"It costs me how much to drive my car - I thought I just paid for gas??" -- conventional un-wisdom

____________________

 

IRS raises auto mileage rate

Tax collector says higher gasoline prices boost per-mile rate to 48.5 cents; 2006 rate delayed

September 10, 2005: 6:30 PM EDT

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Internal Revenue Service has increased a mileage rate used to compute the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business due to the sharp rise in gasoline prices.

 

It also delayed setting the 2006 rate, saying gas prices may decline before the start of the new year.

Least-Cost Access/Hypercars

 

At RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute), we believe that Hypervehicles have the greatest potential to improve the environment in the short term. However, as explained in Problems Hypercar® Vehicles Won't Solve, such a technological fix may well exacerbate other problems(congestion, road-building, sprawl, etc.) unless accompanied by sensible public policy. Transportation policy needs to change anyway—Hypercar® vehicles simply increase the urgency .

 

Sustainable transportation requires designing communities around people, not cars: rethinking land use so that we needn't travel so much. This in turn requires an end-use/least-cost policy framework, where the desired end use is not mobility per se but access—to jobs, goods, services, and recreation. Such policies should foster fair competition between all modes of access, including those that displace the need for physical mobility, such as already being where you want to be.

 

Creative public-policy instruments can introduce market mechanisms to a transportation system long crippled by lopsided subsidies and top-down central planning. Most developing countries are following that bad example. But needed innovations are starting to emerge: ways to make parking and driving bear their true costs, improve competing modes, and substitute sensible land-use for physical mobility.

 

(The above text was excerpted from Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins. For complete text see Chapter 2: Reinventing the Wheels: Hypercars and Neighborhoods)

 

    * Next: End-Use/Least Cost Thinking

 

 

Could someone merge the "true cost of free parking" article into this thread? I can't seem to find it and I think it's a natural complement to this subject.

Although the title refers to climate change, many of the the subsidies listed show how driving as a whole is subsidized as a well as subsidizing oil depletion: 

 

Subsidizing Climate Change

 

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB2ch04_ss7.htm

 

By offering price breaks for oil use, energy generation by coal-fired power plants, and airlines, humans are in effect spending much-needed money on our own destruction, Lester R. Brown writes for the Earth Policy Institute.

 

Each year the world's taxpayers provide an estimated $700 billion of subsidies for environmentally destructive activities, such as fossil fuel burning, overpumping aquifers, clearcutting forests, and overfishing. An Earth Council study, Subsidizing Unsustainable Development, observes that "there is something unbelievable about the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to subsidize its own destruction."

Why is it that we are so willing to spend money on something like this, but not on something even more useful-- like efficient, convenient alternatives to driving?

 

 

 

Full speed ahead for intelligent car design

 

Financial Times, 20 February 2007 - A planned ‘active safety' system in US cars promises to cut congestion, but drivers may be reluctant to take it up. A decade or so down the road from now, if all goes to plan, driving in the US will be a smoother, less adrenaline-rich experience.

 

Your car will be wired to avoid colliding with other cars or swerving off the road, sometimes by steering, decelerating or braking automatically. Motorways will bristle with wireless equipment that can beam you messages, charge tolls without stopping, or pre-empt traffic lights for emergency vehicles. Your car will also send information on traffic or weather conditions to central agencies in an effort to prevent delays and dangerous pile-ups...

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c530d532-c087-11db-995a-000b5df10621.html

 

 

Donald Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking"

 

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988/sr=8-1/qid=1172312069/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1561449-8522219?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

mandatory reading for everyone.

Donald Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking"

 

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988/sr=8-1/qid=1172312069/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1561449-8522219?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

mandatory reading for everyone.

 

Thank you! Came across this blog topic on a Shoup lecture: http://www.thisplaceis.com/archives/26. Some of the comments are priceless:

 

5. Rob Stevens  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm

 

What this “seminar” fails to take into account are the working poor, and how this would effect them if parking were not free. Someone making minimum wage or even slightly above would be paralyzed by the cost of paid parking.

#

 

6. Henry Phish  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm

 

Not to mention that in most cases the individuals with the cars have more money and therefore can spend more. You need to cater to your main source of income.

