Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Volt: Another Nail in the Coffin of the Gasoline Tax

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

General Motors soon will roll out an interesting variant on the hybrid car, the Volt, which runs on electricity and employs a small motor to recharge its electric battery, reports USA Today. GM says that the small, sporty car can run up to 40 miles on the on-board electric battery. The battery can be recharged in six hours — either at home at night, presumably, or in a specially equipped parking place.

It’s not clear from the article how far the car can run on the battery and gas-powered engine, but it’s clearly a lot farther than conventional electric cars. Although the article is silent on the point, I surmise that the Volt will be cheaper to fuel than hybrid vehicles because electricity, which is roughly one third the cost of gasoline, would be the dominant fuel.

The Volt is just another example of how the automobile industry is serious about bridging the gap between gasoline-powered and electric-powered vehicles. The car will go into production in 2010, with an SUV version in 2011.

Within a decade, I predict, a majority of new cars sold will be one variation or another of hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles. That’s wonderful news for anyone who values energy independence and cleaner air. But it’s bad news for the gasoline tax. As more and more people shift to electric power for their automobiles, the burden of paying for roadway maintenance and construction will fall on an ever-smaller number of drivers. Revenues will decline precipitously, sparking a road funding crisis.

Virginia needs to start planning now for a migration from the gasoline tax to a Vehicle Miles Driven user fee. The shift is all but inevitable. The failure to plan for it is unforgivable.

(Hat tip: Larry Gross)

(Photo credit: GM-volt.com)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

39 responses to “Volt: Another Nail in the Coffin of the Gasoline Tax”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s not clear from the article how far the car can run on the battery and gas-powered engine, but it’s clearly a lot farther than conventional electric cars.”

    A large part of the inefficiency of gas or IC engines is that they need surge power for acceleration and they run when the car is not moving.

    A small gas engine running at optimum RPM can provide the baseline power, and charge the batteries during times when an ordinary engine is idling or underworked. This provides major improvement in efficiency of the engine. The batteries provide surge power for acceleration and draw down power for when the output requirements exceed the amount the engine is supplying to the batteries: high speed freeway driving or mountains.

    I think hybrids are the wave of the future. The ratio of engine to electric motor power may adjust over time, and may be different for heavy vehicles vs light. I don’t think that something that relies on a 6 hour charge cycle alone is going to cut the mustard any time soon.

    The mileage tax remains a dumb idea, in my opinion. Better to just keep the tax related to the fuel used. The operational idea is to tax cash flow and not property, in this case property is the mileage you buy with your cash flow. The more you need, the greater weight you carry, the more you pay. You could do the same with a mileage tax, possibly, but the transaction costs (and opportunity for fraud) will be high.

    If you have to make major changes in the tax rate, so be it. But, if hybrids really catch on, there is going to be a huge amount of battery recycling, and you can attach the tax there, at the power source, just as we do (partially) now. Or, just tax all fuel, home heating included and gain the conservation benefits everywhere, not just on the road.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And remember, electricity is only “cheaper” because we make it burning coal.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “.”Sharp Corp. of Japan, a major photovoltaic manufacturer, estimate consumers spend as much as $140,000 for conventional power over a lifetime…. By contrast, a $40,000 photovoltaic system can appear cheap.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119145190875348249.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

    In California, a company is building residential solar panels that they lease.

    http://www.sunrunhome.com/index.php

    Here’s what strikes me – the hybrid car nor the photovoltaics are not some sort of future fanciful futuristic wishful thinking.

    They are, in fact, here right now, practical, and.. depending on who you talk to.. cost-effective and actually competitive on an ROI basis over 30 years.

    While we continue to blather on about hydrogen and ethanol (both of which are ruses) and how evil Dominion Power is for building more coal plants and stringing power lines, it appears to me that we have, as individuals, the ability right now to make a personal decision to move away from coal and more power lines.

    No.. coal won’t go away in our lifetimes but it might end up at some point – being the nightime power source….

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    shoot .. here’s the other excerpt from the WSJ article that is relevant to this Blog article:

    “Consumers who can’t afford a full photovoltaic system may also be able to get solar for parts of their home. A San Diego firm called Envision Solar Inc., for instance, says it plans to start selling carports covered with photovoltaic cells to generate power for the home and hybrid cars late next year. The carports are expected to sell for between $5,000 and $8,000. “

    this could the next big thing for bragging rights in the “creative class”..

