How EVs bankrupted Highway Trust Fund. How would an economist fix it? \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

How EVs bankrupted Highway Trust Fund. How would an economist fix it?landline.media/house-looks-to-address-highway-trust-fund-lack-of-truck-parking/

588 sats \ 13 comments \ @BlokchainB 30 Jan econ

Highway Trust Fund shortfalls and a lack of truck parking were among the topics discussed at the House Highways and Transit subcommittee’s first hearing of the 119th Congress.

The subcommittee held the hearing “America Builds: Highways to Move People and Freight” on Wednesday, Jan. 22.

Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., chairman of the subcommittee, used his opening statement to discuss inequities with the current Highway Trust Fund, which uses fuel taxes to pay for federal road and bridge projects. According to Rouzer, the fund hasn’t been fully solvent since 2008.

Wow! Thus fund has been broke since 2008!! It can’t be all blamed on EV mileage?

“We must also have a frank conversation about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund – the main funding source for highway projects,” Rouzer said. “Since 2008, Congress has transferred approximately $275 billion to cover the shortfall of revenues as expenditures have grown.”

“Highway funding relies on a user-pay principle,” Rouzer said. “It’s pretty simple: You purchase fuel to fill up your vehicle to use the roads, and the fuel tax collected from that purchase is put into the Highway Trust Fund. However, electric vehicles, which are often heavier than their conventional counterparts because of the weight of their batteries, do not pay in the Highway Trust Fund.”

An unforeseen consequence of trying to rush the nation to EVs?

In previous sessions, a vehicle-miles-traveled tax and tolls have been presented as potential ways to correct the issue. However, a VMT tax has raised concerns over privacy, and the trucking industry has argued against efforts to create truck-only tolls.

Rouzer suggested that getting all vehicles to pay their fair share should be a priority.

“It is wholly unfair that an entire segment of users doesn’t contribute to the roads and bridges they use,” he said. “This won’t address the greater solvency issue, obviously, but we must rectify this so that all users are treated fairly and contribute to the systems on which they rely.”

Question is who should pay? I put this in the Econ territory and not the politics one because I’m curious what the free market commentators (like @Rothbardian_fanatic) have to say. How would you solve this problem. Best answers I will zap 1k sats

view all related items

258 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 31 Jan

I also doubt this can really be attributed to EV's. Without doing any research, I would wager that improved mileage in gas engines has had a bigger impact on reducing gas taxes than EV adoption has.

My answer is similar to @Rothbardian_fanatic's: ideally the roads would be privatized and it would be up to the owners to figure out how to raise revenue. That might be through tolls or memberships or billboards or something none of us have thought of.

In principle, though, roads are an excludable good, so there's no particular reason normal market processes wouldn't apply to them.

Really, "Who should pay?" is not the right question. The entrepreneur's question is how to capture enough of the value created by the road to earn a profit from owning it.

My guess is that if state subsidies were removed, then much more traffic and freight would travel on rail over long distances. You can probably correct me, if my understanding is off base, but I believe rail is much cheaper to build and maintain, as well as being the more fuel efficient transport system.

255 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 23h

Yes, it is always the job of the entrepreneurs to find ways to make the profit from an enterprise.

My suspicion is that the entrepreneurs would find a way that we have not a clue about to make the money. Necessity is the mother of invention, isn’t it?

I have to agree that the subsidies for the Eisenhower Military Roads enabled long haul trucking by taking the rail business. But the way the state has been running the railroads has degraded them to the point where safety is a real issue. Perhaps the looting got to be too much for the railroads. Mayor Pete did a real horseisht job on transportation and applying the bogus regulations. Rail is much more efficient when moving large cargos over long distances, but lately, the states are letting the thieves do their thing with no consequences, causing the looting of trains near their destinations.

As to the loss of taxes due to EVs, I have to agree with you on the increasing efficiency of the engines causing the decrease in the purchase of fuels. The state brought this on on themselves due to lack of foresight into the regulations to increase the CAFE. Idiots expected everyone to keep buying the same amount of fuel. I guess this is the bureaucracy and their thinking at work in a great example of the difference between them and entrepreneurs.

310 sats \ 10 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 30 Jan

The users should pay. They have to find a way to have the users pay for what they are using, Eisenhower’s Military Highways program was successful in getting the whole shebang built. The fuel tax after that was supposed to cover the maintenance. People that use only the local roads are paying taxes into the federal scheme.

They should privatize the whole federal system and let the private companies collect the money the way they see fit. The highways and bridges would probably get better maintenance and people would be happier with it. They could do away with the federal fuel tax, completely and let only those willing to pay use the Military Highways. This was the way it had always been done before the state convinced people that only the state could build roads. That is the cry of the statists: “Who will build the roads? Who will deliver the mail? Who will take care of the poor?” People did it before the state decided to horn in on the action. Now the state and its cronies are taking the funds and vanishing them into thin air, or should I say, into their wallets.

63 sats \ 7 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jan

Usage tax Privatize roads eliminate fuel tax

These are good ideas. The problem with the fuel tax is you penalize drivers who never use a certain highway or bridge. What if I only use state and local roads, why should I be subject to a federal tax?

9 sats \ 6 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 30 Jan

The usage tax I was thinking of was the tolls taken from users to use these highways.

5 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jan

I love tolls especially in southern California. Tolls are not common in CA.

My favorite highway is 73, which is never crowded because it's a toll road.

Some people will say this is unfair to low income drivers... it is unfair, so unfair you should kill yourself

9 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 30 Jan

I have a better saying for you, ”Fair is in August.” In many states, the state fair is only in August and it implies that there is no fair at other times, but of course there is never any fair at any time, is there? Fair is only for children.

5 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Jan

good one

My fair lady

is it fair that Farrah Fawcett became famous from a poster

view all 3 replies

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB OP 30 Jan

But how would private companies chop up the interstate as it is?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 31 Jan

They could buy what they could afford. Auction off the whole damn thing, piece by piece. For instance sell US1 then US2 the US3 to whomever would bid the highest. Use the proceeds to pay off the national debt.

Another way is to make shares in every highway and distribute them to every American citizen of majority age and let them buy and sell shares on the markets.