Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Congestion Tax + Gas Tax + National Sales Tax

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Prices send signals and taxes can influence behavior. So what are we to make of a proposal like this?

…the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) last month submitted a detailed $544 billion transportation re-authorization proposal designed to encourage the new administration to shore-up the domestic economy with heavy spending on infrastructure projects.

The new programs would be paid for with massive new tax hikes, including a per-mile driving tax that would begin with “proof of concept” trials as early as 2010. The tax would initially be one cent per mile to generate an estimated $32.4b a year. An extra one cent per gallon in the federal gasoline tax would generate another $1.8b, and a national sales tax on cars of one percent would generate $7.6b.

Now that’s real money. But let’s stop for a moment and ask: if such an idea, in whole or in pieces, is adopted by the new administration, what would its effect be upon entities like VDOT?

I suppose, considering that the idea has been floated by the association representing road builders like VDOT, that they have taken into account the distortions such national taxes might impose on their local funding mechanisms. At least one would hope so.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

42 responses to “Congestion Tax + Gas Tax + National Sales Tax”

  1. James Avatar
    James

    How does this proposition differ from what would be implemented by such things as the Regional Transportation Authority in places like Cnetral Virginia? It seems the tax and feeing structures are very similar and as alarming.

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    yup.

    all this is.. is an end run to find a way to refill the slush fund…and to continue allocating money based on politics and earmarking.. etc.

    For instance, the idea is being sold because we need to fix our crumbling infrastructure…

    …but ask the proponents how much of that money will actually be used to replace old bridges and rebuild existing deteriorated structures – as opposed to using it to build new roads – and what you’ll get is a resounding silence…

    This is all about refilling the slush fund.

  3. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    funny, I was going to send you that.

    Actually, I like congestion taxes when they look like this. It forces driving way down.

    The problem is enforcement — I really don’t needs the feds checking my odometer. What if my car is stolen and joy-ridden for 100 miles? I can see a big market is pushing the odometer back after this is passed.

    Gas tax is much easier to administer, and has roughly the same goal. Yes, as Bacon has pointed out in 2030 when everyone is driving electric golf carts around we’ve got problems, but until then….

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have a rule of thumb — anything supported by both the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce and the WaPo, which this will probably be, is generally a disastrous policy.

    Larry is correct; this is another attempt by interested parties (the road-building industry and the land developers) to get taxpayers to fund their business plans. What assurances are there that the added money would go to rebuild existing infrastructure? None. What is the likelihood that there would be a strong positive correlation between campaign contributions and projects funded? Pretty strong.

    The greatest threat to American liberty comes from the ability of lobbyists to seek appropriations, either directly or indirectly.

    TMT

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    So, at $2.00 a gallon a penny a mile is equal to a 25 cent gas tax increase, roughly. (Somebody check My figures, please.)

    Then subtract out whatever it is going to cost to administer and collect the new tax.

    For the life of me, I don’t see the point, or the difference, except it lets the pols claim they didn’t raise the “gas” tax.

    RH

  6. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    RH: The AASHTO proposal starts at 1 cents a mile, so I’m not sure where your figures are coming from.

    The great thing about the gas tax is you don’t see it on your bill. I can’t wait to try to explain to people why they owe an extra $150 on their federal tax return every year.

  7. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Great idea! Hope Jesse Ventura doesn’t mind new neighbors down in Baja. This is the type of thing that tells workers it’s time to go. What is the use of putting up with fickle, over demanding employers if the reason for working becomes too aggravating? Look at London.

    That city imposes congestion and a host of other taxes on people just trying to make a living. Since 1995, 800k foreign immigrants have moved in while 780k british born workers have moved out. They went to the UK ‘flyover’ country, or retired to places like Spain. The Spanish authorities have over 1 million british citizens registered in the country, but have no idea how many are really there because Britain cuts their national health care if they reside outside the UK, so they dont register. A good indicator would be Sweden, which has 9k citizens registered in Spain but has data that 40k live there full time.

    So what happens when Americans have enough? You know it’s getting close. People are sitting in jobs with zero chance for advancement or even retirement, suffering through yet another annual pay raise that doesn’t cover inflation. Then throw in the fact that that paycheck is supposed to cover a mortgage on an underwater house, and it’s pretty easy to seek your place in the sun. All of which are factors the politicians are failing to consider in their eternal quest for more taxes when they should have been reducing spending.

