ETC Toll Booths

[sulavaca]

these are examples of why tolls make sense. Huge projects that couldn't be built. Trying to say that tolls are better than fuel tax is just changing the collection method for ordinary projects.

But it's not just changing the collection method. Direct tolls incur fewer variables, and don't cause a raise in taxation demand on fuel due to more efficient fuel usage. A road user would simply pay according to how far they travel, not how much or how little fuel they use.

Distance travelled probably won't correlate very well to system demand/imposed cost.

An HGV has a much greater axle weight, takes up a lot more space, and causes much more structural damage per km, than my Skywing, or a motorcycle does.

This is already (crudely) acknowledged in the different toll rate that HGV's and buses pay, but I'd bet that fuel consumption allows a much closer correlation with system demand.

An unladed lorry/truck/wagon is actually far more destructive than a laden one due to its stiffer springs not managing to absorb its weight impact on the road. The studies I was offered on this subject, quite a few years ago suggested that a typical unladen articulated truck caused roughly the same amount of damage on a given stretch of motorway (U.K.) as around 100,000 cars travelling over the same distance at the same cruising speed.
This was one reason why truck companies were faced with heavy anual road taxes, but yes, again a toll collection method would be necessary for such vehicles, and weight correlation in this case might offer a more accurate guide. I'd have to go back to the studies on this one though to be sure.

[igorveni]

So I live in Taipei, where do I go to buy my ETC pass for my car?

[Ducked]

and weight correlation in this case might offer a more accurate guide.

And fuel consumption is likely to correlate quite well with vehicle weight, so it'd provide an efficient and economic proxy for it.

It won't deal with your empty bouncy truck syndrome, but you're going to need quite sophisticated algorithms and instrumentation to cope well with that one.

Fuel consumption would also correlate with higher acceleration, braking and cornering forces, which seem likely to cause more road wear than steady state cruising.

The more I think about it the righter I am

[sulavaca]

and weight correlation in this case might offer a more accurate guide.

And fuel consumption is likely to correlate quite well with vehicle weight, so it'd provide an efficient and economic proxy for it.

It won't deal with your empty bouncy truck syndrome, but you're going to need quite sophisticated algorithms and instrumentation to cope well with that one.

Fuel consumption would also correlate with higher acceleration, braking and cornering forces, which seem likely to cause more road wear than steady state cruising.

In the case of trucks, they are more fuel efficient and provide less revenue in the form of tax, whilst they are doing the most amount of damage.
They do less damage, the more fuel they use due to typically being laden during those circumstances. You don't need sophisticated algorithms to know this as these studies had been done long ago.

The more I think about it the righter I am

Hehehe.

[Abacus]

these are examples of why tolls make sense. Huge projects that couldn't be built. Trying to say that tolls are better than fuel tax is just changing the collection method for ordinary projects.

But it's not just changing the collection method. Direct tolls incur fewer variables, and don't cause a raise in taxation demand on fuel due to more efficient fuel usage. A road user would simply pay according to how far they travel, not how much or how little fuel they use.

You must know that you are fighting a losing argument when you talking about the difference in fuel economy between laden and unladen trucks. The same truck is laden part of the time and unladen part of the time. That's how it works.

The reason that tolls suck is that a significant portion is lost due to the collection whereas this is almost a non issue with fuel tax. it also sucks to slow down at the collection points. Maybe in the future it will be completely electronically integrated and these two are less of an issue.

[Ducked]

In the case of trucks, they are more fuel efficient and provide less revenue in the form of tax, whilst they are doing the most amount of damage.
They do less damage, the more fuel they use due to typically being laden during those circumstances. You don't need sophisticated algorithms to know this as these studies had been done long ago.

The sophisticated algorithm/instrumentation would be required if you wanted your toll charge to directly reflect the amount of damage done on a given journey. Do try and keep up.

As Abacus points out below, the loaded/unloaded thing will average out anyway.

