Aerobod I crossed the border just north of Havre MT at Willow Creek and then dirt till shortly before Elkwater. The Canadian border police roared with laughter when I said Havre looked too depressing to stop for fuel. I broke the golden rule in the high country never pass a fuel stop but got away with it this time.
Having a couple of days in Calgary and then heading back to Denver via SLC and Moab.
So you are quite easterly in the province, Badlands as opposed to Foothills. Most of the Montana border towns are out of the twilight zone, cheap fuel but I always suspect the quality.
it is worth taking the less freeway orientated routes from Calgary to SLC, via Waterton and,Glacier parks if road conditions are still clear, then Flathead and Craters of the Moon. Highway 40 via Kananaskis down to Waterton is a good way to leave Calgary if you don't mind some gravel roads (first half is paved, followed by just over 100km of gravel before hitting paved road again), making sure to stop at Frank Slide to see the effect of the 100 million tonnes of rock that came off the kilometre of mountain face over 100 years ago.
BTW, it isn't a dangerous road and the gravel is well maintained, so you can normally cruise at 80km/h without any issues in an SUV. At this time of year it can be quite quiet, so it is best to let someone know your estimated next checkin time on a journey and the route you are taking, as you won't have a mobile phone signal for much of the route.
Not the best advert for high powered SUVs
Just done about 40km of Route 40 southbound from Calgary today and back into the US and their charming border police tomorrow!
But of course there's a problem in presenting those figures without the raw number of vehicles. I haven't read the source document yet.
“An SUV is bigger, it’s heavier, the aerodynamics are poor, so as a result you get more CO2,” said Florent Grelier from the campaign group Transport & Environment. T&E figures show the average mass of new cars rose 10% between 2000 and 2016, which the group suggested could be down to a trend towards SUVs, heavier automatic and dual-clutch gearboxes and the inclusion of other equipment including cameras and sensors.
As previous posted by someone:- tax by weight.
Perfectly justifiable as shown by those figures and by the damage caused to road surfaces by weight (the cube of axle weight iirc)
Democratic dissent is not disloyalty, it is a positive civic duty
I think that fourth power is most commonly used, but second to sixth are also around.
The logic holds good across that range.
I'd be happy to pay twice the price of a fiesta for twice the weight. Tax needs considering as a whole. It's already £465 a year for the first 5 years.
Tax needs considering as a whole.
Absolutely. Annual tinkering is dumb, and there are big external issues which need to be addressed. IFS paper coming up RSN.
PS: Without an integrated transport policy it's hard to achieve any other objectives either.
I couldn't agree more about the tinkering - doesn't seem to achieve much.
Expensive SUVs 'fuel' the economy through road tax, new car VAT, VAT on fuel, employment for the motor industry, income tax on those salaries... It is easy to focus on the downsides and forget the upsides. If an SUV does cause more wear on roads I would have thought that is more than paid for by the higher road tax.