European Automakers defend diesels, call them key to meeting CO2 goals

[chucky2]

 

Not if it cost significantly more than a straight up usage fee.

Cost more for who? The consumer pays what they use the roads for. If they're driving all over gods green earth, then they should pay more than someone who drives to the supermarket 1 mi away once a week and to church two blocks over on Sunday.

 

What a system like this solves is your money goes to the people whose roads you actually drive on and in the %'s you drive on them in. Fuel tax doesn't do that, nor does $/mi tax. I think you guys are confusing 'most fair' with 'easiest to implement'. I'm not saying this is the easiest to implement.

[akirby]

This is really not that complicated (and yes I work in IT too). Does it have complexity? Sure. Really not that bad. I'd estimate our IT group could have the IT side of the implementation done in a year and a half - that's working at sane pace instead of the we need it yesterday pace we're generally at. Hardware is nothing, it's built into the vehicle because the OEMs are already building it into the vehicles. Hardware on the IT side, who cares? It's boxes, order some up for your 3 locations and be done with it. The hardware aspect of this is a nothing.

 

Don't get me wrong: I don't ever see this solution happening - but not because it's too complex (it isn't). It's just that the privacy concerns are too large, and 'good enough' solutions such as the other options you've pointed out exist. They're not as accurate, but, they are a good enough compromise with the public that they - should - win out.

 

 

I'm glad you're not working on any of my projects. We'd never deliver anything on time and it would never work.

 

The GPS may be built into SOME vehicles today but certainly not all and certainly not a large percentage of older vehicles. What do you do with vehicles that don't have GPS? You must handle them somehow.

 

So now you need to either store and/or transmit that data somewhere. How do you do it? 3G? 4G? LTE? Which carrier? AT&T? Verizon? T-mobile? Who pays for the cellular data? What about areas without any cell coverage?

 

How do you keep the software in the vehicles up to date? How do you maintain the map data?

 

You sound like a hacker that writes a piece of code that only works in "sunny day scenarios" and with no thought to maintenance or maintainability over time or the border cases where the sunny day stuff just doesn't work.

 

You probably don't even check return codes, do you?

[akirby]

Cost more for who?

 

For the people who have to implement and maintain it, which in this case is the government. And who pays for government?

[fordmantpw]

The hardware aspect of this is a nothing.

 

Really? For the millions of cars that currently have no hardware to do this? You are talking about putting hardware in 250+ million vehicles (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States, there were 254 million in the US in 2007) and you are saying that is nothing? Really? At only $50 per vehicle, that's $12.5 BILLION!! With a B! That could go a long way toward maintaining roads.

[fordmantpw]

You probably don't even check return codes, do you?

 

What's a return code?

 

On a side note, you'd be happy to hear that I am currently building a web app with an Oracle back-end for one of my clients....

[akirby]

The average driver pays $330/yr in gas taxes now. The split is roughly 60% state 40% federal. The difference between one extreme and the other based on which roads you were driving wouldn't be worth the electricity it takes to do that calculation.

 

You can continue to split the money between state and federal the same way you do it today with each state's tax percentages.

 

All that requires is reading the odometer once per year (already done in some areas) and a simple excel formula.

[akirby]

 

What's a return code?

 

On a side note, you'd be happy to hear that I am currently building a web app with an Oracle back-end for one of my clients....

 

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

Really? For the millions of cars that currently have no hardware to do this? You are talking about putting hardware in 250+ million vehicles (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States, there were 254 million in the US in 2007) and you are saying that is nothing? Really? At only $50 per vehicle, that's $12.5 BILLION!! With a B! That could go a long way toward maintaining roads.

Especially in a place like Michigan that has the sorriest roads in the country

[RichardJensen]

The hardware aspect of this is a nothing.

 

ESTIMATED miles driven in the United States last year:

3,038,144,000,000

 

ESTIMATED miles of streets, roads and highways in the United States:

3,980,817

 

Number of vehicles in the United States in 2012:

254,639,386

 

Number of local governments in the United States:

89,004

 

So. The hardware required to map 254 million vehicles to four million miles of road assigned to over 89,000 jurisdictions when those 254 million vehicles are driving almost four trillion miles per year is "a nothing"?

 

 

 

Cost more for who?