    A plug-in electric powered by your own solar carport… and HOT lane nirvana because your tolls are paid for by the gasoline you no longer buy.

    it does have a certain cache to it.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s not clear from the article how far the car can run on the battery and gas-powered engine, but it’s clearly a lot farther than conventional electric cars.”

    The Volt can drive until it runs out of gasoline which I believe when I saw it at the auto show was around 250-300 miles, a pretty typical range for any vehicle.

    The all-electric cars that are being produced now are in the low 200 mile range and I believe they are trying to get that closer to 300 miles. The constraint right now is charging time since you need 6-8 hours to charge, which is fine for a commuter, but doesn’t work on longer drives and vacations. There are talks about new car developments that will allow charging in about 10 mins, but that would take special charging stations and technicians to safely handle the current needed to do that. Not to mention I’ve never worked with any battery that can absorb that much electricity.

    The major cost difference that rarely gets mentioned is the huge dropoff in maintenance on an electric vehicle. Since everything is electrically powered motors, there is a huge reduction from the moving parts in an ICE that require maintenance.

    Even with all that I still don’t see EVs and hybrids catching on at anything more than a grassroots level. There are major ingrained special interests that have little desire to see gas sales and ICE sales go down.

    ZS

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hey, I like that solar panel and wind power stuff. Too bad housing associations don’t.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Go see Waldo’s blog for his recent experience installing solar in his new home.

    140,000 over a lifetime would be 388 a month, assuming a 30 year adult lifetime or 4666 a year. If you spend $40k now and avoid 4666 a year it works out to an interest rate of 11%. Not too bad.

    If a $40k system will provide all your power and you never have to buy any from Dominion. If you have the $40k and don’t have to borrow it. And if you have no maintenance on the system for 30 years.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    ..”Too bad housing associations don’t.”

    this is easy… fix the law such that solar panels are exempt from personal property taxes… and those associations will change their tune….

    hey.. for that matter.. forgive the personal property taxes on true hybrids…

    gee.. would something like this be an “incentive” or “social engineering”?

    🙂

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I heard that they are coming out with a hybrid engine for 18-wheelers.

    They currently get 5-8 mpg. The new engine will enable them to get 15-18 mpg.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You know, you might want to insure that $40,000 solar system, which would cut into your return, along with maintenance.

    Then you might have some other investment opportunity for your $40k that returns more than the solar system.

    It is the same problem for the government. If they have some other investment that offers a better return, either in savings or more revenue at the same tax rate, then either and incentive or a subsidy is an exercise in waste and ultimately, more pollution.

    If we allow or encourage the government to believe that the savings from reducing mercury and sulfur is greater than it actually is, and the government issues subsidies or incentives on that basis, then we are encouraging both waste and pollution, and higher than necessary taxes.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anonymous is right. There are already Hybrid buses.

    Imagine. Trucks that use regenerative braking instead of Jake brakes.

    Aaahhh.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Speaking of payment plans, some banks now have a gizmo they attach to your car. If your car payment has not been made, the car won’t start.

    RH

  13. Charles Avatar
    Charles

    The Toyota Prius is the smart engineering result that you get if you start with the idea of a small gas engine to recharge your batteries on the fly.

    Once you’ve put the engine in the car, you might as well hook it to the drive train, and use it’s power when you need it. That way your electric motor is smaller.

    So in fact what Toyota did was put an electric motor system into the car so that they could run the gas engine at fixed speeds which are optimal for fuel consumption.

    And they used the motor to recapture energy when braking.

    The Volt will charge, which gives you an added advantage, with a bigger battery.

    But you could take a prius and throw in a 2nd batter pack, and charge it at night and go 25 miles without running your gas engine.

    People are doing that today, for jsut a few thousand dollars over the cost of the Prius.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Don’t charge me a fee for miles I drive when this state provides very little options for me. I commute a lot. And there really isn’t any option for me other than carpooling.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    the state put a tax on gasoline and used that tax to build new roads and to maintain existing roads.

    As each year went by, more and more roads had been built that then needed to be maintained… which in turn used more and more of the money generated by the gas tax…. until..

    the gas tax money no longer had any left over to build new roads.

    Now… if we want new roads, we have to find a new source of revenue.

    raising the gas tax – at a time when gasoline prices are going up and cars like the Volt are coming onto the market – will actually result in even less gas tax revenues.

    In fact, without indexing for inflation, the double combination of more lane miles to maintain at the same time that road materials are rising faster than the core inflation rate..

    … means big trouble…for the current paradigm’s for roads.

