Washington State vetoes all-EV law due to road usage requirement, but it's not so hard


Governor Inslee of Washington has refused to sign a bill he says he supports, which bans new fossil cars by 2030. He refused to sign it because it ties it to creating a road use tax system for EVs, which he says he also supports, but not in the same bill.

He might be right, but the reality is that having a road use tax system is a pretty trivial thing for the cars of 2030. In fact the Teslas of 2018 could do it with a software update.

Read Washington State vetoes all-EV law due to road usage requirement, but it's not so hard


Just ask people what their odometer is every year when they renew their registration. Randomly audit a small percentage, and hit them with hefty fines and criminal penalties if they intentionally lied about it.

That works, though most people will want their car to just send the numbers in for them -- at their command, with the option to do it manually. However, to break down your miles by the states you drove in, you will need to rely on your car for that unless you want to do a lot of work. And if the car doesn't maintain such an odometer, there is no way to audit that. Now, there is not a lot of need for audit, unless different states charge wildly different taxes. For example, if one state charges no tax I would want to lie and say all my driving was in that state. With gasoline that was very difficult because while one could visit that state to buy gasoline if you lived near the border, generally there is broad correlation between where gasoline is purchased and where it is used.

I'm not sure how much people care about going through the enormous trouble of writing down a five or six digit number once a year. Sure, it could be a very very very minor perk that new car manufacturers could offer, but maintaining all the infrastructure to support it would be pretty expensive on the part of the state, and for virtually zero benefit.

I didn't say anything about tracking it by state. Trying to track that is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. We're talking about a few hundred dollars a year of tax on average. It's replacing a tax that is much less accurate. This doesn't need to be so complicated.

Retrofitting all cars in the state is obviously not cost effective. So you've gotta have something for owners of older cars to use, and just writing down the odometer reading once a year is the best candidate for that.

Oh, I agree with you that tracking by state need not be on the must-have list. Sadly, the states see a big loss of revenue, so they will fight for this. Some states, anyway, particularly states with large populations on the border or who see a large number of out of state cars on their roads. For any one driver, it's not a big deal. For the state, they can imagine it would be a lot of money. Even if they just imagine it they will push it. Anyway, a per-state odometer is pretty easy to do in any modern car, and since every modern car, certainly by 2030, has an app, it can be no work for the car owner as well.

The states also "lose revenue" when people buy gasoline in a neighboring state. Oh well. It's hard to imagine a per-state odometer being mandated on all new vehicles, and even if it was, it would be many years before cars made after that date made up even a majority of the ones on the road.

I don't think they need this. But a lot of them want far more, they want a complete tracklog of every car so they can not just tax by the state but by the road -- higher taxes per mile for certain roads, automatic toll paying etc. We don't want them to have that, but per-state might placate them and doesn't reveal much private data.

People can buy gas in other states, but it usually balances out and in the past they had no solution to it. If you drive cross-country, you are going to pay taxes to the states you drive through. All those boring states people just drive through want their taxes.

Presumably you're talking about a federal mandate, because states that I'm passing through while driving cross-country have no right to require me to have a "smart odometer" or whatever you want to call it. How would they even collect that? I'm going to get 10 bills in the mail, for $5 here and $10 there, after I make a cross-country trip?

I could see them doing it for commercial vehicles. They already have truck stops for them, and this would be *less burdensome (though they'll probably still have truck stops too). But for regular passenger vehicles passing through a state infrequently? No way.

I'm opposed to it. I think it's a dumb idea that'll cost way more than the tiny benefit it provides. And I also think it'd probably be a slippery slope that leads directly to the kinds of systems you're saying you oppose, once it becomes clear that a crippled system that can only report which state you drive in is fairly useless.

Would be in the new cars for the states that require it to sell the car there. It's a software feature it has no cost. States would do a treaty collecting and sharng. Or maybe they wouldn't. The alternative is to tax the vehicles registered in their state, or to tax the electricity in the charging stations.

If it's only in new cars that require it to sell the car there (1), then it doesn't solve the problem of cars driving through a state. And what about all the cars that aren't new?

"Treaty" (interstate compact?) collecting and sharing can easily happen through the simple "report your odometer reading once a year" method plus some statistical analysis and/or self-reporting, though the state with the short end of the stick isn't likely to agree.

Software doesn't write itself for free. I don't understand how you can imply that.

(1) which probably still isn't constitutional. California has a special exemption that allows it to have its own emissions standards, but for the most part states can't impose rules like this on car manufacturers. States can also regulate dealerships, but regulating dealerships to require a feature to be in the car is probably not feasible, and it's easy to get around such a regulation anyway by taking possession in another state. States can, of course, pass lots of rules on their own state residents. See below for that.

The alternative is to tax the vehicles registered in their state,

Yep. That was my suggestion that started this thread. Just ask people their odometer reading once a year, when they renew their registration. All the complications of having smart odometers would have little benefit even if they worked perfectly, and they won't work perfectly or anywhere near perfectly until nearly every car in the country has one.

or to tax the electricity in the charging stations.

Much less accurate than the simple method I provided in my first comment.

Correct these regulations are all being written with phrases like "All cars sold after 2030 must..."

So it's only new (or far future) cars.

That should read, "If it's only in new cars sold in states that require it to sell the car there (1), then it doesn't solve the problem of cars driving through a state."

But yeah, the fact that it's only new cars means this is useless for decades (unless you want to treat new car owners differently, which I don't). And in a few decades we'll likely have much better solutions.

We could switch to self-reporting odometer readings and taxing based on that within a few years. Maybe keep the tax on diesel, and give diesel drivers a different calculation or an exemption, in order to cover the majority of road damage caused by vehicles not registered in the state.

