The WaPo headline says it all:
“Va. High Court Revives Dulles Toll Road Suit: Proposed Metro Extension Hits Another Snag”
Well actually the headline writer is not a lawyer. What happened is that the Supreme Court of Virginia refused to grant a request by the toll transfer proponents to have the suit thrown out. Same result.
In any event, congratulations Patrick.
Even if Jim Bacon has an upset stomach from too much sugar and scary rides, this will make him feel better.
EMR
(comments below)
(comments below)
It would be good for them to win in court.
Even though I am a supporter of toll roads, I’m not a supporter of using toll road revenues as slush funds…
.. any more than I am a supporter for user the state and federal gas tax as slush funds either….
there are some interesting issues here.
First, what kind of sense does it make to divert toll road revenues away from the longer term maintenance and improvement needs of the road that is being used and tolled?
For instance, why would we want to divert toll revenues from the CBBT or the Powhite Parkway for other uses – EVEN if those other uses were other roads?
It violates the whole concept of the toll to start with.
However.. we already went down this road (pun intended) when we started funding projects from the gas tax without regard to need…and justified taking money from everyone to build projects that did not serve everyone..
so..in theory, it was okay to take money from NoVa to build a road in Farmville…
or to take money from Wise County to help build the Springfield Interchange .. which is, in effect, what happens when we have a very expensive project that could not be funded strictly from local revenues so we “borrow” from other parts of the state…
.. like RH sez.. “your turn at the barrel”
but we don’t keep strict accounting.. either.. and so we basically let VDOT do the accounting… and we call it the 6 yr plan and yes.. it is created and maintained by unelected and unaccountable officials…
For instance, Groveton claims that NoVa gets the short end of the stick on transportation funding….
probably true…
but do we really now how much money NoVa generates in gas taxes and sales taxes.. and other auto taxes in the first place?
and do we know how much of that money is NOT spent on NoVa?
it’s all very fuzzy…and often boils down to perspectives and opinions rather than hard data.
Bob makes the point that much money is already collected by NoVa as car taxes but not spent on roads…
How much?
Is that amount of money enough to, if spent “properly” ..offset the need for Kaine’s 1% sales tax proposal for NoVa roads?
Again.. we’ve got squishy data.
Okay.. so the State.. with NoVa’s tacit acceptance and participation already engages in practices that involve collecting money from one source and spending it on other sources….
so.. the State and VDOT basically thought to continue that practice with the DTR… no real difference to them….since they are already doing (in their mind) the same thing with other taxes on autos…
and.. DTR is not alone.. the HOT lanes are proceeding on the same assumption….
and so is the ICC road in Maryland.. to be funded from other toll roads also…
so.. if the Va Supreme Court rules that the arrangement is illegal.. why would that decision also not apply the the HOT lane intentions to use those revenues NOT to be plowed back into new roads and interchanges but instead into transit?
My dog in the TOLL ROAD hunt is that I simply believe that when taxes are collected and put into a big fund that is administered by unelected and unaccountable officials that the money is not well spent… AND those same folks will come back for more money (higher taxes) when they inevitably run out by spending it on things that are not cost-effective.
However, if the current game plan of the State is to follow that same convention with Toll Road revenues then I’m going to be on the same side as those who don’t like this idea.
ESPECIALLY if revenues are to be obtained from road pricing..which means a LOT more money than just tolls for use….
so.. I agree.. we do have a problem but what exactly should our elected officials do to stop it?
Should they just flat outlaw any money that derives from a specific toll road to be spent on anything other than that specific toll road?
That seems to be the way that CBBT and the Powhite Parkway work and that is the average person’s public expectation…
I don’t think the public is going to accept the idea that toll roads revenues can be general revenue streams than can be used for any purpose.
This Court case, if successful, and if approved of by elected officials ..could.. doom ..the idea of taking HOT lane money and spending it on other uses than the road where it is being collected.
Bob, no doubt, will focus on corrupt government as the culprit.. while I would back off a notch and say that many (mostly honest) elected officials ..probably don’t differentiate between tolls and taxes being spent for other uses… from which they were accrued in the first place.