#

 

11. Steve Mallett  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

 

I think this underscores not free parking, but the absurdity of social programs everywhere that have to tie to helping people produce for themselves.

 

If you think free parking has any kind of actual cost imagine stupid social programs and pork barrel politics.

If you don't want to buy the book, here's Don Shoup lecturing on "The High Cost of Free Parking" at Portland State. Go to the line in the chart that starts with "Feb 2" and stream it. Takes a little over an hour to view. It's really good.

 

Also, you might want to stream Charlie Hales' lecture on the Portlland Streetcar. It was on January 19th. Charlies' firm, HDR, is doing the streetcar study in Cincinnati, and you may get some clues about what they're looking to achieve.

 

http://www.cts.pdx.edu/seminars.htm

"It costs me how much to drive my car - I thought I just paid for gas??" -- conventional un-wisdom

____________________

 

IRS raises auto mileage rate

Tax collector says higher gasoline prices boost per-mile rate to 48.5 cents; 2006 rate delayed

September 10, 2005: 6:30 PM EDT

 

It's much more eye-opening when you annualize it...

 

10,000 miles/year = $4,850

12,000 miles/year = $5,820

15,000 miles/year = $7,275

20,000 miles/year = $9,700

And that doesn't include parking!

How many miles per year does the avergae person drive? I'd bet it's close to the 20,000 mile figure. throw in the cost of parking and whatever other direct costs are not factored into the IRS number and I'd bet we'd come up with at least $12,000 a year in operating costs. In fact, KJP had the cost of car ownership exceeding the cost of housing in Cleveland!

 

Speaking for myself, I can barely afford to own and operate my car and pay for a house at the same time. The car will be paid off soon and i am getting ready to sell the house. I am going to make the adjustment and get rid of this unsustainable lifestyle.

 

When you throw in how we've been propagandized to live in this car/house lifestyle (most people are not aware of any other choice) and how close these people are to the edge financially it's easy to see what a calamity awaits us. :-(

 

When you throw in how we've been propagandized to live in this car/house lifestyle (most people are not aware of any other choice) and how close these people are to the edge financially it's easy to see what a calamity awaits us. :-(

 

Which is one reason the media, which are totally in bed with the providers of the car/house lifestyle, seldom give fair treatment to strategies that advocate transportation choices. Think about it.

Question for the experts like John and Brewmaster:

 

When gas prices finally skyrocket and we reach the tipping point (5-6 dollars a gallon?) where everyone is looking for other options because cars are no longer an economically viable option for everyday use... Do you think we will pour money into public transit or will we pour money into alternative fuels like ethanol or even electric? With so many people living in suburbs, they have a lot of leverage. They wouldn't benefit as much from public transit. Since we live a lifestyle already centered around cars, it seems like cleaner alternative energy will prevail as long as the economics force it.

 

When you throw in how we've been propagandized to live in this car/house lifestyle (most people are not aware of any other choice) and how close these people are to the edge financially it's easy to see what a calamity awaits us. :-(

 

Which is one reason the media, which are totally in bed with the providers of the car/house lifestyle, seldom give fair treatment to strategies that advocate transportation choices. Think about it.

 

I sure have thought about it and what I see is truly disurbing. One of these days the bottom is going to drop out and a lot people are going to go thru the wringer. Some of us might look down our noses at Mr. Burb guy with his McMansion and Bus-sized SUV, but if these people go down the tubes, we'll all be hurting.

 

Question for the experts like John and Brewmaster:

 

When gas prices finally skyrocket and we reach the tipping point (5-6 dollars a gallon?) where everyone is looking for other options because cars are no longer an economically viable option for everyday use... Do you think we will pour money into public transit or will we pour money into alternative fuels like ethanol or even electric? With so many people living in suburbs, they have a lot of leverage. They wouldn't benefit as much from public transit. Since we live a lifestyle already centered around cars, it seems like cleaner alternative energy will prevail as long as the economics force it.

 

I'm not one of the experts, I suppose, but I think the answer will be that a lot of people will be in denial and will try to hang on to their suburban lifestyle as long as they think they can afford it. Synfuels and hybrids that allow that will be the order of the day.

 

On the other hand, there will surely be a migration to transit-friendly areas, along with an expansion of transit.

