Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Bacon’s Rebellion: Special Session Edition

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

As the special session convenes today, the General Assembly has got transportation on the brain, and so do we at Bacon’s Rebellion. Indeed, it’s pretty much transportation and land use from start to finish for the June 23, 2008, edition of Virginia’s preeminent public policy e-zine — with a dash of other topics to keep things from getting monotonous.

(Don’t miss a single issue of the e-zine. Subscribe for free — just click here — and have it delivered to your in-box.)

The War on Sprawl
Andrew Jackson had his “kitchen” cabinet. Tim Kaine has his “sub” cabinet: five secretaries whose job is to marshal state resources to promote smart growth.


by James A. Bacon

Finding Common Ground
There is no other way to conduct the public business successfully. Let us hope that the lawmakers convening in Richmond today take heed.
by Doug Koelemay

Shaping a Functional and Sustainable Future in Greater Warrenton-Fauquier


by EM Risse

Another One Bites the Dust

Another toll-road myth — that governments can access cheaper infrastructure financing than the private sector — has been demolished. The proof? Transurban’s experience in Northern Virginia.


by Leonard Gilroy

A Transportation Reform Agenda

A comprehensive solution to transportation in Virginia requires a lot more than raising taxes and spending money. We have to change the way we fund and administer roads and rail.

by Michael Thompson

On the Eve of Battle

Republicans are bracing for a confrontation this week over transportation taxes and spending. Here are the thoughts, extracted from the first Tertium Quids podcast, of some GOP leading lights.

by Norman Leahy

Richmond vs. Charlotte: an Update

Charlotte, N.C., snarfed up Richmond‘s big commercial banks in the early ’90s, a coup at the time. Fifteen years later, the sub-prime fiasco is pinching Richmond, but it’s putting the Tarheels in a world of hurt.

by Peter Galuszka

Audit Time

Before jacking up taxes and throwing money around, let’s audit the plethora of Virginia transportation-related agencies and authorities, define clear goals and set priorities for spending.

by Ron Utt

Power Surge

Big increases in electric rates are all but inevitable in Virginia. Consumers need to be educated about their options before they get shocked by their electric bills.

by Barbara Kessinger

Nice & Curious Questions

Finding Felons in Virginia: Bounty Hunters in the Commonwealth

by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Smart Growth advocates have been claiming those same tenets for about 15 years now. They’ve convinced journalists write breathless articles about the coming of Smart Growth so many times I’ve lost count.

    I’ll be convinced when I see the results, if the results are good. Achieving good things is going to take more than espousing goodisms.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “One of the Governor’s recommendations was to add a goal to reduce the growth rate of peak demand for electricity (the amount required on the hottest day in the summer) by 40 percent over the next 15 years. ……..Some market participants felt strongly that a specific cost- effectiveness test should have been identified.”

    Right.

    Peak demand is met by peaking plants, burning natural gas.

    If we reduce peak demand by spreading out the load to off peak times, we will have more reliance on the base load coal capacity, and therfore burn more coal.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “So, in the end, real world experience shows that the cost of capital issue is a red herring. Because private investor-operators can tap into both federal tax-exempt financing vehicles and robust global capital markets, they can structure sophisticated financial arrangements at highly competitive rates that can neutralize the public financing’s supposed advantages.”

    Well, a red herring is a red herring. If the pblic sector can neutralize the public secotrs financing advantage, they still can’t do much better.

    Saying the private sector can achieve low rates by digging into the federal pocket isn’t really saving us much, is it?

    And if they need sopisticated (read risky) packages to do that how are we better off?

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ron Utt went through that topic like an old time roofer: itting every nail once and missing his thumb every time.

    “whether proper cost/benefit analysis is applied to establishing project priorities and modal choices.

    ” to determine whether VDOT are… properly focused on meaningful transportation improvements that provide the citizens with the biggest bang for taxes paid in terms of enhanced mobility.”

    Bingo.

    And nothing about demand management.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Implement broad based usage fees on the basis of vehicle-miles-driven, especially single-occupant-vehicle- miles-driven. Fees must relate the cost of all driving to the costs of driving on that street, roadway or expressway at that time. “

    If the fees must relate the costs of all driving to the costs of driving on that street at that time, then it would seem this can only be achieved by GPS technology.

    But if we are going to relate the fees to costs then what is the marginal cost of driving solo vs taking another person with you? how can you advocate billing on costs and then say “especially single occupand miles driven costs”.

    If a cost isn’t a cost, then it is discrimination, which is what is going on here. If a cost IS a cost, then it is not a source of revenue for other pet projects.

    If you are already paying all the other costs, then this marginal cost must be very small, actually. Likewise, if you are already paying all the other costs, then the marginal addtional cost of driving is rush hour must be small(the externality of the congestion you cause on others).

    So the individual fee for doing one of these “bad behaviors” would be small, if actually based on costs, but the gross fees brought in collectively would be very large.

    And since the argument is that this is cost based you can’t set the level higher than costs to generate other cash flow. The bulk of these fees would then be very small (for which roads you drive on, etc.)

    ????