If we were to go down that path – for instance, we’d have to say that any local BOS in NoVa that collects car taxes and does not spent it on roads.. is …”corrupt”…
no?
getting over that hump.. then what is the correct approach to designating what toll road revenues should and should not be used for?
“It violates the whole concept of the toll to start with.”
Well, thanks for that, anyway.
“justified taking money from everyone to build projects that did not serve everyone..”
Unless you beleive that state roads serve everyone.
“but we don’t keep strict accounting.. either………….
do we really now how much money NoVa generates in gas taxes and sales taxes.. and other auto taxes in the first place?
and do we know how much of that money is NOT spent on NoVa?”
If we kept strict accounting, would it make any difference? Do we need an expensive toll system, just so we can do our accounting?
What if some location has a real need for transportation improvements and they just don’t raise enough money locally to do it? How many Virginians have to die in a bad intersection, before we chip in and fix it? At some level, saying “you have to foot all the bill up front” is equivalent to saying “fogeddaboutit”.
It looks like we aregoing to wind up with an expensive toll system to do the same thing the gas tax did: spread money around.
I don’t think that spreading money around is the real issue, in the end, it is how we go about it. If we could agee on how the priorities are set, the rest of it is a piece of cake.
RH
“but do we really now how much money NoVa generates in gas taxes and sales taxes.. and other auto taxes in the first place?
and do we know how much of that money is NOT spent on NoVa?
it’s all very fuzzy…and often boils down to perspectives and opinions rather than hard data.”.
Well written!
So, in the absence of hard data, how do you sign a 75 year “lease” with Flour / Transurban?
While I agree on many issues with Pat McSweeney, he is not as self-righteous as many believe. He was engaged in quite a bit of fancy campaign finance on behalf of big Loudoun developer Greenvest:
re: 75 year leases
you have hard data for the leases.
that’s the difference between gas-tax funded improvements and 75 year leases.
Let me give you a good example.
do you have any idea at all how the Springfield Interchange fits into the bigger scheme of available road funding verses projects built and projects delayed?
700 million dollars is not chump change.
If that project were funded by a statewide gas tax increase, it would require 13 cents to pay for it.
It would have required probably a 50 cent increase in only NoVa folks were to have paid for it.
so WHERE did the money for it come from and how did it affect funding for other projects?
The NVTA, to it’s credit, has listed a set of projects that it lists as priorities … but those projects were dependent on the money that was to have been generated by the now-ruled-illegal transportation authorities.
Kaine’s budget proposal – to “can” all the previously proposed tax associated with the outlawed TAs and replace it with a single 1% sales tax ..does what?
So.. if you find your head spinning with respect to questions like this… I would submit that a 75 year concession with specific language in it .. with respect to the what stuff will be built and for what price…
is not near as complicated – as two dozen separate proposed projects to be funded from a series of various taxes and fees….
as Ray says “spreading money around”…
The most important thing about the legal challenge to the DTR arrangement is three-fold:
1. – can the state decide what entities can operate toll roads – i.e can an Airport Authority do it?
How about METRO? Could METRO operate a Toll Road as a cash cow and/or “stable” source of funding – depending on one’s nomenclature?
2. – Can such entities, on their own, without public or state input decide how much the toll will be or what kind of tolling will be done….i.e. “fixed”.. per mile,
express lanes – variable charges according to time of day, or dynamic road pricing – congestion tolling?
3. what can toll revenues be used for?
Can they be used for a purpose other than the road that is tolled?
Does the Va Constitution allow the above 3 things and/or allow the Va GA to enable/empower a non-VDOT, non-Dept of Transportation, entity to operate tolls roads and use the revenues as they see fit?
and you were just worrying about the Aussies… charging tolls…
lots more at stake here… but I suspect that what the Supreme Court will do is simply clarify who has the authority and who does not.. and I’m betting the VA GA has substantial legislative authority – the primary question being – if they do – do they support the DTR arrangement and would promote/allow it for other toll road projects like US 460 , or HR/TW tunnels and bridges.