    Too bad, too late! You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    The impact of millions of SS checks being spent outside the country instead of inside should give these governmental idiots pause.

    http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1852.pdf

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/americas_emigrants.pdf

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Norm,
    The issue is that infrastructure remains one of America’s biggest challenges — witness the collapse of the Minnesota bridge. It has to be funded somehow and the public private partnerships that used to have the appeal for tax-adverse legislatures since they didn’t have to risk political capital for roads is getting washed over in the financial crisis.
    My question to you is, how would you fund transportation needs? Especially in this crisis?

    Peter Galuszka

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter, you raise some good questions, but the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota has nothing to do with the situation re infrastructure funding. The NTSB concluded that it was a design flaw that doomed the bridge. The bridge was doomed since it was built in the late 60s.

    Many feel that the bridge construction work going on when the bridge collapsed then pushed the problem into the tragedy it became. It’s similar to the Titanic. Hitting the iceberg sank the ship, but the builders designed the rivets incorrectly. More money won’t fix those types of problems.

    Having said this, we need to rebuild much of our infrastructure. But why don’t we move away from the earmarks and pork barrel transportation projects first?

    The ability to lobby for federal, state and local appropriations is what causes most of the problems.

    TMT

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I’m going to use Peter’s point to demonstrate why the current process is so wrong.

    I would defy anyone to claim that Minnesota had zero dollars for transportation. More than likely they had something along the lines of what VDOT has – about 4 billion dollars a year.

    So.. we cannot even pretend that the bridge fell down because we refused to allocate enough money to fix it.

    We allocate plenty of money but the problem is that we don’t establish priorities that focus on needs – real needs.

    And the way that happens is to fund slush funds and then let political decisions empty the slush fund – not for needs – like bridges that need repair or fixing simple bottlenecks.. or improve safety of existing roads…

    The current process encourages and rewards.. money used for non-essential uses.

    Yes.. one can argue that a particular road is “needed”..the same way that someone could argue that a new school or stadium is “needed” but when we choose to build a new road instead of fixing a bad bridge…. why would we say that the answer is more money?

    What hope do we have that more money will fix that bridge instead of building yet another new road somewhere?

    And this is the problem with the way we do road funding IMHO.

    If someone came up with a list of the bad bridges that WOULD BE FIXED ..with the new money.. we could say yes to the funding.

    So.. why do we not do that to start with..so that we all know what projects will be built with the additional money?

    Two words – SLUSH FUND

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “RH: The AASHTO proposal starts at 1 cents a mile, so I’m not sure where your figures are coming from.”

    Figure a normal car gets 25 miles per gallon. That sounds to me pretty much like a gas tax of 25 centsper gallon.

    I fail to understand why it is that a gas tax of even 5 cents a gallon is politically unthinkable, according to Larry, but an new (and additional) tax that STARTS at the equivalent of 25 cents a gallon is good idea according to Jim Bacon.

    I just don’t get it.

    RH

  12. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    A flat mileage tax is nothte same as a congestion tax.

    RH

  13. Norman Leahy Avatar
    Norman Leahy

    Peter,

    I don’t disagree that infrastructure needs are pressing, as are the funds needed to address them.

    My question, perhaps poorly phrased, is if the federal government decides to impose congestion taxes, a sales tax on autos and a hike in the gasoline tax, how does that skew things for state and local road building authorities?

    Taking a wad of new money from drivers and car buyers may have beneficial effects, such as reducing overall consumption (which would immediately undermine the revenue estimates). But might it also create a perceived, higher tax burden that would make it that much harder for state like Virginia to impose its own, similar, taxes?

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Taking a wad of new money from drivers and car buyers may have beneficial effects, such as reducing overall consumption….”

    One out of ten american workers depends on the auto industry one way or another.

    Reduce automotive consumption by ten percent, increase unemployment by one percent.

    RH

  15. charlie Avatar
    charlie

    ray:

    Got it. Wasn’t thinking it through.

    And a mileage tax actually punishes efficient cars. Why should I get a more efficient car if I have to pay for the same commute everyday. Long term I could see some advantages — but in the near term I am not selling my house to move closer to work.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “And a mileage tax actually punishes efficient cars.”

    Exactly.

    As for moving your home to avoid the tax, it is going to have to be a lot higher to make that economically feasible. And the higher they make the tax, the more close-in homes will cost, and the less feasible moving will be.

    This is a tax that does the opposite of what you want, in every respect.

    Of course, we would never propose new taxes to change behavior, that would be social engineering. All we are proposing is taxes that recover actual costs Right?