 

So I guess the answer is a little of each... :-D

Many people will chase the high-mobility lifestyle to the bitter end, and government will try to do what it can to help. But the alternative fuels will be more expensive, and the sprawlers will suffer diminished disposable income. Their property values may suffer, and they may be upside-down on their homes and car leases for a long time. I feel sorry for them.

 

On the other hand, people who have centered themselves closer to work and other things may enjoy a windfall as new stores and job opportunities start to reverse the centripetal forces of the last sixty years. They will demand transportation choices, and they'll gain some. Mainly they will gain piece of mind knowing they are in control of their lives.

 

I saw a story on the news last night about how propane suppliers around Greater Cincinnati haven't been able to keep up with demand because, they say, their trucks haven't been able to get to all the back roads because of ice. Some people have now run out of fuel with no certain prospect of getting more. While I think there's more to the story than that, imagine having to live for two weeks in one room with only a kerosene or electric space heater and relying on electric blankets to keep you warm at night.

 

I think Katrina was the first straw in the wind of the tornado of economic changes coming. For the first time since the Great Depression, Americans saw Americans who were very vulnerable -- and even the Feds didn't have the resources to help, or didn't use them if they did. I suspect it registered with a lot of people.

it seems like cleaner alternative energy will prevail as long as the economics force it.

 

Except that there simply isn't enough cropland in the US to support America's current level of driving with biofuels AND feed the nation.  Electric cars may increase things some, but overall, America is going to be forced to drive less in the coming decades.  We'll exhaust every possibility to try keep things as they  before we finally admit it, but that's going to be the outcome. 

 

You also have to remember that our car-centric lifestyle has far less to do with pure market forces than it does with public policy.  Government transportation policy, energy policy and land use policy are forcing the market to provide car-centric development.  Think about it, developers in Columbus, for example, didn't start offering new-urbanist style developments until the city council changed its zoning code to make such development legal.  As far as I can tell, the developers are having no trouble selling what they are building in these new-urbanist neighborhoods, so the market wasn't offering everything people wanted before because it was illegal to build it. 

 

Many people will chase the high-mobility lifestyle to the bitter end

 

You can have high mobility without high car use.  I think the correct phrase here is car-centered lifestyle.  "They" will chase it because that is what most are stuck with. 

 

 

"You can have high mobility without high car use."

 

I doubt that's true for many people. I think you can have a "high-access" lifestyle by living and working and playing in your own neighborhood. But in most American cities, you're not going to be very mobile without a car. I live downtown and have access to where I work and almost everything I need within walking distance, but I still have to rent cars on days where I need to be in a lot of different places or to travel to other nearby cities. Or to get stuff at places where the buses don't run.

^I was speaking in general terms that it's possible in properly designed communities.  Besides, I said "that's what most people are stuck with", and what they will chase is car-centered mobility because that's what they are stuck with. 

Question for the experts like John and Brewmaster:

 

Wow!  I'm an expert!  :-D

 

 

Many people will chase the high-mobility lifestyle to the bitter end, and government will try to do what it can to help. But the alternative fuels will be more expensive, and the sprawlers will suffer diminished disposable income. Their property values may suffer, and they may be upside-down on their homes and car leases for a long time. I feel sorry for them.

 

On the other hand, people who have centered themselves closer to work and other things may enjoy a windfall as new stores and job opportunities start to reverse the centripetal forces of the last sixty years. They will demand transportation choices, and they'll gain some. Mainly they will gain piece of mind knowing they are in control of their lives.

 

I agree with John for the most part.  We are probably heading down a long (sometimes frustrating) path of exhausting all other options.

 

First, thanks mostly to special interest groups and ag-state legislators, we are heading down the path of corn based ethanol.  It isn't taking us long to realize that this isn't the way to go.  Corn prices are heading through the roof and the energy balance on the distillation process is hardly what any engineer would call "sustainable".  Without subsidies, the price of gas also goes through the roof (don't forget, even regular gas is required to have 10% ethanol as an additive now).

