Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Gambling for Congestion Relief

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Via the Family Foundation Blog comes an interesting notion about where to find more money to pay for more roads:

We need money, right? Lots of it. That’s the only way to fix our transportation problems, or so we’re told. One side persistently wants to raise taxes. Another side says no (sometimes, kinda). Still others have made noise about legalizing new types of gambling and throwing that “voluntary tax” revenue to solve our transportation problems. Rumors floating around Capitol Square today are that this third group will hit the coming special session with more momentum.

So does that means slots for lanes? Craps for congestion relief? Or video poker for bridges and tunnels? As much as that might appeal to some (put down that roll of quarters for a second), there’s another possibility:

Double the cost on all lottery tickets. Amend the law so that 50 percent of all lottery revenue goes to transportation. Problem solved. Education money is not touched. Transportation gets its new revenue stream. Taxes are not raised but on those who wish to pay them. Say what? Higher prices may discourage people from buying lottery tickets? Or create an unfair burden? But somehow tax increases on necessities do not increase prices or are not burdensome?

Interesting. And certainly cheeky. Of course, some will argue that this just won’t work because the revenue stream isn’t “dedicated” or “reliable.” True. But somehow, we manage to use this unreliable stream for government schools and no one thinks twice about it (except when someone tries to divert those unreliable funds somewhere else). And as for the idea of fairness…the verbal gymnastics on that one would make Nadia Comaneci blush. (Cross-posted at Tertium Quids)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Friendly amendment:

    Toll Road Lottery.

    Works like this:

    every time you drive on the toll road – you are automatically entered in the lottery… and every day there are “winners”… and prizes range from one to 365 free trips…. or Redskin Tickets, etc.

    second idea.. toll road points.. that work just like credit card points…

    free oil changes… rental cars.. zip cars.. metro tickets…WalMart gift cards…

    … so .. create your own revenue stream…

    make it “profitable” to pay tolls..

    🙂

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Good luck.

    It will require a change to the state constitution to redirect the lottery proceeds…..that’s a super majority (3/4) in both houses of the GA.

    Ask one your legislators that was around when the lottery was established and they will tell you that a major sticking point in getting it approved was the “requirement” that all $$$ go to education. They wanted more flexibility in the law but the educrats won out….again.

    Believe it or not, there were a few legislators who thought this requirement was a bad idea…..like they say, hindsight is 20/20.

    But, I do think that’s a great idea…..

    Also, I live in a county that borders WV where they have slots and all I can say is….damn! I would bet 75% of the “customers” in the casino are from out of state.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Driving anywhere in NOVA is already a craps shoot.

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Then there’s the problem of competition. The “house” (the state) already gets a 50 percent margin on every lottery ticket. Compare that to Vegas or Atlantic City where the take is more like 1 to 5 percent. Compare that to Joey Legs and Guido who may break your legs if you don’t pay up, but at least they take a profit margin of only 10 percent or so.

    If I understand the problem correctly, the state would double its ticket price but keep the payout to players the same, thus increasing its take to 75 percent. Here’s my prediction: The state lottery would hemorrhage business. The biggest winners: the lotteries in Maryland and North Carolina. The next biggest winners: Las Vegas and Atlantic City. The next biggest winners: Joey Legs and Guido.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I say that we put a huge tax on sub-prime and payday loan companies…

    That way we make those sluggards pay for their fiscal ineptitude and fund our roads at the same time.

    and if we still end up with a gap, we put an excess “appreciation” tax on any land that increases in value at a rate higher than inflation.

    then.. people who refuse to drive more than 5000 miles a year.. we’ll put a “not doing your part” fee on them…

    I figure if I keep coming up with ideas like this.. RH will bite sooner or later..

    🙂

  6. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    All this assumes that more money will solve the Mobility and Access Crisis.

    We agree with Jim Bacons take on what will happen if VA Lotto raises its take.

    We also like Larry Gross’s ideas.

    Problem is, more money —

    at least until there is an intelligent strategy to reduce vehicle travel demand by Fundamental Change in settlement patterns and a match between vehicle travel demand and transport system capacity —

    is just wasting time and energy.

