Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Drive More, Pay More

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Reader and blogger Ben Martin submits the following data point: The Progressive Group of Insurance Companies, the third largest auto insurer in the country, offers an insurance discount up to 15 percent for low-mileage drivers. (See Progressive’s Virginia promotion here.)

The underwriting logic seems obvious: If you drive fewer miles, you’re less likely to be involved in an automobile accident.

The private sector gets it. Why doesn’t the government? Why can’t the Commonwealth of Virginia come up with a transportation financing scheme — for road maintenance, at least — as logical as Progressive’s? The fewer miles you drive… the less the wear and tear you put on state roads… the less you pay to maintain those roads. Conversely, the more you drive, the more you pay.

Just as an insurance company might adjust your insurance rates depending upon the type of car you drive — certain models are more likely to suffer extensive damage in an accident; certain models do a better job of protecting their occupants than others — why can’t the Commonwealth charge more for vehicles, such as tractor trailers, that cause more damage to our roads than, say, a Volkswagen Beetle or a Ford Focus?

If the insurance industry can do it, why can’t the state of Virginia? Why do our lawmakers devise Rube Goldberg financing schemes that sever the connection between taxes paid and Vehicle Miles Driven? Why is it so hard to sell the entirely reasonable proposition that the more you drive, the more you pay?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

22 responses to “Drive More, Pay More”

  1. Craig Avatar
    Craig

    The answer, and I think that this is a no brainer, is to raise gasonline taxes. This would have two effects: First, those who use the system more would pay more to finance the system. Second, studies show that higher gasoline prices decrease consumption and reduce congestion (there was just a report saying that demand for April this year was flat compared to April 2005 when economists would normally expect to see a 1.5% – 2% increase year over year). More revenue to pay for roads combined with less traffic on the roads sounds like a win-win situation to me.

    The Senate attempted to raise the gasoline (albeit they also attempted to implement a silly gasoline tax refund scheme) and the House Repbulicans screamed bloody murder. I know that I would rather pay at the pump then stop at toll booths like the one proposed on 95 at the NC border.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I agree that vehicles that drive more and weigh more should pay more for use of the roads, but I’m not sure that using Progressive’s business habits as a logical precursor makes much sense.

    There are also insurance companies that use GPS to determine not only how much, but where, you drive. If much of your driving is in the city, particularly in bad sections of the city, then you pay more.

    Other companies just use your credit score.

    So we need two things. We need a fair and balanced and rational way to pay for roads that includes all who benefit from them, including non drivers as well as long distance or heavy vehicles. By your analogy, logically, those that drive in the worst conditions should be required to pay less to use the roads, but instead the plan is to charge them more: more to drive in congested areas and more to drive in remote areas.

    Then we need a way to allocate how the money is spent, recognizing that spending benefits those that live and work closest to an area most. If you are going to charge more for those that are subject to the worst conditions, then you need to put them on the top of the priority list to get fixed.

    That isn’t what has been happening in Virginia, as your post on (288?) suggests.

    I’ve said it before, distance doesn’t mean squat, unless you take into context the value of the trip. You recently noted tha VA per capita income has gone up, and part of the reason is that we are effectively capturing the value of travel (or maybe we just are not paying enough for it).

    Weight of the vehicle is one way to measure the value of the trip. If the trip is going to a place that is highly valued (congested) then the trip should cost more. Frequency is an issue seldom discussed: if a quarry frequently sends many trucks along one road, that road will suffer more damage than the aggregate damage of the same number of miles spread all over creation. I think we have a long way to go before we come up with a plan to collect and spend road money that makes any sense.

    Who should pay more, someone who drives 30 miles with two slugs on board, or someone who drives 15 miles, alone? What if he drives alone with a big pickup, full of tools he uses? What if his job is to repair and synchronize traffic signals, are we going to penalize him for doing his job?

    So far we can’t even agree on what problems we are trying to solve with the money we raise.