If you want to charge in direct proportion to the damage done, then the truck toll rate will have to be what, 5,000 times the car rate?

Might be some political/environmental fallout from that, unless the car rate is very, very low.

Trucks don't use the M6 bypass because they won't pay, so a damage-based truck rate is likely to force trucks off the motorways on to (currently "free") surface roads.

Probably more expedient to call it an indirect transport subsidy, such as you, IIRC, got perilously close to advocating above.

Fuel charging would still effectively be a subsidy for trucks, but probably a less massive one than they recieve currently.

[sulavaca]

You must know that you are fighting a losing argument when you talking about the difference in fuel economy between laden and unladen trucks. The same truck is laden part of the time and unladen part of the time. That's how it works.

Sorry, but that's not always how it works. You are perhaps assuming that all trucks make one laden trip and return unladen, which may result in a perfect average, but this isn't true. Truck companies may often especially try to reduce the costs of their operations by keeping their trucks laden as much of the time as possible.
Do trucks travel unladen? Certainly they do, but the number of kilometers a truck travels laden as opposed to unladen will usually vary per truck. The distance a truck travels laden and unladen will generally differ between companies, and even individual trucks. Have you ever seen [quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_scale]weigh bridges[/quote] before? A truck's load is often valued by it's weight. That weight can be deducted from the total weight of the truck, in order to calculate a payment for the product(s) delivered.

To offer a possible quick solution as to how trucks may be tolled with weight as a factor, a simple job might be to attach a fixed level gauge to a truck's body and axle, which could provide a quick reference as to the laden weight of a truck. This could be referenced when passing through a manual toll for example, the same gauge might initiate a signal in the case it is either underweight or overweight in the case of a digital toll.


"Fighting a losing argument" would seem to suggest that you have compelling evidence to the contrary. I believe I have already shown however how fuel usage alone does not simply equate to road surface wear and tear.

To be off topic for a moment, I just realized something about the English expression "fighting a losing argument." Surely if you are fighting a losing argument, then you are winning are you not? Fighting with a losing argument, would seem to suggest that the fight is un-winnable. Hmmm. Why do we use this expression in this manner?

[Ducked]

Little bit more politics. Sorry.

Some of it seems to be about the MASSIVELY superior efficiency of private enterprise, some of it arguing against government bailouts when private enterprise FUCKS UP on such a MASSIVE scale (as it has recently) that the global economy is structurally imperilled.

Yes, private enterprises are FAR more efficient than government, overall. They make mistakes, but then they fall on their own swords. The present system however encourages big business to make cockups because the governments are there to stuff them full of taxpayer's money when they don't work out.

In the (last, but probably not as in final) Great Depression, private enterprise didn't just "fall on their own swords". EVERYONE fell on their swords. Eventually, people were beating their ploughshares into swords all over the world, just so they could fall (or be pushed) on them.

So you're saying that private enterprise is the dogs bollocks, but sometimes it disappears up its own arsehole and needs a government enema in the form of handouts (which you strongly disapprove of) or a global war to fix it.

You probably strongly disapprove of global war too, (unless it could somehow be privatised, robber-baron stylee.)

Theres no pleasing some people.

[sulavaca]

The sophisticated algorithm/instrumentation would be required if you wanted your toll charge to directly reflect the amount of damage done on a given journey. Do try and keep up.

Or trucks could simply be charged based on loading and distance travelled. I have been keeping up as this was my suggestion.

As Abacus points out below, the loaded/unloaded thing will average out anyway.

Please read above. Regardless of the average fuel consumption of a truck, less fuel consumed results in a higher degree of road damage. Are you still trying to suggest that a lower tax to trucks is necessary when they consume less fuel and create more damage? That doesn't seem like an effective method at all to me. In fact, quite the opposite.

If you want to charge in direct proportion to the damage done, then the truck toll rate will have to be what, 5,000 times the car rate?