 

Everybody.

[jpd80]

Google is your friend...:rolleyes..

[chucky2]

Vehicle Hardware: Nothing, built into cars when they're all running cell and GPS in 20 years. Possible cheap as dirt encrypted chip/subroutine to compute charge data.

 

Backend Hardware: Not much really, nothing being done that isn't already being done.

 

APIs: For most part one time major development effort.

 

Maps: We already have these things, the street layouts for the vast majority of locales aren't changed...well...ever...

 

Assignment of taxes: One time major effort, small state supervised county based ongoing efforts.

 

You all must be on some small projects/efforts to think this is some insanity large and complicated effort - it's not. Large sure, overly complicated, not really.

[RichardJensen]

Not much really, nothing being done that isn't already being done.

 

What other project involves tracking the movements of 254 million vehicles?

 

Or 254 million anythings?

[RichardJensen]

By the way, Chucky, repetition of your talking points does not constitute evidence in support of them.

[chucky2]

Why would you ask about tracking that many vehicles?

[chucky2]

By the way, Chucky, repetition of your talking points does not constitute evidence in support of them.

Short of devising the solution, what would satisfy you that this is not as complicated as you yearn for it to be?

[fordmantpw]

Vehicle Hardware: Nothing, built into cars when they're all running cell and GPS in 20 years. Possible cheap as dirt encrypted chip/subroutine to compute charge data.

 

Backend Hardware: Not much really, nothing being done that isn't already being done.

 

APIs: For most part one time major development effort.

 

Maps: We already have these things, the street layouts for the vast majority of locales aren't changed...well...ever...

 

Assignment of taxes: One time major effort, small state supervised county based ongoing efforts.

 

You all must be on some small projects/efforts to think this is some insanity large and complicated effort - it's not. Large sure, overly complicated, not really.

 

Honestly, I think it would be an awesome and fun project to work on. I really enjoy the challenges of dealing with these large amount of data and the best way to store and retrieve that data efficiently.

 

But, not when I (and you, and RJ and akirby and everyone else in this country that has a job) have to foot the bill for something so beyond the realm of usefulness.

[fordmantpw]

Why would you ask about tracking that many vehicles?

 

Ummm, because there are that many licensed vehicles in the US today (or a couple years ago, with the number increasing all the time).

[RichardJensen]

Why would you ask about tracking that many vehicles?

 

 

Short of devising the solution, what would satisfy you that this is not as complicated as you yearn for it to be?

 

Some evidence that you have both: 1) a grasp on the scale of the project and 2) experience working on similar projects.

 

Saying that something is 'trivial' or 'has been done before' does not constitute evidence that you know what you're talking about. The only qualification required to make statements like that is a rudimentary familiarity with English.

 

Your ignorance of the source of the 254 million figure is prima facie evidence that you do not grasp the scale of the project, therefore I doubt that you could furnish any amount of evidence capable of convincing a reasonable person that you know what you're talking about.

Edited April 16, 2015 by RichardJensen

[chucky2]

 

 

 

Some evidence that you have both: 1) a grasp on the scale of the project and 2) experience working on similar projects.

 

Saying that something is 'trivial' or 'has been done before' does not constitute evidence that you know what you're talking about. The only qualification required to make statements like that is a rudimentary familiarity with English.

 

Your ignorance of the source of the 254 million figure is prima facie evidence that you do not grasp the scale of the project, therefore I doubt that you could furnish any amount of evidence capable of convincing a reasonable person that you know what you're talking about.

Can you supply evidence that you yourself have that credentials to evaluate that? Please note, doing antivirus scans, setting up an e-mail server, etc. is not evidence. What multi-million $ IT projects have you led where you'd be a good arbiter of such evidence?

 

Here's a clue: The stuff I'm working on has already rolled out the building blocks for this in the vehicles, and there's more to come.

 

You keep quoting a 254M figure as if that means something in the technical sense. Maybe a question you could answer that would make that a real number to care about is: How many vehicles in 30-40 years do you think will be running around without their ECU? Can you give me a SWAG on that?

[chucky2]

 

Honestly, I think it would be an awesome and fun project to work on. I really enjoy the challenges of dealing with these large amount of data and the best way to store and retrieve that data efficiently.

