Gas Taxes for Everyone

There’s been talk locally about raising taxes on this, that and the other in order to generate more money for road construction. In the mix is a gas tax hike. While there may be some merit to this, particularly in lieu of those silly abuser fees, it’s important to keep in mind that Virginia pols aren’t the only ones looking at increasing the gas tax:

A congressionally mandated panel yesterday recommended more than doubling the tax, which since 1993 has been set at 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel, over five years to boost funding for transportation projects. The panel of public and private experts is hoping that states also will opt for big gas-tax increases.

The panel’s vision would take the U.S. down a more European path, with higher gas taxes and greater investment in high-speed rail and other modes of transportation.

“Nobody likes saying we’ve got to raise taxes,” said Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi, who is on the 12-member panel. “But there’s no way we’re going to get there without the gas-tax increase … The country has to come to grips with this.”

(Wisconsin, by the way, has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation.)

That’s not to say that these recommendations are universally welcomed. A minority of the panel, led by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, argues that:

…the federal role in funding transportation, which is determined by Congress and laden with special-interest projects, is too flawed to warrant expansion. Instead, they suggest, the federal role should shrink and states should rely on toll increases and private investment to supplement the funds they get from gas taxes.

“There is nothing to indicate that Washington would do a better job spending billions more of the taxpayers’ money than it has so far,” Ms. Peters said yesterday. “The answer isn’t more taxes…it is having the courage to say the current system is broken and it is time to find a better way to invest in, manage and operate our transportation system.”

Sounds like Jim Bacon, no?

But there is some evidence that Congress might not be a wise steward of any additional gas tax money. Not long after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis last summer that spurred congressional interest in infrastructure needs, Sen. Tom Coburn put forward a series of amendments to the transportation bill that would have diverted earmarked monies to repair work.

The amendments all failed.

Where the federal debate goes is any one’s guess. It is unlikely, given the current high price of gasoline and the teetering economy, that a gas tax hike will pass in the near future (and that goes double in an election year). But the groundwork has been laid, the first shot fired, etc., etc.

The Solons here in Richmond would be well advised to pay attention to what their federal cousins are up to.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Let’s eliminate 100% of the federal transportation earmarks and their equivalent in Virginia through the CTB. Run the system for a couple of years and then see where we need revenue.

    Arlington and Fairfax County are going to spend mega-millions on a trolley line to spur urban development (Columbia Pike). Loudoun County is spending $1.5 on speed bumps in Aldie. Then, of course, there is the multi-billion Silver Line boondoggle.

    Stop using transportation money to enrich favored landowners. Spend it only on projects to move goods and people efficiently and effectively.

    Put the appropriations lobbyists in the unemployment line before we raise taxes.

    TMT

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think that like Peter said.. the dance has not yet begun.. but the invitations delivered…

    This transportation panel has been meeting and discussing for some time – 2 years I believe…

    First, their recommendation is split with some strong dissent.

    Second, they probably had no way of knowing that oil would top $100 and the economy heading south.. when they were putting together their final recommendation for release – being the govmint and all. .these things take time…

    So it appears that they have spectacularly bad timing… for their recommendation… not even counting the upcoming election..

    .. so .. time for a realty check… how many of Virginia’s Congress guys (and gals) do we think would openly support an increase in gas taxes?

    Gilmore? Warner?

    Is there any reason to believe that the same won’t be the case in most other states?

    Anyhow.. let’s pretend that it survives the snowball in hades challenge and actually gets passed…

    probably will be phased in so not 40 cents in one swell foop…

    might take YEARS for any new money to actually show up…in Virginia and if VDOT is in charge of it.. another decade to move dirt for a given project..

    so.. take a deep breath..

    One thing is for sure.. if you are a person driving 60 miles a day…things are not looking good…

    we’ll be lucky to escape $200 oil as long as trigger-finger Dubya an dead-eye Dick are are at the helm.. then tolls approaching $10-15 (some say a buck a mile is possible) one way.. starting in 2013…or sooner…

    where is the “tipping point” that causes that Fundamental Change that EMR keeps warning us about?

    was it $4 a gallon fuel.. or was it $5?