As you say, it is impossible to determine the exact amount of damage done, and I haven't suggested that we use any complicated algorithms in order to conduct a basic road tax. Its a given that such vehicles as tanks and trucks create more damage to the road than cars. It should then be a given that these types of vehicles must be charged their fare share for road usage. I think that there is a distinct enough difference between an articulated truck and a five door passenger car for example. If I were a road construction company and toll collector, then I would charge my customers according to their demand, the same way in which most products are charged. You can suppose what that rate might be, but it depends largely on the companies which would be maintaining the road.
As a car owner, do I want to be subsidizing trucks for their road usage? Well I subsidize them anyway whenever I purchase a product which was transported by a truck. This is how direct subsidization works.

Might be some political/environmental fallout from that, unless the car rate is very, very low.

Well calculating costs per vehicle, per distance travelled only passes on the cost of road building and maintenance to the motorist. If that discourages some motorists from driving, then so be it, but subsidizing roads through indirect taxes is only creating or supporting a less efficient and direct form of taxation. This method does not reward fuel efficiency, and does not reward trucking companies who use more efective routes and transportation plans.

Trucks don't use the M6 bypass because they won't pay, so a damage-based truck rate is likely to force trucks off the motorways on to (currently "free") surface roads.

Trucks might not use the M6 simply because not all roads have tolls, so they can use other roads free of charge. In some cases, using a less direct route which costs more fuel may offset the cost of the toll. Public roads however are not directly subsidized proportionately by trucking companies. This is why it's cheaper for trucks to destroy them and then have the rest of the public pay for it.
I have experienced first hand the devastating effect of a trucking company's operations on a small public road as I used to live next to one, both before and after they started operations.
We used to have a road which didn't cause our cars to tram and require early suspension replacement. The local council couldn't repair the stretch of road often enough because they didn't have the budget.

[sulavaca]

Little bit more politics. Sorry.

Some of it seems to be about the MASSIVELY superior efficiency of private enterprise, some of it arguing against government bailouts when private enterprise FUCKS UP on such a MASSIVE scale (as it has recently) that the global economy is structurally imperilled.

Yes, private enterprises are FAR more efficient than government, overall. They make mistakes, but then they fall on their own swords. The present system however encourages big business to make cockups because the governments are there to stuff them full of taxpayer's money when they don't work out.

In the (last, but probably not as in final) Great Depression, private enterprise didn't just "fall on their own swords". EVERYONE fell on their swords. Eventually, people were beating their ploughshares into swords all over the world, just so they could fall (or be pushed) on them.

So you're saying that private enterprise is the dogs bollocks, but sometimes it disappears up its own arsehole and needs a government enema in the form of handouts (which you strongly disapprove of) or a global war to fix it.

You probably strongly disapprove of global war too, (unless it could somehow be privatised, robber-baron stylee.)

Theres no pleasing some people.

The last American great depression was not caused by a failing free market. In fact it was the opposite way around. It was government who was responsible through allowing the Federal Reserve to stifle the money supply and thus kill the free market. Under a free market gold standard this would not have happened.
In this recent depression, the government are producing I.O.U.s in the form of bonds to the Fed and China. This debt is purchased and the result is a fresh round of money supply in the form of U.S. bills to the world. This reduces the value of each currency unit and the result is inflation. Why do the big businesses demand bailouts from government? Because they can. Should they? No. It's not the government's job to run the economy. Government isn't a business, and should never be one. It's only the government's job to apply the constitution and the laws of the land, not create their own zombie market which is bought and paid for by taxpayers, regardless of their interests.
In the free market, a service or product is paid for according to demand. Typically in a free market the cost of products and services are reduced to the consumer as competing companies endeavor to produce a product or service which is superior in function or price over their competitor.
Why did the U.S. suffer a housing market bubble, and resulting price collapse and looming debt default? Because they had Fanny and Freddy. Government money backing institutions. The government eliminated the free market. They provided public coffers to the private sector. A cookie jar with an endless supply of free cookies.