$120-Per-Barrel Oil and the Abject Failure of Virginia’s Political Class

Only seven months ago, I posted on the topic, “Quality of Life, Human Settlement Patterns and $100 Oil.” Oil was then selling for $83 a barrel, but analysts feared that the price could hit $100. That was then. This is now, and oil is flirting with $120 per barrel. That price, which includes a lot of speculative froth, will settle back down. But it will settle at a new, higher plateau that is far higher than even I dreamed of some two ago when I was blogging about the impact of $50-per-barrel oil.

Higher oil prices affects transportation policy in two ways. Most directly, it boosts the cost of gasoline, which now runs above $3.50 a gallon in Virginia. When retail gasoline prices increase $1.00 a gallon, the giant sucking sound you hear is the whoosh of some $5 billion annually being vacuumed from the pockets of Virginia consumers. But there’s an indirect impact, too: Higher oil prices translate into higher asphalt prices, a critical material for road maintenance, which, along with China-driven inflation in the broader construction sector, explains why maintenance costs are gobbling up an ever-larger share of Virginia’s Transportation Trust Fund.

One would think that a tripling of oil prices over the past few years would prompt Virginia’s decision makers to re-think transportation policy in a fundamental way. But the only re-thinking that has taken place is a growing conviction that we must raise taxes, pay whatever it takes, so we can continue to do things exactly the same way we have for the past 50 years.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, whom I once thought knew better, now declares that he will call the General Assembly back into session this year to deal with transportation. He doesn’t expect anyone to reach a solution, he told the Associated Press. Rather, “We’re either going to solve this problem or Virginians are going to know who stood in the way of a solution.”

And what solution would that be? Reports the AP:

The governor wants a statewide levy to cover the overruns that the Virginia Department of Transportation estimates will approach $400 million next year and $600 million by 2014.

Among the ideas offered to cover the gap are boosts in the sales tax, the state’s 17 1/2-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax or the “titling tax” on car sales. Kaine prefers raising the titling tax from 3.5 percent to the rate applied to all other retail purchases, 5.5 percent, but won’t say what he will propose in the bill he sends to lawmakers within the next two weeks.

The final calculation, I can assure you, will be driven by politics, not economic reason. Any rational system for funding roads and highways in Virginia would be based on a user pays principle that would (a) make people feel the consequences of their transportation choices, (b) induce some people, on the economic margin, to shift to more energy-efficient transportation modes, and (c) encourage the marketplace to provide more transportation-efficient settlement patterns such as walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in closer proximity to jobs.

If Gov. Kaine is entertaining the option of a statewide sales tax — which would load the burden of road funding indiscriminately not only upon those who moved 50 miles from their job so they could afford to buy a bigger house with a bigger yard, damn the consequences, but those who walk, bike or bus to work, ride the train to work, telecommute to work, or don’t work at all — he clearly does not embrace the principle of “user pays.” He’s also given up on land use reform, much to the dismay of the environmentalists who voted for him. The only change he still embraces is more funding for mass transit, even though the economics of that option are abysmal in the absence of land use reform — and his plan for funding the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Kaine talks about decreasing CO2 emissions in Virginia’s part to combat Global Warming, but instead of encouraging Virginians to drive less, he’s strategizing about putting Republicans on the spot for their unwillingness to subsidize more driving. If GOP lawmakers had any brains, they would be hurling Kaine’s Global Warming rhetoric back at him, but they are too dull-witted to do so. While the GOP does deserve credit for cooking up unappreciated but meaningful land-use reform in the infamous HB 3202 passed last year, legislators remain clueless on how to handle the funding piece of the equation. One might think that Republicans, who putatively believe in free market principles, might embrace “user pays” as a way of breaking the legislative logjam — more mobility for those who are willing to pay for it. But, for the most part, they can’t evolve past their “no tax increase” rhetoric which, in its own way, is as devoid of principle as Kaine’s grab-money-wherever-you-can-find-it approach.

Virginians have been grappling with the transportation funding issue for several years now and appear as deadlocked as ever. The failure of leadership across the board is utterly dispiriting. The truckling to narrow business interests (the real estate and construction lobby) and demographic constituencies (middle class households living in scattered, disconnected, low density settlement patterns) is shameful. Among Virginia’s elected officials, no one is willing to tell voters the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But, then, voters are no better. We all want more roads — just as long as someone else pays for them. In the final analysis, we collectively get what we deserve.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wrigleys Chewing Gum was just purchased by Virginia Based Mars Corporation for $23 billion.

    I’ll bet that our transportation funding “problems” could be solved for less than Virginians spend on chewing gum or cigarettes.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…induce some people, on the economic margin, to shift to more energy-efficient transportation modes…”

    You mean,like walking?

    Sure, its more energy efficient, but it’s also a good way to be stuck on the economic margin.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I have a strong hunch that gasoline at $4 a gallon is going to result in a miraculous reduction in congestion… and that’s BEFORE the HOT Tolls come online!

    5 years from now.. we’re liable to be thinking.. what was all the hullabaloo over the “crisis” in congestion.

    One major aside:

    Business.. unlike Government WILL find efficiencies to wring out some of the increasing fuel costs.

    It may range from less/lighter packaging (a plus for the environment).. to less frequent deliveries but fuller loads.. to paradigm changes in the supply/logistics realm…

    and that guy in Fredericksburg who has to this point insisted that he had no choice but to drive an SUV solo at rush hour every day.. …
    guess what.. he decided that he has some choices after all…

    who knows.. $5 gasoline may DOOM the HOT lanes… wouldn’t THAT be IRONIC !!

    … prediction: every day that the price of oil goes up – the likelihood of the VA GA increasing the gas tax become even more unlikely.

    … let the markets work…

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    For the market to work there needs to be some correlation between cost and price, and that is where the General Assembly has failed (and wants to keep failing.) Even at $5 a gallon, if the highway user is not paying the true cost of building and maintaining the highway — through a gas tax, tolls or some other usage-based mechanism — then the state is sending a skewed signal to the marketplace. Using General Fund dollars (income taxes, sales taxes) to keep in place an unnaturally low pricing mechanism (fuels taxes) is no different than than any other government subsidy. If the government subsidizes something (driving, poverty, homeownership) you get more of it. Period.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “If the government subsidizes something (driving, poverty, homeownership) you get more of it. Period.”

    wow. how is NOT taxing and letting the market determine the price of something – a subsidy?

    isn’t a subsidy when you take money away from one guy and give it to another .. RATHER than let both guys decide how they want to spend their money?

  6. “the giant sucking sound you hear is the whoosh of some $5 billion annually being vacuumed from the pockets of Virginia consumers.”

    So instead of Richmond sucking away that money in the form of a gas tax to be spent in Virginia, it’s better for it to be sucked away by Transurban and Macquarie so they can spend it on vegemite and Foster’s while partying in their Melbourne headquarters? Except it won’t be $5 billion vacuumed out, it will be $9 billion because the tolling infrastructure requires massive overhead.

    I love the “free market principles” being invoked in a post that wants the government to “encourage” people to squeeze into It-Takes-A-Village communes where a sizable majority of people just do not want to live. How terrible that someone might want a family to grow up with a nice backyard, away from the liberals.

    We have user pays. The motorist pays for the roads and for the buses and for the schools. It’s not that the road user pays too little, he already pays far too much for what he gets.

    But even if that weren’t true, it does not mean a general levy would be entirely inappropriate. Those saintly people who ride the bus or bicycle to work (ahem, on roads) are all fed, clothed and housed from material brought to them from trucks driving on roads. I pay for the library — I don’t use it (there’s this thing called the Internet now). I pay for the public schools, I have never used them. So what’s the purpose of even having a government when we can just farm everything out a la carte?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Even at $5 a gallon, if the highway user is not paying the true cost of building and maintaining the highway — “

    Highway users shour NOT pay the true cost of building and maintaining the highways, becuase the highways provide many benefits that have little to do with how much the users travel.

    This is a silly argument.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Based on Jim’s previous post about killer commutes and housing prices, we are already seeing adjustments.