    It’s going to be hard.. to raise the gas tax when more than 60% of voters are opposed to it.

    a rising tide of folks opposed to tolls is also ongoing…

    but one thing is for sure – the option of maintaining the status quo – is … not an option.

    In other words – you must choose A, B, or C (or whatever choices are presented to us).

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s going to be hard.. to raise the gas tax when more than 60% of voters are opposed to it.”

    So we will take a political solution, like the abuser fees. One we think we won’t have to pay for.

    We could lay out the options for A, B, and C and choose rationally.
    Government could help and provide some leadership with clarity, and data.

    Instead, they are running for cover from the special interests. Special interests that specialize in disinformation, on both sides.

    The status quo is not an option, and neither is permanent balance. We need to allow for change.

    Now tell me what the current plan is. HOT lanes. More new roads going to the same overcrowded places. Status quo, anyone?

    What is the other half of the plan? Prevent anyone from building anywhere, preserve everything for eternity, unless they bribe us. With all the amenities we want and won’t pay for. Now there’s a plan.

    Some day, 60% of the voters are going to wake up and understand, that if you take a dollar out of my pocket, it does not matter whether you call it a gas tax or a user fee.

    What matters is whether I get a dollar’s worth of value. 60% of those voters are not going to be in the HOT lanes.

    If government is really good, I might get a dollar ten in value for each dollar they take. Then, and only then, will the common good actually be better off.

    How can I expect that to happen when the government is being whipsawed by special interests, each willing to lie through their teeth to pass dishonest and cynical laws, in order to WIN? Business as Usual, Special Intersts style.

    Let’s face it. The entire strategey of the Gingrich and Rowe era Republican Party was to gain permanent ascendancy.

    The other party has similar goals.

    When did you ever hear someone suggest that voting districts should be selected to be most neutral, so that the system has maximum sensitivity, instead of a balance heavily weighted to one side?

    How can I think that either of them wants what is best for me? Don’t talk to me about social conservatism or liberal populism.

    Show me the money. Give me a schedule, a plan, and a budget. Show me where the money is coming from, where it is going to and how everyone, including my enemies and those where the money is coming from, are better off as a result.

    Most important, tell me how you will know if the plan has gone wrong, when you are willing to scrap it and try try something else. Give me metrics we can reach.

    Just don’t give me Pablum.

    Then maybe I’ll start to believe that you are not another self serving, conniving, power hungry, thief: of whichever cloth.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Charles is right. Exactly.

    Now, why didn’t Prius do that up front?

    They did a marketing study to see what worked best for the most people, and what they would pay for.

    I hate to think what that battery pack and installation costs, just for 25 miles per charge. Especially since the electric motor was not designed for those loads.

    You could put in a bigger electric motor, to run the engine less. But then you would need bigger batteries and a bigger engine to charge them.

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”….. HOT lanes. More new roads going to the same overcrowded places. Status quo, anyone?”
    …
    Some day, 60% of the voters are going to wake up and understand, that if you take a dollar out of my pocket, it does not matter whether you call it a gas tax or a user fee.”

    I would posit, that it DOES matter to most people and that 60% DO understand the difference between a tax on everyone and a voluntary fee for service.

    There is not a single state that actually believes that raising the gas tax will raise money for new roads even if politicians were were to commit political suicide in doing so.

    Most states do not think it is a realistic nor sustainable approach for the future.

    With HOT lanes, no one takes anything out of your pocket.

    It is a purely voluntary, explicit quid-pro-quo transaction – a fee for service no different than most folks decision to pay for a cell phone with limited minutes (vice unlimited minutes).

    In your worldview, apparently the more “fair” way would be to tax everyone and then everyone would be entitled to cellphones unlimited minutes – and we all know what would happen to the cell phone network if we did this.

    We need roads to work like cell phone minutes. You pay for what you use and not for what others use.

    It’s a much more fair and equitable approach.

    HOT lanes will:

    1. – offer people a voluntary alternative – for those that choose to use it.

    2. – no one is forced to pay for something they do not want to use.

    3. – will divert traffic from the non-tolled lanes – resulting in benefits to those that don’t pay.

    4. – provide a “free”, more reliable, less congested trip for those willing to carpool or take public/private transit

    5. – generate new revenues to improve transportation infrastructure for ALL users whether they choose to pay tolls or not.

    how about putting something on the table.. rather than .. the same-old same-old… raise taxes on everyone argument?

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”What matters is whether I get a dollar’s worth of value.”

    I would posit that – what “matters” is that you and I as individuals can decide for ourselves what is value to us individually.

    as opposed to either of us deciding what is of value and forcing the other fellow to pay for something he may not think is the same value as you do.