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Norm, et.al.,
    PPP’s (public private partnerships) that had been gaining strength are based on tolls which is a user-based way of paying sort of like what you are talking about except those funds go exclusively for maintenance and overhead of the specific roadway or bridge. The concept dates back to a province in Australia which was having extreme problems funding local roads. Virginia had been a leader in the US of this approach. The Australians and the Spanish have perfected the approach.
    But PPPs, like private equity infrastructure funds, are under intense pressure with the financial crisis. They won’t be the hoped-for panacea, at least not in the short term. Other ideas are needed.

    Peter Galuszka

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The Australians and the Spanish have perfected the approach.”

    How do you perfect an approach that was a bad idea to start with?

    I don’t know the situation in Australia, but in Europe they never had an easy to collect dedicated fuel tax. Fuel taxes go to the general fund. For that reason they settled on the tolls approach and as a result Europe has a “more advanced” private road system, which is kind of a paradox since they are otherwise more socialized than here.

    To realize how screwed up this is, figure that a penny mile tax is equivalent to 25 cents per gallon for a normal car but it is equivalent to 47 cents per gallon if you drive a Prius.

    Talk about sending th ewrong message.

    RH

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “Why should I get a more efficient car if I have to pay for the same commute everyday.”

    because you are confusing two different things.

    One of them involves what is a benefit to the environment and perhaps your own pocket in terms of consumption of fuel.

    the other is your consumption of roadway – your share – if you take up a footprint and you need that footprint then you would owe your share of what it costs to provide you with that footprint.

    we could add in a factor for how consumptive your use of that footprint is.. for instance..a heavier car would do more cumulative damage than a lighter car but at the end of the day – your car could weigh what a helium balloon weights but you’d still need your share of the roadway to occupy – and that would include all the things necessary to provide you with that slot – police, on/off ramps/ traffic signals, etc.

  20. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: the "fairness" of a 25+ cent gas tax.

    It's not the tax nor the revenues.

    It's how they are used and what they buy.

    so we have folks that say we have bridges falling down and that's why we need more money – but then they won't say what bridges will be fixed if we give them more money.

    It's classic bait & switch "un-accountability".

    In other words – "give me a bunch of money and I'll spend it for you"

    … "and even though I'll have a pile of money.. if I choose to not spend it on failing bridges and one of them falls down.. it is your fault for not giving me enough money to start with".

    This is the logic that passes for "accountability" now days.

    This is why.. RAY – are you listening" This is why the Feds will give the backers of METRO almost a billion dollars of your gas tax money….

    So… essentially what you are advocating is that if we throw "enough" money at the problem…at least some of it might get spent for roads and stuff….

    IMHO.. this is about as irresponsible fiscally as one could conceive – and yet….

    … this is the essential proposal that is being pitched to us…

    "give us more money or more bridges will fall down"..

    … sounds like some school boards that I know…..same technique…

    it's your basic tax&spend approach to fiscal policy..

    having said that.. unless Obama has more spine that Bush and the previous Congress… we're headed down the same path… I can already hear …"we need to fix our crumbing infrastructure" mantras…

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH,
    What I meant is that Australian and Spanish firms have perfected pitching PPPs in the U.S. Specifically, I am referring to Transurban, Macquarie, and Cintra Concesiones de Infarestructuras de Transorte.
    I am in now way advocating anything, just noting the market leaders.

    Peter Galuszka

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the other is your consumption of roadway – “

    Yeah, but I only use one car length worth of roadway, no matter how long I sit or drive on it.

    If you put ten thousand cars on a mile of road, it will be just as congested, no matter how far they drive.

    How do you figure mileag plays into that? Especially since you ARE ALREADY CHARGING FOR mileage with the gas tax. Now you are charging twice.

    And you are still charging at a higher equivalent rate, for the most efficient and lightest vehicles.

    The mileage tax makes no sense. A new tax makes no sense.

    ——————————-

    “all the things necessary to provide you with that slot -…”

    Nice try, except in NOVA you don’t get that slot. what you get is the opportunity to wait for it – share one spot with four other people. All of whom paid as much or more than our mythical friend in Farmville who has four slots all to himself.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…have perfected pitching PPPs in the U.S. “

    That much, we can agree on.

    RH

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    No matter what kind of gasoline mileage you get – you still need just as much “footprint” as the worst gas mileage car on the road –

    – and the point is that it costs money to provide you with your very own “footprint” and THAT is what you are paying for (or should be paying for).

