Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Fracture in the Ranks of House Republicans

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

An important new dynamic has entered the politics of taxes and transportation. Six Republicans in the House of Delegates — including senior legislators Del. Vince Callahan, R-McLean; Del. David Albo, R-Springfield; and Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge — have rolled out a package of proposals to generate at least $400 million a year in new road financing for Northern Virginia.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the opposition of some Republican delegates to raising taxes for the Transportation Trust Fund by some $1 billion a year wasn’t a principled resistance to taxes, or even the belief that pouring more money into a broken transportation system won’t solve congestion. It was the concern that the Transportation Trust Fund formula short-changes Northern Virginia, as in fact it does.

As Michael Shear and Rosalind Helderman summarized the plan in the Washington Post Tuesday:

Under the plan, which the lawmakers presented to Northern Virginia business executives in a private meeting Monday, annual registration on automobiles in the area would more than double, from $29.50 to $59.50 for a typical passenger car.

Those who buy new vehicles or move vehicles into Northern Virginia would pay a higher tax. Tourists who rent cars and book hotel rooms would pay more. Home developers would be charged higher fees on their projects, and property taxes for office buildings would rise.

One could dismiss this initiative as simple political posturing for the consumption of constituents who are increasingly frustrated with traffic congestion. Perhaps. I can’t say. Regardless, it says something about the legislators’ understanding (or lack of it) of the nature of Virginia’s transportation crisis: The unstated assumption is that the problem is simply a lack of money to fund more transportation projects. The legislators did not include any alternatives to Business As Usual — building balanced communities, smarter urban design, telework, more creative approaches to mass transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems, etc. , etc. — in their proposal.

It will be interesting to see if the Axis of Taxes can peal off the Northern Virginia contingent from the hard-core, low-tax faction of the House of Delegates when the debate over taxes and transportation resumes in a special session later this year.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

9 responses to “A Fracture in the Ranks of House Republicans”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “The unstated assumption is that the problem is simply a lack of money to fund more transportation projects. The legislators did not include any alternatives to Business As Usual — building balanced communities, smarter urban design, telework, more creativity approaches to mass transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems, etc. , etc. — in their proposal.”

    I think this is unfair, Jim. Anyone who looks around them for more than thirty seconds can see that there is some place for all of the alternatives. I would only argue that these are not true alternatives, but really additions to what you call business as usual.

    Simply providing more money to fund transportation projects will not solve “the problem”. That much is obvious. But you know perfectly well that funding proposals are often floated independently and out of context with other related issues.

    If this proposal flies, it in no way negates the value or likliehood of finding more funding for the alternative or additional plans, projects and goals that might each help a little bit.

    Even if more transportation funding does not cure congestion, it will still eas the pain and make more travel possible “on the shoulders” of rush hour. The end result may be that still more people are stuck in the same level of congestion at certain times, but the other 80% of travel will still be relieved.

    Whether the proposal is a good idea or not is another matter. I think that if you are going to raise taxes, then you should say so and not try to hide it under the rubric of a registration fee. Registration fees should be set no higher than what it costs the government to run the registration office. I would prefer to see the taxes for transportation related to transportation and not just registrations.

    While this plan will certainly encourage people to change their behavior, it won’t necessaily be for the better. I own and register several farm trucks, and I use each one only for its intended purpose. Under this plan I might have to dispose of several of them and use only the biggest and most polluting truc for all my little jobs.

    When London instituted its congestion pricing plan about fifty percent of trips diverted to transit, 30 percent shifted in time, and 20% simply disappeared, along with the business they created. Raising the cost of living and driving in the most congested areas is one rational response for relieving congestion, but the end result will be more incentive for people to go someplace else.

    Who knows if that is a good idea or not?

    The entire Arlington Master Transportation Plan is designed around Traffic Demand Management. It starts with the idea that little can be done to improve the road network. The entire plan is devoted to limiting or altering transportation. Yet almost 70% of Arlington trips originate or end (or both) outside of Arlington.

    It doesn’t matter how much they spend on alternatives. And yet, they claim without evidence that they are saving Arlington money on one hand, and that they need more money for their projects on the other hand.

    It seems to me that your unstated assumption, that any and all money that makes more auto travel possible or easier is automatically bad, is at least as wrong as the assumption that all road projects are good.

    We are going to need more roads, and more additional projects as well: there is no point in the various parties to continually kneecap each other.

    I dentify the projects, quantify whatever good and damage they will cause, prioritize them, and spend the money until you run out. Like the shampoo bottle says: wash, rinse, repeat.

    Roads will get congested and hair will get dirty, you either do what you can, or else you are uncivilized.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, I will simply reiterate my oft-stated position. Yes, the transportation system needs more money. But dumping more money into a broken system will not solve anything. We need to fix what’s wrong before we start raising taxes and fees. Otherwise, we’ll just get more of the same — at a higher level of taxation.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, baby, you are wasting your time with Bacon, but he gives away the space to keep talking to the rest of us. Bacon and Risse are utopians carrying water for Luddites. I’ve read Kant in German but I have no idea what the hell Risse is talking about (maybe if he wrote in German?)

    The NoVa Republicans facing a truly angry electorate are caught between the hammer and the anvil. Howell and Bacon wield the hammer but the voters are the anvil. And today they are retreating into the last refuge, the argument that Nova gets skunked by the formulas. It does, a bit, but making the changes would shift mininal dollars. The argument that they send boatloads of money elsewhere for roads is disproved with one trip through Springfield and over the Wilson Bridge.