 

Second, the government finally seems to be willing to raise mpg standards (or at least discuss it).  Thanks to Ford and GM already getting slaughtered by our more efficient neighbors in Japan, I think we could see some positive actions on this soon.  This is a good and necessary step, but one that won't pay off for years.  The average car spends 12 years on the road, so there's a huge turnover period, and any increase in standards will likely be phased in slowly.  In other words...not much help here.

 

After that it all depends on who's in office after Bush.  If we end up with another repub, it's possible to see huge tax breaks for coal to liquids projects and continued subsidies for ethanol (corn and cellulose).  If there's a democrat in office, it's probably more likely that we'll see more subsidies on cars themselves.  They're probably more likely to spend the big $$$ on infrastructure projects like rail...paid for through tax increases.

 

The wildcard here is probably CO2 regulation.  Everyone seems to be guessing that sometime in the next 5-15 years, the US will be part of some sort of CO2 regulations.  If that only targets stationary sources (i.e. power plants and manufacturing processes), we won't see much outside of vastly higher electricity rates.  Some will filter down into transportation fuels through the increased cost of refining, but it probably won't come with the sticker shock of the electric rates.  Our region will be especially hard hit due to our reliance on coal for the vast majority of our power.  Good CO2 legislation will DIRECTLY force individual energy users to make better decisions.  A surcharge will be added to carbon based fuels, or some sort of CO2 rationing system (cap and trade) will be imposed on each person.  My personal favorite model includes an ebay-like internet system where energy users can buy and sell allowances to offset thier emissions. 

 

IMHO, CO2 regulations may be the straw that breaks suburbia's back.  Suburbia not only has outrageous household utility bills, but it's obviously more dependant on cars for mobility.  This is where John hit the nail on the head.

“America can always be counted on to do the right thing … after they’ve exhausted all the choices.”

 

-- former British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill

Attaboy!

 

An interesting talking point, though I'd like to see how they came up with some of the numbers.

 

http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

Ahem..... and highways pay for themselves????  The following is from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

 

President Signs Bill Providing 9-Month Extension,

$19.5 Billion for Highway Trust Fund  

 

President Barack Obama signed into law Thursday morning a bill known as the "HIRE Act" containing several transportation provisions including an extension of authorization for federal highway and transit programs through Dec. 31 as well as providing $19.5 billion to the Highway Trust Fund.

"This jobs bill will maintain crucial investments in our roads and our bridges as we head into the spring and summer months when construction jobs are picking up," Obama said during the signing ceremony in the White House Rose Garden.

 

By a vote of 68-29, the Senate gave final approval Wednesday to the bill, HR 2847.

 

"Hundreds of thousands of construction workers and state department of transportation employees from across the country are breathing a collective sigh of relief now that the president has signed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act," said AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley. "We are delighted that Congress has passed this significant piece of legislation and President Obama has signed it into law. It's a win for the economy and for the communities that will benefit from the transportation projects funded by this measure." (A video statement from Horsley regarding the HIRE Act is available at www.transportation.org.)

 

Full article at: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/031910reauthorization.aspx

The three greatest lies in history:

 

> The check is in the mail.

> It's only a cold sore.

> Highways pay for themselves.

The three greatest lies in history:

 

> The check is in the mail.

> It's only a cold sore.

> Highways pay for themselves.

 

LMAO

 

Don't forget, "trust me, I'm a/an X"  LOL

Of course, there's also the lie: "I'll still love you in the morning."

Of course, there's also the lie: "I'll still love you in the morning."

 

Cut to the next morning, you ask, "ah..what's your name again?"

April 7, 2010

Costs of driving shift up for 2010

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

 

It's official: Your driving costs are going up.

 

The average cost of owning and operating a sedan in the USA rose 4.8% this year to 56.6 cents per mile, or $8,487 per year, a study out today by auto club AAA finds.

 

Rising gas prices are primarily responsible for the increased costs and also are lowering the resale or trade-in value of cars that don't get good gas mileage, says John Nielsen, director of AAA's approved auto repair and auto buying network.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2010-04-07-cost-of-driving_N.htm

So I know I've seen it here before, but can't find the number.  What percent of total highway spending comes from the fuel tax?  Thanks. 

And that doesn't include parking!