Would not surprise me that on June 23.. some GA guys are going to be discussing this…
“If that project were funded by a statewide gas tax increase, it would require 13 cents to pay for it.”
Sure, If you were going to pay for it in one year.
Paying for major, long-term infrastructure as if it was an expense item is just dumb.
And so is throwing out a false hypothetical gas tax based on that premise.
RH
not advocating that we try to pay for all of something in one year but using the gas tax as a proxy to better understand the costs.
for instance, what is it 2 or 3 billion dollars to add new lanes on I-66/I-395/I-95?
If you were going to build them as HOV and not toll lanes.. how would you pay for them?
one good way to understand is to figure how much they would cost from a statewide gas tax ..or perhaps better.. a NoVa gas tax which is roughly 1/3 of Va in terms of gas tax.
So.. 2 billion dollars at 50 million per penny of gas tax equals about 40 cents (or 1.20 in NoVa) -in one year – but even if you spread it out over many years.. let’s say 20… then NoVa would have to pay 6 cents a year increase in the gas tax just for this one project.
It would be interesting.. to see ..a poll done in NoVa like Christopher Newport did in HR/TW where they asked folks if they preferred.. gas tax, sales tax or tolls for new roads.
I’m suspecting that the results in NoVa would be different.
let me further elaborate on the issue of paying upfront for something right now or spreading out the cost.
simply stated – it costs much more to spread out the cost over several years… the longer you spread it out – the more it costs and if inflation is involved, you actually lose buying power also.
so.. no you’d don’t have to raise the gas tax 40 cents in one year but you might have to raise it 1.20 or more over 20 years to compensate for the effects of inflation.
VDOT has had major problems with it’s 6yr plan because of this.
But what VDOT has found out – the hard way – is that in today’s economic climate, a 10 year horizon period for planning road projects is not for amateurs.
There are folks who don’t know squat about roads that know much more about money and money is the problem when it comes to roads.
and this is one of my points.
The folks who usually get this “right” are the folks whose business is risking their own money…
Invariably, government agencies don’t do such a good job of this and VDOT is among them having demonstrated a propensity to understand the costs and length of time to build projects.
But you can bet your boopers though if a company like Transurban and Fluor are going to bet their own (investors) money – they are going to get the longer-term monetary trends “right” and in their favor…
back to VDOT – what happens to project estimates that depend on the gas tax for funding?
Well first off, there is a demonstrated track record of chronically underestimating the financial impacts of inflation on proposed road projects as twice in the last 10 years, they have had to go back and cut proposed projects that got much more expensive from inflation than expected.
Okay.. the solution…
is the solution to tell VDOT to be more careful in their planning estimates or .. should we be relying instead on folks whose business is money to be doing that ..with their own money.. where risk has a whole different meaning than if you are using someone else’s money to estimate – like VDOT is?
Most of the MPOs don’t do this much better.
Federal law requires MPOs (and VDOT) to develop road building plans that assume only assured funding AND each year, to re-calculate the effect that inflation has had – and to cut projects if inflation has undermined the projects anticipated funding…
Many MPOs do not do this.
The HR/TW MPO for instance, is in the process of being re-certified and several shortcomings have been identified…
project estimating and planning
and
adjusting for inflation…
so let’s summarize:
“saving” up for road projects is a very expensive way to build them.
the alternative is borrowing money to build projects – i.e. NOT “pay as you go”… but even then – Wall Street will not allow you to borrow money is you do not have a revenue source (increased gas taxes) to pay it back.
My understanding is that Virginia has about 3 Billion dollars worth of “borrowing” power currently.
That’s not a whole lot when VDOT is showing a 100 billion dollar backlog and HR/TW has about 5 billion dollars worth of projects and NoVa has a similar list.
Either way – you have to have a revenue stream to pay for the projects…
if you want to pay for them upfront – you ARE going to need a 40 cent gas tax or higher.
if you want to pay for them longer term.. you’re going to have to look at how much that 40 cents will be ..when adjusted for inflation over time
or we can have a private entity risk it’s own money and recover it’s investment purely from tolls… only affecting those that use the road and who can also decide not to use the road if it is too expensive or less desirable than the alternatives.