    EMR

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is a fallacy to arbitrarily insist on reduce vehicle travel demand, at any price, without understanding the value of the travel. It could turn out to be just as big a waste of time and energy as the present system, with or without fundamental change.

    To assume that the only answer is to reduce vehicle travel demand is likely to be just as wasteful as to assume the only answer is more money.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why pick on me?

    I’m in favor of whatever represents a true efficiency, not a false one.

    Not a wealth transfer.

    Not something that appears to be more efficient if you only consider one side of the equation.

    Not something that claims to be efficient but violates the laws of thermodynamics.

    Not something that claims to get something for free.

    Not something that is labeled and marketed as one thing, but actually represents an attempt to get something entirely different.

    In short, I’m in favor of what is honest, possible, reasonable, and equitable.

    I don’t think gambling produces very much of value, much as some others don’t think speculators produce anything. Therefor, from a fundamentals standpoint, gambling is an unsure source of revenue: it is a luxury item.

    On the other hand, it should be taxed like any other source of cash flow – because that’s where the money is. As opposed to taxing the (as yet) unearned value of real estate, for example.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is a fallacy to arbitrarily insist on reduced calorie intake and more exercise without understanding the value of the being fat.

    It could turn out to be just as big a waste of time and energy as enjoying the prospect of dying young.

    To assume that the only answer is to reduce weight is likely to be just as wasteful as eating more donuts.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    At last, someone who understands!

    When you live in a cold climate, SCUBA dive, or face famine, there is a value to being fat.

    Everything is a trade off.

    RH

  11. Bryan Avatar
    Bryan

    I bet you Larry’s idea of “profitable” tolls would actually pass in a political world where “drive more pay more” fails to pass.

    Wait – and we could charge advertising fees to those companies that want the privelege of being in the free oil change/rental car/gift card basket! Double dip!

    We’re now seeing how screwed up our settlement patterns are, and it took $3.50 gas to show it – what a shame.

    I like the idea of an added gas tax and/or toll tax, as it creates an incentive to use public transportation. If people complain public transport doesn’t work for them, they should have evaluated that when they chose their home/job. Every real estate professional should educate clients about including commuting expenses (time, auto, gas, maintenance, family costs) in their relocation decisions.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    My suggestions were sort-of tongue-in-cheek…

    .. but they demonstrate things that private industry can do .. that government cannot.

    VDOT is severely limited in what it can or cannot do.. by law.. and that includes business partnerships and marketing.

    One of the things TOLL roads could offer – when be free/low cost combination GPS/transponders and the GPS reports real-time traffic conditions – including advising the best (least congested) route after they leave the toll road.

    There are dozens and dozens of value added possibilities that a for-profit business could pursue that VDOT could not.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I like the idea of an added gas tax and/or toll tax, as it creates an incentive to use public transportation.”

    I don’t think so. We should be careful about thinking a disincentive for one thing is the same as an incentive for another.

    Higher gas tax, tolls or other user fees might encourage people to drive less without using transit more.

    Besides, be careful what you wish for. In many cases (not all) trnsit costs MORE than roads plus priavate auto usage. If we actually managed to get a lot of people off the roads and into transit, we would have to increase transit dramatically. If we can’t find road funds, and we are using tolls to support transit anyway, where will all the ADDITIONAL money come from to suppor all those new transit riders?

    In some places transit fares are zero, and still not low enough. If we consider the car pool lanes as a form of transit, we can see that we never got the kind of participation we desired.
    as a result those lanes are underused, so now we propose to allow people to buy their way into lanes they already paid for, and which are underused by mandate.

    One of the effects will be that existing carpools will disband and simply pay the toll in order to be able to drive solo.

    So, here we had a situation where there was an incentive to use public transportation (carpools) and it wasn’t enough. Now we think that the real cost of operating a carpool is so high that people will be willing to pay a substantial sum to STOP DOING IT.

    In other words, the “incentive” to carpool (which was the cost of being stuck in traffic on the other lanes), wasn’t high enough.