    It remains to be seen whether those adjustments will result in lower overall costs, less congestion, or less pollution.

    I submit that they will not.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…. increase in income has lead to more cars in China. Where you would have seen mostly bikes a few years before now you see cars. In some place bikes have been outlawed on the streets. More cars lead to an increase in oil demand.

    China’s oil consumption is rivaling the US overall consumption. China’s increased demand has increased oil prices to an alarming high…..”

    Credit to Andy Groothius, a middle school kid

    Via Environmental Economics

    So, here we are promoting bikes and the Chinese are outlawing them. What’s wrong with this picture? Why do I not think anything I do changes gas prices, use of petroleum poducts, global economics, or global warming?

    Even IF there turns out to be some marginal savings for me.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    On subsidizing poverty:

    “A woman called me out of the blue last week and told me her self-sufficiency counselor had suggested she get in touch with me. She had moved from a $25,000 a year job to a $35,000 a year job, and suddenly she couldn’t make ends meet any more. I told her I didn’t know what I could do for her, but agreed to meet with her.

    She showed me all her pay stubs etc. She really did come out behind by several hundred dollars a month.

    She lost free health insurance and instead had to pay $230 a month for her employer-provided health insurance.

    Her rent associated with her section 8 voucher went up by 30% of the income gain (which is the rule).

    She lost the ($280 a month) subsidized child care voucher she had for after-school care for her child.

    She lost around $1600 a year of the EITC.

    She paid payroll tax on the additional income.

    Finally, the new job was in Boston, and she lived in a suburb. So now she has $300 a month of additional gas and parking charges. She asked me if she should go back to earning $25,000. “

    “[Elected politicians]..just aren’t capable of knowing enough to truly solve problems in a way that makes everyone better off. Worse, in their arrogance that they can, the ignorance they do not acknowledge, or in the pursuit of a particular interest group’s support, they often create new problems or exacerbate other ones in the process of “helping”. “

    From Political Calulations

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/

    The second quote is the apex of understatement.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    When you take a job – there are financial implications.. with the benefits, with the cost of nearby housing and will the cost of transportation.

    These are still YOUR costs.

    Just because these costs are more than you thought they would be (and perhaps you should have checked)..

    does not mean that you deserve for others to pay the difference between what you make and what you can afford.

    That responsibility belongs to you alone.

    There are tons and tons of people who don’t make “enough” to do what they’d like to do – but they suck it up and make sure that their expenses don’t exceed their income

    .. further.. I know this is truly shocking to some…

    when you exceed your income.. it does not mean that others owe you a subsidy…

  12. Dave Mastio Avatar
    Dave Mastio

    Jim,

    Your pox on both your houses posts are a treasure of the Virginia blogosphere.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Fluor/Transurban “profits”.

    Here’s why is amusing.

    The company you bought your house from…your refrigerator.. car, landscaping.. water heater.. etc..
    are all PRIVATE companies.. just LIKE Fluor/Transurban…

    what makes Fluor/Transurban different from the company you bought your plasma TV from?

    WHY .. if a company is in the business of TOLL roads would one presume any more or any less that such companies are.. any more or any less crooked/evil than Lowes or Home Depot?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “When you take a job – there are financial implications.. with the benefits, with the cost of nearby housing and will the cost of transportation.

    These are still YOUR costs.”

    That is only true until someone else begins to manipulate those costs for their own perceived benefit.

    Like someone raising home prices through exessive regulation in order to increase the value of their own home.

    Like someone increasing the costs of congestion and pollution by refusing to provide sufficient funding, because they beleive less driving is universally a good thing.

    Or by approving more job generating development than the roads can handle, based on the idea it keeps taxes down.

    Yeah, they are your costs, only so long as long as someone doesn’t tinker with the rules of the game. Then they become THEIR costs, even if they are imposed on you.

    RH

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “That is only true until someone else begins to manipulate those costs for their own perceived benefit.”

    huh?

    on what planet does the above apply – even if it were true..???

    Again you repeat the absurd notion that places like Fairfax, Loudoun, etc that have grown at astounding rates .. have done “something” to people that.. means that those folks are entitled to subsidies…

    come on RH.. get your wheels back on the track…

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We KNOW that anti-growth and other extreme housing regulations increase the costs of housing by as much as one third. Those regulations are put in place by those that will benefit from them, and they impose the costs on others.

    So, I take a job in a growing location. I know that has cost implications. As soon as I get in, I work to change those implications and make them someone else’s cost.

    I think you would call that a subsidy.

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If this were actually true – you could do two things:

    1. – you could accuse Fairfax County of causing economic harm

    2. – you could sue to recover damages

    you are confusing asserted/claimed economic damages .. with subsidies…

    .. as usual…

    you are not entitled to a subsidy no matter what you think of local government growth policies…

    when you take a job.. you agree to the salary. When you buy a house, you agree to pay for it. When you drive a car, you agree to pay for the gasoline and repairs…

    no where along that line .. are you entitled to a subsidy because you don’t like the circumstances that you willingly chose -which INCLUDES any policies that you don’t agree with.

    Just because you disagree with policies does not justify a subsidy for you.

  18. “if a company is in the business of TOLL roads would one presume any more or any less that such companies are.. any more or any less crooked/evil than Lowes or Home Depot?”

    The point isn’t that Flour and Transurban are evil, it’s that using them to tax the public is ridiculously inefficient. Some apects of tolling itself are evil regardless of whether VDOT or Transurban owns & operates the road. E.g., the big brother surveillance infrastructure needed to make tolling work is evil. The “screw you” attitude you get from the toll road operator when the equipment malfunctions and you get a giant bill for unpaid tolls, interest and fines is evil. Non-compete clauses are evil, but an identical incentive to generate new congestion is also there for public toll roads.

    These points are all ignored by the toll pushers who for some reason think there’s no need to perform economic analysis. Is it fair to say that the people pushing tolls all secretly hate the automobile? That they all want us to be like pre-boom China and ride around on bicycles?

    I wonder if cavemen used to wring their hands about how that new “wheel” invention was ruining their cozy little society.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Roads are not free. Even the Interstate System was originally envisioned by Eisenhower to be self-supporting from tolls.

    taxes raised on everyone regardless of how much they use roads and especially how intensively they use them are, in my view, more discriminatory and unfair than having each person pay for what they use.

    I think it is more “anti-person” and “anti-auto” to NOT charge on as equitable basis as is possible.

    further.. when you take money from people and send it to Richmond for an “unelected” group of people to decide how to spend it.. I see that as WORSE than letting private business do it.

    And in terms of “customer service”, would you say that .. say DMV is “friendly and cheerful” as opposed to the treatment you get from toll operators?

    In fact. would you consider Government toll operators in general as more “customer friendly”?

    see.. you’re treating tolls as taxes and they are no more taxes than if the cable company charges you for cable TV or Home Depot charges you for plywood.

    You’re paying for a service.

    You’re getting confused about how that service is paid for.

    You wouldn’t want the government selling you plywood.. so why do you want them selling you roads?

  20. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bob: Bottom line, you want other people to share in the financial cost for *your* use of roads.

    Ray: What benefits do roads provide non-users of those roads? The answer, I expect, is that they provide a means for freight to be transported to the Wal*Mart (or mom-and-pop store) less expensively than they would otherwise. So, of course, we do need roads.

    But here’s my question to you: Why should the cost of transportation consumer products not be reflected in the retail price of those products? Why should we collectively subsidize peoples’ consumption of stuff through subsidized road prices?

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It IS true. And

    “you could sue to recover damages”

    Theoretically you can, anyway.

    In practice the deck is so stacked that this is virtually impossible. in order to get standing your suit must e “ripe”: you are first required to extinguish ALL of the administrative options and appeals. This can take decades and cost far more than the suit is worth.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The value of your property is affected by road access, whether or not you use that access, for just one example.

    Your Fire insurance is probably a lot different if you don’t have any road access.

    And even if you are a total homebody, making your living by writing fictional blog accounts, someday you might want to call the rescue squad.