Other than relentless blather that I have a tendency to heap on the poor readers here…are there any points above that have merit.. and of course, if the opposite is your opinion have at it also.
I hope that Ray, Bob and Groveton may, at same point, even if they don’t agree – do understand that my support of toll roads is more than an “anti” commuter view… or perhaps even “misguided” but I’d only point out as I have before that I have a LOT of company of wide and diverse transportation wonks and officials who agree.
the more it costs and if inflation is involved, you actually lose buying power also.
Nonsense. If you borrow the money to pay for it now, and inflation hits later, then you are paying off the (fixed) debt with inflated dollars.
If you are saving the money up front, then you lose buying power. If you are delaying projects because you refuse to raise taxes, then you lose buying power.
“then NoVa would have to pay 6 cents a year increase in the gas tax just for this one project.”
It is not six cents a year increase. It is a one time increase of six cents lasting 20 years. With a forty cent increas you could do eight such projects, which isn;t going to happen because we don’t have the space and we are in a nonattainment area.
The borrowing power Virginia has depends on the revenue stream. With a forty cent gas tax in place, their borrowing power would rise substantially.
To make the comparison for gas tax or tools fair, then use the same time period. Either way, it is the same amount of money for the same project, except tolls involve taking an additonal sum for running the toll system and profits.
Gee, Larry, get it at least part way straight.
RH
re: Nonsense. If you borrow the money to pay for it now, and inflation hits later, then you are paying off the (fixed) debt with inflated dollars.
If you borrow the money – who decides how much you owe on the pay back and what is the basis for them charging interest?
You make my point. When you borrow, you don’t get to estimate future costs – the guy you borrow from does.
He doesn’t care if you think you save money by borrowing now instead of saving up and getting your own interest.
If you project costs 6 billion and you borrow the money – you pay back twice or more – correct?
and where will you get the money to pay it all back?
If you collect the money up front – you buy the stuff right now for 6billion and no debt. If you borrow, you have to pay back twice as much.
re: which isn;t going to happen because we don’t have the space and we are in a nonattainment area.
non-attainment does not mean NO roads. It means no roads that increase capacity/pollution.
That’s why HOV and bottleneck removing projects are allowed and there are billions of dollars worth of bottle-neck removing projects that could be done…
re: The borrowing power Virginia has depends on the revenue stream. With a forty cent gas tax in place, their borrowing power would rise substantially.
yes it would. but whatever you borrow makes the project more expensive.
agree?
Isn’t it like paying cash for a 300K house or getting a 600K mortgage?
re: To make the comparison for gas tax or tools fair, then use the same time period. Either way, it is the same amount of money for the same project, except tolls involve taking an additonal sum for running the toll system and profits.
the cost of the project and it’s financing are all paid for by the tolls without the need to increase taxes.
the cost of the project and it’s financing are all paid for by the tolls without the need to increase taxes, except that tolls are taxes.
RH
“without the need to raise taxes” makes it seem as if we get something for nothing. it is a scam, pure and simple.
RH
It’s not a scam at all if you offer a service to people at a known price and they have the ability to accept or reject it.
Unlike taxes – which are a “taking” of the first magnitude and often a “taking” on false pretenses to boot.
taxes are much more the scam than any fee for service.
“If you collect the money up front -“
How do you collect the money up front on tolls?
You don’t. You have to borrow the money to build the project before you ever collect the first dime.
You are setting up a false dichotomy, Larry. It’s a logical fallacy and a truly lousy argument.
You can save the money up front, invest the money in the meantime and then you get paid interest on your money until you need it. But someone else uses (borrows) the money to get their project built now.
You meanwhile, do without your project, and that has costs.
The question is whether the cost of doing without your project for x years while you save up, cost you more than it would to borrow.
It is not someone else who decides what your future costs are, it is yourself. Do I absorb the costs of not having a project, or do I absorb the costs of financing it?
If you collect the money up front, you don’t get your project right now, you first have to collect the money. You have to set the same time frame for all the options avaialble.
No, you don’t pay twice, you probably pay three times, but that isn’t the point. The point is that it is utterly stupid to pay all at once now for something you (and many other new users, over time) will use up over many decades.