 

Parking can end up being a deal breaker, regardless of the other numbers.  I drive everywhere now because I can and it's relatively cheap & easy as I live & work in Cleveland, but I don't pay to park.  I lived in Chicago, lived & worked downtown and it was a real pain to drive because there was usually no place to park that wasn't $20.  That adds up.  Parking is relatively cheap here in Cleveland, even downtown.  Anywhere outside of downtown, parking is pretty much free.

Acccording to Pew's Subsidyscope, 51 percent: http://subsidyscope.com/transportation/highways/funding/. According to the Texas DOT "about half" http://www.cnu.org/node/2329 yet they found some highways which covered just 16 percent of their costs from user sources.

Thanks!

Quote from: KJP in the 3-C thread:

 

The highway patrol's budget for 2010-11 biennial is $636 million or an average of $318 per year for the two years.

 

    My research shows there are three sources of funding for the Ohio State Highway Patrol:

 

    Wholesale and Retail Motor Fuel Evaporation Tax Credits - $18 million per year

    Drivers license/registration late fee - $26 million per year (based on final three months of 2009)

    General revenue fund - $274 million

 

 

    http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/state_lawmakers_interested_in.html

    COLUMBUS, Ohio - Irate motorists have state lawmakers in both parties in full backpedal as they consider rolling back a new $20 fee for drivers more than seven days late renewing their driver's licenses or registering their cars.

    More than three dozen House lawmakers, most of them minority-party Republicans, are sponsoring a bill that would repeal the $20 late fee -- which netted $6.4 million during the final three months of 2009.

    However, the legislation offers no way of raising the $19 million to $30 million a year for the State Highway Patrol that the fee was expected to generate.

 

In answer to a question posed on another thread about how much of this is offset by fines, I found this on the patrol's FAQ site:

 

Ohio State Highway Patrol operations are funded primarily through license plates and driver license fees, so the Patrol receives no benefit from traffic fine money. While the state of Ohio receives some fine money, the majority is retained by the municipality and/or county in which the offense occurred.

 

http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/FAQ.stm

 

The most recent annual report online (2006), however, says that 34% of the Patrol's revenue comes from "fees and fines" lumped together.  Here's how they break down the fines:

 

We collected $449,937 in OVI fines from 165 county and municipal courts, and received $63,000 through the Immobilization Act. Revenue from drug fine money totaled $225,171, and $715,912 in forfeited funds was received through the efforts of our criminal patrol teams.

 

http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/doc/2006annualreport.pdf  See page 14.

 

Rough estimate is about $1.4 million.  So the fine revenue seems like a pretty small proportion of the overall budget.

Substantially funding a police organization with the fines they issue is asking for it.  Either real abuse will occur or the perception of abuse will hound the agency. 

 

 

Plus, if the law enforcement agency (local, county sheriff, state highway patrol) that makes a traffic stop gets to keep the revenue from the fine, then we end up with agencies competing with each other to make stops. And the goal is to enforce laws, not collect revenue, which is always a tough balance to maintain.

Point taken, but couldn't the money be funneled back into highways?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 2:49pm EDT

Report: Downtown Columbus parking rates jump

Business First of Columbus

 

Daily and monthly parking rates in downtown Columbus remain comfortably below the national average, but both costs saw hefty spikes this year compared with 2009, according to a recent report from Colliers International.

 

The real estate services firm in a new look at parking rates in dozens of central business districts nationwide pegged Columbus’ median daily parking rate at $10. That’s below the national average of $16.36 but up 11 percent from the year before. Daily parking rates nationwide, meanwhile, dipped 1.4 percent.

 

Downtown Columbus’ median monthly unreserved parking rate stood at $125 as of June 2010, up 14 percent from a year ago. Nationally, the median monthly rate of $161.56 is up only 1 percent from 2009.

 

Full story at: http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/07/19/daily22.html

A very interesting link if you want to find out what transportation costs Ohioans:

 

http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php#region=Columbus%2C%20OH&theme_menu=1&layer1=28&layer2=24

 

The calculator can be changed at the top of the page to show any metro area.

And one more thing that will drive up the cost of the care and feeding of a motor vehicle...

 

Rubber hits the road to higher prices

Demand for vehicles in China, India tightens supplies for tires By LARRY P. VELLEQUETTE

BLADE BUSINESS WRITER

 

Now is not the time to blow a tire.