    But WAIT.. it sez here that GM is going to bring a plug-in that also burns ethanol to market in 2010…
    (and we know they wouldn’t lie about something like that.. right?)

    … the electricity said to cost the equivalent of a buck a gallon..
    .. oops.. it’ll be Dominion guaranteed ROI Power.,.so maybe $2 a gallon…

    but then again.. who would dare predict what the Dems might actually do if they get into office.. or for that matter the R’s…

    the best advice might be to “buckle up” and hold on for the ride…

    might be a really good time to get really fabulous deals on SUVs though…

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    There’s a buncha SUV’s and trcks sitting at the end of farm lanes in Loudoun.

    If the trucks are for sale, how long before the farms are for sale?

    RH

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar

    You’re right, Norm, Mary Peters does sound like me… or, in all due modesty, perhaps I should say that I sound like the Secretary of Transportation: The system is broke, and it’s getting more broken with time. Congressmen are treating federal gas tax revenues as a giant source of funding for earmarks. The federal gas tax was put into place to fund construction of the Interstate highway system. Now that that system has been constructed, it’s fast becoming a fund for financing political patronage.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If the trucks are for sale, how long before the farms are for sale?

    you mean someone who has an SUV and decides to trade it for a more fuel-efficient vehicle is going to lose their farm?

    heckfire.. I had no idea…

    RH .. it sounds like that sometimes you feel that ANY …CHANGE is the beginning of the end…

    Change HAPPENS… I know.. it’s a radical concept.. 🙂

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “The system is broke, and it’s getting more broken with time. Congressmen are treating federal gas tax revenues as a giant source of funding for earmarks.”

    not only at the Federal level.. pervasive…

    “NoVa business groups call for more transportation funds”

    Some of Northern Virginia’s largest business groups have assembled to urge the state’s lawmakers to approve more transportation funds during the current legislative session in Richmond.

    In 2007, the general assembly created special taxing districts in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to raise more money for infrastructure, and through that, Northern Virginia is expected to garner up to $400 million annually for the region.

    To keep pressure on elected officials, 18 business organizations have formed a coalition, drafted a resolution and sent it to Richmond, asking the general assembly to divert more money toward transportation this year.

    The resolution thanks lawmakers for passing HB 3202, which created the taxing districts, but it also says Virginia’s unfunded transportation needs still total “tens of billions of dollars.” New funding is required, for example, to address increased maintenance needs that divert more than $250 million per years from the state’s construction budget, the resolution says.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/01/14/daily33.html

    Note.. that they don’t even bother to list their priority projects or show how those projects will not be funded by their new Transportation Authority.

    No.. this is a blatant appeal for more money.. AND they’re making a point .. that NoVa will not be satisfied with having the ability to fund and prioritize their own region’s needs…

    They are perpetuating an mindset that amazes me and that is .. that even NoVa folks BELIEVE that the “STATE” can deliver them more money apparently from taxes collected outside of NoVa.

    and down in HR/TW, bills have been put in the hopper at the GA to do away with their Authority…

    … and go back to the STATE funding roads…

    It’s not balkanization to recognize that for a given locality to expect more money in road funds than they actually generate in local gas tax requires someone else – outside that area to have their taxes diverted from their area…

    What each locality should expect – is basically what they actually generate..

    The TAs allow localities to band together to coordinate and fund regional roads… with a separate tax stream…

    the whole idea of a general gas tax encourages some folks to believe that “somehow”, the state will collect MORE money than the tax actually generates.. and/or their locality will get “more” from the state than their area will actually generate…

    So.. VDOT .. dutifully builds a wish list of all the projects that each locality wants – with virtually no hope of funding… they do this just to shut the locality up.. and leave them alone.

    so.. let’s not totally blame the Feds and the earmark environment.. it’s actually demanded by many localities…

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I need to get another branch of the Feds .. some credit…

    MPOs – Metropolitan Policy Organizations – the Fed equivalent of Transportation Authorities…

    mandates REGIONS to produce and maintain a FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED list of construction projects.

    It’s a hard requirement.

    Finally Constrained means what it says. No project can be on the “build” list unless specific funding has been identified for it.

    They cannot say.. “if we raise the gas tax”. They can only use guaranteed revenues.

    So this concept really upsets some localities.. and they do two things in response.