    Roads are recognized as Emergency evacuation routes, and as military assets.

    If someone else uses a road to go to make money or sell something, then that results in tax revenues in incom or sales taxes that acrrue to you, even though you never used the road, yourself.

    I think there are probably a lot more I haven’t thought of.

    To some extent, you could make your argument for each of these: ultimately they depend on someone using the road, whether it is a first order or second order event.We could chare tolls to ambulances and fire trucks, I suppose, and send you a bill after your house burns down or you die on the way to the hospital.

    But I would suggest, instead, that we pay for roads out of several sources of funds for a reason. We use sales taxes, income taxes, real estate taxes AND fuel taxes along with several other auto related fees. That is the system we have, and we have it for a reason.

    To then claim that the roads are not paid for by direct user fees is silly. But to claom that they are not paid for by those that use and benefit from them is just wrong. Nearly everyone benefits somehow, and nearly everyone says, somehow.

    The user pays argument is a fraud because a) that’s not how we do things. b)it doesn’t capture the idea of beneficiaries who are not users. c) it can never generate the mowny needed wthout crippling commerce, and d) it is a blatant attempt by a few non- or low- users to offset their fair share of generalized costs and/or create a new environmental tax.

    Probably, our present system IS unfair. But there is nothing in the user pays argument to lead me to believe it is any more fair.

    I don’t think we have anything like a fair reasonable and unbiased accounting that would even begin to allow us to think rationally about what would be fair.

    It might be that the math is so complicated it isn’t worth it, and the best, most equitable thing we can do is spread some of the costs evenly and make some user fees. Then we can simply point out that everyone has an equal opportunity to use the roadways, and THAT is what you are paying for. Everyone has the same opportunity to avoid user fees by becoming a low usage driver. Just because you CHOOSE not to avail yourself of road use, for whatever reason, doesn’t mean that you don’t have the opportunity. Therefore the argument that you , as a low user, are getting screwed, is moot, in addition to probably wrong.

    There is very little to make us think that if everyone was alow user we would save very much on roads, even if we save on pollution. The less we drive the more it would cost per mile driven to maintain more or less the same roadways.

    In short, I don’t see how we can yammer about the link between development and road usage if we are going to then insist we put the roads on a strictly user pays basis. If it is really user pays, then who gives a crap about developer profits or sprawl?

    Think about it. If we think that congetion fees actually give people more options and fairly allocate costs, then what will be the response the next time someone goes to a public hearing on some development complaining about “too much traffic.”?

    I can see the supervsors now. All they have to say is we are going to fix the congestion problem with congestion tolls.

    End of problem, right?

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “so why do you want them selling you roads?”

    I don’t want them selling me roads I already paid for.

    I also don’t want them selling my roads to someone else.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bob is right. There is no economic analysis to tell WHAT might be right. Tolls or otherwise.

    “[Elected politicians]..just aren’t capable of knowing enough to truly solve problems in a way that makes everyone better off. Worse, in their arrogance that they can, the ignorance they do not acknowledge, or in the pursuit of a particular interest group’s support, they often create new problems or exacerbate other ones in the process of “helping”.

    Pretty much says it all.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I suggest that we are paying for the opportunity to use roads is an important one. If we had a situation where only the users paid, and they only paid for exactly what they needed, then where would the occasional or low user be when he finally ventured out?

    There would be no excess or peak capacity for him to use, because he never paid enough to provide it, and a low user, he never will.

    Same problem with peak electric pricing.

    During 911 everyone wanted to use their cell phone (all those seldome users) and the system crashed.

    RH

  26. New anti-immigrant army forming in Fairfax to combat our illegal problem. Please visit and participate in our new youtube channel at youtube.com/FairfaxPatriot

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I spose if people don’t want to pay for roads they don’t use, they can go to the Czech republic and ride on Metro’s streetcars.

  28. Ok, how about some real numbers? This “subsidy” stuff is complete nonsense.

    Here is an incomplete list of taxes/fees that Virginia drivers pay. For the life of me, I can’t find an aggregate personal property tax figure (yes, I know it goes to the county) — if anyone knows that would be helpful.

    $??? Personal property tax
    $912m gas tax
    $560m vehicle sales tax
    $216m Vehicle Licensing
    $173m Speeding tickets
    $111m Car insurance tax
    $75m Tolls
    $75m Trucker taxes
    $20m Interest earned on fund
    $6m Property damage collections
    $1.3m highway advertising space

    That’s $2.1 billion. But then the feds toss in $1.3 billion. That brings us to $3.4 billion, and I’m probably missing a few revenue sources. [NOTE: This is a list of what drivers pay without regard to what fund gets the money. If the $10 traffic ticket goes to the schools fund, then that means the assembly just takes $10 it would have spent on schools and spends it somewhere else.]

    VDOT spends $1.1 billion on construction, $1.5 billion on maintenance and $263 million on debt service. That’s $2.8 billion on roads. $420 million goes to mass transit boondoggles. VDOT’s total budget is ~$4b.

    Of course, there’s nothing more phony than a government budget. You can rest assured most of the “maintenance” money is being spent on state troopers through “safety” grants designed to bring in more speeding ticket cash.

    In other words, motorists are subsidizing pedestrians and bus riders. On the federal level, the 40% of the gas tax is skimmed off the top — so says Mary Peters.

    “Despite the federal government’s $700 billion (inflation-adjusted) of transportation spending since 1970, road capacity has only increased by 7 percent.” Heritage.

    Main source for VA figures is VA Commonwealth Transportation Fund FY06-07 budget; VDOT FY08 budget; VA Supreme Court budget (traffic ticket figure).

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bob is right, of course.

    My analysis is a little simpler.

    95+% of the population uses automobiles, the rest use roads some other way.

    No matter where the money comes form or how it is collected, it is paid by road users. therefore road users ae paying all the funds that are used for roads, one way or another.

    The subsidy argument is bogus.

    EXCEPT

    if we are letting the roads expire through lack of maintenance. THEN we are being subsidized by our children who will get stuck with the tab.

    The user pays 100% through direct use fees argument is even more bogus, because it simply can’t work.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Boy, did you folks get off the beam. The only way people will respond to a price, the only way it will change behavior, is if people can see it and make a choice. So if the gas tax or some other user fee reflects the true cost of building and maintaining the roads, and that price goes up, useage is likely to go down. Conservation results. And I haven’t even started talking about the environmental costs of our love affair with inefficient gas hogs.

    You can pay for roads (and environemntal cleanup) with general taxes paid by everyone, including people who own no cars. Then the roads are “free”. There is no incentive to ration. There is all the reason in the world to waste the resource. And largely, that is where we are. RH should be happy. And Jim’s intial point was valid — those bad economic signals will only get worse under most of the funding scenarios unless gas taxes, tolls, etc are a big part of the mix.

    What was PJ O’Rouke’s line? You think health care is expensive, wait till you see what it costs when it’s free? Make that “transportation.”

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” the environmental costs of our love affair with inefficient gas hogs. “

    You won’t get any argument from me, there.

    Here is where I have a problem.

    “…if the gas tax or some other user fee reflects the true cost of building and maintaining the roads, and that price goes up, useage is likely to go down. Conservation results.”

    Not necessarily. Usage could go down and result in higher costs and more waste. Such a situation would NOT be conservation.

    I’ll agree with the first part though. Higher prices will make usage go down, it just won’t necessarily result in greater overall economy.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “RH should be happy. “

    Why would anybody think that? I hate waste as much as the next person. I agree that some form of user fee should be PERT of the mix, just not all of it.

    And, I think tolls are a wasteful way to collect the money. Besides that, the arguments used to support the idea are weak, inequitable, and probably wrong.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    O’ Rourke is a comedian, right?

    If you think health care is expensive, wait till you don’t have any.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    IRT:

    “(c) encourage the marketplace to provide more transportation-efficient settlement patterns such as walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in closer proximity to jobs.

    I keep having to make this point, over and over … [sigh] … jobs change far too quickly to be able to buy a home next to where you live and walk to work. If you and your spouce work in different locations, where do you buy your home?