——————————-
It means no roads that increase capacity/pollution.
That’s why HOV and bottleneck removing projects are allowed
So now you agree that removing congestion reduces pollution. That wasn’t your argument last week.
Are HOT lanes an HOV removing project? ;-).
We are not building HOV lanes, and we are not increasing car pools. The HOT lanes won’t reduce any bottlenecks, except for the lexus drivers paying the tolls.
—————————–
whatever you borrow makes the project more expensive. Agree?
No. The project costs what it costs. The financing costs what it costs, not building the project while you wait for financing has its costs. The question is which combination is cheapest, and who gets the use of the project. The project will have more future users after it is built than past users before it is built.
———————————-
Isn’t it like paying cash for a 300K house or getting a 600K mortgage?
No. If you had a $600k mortgage, you would have $300 k left over to do something else with, after you paid for the house. you get a $300 k mortgage to pay for a $300k house – If you get a no money down loan.
In order to pay cash for a $300k house (utterly stupid idea, to begin with) you would have to do without the hose for many years, while you saved the money.
You lose out on the leverage, the house increases in cost so you get less house, and you lose out on the appreciation, plus the use of the house. And you have to pay rent.
Compare apples to apples
RH
“Without the need to raise taxes” when you are raising taxes through tolls is a scam.
It is false advertising and it is dishonest.
It is a deliberate ploy to make it sound like you are getting something for nothing. If it sounds to good to be true, it’s a scam.
Whether you willingly enter the scam has nothing to do with it, it is still a scam.
RH
Unlike taxes – which are a “taking” of the first magnitude
Let’s see.
Today I have a road that I own and I pay for, and I can drive on it for free, but i have to share it with the other owners.
Tomorrow, I won’t own the road, but I didn’t get paid for it. And now I have to pay to drive on it.
You don’t see that as a taking?
It is a taking if the winners can’t pay the losers and still be better off.
RH
A “taking” is when you pay no matter whether you want to or not.
no?
A toll is a VOLUNTARY quid-pro-quo transaction.
Roads are not free and does it matter at all when you drive on pavement who design, built and owns it?
Of course not.
Do you care who design, built and operates an airport and it’s parking facilities?
Of course not.
Do you think it is a “taking” for a private parking lot to charge you to park there?
The folks who buy the airline tickets pay twice.
They pay for the airport and they pay for parking.
If parking was “included” you’d considered it “free”.. but it’s not free.. you pay.. no matter what.
One way .. it’s incorporated into the ticket.. the other way.. it’s a separate fee.
either way.. it’s not free and it’s not evil if the operation is a concession ..which it often is.
A “taking” is when you pay no matter whether you want to or not.
no?
Did you read what it says?
It is a taking if the winners can’t pay the losers and still be better off.
If the winners can pay the losers what they had to pay, they haven’t lost anything and there is no taking. You might still not like the idea, and you might still not want to pay to support it, but there is no taking.
If there is a true “public benefit” then the winners should be willing to do that, because they still come out ahead. The losers ae at least, no worse off.
If it does not fit that definition then the public benefit is a scam, and the whole scheme is nothing but a wealth transfer.
———————
A toll is a VOLUNTARY quid-pro-quo transaction.
At least you are no longer calling it a free market transaction.
Anyway,it is only true for HOT lanes. Most tolls, you really have no other valid choice. You may even have a noncompete.
————————
“does it matter at all when you drive on pavement who design, built and owns it?”
Yes because the ownership and payments are assymetric. I pay to drive on a tollroad, and while doing so I STILL pay all the other road use taxes that help suppport YOUR road which I own and is STILL free to YOU.
————————
it’s not free.. you pay.. no matter what.
So let’s pay it with a gas tax which does more environmental good, and is cheaper to administer.
RH
How about this?
Whatever your EZ pass expenditures are become deductible from your state taxes.
Local users still pay for local roads, but the rest of the state doesn’t get to glom onto the rest of the taxes they pay.
Since the EZ pass fares are deductible, it is revenue neutral and the tolls are not a new tax.
Everybody happy?
Only problem?
No new money.
RH
the problem with your definition of a “taking” .. with winners and losers is how does it work in a practical sense which is the same problem you have with some of your other “solutions” like who can pollute and how much.
You’ve got this textbook concept and little more…
A “taking” means that your money or property was taken away from you.
The rationales and mechanisms for doing that do not change the fact that you are NOT voluntarily giving it.
which IS what you are doing in a voluntary quid-pro-quo transaction which does indeed epitomize virtually all “free market” transactions.
You do have a choice at the CBBT as to whether you want to pay that toll or not.
You can not go.
or you can hire a boat.
or you can fly
or you can hitch a ride
you have options.
the problem you have here is that you consider if you have to pay for the “best” of those options that it is unfair.
that’s it’s a non-compete monopoly.
And it’s not.
Using your logic.. the airlines are ripping you off if you want to get to Cleveland because you don’t want to walk or drive or take a bus.. you want to fly.. therefore you have “no choice” but to pay a monopolistic fee.
Ray – it IS – by definition – a voluntary quid-pro-quo transaction.
The toll road functions EXACTLY like the airline.
The government does not OWE you an airplane or an airport or a ferry across the Chesapeak Bay or a free road across the bay.
If this “works” for air travel and the CBBT then what is it about these things that make them wrong for other roads?
I don’t think you can have it both ways.
If you think tolls are a “scam”, then why are the airlines and the CBBT not also scams?
A “taking” means that your money or property was taken away from you.
Not if they give you back value arguably equal to at least what was taken. It is the whole basis for eminent domain.
If there is a true public benefit, this should be no problem. It is only a problem is someone is claiming a public benefit and therre is none, or less than the amount being taken.
It is a free market approach to keeping do-gooders honest.
Which is why they hate it.
——————————
It isn’t a textbook concept.
American Electric Bought a whole town in Ohio, to stave off arguments about “takings: through excess pollution. In this case the “winner”, American Electric was better off, even after they paid off all the losers, an entire town, for all their losses.
Surprisingly (or maybe not), this case was triggered by new pollution reduction rules. The plant was require to meet new NOX emission standards, but doing so increased the local acid rain.
—————————-
You do have a choice at the CBBT.
Straw man argument. The real issue is is there any competition. Chartered aircraft and boats are not competition for moving your car across the bay.
Suppose I hatched a new plan for a new CBBT bridge that I could put up using new materials and techniques for a fraction of what CBBT costs. I hire Moses to part the waters. I create a force field tat solidifie the water, when I need to let a ship through, turn off the force field.
What do you suppose the chances are they would let me install it?
Zilch, zero, zip.
Anyway CBBT and other major bridges are a special case, entirely different from HOT lanes in my opinion.
One toll doesn’t make a general case.
RH
what is it about these things that make them wrong for other roads?
what is it about these things that make them wrong for ALL other roads?
Can you see the assymetry? The only reason you think thisis good is because you won’t pay the tolls. Mostly.
It is assymetric, so it is unfair. But byond that, it is mostly just a really bad idea.
The only reason it survives at all is that it is a clever marketing strategy that makes it appear that we will “sock it to the man”. Makes it appear that we will get something for nothing.
RH
If you think tolls are a “scam”, then why are the airlines and the CBBT not also scams?
You can fly pretty much anywhere on SouthWest Airlines for ten cents a mile. But the last leg to NOVA, the FAA has sold air traffic control to the Australians, and they want another ten cents a mile.
Meanwhile, we still have to pay for the rest of FAA.
That’s why it is a scam.
RH
“Not if they give you back value arguably equal to at least what was taken. It is the whole basis for eminent domain.
If there is a true public benefit, this should be no problem. It is only a problem is someone is claiming a public benefit and therre is none, or less than the amount being taken.
It is a free market approach to keeping do-gooders honest.
Which is why they hate it.”
what if you feel that you don’t get back the value that is claimed and you don’t want to do the transaction?
If you are forced to pay and you don’t agree with the “public benefit” then is that a “taking”?