    1. first… they don’t update their lists annually to reflect the increased costs due to inflation.

    2. second.. they maintain “off the books” lists of wish list projects that they want to fund “if they find the money”…again to satisfy local proponents …

    We have the same problem with roads that we have with education …

    and that is.. that despite BILLIONS of dollars… both of them want more money.. rather than to prioritize their funds by cost-effectiveness….

    we need to decide on a formula for PER CAPITA funding … as the standard… and would suggest that we start with a simple recognition that most folks spend about $250 a year on fuel taxes.

    that $250 should be the standard for what any locality should expect in the way of road funds.

    and folks.. this does not count the 1/2% on our sales tax – which should go to VDOT to maintain the interstates and primaries.

    Each Region should have it’s own separate funding sources and again.. be limited to what those revenues will produce..

    People really do have this dumb idea that money just magically comes from the State… and until we bring some realities into the public consciousness.. it will continue…

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “RH .. it sounds like that sometimes you feel that ANY …CHANGE is the beginning of the end…”

    You misread the intent of my comment and observation, I was just thinking out loud, with no particular conclusion reached. I was merely observing that you are correct in thinking this is a good time to buy a truck. Surely I have no problem with people using more fuel efficient vehicles. I have heavy trucks, but I only use them for heavy lifting.

    The trucks I see for sale are of the sort some people use for hauling horse trailers. I don’t see much room for more fuel efficient vehicles in that market, although Chevy does have a nice hybrid truck I wish I could afford. Maybe they will downsize to Shetland Ponies.

    There are quite a few farms for sale on that stretch, too. I see for sale signs now in places I have never seen them before. Including one huge farm that was allegedly bought by an environmentally minded owner to keep it in one piece. That lasted about two years, and now it is being sold as estate parcels.

    My thinking is that if fuel prices are enough to have them dump those vehicles, and if that means it is harder or more expensive to pursue their hobbies, then it may not be long before the farm looks like a white elephant too.

    Which raises the question of who would buy the farms, for what, and at what price. Those places are supported by heavy vehicles, and the hobbies they represent bring huge bucks to the county (which the county then spends on the populated areas).

    In short, if the trucks are for sale, then what happens to the jobs the trucks used to do? Of course, there are people who wastefully ride around in trucks when they don’t need to.

    People really do have this dumb idea that money (and other benefits) just magically comes from the Big Wealthy Farms… and until we bring some realities into the public consciousness.. it will continue…

    —————————

    I think you are right about the VDOT wish list. It is a sham.

    —————————

    “despite BILLIONS of dollars… both of them want more money.. rather than to prioritize their funds by cost-effectiveness….”

    I agree, but first we need to understand – and agree – on what the rules ought to be for objectively measuring cost effectiveness. Right now we do it suubjectively, emotionally, and politically. We are spending our enrgy on the wrong arguments.

    —————————–

    Gee, I think I spend a lot less than $250 a year on fuel taxes (for my cars). The trucks and tractors are a different story.

    ————————–

    RH

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”now it is being sold as estate parcels.”

    I thought your BOS did not allow that type of thing….

    “In short, if the trucks are for sale, then what happens to the jobs the trucks used to do?”

    well… people still need plumbing repairs, propane deliveries, kids transported to school so a more frugal economy will tend to squeeze out less productive parts of something but not do away with the something itself…

    what I was referring to though was SOLO-driven SUVs at rush hour… and that is where folks DO have choices… about being more efficient… or not..

    “People really do have this dumb idea that money (and other benefits) just magically comes from the Big Wealthy Farms… and until we bring some realities into the public consciousness.. it will continue…”

    I don’t think too many people believe that farms produce the majority of revenues.. to the contrary.. most folks think farms are subsidized…

    “I agree, but first we need to understand – and agree – on what the rules ought to be for objectively measuring cost effectiveness.”

    I’m actually willing to leave that to the folks who are professionals as long as they provide taxpayers with their criteria/rationale for review/comment. Called transparency.