    The cost of selling and buying homes is incredibly high, this creates a finacial barrier to moving everytime your job changes – not to mention packing and moving your stuff – or the adverse impact changing schools will have on your children.

    How does one dictate the “mix” of jobs in “mixed use” development? Do you order private firms to locate in specific areas?

    What happens when a person does move so they can walk to work – and the firm they work for relocates elsewhere?

    Is there some magical job waiting for everyone that pays what they need to cover their cost of living in “walkable communities”?

    There aren’t too many places that offer jobs for what I do for a living – nor are their too many jobs that pay as well as mine.

    But, the job I have now is just one of many I have had throughout my career.

    I have had far fewer homes that jobs.

  35. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ….”jobs change far too quickly to be able to buy a home next to where you live and walk to work. If you and your spouce work in different locations, where do you buy your home?”

    agreed.

    This issue is part of your personal decison-making and responsibility.

    No one owes you a subsidy because you have these difficult choices.

    This is where you guys go off the deep end..

    you say basically that people have to make difficult choices and compromises as part of their life and their careers…

    Lord help me.. but we have no shortage of blinding glimpses of the obvious…

    .. but just because folks have these choices – even if those choices are not easy.. does, in no way.. justify taking taxes from other folks to “compensate” them by building the roads they’ll need because they can’t buy a house and sit tight for 30 years until it is paid for.

    no one owes you the ability to buy a house and not move…why do you think that?

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Here is an incomplete list of taxes/fees that Virginia drivers pay.”

    It’s not about what you pay. It’s about what you get for what you pay and whether or not you get more for the same tax and others get less for the same tax.

    Many of the taxes you enumerate cost the guy who drives 10 miles a day in RoVa the same as the 100 mile a day NoVa commuter – who expects that BOTH his taxes AND the RoVa guy’s taxes be spent to improve his daily 100 mile commute.

    When two people pay the same tax but the revenues are allocated not proportionally – then you DO have a subsidy.

    Why should folks in RoVa who pay identically the same taxes on new cars, titles, insurance, etc … why should that money NOT be spent for their own jurisdictions and instead be spent on urban commuting facilities?

    If you did that.. wouldn’t that be a subsidy?

  37. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    You write of the unfairness of subsidies. But I wonder if you feel all subsidies are unfair. You have repeatedly admitted that education is subsidized through the SOQ funding process. You know that higher income taxpayers subsidize lower income taxpayers. Residents of West Virginia subsidize Virginia’s need for the US Coast Guard. Non-parents subsidize the education of all kids. People who send their kids to private schools pay taxes used to build and operate public schools. The parents of children with developmental challenges are subsidized by the taxes of those whose children do not have developmental challenges. Law abiding citizens subsidize the cost of incarcerating prisoners. Communities with low crime rates subsidize communities with high crime rates. The US Navy keeps the sea lanes open so anybody not owning oil company shares is subsidizing those who do own oil company shares.

    But the only subsidy that needs to be corrected, in the interest of fairness, is roads.

    Let me put forward a theory – you want the many, many subsidies you presently receive. It just sticks in your intellectual craw that there may be one subsidy going the other way. So, that’s the only subsidy that is unfair.

    And then you make statements like this:

    “Many of the taxes you enumerate cost the guy who drives 10 miles a day in RoVa the same as the 100 mile a day NoVa commuter – who expects that BOTH his taxes AND the RoVa guy’s taxes be spent to improve his daily 100 mile commute.”.

    I live in NoVA and drive about 8,000 miles per year. You can look at the receipts for my car inspection. You say:

    “When two people pay the same tax but the revenues are allocated not proportionally – then you DO have a subsidy.”.

    When it comes to you and me – want to bet who is subsidizing whom? We can start by comparing tax bills. Of course, the “I hate subsidies crowd” never wants to start by looking at how much is paid in total taxes. That’s because “total taxes paid” is a real number that can be calculated on a person-by-person basis. The “I hate subsidies” crowd would much rather talk about theoretical numbers that are virtually impossible to calculate. That’s the only way they can pretend that people paying vast fortunes in “total taxes” each year are being subsidized by others.

    I am all for eliminating subsidies. Computers are pretty slick these days. The various governments can send me a bill for all of my direct costs and then a bill allocating the indirect costs on a per capita basis. I’ll buy a flying car with what I save.

  38. Mr. Gross,

    Can we at least reach one point of agreement: Drivers are not subsidized by non-drivers. And the biggest single element of the tax bill (gas) is determined by miles driven with extra punishment for inefficiency. For the record, I’d be happy to toss all of the registration and property/sales tax fees for an equal amount raised through the gas tax. The reason the other taxes are so high is that lefties want to “soak the rich” who buy cars worth more than $20,000.

    I’d also really like to know what you think the purpose of having a state is. Why not break off rural and Northern Virginia if the main objective of everything is proportional funding? Why not just balkanize the whole thing and just have counties without a state government?

    Why do I have to “subsidize” libraries, parks, schools and sidewalks I will never, ever use? And why don’t we fund a new sidewalks to WalMart project with pedestrian toll transponders so that only the people who choose to use the sidewalk will be the ones who pay for it?

    I’m looking for intellectual consistency in the “proportional” argument, and it’s eluding me.

  39. Groveton Avatar

    Am I subsidizing this?

    http://www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject.asp?pid=70

    Specifically ….

    “Rappahannock River Water Trail: Facilitated by matching grants from the National Park Service’s Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, F.O.R. is establishing a Rappahannock River Water Trail to better connect citizens to the Rappahannock River watershed and its rich heritage in enjoyable and educational ways, while encouraging conservation stewardship. A unique river atlas and other educational resources will also help celebrate Jamestown’s 400th anniversary and Captain John Smith’s early exploration of the Rappahannock River.”.

    National Park Service? For a trail along the Rappahannock River? I smell subsidy. Will the good people of Rhode Island be expected to use this trail? They pay taxes that fund the National Park Serrvice – no? Why isn’t a toll charged to use the trail. Why should motorists who care nothing about river trails be forced to subsidize that trail?

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “I’m looking for intellectual consistency in the “proportional” argument, and it’s eluding me.”

    Not kidding here – I am truly thrilled to see this question – and am gratified to having found a kindred soul.

    First, the “purpose” of the state.. I’ll restrict this to roads for this response.

    There’s a JLARC study that I’ve alluded to from time to time where they advocate several reforms which I think are excellent but one of the one that really make a lot of sense is that they recommend dividing up responsibility of the roads.

    They advocate putting VDOT in charge of roads of “statewide significance” .. roads that “connect” Virginia.

    That is a valid purpose of the State to tax citizens and to provide something of value to all citizens in return – to connect Va with Primary Roads and Interstates.

    Then they advocate local roads being allocated to local governments (like they are in many other States). And I support this because having a direct connection between land-use decisions and the transportation consequences of such decisions needs to be local or otherwise, huge financial messes are created and dropped in the lap of VDOT (other taxpayers).

    Finally, JLARC recommended Regional roads which is not near a radical concept as some would have one believe. Virginia has long had Planning Districts to encourage cost-effective approaches to addressing regional needs.

    The Feds felt the same way when they created the MPOs.

    The problem we have with Regional is twofold.

    1. – Proper, accountable and transparent governance – aka elected folks in charge of the money.

    2. – the idea that Regional governance is imposed rather than voluntary

    I’d only point out with 1. that we already have many, many “unelected” regional authorities including VRE and there were no complaints about the “unelected” aspects.. until now – not only with existing regional authorities but with an “unelected” CTB and VDOT.

    However, I do support elected MPOs and I further acknowledge that unelected MPOs, as currently implemented in Virginia, has opened up the hen house door to one stop shopping for the developer foxes when it comes to regional roads.

    The second aspect is that some areas just don’t want to “do” regional approaches.. not only for roads.. but other services…and I just think it is wasteful government to not do regional services for many items.