    How good (or bad) your gas mileage is should not affect what your share is….

    except that with the gas tax – it does.

    The folks with the better gas mileage cars pay less proportionately that another person with the same sized car but gets worse mileage.

    and that is what is behind the different proposals to tax by the mile or toll by the mile…

    the idea that someone who buys a fuel efficient car “deserves” to pay less for their “footprint” makes no sense to me.

    It’s sorta like saying that since you recycle plastic bags that you should get a cheaper rate for milk… or some such.

    HOWEVER – the AASHTO thing is not about paying for existing roads – which the current gas tax is probably capable of doing for quite some time – far into the future if it is indexed.

    The AASHTO proposal is to raise the gas tax or impose a mileage tax not so we can “fix our crumbling infrastructure” but so we can build new stuff – using the same failed political process for determining “need”.

    From the point of view that building more infrastructure stuff would be a good “stimulus” ..to employ folks …

    if we are going to do that….

    why not have those same folks build GREEN Infrastructure that will help get us off of foreign oil and reduce spewing mercury from coal smokestacks.. saving money on health care costs also?

    Of course all of this seriously conflicts with the notion that when the Government raises taxes – that the money disappears down a rathole instead of employing people… whereas if we give that tax money to the wealthy – they’ll create jobs with it…

    which is a bit strange.. because one would presume that such jobs would create stuff but who would buy that stuff if they had no jobs?

    Would those people with the new jobs..just be creating stuff to sell to themselves?

    So… why would the wealthy want to spend their tax rebates on employing people to make stuff to sell to themselves – anyhow?

    but jeeze if that were true..then why would we send stimulus money to the un-wealthy to fritter away on 7-11 lottery tickets.. why not take that stimulus money and give it to the wealthy to create more jobs…???

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “….and the point is that it costs money to provide you with your very own “footprint” and THAT is what you are paying for (or should be paying for).”

    And all those folks in ROVA have a lot more footprints available than the folks in NOVA.

    You only use one footprint, no matter where it is located, or how fast it is moving, or not moving, if you are in NOVA.

    So explain to me how your one footprint should be related to a mileage charge. Then explain to me why one driver should be charged nearly twice as much as another for burning one gallon of fuel.

    —————————-

    “why not have those same folks build GREEN Infrastructure that will help get us off of foreign oil and reduce spewing mercury from coal smokestacks.. saving money on health care costs also?”

    Because the money you save on health care costs isn’t going to be anything like the money you spend for non polluting energy. Not even if you throw in the value of the difference in quality of life.

    Because you will spend less money on foreign oil than you will for domestic oil, for now, and you can use the difference for more important and more valuable projects which provide a better return sooner.

    ————————-

    RE jobs.

    It mattters how productive the jobs are. I’ve seen a table that shows the number of jobs per KWA produced, and it was something like ten for solar, six for wind, four for biofuel, and one for coal.

    In other words, ifwe actually produce the five million green jobs that have been advertized, then a lot of stuff is going to wind up costing four to ten times as much as it does now.

    What do you suppose that kind of increase in your electric bill is going to do to the number of people who can afford health care?

    RH

  26. Will Ciccone Avatar
    Will Ciccone

    We dont need any new taxes at all. What we need is to cut the BS spending in America and the pork that your elected officials put in these Bills.

  27. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: ” …So explain to me how your one footprint should be related to a mileage charge. Then explain to me why one driver should be charged nearly twice as much as another for burning one gallon of fuel.”

    it does matter how many times that you need a footprint and that does relate to how many time you use the road – your mileage.

    If you drive the same miles as someone else and you both have the same size car – then you both are using the same footprint and the same frequency but since you pay for it by the gallon – the person who has a vehicle that gets better mileage will be paying less – for the same intensity and duration of use.

    Just FYI – a RoVa road can be built for pennies on the dollar compared to a NoVa road.

    It can be one lane and not ten lanes.. it can be maintained during daylight hours instead of overnight overtime… and it gets along fine with one Sheriff deputy and a volunteer rescue squad and snow is delt with by one or two plow-outfitted dump trucks.. that deliver gravel at other times.

    If you live in NoVa – you need a road that costs 10 times and more what a functional road in RoVa would cost.

    You’ve made the point yourself that city services cost more – and it’s never more true than when it comes to road infrastructure around the cities.

    Besides – the best thing that could happen to NoVa in that regard is to NOT send their tax money.. or mileage money or tolls to Washington or Richmond/RoVa.