    “Gee, I think I spend a lot less than $250 a year on fuel taxes”

    I was doing back-of-the-envelope… 15,000 miles a year, 20mpg, 36 cents per gallon (I included the Fed Tax).

    the actual number is closer to $400 if you include the 1/2% on the sales tax.

    but my essential point is that none of us should expect back MORE on a per-capita locality/regional basis than what we put into it…

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    Thats only on my commuter car:

    13000 miles a year at 45 mpg. And I was only counting state tax.

    The tractors pay road tax, but theoretically I get that back. Between them and the trucks it’s a lot more than $250 a year, but they don’t add much to congeston.

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    “I don’t think too many people believe that farms produce the majority of revenues.. to the contrary.. most folks think farms are subsidized…”

    Most people think that, and they are mostly wrong.

    Some farms are highly subsidized, as far as their products go: a small minority at that.

    But even they, and sometimes especially they, are subsidizing the residential and urban areas. This is because moneyes come from farm land that requires very little in services, and even more from farm infrastructure that gets taxed the same as your home.

    When you see one of those fancy horse barns or milking parlour or any other structure, it gets taxed the same as your home.

    It is why PEC and AFT make the claim “we have to keep these farms because they keep our taxes low” (unless, of course, you are the one owning the farm).

    You wouldn’t mind so much if there were any rural or agricultural services available for what you pay. Like you say, it would be nice to know when your turn on the spendind schdule would come up: we already know when our turn on the paying schedule is.

    It’s every day.

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    “but my essential point is that none of us should expect back MORE on a per-capita locality/regional basis than what we put into it…”

    And I don’t think that is necessarily correct, or desirable.
    Some times a region needs more than it can reasonably do. Wilson bridge and Springfield interchange, for example: they are not even regional problems, they are national problems.

    But, as you say, you hate to play “All Sit Down” when there are NEVER any chairs. You would like to know that you will be on the recieving end some day, or at least that you get some other benefit because of what was done.

    If I’m paying $20 a month towards somebody’s pet project, but then that project rases so much new money that the state dowsn’t have to raise my bill, again, the maybe its a good deal, its just not transparent.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Th gas tax might get more real if the Feds reject Rail to Dulles.

    See today’s WAPO.

    I guess they don’t want that transfer of wealth – you know, one region getting more money than they can afford by themselves.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    Americans bought more Toyota Prius hybrid gas-electric hatchbacks last year than Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicles, the top-selling SUV for more than a decade.

    The change of fortune, buried in U.S. vehicle-sales data for 2007 and unthinkable a few years ago, will find an echo at this year’s Detroit auto show, which starts Sunday.

    While Americans’ love for powerful gas guzzlers remains strong, a slowing economy and high gasoline prices are forcing buyers to lower their sights.

    Some basic microeconomics:

    Automobiles and gasoline are complementary goods. The increase in gas prices reduces the demand for SUVs and increases the demand for hybrids. This illustrates one of the subtles of the demand rules, gasoline and hybrids aren’t substitutes as their price/demand relationship suggests. This ain’t physics, the laws are meant to be broken.

    When income (i.e., GDP) increases (decreases) the demand for normal goods rises (falls).

    When income (i.e., GDP) increases (decreases) the demand for inferior goods falls (rises).

    The statistics above suggests that a slowing economy, a decrease in income, is partially causing the increase in demand for hybrids. This implies that hybrids are inferior goods.

    From “Environmental Economics”

    At least it explains why I drive a Hybrid.

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Call me black and white but I think its very simple.

    Raise the Gas Tax. But peg all new revenue to maintenance of existing roadways or bike/pedestrian and transit projects. Try to equate the price of gas to reflect the true cost of driving. with pollution etc.

    OR

    Create a mileage tax based on the weight of a vehicle and vmt per year in va.

    Money should focus on complete streets in urban areas.

    Any other use of new $ is a sprawl inducing boondoggle.

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    “Try to equate the price of gas to reflect the true cost of driving. with pollution etc.”

    A lot of people think this way, but it is just wrong headed.

    The gas tax was never meant to pay for one hundred percent of costs. We pay for roads with many other sources because there are beneficiaries other than those who drive on the roads. As it stands, (and most people won’t believe this) the true estimate including all externailzed costs is that autos pay a higher percentage of their full costs than other modes of transport.

    A much higher percentage. If the argument is that transportation should pay its full costs through user fees, then Metro fees would need to go up ANOTHER 50% just to get parity with autos.