    SLUG lines were formed to help reduce the cost of organizing and maintainong car pools.

    Therefore, I’d suggest that if you really want people to use car pools or mass transit, then you need to make the real incentives high enough to overcome the real costs. Right now the evidence suggests that isn’t the case.

    In order to make the incentives high enough, you might have to pay people to use car pools. Or mass transit for that matter. In order to do that, society would have to decide what it is really worth to have mass transit that is heavily used, compared to the current heavy use of private autos.

    The way you find out is raise the gas tax or toll the congested lanes, and pay people to use the car pool lanes. If not eneough people use them, raise the toll and raise the payment, until either you get the right mix or until the general public raises holy heck.

    If that happens, then you know that society really isn’t intrested in public transit.

    RH

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I can only scratch my head in amazement over the logic you use.

    The policies will result in it becoming MORE expensive for SOLO driving – both dollar and time cost and LESS expensive for carpooling – BOTH dollar and time costs.

    and yet you keep claiming that carpooling will be discouraged…

    either I don’t understand.. or you’re off in la la land (and not the first time either).

    it appears to me that you’re claiming that this stated intent of the HOT Lane policy is a lie… and that at the end of the process… all carpools will be kicked out and/or have to pay as much as SOLO drivers.

    WHERE do you get this?

    Can you point to an example where folks were promised one thing and after built.. they changed the deal?

    by the way.. air quality in Metro DC HAS steadily improved.. NOT deteriorated as you wrongly said…

    I don’t mind debating the principles .. on the facts… but you seem to chronically get the facts wrong…
    air quality.. which has vastly improved.. though still listed as one of 10 worst.

    the TREND is improvement…

    so the policies have actually resulted in LESS dirty air and, in fact, cleaner air.

    You’ve got it wrong..on the facts.

    Many pro-road folks have made the same claims .. about stop/go traffic generating more pollution than free-flowing and you’re dead wrong.

    the higher the speed.. the more fuel you consume .. and you higher your emissions…

    If you don’t believe this.. park your car in a garage.. and run it at idle or 1000 rpms… then later run it at 3000 rpms… this is simple physics… that you claim to be schooled in…

    It’s TRUE that some cars may be SLIGHTLY less efficient at lower rpms… but that’s a gnat on a dogs rump compared to the total amount of fuel being burned… and in turn..the much higher emissions at much higher rpms.

    if you are running 3 times the rpms at 65 mph – you are generating close to 3 times the emissions than at 20 mph.

    so the whole myth.. repeated over and over about free-flowing traffic is wrong…

    .. if there was even a scintilla of truth to it.. EPA would be forced to answer… and to make changes.

    .. instead.. EPA ..rules the roost on this..

    Basically – the had a choice – either HOV or HOT.

    They had no money to build HOV lanes.

    Who knows how many years it would have taken to get the funding?

    so the only choice to ADD capacity – which would improve congestion for EVERYONE was to find a way to raise the money to build the lanes.

    The only way to do that – right now, without waiting decades – was tolls.

    you have different thoughts..like paying people to carpool but you fall short on where to get THAT money from .. or you come up with stuff so off the wall that it makes congestion tolling look simple by comparison.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    WHERE do you get this?

    It comes from a report that was quoted on this blog by Jim Bacon. I think it came from WCOG.

    The proposed HOT lanes will decrease the number of car pools by making it possible to buy your way out, and still travel in the “car pool lane”.

    It will also slightly decrease traffic in the regular lanes, as some of those people buy into the HOT lanes.

    It wll result in MORE traffic overall, and more traffic on surface streets.

    And it wll cause some job centers to move.

    Of course, all of this is predicted on a model. the model could be wrong.

    ——————————

    In my plan what you do is toll the regular lanes, instead of the car pool lanes. Then you use THAT money to pay people who form car pools. You keep the car pool lanes as car pools only. But, since history shows that has not been enough incentive to form and operate car pools, you add an additional incentive in the form of cash.