    You should be opposed to taxation at the Fed/State level if you feel that RoVa ends up with NoVa money… right?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it does matter how many times that you need a footprint and that does relate to how many time you use the road – your mileage.”

    Nope. a footprint is a footprint, no matter where it is or how fast it is moving, (well, OK it expands some at high speed). 25 feet of road is 25 feet of road. There is no relation to mileage. I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.

    The mileage tax is a fuel tax in disguise, except it does all the wrong things.

    ——————————

    “You should be opposed to taxation at the Fed/State level if you feel that RoVa ends up with NoVa money… right?”

    Nope. My position is that good roads benefit everyone, although the benefits may not be felt equally or charged equally. We need to fix the accounting, and as you say, we need to figure out our priorities.

    There is very nearly a one to one correlation between miles driven and GNP. Northern Virginia produces a LOT of the states GNP, and propbably could do more if we weren’t stuck in traffic. There is a benefit to the rest of the state from all that GNP. Whatever that benefit turns out to be, it should be reciprocated in support for NOVA roads.

    NOVA roads are going to be more expensive than other roads. So, if, after accounting for the GNP benefits sent downstate, NOVA still needs more money, then it should come from NOVA.

    This is a matter of accurate accounting and setting priorities that return the most good for the money spent. On that last point it is hard to imagine how road maney anywhere else in the state can return the same bang for the buck as NOVA, HR, and a few other places, cost of highway notwithstanding. If it costs ten times as much and carries 20 times th traffic, so what? It is still a better deal than a road to nowhere.

    “you need a road that costs 10 times and more what a functional road in RoVa would cost.” But you don’t need the road in ROVA and you do need it in NOVA. It is a matter of priorities.

    But we are going to get wrapped around the axle on how to bill the money instead of focusing on what we should do with it. In the end, it is going to be the same money whehter you “call it” a p[enny a mile or 25 cents per gallon.

    I just think that 25 cents a gallon makes a lot more sense. And so do the vast majority of environmental economists. the mileage tax makes no sense, except it avoids the stigma of being a gas tax.

    RH

  29. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: ..”There is no relation to mileage. I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.”

    it does matter how long in time and mileage you are on the road if there is another car that also needs a slot at the same time.

    In order to provide you both with a slot at the same time – you need TWO footprints – not one… and if you multiply that out – eventually you reach capacity much sooner at rush hour .. and you need more lanes because there are not enough available “footprints” for the demand.

    That’s the difference between a RoVA road and a NoVa road.

    The carrying capacity of one lane is 1200 cars per hour.

    If you exceed that capacity..then you have to add another lane… and that’s why NoVa roads have a ton more lanes than RoVa roads.

    and it’s the reason also why congestion in NoVa is measured in time lost… due to insufficient footprint availability.

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The only way you are going to get 25 cents a gallon is if NoVa approves it in a referenda cuz your chances of getting RoVa to agree to it are zilch and you can go out to RoVa and talk until you are blew in the face about “ACCOUNTING”, or GNP, or whatever …

    The truth is that RoVa roads are dirt cheap compared to NoVa roads…

    They’re often NOT cut/fill.. and don’t need extensive storm water facilities… have dirt shoulders and ditches instead of concrete… and are maintained in daylight hours instead of overnight setup-take-down overtime… very expensive snow removal.. and very expensive incident management, etc, etc.

    Most RoVa roads can be built for less than 10 million a mile… most NoVa roads cost that much and more for 1/10 of a mile.

    RoVa right of way is 1/100th the cost of NoVa right of way.

    The original Woodrow Wilson bridge would have lasted a century or longer across a RoVa river instead of getting vibrated to pieces with 200,000 SUVs and heavy trucks (to service NoVa needs).

    Most of RoVa’s roads, in fact, were built 50 or more years ago – and long paid for before NoVa was any bigger than much of RoVa in terms of scope and scale density..

    Most of NoVa’s roads have been built in the last 30 years or less.. and cost much, much more…as has other infrastructure …just the simple effect of inflation…and the higher costs of building in a dense urbanized area.

    Yes.. one could almost predict that it would be a guy from NoVa suggesting that a change in “accounting” is needed….

    😉

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The only way you are going to get 25 cents a gallon is if you CALL IT a mileage tax and CALL it a penny a mile.