    With regard to insurance:

    Interstates have among the lowest accident rates anywhere, so it is not at all clear that the distance you drive has very much to do with how much your insurance should be.

    The danger associated with where you drive is very much related to how well VDOT and government does it’s job. There is a T shaped intersection near me that is a constant source of accidents: the guard rail and signage is constantly being replaced. Yet, with a hour with a grader and a couple of loads of gravel they could put an emergency stopping ramp on the other side of the T and the problem would be (mostly) solved. Instead it is the full employment intersection for VDOT, tow truck drivers, and body mechanics.

    Eventually a few people will get killed there and then people will say, what a tragedy, and fix it. that is not going to be an accident, it is going to be some one’s fault.

    As you have pointed out, rural roads have far more such hazards, and many accidents occur there. Again, this is place and condition sensitive and not necessarily distance sensitive. Surely distance plays a part, but so does speed, skill, experience, alertness, reading ability, smoking habits (and eating, drinking, applying makeup, cellphones, and the sports pages), and auto type and condition.

    But the biggest factor of all is probably local conditions which are supposedly controlled and managed by the government. We need to make sure government has the money we can afford to give it, and we need to know in advance what the rules are for deciding how the money will be spent. After that, we can worry about how well it is spent.

  3. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    An accurate time-map might put things into perspective:

    http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/london/uk-transit-time-maps-177162.php

  4. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    Sorry for the rant in advance

    I agree with the concept in principle but at least here in the NoVA the mileage or gas tax plan wouldn’t help that much. The truly ironic thing is that the majority of people around here have short commute mileage (less than 30 miles one way) its the congestion that causes the problem.

    Some sort of congestion tax might work but that is really complicated and wont fly politcally and is propably illegal We get mad when DC tries it so if the inner core (Fairfax/Arlington/Alexandria) tried it wouldn’t fly either.

    Prince William does a good job of requiring developers to help with infrasturcture costs and the model should be applied in areas that are still developing.

    However, the real problem around here in NoVA and Hampton/TideWater is too many cars trying to squeeze across bottlenecks. I can’t stress this enough. Every time a new ultrasleek connector road is built. The bottlenecks just get worse. The Spingfield Interchange and Wilson Bridge are the kinds of projects that are needed to benefit the most individuals.

    Solution time

    Housing in the core, business in the burb, telecommute, Toll the bottlenecks to fix them, mixed-use development to shorten the commutes.

    One last thing I guess my main point is that its not a one-size fits all solution since Virgiinia is such a big state. In some areas a gas/mileage fee does make sense.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Housing in the core, business in the burb, telecommute, Toll the bottlenecks to fix them, mixed-use development to shorten the commutes.

    One last thing I guess my main point is that its not a one-size fits all solution since Virgiinia is such a big state. In some areas a gas/mileage fee does make sense.”

    I love it. In so many words you have summarized months of my arguments. There are no one size fits all solutions, each has some merit, they all cost money.

    We should press forward with solutions that are ethical and fair. If they turn out to be wrong or short-lived, well, it won’t be the first time. At least we tried some things and learned from the experience.

    What have we learned from waiting on the legislature? Things don’t fix themselves. Fixes cost more tomorrow than yesterday.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think gas tax in NOVA is great. You get to collect the tax from cars that are just sitting there: no road wear and tear involved. since the roads that do get built will be downstate anyway, it is 100% profit to the state.

  7. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Uh, Jim, the Commonwealth DOES apply such a formula. Those who drive more miles buy more gasoline, and pay more gas tax per gallon.

  8. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    5:08 – You are dealing with a urban myth that Virginia does not funnel transportation dollars to NoVA. Vince Callahan has stated many times that, because of the Wilson Bridge and Springfield Interchange projects, NoVA has been receiving more transportation tax dollars than it receives. We get screwed everywhere else, but are being subsidized by other Virginians — about time!!!

