necessary projects.

"But the last increase came in 1993, and since then the levy has remained stagnant. Construction costs, on the other hand, have continued to rise with inflation. And to make matters worse, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency have allowed consumers to drive more miles on less gas – which is great for the wallet but not so great for road funding.

These two factors (but especially cost inflation) have produced a cash crunch. In the last five years, according to theInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Congress has been forced to shore up the Highway Trust Fund with money collected by other taxes. These “general revenues” are in tight supply, of course, since the nation is running large deficits. But without those transfers – and more to come in the future – the Highway Trust Fund would go belly up."
 
Cassandra said:
So then it is logical to have a dedicated additional tax based on weight since trucks underpay for the wear that they are responsible for and the current strategy gives truckers a competitive boost over rail transport.
Ultimately, Congress needs to raise the gas tax or levy a different kind of tax earmarked for infrastructure spending


https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...rk-because-politicians-broke-it/#16487c246bf1

"Beginning in 1957, gas tax revenues were funneled directly into the federal Highway Trust Fund. Over the years, lawmakers raised the tax numerous times, ensuring that the trust fund would have enough money to pay for necessary projects.

"But the last increase came in 1993, and since then the levy has remained stagnant. Construction costs, on the other hand, have continued to rise with inflation. And to make matters worse, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency have allowed consumers to drive more miles on less gas – which is great for the wallet but not so great for road funding.

These two factors (but especially cost inflation) have produced a cash crunch. In the last five years, according to theInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Congress has been forced to shore up the Highway Trust Fund with money collected by other taxes. These “general revenues” are in tight supply, of course, since the nation is running large deficits. But without those transfers – and more to come in the future – the Highway Trust Fund would go belly up."
Click to expand...

A possible solution would be to use vehicle information, (available at annual vehicle inspection time) such as vehicle weight and annual milage added, to compute a road use tax due amount. That road use tax (federal, state and local) could be collected at vehicle registration renewal time.
 
Cassandra said:
I don't think it is that hard to surmise. The average tractor trailer gets 6mpg. The average light duty vehicle gets 26.4 mpg. So the tractor trailer is spending 4.4 times as much in gas tax per mile but doing hundreds of times (at least) more damage to the roads and adding a great deal more pollution. Yes, of course rail transport cannot do it all but at its darn stupid to have trucks doing the majority of long haul transport .



https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/tran...-is-more-efficient-for-freight-truck-or-train

[FONT=&]"However, there are those that say that there is a much more efficient way to move freight across our country, and that’s the railroad. The Association of American Railroads estimates that on average, a freight train can move 1 ton of freight about 484 miles on just one gallon of fuel. That, as well as other factors, was enough to convince the “Oracle of Omaha,” Warren Buffet, to invest in the rails in 2009.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In a deal that sparked much discussion and debate, Buffett bought out the remaining 77 percent of shares that his company did not own of BNSF Railway Co. in 2009. “It’s an all-in wager on the economic future of the United States,” he said at the time. Why? Because, he said, trucks have reached their peak of efficiency, and trains have not. Long-haul trains are three times more fuel efficient than trucks, says Matt Rose, CEO of BNSF. With oil prices climbing and not showing signs of falling anytime soon, that number is attractive to the shipper and, of course, the environment."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though I have no idea what the tax on diesel fuel is I'm certain it isn't enough to cover repairs. There are other fees that truckers have to pay - registration fees for example - and perhaps specific taxes that may be used to cover some or all of those costs. I don't know, it's not something I've ever really looked into.

And I don't have much problem believing that trains are more energy efficient that trucks - when measured in terms of amount of freight moved, steel wheels on steel tracks produce much less friction that rubber on asphalt, though 1 ton 486 miles on 1 gallon makes a lot of assumptions on the type of train, condition of tracks and terrain that it's best thought of as the best case scenario and not an average (this is based on what I read about how CSX came up with the numbers).

I have no problem with assessing trucks their true operating costs. That can be done via higher gas taxes, registration or annual fees based on distance driven or something similar. If they're not paying now - and it sounds like they aren't - they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom