When
some future scholar chronicles the history of Virginia,
the Warner administration may be best remembered for its
decisive break with past transportation policy.
Abandoning a century-long tradition of relying primarily
upon state government to finance, build and maintain
Virginia’s roads, Gov. Mark R. Warner has pushed the
state sharply in the direction of a market-driven
transportation system.
At
the Public Private Partnership Forum held in late
December, Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer
outlined Warner administration initiatives to solicit
and negotiate public-private partnerships for
Virginia’s most congested transportation corridors.
Under these partnerships, private entities would raise
billons of dollars, to be recouped through tolls, to
upgrade corridors in Northern Virginia with
bi-directional lanes. At least two of these
corridors, maybe more, will institute variable pricing
– charging higher rates during periods of peak
congestion.
The
legal framework for these public-private entities was
erected in the 1990s, and none of the projects actually
will be constructed for several years. But the critical
philosophical breakthrough – making public- private
partnerships the centerpiece, not just an add-on, of
Virginia transportation policy -- has occurred under
Warner’s watch. The Commonwealth isn’t merely relying
on the private sector for capital and efficient
execution, Homer said: It’s fostering a “marketplace
of ideas” to inject fresh thinking.
As
remarkable as his comments were, Homer came across as a
stodgy advocate of the status quo compared to some other
speakers at Forum, which was hosted by the Commonwealth
Policy Institute, Bacon’s Rebellion and The
Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, and underwritten
by Harrisonburg entrepreneur Walter Curt.
House
Speaker William J. Howell set the tone for much of the
conference when he called for overhauling Virginia’s
transportation bureaucracy from stem to stern. “We
cannot continue what we’ve always done,” he
declared. “We cannot govern in the 21st century with
20th century ideas. …. I seek change rather than
oppose it. I’m not satisfied with the status quo.”
Not content to use public-private partnerships merely for
new projects, he suggested privatizing chunks of
Virginia’s existing road network and reinvesting the
proceeds. Said he: “We should securitize assets that
are laying fallow.”
Even
Howell appeared timid compared to some presenters.
Noting that city streets and inter-city toll roads were
built by the private sector in the 19th century, Yaron
Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and
Gabriel Roth, a transport economist with the Independent
Institute, argued passionately that government should
get out of the business of building roads, rail and
highways altogether! The private sector, they contended,
could meet the public’s need for mobility and access
just fine.
The
focus of the Forum was intentionally narrow,
concentrating on the role of public-private
partnerships. As such, the event neglected the critical
issue of the relationship between transportation and
land use. Stewart Schwartz with the Coalition
for Smarter Growth was the lone advocate for that
perspective. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ideas
discussed would provide a complete solution to the
challenge of increasing mobility and access in Virginia.
Even
so, I found the Forum to be one of the more thought-provoking conferences I’ve participated
in. Indeed, the dialogue crystallized my thinking on at
least one critical piece of what has been an intractable
problem: finding a rational approach to financing
maintenance and improvements to Virginia’s
transportation system.
I
walked away from the Forum persuaded that Virginia needs
to base the financing of transportation improvements on
two core principles: transparency and user pays.
The
current system for funding Virginia’s transportation
system is convoluted, with money coming in from the
federal government, typically with strings attached, and
multiple revenue streams from the state. It’s
difficult for the Virginia Department of Transportation
to keep it all straight – witness the
project-financing fiascos that the Warner administration
had to clean up – much less the average citizen. A
rational arrangement for funding transportation would
establish a clear and transparent nexus between the
source of the funds and the use to which they are put.
Admittedly,
it was a free-market crowd, but many speakers agreed
upon one other core principle: From the standpoint of
economic efficiency, transportation should be a “user
pays” system. Political and civic leaders should
disabuse voters of the notion that roads and highways
are a free good. Someone must pay to build and
maintain them. To the greatest extent possible, those
who use the transportation system should be the ones who
pay for it.
I
see no reason to privilege mass transit. Government
policy should be to create a level playing field between
transportation modes – doing away with subsidies and
arbitrary regulations that favor or disadvantage one
option over the others – and let the marketplace
dictate the outcome. Under the market-based scheme I
outline below, however, mass transit might become
economically viable in some circumstances without
continued subsidies.
There
would be only one exception to the level-playing field rule, and that’s
when a particular transportation mode imposes costs on
society – such as pollution -- that are not reflected
in prices. On that basis, I would be open to a
“pollution tax” on automobiles, which also might offset
some of the advantage that automobiles now enjoy over
mass transit.