    A great deal of the blame for our problems rests with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors that fails to use its lawful authority to extract the same level of fair proffers for transportation that are being obtained in nearby counties. What is Fairfax County’s targert proffer for transportation? There is none. On the other hand, Prince William County just raised ita targets for single family homes to $37,700, with more than $14,400 going to transportation needs. New townhouses would each generate about $15.2 K for transportation, with each multifamily unit producing almost $10.9 K for transportation infrastructure. Other significant proffer payments would support public schools and parks.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Jim Young, You are quite correct, the Commonwealth does have a “user pays” formula — called a gasoline tax. I should have noted that in my original post. My comments were referring to efforts this year to avoid increasing the gasoline tax by raising revenues by other means.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    here’s some thoughts.

    The “value” of any trip is determined by the person taking the trip who, in turn, should
    bear responsibility for the “cost” of choosing to take that trip – for whatever reason
    benefits him as an individual.

    Yes.. we have a gas tax and yes… it does not collect enough revenue to pay for the trip taken.
    Part of the reason is that it has not been adjusted for inflation since 1986 and part of the reason
    is that all things being equal – a car that gets better mileage.. pays less .. even though they have
    the same impacts as cars that get poor mileage. Witness the use of solo-driven Hybrids on HOV.. and
    the impacts…

    The answer to the “crisis” is quite simple. Have people pay for the actual costs of their use.

    Don’t complicate it with subject judgements of what trips are “beneficial” to society.

    Just assign the costs and then let people and businesses including delivery companies.. make choices
    about use, efficiency, time-shifting, etc – a “DUH” solution…

    we live in a capitalistic county where most of us agree that price should be set by supply and demand and
    let the chips fall where they may… that when you present people with this simple calculation.. they will
    in the end.. choose the most efficient combination of cost and productivity – IF THEY HAVE TO PAY for it themselves.

    That is what is missing from our approach to roads. We keep insisting that there is a “higher” calling to roads and therefore we should not subject them to simply supply/demand economics .. and the results are quite clear – when you don’t do that.. people – all of us – will “game” the system to derive maximum benefit at minimum cost.

    I’m sure it would be quite preposterous of me to suggest that we toll all roads electronically. Everyone gets a
    transponder and then we all .. on the same level playing field.. make our choices and pay our money and the road crisis – I quite confidently predict – will disappear.. without a whimper.

  11. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Larry – Let me play Devil’s Advocate even though I’m not sure I agree with my own argument. You argue that we should let market forces govern transportation — pay for what you use. Seems pretty rational.

    Shouldn’t this principle also apply to the transfer of roads to VDOT? I suspect that many of the road patterns in some, but not all, new commercial and residential developments are not efficient. Yet, once they become public roads, VDOT and its taxpayers must fund maintenance. Even an efficiently designed road pattern in a development adds costs to VDOT. Should there be a fee or some type of offset paid to VDOT for taking over responsibility for new roads? In any event, should there be a fee (or a higher fee) when the roads have not been engineered as efficiently as possible?

    Again, I’m not sure I agree with this argument, but it seems to flow from yours.

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Toomanytaxes, you offer an interesting idea. The devil is in the details of course. But you are quite right: What sense does it make for a subdivision developer to design a road network for his subdivision — maximizing his return on investment — and then turning over to VDOT to maintain? Subdivisions that do not connect with their neighbors impose costs on VDOT: All the traffic dumps onto a collector road, increasing congestion on that road, and VDOT gets burdened with the cost of addressing the congestion. Perhaps there should be an offset fee, along the lines you suggest, if roads provide insufficient connectivity.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    interesting… choice of words – “impose costs on VDOT”.

    aren’t we really assigning these costs to taxpayers?

    and here’s a question – If one CHOSE to live in a subdivision that
    was not compact.. and needed more roads than compact development..
    wouldn’t the cost of buildling and maintaining those roads be higher?

    and yet.. regardless of what kind of settlement pattern people choose,
    they do NOT incur the actual costs of that decision.