    I’m going to end this here and start another thread on the proportionality tax/subsidy issue.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Drivers are not subsidized by non-drivers. At least not to any appreciable amount. Maybe there is some hermit homesteeader survivalist somewhere paying taxes that support roads that he never ever uses, but even he is a beneficiary of roads: he had to get to that hermitage somehow.

    This whole idea that road users are massively subsidized is a classic picture of the great lie. Repeat it often enough and people who don’t think for themselves start to believe it.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    …no one owes you the ability to buy a house and not move…

    And no one owes you the cost of moving every time you think it will save you a dollar.

    What the government should be looking for is not simply the lowest cost to itself at any price to its citizens. that would be utterly stupid. What the government should be looking for is the optimum mix of income and opportunity for its citizens (which generates revenue for government) counterbalanced with low cost for government. Too little opportunity and government loses revenue, too much opportunity and government costs go up.

    Government attempts to provide equal opportunity for all to move or not move, to travel or not travel as best suits their economic purposes. However, if you choose not to avail yourself of the opportunity provided, it does NOT mean you are being somehow cheated, or that you are subsidizing someone who does, because presumably not having that opportunity would result in a lower total social net benefit, which would cost you money, not save it.

    But, the problem is still that “[Elected politicians]..just aren’t capable of knowing enough to truly solve problems in a way that makes everyone better off. Worse, in their arrogance that they can, the ignorance they do not acknowledge, or in the pursuit of a particular interest group’s support, they often create new problems or exacerbate other ones in the process of “helping”.

    In this case it appears to be the “user pays” special interest groups that are advocating in ignorance for policies that will create new problems or exacerbate others in the process of helping primarily themselves.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the guy who drives 10 miles a day in RoVa the same “

    You keep talking about this mythical character.

    We already went through this with the example for the Farmville area. 71% of the population of that county work outside the county, and more than half the county ommutes more than thirty minutes and many commute more than 40 minutes.

    The fact is that your mythical character has the same opportunities to drive just as far as a NOVA resident, and for the same reasons or driving forces: better job, cheaper housing costs (which include the costs of moving). AND he gets to do it mostly without congestion or tolls.

    Who, exactly, is subsidizing whom? The fact is that we don’t know, and don’t want to know because we probably won’t like the answer. It is a whole lot easier jsut to continually repeat a falsehood until it is believed.

    RH

  44. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, You ask a valid and very important question: Are all subsidies bad, or are only transportation subsidies bad? If only transportation subsidies are bad, upon what basis do we get so stirred up about them and not the others?

    First of all, I would argue that there are many, many bad subsidies, and I do get stirred up about them, but they are not the proper subject of this blog. You can start with nearly all agricultural subsidies and work your way down the list of federal earmarks, pork barrel projects and corporate welfare programs.

    Second, I would argue that not every government transfer of wealth represents a subsidy. Government transfers wealth, for example, to provide a social safety net. It transfers wealth to ensure that every child has access to education. I think most people would agree, so I won’t pause here to defend the practice. The common denominator is that government helps people suffering from extreme need or misfortune.

    But transportation subsidies are a different matter entirely. The problem is that the more we subsidize the cost of road construction and maintenance, the more we encourage people to utilize the automobile, which, in turn, puts more stress on the transportation system and genertes calls for more spending, in a vicious circle. Furthermore, the expenditure of funds on roads, highways and other transportation projects is subject to the political process, which means that certain players (big developers, contractors, etc.) are willing to expend large amounts of money to influence those expenditures in ways that favor them, not the public. Politicians, of course, are only too happy to play along. As a consequence, the process of allocating tax dollars has been hopelessly corrupted.

    Like farm subsidies, transportation subsidies lead to demonstrable inequities and inefficiencies. What we’re doing is not working.

  45. “Like farm subsidies, transportation subsidies lead to demonstrable inequities and inefficiencies.”

    Again, ‘subsidy’ is being thrown out with no evidence. Show us the numbers. Drivers pay through the nose in taxes, many listed above, even though roads provide great benefit for non-drivers (e.g., emergency medical transport, commerce, etc.)

    I see the proper role of government is more infrastructure (and defense at the federal level) than social safety net — that’s just my personal view. The fact is that fraud, waste, abuse and influence peddling is as bad or worse with public private partnership toll roads. Google Macquarie with the word Enron and you’ll see some of the financial flim-flam behind the toll road push.

    This bit from today’s news is also a fun read.

  46. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Drivers are not subsidized by non-drivers. ….. I’d be happy to toss all of the registration and property/sales tax fees for an equal amount raised through the gas tax. The reason the other taxes are so high is that lefties want to “soak the rich” who buy cars worth more than $20,000.

    Why do I have to “subsidize” libraries, schools, etc…

    I differentiate by demand and I differentiate between a subsidy that can be equated to a societal investment verses incentivizing individuals – at a cost to others.

    Schools and roads are examples of things that provide core services to virtually everyone but both are ripe for abuse of adding costly “enhanced” services for which there is a demand and the benefits of which accrue out of proportion to individuals who consume such services at a higher rate than they are paying for them.

    Yeah.. you can have a lady who is using a library at a rate 10 times higher than what she is paying for – but the impacts to all of those that pay – are minimal.

    But what if libraries sold books at 1/2 of what Barnes and Noble does – what would happen?

    That’s the problem with roads.

    We’re “selling” them for 1/2 of what they cost but our solution seems to be to up the gas tax on everyone including the folks that don’t need wider, rush-hour roads to help pay for those who basically have made a financial decision to drive until they qualify.

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I would argue that agricultural subsidies are really subsidies to help promote more densly populated living, because they keep land that would otherwise be sold off the market.

    If the goal is more smart growth, then the smart thing to do is grow more on the farms.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Government transfers wealth, for example, to provide a social safety net.”

    Isn’t this the same as what groveton calls providing job liquidity? Isn’t that a safety net?

    Isn’t this the same as what I call transportation opportunity? Whether you use it at present or not, you pay for it because it is a safety net.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I live in NoVA and drive about 8,000 miles per year.”

    OK. And how much are your streets worth, per square foot compared to the ones in Bupkus? Just because you drive less than normal doesn’t mean you are not being subsidised. your stuff might cost a lot more.

    The fact is, we just don’t know.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the more we subsidize the cost of road construction and maintenance, the more we encourage people to utilize the automobile, which, in turn is closely associated with economic growth which generates more tax revenue and keeps overall costs down.

    In point of fact, we don;t really know what the right balance point is, but without that knowledge this argument is just as good as Jim Bacon’s argument.

    It’s an example of Groveton’s faceless inumerable subsidy complaint.

  51. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I’m sorry, but if you guys don’t acknowledge that drivers are subsidized to a large degree by non-drivers, you’re living in la-la land.

    Now, I will concede (as I have argued previously in this blog) that automobile drivers pay a larger percentage of their costs than, say, mass transit riders. But the fact that mass transit is massively subsidized does not negate the reality that roads are subsidized as well.

    As for the subsidies, I refer you back to Bob’s list of transportation revenues above:

    $??? Personal property tax
    $912m gas tax
    $560m vehicle sales tax
    $216m Vehicle Licensing
    $173m Speeding tickets
    $111m Car insurance tax
    $75m Tolls
    $75m Trucker taxes
    $20m Interest earned on fund
    $6m Property damage collections
    $1.3m highway advertising space

    The vehicle sales tax, vehicle licensing tax and car insurance tax — which account for nearly $800 million in revenue — do come from automobile owners/drivers as a class. But these revenue sources make no distinction between those who drive 6,000 miles a year and those who drive 36,000 miles, or between those who drive on uncongested roads or those who clog 50 miles of crowded interstate during rush hour. Thus, in a very real sense, low-mileage drivers are subsidizing high-mileage drivers.

    The only people who won’t acknowledge the truth of this blindingly obvious fact, I would wager, are themselves high-mileage drivers who want to continue the status quo from which they benefit.

    But the subsidies don’t end there. In recent years, the General Assembly has established a very bad precedence for paying for road projects out of General Funds — including the notorious Rt. 288 beltway road around SW Richmond built almost exclusively for the benefit of developers. That’s a case of *all* taxpayers, drivers and non-drivers alike, subsidizing drivers and developers.