    Under the HOT lane plan, if someone in the congested lane wants out, he just pays the money. You still have one car, one driver and traffic is not reduced. Under my plan, if someone in the congested lane wants out, he has to form a carpool which reduces traffic by two vehicles.

    If he wants to drive alone in the congested lanes and increase everyones external costs, he has to pay. If he wants to travel freely in the car pool lanes, he gets paid for reducing external costs, but he has to operate a car pool.

    Seems pretty simple to me, and far more effective than the HOT lane plan.

    It’s a lot harder to sell though. The HOT lane plan taxes only the fat cats who think they are more important than everyone else. My plan taxes everyone, but in different ways: cash or in kind, operating the car pool. You get paid back or reducing external costs, like a good citizen.

    It’s a lot easier to raise money if you package it so it looks like oly the fat cats pay. And raising money is the point of the HO lane plans. Money that the users will pay and never see again, because it will be diverted to other purposes.

    Under my plan, the money comes form the users and goes to the users. Since every new car pool takes three cars out of the congested lanes, the money paid by those in the congested lanes actually helps them almost as much as it helps those that opt to take the money and car pool.

    Unlike the EPA plan, there is no new road HOV or otherwise, and no additional pollution.

    Frankly, I think it is a far better plan than HOT lanes. But, what it won’t do is be a huge cash cow for anyone who wants to raid the “user pays” pockets. It doens’t free up any more money to send downstate. Conservatives should love it because it is revenue neutral.

    Everyone is in favor of HOT lanes and METRO etc. Because they figure somone else will use and pay for it, but it will make their life a little easier for free.

    Under my plan, if you want someone to make your life easier, then you have to pay them to do it. Unlike your plan for take it or leave it tolls, my plan offers a real market choice. If you don’t like what you have to pay, you are free to cross over and be on the other side of the table, where you get paid instead. But, you have to do work to be on that side.

    I think it is ingeneious, and wonder why no one thought of it before. Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t support any nefarious hidden agendas: no one has any incentive to think of such things.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it appears to me that you’re claiming that this stated intent of the HOT Lane policy is a lie… and that at the end of the process… all carpools will be kicked out and/or have to pay as much as SOLO drivers.”

    I believe the stated intent of the HOT lanes is a lie, along with the related concept that it is a user pays policy.

    However, I never thought of the idea that carpools willbe kicked out, until you mentioned it. now that you do, it makes perfect sense.

    Suppose, just suppose, that gas prices rise to the point that many people carpool voluntarily. So many that it they clog the HOT lanes and no revenue is generated.

    How long do you think that would last?

    Therefore, at some point, the idea that carpools will ride free on the HOT lanes must be a lie.

    The other extreme is that you go far out into the future, when many MORE people are trying to get downtown. Eventually there are enough of them to create carpools that have the same effect.

    Yes, the HOT lane plan is an elaborately crafted lie, designed to extract money from a few to spend on other users, elsewhere. It will do very little for anyone but the operators, and the grubby government hands that will spend the money on patronage. It will not reduce congestion or pollution but increase traffic, and create an incentive for job centers to move.

    The whole point of a demand management system is to create less traffic. This is being sold as a demand management system so that people will believe it results in less traffic. But this is a demand management system that results in More traffic, and therefore it is a lie from another direction.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if you are running 3 times the rpms at 65 mph – you are generating close to 3 times the emissions than at 20 mph.

    so the whole myth.. repeated over and over about free-flowing traffic is wrong…”

    Oh give me a break. This is so wrong it isn’t worth responding to.

    Even if you were right about the RPM’s it’s the emissions per mile that count.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “so the only choice to ADD capacity – which would improve congestion for EVERYONE “

    What happened to the induced traffic argument? I know, it got lost in the lust for all that HOT lane cash flow, paid for by fat cats only.

    Even if the induced traffic argument is wrong, or magically doesn’t apply in this case, this is NOT going to improve congestion for everyone. I practically guarantee it. This is THE BIG LIE when it comes to HOT lanes.

    Out of sight gas prices will improve congestion long before HOT lanes do – with or without additional gas taxes.