With
these principles in mind, let us turn to each of the
three main categories of transportation expenditure.
Maintenance.
The Virginia Department of Transportation proposes
spending $967 million on maintaining the
state road network in Fiscal 2007. Economic reasoning suggests that
some form of “user pays” arrangement should apply:
The more wear and tear you inflict upon roads -- the
more miles you drive, the heavier
the vehicle you drive -- the more you pay.
As
a practical matter, Virginia has a rough but workable
“user fee” in place already – the gasoline tax.
Trouble is, the gasoline tax is used for more than
maintenance – it’s also used for new construction,
both for the purposes of congestion relief and economic
development. In other words, it’s not always clear to
motorists that their “user fee” is paying for
anything they’re actually using.
Another
problem is that Virginia’s gas tax has been fixed at
17.5 cents per gallon since 1986, while construction and
maintenance costs have escalated every year. In
inflation-adjusted terms, the gas tax is shrinking.
According to VDOT projections, maintenance costs are
swallowing up gas tax revenues with the consequence
that within a few years there will be no state funds
available for new construction. Eventually, revenues
would be insufficient to pay for proper maintenance.
Politicians
treat the gas tax like anthrax. Despite dollar-wide
swings in the market price for gasoline, legislators
appear unwilling to raise the tax by even a few pennies
per gallon. But I believe that an increase in the
gasoline tax can be sold to taxpayers if (a) the tax
were applied only to maintenance and
characterized as a user fee, (b) revenues were protected
by a constitutional amendment against pillaging to make
up for shortfalls in the General Fund, and (c) the tax
were combined with a commitment on the part of the
Virginia Department of Transportation to adopt more
cost-effective management systems for maintaining the
road network.
Motorists/taxpayers
would be accepting of periodic adjustments to the tax if
they knew that increases mainly reflected inflation, not
the funding of transportation boondoggles. As an
additional selling point, legislators could hold out the
possibility that the gas tax might actually decrease.
By transitioning to an asset-management system, which
bases expenditures on a life-cycle basis rather than an
arbitrary, two-year budget cycle, VDOT could potentially
reduce its maintenance costs by some 20 percent.
Under
this proposal, VDOT would submit a budget, subject to
approval by the General Assembly, that would re-set the
gas tax each year. Right now, no one feels the heat for
sub-par or inefficient maintenance practices. There
would be nothing like an annual readjustment to focus
attention on implementing efficient asset-management
strategies, either through outsourcing or internal VDOT
reform.
Ultimately,
the user-pays approach might evolve into a system,
advocated by Gabriel Roth at the Independent Institute,
which would charge motorists based on total vehicle
miles driven, as tracked by GPS technology and reported
to the Division of Motor Vehicles, adjusted for the
weight of the vehicle. Such an approach would be more
precise than the gas tax, accounting for the fact that
highly fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrids might not
pay their fair share of wear and tear on roads. (Under
my scheme, however, a hybrid might benefit from a lower
pollution tax.)
The
vehicle-miles-driven approach suffers from one big
disadvantage: How do you get out-of-state motorists to
pay their fair share? The gas tax captures revenue from
motorists’ purchase of gasoline when they drive
through the state. Under a vehicle-miles-driven
approach, by contrast, it would be impossible to tax
out-of-state drivers for the vehicle miles they drove in
Virginia. Indeed, one could predict that trucking
companies would quickly register their tractor-trailers
outside the state to avoid paying the tax. In the
absence of interstate pacts, I can’t imagine that this
idea would be workable.
Congestion
relief. The economically eloquent way to deal with
traffic congestion is to use a pricing mechanism to
allocate scarce roadway capacity. Under a variable,
time-of-day pricing arrangement, motorists would pay a
toll on major thoroughfares that varied according to the
level of congestion. (Two other Bacon's Rebellion
columnists are addressing this issue this week. See
"Putting a Price on Mobility"
by Geoffrey Segal and "A
Pricing Approach to Growth" by Patrick
McSweeney. Both were speakers at the Forum.)
Right
now, congestion pricing is contemplated only for HOT
lanes proposed for the Washington Beltway and Interstate
95. But there’s no economic reason that the tool
shouldn’t be applied everywhere that congestion is a
serious problem.
I
concede that the idea would be a hard sell politically.
Virginians generally dislike paying tolls, although they
grudgingly accept them as a mechanism to pay for new facilities
that would not be built otherwise. The idea of
installing toll booths where none existed before would
be widely unpopular.