So.. now.. Mr. Property Rights (that’s you Ray) is arguing that Imminent Domain is the free market antidote to “do gooders” who hate taxes?
re: “
Anyway CBBT and other major bridges are a special case, entirely different from HOT lanes in my opinion.
One toll doesn’t make a general case.”
no it doesn’t.
Why is a toll better than a sales tax for the CBBT or the Powhite Parkway or the Coleman Bridge?
Explain why it is not the general case…
and careful here.. remember.. we’re talking about that onerous government scam – tolls…
Why not finance the CBBT and all the other bridges and tunnels in HR/TW from sales taxes and not tolls?
The sales tax revenue in HR/TW for 1% sales tax is about $170 million a year.
Why not raise the sales tax in HR/TW to whatever level it takes to build their 3 billion dollars worth of projects instead of having tolls?
If you are forced to pay and you don’t agree with the “public benefit” then is that a “taking”?
I’ll concede, that is a problem, or might appear to be.
That is why the procedure for determining public benefit is so important. We need a social and civic forum for doing this that does not (much) exist. If that procedure is generally agreed to, and robust, the most people will generally see that someone who doesn’t agree is simply being unreasonable.
A key part of this is to ensure that payments to the losers are substantial, and not the usual token or minimum payments, as in todays eminent domain proceedings. Substantial payments to the losers are what keep them quiet, and it means that the claimed public benefit has to be substantial, to cover the costs.
But, it doesn’t matter if you agree, the fact that you don’t agree doesn’t make it a taking.
If the people who have the numbers can show in black and white that the public benefits are 5x and your cost is x, and by the way, here is x dollars, then the fact that you don’t agree means you are unreasonable, not that there is a taking.
The usual thing that causes such disagreements is some claim for intangibles and externalities, such as the value of Eagles, or family heritage.
In cases the property rights are not and never have been declared, they are a new claim, never previously paid for, or a claim of nearly infinite value. These are all issues that can be resolved with robust procedure and well defined and recognized property rights.
—————————
“Why not raise the sales tax in HR/TW to whatever level it takes to build their 3 billion dollars worth of projects instead of having tolls?”
Why not indeed? I think it would be preferable, since roads and VMT are so closely related to GDP and commerce. The gas tax is just a narrow sales tax. it does have the specific advantage of being more closely tied to travel, and more environmentally efficient.
RH
If you are forced to pay and you don’t agree with the “public benefit” then is that a “taking”?
The whole point is that if there is sufficient public benefit, then there is enough to pay damages, so that any reasonable person cannot claim harm. Payment of damages means that the claim for public benefit must also be both substantial and reasonably tangible. Knowing that payment to losers must be made, helps prevent outrageous claims for intangible (or nonexistent) benefits.
Normally, this works OK where a product is produced and we ask for more protection (a public beneit) from pollution (an externality) because the cost of pollution prevention is incorporated in theprice of the product. However, even in this case there are many beneficiaries who (apparently)pay nothing, because they don’t use the product.
But there ae many other cases where the impetus to emand a public benefit is the ability to “stick it to the man”.
RH
Ray – I would posit that the “procedure” you say is needed is already in place.
It’s called elections, laws, regulations and courts.
Did you ever rank the taxes and fees for roads with respect to which ones best meed the “user pays” model?
It appears to me that you are switching back and for between “narrow” and “wide” rather than deal with the “user pays” question.
Do you or do you not believe that “user pays” is the right way to pay for roads.. and if you do.. which taxes best meet that goal and which ones do not??
Do sales taxes better meet the definition of “user pays” than tolls?
“the “procedure” you say is needed is already in place.
It’s called elections, laws, regulations and courts.”
Well, then what’s the problem?
Special interests.
We complain that special interests are teh ones with the most money. They get the most money by doing the most business, and roads and business are inextricably intertwined.
MAYBE, Bob is right. We have enough money to do roads, but the allocation process is broken. Which is pretty much what you said in another post.
People who have little money and little business to conduct, show up in the procedure we have and delay roads for 40 years. then we wonder why we have a problem.
If EMR is correct, the problems are self correcting anyway, and we shouldn’t worry about it.
