Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

If they use more gas, they pay more in the gas tax and pay for a bigger share of road maintenance costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

If they use more gas, they pay more in the gas tax and pay for a bigger share of road maintenance costs.

they emit more pollution, der.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bikers do not cause wear and tear on infrastructure and do not burn fossil fuels.

Start your own thread.

They still use the roads, right? Maybe they should help pay for them like everyone else. “User pays” is the mantra that has long guided transportation policy in this country. It’s not “user pays except for bikers who don’t want to pay for anything.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

If they use more gas, they pay more in the gas tax and pay for a bigger share of road maintenance costs.

they emit more pollution, der.

So what? Your bike means nothing to climate change. It’s a purely symbolic act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers do not cause wear and tear on infrastructure and do not burn fossil fuels.

Start your own thread.

They still use the roads, right? Maybe they should help pay for them like everyone else. “User pays” is the mantra that has long guided transportation policy in this country. It’s not “user pays except for bikers who don’t want to pay for anything.”

Hilarious that you think drivers pay for anything more than a tiny portion of the infrastructure they use. They are some of the biggest welfare queens in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about a supersized tax on bicyclists who pay bupkis for our roads? Roads in this country are financed by the gas tax. Bikers are the freeloaders here.

This again? No, gas taxes do not come close to covering it.

[Anonymous]

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

DC is at 35 percent.

[Anonymous]

We should probably pay bikers for not using a fossil fuel burning vehicle that contributes to climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers do not cause wear and tear on infrastructure and do not burn fossil fuels.

Start your own thread.

They still use the roads, right? Maybe they should help pay for them like everyone else. “User pays” is the mantra that has long guided transportation policy in this country. It’s not “user pays except for bikers who don’t want to pay for anything.”

So you'll tax bikes based on how much they weigh? How much the riders weigh? The average bike weighs less than 1 percent of what some of the cars and SUVs this thread is discussing do. I suppose I'd pay a 70 cent annual fee for my bike, in addition to the gas taxes and car registration I pay, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

These are all very good points.

I would also add that in most other jurisdictions, EV owners pay a supplemental licensing fee to cover their contribution to road repairs due to their lack of payment of gas tax. I would think also that if cyclists want all of their new and dedicated infrastructure maintained that there would be a specific user fee or tax regime that would be set up to apply.

What DC is currently doing with this vehicle licensing scheme seems like a great ploy for generating headlines and attention, but pretty poorly thought through public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

because the gas tax *does not pay for* all the additional costs SUVs impose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

because the gas tax *does not pay for* all the additional costs SUVs impose.

And what costs are those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.

DP. Discouraging too-big-for-the-roads and bad-for-the-roads trucks isn't misplaced, IMO.

PP. It is when it arbitrarily targets only certain kinds of vehicles, fails to address the actual problems and doesn't even bother to require the funds to go toward improving the roads that are allegedly being damaged by these vehicles. Do you know which vehicles are being targeted in this law? It's not only "too-big-for-the-road" vehicles. Many standard size SUVs are slightly above the weight limit according to this law (which begs the question of how the council came up with the particular weight limit in the first place). Families with more than 2 kids or who carpool can't necessarily fit in a sedan or a small SUV that's under the arbitrary weight limit (those often doesn't seat more than a sedan). Some people need larger vehicles for work (contractors, for example). Not to mention that this law does absolutely nothing about all of these large, dangerous vehicles coming into the District from MD and VA on a daily basis. Aren't those vehicles just as "dangerous?" I would love to know how many of the vehicles targeted by this law are actually registered in DC versus those that drive into DC from the surrounding areas on any given day. Also, I saw nothing about residents who already own these "large" vehicles being grandfathered in.

If the council was truly concerned about safety on the roads, perhaps MPD could actually enforce any of the numerous traffic laws already on the books. And if additional money was needed to improve the bad roads, perhaps some money could be allocated to those projects. Didn't DC have a huge budget surplus?

It's a money grab. And a pretty blatant one at that. All the council has to do is claim some specious benefit to road safety and road improvement people eat it up even if it doesn't pass the basic smell test.

It’s not perfect but it’s a step in the right direction of making people who create negative externalities have to pay for doing so. For once.

But what is the perceived "negative externality" here? And how is a typical DC resident driving a standard SUV, for example, "creating" these perceived negative externalities? Honestly asking.

SUVs use more gas, take up more space, and are much more dangerous to pedestrians and smaller cars.

PP here. But if I drive a standard SUV, I pay for the increased gas (and corresponding gas tax) I would consume right? What legitimate reason would DC have for levying an additional fee? And if I don't actually drive my SUV very much, I may not actually use more gas than someone who drives a car more frequently.

And what's the problem with "taking up more space?" Where? How? The roads were designed to accommodate standard SUVs so they aren't taking up more space than is otherwise allowed.

A standard SUV isn't any more dangerous to a pedestrian or smaller car than a mini-van is. And there are already laws on the books to address safety regardless of the type of car being driven or where the car is tagged if safety is actually a concern. For one, MPD could enforce the traffic laws to increase safety for everyone but they don't. An SUV isn't inherently dangerous - it's only dangerous if its operated in a negligent manner. Note also that EVs are given a subsidy so it seems that safety is not really the issue here.

And in addition to all of the above, it bears repeating that the law does nothing to address these issues when it comes to MD or VA drivers. Don't their SUVs use more gas, take up more space and present a danger to all on the road, too? We won't charge them a fee for driving their dangerous, polluting vehicles into the District but we'll charge District residents a fee for owning such vehicles. I'd wager most of these dangerous, polluting vehicles on the road on any given day have MD or VA tags anyway.

What? Not in DC. Where are you posting from?

Are you suggesting that the roads in DC aren’t normal sized? Where are you driving in DC where the lane is abnormally small such that it cannot accommodate a standard size vehicle? I’ve lived here for decades and haven’t encountered any such roads.