Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

EV vehicles also reduce pollution, which in DC is 100% due to cars. That's why there is an exception for them.

I grew up out West where the cars are all huge. Moving to DC was a welcome change. We don't need giant vehicles here, we shouldn't have giant vehicles here.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

There's not even an "EV exception" - they just get to deduct 1000 pounds from their weight. They will still be paying more than the current $75.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

There's not even an "EV exception" - they just get to deduct 1000 pounds from their weight. They will still be paying more than the current $75.

So it’s a subsidy and not an exception.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

There's not even an "EV exception" - they just get to deduct 1000 pounds from their weight. They will still be paying more than the current $75.

So it’s a subsidy and not an exception.

If this makes you angry, wait until you hear about the EV tax credits...

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Unfortunately, that's no what it does because of the EV exception.

There's not even an "EV exception" - they just get to deduct 1000 pounds from their weight. They will still be paying more than the current $75.

So it’s a subsidy and not an exception.

If this makes you angry, wait until you hear about the EV tax credits...

You must be a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You’re both wrong, dangerously ignorant and just dumb in your pursuit of bad faith. Implementation of the rule has been delayed. However, you have no concern for all of the EVs on the road without noise?

That's why I wanted the surcharge for the models that don't have it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Should do more like Portland. They have traffic circles, speed bumps, and the traffic lights are timed to produce red lights.

Let people use the metro, and encourage biking and walking. Maybe have more rickshaws like the ones going from Capital to White House. You can even fix the homeless problem by having them pull the rickshaws.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

Start your own thread.

[Anonymous]

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.