 

But, not when I (and you, and RJ and akirby and everyone else in this country that has a job) have to foot the bill for something so beyond the realm of usefulness.

I do to (daily). I doubt we'd be retrieving that data though, better as a push.

[fordmantpw]

I do to (daily). I doubt we'd be retrieving that data though, better as a push.

 

Yes, you would push the data from the vehicle to the nearest server at the time the data is uploaded. That doesn't change the fact that you have to store all of that data somewhere. You have to have the servers to handle the data, to store the data, to compile the data, etc.

 

I still don't see how you can dismiss the 254M figure. If you are going to track this data, you have to track it for EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE. There are 254M of them. How can you dismiss that? Sure, many new vehicles will have the required hardware, but many cars built today still do not. So, you have to get the hardware in them somehow. Plus, how have to have a communication means to get that data from the cars to the aforementioned servers. Cellular? Wifi? Who foots that bill? You're glossing over all these hurdles as if they are nothing.

[chucky2]

 

Ummm, because there are that many licensed vehicles in the US today (or a couple years ago, with the number increasing all the time).

When the vehicles are all rolling off the assembly line with the Fed mandated tax solution in them, for 20-30 years, it doesn't matter how many are out there now. We're not talking about rolling this out tomorrow, we're talking about long term tax $ application fixes going into affect decades from now.

[fordmantpw]

When the vehicles are all rolling off the assembly line with the Fed mandated tax solution in them, for 20-30 years, it doesn't matter how many are out there now. We're not talking about rolling this out tomorrow, we're talking about long term tax $ application fixes going into affect decades from now.

 

But still, there are going to be 250M+ vehicles using this hardware at any time. That goes back to the 'infrastructure' issue.

 

What happens to the 100M+ vehicles built without the equipment that will still be in use in 20-30 years? What happens to the hardware that is out of date in 20-30 years? Remember the big issue with OnStar when cellular went digital?

[chucky2]

 

Yes, you would push the data from the vehicle to the nearest server at the time the data is uploaded. That doesn't change the fact that you have to store all of that data somewhere. You have to have the servers to handle the data, to store the data, to compile the data, etc.

 

I still don't see how you can dismiss the 254M figure. If you are going to track this data, you have to track it for EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE. There are 254M of them. How can you dismiss that? Sure, many new vehicles will have the required hardware, but many cars built today still do not. So, you have to get the hardware in them somehow. Plus, how have to have a communication means to get that data from the cars to the aforementioned servers. Cellular? Wifi? Who foots that bill? You're glossing over all these hurdles as if they are nothing.

You have to simply apply the solution to the vast majority of vehicles when the solution takes affect. You can have this solution rolled out for a decade or two before it ever takes affect, and honestly, with at least one stage implemented, to allow sufficient saturation of the US vehicle fleet. This isn't some massive amount of data btw, we're already in peta here are we're dealing with it.

 

And I'm not saying they're nothing - they are something, but they're not at all some massively complicated insurmountable hurdle. The communication problem is already handled (except for extremely far outlier areas, and even those in 20-30-40 years won't be outliers any longer). The vehicle technology issue...handled. Backend hardware? Handled. Compiling data? We do that today already. Billing data? Already done today. These are matters of architects and SMEs sitting down, hammering out their area, and making it so. We literally do this daily here - on scales such as this already. Yes, on such a large scale it's a big issue however it's not so big that it's inconceivable. It's large, but not really that complex.

[chucky2]

 

But still, there are going to be 250M+ vehicles using this hardware at any time. That goes back to the 'infrastructure' issue.

 

What happens to the 100M+ vehicles built without the equipment that will still be in use in 20-30 years? What happens to the hardware that is out of date in 20-30 years? Remember the big issue with OnStar when cellular went digital?

We've got standards in place right now that are 20-30 years old and those IT systems are still doing billing, ordering, and servicing - across different competing companies no less...that's why you have a well thought out standard that everyone follows.

 

Do you really think in 30 or 40 years there are going to be 100M vehicles that are that old running around? Keep in mind if they rolled this out in 10 years, that the 20-30 year old cars would already have the tech in them. For the comparative few that remain, a simple tax sticker fee as they do now for electrics would suffice.

 

I don't think tech wise this would really be a problem. In 40 years 5G data packets will still be around...