    But HOT lanes will do squat for congestion, less than squat, even.

    More lanes or more mass transit are simply NOT an economic solution that will result in less expense, less congestion, less wasted time, shorter commutes, or less pollution. Anyone who wishes to think otherwise is simply kidding themselves.

    Just look around. Compare now to 30 years ago, and ask yourself what the differences are.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Under my plan, if you want someone to make your life easier, then you have to pay them to do it.”

    RH – listen to yourself … you say “if you want someone to do something” but you’re not giving them the choice of paying – you are forcing them to pay… everyone, whether they are willing to or not.

    under your plan you charge everyone for what used to be “free”.

    you say it might be a ‘hard sell” even though you self-pronounce it as “ingenious”.

    ha ha ha..

    wow.. talk about taxing the guy behind the tree….

    so.. one day..you got a guy driving down the road.. putting up with the congestion.. and ZAP.. the next day you give him the same congestion and charge him for it…

    great idea RH….

    … are you sure that you have mixed up the word “ingenious” with a short phrase that says “string up whoever decided to charge EVERYONE tolls”?

    🙂

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wrong, he gets a choice of paying, or if he doesn;t think thats a fair deal, he can go around to the other side of the tabe and get paid. Under your plan he can pay, or go home.

    Say what you like – my edperience is that if you want someone to do something for you, you have to pay them. If they want You to do something for them, they have to pay you. That’s the system we have.

    The other system, is slavery, one way or another. If you don’t like my system….

    On the fuel issue look at the graph on this site:

    http://www.randomuseless.info/318ti/economy.html

    It shows the difference between steady driving and stop and go driving. and it compares the actual test to EPA predictions, which are generally for less mpg in city driving vs highway.

    For this particualr car best mileage is between 30 and 55 mph with max around 40 mph.

    A gallon of gas produces pretty much the same pollution, no matter how fast you burn it, so RPM isn’t (much of) an issue. So, you get more miles with les pollution at higher speeds, provided they aren’t TOO high.

    Everything has a trade off.

    That being the case if you trave ten miles in the city vs ten on an open road, you will create more pollution in the city. You will take longer to run the ten miles so your engine will turn over more total RPMS, and you will use more fuel per mile.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you think one side of a deal is unfair, then you must naturally thingk the ther side is more fair, right?

    Tommy cuts the pie and Johhny gets first pick of the slices. how can you think that isn’t fair?

    I didn’t say people would like it, that it could be sold, or that it was politcally palatable.

    But your argument just shows what lengths some people will go to in order to get someone else to pay for what they want. Even trying to paint it in “User Pays” camoflage.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Are we trying to get someone to do something or are we trying to get someone to stop doing something?

    According to you.. instead of a “No Trespassing” sign, the owner should consider paying folks to not trespass.

    or instead of telling people that there is a fine for parking in the handicap spot, you would proposed paying folks to not park there.

    the problem with your approach is that the money to pay has to come out of someone’s pocket.

    and you essentially advocate that we fund the “I’ll pay you to NOT do something” out of folks pockets who voluntarily will not do it.

    So you actually penalize the folks who are willing to do something without being paid for not doing it.

    Let’s apply your paradigm to peak hour electricity usage.

    how would it work in that circumstance?

  23. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    HOT lanes will work beautifully with one small improvement – there should be no speed limits on the HOT lanes. The American Autobahn. I love it. Now, I am paying not just for less congestion but for the right to drive 120 mph as well. I’d drive to and from Fredricksburg just to give Larry the Bird (pun intended) each day.

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    electronic “birds” are cheaper and faster and you get to make sure that everyone knows that you shared it.

    🙂

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    By no means should my support of HOT lanes leave anyone with the impression that I feel they are the “perfect” solution – by any stretch of the imagination.

    They have numerous issues not the least of which is the possibility of $4 gasoline dramatically changing the economics of them….

    but I do have a question for those who either or opposed to HOT lanes or.. at least skeptical…

    WHERE did the money come from to build HOV lanes?