    What they send boatloads of money elsewhere for is schools. There they do get shafted in a very big way. And in a perfect world, fixing that would get into the mix on fixing the transportation problem. The one thing the Albo Group is on to is that the revenue will come at the local level where there is confidence it will be spent within sight. Solve the education funding problem for localities such as Fairfax and then they can do more with their own money on transportation.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Ooh, schools and transportation. I like it. I’ve thought of it in terms of places like the district trying to attract and keep people but didn’t make the logical leap that it might affect transportation. Or not very much anyway. Thank you.

    And you are right, there isn’t enough money in the rest of the state to fix NOVA’s problems.

    The Springfield and Wilson Bridge problems are recent, but NOVA’s road problems started 30 years ago, or more. You would have to build quite a few more projects like those to make up for all the money that went downstate over the years.

    Jim, I’ve got a broken pump that leaks. When I’m thirsty I can pump like crazy until I get water and waste some of it, or I can just dry up and blow away waiting for the day that some miracle occurs and I can afford to fix the pump or it fixes itself.

    I simply can’t buy the idea that spending more money won’t fix *anything*. I’ll agree there might be some waste involved. You have to prime the pump to find and patch the leaks.

    Whether or not we pour money into that sinkhole, we are still going to need more money for all those alternative projects. If we take the no new taxes stance, then lets take all that junk off the table, too. Shucks, outsource and privatize the whole government.

    All those places like Paris, and Amsterdam, and Oslo, and London that use all the techniques you subscribe to, and have good transportation systems also have monstrously high taxes.

    If you want stuff done, you are either willing to pay for it, or you are talking through your hat. If those legislators actually put the money you concede we need into the hopper and then threw in all the other money for all the other projects you mention,then you would blow a gasket over what the costs are really going to be.

    Or, we can all take Anthony Downs advice and get a car with comfortable seats, good air conditioning, and a nice sound system, because that is where we will spend much of our time.

    We are going to pay higher taxes one way or another. We can pay it in cash dollars or we can pay it in wasted time and energy and a lousy environment.

    If we wait until we fix what is wrong with the system before we start work, we will then find out everything costs that much more and the backlog of things to do is that much bigger.

    Even if we could agree on what is wrong with the system and started work to make the repairs tomorrow, THAT would cost money.

    Saying no more money until we fix what is wrong is an idea that is not only defeatist, but it is a plan that is guaranteed to fail, because nothing will ever be fixed without money.

    If you pick one of your etc. etc. ideas and champion that, then I’m on your side. Say that we need to fix the pedestrian environment in certain areas because it will save $5000 dollars per block and it will only cost $1000 per block, and I’m on your side. Find a way to reduce hauling empty transit seats around all day, and I’m on your side. Pick a priority, and go raise the money to make it happen.

    But if the argument is that we can’t do anything or afford anything until all the problems are solved and all the geographically illiterate are educated, then I’m here to say you have a message that won’t sell, can’t succeed, and makes no sense.

    When environmentalists come up with a plan that says “Can do!” instead of “Can’t do.” and when they want to take charge instead of take control, when they have ideas they can prove are fiscally responsible and fair, and when they are ready to put their own real money in the pot, then they will have a message that someone might actually want to participate in.

    I can’t think of any better way of continue to have business as usual than to continue to keep making argumentum absurdium as usual. Advocating for change while refusing to do anything is like fighting for peace or fornicating for virginity.

  5. Jerry Fuhrman Avatar
    Jerry Fuhrman

    It’s been a while since I read Kant in German so I may not be worthy but …

    This is great stuff, Jim. Keep up the good work.

  6. NoVA Scout Avatar
    NoVA Scout

    A couple of comments here and there, as well as a circular from the Prince William County Republican Committee have disavowed any support for the plan from Del. Lingamfelter.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The problem with picking any single issue, such as transportation or education, is that it ignores the cost that the rest of us face from having Northern Virginia as part of the Commonwealth.

    For example, we are annually faced with tons of legislation on social issues such as guns, gay rights, and various and sundry other issues driven by NOVA urbanite angst that detract attention from fixing real problems in the rest of Virginia — namely, ensuring all kids in all schools get a quality education, and that our roads elsewhere are sufficient to allow the transportation sufficient to sustain jobs downstate.

    My example are extreme, I confess, but the fact of the matter is that unless and until we have the basic infrastructure statewide to allow other communities to compete, it is totally illogical, short-sighted, and politically expedient for any NOVA politician to complain that their constituents over-contribute.

    Maybe it is right to allocate more there for urgent needs, but the idea of investing for the future in our now supply-side economy seems to have been lost on these NOVA Reaganites.

  8. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    That’s a new way of looking at it, at least to me.

    I agree that we are flogging ourselves with endless circular arguments that revolve around single issues. Part of my beef here is that no global or systems aspects are included, as in, its a wastr to raise more money untile we fix the system. OK, move the boundary out and do both, rather than nothing. If either one is successful, you win.

    But the idea that single issues ignore the costs to the rest of the Commonwealth threw me. I’m not sure I follow the logic on how you got there, but I like the conclusion: sustain jobs down state. Anywhere but NOVA.

  9. Anon 9:07 Avatar
    Anon 9:07

    Ray,

    As I believe J. Sarge posted some months ago (it may have been someone else), a few decades ago Wise County had more residents than Fairfax County. I wonder: Who paid for all those Fairfax roads back then?

    Today, Fairfax may be an economic engine but only in the sense that its Beltway Bandit sector is in favor.

    Temporally, the Fairfax lament that they pay the freight for the rest of us just strikes me as, well, teenager-ish.

    Moreover, the rest of us downstaters have to live with the whining that comes from one of the richest counties in America, and must fend for scraps from Daddy’s table just to find a few jobs here and there.

    I’ve said my peace.

Leave a Reply

Read More