    Furthermore, the proposal to fund more road construction with a *sales* tax is cut from the same cloth: *all* taxpayers subsidizing drivers. Whereas Virginia once did embrace a pay-as-you-go approach to transportation, in which automobile drivers as a class paid for roads, the state now is seeking all manner of revenues from taxpayers generally.

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if you guys don’t acknowledge that drivers are subsidized to a large degree by non-drivers”

    But Jim, virtually everybody is a driver, even if they are paying taxes that are not directly related to driving.

    In order to be subsidized to a large degree by non drivers, wouldn’t there need to be a large contingent of non-drivers?

    Where are they? Riding the buses (on roads)? In nursing homes (having lived a full life of road use)?

    RH

  53. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We do subsidize schools – no question.

    But does that subsidy increase demand for schools?

    We subsidize mental health, prisons, fire/rescue.. even libraries but do any of them result in ever increasing demands for more of them?

    I see the “proof” of whether a subsidy is “worth it” or not – as whether the subsidy produces ever increasing demand for it…or instead it satisfies a defined – limited – static need.

    … Look at Rt 288

    How NEEDED is that road if the costs of it are passed on directly to those who use it verses the costs of it passed on to those to don’t use it?

    If it were like a prison.. or EMS or even a library (that does not sell discount books), the price would not affect demand…

    Here is perhaps a better example.

    Should the CBBT – Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel ..be tolled or not?

    Can you justify building and operating the CBBT that is deserving of being subsidized by all Virginians?

    How about new tunnels in Hampton Roads?

    How about a new bridge over the Potomac between Fairfax and Montgomery County?

    so.. we were talking about using consistency in our justifications for subsidies…

    I’m listening…

  54. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, Regarding your most recent point: the fact that non-drivers in our society are relatively few in number does not change the fact that they subsidize drivers. Are you saying that the injustice does not exist because the victims of that injustice are few in number? Tell that to the American Indians!

    Also, you are overlooking the point that low-mileage drivers subsidize high-mileage drivers.

    And you are overlooking the fact that non rush-hour drivers are subsidizing rush hour drivers.

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “That’s a case of *all* taxpayers, drivers and non-drivers alike, subsidizing drivers and developers.”

    What non-drivers? Virtually everybody is a driver or road user soem way.

    ——————————–

    “….built almost exclusively for the benefit of developers.”

    Nonsense.

    Where are the developers today? Wherre are the people who purchased the developers products today? Who owns the product and who uses the roads today?

    ——————————–

    “Thus, in a very real sense, low-mileage drivers are subsidizing high-mileage drivers.”

    How do we know that, and what basis do we use to decide?

    Groveton drives only 8000 miles a year. (Apparently because he spends his life on an airplane.) But if he drives mostly in NOVA how much is his road worth per square ft compared to a sq ft of road in wise county? How much does his sq ft of road generate in economic cash flow compard to a sq ft of road in Wise County?

    Or how about the 71% of people around Farmville that commute out of county on uncongested roads. If they are not paying the congestion tax, aren’t they the ones being subsidized, compared to someone who drives just as far on a crowded road?

    ——————————–

    “these revenue sources make no distinction between those who drive 6,000 miles a year and those who drive 36,000”

    No, they don’t, but other revenue sources do, and so do other costs to the drivers – which turn into revenue sources to the state. They guy who drives more wears out more cars, pays more in repairs which turn into income tax, and he buys more new cars more often so he pays more sales tax and higher property tax.

    Do I think the system should be tilted more towarddirct user fees? Sure, that’s why I support a higher gas tax.

    Do I think the system should be ALL user fees, based solely on what you use, and no more? No, that is patently crazy. If that was the case there would never be any surplus, no peak capacity.

    So, there are reasons why we do what we do. Is it the best and most equitable we can do? Probably not, but we don’t have enough real information to do any better, or to claim some other system would be better, more efficent or cheaper. Even if it IS cheaper, it won’t mean it is more efficient or better.

    ——————————

    As for paying out of the general fund, hasn’t the GA also raided the transportation fund in the past? it is all money that comes from drivers and road users anyway, what’s the difference?

    _____________________________

    And that guy driving 50 miles on congested highways is mostly myth. Commuter traffic is 20% of all traffic and the average commute is what, 23 minutes? Which is what, in rush hour, 15 miles? Even if that guy is as much as ten percent of commuters he is still only 2% of all drivers, And that includes the ones that are driving 50 miles on uncrowded highways, people who live in Winchester and work in Manassas.

    At the end of the day that moron driving 50 miles on a congested road might be half of one percent of the problem. he probably got that way by accident, through a job chnge or something, and he’s probably trying to fix it – even morons won’t drive like that over long periods of time.

    I’m sorry, but what you see as a blindingly obvious fact, I see as a dim and intermittent partial truth.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your comment was that drivers are subsidized to a large degree by non-drivers. I don’t think that is true because there are not enough non-drivers to do ANYTHING for all those drivers in a large degree.

    (I include passengers as drivers for this purpose. I think what we are talking about is road users, when we say drivers.)

    I don’t think the India analogy is a good one. We took EVERYTHING from them and gave nothing back.

    Nondrivers, if there is one, avoid many of the fees you mentioned, along with the user fees and operating costs. What they wind up paying is a long shot from having lost everything.

    And, they always have the opportunity to change their mind and become drivers, or drive more if circumstances (essentially beyond their control, despite what ALarry thinks) change. Unlike the Indians, they don’t have to stay on the reservation.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…you are overlooking the fact that non rush-hour drivers are subsidizing rush hour drivers.”

    HOWZAT?

    The rush hour driver is going to work. Work means commerce, and it is business that pays much of our taxes (for us). The non rush hour drivers are getting a free ride compared to the commuters. I don’t hear anyone complaining about the costs we incur for the person who drives 50 miles to Potomac Mills, yet the road they drive on got built, just the same.

    What is really the issue here?

    Is it reducing VMT and resource usage in general?

    Is it reducing congestion and its resulting waste and pollution?

    Is it paying for enough roads where they are needed?

    Is it that we should only build roads up to the maximum supportable business density?

    Or is it that we should have absolute equity for a few (as they define equity) – no matter what it costs?

    RH

  58. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “At the end of the day that moron driving 50 miles on a congested road might be half of one percent of the problem.”

    if this is true then why the outcry that “something” must be done about congestion and gridlock and where are those cries coming from?

    They’re not coming from the guy in Farmville… or Wise County are they?

    If … ACROSS the state from virtually every county and city – the cry was “something has to be done about congestion gridlock” the answer WOULD be a no-brainer -right?

    but see. YOUR solution to to tax the bejesus out of EVERYONE – even the ones who don’t think there is a problem where they live…

    and you call it:

    “everybody pays and everybody benefits”.

    It’s a classic tax & spend … build your way out of congestion – approach to government…

  59. There is a lot of bait and switch going on here. The first point that must be established clearly: Drivers are not subsidized by non-drivers. Automobile drivers as a class pay enough to cover VDOT’s road construction and maintenance budget all by themselves. Period.

    Yes, there are general fund appropriations for road projects, but that’s irrelevant. Government budgets are fungible. Take one line item out from here, add it there. That’s why I provided the net figures — on net, more money is grabbed from drivers than goes into roads. This is math, not opinion. My math may be wrong and I might be reading the line items incorrectly, but unless that’s the case more money comes in from drivers than goes into roads.

    The second use of the term “subsidy” is high-mileage drivers subsidizing low-mileage drivers. My first point to this is: who cares? Personally, my commute is 12 miles. A few years ago it was 10. Maybe next year it will be 50. Who knows. Anyone whining about this today may find himself in the other camp at some point.

    The gas tax, speeding tickets and to a lesser extent the insurance tax are mileage based (more driving = more exposure to tickets & accidents). So about half of the revenue comes from mileage dependent sources and the other half from “soak the rich” sources. Drive more, you pay more both in taxes and non-tax costs (maintenance, etc) This is a non-argument.