    Either way, it is the same amount of money: it is essentially exactly the same. But, the gas tax is much more environmentally friendly, and you don’t have to invent a whole new tax (which will START at a penny a mile), and a whole ne technology and bureaucracy to collect it.

    And, since our ROVA friends drive a lot farther at higher speeds it will affect them disproportionately.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…and if you multiply that out – eventually you reach capacity much sooner at rush hour .. and you need more lanes because there are not enough available “footprints” for the demand.”

    I agree with that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with how far each car drives, as I have been arguing for years.

    It matters not if five hundred cars go to the same place, whether they drive 50 miles to get there or two: when they arrive you have a problem.

    Threre is NOTHING in the capacity problem that suggests mileage is an issue. And yet, this silly argument persists and persists because it has been repeated so often.

    But you are right, more roads are NEVER going to be the solution to NOVA traffic problems. You need more ring cities to move more of the jobs farther out, where more people who already have roads can access them.

    Otherwise you have more congestion and more pollution – forever. And, we already know through experience and observation that mass transit isn’t the answer either: it is expensive, slow, dangerous and expensive.

    EMR has said we ne3ed fewer people producing less stuff, and NOVA is a case in point: while it might be sustainable, for a while, it is still a tremendous waste of energy and time, that could be redirected.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “That’s the difference between a RoVA road and a NoVa road.”

    No, the difference beteen aRova Raod and a NOVA road is that the ROVA road has been WAY OVERCONSTRUCTED, for the capacity it needs to handle, and the opposite for NOVA roads.

    The way I suggest you fix the problem is NOT more money for NOVA roads. I suggest you move NOVA demand to where the capacity already exists to handle it, and where the jobs and income are sorely needed.

    There are several other countries that are already doing this: building brand new cities, from scratch.

    RH

  34. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well… let’s look at some data… about DVMT – daily vehicle miles traveled

    Fairfax = about 28 miles per capita per day

    Fluvanna about 21 miles per day per capita and

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html

    http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/VMTReport_1206_2007.pdf

    and it pretty much follows for most of RoVa counties that are outside of Urban MSAs (and thus not a commuting bedroom community).

    the ones that are harder to compute are the bedroom communities that have commuters that travel through several counties on their commute…

    but you would not really call commuters to NoVa from bedroom communities as RoVa would you?

    And yet… a substantial number of people on Fairfax/NoVa roads do not live in Fairfax/NoVa but rather the exurbs…

    these would be the counties that would get money from the state based on gas tax, vehicle sales tax and license money for their roads while their drivers are “using” roads outside of their county.

    so I would posit that it is the exurban commuting counties that poach NoVa transportation money…not RoVa.

    we’ll call this the land between NoVa and RoVa.. remoras of NoVa.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ll accept your data for now, although it doesn’t jive with my understanding. Anyway the difference between 28 miles and 21 miles for commuting doesn;t tell the whole story, since commuting is only 20% of traffic. Neither does it say anything about the relationship between distance and congestion.

    I still fail to understand why you think a 5 cents per gallon fuel tax is politically impossible, but a NEW TAX that is easily the euivalent of $25 cents per gallon is OK.

    RH

  36. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “..since commuting is only 20% of traffic. Neither does it say anything about the relationship between distance and congestion.”

    You’ve said it before – only a few percentage points tip the scales to heavy ..gridlock-like congestion.

    You’d think with only a few percentage points that something like congestion-pricing has the potential to be effective.

    re: 5 cent gas tax.

    If it were not for the economy…NOW would be the very best time to whack on a nickel or even a quarter ..except there is a good reason why gasoline has become cheap…the economy…

    But RH.. you don’t get it..

    It’s not about how much of a tax… it’s about what happens to that tax afterwards…

    RoVa doesn’t want that tax… they’re highly suspicious that – that money will be buying a road in NoVa….

    but hey… at least some of the Dems at the Fed level seem to want to push something through… and if they do..we’re going to find out whether Obama is a push-over or a veto-machine…or in between.

    For all of Bush’s rhetoric.. he never met a higher-spending bill that he hated – enough to veto it…

    I understand though that Obama supports tolling and congestion pricing….also…

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “something like congestion-pricing has the potential to be effective.”

    Yes, but a couple of HOT lanes are not congestion pricing. Area wide congestion pricing will eventualy make that area less competitive, and jobs will move out of the area.
    THAT is what will fix the congetion, but we can achieve that without the hassle, inconveninece and expense of congestion pricing.

