White House At Least Considering Increasing Gas Tax, Needs to Consult Congress

The United States’ 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline and 24.4-cent tax on diesel hasn’t changed since 1993. Despite this, the opinion that it should be hiked as a way of funding public works was nowhere near the White House’s official infrastructure strategy. But Donald Trump isn’t averse to the idea. In fact, he proposed a 25-cent increase to senators during a Wednesday meeting as a possible funding solution.

White House officials claim the president says “everything is on the table” in terms of finding a solution for America’s growing infrastructure problems. But how serious the rest of the Trump administration is about raising the fuel tax is debatable.

Read more
Here Come the Roads: President 'Big Daddy' Trump Unveils Infrastructure Plan

Few things are sexier than a new road. The scent of fresh tar, smooth pavement that’s still warm to the touch — it’s an absolute feast for the senses. After roughly a year of waiting, President Trump finally seems poised to deliver on a bunch of them. The White House has just offered Congress a 53-page report detailing exactly how to rattle loose $1.5 trillion in investments into the country’s ailing infrastructure.

Maybe “poised” is the wrong word to use; how about we just say that he’s been interested in the idea that somebody should build them.

Expect Democrats to complain that the plan totally fails to create a dedicated funding stream to address the infrastructure issue and Republicans to gripe about how the small federal investment, set at $200 billion, is still far too large. It’s a beautiful system we have here.

Read more
Trump Flips Script on Who's Paying to Fix Our Crumbling Infrastructure

Last week, I defended the president’s honor and lamented that I probably wouldn’t have a follow-up opportunity for some time. As it turns out, that claim is in no danger of becoming a falsehood. On Tuesday, President Trump told lawmakers he was ditching a key aspect of his planned $1 trillion infrastructure package — namely, who is going to pay for it.

Spoiler alert: its going to be taxpayers.

The White House previously envisioned a strategy where private investors would be lured into rebuilding roadways, bridges, and rail networks with promises of federal backing and a less-daunting approvals process. But now it’s saying partnerships between the private sector and federal government might not work.

Read more
England Studying "Charge As You Drive" Inductive Charging Roads

The British government is continuing on with a study of inductive charging on England’s busy A roads a reality, reports the BBC (via Gizmodo).

Feasibility of the technology hasn’t been fully proven as of yet, but England is getting one step closer by tendering bids for off-road trials. If off-road trials are successful, you might be able to drive long distances across the UK without needing to stop to recharge. The trials are expected to take 18 months from 2016 to 2017.

Elon, you might soon lose your killer app.

Read more
The Future of Roads May Be in Lego-type Construction

Dutch company VolkerWessels is proposing a new type of roadway construction that could make it easier to remove, replace or resurface streets in the near future, Gizmodo is reporting.

The engineering firm is working with the City of Rotterdam to test its early concept. The streets are prefabricated and dropped into place. The roadways use a below-surface tunnel to house infrastructure like water, cables and utilities.

Read more
  • 28-Cars-Later One of the biggest reasons not to purchase an EV that I hear is...that they just all around suck for almost every use case imaginable.
  • Theflyersfan A cheaper EV is likely to have a smaller battery (think Mazda MX-30 and Mitsubishi iMEV), so that makes it less useful for some buyers. Personally, my charging can only take place at work or at a four-charger station at the end of my street in a public lot, so that's a crapshoot. If a cheaper EV was able to capture what it seems like a lot of buyers want - sub-40K, 300+ mile range, up to 80% charging in 20-30 minutes (tops) - then they can possibly be added to some lists. But then the issues of depreciation and resale value come into play if someone wants to keep the car for a while. But since this question is asking person by person, if I had room for a second car to be garaged (off of the street), I would consider an EV for a second car and keep my current one as a weekend toy. But I can't do a 50K+ EV as a primary car with my uncertain charging infrastructure by me, road trips, and as a second car, the higher insurance rates and county taxes. Not yet at least. A plug in hybrid however is perfect.
  • 28-Cars-Later Neither, but Honda lost the plot a while back in my view so Rav it would be.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Nope. Still not interested.
  • 28-Cars-Later I know someone who would snap this up for the right money, but Ontario and likely the ask would prohibit it.