GOP transportation plan – no tax increase!
By Brian Kirwin | Friday, January 2nd, 2009 | PolicyDel. Glenn Oder is on tour with his transportation plan that passed the House during the special session, but was killed in the obstructionist Democratic Senate that wanted tax increases more than transportation solutions.
The plan is based on a fairly simple premise: improving the transportation networks that surround ports and airports will help trigger more growth and more profit, creating a snowball effect that pumps even more cash into local road upgrades. (Daily Press)
It works like a TIF (tax increment finance). No new taxes, just capture 30% of new port revenue over the baseline to pay for roads improvements in Hampton Roads.
Originally, the plan was designed to pump money into Hampton Roads and the communities surrounding Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia. This time around, Oder has branched out, stretching the plan to allow similar setups around the Inland Port at Front Royal, the port in Richmond and Reagan National Airport. (Daily Press)
Will the Democrats offer anything on transportation? Or will they be happy to run campaigns for the House of Delegates on setting felons free and raising taxes?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
19 Responses to "GOP transportation plan – no tax increase!"
Brian,
Problem is the increased port activity is only going to replace the lost activity from the closure of the Ford plant. I am hopeful the increased port activity will replace the jobs we lost.
Since the state owns the Port and the profits go to the state, why shoulod onkly we LOCALS be forced to pick up the tab for the major transportation projects that state owned port wants for dealing with their expansion?
It is rational and far more fair to use the new tax revenue from port expansion to pay for the highways and rail lines needed to handle the increased cargo traffic.
Reid Greenmum,
Please explain to me how decreased economic activity from the Ford plant replaced by an equal amount of economic activity from the ports is equal.
Are you suggesting that anyone who invests in our local economy must give up the profits?
If there are profits to be made without commonwealth money from the ports, perhaps local money needs to get involved?
LittleDavid, are you suggesting that anyone doing business in our backyard, Business interest or the Commonwealth can expand it’s business, increase traffic/transportaion infrastructure costs to the point it would degrade our quality of life, and insist that the localities pay for the infrastrucure improvements? Infrastructure improvements that we don’t even get to choose? The projects are after all to serve the Port and not relieve general congestion. You know the arguement you’ll get from the Penninsula on the choice of projects.
Can I open a business that is heavy on truckers that may not even live locally in say rural Va. and force them to build roads at their expense? Let’s give them a TIF on what we force them to build. No, let’s make it worse and have a state agency or authority do that. That way, THEY can scream about it being state owned!
If a company moves in and will expand the local economy and will put forth a sufficient amount of capital, fine! Then localities and state governments will help by also putting up capital for needed infrastructure improvements. It happens all the time.
Unfortunately in this case, the deal was SOOO BAD that they have to try to invent a regional government so local leaders can pass the buck to unelected bureacrats and offer, “I’m only one politician with one vote. What can I do about it. Nobody else will play fair but, me”. Thank goodness the HRTA died!
Unfortunately, this isn’t a company without a current vested interest looking to invest here. This is a state owned entity that should be fully funded by the state. Sure, localities should expect to shoulder a little bit more expense than say, Blacksburg Va, but, proponents of this expansion are hardly giving Hampton Roads localities a fair shake.
How about I force you to pay my mortgage because erecting my mansion next to yours creates jobs and increases your property values? It is just that ridiculous and exactly why many seats in the GA changed hands.
Why is it that Alaska can get a bridge to nowhere but, we can’t even get improvements that we need? In fact,…………we have to pay for improvements we wouldn’t even need without the expansion of a third party. Other projects fit better from a congestion relief stand point.
Now, IF and I’m not convinced yet, Oder’s plan really only taxes enhanced Port Revenue and uses that to replace STATE funds, then wonderful. Localities that directly benefit from local user taxes that truckers will pay(food, fuel, etc.) might even agree to put in some sort of contribution. If greater Port efficiencies will cut the costs of local companies shipping charges, (without massively increasing other expenses ie the fuel taxes they pay, maybe cities hosting those big companies will also put up capital as those companies might more easily expand as well. Things have to be proportional to at least some degree.
Lastly, the Ford plant was a heavy loss for the region. That said, it doesn’t have a darn thing to do with this. Why don’t we just hope it makes up for the lost jobs and revenue that we won’t get since that carrier appears to be going to Mayport, Florida? It is just as rational an arguement. Then again, I can use that agruement to suggest that the company that employs me should get massive subsidies and thus earn myself a raise and line my pockets like other people do.