    What if those costs went to the county or heaven-forbid.. the folks
    who lived in that subdivision?

    Would that be more fair and equitable than to have all taxpayers
    essentially subsidize inefficient settlement patterns?

    Aren’t we always saying that folks should be responsible for their
    own choices?

    By the way.. if one ever wondered what kind of money is involved in
    subdivision roads.. I can tell you .. much, much more than most
    landowners in the subdivision want to pay – as evidenced by those
    who chose to buy a lot in a subdivision whose roads were not built
    to state standards.. and thus would be accepted by VDOT for maintenance.

    So.. it would be interesting.. to know when VDOT accepts a subdivision
    road .. what the actual costs are.. in doing so.

    Subdivision roads, by the way, have been implicated in the current
    funding shortfall for VDOT.. as the last estimate I heard was that
    most of the 400 new lane miles per year that VDOT assume maintenance
    on was… subdivision roads.

  14. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Larry – I think that we are on the same page. I wrote of “imposing costs on VDOT” in the sense of the more neighborhood streets, the higher VDOT’s expenses.

    One solution might be for local governments to be in charge of the maintenance and repair costs for all local streets. But then, what is a local street? Some of our smart growth friends (no hostility intended) might support moving the costs for maintaining local roads to a charge for each foot of a lot that fronts a road. The fee should probably be related to the costs in a locality and not a statewide or even countywide average. Beware prestigious suburban corner lots and big farms! Denser developments might pay much lower fees, but then the costs for maintaining urban roads might be much higher than for other roads.

    What about deeding the roads back to the citizens, local home owners associations or specially formed local road districts? Get VDOT out from the local street business. Neighborhoods or local business districts could pay special assessments to fund their local streets. In recognition of those roads with significant portions of non-local traffic, VDOT could remit some funds to support such roads. VDOT becomes a much smaller organization devoted to the operation of connecting roads.

    Perhaps, new developments should model themselves after cemetery associations that charge up front for “perpetual care.”

    Having said this, we still face the problems that VDOT has no internal cost controls and Virginia builds infrastructure based on who can best lobby the CTB, rather than on what projects provide the best return on their investments.

    Return on investment would probably drive those who benefit from the status quo crazy as does the Federal Transit Authority’s requirement that transit projects be efficient and effective in order to obtain federal funding. While I’m in no position to forecast whether the FTA will find that the Dulles Metro extension passes the test, I strongly suspect that the Tysons Corner landowners redevelopment windfalls that would arise from Metro’s expansion are not yet secure.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    When I first read this, I thought there was a decdent conversation gong on here, but now I think you have lost your collective minds.

    Yes, we have not adjusted the gas tax since 1986. That fact alone is insane. Yes vehicles get better mileage, even heavy trucks get better mileage, but hybrids in the HOV lane is just a red herring. What remains is that heavy vehiclews cause more damage, and vehicles that drive more cause more damage, but none of that makes the slightest difference.

    Even with better mileage, we are still burning more fuel than in 1986. So while the vehicles are getting more miles for their gas money, the part of it that goes to taxes is buying less, partly because of higher fuel costs.

    This should scream out to anyone that thinks about it that what we need is a very serious adjustment in the fuel tax, especially for trucks. Fuel tax charges you for distance and weight. It is perfectly fair and effective, but it is no where near high enough.

    However, it should not be set high enough to cover all tha costs because even those that don’t drive benefit from roads. The rest has to come from somewhere, and now it comes from income and real estate taxes. All in all, it strikes me as a pretty fair system, but it needs to be adjusted significantly.

    As for the property arguements, I think you have completely lost the bubble. Many of our roads are built on land that was taken by eminent domain. The fact that developers donate the roads to the system just means that we don’t havve to buy the land to build them.

    Trying to tie this to land use is just stupid. My driveway is at the east end of the farm. I almost never go west. To my west are a number of large developments. You really want to tax me based on frontage for a road that was taken against my will in order to serve those west of me?

