Turkey Season (cont.)
Posted by Chap at 12/30/2006 3:47 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
With the 2007 session only a few days away, it is time for legislators to rush forward with legislation to "fix" the flaws in Northern Virginia's transportation infrastructure.
One idea is for the State to withdraw from the road-building business and turn the entire process over to Virginia counties. In a large urban county like Fairfax, with over one million people and a business district larger than Washington, D.C., this would be a seismic shift -- the equivalent of conferring statehood without any of the powers or benefits. Unless Northern Virginia counties can retain their citizens' tax proceeds (Fairfax alone generates 25%+ of the state's income tax revenue), there is no reason for them to accept this proposal. Rather it becomes an "unfunded mandate" on a size and scale unparalleled in Virginia history.
Another idea is more benign yet just as useless. It proposes that Virginia issue bonds and fund projects based on its current budget surplus, rather than from a dedicated long-term revenue source. In other words, we'll start projects now while times are good -- and when the surpluses dry up, we will .... (fill in blank with correct answer).
A final idea is to raise revenues with fees targeted at those least likely to have a Richmond lobbyist, i.e. teenagers, pick-up truck owners, and fast drivers without a skilled attorney. While this fee-based approach avoids a general tax increase, it has a number of collateral side effects, nearly all of which are bad. Moreover, it is a Band-Aid approach for a state that under funds transportation by nearly one billion a year.
The bottom line is that these ideas are politically motivated. They are ideas which say -- "Hey, I tricked to fix this situation" -- without any expectation that it will be fixed. Virginia voters deserve a broader vision.
Chap
One idea is for the State to withdraw from the road-building business and turn the entire process over to Virginia counties. In a large urban county like Fairfax, with over one million people and a business district larger than Washington, D.C., this would be a seismic shift -- the equivalent of conferring statehood without any of the powers or benefits. Unless Northern Virginia counties can retain their citizens' tax proceeds (Fairfax alone generates 25%+ of the state's income tax revenue), there is no reason for them to accept this proposal. Rather it becomes an "unfunded mandate" on a size and scale unparalleled in Virginia history.
Another idea is more benign yet just as useless. It proposes that Virginia issue bonds and fund projects based on its current budget surplus, rather than from a dedicated long-term revenue source. In other words, we'll start projects now while times are good -- and when the surpluses dry up, we will .... (fill in blank with correct answer).
A final idea is to raise revenues with fees targeted at those least likely to have a Richmond lobbyist, i.e. teenagers, pick-up truck owners, and fast drivers without a skilled attorney. While this fee-based approach avoids a general tax increase, it has a number of collateral side effects, nearly all of which are bad. Moreover, it is a Band-Aid approach for a state that under funds transportation by nearly one billion a year.
The bottom line is that these ideas are politically motivated. They are ideas which say -- "Hey, I tricked to fix this situation" -- without any expectation that it will be fixed. Virginia voters deserve a broader vision.
Chap
Trick to fix is a valid characterization of the Republican approach since Gilmore was governor, only "fix" should be in quotes. What a pity the Grand Old Party has become so irresponsible.
Yes, we do deserve a broader vision. Unfortunately, to the moment those suggestions are coming from neither side of the aisle.
What do you think the GA should do to improve transportation in VA?
First of all, that should be "tried to fix" -- but now that Teddy has commented on the original wording in my post, it belongs to posterity.
Bwana, thanks for the Q. I laid out my principles in a post in early October (right after the GA's special session fell through). For starters, I believe strongly that any new revenues should be based on fuel consumption. I also believe that a defined portion of any new money should go to transit/rail and that the scope of these systems (and the quality of management) needs to be significantly upgraded. Finally, we need to fight sprawl by promoting reinvestment in developed urban areas AND also the use of interstate rail (instead of trucking) on the major corridors like 95/81. That last piece should be a statewide initiative.
Until you have an integrated vision which manages demand (as well as supply), you'll just get more of the same.
Good points, but fuel-based funding can rise and fall as vehicles achieve better mileage, reducing consumption, so it's not a reliable flow of money. That's the reason I support a quarter-to-a-half percent on the sales tax to be spent on infrastructure including roads, bridges, rail. Such a tax is broad-based, easily collected, hits out-of-state through traffic, and is not regressive if very low income folks get a rebate. I, too, believe we need more and better rail service including high speed passenger service NoVa to Richmond and beyond. And we need it all now, please. Let's stop ditzing around.
Well, a fuel tax is a sales tax. I don't see that they are mutually exclusive. A fuel tax does charge people proportionately to how much they drive and how much weight they carry. I think it deserves to be part of your sales tax idea. It can easily be indexed as fuel economy increases. It should las be expanded to include diesel vehicles and plug-ins, when and if they arrive.