We don’t have a problem with Port expansions and transportaion infrastructure enhancements. It just has to be reasonably fair. Somebody also has to make a good case for what they want.
Little David,
Britt pretty much answered your question. I’d like to add that I agree with him that the Ford plant closing has nothing to do with the state expanding the Port operations they own in Tidewater and then trying to keep every cent of the new tax revenues for the General Fund while targeting only the folks living here in Tidewater to pick up the tab of $4.4B for the Port’s 3rd Crossing and $2.1B for a “new” RT 460 highway to move Port trucks in and out of the Port.
It makes all the sense in the world to use the new tax revenue from the Port expansion to pay for the infrastructure required to handle new truck and rail traffic dumped on our region’s highway and rail system as a direct result of the state-owned Port expanding their operations in Tidewater.
Here we go again. The dog-with-a-bone politicians are wasting no time in this new year trying to get locals to fund state road projects. Oder’s ideas merit scrutiny…if indeed it means port revenues go to upgtrading port roads (ie the 3rd Crossing).
The port is “the Port of Virginia”…there is no Port of Hampton Roads, unless there have been recent changes in the VPA website. The funding, as well as the benefits have to be on a statewide basis.
Hopefully the ill conceived HRTA is dead, not just moribund.
To a number of people.
It seems to me the proposed third crossing would relieve congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. Much of that traffic goes to and from the Naval Base and the third crossing would offer a reasonable alternative. It also would relieve the congestion caused by some of the truck traffic.
Second, I do not think an earmark in the case of the “Third Crossing” or any other additional crossing would be out of line. Whatever crossing is decided upon MUST be a tunnel due to the needs of the Atlantic Fleet. Tunnels cost more then high rise bridges. 100% of the increased price, along with the standard federal contribution for the rest, should come from the feds. In fact, this is one case where a transportation earmark might be rational to be included in the Defense funding bill.
While I also would prefer that funding for such a crossing (and other needed transportation improvements) should come from throughout the state, our representatives have explained that they can not get such funding freed up. It is either look at novel approaches that accomplish the goal or listen to us whine that nothing is getting done. Some of you are impossible to please.
I do not think it is wrong for the trucking industry (from across the nation) to demand that Virginia does something to improve things for us. The trucking industry pays a major share of the fuel taxes Virginia collects each year. Do you realize a trucker can not get an empty 13’6″ air ride trailer through the westbound Hampton Roads Bridge tunnel? You can’t get them through either the Midtown or Downtown tunnel either. So if you are heading west towards Richmond out of many areas you have to travel an additional 40 miles to get around to the more modern Monitor Merrimack tunnel. The proposed “Third Crossing” would provide a more reasonable route to get to the Monitor Merrimack.
I am going to title this one:
Truckers Favor Fuel Tax Increases.
I thought I was pretty much alone in the trucking industry favoring increased fuel taxes to fund transportation maintenance and improvements. Recently I learned that the American Trucking Associations are also in favor of such increase. I have been joined by the real heavy weights in the industry.
We truckers are willing to pay our fair share for the NEEDED improvements and maintenance. In fact, we are even willing to pay an even increased percentage of the amount of revenue collected.
Click on my name and visit my blog to learn more.
Little david, the data proved by the HRPDC/MPO reveals that the T-connector 3rd Crossing would, in 14 years time, manage to reduce congestion at the HRBT by an estimated 17% during peak usage times. The FY 2000 cost projection was $3.8B.
The 2000 cost estimates were $2.2B for adding 6 lanes fto the HRBT or trucks and cars and 2 lanes to be set aside for some future “mass transit” – more for air quality credits for nonattainment mitigation then any meaningful transit system – it was projected to bring 37% decrease in LOS E-F (severe) congestion once open.
Due to the port expansion and the plan to build out the west, in 17 years the new 3rd Crossing would and the other 5 MPO highway projects totally around $20B were, in a best case scenario, projected to reduce the percentage of LOS E-F lane mile by roughly 3%. Doing nothing was projected to increase the percentage of LOS E-F lane mile by roughly 5%.
Thus, spending $20B local dollar under the MPO plan for 6 major economic development projects marketed as transportation congestion relief projects would result in an insignificant benefit at a MAASIVE cost!
This is WHY the state owned Port should pay for the new lane capacity they require to move their new cargo in and out of the port.
The HRBT is the worse bottleneck in out region and the Port Lobby and the Business Lobby have held all of our region’s known transportation improvements hostage until the state can force just us folks living in Tidewater to pay the the state highways the STATE needs – to deal with the state-owned PORT’S trucks and rail cargo!