    Didn’t it come from the same place that other roads came from and that is the gas tax?

    so couldn’t you make the case that taking money from all drivers to build infrastructure than not all drivers can use is… discriminatory?

    so isn’t it MORE fair to build HOT where the folks that actually use HOT lanes pay for it – either by modifying their SOLO-driving behavior or paying cash .. and the folks that then stay in the non-HOT lanes no longer have their gas taxes used for HOV?

    So.. aren’t HOT lanes more fair than HOV lanes?

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No, I think if you want to trespass, you should expect to pay for the privilege.

    In fact, I shouldn’t have to pay to put up no trespassing signs. It ought to be obvious, a given, ordinary common courtesy.

    —————————-

    With regard to handicap spots, we pay extra to create those spots so that people with handicaps can use them. Essentially, we are paying them to use those special spots.

    And we fine anyone who uses them illegally. We do the exact same thing with carpool lanes. We pay extra to create those spots, and we pay people to carpool in them by giving them their own lane. We fine anyone who uses them illegally.

    According to you we all ought to want more people to car pool. In order to get what we want, We tried to make car pooling popular by giving car poolers their own lane.

    It wasnt enough. It was a market failure. it resulted in wasted resources in terms of unused lane capacity. The idea of HOT lanes is to let a few solo drivers buy that “excess” lane capacity.

    But, we know it isn’t really excess, at all. It is just unduerutilized as carpool lanes. We also know that HOT lanes will result in FEWER car pools, which means the “excess” lane capacity will be used up that much faster.

    That’s a bass ackwards mistake. What we still ought to want is more peopl eusing car pools, less pollution, and less traffic in the congested, general purpose lanes.

    So, we had a market failure in car pools because we didn’t make it worthwhile enough to happen. We need to raise the payment schedule for those carpoolers who do work for us, otherwise, they will quit their job.

    Who should make the payment?

    Well, the people in the congested general lanes are the ones that will see the most immediate benefit from car pools, so they should be the ones to pay. Besides that, they are also the ones driving solo, who we would like to discourage.

    We already discourage people who drive solo in the car pool lanes, all we are doing here is extending the idea a little, to correct a market failure. So by discouraging those (many) in the conggested general purpose lanes with a (small) toll. We can collect enough money to make a pretty sizable payment to those who do work for us by creating and operating car pools.

    And, the (additional) people who do that, will probably come out of the genral purpose lanes, reducing traffic there, and reducing it more that the HOT lanes will.

    So, my argument is that if “WE” want people to car pool then “WE” ought to be making the payment. “WE” will get more people to car pool that way than we will by letting people buy their way OUT of carpools by using the HOT lanes.

    The question isn’t whether we want to punish those that do what we don’t want, or incentivize those that do what we want. We already do both of these things.

    The question is whether we want car pools, or whther we really don’t give a crap and we would rather have the money from HOT lanes, even if it means less car pools, more congestion, more pollution, etc.

    The question is whether users should pay for what they want and get, or whether we should put a new tax on roads we already paid for so that we can give the money to transit riders.

    It’s really the same idea, isn’t it? Tax people for doing what we don’t want, riding solo on the highway, so that we can pay people more (lower transit fares, more transit) to do what “we” do want them to do.

    RH

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We’re not penalizing people for driving solo.

    Those who travel solo in the travel lanes are being offered a range of options purely on a voluntary basis.

    One of those options is a quicker, more reliable trip by riding in a multi-passenger vehicle.

    They are not forced to do this nor are they forced to pay someone else to do it.

    It’s entirely optional according to their own needs.

    Your plan would have a lifespan of 3 nanoseconds.. and just like your approach to using huge gas taxes for road funding.. it has virtually no possibility of implementation..

    Your plan .. is strikingly similar to the concept of abuser fees and has a similar snowball-in-hades aura except done by folks immune to elections.

    I think you also do not understand the issue about solo drivers pushing out the carpools….

    First, the concessionaire is limited to a top fixed rate of return.