    Kaine proposes a general sales tax increase? Well, we’re talking about subsidies in the present tense, not some plan the house of delegates simply isn’t going to pass. I will reiterate that roads, like schools, are of general benefit to the commonwealth. If there’s a hurricane, do you want 6 lanes on I95/395 or do you want 8 lanes? Or will you still prefer bicycle paths? So Kaine’s proposal isn’t wrong, it’s just unnecessary.

    That said, we already collect plenty for road building and maintenance and there’s zero need for more taxes be they general levies or driver-only collections.

    There is more worth a response, especially some of Larry Gross’s comments, but it’s important to get the fundamental terms of the discussion straight first.

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “something” must be done about congestion and gridlock becasue we do have congestion and gridlock that results in waste and pollution.

    But only a small part of it is because of the guy that drives fifty miles or more. There just are not that many. And for many of them, the first thirty miles is relatively unongested. Therefore, if you meved them thirty miles closer, yu would still have all the same congestion.

    On top of that, you would now also get all the other family travel which is 75% of the miles driven.

    Congestion isn’t only related to miles driven, it’s related to miles driven per square mile.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the ones who don’t think there is a problem where they live…already had their roads paid for by somebody who doesn’t live there.

    Now that it is time to return the favor, they want to become chiselers.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I haven’t proposed a solution. I’m not sure there is one.

    I agree that we could move the system a little bit so that more direct user fees are used – provided they are used as promised. I think the idea of 100% user fee system is fundamentally nutty, as well as wasteful.

    I don’t think the user fee funds will beused as promised, for any number of reasons.

    What I am saying is that the arguments used to support your proposed solution are faulty, and therefore the solution is untrustworthy.

    I suspect that Bob is right, more money is grabbed from drivers than goes into roads. The credo that road drivers are heavily subsidized is wrong, and therefore arguments that depend on it are suspect.

    Bob’s point aabout high vs low mileage drivers is is similar to my idea that what we pay for is the opportunity to use the roads as much as for the use of the roads. Just because some make more use of the opportunity doesn’t mean that others are being cheated.

    There are aspects of roads, like schools, which are of a general benefit, and to that extent they should be paid generally. We can argue about how much is general and how much is user fee based, but it isn’t 100% one way or the other.

    But, like Bob says, it’s important to get the fundamental terms right first.

    What problem(s) are we trying to solve?

    What option(s) are available?

    What mix of revenues and expenditures, costs and cost avoidance gives us the greatest benefit?

    If the benefit or cost is really lopsided, then how do we make it more equitable?

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If I were to propose a congestion solution, I’d suggest you look at root causes. I’d suggest that the evidence shows that excessive job density leads to waste. NY, sespite its transit system, has the longest commutes in the nation, and this translates to tremendous waste.

    And, as EMR points out, insufficient job density also leads to waste – you have under utilized roads that someone has to pay for. As Larry points out this is great for some people, because they don’t think they have a problem. And, as long as they continue to get others to provide those roads, they don’t have a problem. THAT is where the user fee situation should be focused.

    I think if you even out the job density, the congestion problem goes away.

    ———————————-

    Failing that, you need to increase the passenger density. We tried this with car pool lanes and it was only partly sucessful. Some think that by opening the car pool lanes we get 20% more lane capacity. But that ignores the problem of passenger density.

    We didn’t have enough incentive to create car pools, so now we are going to let people buy their way out of the car pool using HOT lanes.

    It is probably a lot cheaper topay people to rid in car pools. So my proposal would be that instead of letting the the HOT lane riders pay to get out of the car polls, we should put the tolls on the regular, congested lanes.

    Then we whould take that money and use it to pay people who use car pools. If the price/incentive is high enough, People will switch from the congested lanes to the car pool lanes to avoid the fee and get the incentive. When enough people switch you close one of the regular lanes and make it another car pool lane.

    We should pick up the additional liability premiums.

    But, eventually you still run out of lanes, in which case you come right back face to face with the problem that you have more job density than you can reasonably support. Our thirty year Metro experiment has already proven this.

    The studies have already shown that HOT lanes will result in more traffic, fewer car pools, and relocation of some job centers. I submit we can achieve those results a lot cheaper, and without making Fluor rich(er) in the process.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Driving home yesterday, I heard a radio host talking up the merits of a 4 day work week. The main argument seemed to be: 20% less driving means 20% less fuel consumption.

    I know I tend to think like an economist, but doesn’t anyone else drive more on the weekend than during the week? I know I do. I don’t have any evidence handy, but I would guess a 4 day work week would have no net effect on total fuel consumption–and possibly even increase it.”

    From Dr. Tim Haabs Environmental Economics Blog.

    File this one under inconvenient truths.

    RH

  65. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “…Automobile drivers as a class pay enough to cover VDOT’s road construction and maintenance budget all by themselves. Period.”

    hmmm.. I’m having a Cool Hand Luke moment here…

    Is the problem that drivers already provide more than adequate monies for the scope and scale of infrastructure that is needed (or some might say – wanted)?

    If true then why the outcry’s for more?

    Here’s VDOT’s budget (page 7):

    http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/VDOT_Budget.pdf

    note it is divided up into maintenance and construction by revenue sources also.

    what is it about this budget that confirms that there is already more than enough money but it is not being spent properly?

    and . how is that .. related to who is paying for transportation and who is not?

    re: it does not matter how much folks pay for what they use

    why do we need to have “user pays” for electricity, water/sewer and cell phone minutes but not roads?

    why not just have everyone pay one set fee for electricity or cell phones?

    everybody uses them.. and everyone benefits from their availability…
    even those that don’t use them..

    right?

    so.. tell me why it’s okay to have user pays for cell phone but it’s not okay to have user pays for roads?

  66. My phone bills are all flat-rate. Roads are “user pays.” The people who drive pay for roads statewide. The people who drive more pay more. Unless you pay a per-step tax for the use of the sidewalk, don’t pretend there’s some moral imperative to charge a per-mile tax only for the roads you personally use, and no others.

    The VDOT budget only gives you half of the picture. Government budgeting is all about deception and distortion. The CTB budget (warning: pdf) gives more numbers.

    What confirms there’s enough money? Well, the easiest example is CTB approved a useless $5 billion Dulles Rail boondoggle — enough to fund hundreds of new freeway lane miles.

  67. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m looking at the CTB budget.. and I cannot find the Dulles Rail stuff.. did I miss it?

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Isn’t some of “transportation” money is spent on other stuff, like replica sailing ships, defending lawsuits to prevent transportation etc. etc.?

    RH

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    User pays already applies to roads. It is only that it is not all 100% based on direct user fees.

    And, there are good and sufficient reasons for that. There are both geneal and specfic benefits, and the general benefits should not be user pays only.

    Also, no one is suggesting that it should be 100% everyone pays and everyone gets; it isn’t that way now, nor should it be. We could even increase the direct user fees, if there is some reason to think it makes sense (aside from your moral imperatives). But my personal feeling is that tolls are dumb expensive way to do it.

    RH

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I even threw you a bone on the tolls: toll the congested lanes and use the money to pay people to car pool in the other lanes, instead of putting the toll on the carpool lanes so that people can buy their way out of the car pool.

    This plan increases multi-passenger vehicles. Gets a double bang out of the same incentive (If you move out of the congested lanes you don;t pay the fee AND you get paid for carpooling.) And it guranteees that the money collected from the users actually benefits the users.

    RH

  71. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: transportation money spent on frivolous non-transportation things..

    I have a really hard time looking at VDOT’s budget of 4 Billion and coming away with a sense of more than more than a few million spent on “other” stuff.

    At the same time.. I think it is a good question to ask what folks think “belong” to transportation and why and especially so with regard to sales taxes and general revenues and why.

    re: the “morality” of tolling…

    I personally have no agenda on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of tolls verses taxes for roads but I do think it is more fair and equitable to charge for what you use and “what you use” is what is required to meet your needs.

    So.. if you drive 10 miles a day on a country road.. and it meets your needs.. you pay that cost and if you drive 100 miles a day on heavily congested 8-lane roads, you need to pay your share of that also.