    .. but you don’t get to decide for the other guy nor for everyone else.

    .. and that is essentially what you are advocating… that.. what you think is of value – be made universal through taxing everyone for it.

    .. as opposed to letting everyone decide what is value to them…and by letting the marketplace offer them options.

    taxes on everyone for roads – imposes on everyone a particular value system that is not voluntary.

    HOT lanes are the opposite.

    HOT/HOV/TOLL lanes offer each individual – choices – and a voluntary right to decide what is valuable to them.

    You advocate .. essentially to NOT give people a choice but instead force everyone to pay and then have someone else decide what is of value to all of us whether we agree or not.

    For instance, you may live in Loudoun.. and having your tax money go for Springfield is diverting your taxes away from where you’d like to see improvements made and to somewhere else that does not benefit you.

    HOT/TOLL lanes let YOU decide where road improvements will be made.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Was it Illinois where the brdge fell down? They raised gas tax. And I think, so did Michigan and Ohio. Georgia, and all of Europe have higher gas taxes than ours.

    What I advocate is doing things cost effectively. Sometimes splitting the check is more cost effective than the transaction costs associated with an infinite number of fees.

    Someone is going to have to decide what is of value, and it is going to happen at many different levels. We may not feel that the guy drivng his SUV solo is a good value, but we don’t have all the facts. EMR has made his justifications, and whatever they are, he is happy with them.

    They make their choices based on their frame of reference, which we do not need to be privy to. Public officials make decisions too. But for these I think they should have an adequate financial case, and make it public. The case can be refined with public and special interest inputs, but the ground rules need to be consistent.

    So yes, there are different levels of pots of money, and the decisions on how to spend them are different. My money, I can spend according to my cost benefit analysis. But once I send it to the state, then they have the same obligation, at the state level.

    I would submit, that in the past, the state has spent money downstate that wasn’t justified. But now, it may be too late for NOVA, and the best thing to do is ensure that the states previous investments are now more fully utilized.

    By consistent, I mean that everybody’s cost must be considered. Including that guy in Loudoun. So, the state should have a transparent cost model, and recognized sources of data. anybody who wants to can fill out the cost model using public data for their desired project, and submit it. He can join the Loudon Developers and Road Users Committee and submit a plan, according to the rules.

    If his plan for development in his area has a higher ROI, then he has a legitimate beef. Otherwise, he is being irrational in arguing that state money should be spent such that it benefits state residents less than it might have by benefiting him locationally.

    Sorry Charley, no dice. I sympathize, but I can’t support wasting money becasue of where you live. You might not agree, but unless you have a better plan, go away. Here are the rules for submitting a plan. Knock yourself out.

    The government does this all the time, it is called a request for proposals. They set the ground rules for submission, if your submisson is the best, you get paid.

    I think everone should pay for roads because nearly everyone benefits from them. I think everyone should pay to reduce congestion because pollution poisons us all.

    The HOT lanes are going to partially paid for by everyone. If that money could have been spent better on something else, then HOT lanes are a mistake, whatever their other good qualities might be.

    Since we do not have a fair and consistent set of ground rules, we will never know. Instead, the people with the most political clout will force everyone else to contribute to their pet projects, whether they agree or not. All we have is a different, less effective, and more coercive version of your own argument.

    Now tell me again how HOT lanes let me decide where road improvements will be made? How is the money collected from HOT lanes going to be spent? Where?

    You are going to have a pot of HOT lane money, and you are going to have exactly the same problems you describe on how to spend it. If we spend it badly, it is going to be a waste.

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The fact remains, fuel taxes take money away from everyone and then let someone else decide where it will be spent and who will and will not see benefits on the roads that they travel.

    In 2002, voters in the NoVa region stated quite clearly that if they were allowed to decide that they would not continue this method of taxation.

    Tolls (fees), on the other hand are acceptable to many drivers because it lets each person decide what is valuable to them by voluntarily agreeing to pay in exchange for expected service.

    The subject of this thread is asking the question – what will happen to gas tax revenues if people CHOOSE to buy a vehicle that will not use near as much taxed fuel.

    Most experts feel that raising the fuel tax at the same time gasoline is increasing in price will likely result in more and more people buying hybrids – including those in Europe.

    This is the perfect time to NOT raise taxes, let the private sector have a shot at providing this service and let the consumer decide what is valuable and not valuable to them.

    Virginia has a budget deficit. The abuser fees are hated and perceived as unfair.