The HRBT doesn’t need any useless tubes for “mass transit” right now, Just reduce the cost and add another 4 lanes to the HRBT – and do it as soon as possible. Use tolls and other existing transportation funds to get it done. Consider allowing a Private firm to build it and let them collect the tolls. Create a special taxing district on both sides of the HRBT and have the property owners pay for the improvement to the HRBT that will result in increased property values near the expanded bridge tunnel.
Let the users and those that benefit most from the projects – pay for the projects.
OK, I am open to solutions. As a taxpayer I am only demanding that you citizens (of which Reid Greedmun is one) decide what you want.
Of course, I am going to insist that taxes be increased to pay for what you want. I think the trucking industry is willing to lead the way to explaining that it is not true that every tax increase is automatically evil.
The trucking industry might not be experts on every tax issue, but we have some shared expertise we are willing to share when it comes to transportation.
Increase the taxes and get it done.
Interesting thrust and parries bet Reid and David. That the truckers want easier port access is no revelation. Some of the ideas posited echo loud and clear the propaganda Yes campaigns of the past 10+ years…ie, the 3rd Crossing will relieve trans HR traffic congestion, benefit the military,etc….but, for the “trucking industry to demand that Virginia does something to improve things for us” will garner nothing but more solid opposition from the targetted HR taxpayer.
The Port of Virginia is just that…the Port of VIRGINIA, and the Commonwealth of Virginia is the avenue to go for funding of such a state commercial function. Get off the backs of the HR taxpayer just because the Va GA wants to inflict the tax pain on a few targeted HR jurisdictions
Little David, I think we aren’t communicating very well and I am not sure why.
Taxes increases are not the automatic answer to our region’s transportation needs.
The MPO and its business lobbies have an agenda to promote certain projects, the bulk of the cost for our region’s 6 major MPO projects are the result of a voluntary expansion of a state owned Port that happens to be located within our region. The Port of Virginia.
Meanwhile, we already pay a great deal of taxes to the state and federal government. We already pay state and federal gas taxes to be used for transportation. The state/regional government (HRMPO, VDOT, CTB, Virginia Port Authority, Governor, Pierce Homer, etc.) are attempting to stick those of us that live in Tidewater with the tab for the Port expansion. But it is mostly the General Assembly and a few Governor’s leading the effort to craft bills to pay for Port related infrastructure that targets our region and fails to better prioritize the taxes the state already collects – and fails to better prioritize the Federal transportation funds the state already receives. It is not that the state doesn’t collect enough taxes already, it is that it fails to spend the taxes it collects to build the infrastructure needed to expand the state’s Port of Virginia. It is also a factor of decades of “borrowing” transportation tax funds from the Transportation Trust Fund and “repaying” the hundreds of millions of transportation funds using I.O.U.s known as FRANS. In effect, mortgaging future Federal transportation funds that should have been used to pay for stare transportation infrastructure improvements to “balance the budget” – a euphemism for spending our transportation taxes on “other stuff’, like social programs.
Common sense moment here; if the state is expanding the Port of Virginia to earn more tax revenues to be channeled into the state’s General Fund, and if the cost of the required transportation infrastructure improvements needed to handle the increase in Port rail and trucking traffic is greater than the amount of new tax revenue that state will collect due to more port cargo – then don’t expand the Port – it is a bad business decision. We will lose money.
However we have good news. Credible revenue projections reveal that is not the case. The projected increases in new state tax revenues to be gained due to the Port expansion will exceed the bond debt service required to pay for the transportation infrastructure improvements for the Port. Great! Then set a baseline year for Port revenues and channel the new Port tax revenue the state collects due to more Port freight/cargo traffic to cover the cost of the Port’s new transportation infrastructure improvements – rail and highways. Once the new transportation infrastructure is paid for then the state gains a windfall in new taxes it the General Assembly and Governor are free to spend that increased Port related tax money on “other stuff”. This would mean that expanding the Port was a good business decision. And .. it means that existing taxes may not be needed be raised to pay for it.