It's not at all clear to me that paying for roads by the mile makes sense in the first place. For small roads with primarily only local traffic, they should probably be paid for with property taxes, at a fixed (non-ad-valorem) rate regardless of use. For large motorways, tolls work okay, and toll collection is getting more and more streamlined over time.

Maybe it makes sense to charge based on usage for the many roads that fall in-between the local road and the limited access highway, though it's not clear that this is all that much better than just paying for it with property and sales/income taxes. (Alternatively, you could just build toll collection into the numerous traffic cams that are already all over these roads, if you really wanted to have people pay-per-mile. I don't like the cams, but they're already there.)

Building roads is usually not paid for by the use taxes, but out of general funds. Use taxes are for maintenance, which is correlated with use (mostly with weight and use.)

Maintenance is correlated with use (mostly weight and use), therefore we should tax drivers by the mile? I'm not convinced.

I think the owner of every lot in my subdivision should pay the same amount for the maintenance of roads in the subdivision, regardless of use (so long as use is reasonable, which restrictions against things like running a trucking company out of your garage help ensure).

It would be a mix. You could price it many ways, and indeed, the mere existence of the road is of value to those on the network, and they certainly should pay for its construction. Wear and tear however is based somewhat on time (which again, all who use it at all should pay) but mostly on use, and then mostly on weight. Crazy on weight, in that road wear is proportional roughly to the 4th power of weight.

Of course, if I don't use the roads at all because I have a VTOL and take no deliveries or mail, perhaps I need not pay.

I don't see why it matters what wear and tear is based on.

If you don't use the roads at all, directly or indirectly, and you don't care if they continue to be maintained or not, sure, you shouldn't have to pay. In an ideal world, all roads would be privately owned, and you wouldn't have to pay for anything that you don't use or agree to pay for. But I really don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not roads should be paid for by the mile.

I definitely will charge more to people who are driving 40 ton trucks and tearing it up than I charge to people on motorcycles, and the more miles those trucks drive, the more I will charge them. Why would I do otherwise?

If we're going to put something in all new cars, how about a way for cars to automatically pay money anonymously every time they pass through a toll intersection?

Anonymous isn't happening as long as cars have licence plates and broadcast MAC addresses everywhere they go.

However, I do think the idea of toll based road regulation is interesting. But you don't need to put infrastructure at every intersection to do that. Congestion charging tends to work by having a cordon around the central area.

I think you can do it with less infrastructure than that, just random checks to assure that self-reporting is correct. But that's something I am investigating for congestion management, not road use taxes.

It's up to us what we choose to do with the cameras. We don't have to record anything (for more than a few seconds) unless there's a toll violation. Most likely we'll want to record things for other purposes, but there's no reason we can't throw those recordings away after a few days. Obviously it's possible to track people. That's already true. But it doesn't mean we have to do it.

The payments should be anonymous. At least optionally. There should be no record matching the payer (or the car, etc.) with the payment. The theoretical ability for a group of people working in government with a high level of security access and a whole lot of computing power to secretly violate the law and break the anonymization is okay, though the security on this should be tight, and legal access to the recordings, or to prevent them from being automatically destroyed after a few days, should require a judge's signature and be based on a specific need.

I said every time they pass through "a toll intersection". Not every intersection should be a toll one.

Self-reporting? Sounds like you mean mandating tracking devices.

There are certain approaches that are so efficient and useful that while I would generally agree, I can see some virtue in certain privacy risks, though I broadly agree we should be able to travel the roads without being tracked. But I also think that each square-foot-second of road use (plus second-ton^4 per axle) should be paid for with a market price, as this would eliminate road congestion among other things.

The most privacy protecting way to do that might be to have anonymous payment transponders and measurement devices, but it's not clear that isn't actually a larger privacy risk as anonymity is difficult. It's also a lot of infrastructure.

So another architecture I have been exploring is that you (or rather your computer, this is all pretty invisible to you) buy a route through the road network for your trip (or a collection of route options which can be adjusted with time.) When driving the route you may go through random checkpoints, and only at these checkpoints would you do a transaction to show you bought the right to be there at that time, and if you don't do that, your licence plate is photographed and ticketed. The records of the routes would get destroyed once expired. This can be done with a smartphone, and the infrastructure is a modest number of portable checkpoints. It could also be done without the cell phone but with ALPR for all cars, which is privacy invading if we don't assure that information is destroyed if the photographed car is shown to have purchased the route rights.

I also think that each square-foot-second of road use (plus second-ton^4 per axle) should be paid for with a market price

You can have a free market, or you can have that convoluted way of paying for roads. Not both.

I agree that roads are complex, there is no easy fix for that. Driving across the only bridge over the river at 8:45AM is going to be a more valuable thing to do than driving on a quiet suburban street at 2am. But within the context of those values (which the market should set) I think the sq-ft-second is a pretty simple way to make it into a fairly scalar number. A motorcycle, car and bus will use different amounts of square foot seconds as they cross. The F2S is of course not simply the area your vehicle occupies, but the space it precludes others from occupying both in front of you and behind you, and to the side. Vehicles that can safety travel with less headway need fewer F2S and should pay less. Vehicles that can drive precisely in narrower lanes can pay less if they can find other vehicles to match. Speed is interesting -- the faster you go the fewer seconds you need the space, but the larger headways you need. Traffic engineers study this to find the optimum speeds at which road capacity is highest, and this is based on how many F2S each vehicle needs at this speed.

If the road manager sells to vehicles that need fewer F2S, they can get more cars on the road, so their price will be lower than vehicles that need more. Of course a bus, which needs a lot of F2S, shares that cost among the many passengers so the F2S per passenger can actually be lowest.

All this is what we want. What alternative is better?

Add new comment