    Consider a highrise. you want to taxk them on one 200th of their frontage in the belief that they use less road than me? What if I have a lot of frontage but I work at home?

    For crying out loud, it was my land to begin with, I didn’t want or need the road,and now you want to charge me for maintenance? Fine. Give me the road and the land back and I’ll charge tolls to all those people west of me.

    Applied across the region, that would be a huge incentive to buy as close in as you can: more tolls to collect.

    In Fauquier, some neighborhoods do maintain their own streets, and they get a tax break as a result. And many local roads are already county roads, not state maintained, I think. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Jim, why does a subdivision road that does not connect with the neighboring pod cost VDOT more? If the pods are connected, doesn’t that make travel easier and won’t people travel more?

    Why is it only new developments that should pay? As it is, none of us are paying enough,and that is why the new developments are so painful. We aren’t paying enough in fuel tax and we aren’t paying enough in property tax. What is it, any home valued at less than $700,000 isn’t paying enoough in taxes to cover its costs? that must leave out everyone except Jim and Ed Risse :-).

    Then we complain about shortages and blame it on the “new guys” who happen to be our children.

    I deliver hay to customers that live in fine homes in horsey subdivisions, and the roads are not paved. And the horse paddocks are barren, too. Yet if a developer left land uncovered and subject to runoff like that, he would get his pants fined off. You know, thoase avaricious speculators, just wnat to rip us off.

    Transponders don’t put us on a level playing field, a fuel tax does: if it is high enough, and if it is not diverted to the general fund. Fuel tax is collected on mileage and weight. It does not care what the efficiency of the vehicle is, the more you burn, the more you weigh or the more you travel. It does not collect enough for weight because the damage goes up faster than the fuel usage, but we can make up for that in truck registrations, or charge a weight toll at the weigh stations.

    What we have is not perfect, but mostly it is not enough, and that is the root cause of all our other problems, except two.

    VDOT is out of control. We can’t agree on how to allocate the money.

    TMT’s idea that we should charge by neighborhood would be a real screw job for him. It cost more to fix things in the inner areas, and more people from outside use them.

    I already pay to maintain my private lane, and it takes 20 tons of gravel a year, plus mowing trimming, and grading. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to do it, even though it is used by plenty of people other than myself.

    This land use transportation thing is a load of nonsense. After you take all of the perceived inequities, and average them out with all the percieved benefits, and divide that by the miles traveled on any particular road weighted by all the miles drive, and allocated as to whether they are heavy miles or light miles and local or long distance and taxed according to whether the trip is commercial pleasure or social, you wouldn’t be able to spit on a hundredth of a mill in difference per mile.

    And that’s where the mixing bowl and bridge come in. You can’t count those as a total benefit to NOVA becuase 40% of the traffic on thos structures is out of state.

    There are at least four problems, we are not paying enough, we can’t agree on whou should pay or how much, and we coud not agree on how to spend it if we did.

    It is too bad we can’t pave roads with electrons. Between us we could have fixed all the roads by now.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Never let it be said I’m not open to compromise. Here is my idea.

    Set the fuel tax at something high enough to cover costs, and take Bacon’s suggestion: let it be a carbon tax that applies to home heating oil, electrical generation fuels, etc. I can buy this because it falls in line with the idea we should only tax cash flow: energy is a damn good proxy for cash flow.

    Say we make it $2/gallon or 15% to 20%.

    People would drive less and we would have relatively more for roads, after people make the necessary adjustments. The economy would go in the toilet which would take the heavy trucks off the road. I can assure you the price of hay would skyrocket, because I’m primarily in the business of converting diesel fuel to horse fuel. My equestrian mansion neighbors would fell the pinch twice, and probably go back to their city home.

    The anti consumption crew would be happy, because no one could afford to buy anything, and land speculation would cease.