This “Special taxing District” (sort of a TIF of sorts) approach was the center piece of my suggestions for helping to pay for constructing the 3rd Crossing and the “new” RT 460. The HRBT can be funded in a different manner. Using the “user pays” model as a foundation, tolls make sense for that bridge tunnel. But, some Light Rail and TOD lobbyists and the MPO want to drive up the costs of the HRBT expansion by adding two additional tubes/lanes to be used for some future “mass transit” project. That added expense needs to be removed from the effort to expand the lane capacity of the HRBT. The Light Rail project is a separate project to be evaluated on its own merits and cost benefit analysis. Those Light Rail rider that will use the proposed mass transit should pay for the cost of the mass transit tubes, not those citizens and truckers that drive their vehicles across the HRBT. This is the problem with the Hampton Roads Partnership’s/Chamber of Commerce’s strategy to bundle all of these major transportation and economic development projects together and then have the General Assembly try to develop a single taxing and tolling scheme to pay for a wide variety of transportation and economic development projects. Unbundle these projects and deal with each project on its own merits. Pay for them in a variety of ways that make the most sense and that target the users and others that benefit most from the taxpayer’s “investment” in public Infrastructure.
Frankly, look at what works. The HRBT was built using a toll. When the bond debt was paid off, the toll went away. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT)was built using a toll and it has been expanded and maintained using tolls. It CBBT Authority has hundreds of millions of dollars n the bank available to pay for future expansion efforts! It is a business model that works.
The point is that the solution doesn’t have to be “raise taxes and be done with it.” There are better options to accomplish what is being sought.
Good stuff, Reid.
Sigh.
It has already been said that Virginia needs a five cent increase in the fuel tax just to maintain existing infrastructure let alone fund new improvements. But many are against any tax increase at all.
I am not aware that the national ATA has taken a position of fuel tax increases in Virginia, however since they agree with me for the need for a NATIONAL fuel tax increase, I do not think I am out of line saying they probably would not have any real problem if Virginia increased her fuel taxes.
It is not like the citizens of Virginia can say our fuel taxes are wasted. Our tax on diesel is lower then every other bordering state with the exception of Tennessee. Virginia does a pretty good job of highway maintenance and snow removal with the limited funding the citizens allows those in charge to have. I do not think an increase in funding would be wasted.
I am not arguing against funding come from a state level rather then a regional level. However unless we are willing to take our place in line we better realize that there are a host of transportation improvements needed across the state. Our region already has recently received major funding for the Monitor Merrimack and improvements to I-64 on both sides of the peninsula. If improvements are going to come at a snails pace then our needed improvements are going to have to wait while somebody else gets their turn.
At present tax levels we can not even afford to maintain what we already built let alone pay for improvements.
Why such a funding shortfall? Because of reductions in receipts due to a couple of reasons. First it was the high fuel prices that motivated conservation. For every gallon of fuel saved, tax receipts went down. Now that fuel prices have declined the problem is the poor economy on the back of all the higher fuel mileage vehicles consumers purchased. People do not need to purchase fuel to get to work each day when they are laid off.
Quit being so darn cheap and so darn unreasonable. Raise the fuel tax.
Mark Warner didn’t think we needed to raise the fuel tax. He said raising the sales tax would solve all our budget problems.
Oh, except the 3 billion dollar deficit we have now.
The answer to every budget shortfall is NOT higher taxes, Little David. Besides, once you say 5 cents, someone else talks about how that’s not enough to solve the problem, and then we’re talking 10, 20, 25.
Mark Warner raised the sales tax. If transportation is such a high priority, the General Assembly could take that tax increase and dedicate it to transportation.
But you will never see one single Democrat propose that! I’ll endorse and campaign for any Democrat who patrons a bill to dedicate Mark Warner’s tax increase to transportation.
Let me know when you find one.
Good point Brian.
I really wish there were some cohesive plans that didn’t look like we were robbing Peter to pay Paul. Shift funds from one area to another, and we continue to lose the confidence of the people in managing the state. Anyone have data on Oder’s plan? New port revenue vs. needed transportation funds? Projections based on economic changes, and the risk involved? What if 30% of new revenue ends up being chump change and the state is left with a partially completed transportation project, leaving our situation worse than before?
Joel, it’s not robbing. New port revenue won’t really happen unless the roads are improved around the port. For the ports to do the growth that could happen, traffic has to start moving.
This port is not a chump change port by a longshot. It’s a major economic engine without the expansions planned.
Exactly.
And what has been grossly unfair has been the efforts by the STATE to stick only the folks living in our region with the tab to pay for the STATE owned Port expansion – yet lay claim to all of the new revenue?
The new highways (3rd Crossing & “new” RT 460) cost roughly $6.5 Billion dollars. The reason for building them is primarily to handle new Port traffic.
What possible reason is there for NOT using the new Port revenues to cover the cost of the Port’s need for more lane capacity and a expensive new bridge tunnel (AKA “3rd Crossing”)?
I’m also suggesting that those new projects include a toll such that the users of the new highways also pay for the new roadways they are using.
Leave your response