    Bite the bullet. Balance the budget. Get rid of the abuser fees and let the private sector start building the roads that we do not have the money for and let each of us decide if the new roads are worth it to us.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I didn’t see any voters in Virgina vote FOR toll roads.

    If we don’t have the money, then where is the private sector going to get it? They are going to get it from us, as investors, and presumably they will make enough on ROI to pay the investors back. No doubt, some of those investors will never drive on the roads they invest in, but they will still see a benefit.

    They are also going to get money from us in the form of interchanges, loan guarantees, bonding authority, and guranteed ROI.

    I don’t see that big a difference. We know that GNP and VMT are closely linked. Nearly everyone uses roads somewhere. That apocryphal guy in Farmville has very lttle to complain about concerning where road money is spent, providing his needs are being met. Look at that congestion picture in Richmond. They cannot complain that their money has been spent badly.

    In other words, everyone pays and everyone benefits. If private enterprise can return a good ROI, then so can the state. Cut out the middle man and move on.

    If more people buy hybrids, good. That is part of the whole point. But nothing says what the ratio of gas to tax has to be in order to have a fair system that charges a reasonable amount according to use and weight. The reason we don’t have enough gas tax money is primarily because we have not adjusted it to reality in 30 years.

    Your tirade on not raising taxes is a joke. We are all going to pay for HOT lanes whether we use them or not, just like any other road. We will have little say in how the money is spent. The people that use HOT lanes will pay more tax in the form of tolls, and the people that don’t use them will continute to pay the “congestion tax” and to pollute unecessarily and unprofitably.

    Bite the bullet. Forget about roads HOTlanes and abuser fees. Figure out what it takes to end congestion waste, and then go do that, whatever it is. But, don’t forget, that last little bit of congestion might be hard and expensive to get rid of: it might not be worth it.

    There is a strong argument to be made that NOVA is the money faucet for Virginia and it behooves the state not to see it choked. There is also a strong argument that says that costs in NOVA are so high compared to everyplace else that you can never get a decent ROI. And there is an argument that says the environment in ROVA is so compromised that what we really need to do is undo some of what we have, long before we add anything additional: including HOT lanes.

    I don’t know the answer, but somewhere in there is a rational truth. We won’t find that truth by arguing irrationally for HOT lanes, or Mass transit, or more densely populated settlements. If we find that the answer has nothing or little to do with HOT lanes, then we will need to find some other way to raise the money. In that case the “choice” of having HOT lanes rammed down our throat is going to make very little difference. The money will have been wasted, private enterprise will be guranteeed their profit, the problem will still be there, and we will ALL be worse off, whether we drive the HOT lanes or not.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think youare all over the place on this stuff, Larry.

    You favor user fees for cars, subsidies for mass transit, a black box for schools, and you think that majoritarian rule is a allowable way to control land use, and you think that eminent domain is mostly OK as practiced. You think the goverment should stay out of anything private enterprise can do.

    I think user fees have a place, provided they are used to cover verifiable costs, and not raise revenue, and provided the transaction fees are not so high as to make them ridiculous.

    I think subsidies have a place when there are verifiable benefits to non users, as with Metro. But I think we have to be circumspect about claiming benefits that don’t exist.

    I think the black box or splitting the tab has a place too. But, if people opt out of public schools or public health care, for example, and buy their own, then they should get a partial credit against their black box payment. Such a plan keeps the public providers honest about claiming to provide benefits that are not real. This is exactly consistent with providing partial subsidy to Metro for benefits provided to other than their riders.

    I think that majoritarian rule, untrammeled by ethical concern for the minority, or any valid and transparent cost benefit standards, amounts to legalized stealing.

    I think that eminent domain would not be (quite) such a sore point if the condemnors were paying above market value. And, in fact, what they are getting is worth more than the previous market value, frequently. That system is necessary but broken, and it needs to be fixed.

    I think that certain businesses have built in monopolistic advantages. And some businesses we have just the opposite problem: there is no current way to price them. In either case, government has a duty to provide protection to both the businesses and the public by staying involved.

    All of this is consistent becaus eit all depends on one simple fact. You can always buy more benefits, but at some point those benefits are no longer worth the additional cost. Always.

    Anyone, polluter, or developer or enviro or farmer; Republican or Democrat; that lobbies for more benefits than the cost justifies, or lobbies against more cost than the benefits justify; is fundamentally stealing and polluting.

    That is my ethical environmental economical political theorem. I stand by it.