    Anyway, you are dodging the question abbout why is a penny a mile tax (equalt to 25 cents per gallon, roughly) OK and a 5 cent fuel tax is politically dead.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree about what happens to the tax afterwards. There is no current way to set priorities based on what is best for the most number of people. All we have is a mad scramble to get our hands on and control over the money – no matter how bad our plan is fopr spending it.

    We don;t have the accounting or the transparency to make it happen correctly.

    RH

  39. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Oh.. I’m not dodging the question at all…

    congestion pricing won’t ruin the economy any more or less than charging for peak hour cell phone minutes or airline reservations will….

    Congestion pricing is NORMAL for much of what is sold that has peak hour demands on it.

    It saves money because if you did not charge peak hour prices you’d have to provide the maximum amount of infrastructure required to meet the demand of rush hour ..and then at other times that infrastructure would be unused….cell towers running at 40% capacity, unused airplanes sitting outside of shut down terminals… and extra lanes of roads – virtually empty outside of rush hour…

    but they all have to be paid for.

    We pay for infrastructure that is lightly used… the same way we’d pay for a tractor that is fired up once a year to pull a hay wagon.

    the difference is – that someone can decide if they want their own money spent on a lightly used tractor but folks cannot do that when the gas tax is raised to pay for rush hour highways…. or cell phones cost much more so that unused towers dot the countryside or airline tickets cost even more to pay for those empty planes.

    and no.. I’m not dodging the question about the tax…

    the tax that most directly charges you according to your specific proportional usage is the fairest tax.

    the more a tax is taken from you and spent on something you don’t use – like miles of unused concrete… the more that tax is not fair – and much higher than it really needs to be.

    For myself.. I want Government to not spend more than is necessary from tax money…

    and so.. I do NOT want them buying concrete and asphalt for folks who don’t want to pay their fair and proportional share if they are the ones who want to use it.

    And the best solution – is a per use quid-pro-quo charge…just like you decide everyday whether you are going to put something in your grocery sack or leave it on the shelf.

    Let EACH customer decide what suits him and what does not

    and no.. it does not mean that he is “forced” to buy something he does not want – no more or less than you would do the same with electricity, cell phone minutes or a load of gravel.

    You might think in every case that the price is a rip-off .. and yes.. it might actually be …. certainly $5 bucks for a hot dog at the stadium is but it does not stop people from buying them.

    The solution you want.. is to essentially give everyone who wants one -that $5 dollar hot dog – and charge everyone $5 for it… because.. if we don’t then the “economy” based on $5 hot dogs will fail….

    So your basic premise is that …each and every auto trip that is made at rush hour is mandatory…without recourse.. and if a direct cost is put on it – that there is no way to accomplish what that trip would have accomplished …

    and that is bull feathers…

    it’s like arguing that everyone can ONLY make their plane trip – at the height of the busiest time…

    and we know that is not true.

    It’s like saying that EVERY cell phone conversation MUST be made at peak hour – and we know that is not true.

    if you bill by the mile – it would be no different than billing cell phone minutes and if you bill for congestion pricing.. it will be the same as cell phone minutes are billed.

    As an economic model – it is common.

    As a fairness model – it very fairly charges … according to your use.

    don’t forget either – the economic purpose behind a trip could ALSO be accomplished via cell phone.. and yet I don’t hear you making the argument that we damage the economy by charging peak hour rates for cell phone minutes…

    why is that?

  40. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    This is not congestion pricing. This is a per mile tax that everyone will pay, congested or not.

    What makes this tax, at the equivalent of $25 cents per gallon acceptable when a 5cent per gallon gas tax is politically dead?

    ——————————-

    ” …if you did not charge peak hour prices you’d have to provide the maximum amount of infrastructure required to meet the demand of rush hour “

    No you don’t. You can move the jobs and relocate the rush hour to places that presently have more capacity than demand. You can simply conced that you will always have periods of congestion, but work to keep that to a level where the costs of congestion are no greater than the costs of construction. In the DC area the costs are a thousand dollars per person per year. You can do a lot of well targeted construction for that kind of money. You can calculate what the losses are to the rest of the state and get them to chip in enough to reduce their losses (benefits should exceed contributions).

    Congestion pricing will work too, one way it will work is to make that area less attractive and move some jobs elsewhere. It is just a stupid and expensive way to charge the costs to the wrong people.

    —————————–

    “For myself.. I want Government to not spend more than is necessary from tax money…”

    Well, that’s just silly. What if the government had a way to spend money that returned more than it costs? It isn’t “necessary” for them to spend the money, but it is stupid not to. What if they had to raise taxes for five years with a promise that they would be permanently reduced by twice as much thereafter?

