Bacon's Rebellion

Dulles Toll Road Tax Increase on 5/22

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

My open letter to Gov. Warner regarding the discriminatory tax increase on the users of the Dulles Toll Road. For more on this matter, please read my earlier column: “Railroaded Again“.

Dear Gov. Warner:

For a governor who campaigned on not raising our taxes, you surely have gone out of your way to get into our wallets. Now you’re supporting this discriminatory tax against the users of the Dulles Toll Road, who will never benefit from the rail to Dulles boondoggle, yet they are being asked to pay for its construction. What can we expect next from the Warner Administration, special discriminatory taxes by gender or race? Or better yet, why not set up toll booths along the Washington Beltway and collect taxes to end world hunger?

Your financing scheme for getting rail to Dulles by taxing the users of the Toll Road is nothing short of highway robbery, reminiscent of the times of Robin Hood. But at least Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. You’re stealing from a few select, hard-working Virginian’s and giving it to the special interests that stand to make millions from this boondoggle—a boondoggle that will do nothing to alleviate the traffic congestion in the Dulles corridor.

You have the power to delay or stop this injustice. Please act now.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Bowl Full of Jelly Avatar
    Bowl Full of Jelly

    Are you demonizing Robin Hood? Aligning yourself with the Sheriff of Nottingham?

    Those poor drivers in the Dulles corridor, so like the poor, powerless Sheriff of Nottingham…

    This is a strange letter. By this logic, actually, any tax on the use of anything would be discriminatory, because it would be targeted at people who use something.

    Like I said, this is just weird.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bowl Full of Jelly, There’s a fundamental principle of governance at stake. To the greatest extent feasible, the people who benefit from a transportation project should be the ones who pay for it. Thus, those who use the Dulles Toll Road should pay the tolls to pay the bonds… until the bonds are paid off. By the same logic, those who use the METRO (or who otherwise benefit from it, as in property owners whose property values go up) should pay for it. If the public good dictates that Northern Virginia absolutely must have more money to fund the METRO, then it should be funded collectively, as in, through a general levy.

    The idea of taxing one set of people to pay for a project benefiting an entirely different set of people is grotesquely unfair. … Hey, I have an idea. You like the idea of subsidizing the METRO? Let’s levy a special property tax on your house to help pay for it. That’s no more irrational than stiffing the commuters who use the Dulles Toll Road.

    (By the way, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I live in Richmond.)

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually, we do subsidize Metro with a 2 per cent sales tax on the retail price of gasoline, and we have done so since Governor Dalton. It’s another “non-user” fee. So this is not unprecedented, and frankly that would have been a better approach on this expansion. Interestingly, it works both ways. At today’s Commomwealth Transportation Board meeting, the topic of discussion was the need to raise tolls on the Coleman Bridge between Yorktown and Gloucester. A major renovation and expansion was completed in 1996 but the tolls were not raised to cover the higher debt and maintenance costs. Tolls may go from 50 cents to 85 cents. For nine years the project has sucked money out of other accounts, reducing funds for other projects, because of a lack of political will to match the toll to the annual debt and operating costs. I’m sure the people in the area will all accept this without a peep. Virginians WANT tolls in their future, right?

  4. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    No, people don’t like tolls. But in the example you just cited, I’d argue that the Coleman Bridge situation fits the principle I stated in the comment above: The people who benefit from a transportation project should be the ones who pay for it!

    The logic of tolls on the Coleman Bridge is the opposite from the logic of tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

  5. Sorrel Avatar
    Sorrel

    Jim: I ask this question in all ignorance – not because I’m trying to push a point: Can’t a case be made that the “users” (or primary beneficiaries) of the Dulles Rail project are the motorists on the parallel Dulles Toll Road who will either benefit from less congestion, or who will use the system when it is in place? It’s easy to identify users of the current Metro system, they contribute at the fare box. They may be a different category than those who benefit from the addition of a major new leg. But a proposed system has no present users, only potential beneficiaries.

    I always learn a great deal from these discussions, Thanks.

  6. Laszlo Avatar
    Laszlo

    What is wrong with a user paying for what he/she uses?

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Let’s see if I understand, I am new to this whole topic.

    Taxing the Dulles Toll Road users is BAD, because they won’t benefit from the new rail line.

    Raising taxes on everybody to pay for the new rail line is BAD (because raising taxes is always BAD).

    The users of the new rail line CAN’T be taxed/fee’d, because there is no rail line yet.