    You can throw in all kinds of monkey wrenches about locational costs and temporal costs, locational benefits and temporal benefits. But, all of those things can be dealt with rationally and fairly, unless we are cynically using them to avoid the realities of the theorem, which boil down to stealing and polluting.

    You want me to support your plan?
    Give me a list of everyone who pays (substantially, not fafoofniks) into your plan, how much, and when. Give me a list of everyone who benefits (substantially, not fafoofniks) from your plan, how much, and when.

    Convert all nonmarket costs to dollars and state your conversion factor. Show me how the beneficiaries transfer funds to cover the costs.

    And at the end, show me how both parties are better off, by how much, and when.

    If the answer seems reasonable and achievable, then I’m on your side.
    Whether you are Republican or Democrat, enviro or industrialist, liberal or conservative, old or young, black or white, legal or illegal.

    Otherwise, you are a special interest lobbying for permission to steal and pollute.

    I don’t think this si too hard, or unreasonable. First and second order effects are not too hard. Third order effects start getting fuzzy. By the time you get to fourth and fifth order effects you are dealing in fafoofniks, or high transaction costs, probably. Thenyou stop worrying about it because it comes out in the wash.

    It lets me sleep at night. It works for my pocket book, my county pocketbook, and my state pocketbook.

    Maybe EMR is right, and we need more pocketbooks, but right now, what we have is what we’ve got. You want something different? All you have to do is justify it according to the theorem.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From today’s Outlook article “Chill Out”

    “The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 emissions is currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature the damage from a ton ofcarbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy.”

    “I formed the Copenhagen Concesus in 2004 so that some of the worlds top economists could come together to ask not only where we can do good, but at what cost and to rank the things we shoudl do first.”

    “Embracing the best response to global warming is difficult in the midst of bitter infighting tha shuts our sensible debate.”

    Now, take those comments and expand them from global warming to all public policy.

    I don’t know who Bjorn Lomborg is, but I intend to find out, and read more.

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    does that mean we should immediately start charging everyone $2 per lb.. times the number of pounds that they emit?

    careful with your answer.

    hing: find out what the average person in the USA emits…

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It means we should not spend $20 to ameliorate $2 worth of damage.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I misquoted. The value is $20 per ton not $20 per pound.

    Per capita CO2 emission in the US is around 20 tons per year.

    But the answer is still the same, regardless of the level: Are you willing to spend $400 dollars to avoid $40 dollars worth of damage?

    Remember a lot of that “per capita” use is utterly unrelated to individual use. If we sign up to spend $400 apiece for reductions we will be subsidizing a lot of heavy industry.

    RH

  28. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    My challenge is in understanding how only HOT lanes cost money. It seems to me that all roads cost money to build and maintain. And everybody ultimately has the choice of how far they drive. Even without mass transit, you can move closer to your job or take a job closer to your home.

    So, I support Jim Bacon’s mileage tax. The mileage for every car is captured during the annual inspection. This year’s milage – last year’s milage = miles driven. Total transportation costs (in a given jurisdiction) / total miles driven by cars housed in that jurisdiction = cost / mile. Send me a bill for my miles driven and I’ll send the state a check. If it costs more per mile in Fairfax County then I’ll pay more per mile. However, everybody pays for their trasnportation costs – not just the people in congested areas. That’s the key. The notion that only congested areas have transportation costs is absurd.

    Alternately, make the tolls real. Virginia should sell all the roads to private companies. Repeat: sell all the roads. If transportation is best done by some private company – then get the state out of the business. Sell the assets – all of the assets.

    Roads in NoVA – sell ’em.
    Roads in Richmond – sell ’em.
    Roads in Farmville – sell ’em.

    Set up an auction and sell them all.

    Then let the companies who have purchased the roads collect tolls on all of the roads.

    If it costs more per toll booth to establish toll booths in Farmville – then I guess the people there will just have to pay higher tolls.

    If the private enterprises decide that there is too little traffic growth in Farmville to justify much road maintenance then I guess the people there will just have to drive over potholes.

    If it costs a lot of money to build new roadways in Fairfax County then I guess the people there will have to pay higher tolls.

    The costs of an automatic toll booths are dropping like stones through water.

    If private enterprises using tolls are such a good idea – let’s do it everywhere!

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t really disagree.

    The time is close when “tolling” will not require toll booths nor even transponders and you could toll on any road.

    Cameras will pick up license plates – and bill the user.

    The problem I do have with the mileage tax on everyone verses charging a location-specific toll is that 20 miles on a road in Farmville is not the same as 20 miles on a road at rush hour in NoVa.