    That’s why you hear that the excess is planed for VRE and Metro.

    so.. WHO would decide what to do with the excess money?

    Well. the same folks who would limit the number of solo drivers to the amount necessary to give the concessionaire their maximum and whatever else might be spent.

    The point here is that the concessionaire will not be making that decision but instead VDOT and the State will – and in turn.. subject to voting citizens at election time – unlike your plan which basically requires unelected folks to force it down folks throats with no recourse.

    A target will be set for carpools and that target will be maintained by raising the tolls for solo cars higher and higher until if you want to ride in the HOT lanes.. it will be cheaper and easier (and more reliable) in a multi-passenger vehicle.

    and what you will find.. is that some folks who want to use the HOT lanes will SHIFT their hours so they can get on and off for a cheaper rate.

    not everyone will do the same thing every day… it will vary according to their needs.

    sometimes a non-solo driver will solo drive.. for an important meeting..or to get to the airport or just to get off early for a dental…, etc..

    Folks will also set meetings, flight times and dental appointment so as to take advantage of cheaper tolls…

    The number of different ways that folks will choose is myriad because what you’re doing is letting them choose.. rather than what you are proposing which is a one-size fits all.. tax everyone no matter what.

    make that one nano-second…

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Those who travel solo in the travel lanes are being offered a range of options purely on a voluntary basis.”

    Sure, they can pay the gas tax and the “congestion” tax, or the gas tax and the “avoid congestion” tax. Some “option”

    How about an option that says you can pay a tax to drive alone or recieve a payment for driving a car pool? Now there’s a real option.

    The people who opt to operate car pools are not forced to: they are offered a payment which they can turn down.

    Why give the concessionaire ANYTHING if we can achieve a better result without him?

    ——————————

    “A target will be set for carpools”

    And that target willl be less than the number the lane could carry. Why not set the target to be 100% of what the lane can carry in car pools,and make that the goal instead of maximising first the concessioners return, and then the Metro riders return?

    ——————————

    “WHO would decide what to do with the excess money?”

    Well, now there’s a problem, isn;t it?

    If this was really a user pays system, they would only pay what they cost and THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY “EXTRA” MONEY.

    The extra money is a new tax. A subsidy to Metro Riders. It is all the unfair things you hate about road funding.

    But, if you at least call it what it is, you will at least have a truthful argument, instead of a bunch of false (and wrong) free market blather about all the good things HOT lanes will do.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think you do this with Toll road points, just as you suggested originlly. You ride solo, you pay points, you ride carpool, you get points.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “How about an option that says you can pay a tax to drive alone or recieve a payment for driving a car pool? Now there’s a real option.”

    no it’s not.

    Your plan REQUIRES taking money from people to fund the program.

    Your plan results in higher and higher taxes on people regardless of their driving habits…

    it’s classic command&control.. tax&spend…

    it’s the very definition of the government taking from one group and giving to another…

    rather than providing supply and demand market options to everyone to choose to spend or not spend their own money for what they want rather than the government taking their money to give to others.

    Your plan.. say using on cell phones..

    you’d penalize ALL cell phone users so that others would be paid to not use peak minutes…

    as opposed to letting the folks who want peak minutes pay for them and letting others who don’t want to use peak minutes enjoy lower costs.

    You keep talking about forcing folks to carpool…

    they are not forced to carpool.

    They are, in fact, doing the same thing when you go buy peppers in Walmart.

    If you like the price – you buy the peppers.

    If you don’t then you skip peppers in your salad.. unless of course you really, really like peppers and you’ll pay extra for them and not get the radishes instead.

    and that is exactly how road pricing works…

    you let the consumer decide what they want and how much they want to pay for it…

    rather than telling WalMart that everyone must pay enough to keep the price of peppers from getting too high.