But
the idea could be sold, I believe, if properly
presented. The first way that congestion tolls could be
made palatable is linking them directly to expansion of
road capacity. In the case of the Northern Virginia HOT
lanes, the link would be explicit – toll revenues
would be used to pay for the addition of capacity that
had not existed before. At other locations, congestion
toll revenue could be dedicated to corridor improvements
such as lane widening, traffic-light synchronization,
ramp metering and other mechanisms for increasing
capacity. Again, the key is assuring motorists/taxpayers
that their money isn't being diverted to some other use.
The
second way that congestion tolls could be made palatable
is by explaining that variable pricing is a mechanism
for managing demand. When confronted with a significant
cash cost to their commute, some people will change
their behavior. Some will vary the time of their
commutes. Some will telecommute more. Some will carpool.
Some will avail themselves of mass transit. Some will
choose to live in balanced communities where one or more
wage earner can drive to work near home without ever
accessing the regional transportation grid. When people
change their behavior, they reduce the need to build
more roadway. That doesn't happen when the state simply
raises taxes and builds more roads.
The
third way to sell congestion pricing is to compare it to
the alternatives. Would voters prefer perpetuating the
status quo, which will lead inevitably to worsening
congestion? Would they rather pay higher taxes to add
more roadway capacity, the most expensive of all “solutions,”
which ignores the
many transportation alternatives, many of which are
potentially more efficient?
Economic
development. A number of transportation projects,
especially in rural Virginia, are proposed not for
purposes of congestion relief but for economic
development – improving the accessibility of isolated
regions in the hope of attracting outside corporate
investment. The $3 billion Coalfield Expressway, it
seems to me, is particularly ill conceived – the
entire region could be Wi-Fi-enabled for a fraction of
the expense. But I’ll table that discussion for now.
Assuming that such projects are desirable, how are they
best funded?
These projects represent a transfer of wealth to the regions
that benefit from the investment. As such, funding
decisions are inherently political, outside the scope of
the self-sustaining mechanisms described above. As such,
economic development projects should be funded by the
General Fund at the discretion of legislators, and they
should have to compete for funding with Virginia’s
ports, airports and intermodal facilities, as well as
other core needs as education, health care and the
environment. If their advocates can't make a persuasive
political case for such projects on their individual
merits, they should not be funded.
Consistent
with this idea, various revenue streams now dumped into
the transportation pot – motor insurance, vehicle
registrations, the sales tax on automobiles, and the
half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation --
should be funneled instead into the General Fund.
Legislators could tap these funds for
economic-development projects, bankroll other programs
or cut taxes.
Because economic development road-building projects are so discretionary, I would argue, they
need not be protected by constitutional amendment.
Finally,
there is the question of what to do with federal
transportation funds. I would agree with Gabriel Roth
that the federal government needs to get out of the
business of financing transportation. By the
time the federal gas tax cycles through multiple layers
of administrators, lobbyists, regulations and
Congressmen, there is no "clear and transparent
nexus" between the tax and its application. So many
regulations and strings are tied to the expenditure of
federal transportation funds that many participants at the
Public Private Partnership Forum questioned whether the
federal "free money" was even worth taking.
So,
in an ideal world, the federal gas tax, and all the
programs it finances, would be eliminated.
There
you have it. I don’t know whether total transportation
spending would rise or fall under the logic that I’ve
laid out, but I don’t think it matters. There would be
a clear and direction connection between the source of the funds and
their application. Virginians could be assured that their
existing transportation assets would be maintained to
high standards and that a funding mechanism existed to
expand roadway capacity when it was truly needed. The
beauty of congestion tolls is that they are self
regulating: The worse congestion gets, the more money
they raise. At the
same time, the scheme would not encourage open-ended
road construction. Congestion pricing would create a
tangible incentive for people to find ways to drive
less.
Though
a critical part of the equation, a rational scheme for
transportation is only one part of a comprehensive
transportation solution. There is no
escaping the necessity of changing human settlement
patterns. Virginia cannot afford to maintain the land
use policies that perpetuate the scattered,
disconnected, low-density pattern of development that
makes people driver farther and more frequently than
they need to. That means re-thinking zoning codes,
comprehensive plans, subdivision ordinances – the
whole toolkit of regulations that local governments use
to control growth. At a deeper level, there is no
escaping the necessity to update governance structures
-- relics of Virginia’s 19th century agricultural
economy -- for urbanized, 21st century existence.
Yes,
there is much more work to be done. But an economically
rational transportation funding system would be a
critical component – and an achievable first step --
of any comprehensive reform.
--
January 3, 2006
|