    So, if the gov’t can’t get money from ANYBODY to pay for the rail line, until after it is built — then, HOW IS IT EVER GOING TO BE BUILT?

    Or is that the point, don’t build it? Regardless of whether it is needed, just don’t build it?

  8. John K. Avatar
    John K.

    So, if the gov’t can’t get money from ANYBODY to pay for the rail line, until after it is built — then, HOW IS IT EVER GOING TO BE BUILT?

    I have an idea. Why not get the people that actually use the the rail line to pay for it? Float a bond, and then have users pay for it with an appropriate fare?

  9. Bob Griendling Avatar
    Bob Griendling

    “…the people who benefit from a transportation project should be the ones who pay for it.”

    There’s a philosophy here that is oft repeated and one I find very disturbing. Whatever happened to the idea that we share costs and responsibilities even if we don’t use them equally?

    To take this idea of “you pay for it if you use it” to its logical conclusion, only those whose house burns have to pay for the fire department. So at the end of a time period (a year?) the cost of running the fire department is totaled, and the poeple who used the fire deparmtent must divide the costs while the rest of us get a big tax break, I suppose.

    It’s part of a bigger trend that basically subscribes to the notion that “it’s my money and I want to keep it.” The idea of community and shared support and helping each other out is thrown aside so everyone pays only for those servies they use.

    It’s really quite sad — and profoundly un-American, in my view.

  10. Barnie Day Avatar
    Barnie Day

    A philosophical question for all you strict “user pays” folks: I don’t have children. Should I pay school taxes to educate the children of others? A lot of pseudo “free marketers” read, and write for this blog, seemingly unwilling to acknowledge that a free market really works only in partnership with government. Take away the taxpayer-funded infrastructure–transportation, education, police , etc.–that creates the environment necessary for a “free market” and watch what happens to that market. And, by the way, I happily pay my school taxes, for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the knowledge that an educated populace is in my best interest–as are other infrastructure investments that I may not use on a personal basis.

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Barnie and Bob, Yes, the government taxes the public for pay for public education because everyone–even those who send their children to private schools–benefits from a well educated population. No problem. But please note: Building new schools and hiring more teachers does not increase the number of students.

    By contrast, building more roads does increase the number of vehicle miles driven, particularly given our land-intensive pattern of development. We can argue over the extent to which building roads “induces” demand for more roads in the short run, but there is absolutely no denying that people are driving greater distances — some 17,000 miles per motorist in 2001 compared to 12,000 miles 25 years previously.

    We literally cannot afford take the attitude that because roads and rail are public goods, “the public” should pay for it. We will run out of money before we can build enough roads and transit facilities to “solve” traffic congestion because whenever we reduce the cost of congestion in the short run, people will alter their behavior to exploit that reduced congestion, adopting new driving patterns that increase congestion in the long run.

    To the greatest extent practicable, we need to finance roads through “user fees” like gas taxes and tolls that establish a rational nexus between the use of the roads and the payment for those roads. That way, when people make decisions about where they live, work, shop and seek amenities, they will take into account the transportation-related costs of those decisions rather than fobbing those costs onto the public.

    Sorrel is the one, to my mind, who raises the most legitimate issue. By investing in transit, can we get enough people off the roads to ease congestion on the Dulles Toll Road and, thus, indirectly, benefit the people paying the tolls? Here’s how I would respond to that logic: If there is a broad public benefit to the citizens of Fairfax County to extending the METRO, the citizens of Fairfax County generally should pay, not just the users of the Dulles Toll Road.

    Yes, the METRO extension undoubtedly would reduce congestion for users of the Dulles Toll Road, but the benefits would extend far beyond the toll road. It strikes me as unfair to finance the METRO by imposing a cost on only a small sub-set of motorists who are, at best, only very indirect beneficiaries. The reason for continuing the toll is obvious: Even if it’s not the right thing to do, it is do-able. The tolls are already there. The politicians will encounter less resistance raising money that way than by some other way.

  12. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    While I oppose this toll road increase and believe there is a more equitable way to finance the Metro extension, if the extension is really a viable option, the text of this open letter isn’t going to change one mind or build any support against the toll increase.

    This letter is needlessly confrontational and partisan. Maybe it’s not really intended to sway anyone, but rather to keep the faithful engaged.

    There’s a philosophical, non-partisan case to be made against the toll increase and some of the commenters here have made that case. One doesn’t have to put a stick in the Governor’s eye.

    I suspect that letters like this just give aid and comfort to the moderates who are needed to stand up against tax increases. This kind of letter is also an invigorating elixir to the likes of Russ Potts.