    After we were all huddled, shivering in the dark for a year, we would discover we had created another baby boom and twenty years later the housing market would take off……

  17. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    And all the fuel we saved would be used in the third world to make sweaters to sell us on the cheap.

    A lot of good it will do. because we won’t be able t0o afford to drive to Wal Mart.

  18. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, you ask: “Why does a subdivision road that does not connect with the neighboring pod cost VDOT more? If the pods are connected, doesn’t that make travel easier and won’t people travel more?”

    I’m still trying to think this through, but here is what I would argue: Homeowners usually have destinations in all different directions, north, east, south west. Typically, the “pod” pattern of development requires them to reach those destinations on collector/arterial roads by a roundabout way. Providing connectivity between subdivisions would allow them to utilize the little-traveled “pod” streets for a part of the distance they have to travel, taking them off the connector/arterial roads. Typically, the routes will be more direct, thus shorter, and they will take traffic off the congested connector/arterial roads for some portion of the distance to the destination. The result: less congestion.

    Yes, travel would be somewhat easier — of course, that’s the whole point — but I don’t see what incentive there would be for anyone to travel more. There’s nothing in this proposal that would increase the number of trips that people would take.

    Admittedly, improving connectivity is only one piece — and probably a small one — of what needs to be done. A far bigger problem is the segregation of land uses that physically separate housing from offices, stores, churches and other amenities by large distances, thus forcing people into cars for any trip. The key is to create an appropriate balance of uses and to provide connectivity between the pieces.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    wow… a lot of ground covered… where to start…..

    I’d disagree that the “problem” is deteriorated roads caused by heavy trucks.

    The fundamental issue is not roads that are in bad repair – it simple is too many
    vehicles for the roads – and keep in mind that there are TWO responses to this problem.

    The first of course is to build more roads. The second is to use the existing roads less.
    The reality will be a combination of both.

    We do have a growing population but I’d suggest a little research into the phrase
    VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled… just GOOGLE it – and what you will find is that
    VMT is a per capita measure and has increased almost 3 times the rate of population growth.

    Succinctly stated – it means people are travelling more miles on roads than they used to.

    That means more people are on the road network for longer periods of time – i.e. congestion.

    Now, I don’t buy the argument that ALL of people’s auto trips are “no choice” trips at all no
    more than I buy the argument that they have no choice but to travel 50 miles to live in a
    3000 sq ft house on 5 acres, or cannot carpool because their kid might get sick or a ton
    of other “I can’t do” arguments. Bullfeathers.

    People do make choices and what affects them is the costs of their decisions – both time and money.

    We all do this and the proof of it is that if gasoline went to $5 a gallon – we’d all find ways to
    reduce the impact by re-allocating our “I have no choice” behaviors. In other words.. there ARE choices.

    Taxing everyone regardless of their use of roads (gas tax) based on the premise that everyone benefits is why we are in trouble with roads to start with – because the demand for roads is essentially insatiable… without some kind of real-life economic cost to people who use roads more frequently than others.

    And I don’t buy the argument to start with because delivery companies charge folks for packages even if those folks don’t drive and school systems and county, state and the Feds tax folks who don’t drive to pay for their transportation costs…. anyhow. Public service transportation costs ARE incorporated into taxes that we all pay.

    The most compelling argument against the gas tax is that it simply can not raise adequate revenue anymore because, simply-stated, the higher the cost of gasoline – whether from supply or taxes – the less people will buy and the best that can come out of this is gas tax revenues that don’t actually decline – which will not begin to address the issue of how to pay for more roads.

    The most fair, most equitable method of assigning costs is by simply following the same economic model that we do for other products and services that we consume. If you use more – you pay more.

    If for some unforseen reason.. someone comes up with definitive data that “proves” that folks who don’t drive are getting something for nothing (like folks who drive do not?) then let’s deal with that issue but let’s be clear and not cloud the waters about what the real problem is – and how to move on to solutions.

