Comments on: Trucks Ride Free On ACHD Roads

By: Eric T

Eric T — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:37:44 +0000

On top of this a lot of those trucks in Boise are filling up with “off road” diesel. Off road diesel is a dyed diesel that is less refined and has a much higher sulphur content than on road diesel. It is about $0.80-$1.00 a gallon cheaper than on road diesel. Those fleet owners who play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage to those owners who choose to illegally use off road diesel. In fact, the pressure of the monetary incentive to use dyed diesel must be even more intense in these trying times, especially when AAA Delivery is filling up with on road diesel and watches his competitor FFF Delivery fill up with off road diesel.

A fleet owner who burns through 2,000 gallons of diesel in month would save $1,600 on the low end using dyed diesel.

Who should be enforcing? Bureau of Weights and Measures (Dept of Ag)? Idaho State Police? DEQ?

By: Werner

Werner — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:43:18 +0000

How about Boise becoming an independent city and telling Ada County to beat it. Pros? Cons? It would certainly allow for fewer layers of government and more transparency. Thoughts?

By: Tom Anderson

Tom Anderson — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:29:14 +0000

Lets just ban all those horrible trucks, we don’t really need food, an electrical grid, pressurized city water, a sewer system, or worthless stuff like toilet paper anyway.

By: dog

dog — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:11:48 +0000

No wonder everyone hates ACHD. I wonder if Bill Sali voted “NO” on this one? This ballot language reeks of bait and switch tactics. How is my grandmother going to know anything about vehicles over 8000#. She might think her small car weighs that much for all I know and get an exemption.

I always love the “yes” means “no” ballot language they use in some elections. The “citizens” panel who supported this ballot measure should be ashamed.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:03:30 +0000

To me, the strangest thing about this screwy ballot item was that it had only two options:
1. Double your fees, so we can do more stuff.
2. End the fees, so we can do less.

So where was 3: Keep the fees at their present rate so we can keep on doing whatever it is that we’ve been doing?
Seems that shoulda been there!

By: dh

dh — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:17:28 +0000

Do any of the Guardian’s readers know how heavy trucks that are based and drive in Idaho but headquartered out of state are taxed? I have heard that Idaho is one of the very few states that don’t even levy trip permit fees for over the road truckers.

There are apparantly several companies that make money in Idaho from their trucking endeavors but license the trucks and trailers out of state.

They run semis with tank trailers for milk and possibly other things. I know one outfit with truck lots in Nampa and Burley but all of the vehicles I see bear IOWA pates. Ever wonder where those ruts and washboards in our roads come from?

EDITOR NOTE–Idaho does indeed require trip permits for interstate trucks. The issue in this post item is the county simply EXEMPTED all trucks registered in Ada County from paying the fee. For the most part we are talking delivery, farm, construction dump trucks, movers, utility trucks etc.

By: johnbdiver

johnbdiver — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:47:29 +0000

It’s not only the ACHD with the pro-truck stand. Whenever the state talks about increasing registration or other fees, its always about cars, with no mention about the rates for trucks. Anytime you drive the interstate, the road ruts are made by dual tires, NOT cars.

By: erico49

erico49 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:30:58 +0000

It’s painfully obvious what they did. They wrote the ballot language in a way that made it sound as good as possible, while still being truthful. They then ran a relatively low-key election, knowing that they had a second shot next year (the current fee didn’t expire until 2010). I had not heard anything about the measure until my absentee ballot showed up in the mail. I did get one color oversized card ad in the mail about 2 weeks prior to the election from an interest group of some kind. People were likely surprised in the voting booth, but went for the glowing description of the measure written by ACHD itself. As for truck damage, trucks acount for the vast majority of damage to roads. Roads are designed to handle car (yes even Hummers) with relatively little damage, but can’t be designed to withstand all the damage that trucks inflict if they are to be remotely affordable.

By: David

David — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:04:45 +0000

That the measure passed is inexplicable, especially in light of the warnings.

By: Mr. Logic

Mr. Logic — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:26:11 +0000

It would seem LOGICAL after reading this that voters would be distrustful of future ballot measures, regardless of the source.

Did the “legacy media” (or the G-Man) make it known this thing was engineered by the ACHD and all the business interests which were exempted?

EDITOR NOTE–If the ACHD put out a press release on it, we either ignored it or missed. Apologies to all.