    Why not argue from strength–principles and philosophy–rather than from invective and ideological purity?

  13. Barnie Day Avatar
    Barnie Day

    I’m with Will. We’ve got to take the partisanship out of politics.

  14. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Here’s a question:

    How do we beat the idea that expensive public transit projects improve traffic out of people’s brains?

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Good question Paul.

    Here is another: How do we beat the idea that more roads or more money for roads will imporve mobility and access? See Jims post above on Route 288.

    EMR

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    It is very clear:

    Without Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns mobility and access will continue to decline.

    That is not politics or policy, that is physics.

    EMR

  17. Barnie Day Avatar
    Barnie Day

    How do you propose to implement this fundamental change in human settlement patterns? Surely, you don’t trust the government to impose it (see ‘interment camps,’see ‘projects.’)? Seems that would leave the market place. But wait a minute! Has not the marketplace given us what we have now?

  18. Sorrel Avatar
    Sorrel

    Paul’s 1005 question would contemplate a more easily achieved goal if the word order were changed to: “How do we beat the brains out of people who have the idea that expensive public transit projects improve traffic?”

    Thanks to Jim for addressing my inquiry from yesterday. You make good sense in suggesting that the beneficiaries are a larger group (probably much larger) than merely the users of the toll road. But the toll road users may be a subset of those beneficiaries. Also, that particular corridor is more than a Fairfax County issue because it is a (if not “the”) principal vector through which much of the Loudoun and points west population is channeled not just to Dulles/Tysons/Reston etc, but also the District of Columbia. I think a lot of this discussion arises out of the inability or unwillingness of political leaders to make the case for these huge capital intensive improvements to a large group of voters. The truly meritorious projects (i.e., ones that spin off benefits to a wide swath of the citizenry) could be sold even if tax increases were required if officials had the courage and intelligence to make the pitch. But making that pitch is perceived as politically risky (partly because Phil and his bad boys are waiting to jump them) and partly because all of these projects are very complex and not easy to brief to the public at large. Maybe we need an entirely new type of political leaders who have special gifts of patience and explanation.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Sorel: No, Dulles rail will not reduce congestion on the toll road. The argument is similar to that used against building another road, the extra capacity is immediately used up. If Dulles rail temporarily eases congestion on the toll road, the extra capacity will be used opportunistically by either someone who elects not to pay the rail fare, or by a new user, or by someone who would have used the road previously but did not on account of cost or congestion.

    Congestion is a prerequisite for rail to work, otherwise people will preferentially use the road because it is faster more convenient, and less expensive. That is true unless we artificially set the toll high and the rail fare low, in which case we are paying people to use a system they would preferentially not take, AND charging other people for a service they don’t use.

    As far as I know, there is no transit system which operates without substantial fare subsidies. Some will argue that auto also enjoys substantial subsidies because it causes so many external costs. There are three problems with this argument: 1)Transit’s external costs are low mostly because it moves such a small percentage of the population. If it transported more people its external costs would go up. 2) The external costs caused by autos are mostly borne by the same people that cause them, namely everyone who ever rides in an auto. 3) The per passenger mile costs of rail, bus, and auto don’t differ very much, all things considered. But because of the subsidies for transit, auto drivers bear a much higher percentage of the costs they cause for the service they get, even considering the costs of all externalities in full. Dulles tolls will be an example.

    It might be true that rail allows you to move more people into an area where auto transit is already maxed out, but that is not the same as reducing congestion. The question then becomes, how much are we willing to spend to build a system that we will then have to pay people to use, and do we think that further increasing the economic density of the area served justifies the cost? My guess is that if you think we can’t afford all the roads we need, wait till you try to pay for all the transit we need, and STILL pay for the roads we need. Why would we plan to spend 60% of our future transportation money on a system that will carry, at most, 20% of our passengers?

    Anonymous raises the point that all Virginians subsidize Metro whether they use it or not, indeed, all Americans do because of the Federal subsidy, Virginians actually pay twice to support a system they may never ride. Arguably all of Virginia benefits from the economic engine in NOVA, and the entire nation gets some benefit from the “convenience” that Metro provides, primarily to government employees. Is it a fair trade? Who knows?

    He also points out that the bridge project has sucked funds out of other sources because the toll is too low. But that’s true of any under funded situation. The Virginia general fund has sucked money out of the highway trust fund for years, because the general fund was under funded, highway work has suffered. Any way you look at any project, we are behind the power curve and need to spend money. Growth has gotten ahead of us.