    I’m not particularly surprised because you also favor subsidies in general.. which is taking money from everyone . involuntarily to give to those who enjoy the subsidy…

    so.. your ideas are basically consistent even if you won’t fess up to it…

  31. Danny L. Newton Avatar
    Danny L. Newton

    I don’t think that more money will solve any problem in transportation. To buttress this opinion, I turn to an annual study of highly department efficiency that simply measures the effectiveness of highway departments on the basis of federal data, some of which is used in redistributing federal money to the states. One of the best highway departments in the country is South Carolina. This little state is, for all practical purposes a perpetual donor state. It lost out during the years of Interstate construction and even after the rules or redistribution were changed to VMT, lane mile and population related performance standards is still losing out on the possibility of getting all of its gas tax money back. This state by state study can be downloaded at the Reason.org web site.
    More money for transportation is somewhat like giving a drunk more money to purchase more expensive booze as a therapy for his chronic condition. The problem lies in the definition of transportation need. The purpose of a road is land access. If you push that definition to mean land access at a minimum of inconvenience or for possible future economic development “needs”, the costs begin to get exponential. Not all land is optimum for the purpose of building roads. We have become quite adept at building anywhere but are ethically retarded on the subject of where should we build.

    The ethical frontiers are clearly in the area of fairness to the taxpayer. Most states redistribute road money on the basis of area and population. This mechanism puts a burden on urban areas even though they are the most efficient users of asphalt. The federal government got rid of area population redistribution and replaced it with performance based redistribution but the establishment of Equity Bonus provisions undermined performance standards. On the state level, I don’t know of any state that uses performance based factors to distribute transportation funds. South Carolina tried to do that but dove into their transportation funds shortly after Hurricane Hugo. Then the economic development crowd demanded a “fair” share of economic development money every year. The damage to the objective system is coming home to roost now.

    An objective system of distribution is too predictable and makes politicians less valuable to the whole process. The reason we have problems with transportation spending is because too many people or groups can receive transportation largess expense of others. The system of income distribution, if focused on making people pay for what they take and not making others pay for what they take would go a long way to fixing the problems that we all have .

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The problem lies in the definition of transportation need. The purpose of a road is land access. If you push that definition to mean land access at a minimum of inconvenience or for possible future economic development “needs”, the costs begin to get exponential.”

    you’ve done such an excellent job of characterizing the issue..

    .. but the essence of the above is that land development is made profitable by providing “free” roads or for that matter “free” rail.

    .. and we make the same mistakes over and over…

    .. because mobility is said to be vital for commercial…

    .. ANY kind of transportation investment.. meets this definition no matter the cost or cost-effectiveness …

    Toll Roads/HOT lanes.. inject cost-effectiveness into the “personal” equation.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “rather than providing supply and demand market options to everyone”

    Larry, we already went around on that, and you lost. There is NOTHING free market about the HOT lane concept.

    ——————————-

    it’s the very definition of the government taking from one group and giving to another…

    Government does that all the time. that’s what they did when they created HOV lanes: they took money from everyone, and made the product available only to those that played by the government rules – at their own expense.

    My plan simply recognizes that that expense is too high for most people to play and moves to adjsut the price appropriately.

    Previously solo drivers were paying for HOV lanes and getting little benefit. Under my plan they would pay slightly more, but the benefit would be guaranteed.

    I really don’t see much difference here. I’m not talking about forcing people to carpool, I’m talking about adjusting the price of peppers until they sell.

    ———————————

    “and that is exactly how road pricing works…”

    Not true, it’s an outright fabrication because

    “you let the consumer decide what they want and how much they want to pay for it…’

    Isn’t going to happen. At any price. There is a limited supply, which will be used up, and thene there won’t be any more supply in that location.

    It is not a free market.

    RH

  34. Steve Rossie Avatar
    Steve Rossie

    Norm – Thanks for the mention. We’ve had a lot of fun with the idea. Several legislators I’ve talked to actually like the idea. Whether it’s a matter of conversational fascination or actual legislative interest, I don’t know. But certainly something for the G.A. to think about. Also glad to see it generate so much discussion here (although most of it well diverted from the original proposal).

  35. Casino Junkie Avatar
    Casino Junkie

    Gambling can be consider also. Gambling can help generate big amount of money out from its tax to sustain the needs for education and road.

Leave a Reply

Read More