I think, that if we triedd, we could do a better analysis of who the beneficiaries are, and then design a slate of transaction based taxes to match the costs to the beneficiaries. When you get all done, it will look pretty much like the state’s economy looks, so you might as well just do it with sales taxes and stop worrying.
There is only one reason this won’t fly.
It is too fair: no one has a reason to champion this idea, because no one has a lot to gain.
With tolls, it is just the opposite, and that is why you have all the “buzz”.
Eisenhower once said “The more people are talking about it, the more likely it is to be lousy.”
RH
“Do you or do you not believe that “user pays” is the right way to pay for roads”
No. As Bill Gates likes to say, “That’s the stupidest idea I ever heard of.”
I think roads and GDP are very closely related. The spread of GDP over the state follows the flow of money from the cash generating areas to the other areas.
You might as well priortize road projects according to the commerce they support or generate, and therefore you might as well collect the taxes for roads from sales taxes.
This has the effect of taxing ALL the transportation expense of selling a product in the state, whether that expense is inside the state or not, so it encourages local production in order to reduce the transportation expense and the tax that goes on it.
Income taxes are a special category of sales tax in which yu tax the sale of labor. Gas taxes are a special category of sales tax which promote thrifty use of gasoline, and provide revenue, but thye should be dollar based not gallon based.
I see no reason to create a new “artificial” transaction in the form of tolls, and then tax that transaction at 100%.
RH
Your buddy Eisenhower supported tolling the Interstates.
In fact, that’s how he originally wanted to pay for it.
re: user pays and GDP and roads
if we are going to charge sales taxes for “transportation” then, don’t start whining when they use that money for transit…
For every person like you that thinks GDP tracks roads, there are others that think roads have externalities as well as a broken process and believe the money better spent NOT on roads.
so just about any tax or fee other than the gas tax and road tolls opens up the discussion to spent it on a wide variety of non-road transportation.
and that is what is going to happen.
already has with the 1/2% of the sales tax which is about equal to the amount of money in VDOT budget spent on non-road transportation projects.
re: “artificial” – the CBBT is artificial?
you better tell Bill Howell – pretty quick.. he’s off the farm
“House speaker: State should lease toll rights
But the Stafford Republican said the list of local projects is too expensive, so state officials need to turn their focus toward tolls and leasing the tolling rights for bridges and tunnels to private companies for large chunks of upfront cash.
“You can’t raise taxes enough to build all of those things,” Howell said of the region’s priority list, which includes seven major projects, including expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. “Looking at tolls and concessions is the only way you’re going to solve Hampton Roads’ problems.”
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_howell_0611jun11,0,5903940.story
“if we are going to charge sales taxes for “transportation” then, don’t start whining when they use that money for transit…”
I have no problem with that.
I have a problem with simultaneusly saying that cars don’t pay their full costs, while taxing them more and more to pay for other costs.
Sales taxes would have a direct nexus to the locations where they are collected. If those locations will support transit, then fine, go ahead. I have no proble with that.
Where I have a problem with transit is when it comes as a blanket statement “we need more transit”.
Howell or anyone who supports his ideas will get no support from me, he is off the farm.
Notice what he says: “You can’t raise taxes enough to build all of those things…”
This has to mean that you can’t get the vots to raise taxes enough to build all those things, not that there isn’t money out there that could be captured. It is just tha his plan to capture the money is through tolls and concessions.
You can’t say that we can’t get the money, and then say we can get it through tolls. It makes no sense.
Howell manages it in one sentence, and I marvel that he thinks there is anyone too stupid to see through it.
RH
re: “artificial” – the CBBT is artificial?
The transaction is artificial. The CBBT has been spectacularly successful. You don’t think that it has generated enough additional commerce that it could have been paid for with a tax on sales?
But, for the CBBT much of the commerce it genrates is outside the state. For practical purposes, the CBBT goes from Virgina to Maryland and Delaware. That’s why the CBBT is a special case and not a good general example of why tolls work. Although, I suppose you could use that argument to claim that tolling Shirley highway makes sense because much of the commerce it generates is in the District. I still don’t think they are remotely similar.
RH
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.