    Simply put – some kinds of roads cost more than others.

    The other problem is WHERE would you TOLL?

    With a new road, it’s fairly easy because you have a defined start and end point AND it makes sense to the person paying the toll.

    But how would you TOLL an entire grid of roads?

    London and Stockhold do this by essentially drawing a line around the city and basically saying.. if you cross the “wire”, you get tolled once… even if you cross the wire multiple times.

    How would you do this in a place like Farmville?

    WHERE would you put the “wire”.

    If someone lived and worked in town and never or rarely left would they pay a lot less than say someone who has a job in town and lives outside of town?

    The mileage tax that Jim advocates WOULD work if each car “broadcast” it’s current mileage via RFID whenever it got fueld and a camera would tie your plate to your mileage, calcuate the mileage charge and include it on the gas pump.

    but then… what if.. someone lives in Fredericksburg and buys gas in NoVa?

    Who gets the revenue? Likely it will disappear into the bowels of VDOT to emerge later in a form not recogizeable…

    One thing is for sure – it IS going to take technology to do something different from a per gallon gas tax.

    The per-user costs of urban roads to handle rush hour traffic is much higher than the per-user costs of rural roads which have no rush hour or one so inconsequential as to be a non-factor.

    One would think that the more drivers there are that the more money they would pay proportionaltely so it would work out but the reality is one mile of right-of-way in NoVa is going to make one mile of new road cost 20-30 times what that same one mile would cost in Farmville.

    This, by the way, is exactly the same reason why the gas tax no longer is adequate to pay for roads.

    Yes.. part of the reason is a lack of inflation-adjusted tax but the other half is that new roads in areas that are experiencing growth are much, much more expensive than they used to be – and the gas tax that folks pay does not cover the actual costs.

    So… trading the gas tax for a mileage tax – assessed the same – statewide is still going to result in a shortfall in the urban areas where expensive roads are the norm.

    The other problem is that people don’t mind paying for NEW roads with a toll but they cannot understand why you would toll them for existing roads – and their attitude is that they already pay for maintenance via their current gas tax.

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Let me ask a question.

    What is the advantage of having VDOT physically design, build and maintain roads?

    Localities like Henrico and many cities – can and do contract with the private sector to build and maintain roads.

    What specifically is the value of having VDOT do this when the private sector almost surely can do it for less.

    In many cases, VDOT does not build anything but they merely monitor a contract.

    In some cases, VDOT does a Design and Build contract where both the design and the construction are put out on bid.

    What is the CORE function of VDOT?

  31. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Of course the private sector can do it for less. But when it comes to maintenance, less is nearly always what you receive.

    I’ve lost count of the roads down here are on some weird maintenance schedule. The same companies tear up the same roads over and over, while others receive no maintenance whatsoever. If someone was really watching the contracts they would ensure that the product delivered was what was contracted for. How can a brand new stip of asphalt need to be torn up every year? It’s either shoddy maintenance or shoddy contracts, and the taxpayer is the one getting gouged.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The per-user costs of urban roads to handle rush hour traffic is much higher than the per-user costs of rural roads which have no rush hour or one so inconsequential as to be a non-factor.”

    Are you sure about that?

    If the urban roads were built to handle rush hour, maybe so. But they are not. Consequently they have far more users than the rual roads, and might coss less per user.

    Until you try to build a new one.

    One thing is for sure: the rural users get more reliable service.

    RH

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: contracting and maintenance

    we’re confusing things again.

    Many private companies utilize contractors for maintenance and if they don’t get what they expect, they make changes.

    The government does the same thing for hundreds/thousands of things.

    You don’t see Government workers rebuilding the State Capitol.

    In many places, contractors and a bidding process are used successfully inside and out of Virginia.

    Are there examples of where it does not work?

    Of course but – those are usually exceptions.

    Is your problem that you think VDOT would not do a good job of outsourcing maintenance?

    why would you think that?

    They outsource most new road construction.

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    all things equal – a mile of urban right-of-way is much more expensive than a mile of rural right of way – 5-10 times as expensive.

    and many repairs/maintenance have to be done at night and other times for premium pay whereas rural road maintenance is done during the day.

    Urban roads ARE built for rush hour. If you don’t believe that, go out on them at 11pm and you’ll see very uncrowded roads.

    The fact that they can’t handle the peak of the rush hour – does not mean they are not built to handle rush hour.