    EVERYONE should pay their fair share of the roads that connect Virginia.

    Right now.. we are not collecting enough money (notwithstanding Bob’s opinion) .. and discussions are underway on how to make up the shortfall.. and whether or not the increases should also be proportional or not.

    I’d also agree that if you _could_ just raise the gas tax HIGH ENOUGH that it would meet that proportionality test but I don’t think it will be politically possible to do that…

    .. but even if it were politically possible.. it will only speed the demise of the gas tax as a viable funding source.. because the higher the price of gasoline.. ultimately will mean less and less gas taxes collected…

    so.. it’s ultimately.. and potentially a dead end much sooner than is thought..

    .. so then what?

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if you drive 10 miles a day on a country road.. and it meets your needs.. you pay that cost and if you drive 100 miles a day on heavily congested 8-lane roads, you need to pay your share of that also.”

    If we knew what those shares were, we might be very surprised. The heavily congested roads are in areas where the land under them is expensive, and the big freeways are more expensive. But, the cost is divisible by thousands of more cars, day and night, and each car is generating far more (commerce, income, whatever) which will be taxed (and probably distributed statewide).

    We had better agree on a fair way to figure the costs and the allocations. Right now, we just don’t know, and no one is really trying to figure it out.

    It is going to take the same money one way as another. If it isn’t politically possible to raise the gas tax, why is any other tax or toll any different? (With tolls its different because most of the state won’t be tolled, that’s why.)

    If we use less gasoline, well, that’s part of what we wanted. Just like those water users in North Carolina, we will find out once again, that conservation costs money.

    If it costs me more to drive, I’ll drive less, whether the cost is a gas tax or a toll. The whole point of the tolls is demand management, and if you manage the demand too much, you’ll have to raise the tolls. If you think one is a dead end, so is the other.

    Good thing we can get cheap shoes at WalMart.

    RH

  73. “it is more fair and equitable to charge for what you use”

    Right. “Fair” is a concept of morality. We’ve established ad nauseum that at least half of the taxes imposed vary according to the amount of road use. So if that’s not enough, where’s the economic analysis to show why the formula is wrong? I see nothing but vague assertions with zero attempt to comprehend the existing system and zero attempt to calculate the real cost of the proposed alternative.

    And if there’s a formula to determine the value of a “country road” vs. “8-lane roads” we’re just getting into rather absurd territory. Maybe the electric company should charge me differently whether I’m running the air conditioner vs. a Playstation 3. Regardless, why create a massive, intrusive and expensive bureaucracy just to cater to your personal moral imperative to “stick it to the other guy”?

    As for the proportionality test, if we eliminated the personal property tax in return for a few cents on the gas tax, I think that would be politically viable. Of course, gas needs to dip first. I’d love to see the analysis, but I can’t find the property tax numbers on the Internet or via a nexis search.

  74. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Right. “Fair” is a concept of morality.”

    legitimate comment.

    “Fair” is also used in economics where a price for something is said to be “fair” and what is more fair is a fee for service that can be refused if one does not think the price is “worth” it to them..

    … as opposed to taking money from them .. and promising them “fair use”….

    as far as the rural vs urban road use –

    the answer is very easy – let each party pay for their respective, proportional use…

    In other words, let each locality keep the gas tax revenues that they generate – just like Henrico and all Independent cities in Va do right now.

    The folks in Henrico.. fund their own roads.. with their own tax dollars…and do not worry about their revenues being spent somewhere else.

    Give the folks in NoVa the same deal and let them decide if they’ve put enough bucks into their transportation network… instead of RH’s idea of trying to “figure it out”… don’t “figure it out”.. just keep the money local to start with..and if what RH sez is true – that urban freeways cost less per capita than rural.. then great…

    if both areas keep their funds.. they don’t have to worry about “figuring out” who should get what from the state.

    This has been the problem from the get go.

    VDOT does a wish list of local projects – that it knows it does not have the money to build – because the locality is not generating anywhere near enough gas tax revenues to fund those projects.

    So the big LIE ensues… which is.. some of your projects will “wait” UNTIL there is “enough”… “state” funding.

    The problem is ALL localities are told this and ALL of them expect the State to come through at some point with “State” money for their projects.

    It’s a shell game.

    That’s why RH sez we need to “figure out who should get what”.

    where is the transparency and accountability in this?

    the very first step in transparency and accountability would be to START with the ledger showing EXACTLY how much a locality generates in gas tax revenues …BEFORE you do your wish list…and BEFORE the money gets sent to Richmond.

    then you don’t have the problem of trying to “figure out” who owes who.

    Right?

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And if there’s a formula to determine the value of a “country road” vs. “8-lane roads” we’re just getting into rather absurd territory.”

    I don’t think so. A country road poured on whatever grade is avaiable costs a fraction of what a major graded highway costs. It is more dangerous to use, and it goes to places that are not as “valuable”. Why should that guy expect to pay the same as someone who gets a freeway?

    On the other hand, far fewer people use it the country road. It is not congested and has fewer users to support it. maybe they should pay more.

    Asking what the legitimate costs are per person compared to the costs per person of the Springfield intrchange is a valuable exercise, it seems to me.

    Suppose we find out, that despite their drawbacks country roads produce far more in exchange for the dollars spent that the Springfield Spaghetti Bowl? Well, next time someone comes up with a grandiose scheme, we might think differently.

    Or, we might find out that EMR is right, and the country road things are vastly expensive. Then we would expect Larry to argue the THEY are where the tolls should be placed. We would expect, that in order to escape them people would move to what some call “more functional settlement patterns”.

    “and if what RH sez is true – that urban freeways cost less per capita than rural.. then great…”

    I never said that. I said that given the high use it might be so.

    And no, I don’t think there is any reson to keep the money (and the control) local. I think this is a real pathway to stagnation. Some would call it conservation. this idea does not recognize that localities depend on each other and do not exist in a vacuum. It will lead to beggar thy neighbor policies, rather that policies that search for the most good at the lowest cost.

    What I don’t understand is how you can say “let each party pay for their respective, proportional use” and in the same breath say “don’t figure it out” when it comes to trying to decide (fairly) just what the heck that might be.

    I don’t think we have the foggiest idea, right now. I suspect it’s because nobody really wants the answer: because they know they won’t like it.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It would be a heck of a shock wouldn’t it, if you went through all this analysis and discovered that VDOT wasn’t doing such a bad job? That the best, fastest, cheapest and most equitable way to pay for roads is with sales taxes, because GDP is so closely linked to VMT? An that the best fastest most cost effective, highest ROI way to prioritize roads is to put them where the sales taxes are growing the fastest?

    If we had the facts to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, what would people say then? it would tip current conventional “wisdom” on its head.

    RH

  77. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “What I don’t understand is how you can say “let each party pay for their respective, proportional use” and in the same breath say “don’t figure it out” when it comes to trying to decide (fairly) just what the heck that might be.”

    When you roll up to the toll plaza on the CBBT.. or Powhite or Dulles tollroads.. you don’t have to figure anything out.. you just have to decide if taking a trip on that road is “worth” it to you.

    The people who run the tollroad “figure out” how much to charge and all you have to do is decide yea or nay…

    What more do you need to figure out?

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The monopoly that runs the tollroad “figures out” how much to charge. You just have to decide whether to take it or leave it, not having nay competing vendors, you have no real “choice”.

    What I need to figure out is why any government in its right mind would allow this.

    RH

  79. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The monopoly that runs the tollroad “figures out” how much to charge. You just have to decide whether to take it or leave it, not having nay competing vendors, you have no real “choice”.

    No more or less than with Electricity, phone service or cable or many other things INCLUDING the “choices” you get when VDOT spends your gas tax money.

    Do you think that the Powhite Parkway or the CBBT are “monopolies”?

    Are they any more or any less a “monopoly” if the State or a Private company ran them?

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We watched a video in science today, an old video, talking about how the world will start to collapse around us when oil runs out…The movie started with a radio announcer proclaming the price of gas to be $120 per barrel

    ………………

Leave a Reply