    Why would you first claim that autos are not paying their full costs and then turn around and argue that they should pay more – and have the money diverted to other modes? That is crazy thinking.

    That said, the gas tax is still probably too low.

    By saying that any other spending is a sprawl inducing boondoggle I assume you mean only existing urban streets are worth paying for.

    I would suggest that the state wants to spend its money in a way the generates the best ROI. Where will we put the money such that it will generate new commerce that allows the state to collect more money? Or, How can we spend this money to avoid the highest amount of future costs?

    It MIGHT be that urban streets are a good place to spend the money we now have,in order to generate new money later.

    I just don’t see any evidence or proof of that idea lying around.

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I would suggest that the state wants to spend its money in a way the generates the best ROI.”

    I would suggest that putting the words ROI and Government in the same sentence is the ultimate oxymoron.

    You say that the rationale for having everyone pay for roads whether they drive or not is because they benefit.

    Does that philosophy extend to those who are harmed by excessive pollution – the young, the old and those with compromised immune systems?

    If you let them decide to have their taxes go for projects that would further endanger them do you think they would still agree?

    Here’s a big hint.

    MORE SOV SUVs driving at rush hour do NOT BENEFIT anyone other than the person driving.

    Doing so causes more congestion, and more pollution that harms those affected by pollution.

    That’s what’s wrong with claiming that ANY driving of any kind – including SOLO rush hour driving, benefits everyone no matter what so therefore we should tax everyone to enable even more of it…

    well.. call me a skeptic…

    and claiming that this is a legitimate way of computing ROI…

    gives me the grins….

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    “I would suggest that putting the words ROI and Government in the same sentence is the ultimate oxymoron.”

    If it is, it shoudn’t be. And if it is, whose fault is that? It is our fault.

    The Governments role is to protect and enhance the lives and property of its people, which is how the government grows its revenues, which enhance its ability to help the people.

    If the government isn’t doing that we should fire them.

    —————————-

    “You say that the rationale for having everyone pay for roads whether they drive or not is because they benefit.

    Does that philosophy extend to those who are harmed by excessive pollution – the young, the old and those with compromised immune systems?”

    We went through this before. Yes, harm counts as negative benefits. You have to count them all, positive and negative (within a reasonable system boundary). You count the costs of pollution, and the costs of preventing pollution on the same scale.

    It means you have to agree on a way to measure life and death harm. It isn’t so hard, there are many ways to do it, FDA does it all the time. But, it is politically unpopular: by claiming an infinite value for some things, we can swing the spending argument “in our favor”.

    But THAT is the ultimate oxymoron. To rig a calculation to gain a certain political advantage is guaranteed to not work in your favor. It sets up a situation where we pay extra to get less protection and less benefit, and less overall welfare. It means we have waste, for which we blame the government.

    ——————————

    Since the government is a political entity instead of a rational one, we get the results you see – bad ROI.

    The way around it is to demand more clarity, more transparency, and better property rights (As in “The environment is a shared resource: we all own it.”)

    I know you don’t get it, but that’s the way it is. The most polluted places are the places with the worst property rights.

    —————————-

    “MORE SOV SUVs driving at rush hour do NOT BENEFIT anyone other than the person driving.”

    This is simply not true. People who build, sell and service SUV’s benefit, for example. Some people survive crashes in an SUV that might have killed them in a mini, or a van pool, or a bus without seat belts, or even a train without seats.

    It might be true (and probably is) that the NET total social benefits are negative, but we just don’t know because we can’t agree on how to measure them. If we had an accurate answer it might not agree with our political expectations and demands.

    You have made your assumption up front, so you are unlikely to be deterred by any argument. You are not even willing to admit or define a limit beyond which you would change your mind.

    That’s the problem with starting with the assumption “They have no right…” as opposed to “We all own the environment as a shared resource.”

    I dont have any problem with working to protect the environment. I’m an old guy with a compromised immune system myself. I just think that society does itself harm when (and if) it overpays for the product. When we start off with the assumption that it is impossible to overpay, then that’s a problem – a political problem, not a rational one.

    Like you say, it gives us a lousy ROI.

    RH

Leave a Reply