    If you think rural roads are better, I invite you to take a trip .. say to Atlanta – on rural roads – and get back to me afterwards to let me know how “reliable” they are.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The car will go into production in 2010, with an SUV version in 2001.”

    I assume the SUV will be out in 2011? Not 2001.

  36. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 9:28, thanks for catching the typo. I’ve fixed it.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “all things equal – a mile of urban right-of-way is much more expensive than a mile of rural right of way – 5-10 times as expensive.”

    Then it must also be true that if urban roads get 5-10 ten times as much use, then they are a better bargain and have a higher ROI. Actually, at 11 PM many urban roads are still busy – even congested sometimes.

    I drive on rural roads every day. I can nearly always make a planned trip in the planned amount of time. I call that good service. It would be better service if they had shoulders for safety, etc. but, it still bets the heck out of sitting for an hour.

    Based on your argument for urban roads being built for rush hour, then rural roads must be even more overbuilt for rush hour, since thay are seldom crowded even at peak times.

    If we can afford that level of service on roads that are little used, surely we can afford it where the expenditure is used even more heavily.

    We just don’t want to allow the needs of the majority to rule, in this case (why should I pay for something “other people use”, whereas with land use we use just the opposite rationalization.

    RH

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    the minimum default is a two-lane road for most places..

    yes.. you can have one lane dirt also…

    Most rural roads are substandard in terms of safety. The accident rate for rural roads is higher than for urban roads.. believe ir or not.

    but you know.. many of your rural roads were built for … farmers.

    just like electricity was taken into rural areas for farmers.

    see .. you claim that you’re providing a “free” benefit to the public with your “green” infrastructure and the fact that your taxes are twice what you use in services.

    But how can that be..if your argument about rural roads is correct?

    Doesn’t that imply that the roads you use to access your property are subsidized by others?

    What about this ROI you keep talking about.. Does your rural road subsidy equal your green infrastructure subsidy?

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “But how can that be..if your argument about rural roads is correct?

    Doesn’t that imply that the roads you use to access your property are subsidized by others?

    What about this ROI you keep talking about.. Does your rural road subsidy equal your green infrastructure subsidy?”

    You are absolutely right.

    I don’t know the answer. I would love to find out. I would love it even more if other people wanted to find out, instead of posture or argue in favor of some preconcieved goal.

    The idea that the per person infrastructure cost is higher for rural areas comes from EMR. And yet, taxes are consistently higher for urban areas, so the idea that more density leads to more efficiency isn’t proven either.

    I’m not arguing in favor of or against rural or urban roads. All I’m saying is that the arguments don’t compute. If an urban road cost 5-10 times as much and carries 20 times as many trips, then what’s the problem? It’s your argument, don’t make it mine, I’m just asking a question.

    If you build a couple more roads and they fill up, what does that tell you? (yeah, I know, it tells you the price is too low) OK we pay the price through taxes, why not raise taxes? After all, if we raise taxes enough, people won’t be able to afford to drive as much.

    OOPs sorry. Can’t raise taxes. That’s off the table, even if it is the best answer.

    If rural roads are costly because they are underused, then why does the state send so much road money to rural areas?

    If we have already invested in rural areas, then why not promote development there, so we can recoup our investment.

    I didn’t invent the green infrastructure argument, enviros did. I didn’t invent the idea that it should be paid for, enviros did.

    How did rural roads get to be substandard in terms of safety, anyway? Was it because we were spending rural money on the developed areas (You know, farms pay twice as much intaxes as they get in services blah blah blah?)

    You make the mistake of thinking I am arguing for one thing or another. The only thing I’m arguing for is arguments that make sense, arguments that are honest, fair, and ethical in their premises.

    If the truth comes out, and I wind up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. It would be a hell of a lot better than being told over and over that I’m being gypped and having nothing done about it.

    —————————–

    The accident rate is higher on rural roads, but I’m not sure you can blame that on the roads, entirely. People drive too fast on rual roads with no shoulders, blind curves, encroaching trees, and farm equipment. One reason they travel so fast is that there is little congestion.

    Where is the pedestrian accident rate higher?

    A lot of rural roads were built BY farmers, and taken over by the government. True, there are farm to market roads, but you can’t say they were built for the farms any more than for the markets. If anything, they benefit the markets more, because now fewer markets can enoy more competition between more farms.

    As it happens, I STILL use a dirt road when I commute to my off farm job. It’s a county road, but if it was a developers road or even a farmers road, the soil conservation people would be all over it. What’s that all about?

    All I’m arguing for is better arguments.

Leave a Reply

Read More