If quoted correctly, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine made a most perspicacious remark in a speech he delivered yesterday at the University of Richmond. If only his actions conformed with the principle he articulated!
Richmond.com quotes him as follows:
At the end of the day, this transportation issue on the dollar side will just come down to two philosophies. … One, should we find new revenues from transportation users to pay for improvements, or two, should we take money out of existing general fund priorities to pay for transportation?
Should transportation users pay for transportation improvements?
Yes, that’s the question. Although Kaine’s quote is pithy, it does oversimplify somewhat. I would clarify the choice as follows:
One, should we set up a system in which those who benefit from transportation spending — both citizens and landowners — pay in direct proportion to which they use, or benefit from, the system? Or, two, should we tax people regardless of how much they drive or when/where they drive, send the money to Richmond, stir it up in a big pot, and give it to politicians and lobbyists to dole out around the state?
My formulation accounts for the fact that landowners are among the primary beneficiaries of transportation improvements and should pay, either through proffers, impact fees, CDA bonds or some other mechanism, some share of the cost of building new roads.
Kaine’s rhetoric does highlight the weakness of the House of Delegates position on transportation spending. Although the House leadership favors tolls, a true user-pays system, delegates also would finance general transportation improvements out of the General Fund — the antithesis of a user-pays system. Doling out General Fund monies has proven itself just as susceptible to political manipulation as doling out Transportation Trust Fund monies — witness the multi-million dollar bail-out of the Richmond region’s Rt. 288 a couple of years ago.
My discomfort with Kaine’s quote is that his policies don’t reflect what he says. He would raise $1 billion a year mainly by taxing auto insurance fees, car titling fees and auto registration fees. In other words, he would tax people for owning a car, regardless of whether they drove it 6,000 miles a year or 60,000, regardless of whether they drove through empty country roads or hyper-congested rush hour freeways.
Would Gov. Kaine raise the gas tax? Noooo. Does he advocate a tax based on Vehicle Miles Driven? Noooo. Does he support congestion tolls? If so, he’s kept pretty darn quiet about it. Bottom line: There must be a rational nexus between the use of the transportation system and the payment for the system — a nexus that is transparent and understandable so the citizenry can respond rationally and change transportation modes as appropriate.