 

The worldwide price of rubber is at its highest level in decades as demand from China and India outstrips existing supply, leading tire companies such as Findlay-based Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. to raise their prices.

 

Full story at: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101016/BUSINESS07/10150352

Getting to work as important as finding job

 

Written by

KENT MALLETT

Advocate Reporter

6:27 AM, Mar. 6, 2011|

 

NEWARK -- Finding a job means everything

to the more than 7,000 unemployed

Licking County residents. Well, almost

everything.

 

For many, getting to their job also can be

an issue. Some don't have a reliable

vehicle, while others tire of long commutes

that consume valuable time and money.

 

More than 15 percent of Licking Countians

spend at least 45 minutes driving to work

every day. It's been six years since the

county provided bus transportation to

Columbus.

 

"I think (transportation) is an issue," Licking

County job specialist Windy Murphy said.

"That is a huge barrier to employment in

Licking County -- the lack of public

transportation."

 

Read more at: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20110306/NEWS01/103060301/1002/Getting-work-important-finding-job

Stimulate The Local Economy and Your Wallet By Getting Rid of Your Car

 

A very interesting blog post with graphics at:

http://www.good.is/post/stimulate-your-local-economy-and-your-wallet-by-getting-rid-of-your-car/

Communist!!!

Stimulate The Local Economy and Your Wallet By Getting Rid of Your Car

 

A very interesting blog post with graphics at:

http://www.good.is/post/stimulate-your-local-economy-and-your-wallet-by-getting-rid-of-your-car/

 

The savings chart on that website says it all, but I suspect they have a strong socialist lean. :wink:

Operators don't pay enough for damage their heavy trucks cause, audit says

 

Apr 1, 2011 

BY MATT HELMS

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Local News

Michigan

 

The state doesn't charge operators of heavy, oversize rigs enough to cover the harm they do to roads, a report by Michigan Auditor General Thomas McTavish's office concludes.

 

Heavy loads tear up concrete and stress bridges to the tune of $135 million a year -- yet by law, the Michigan Department of Transportation receives only a fraction of that amount annually to counteract the damage, according to the report.

 

MDOT uses the fees to leverage federal funds that require an 80-20 local match. The fees charged for the heaviest trucks end up raising about $15 million a year -- still $120 million short of the overall yearly damage auditors blamed on the heaviest trucks.

 

Read more at: http://www.freep.com/article/20110401/NEWS06/104010375/1001/NEWS/Heavy-trucks-damage-roads-don-t-pay-enough-audit-says

It doesn't really matter, IMO. People are going to foot the bill for it one way or another. Trucks move goods and if trucking companies paid the full amount, we would be paying much higher prices for goods because of the higher cost of logistics.

^ Companies buying/shipping the goods might choose an alternate mode if the cost of shipping by truck were explicitly higher.

It would change what mode of transportation carries more freight, and what kinds of freight -- railroads would carry more of the high-valued goods that go by truck now, not the bulk stuff that goes by rail.

It doesn't really matter, IMO. People are going to foot the bill for it one way or another. Trucks move goods and if trucking companies paid the full amount, we would be paying much higher prices for goods because of the higher cost of logistics.

 

 

Perhaps the cost of goods should better reflect the full costs of getting them to you.  We're paying for it anyway, just in a different way.  Why not just be honest about the cost up front instead of playing a shell game? 

 

By the way, love your tag line, David. 

Not sure if the article mentions it but Michigan law allows the use of "Michigan Doubles" or "gravel trains".  These can have a GVWR of 120,000 vs Ohio's limit of 80,000.  Big difference

My dad owns a trucking company. It's 1200 bucks just for commercial tags that allow you to travel through Ohio alone. The industry is struggling as it is, esp. when fuel surchaeges are flat rate based on old, cheaper diesel prices and agents f-k you over by taking commission on your fuel surcharge by adding it to your pay before taking their commission. No owner operator could afford the true cost up front. Their trucks would be sitting until they could get CheckSmart loans lol! KJP open a retail store and tell your customers they have to wait 2 weeks for a shipment and let me know how that works out in this society full of impatient consumers.