    I don’t want the government to “waste” money, but I don’t mind (on the rare occasion) when it is spent well.

    ——————————–

    “It saves money because if you did not charge peak hour prices you’d have to provide the maximum amount of infrastructure required to meet the demand of rush hour ..”

    Saves money for WHOM? You are not considering the full system here. The rule is that no one should be worse off under the new plan. You need to be able to show who the winners and losers are and how each will be compensated such that NO ONE is worse off.

    Otherwise, it is just a wealth transfer.

    —————————–

    “and so.. I do NOT want them buying concrete and asphalt for folks who don’t want to pay their fair and proportional share if they are the ones who want to use it.”

    Me either. We just disagree on what is fair and proportional and how to o about deciding. We also disagree about who uses what – directly or indirectly. We disagree about who benefits from new infrastructure, – even if they don’t happen to use it. And we disagree about who the state is buying concrete ans asphalt for.

    Other than that, we agree. But I have distinct rules as to how to go about deciding. Those rules are generally part of the systems approach to engineering and environmental economics. This body of knowledge is reasonably well understood by proffessionals in the field, and utterly foreign to everyone else, until confronted with the facts.

    ——————————–

    “Congestion pricing is NORMAL for much of what is sold that has peak hour demands on it.”

    We normally do not sell road access because it is a public necessity. We all get up and shower around the same time, but we don’t charge extra for water at that time: we build peak demand into the base price. Same for electricity, up till now (or soon).

    ——————————-

    “someone can decide if they want their own money spent on a lightly used tractor but folks cannot do that when the gas tax is raised to pay for rush hour highways…”

    You lost me. Where is the analogy between a privately paid for and lightly used tractor, and a publicly paid for and heavily use rucsh hour highway?

    ——————————

    “So your basic premise is that …each and every auto trip that is made at rush hour is mandatory…”

    Nonsense. My premise is that congestion has extensive costs in time, opportunity, energy, and pollution. Taken all together, we can afford to spend that much, (and not one penny more) on trying to alleviate it. Extensive costs ought to mean that we can agree to pay to alleviate them proportionately, and no more.

    All we need to do is the proper accounting.

    ——————————

    “As a fairness model – it very fairly charges … according to your use.”

    The gas tax does it better. At least for the near future. Anyway, a mileage tax is NOT a congestion tax. It taxes everyone congested or not.

    The problem with a congestion tax, as I see it, is that it is taxing the wrong people. They didn’t put all those jobs in a place that cannot be adequately served, or served without excess pollution.

    If you want to tax someone, tax the BOS or the companies that ATTRACT the congestion. The end result of a congestion tax that works will be to move the traffic someplace else. In that case it has the same problem you claim about the gas tax: it is self extinguishing.

    Well, Jesus, If you go around setting taxes as a means of social engineering, how can you complain when they succeed as planned?

    RH

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The rule is that no one should be worse off under the new plan.”

    not true if they were get proportionately more than what they were paying for to start with.

    Your theory seems to be that if someone got subsidized originally..that that subsidy becomes a “right” that cannot be taken away once granted.

    but then, you were probably not ENTITLED to a subsidy to start with – and any subsidy granted on that basis – can be taken away – and often is.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your argument is fair as far as it goes. But that isn’t my position. My position is that you have a vested right in that subsidy if you invested in property based on its existence.

    You buy a property with the written assurance (in the zoning code) of three building lots, then it gets reduced to one. some would claim that the previous condition amounted to a subsidy, that the zoning board is free to remove.

    I say that removing it, under those conditions, amounts to subsidizing the rest of the community at the expense of one. For everone to be truly better off, the winners MUST pay off the losers, and still come out ahead.

    Otherwise, in the case of a true subsidy, authorised with the understanding that it would expire, you would be correct. In order to have a fair and efficient interpaly of market forces (buying the benefits of subsidies in place) and government (working for the benefit of all persons) what is required is better definition of property rights: tell people in advance what economic conditions will justify a zoning change; tell people in advance when a subsidy is liable to expire, or what conditions will trigger its expiration.

    In other words, more transparency in our accounting. Anything else is just a government bait and switch, which would be illegal in the private market.

    I might or might not be “entitled” to a refund on a product I buy that fails. But I’m going to make damn sure everone I know hears about it if I think I’ve been treated unfairly.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More