    RH

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “But if we are going to relate the fees to costs then what is the marginal cost of driving solo vs taking another person with you? how can you advocate billing on costs and then say “especially single occupand miles driven costs”.”

    would you advocate taxing folks the same without knowing the marginal costs or just by asserting in your own opinion that they are the same?

    How do we resolve the competing assertions that the marginal cost do or do not matter?

    re: “If a cost isn’t a cost, then it is discrimination, which is what is going on here. If a cost IS a cost, then it is not a source of revenue for other pet projects.”

    this does not square with your previous thoughts that we should tax gasoline to encourage conservation.

    more to the point – from a road cost point of view – are you saying that two cars with two solo drivers have no more impact on a road than one car with two people?

    If that road could only handle 30,000 cars a day – wouldn’t it be most fair to charge – by the car?

    So, if two people want to save money by sharing the costs – why is that “unfair”?

    Methinks that you support the basic concept of taxing to alter behaviors but you have your own personal ideas of which behaviors ‘deserve’ the treatment and which ones do not.

    correct?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was only pointing out that it is inconsistent to argue that you should charge based on costs, and then immediately claim that you should charge especially on some costs.

    If the argument is that you charge on costs, then charge on costs. don’t use it as an excuse to bill people who don’t behave the way you would like.

    If two people want to save money by sharing costs that is one thing. But it is quite another to show that the costs charged for a vehicle with one person should be a lot more than the costs charged to a vehicle with two persons. The cost for providing a road for that vehicle is the same, pretty much. The only difference is road wear and tear due to additional weight.

    ——————————

    I don’t see what that has to do with gas or other sales taxes and how they are used. I never made any argument that costs should be a driver: I think user fees based on “costs” are a dumb idea, especially if you are going to define costs as EMR is attempting to do.

    I think the people who benefit from roads should pay accordng to the benefits recieved. The primary benefit of roads is commerce, so tax commerce and distribute transportation funds (not only road funds) accordingly.

    And I think that if you want people to do something you want done, then you should pay them to do it.

    What EMR suggested is similar to what I proposed (given that you are going to have tolls) charge the single drivers. I merely expanded the thought to it’s logical conclusion: Charge ALL single drivers, and pay the car pool drivers.

    ———————————

    “from a road cost point of view – are you saying that two cars with two solo drivers have no more impact on a road than one car with two people?”

    So what? You are charging the costs incurred – per car. If you have two cars you get paid twice as much.

    You’ve got two cars, one with tow passengers and one solo. You want to charge the solo guy more, so you can get three times as much for two cars as one? Where is the “cost” argument for that?

    I don’t charge my hay customers for my costs, I charge them for what they get: good clean hay without mold and delivered when they want it.

    If we charge drivers for what they cost, we can never accomplish anything new. But we build transportation for the benefits it provides, and we wuld build it unless we thought the benefits EXCEEDED the costs. So, charge for the benefits, and you will always have some left over, for the next project.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “as an excuse to bill people who don’t behave the way you would like.”

    do you really mean charging people for different kinds of morals?

    There is a connection to charging more for using more.

    we have two issues:

    1. – are we charging EVERYONE what it costs to provide the infrastructure

    2. – are people who use the infrastructure more intensely using more infrastructure than others who are paying the same?

    These are not “behaviors” that have no relationship to the costs of infrastructure.

    These are behaviors that directly affect the cost and availability of infrastructure.

    If you are solo – you are using twice as much highway space as a car shared by two people.

    or we can turn this around and say that a 2 person carpool uses 1/2 the space of solo cars.

    Doesn’t this translate into a real cost at rush hour when there is limited space?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you are solo – you are using twice as much highway space as a car shared by two people.”

    Nonsense. You are using exactly the same space and you should pay the same price.

    What difference does it make if each car is paying its costs? People who share can split the expense.

    Why is there limited space at rush hour? Because we have not been charging what it costs (This is your argument, if it is underpriced it is used too much.). We need higher taxes. Higher taxes would have led more people to drive less distance, maybe. Or else we would have a lot more money to fix the space problem.

    If you are proposing to charge people for “bad behavior”, say so. But don’t put up a phony argument about costs, when the costs are the same for the people you don’t like as the ones you do like.
    —————————-

    “If you are solo – you are using twice as much highway space as a car shared by two people.

    or we can turn this around and say that a 2 person carpool uses 1/2 the space of solo cars.”

    Either, neither one of those is true, or neither one makes any difference if you charge the cost of a car.

    We tried giving car pool users their very own lane, but that wasn’t good enough for them. They were, in fact, using a lot more space than solo cars, but they delivered more “goods”, so we put up with it. The roads for carpools cost more, not less than the regular lanes, per car, but we believe they are more efficient, so we pay the price, for the benefit we get.

    We aren’t paying enough, so the car pool lanes are still under used. If we pay the carpool drivers more, we will get all the benefits you claim. We can deliver twice the “goods” for the same cost of roads. Oh, except we stll ahve to pay the carpool drivers, so the overall costs will be higher, and the Benefits will turn out to be NOT what you say.

    It is EXACTLY the same with coal vs wind/solar.

    If the costs turn out to be higher then it is proof that either the benefits were not what you claim or the costs were not what you claim. Otherwise, one would cancel the other out.

    —————————–

    RH

    ——————————–

Leave a Reply

Read More