    The real problem is that the VAST majority of people DO drive and they drive MORE miles than their parents did and by doing so there are more cars on the roads… more of the time.. resulting in more congestion – often portrayed as a “crisis” that threatens to harm us all. And the conventional wisdom seems to be that we have no choice but to raise taxes – as opposed to “no choice” about our consumptive driving habits.

    Toll Roads are not a new concept. They DO work and they ARE fair. What IS new is the ability to use electronic
    tolling.. that allows unfettered movement… without the need for toll booths.

    And toll roads do not rule out continued use of the gas tax either.

    Toll roads are simply roads that won’t get built if we continue to insist that higher taxes is the only answer because, keep in mind, the new taxes being discussed will generate about 1% of the funds that VDOT claims is needed.

    Toll roads won’t exist if there is no need (demand) for them either – as opposed to our current practice of letting VDOT spend tax dollars on bogus reports justifying every road concept that pops out of someone’s brain.

    It’s the best of both worlds because we get VDOT our of the road-building business and replace them with private-sector entities who base their decisions on economic realities which is what all of us need at this point in time in my view.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: subdivisions

    JLARC And the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts made the same argument with regard to “local” roads.

    They both recommended that VDOT’s mission be reconfigured to be responsible for roads of statewide significance ONLY and that localities be responsible for local roads – rural and subdivision.

    I think there is a LOT of merit to that recommendation.

    There is absolutely no reason why local subdivision roads should not be the direct financial responsibility of those that live on those roads.

    This is already done with gated communities nationwide including in Virginia.

    Subdivision roads are NOT a legitimate cost to taxpayers and, in fact, because they are – the developer and the prospective buyers have no incentive to build more efficient, less costly developments – because they know that no matter how extensive and expensive the internal road system will be – that they won’t have to pay for it’s maintenance.

    If the citizens in a local county believed that all county residents should pay for new subdivision roads then they could have a referenda and vote on it or for that matter vote on any allocation of taxes for roads – which I believe is the fair and equitable way for citizens to pay for local roads.

    Don’t send that money to Richmond for VDOT to then “bargain” with localities to get their own money back. Why not – NOT send it to Richmond to start with?

    This is, in fact, how MOST other states do this.

    Regional roads should be done with a voter-approved sales tax and/or electronic tolling and again – the disposition of those funds will be up to local elected officials – not faceless VDOT folks in Richmond.

    State Roads – Primaries and Interstates – would be the province of VDOT with most new roads done by Private investors via electronic tolling.

  21. Dale Avatar
    Dale

    Virginia already has a highway user tax system that accounts for miles traveled and the weight of vehicles for heavy trucks.

    Heavy vehicles like tractor-trailers pay a graduated registration fee based on the weight they’re registered to haul so that the heavier a vehicle and its load the higher the registration fee it pays. For example, an 80,000 lbs. tractor-trailer that travels all its miles in Virginia pays $1,342 per year to Virginia in registration fees.

    In addition, all heavy trucks over 26,000 lbs. pay a tax of 19.5 cents per gallon for every gallon of gas and diesel fuel they consume in Virginia compared to the 17.5 cents per gallon paid by vehicles weighing less than 26,000 lbs. only on the fuel they purchase in the state.

    Out-of-state trucks pay taxes to Virginia for their use of our roads as well. Under two international agreements known as the International Registration Plan (IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), all heavy trucks traveling in or through Virginia pay to Virginia an apportioned registration fee and a tax of 19.5 cents for every gallon of fuel they consume on Virginia roads, even if they do not buy the fuel in the state. Unlike heavy trucks, out-of-state passenger vehicles have free reciprocity when traveling between states.

    Another interesting fact about truck taxes – for the latest year that stats are available (2004), the trucking industry paid 35% of all state and federal highway use taxes collected for Virginia, but accounted for only 8% of total miles traveled in the state.

  22. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Dale, Thanks for the update on the truck taxes. It’s always helpful to have the facts.

Leave a Reply

Read More