    So, if the gov’t can’t get money from ANYBODY to pay for the rail line, until after it is built — then, HOW IS IT EVER GOING TO BE BUILT? Same question goes for any infrastructure, including local infrastructure to support housing. Infrastructure is usually a capital expense and we borrow the money so that those people the infrastructure is for will help pay for it when they arrive.

    We could, of course, tax ourselves EXTRA, and invest the money until we have saved, and the money we saved has earned enough, to pay for a proposed project. Ordinarily that is prohibited by law, but it appears to be what is happening in the Dulles case.

    I don’t have any children either, but I support schools on the basis that I benefit from an education I didn’t pay for. Given the current state of schools, I’m not so sure I would go so far as to say that I benefit from an educated public in general.

    I think Jim has argued himself into a corner. Sure, building schools doesn’t cause more students, but given that you have excess students, you wouldn’t argue against building more schools, which is the case for roads. Sure, a land use requirement for 50 acre lots is patently nuts, but we can’t blame land use and roads on increasing VMT without considering other data. Let’s not forget, it used to be that if you wanted to learn, then you went and hired a teacher, so the user fee argument may not hold, either.

    Road use is closely tied to economic activity so, given the state of our economy it is not surprising that road use has gone up. Women entering the workforce caused a rapid increase for a time, but that trend probably has some maximum. Just-in-time manufacturing has increased road use, as has an increase in the service sector economy. I have a geek-contractor friend who has held 12 job assignments in the last fifteen years, but his home and children’s schools are anchored. What land use plan can account for that 50,000 times over?

    If roads and schools are both a public benefit to be paid for by everyone that benefits (or could benefit if they choose to) then we can’t logically pick and choose just to support our notions. Griendling seems to me to be correct on this point, if we fail to support those things that benefit all then we are mutually cutting ourselves short for the public benefit of none. If we refuse our neighbor the right to build, then where will our children live?

    If we follow a path similar to Dulles Rail, then we will subsidize a builder to provide homes where he otherwise could not, economically, and then we will pay people to live in them when they would preferentially be elsewhere, left to their own. If we think either of those conditions saves us money, or gives us what we want, then we all need to go back to those schools we under funded.

    As for EMR’s ideas, all I can say is go to Times Square on New Years Eve, and then try to convince yourself that a denser, pedestrian oriented community improves access or mobility. What measure will we use to determine access and mobility? How do we determine that access to one service is equivalent to access to some other service which might be farther away, but less expensive, or different? If we put up unachievable goals like an educated citizenry, or fundamental change before we change anything, then that’s just a plan we can never start.

    In the meantime, we’ve got work to do. With all the changes that constantly take place, the idea of a balanced community cannot be a steady state solution, it is going to require a constant input of energy and money to continue the dynamic effort that a community represents. That dynamic effort to achieve balance will result in continual change, which we don’t like. But without change, we can all sit on the porch unemployed, and contemplate things as they are forever.

  20. John K. Avatar
    John K.

    The rhetorical question vis-à-vis school taxes is a good one. Who knew the Dulles Toll Road would be such a good vehicle for opening a debate about the appeal of school vouchers?

  21. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Sorrel: The motorists on the DTR will not benefit from less congestion as you suppose in your post. This fact comes from VDOT’s own studies that show no impact on congestion if and when the rail to Dulles boondoggle is ever completed (now projected for about 20 years into the future). And this analysis doesn’t really take into account the additional congestion that will be dumped on this and other adjacent roads as the local zoning tsars increase density.

  22. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Laslo: There is nothing wrong with a user paying for what he or she uses. But that’s exactly the point. The majority of drivers of the Dulles Toll Road will never get to use the subway. You see, METRO is only projected to go to Whiele Ave. (about half-way from Dulles Airport) and this will probably not be completed until well after 2010. In the meantime the drivers of the Dulles Toll Road will continue to be paying for a subway system that won’t be seen for years and will have no impact on alleviating the congestion from the Dulles Toll Road (as per VDOT’s own studies). And even if the rail to Dulles ever comes to fruition, it’s highly unlikely that the toll road users could use the subway because of incompatible traffic patterns.

  23. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Anonymous: Yes, you’re right. We’re advocating that the rail to Dulles boondoggle never be built, because it’s outrageously expensive and because it will do little to alleviate congestion. On the other hand, there is a simple solution available that we’re advocating, but the Governor and his buddies are ignoring. That is, let the private sector build parallel HOT lanes that will be funded through user fees. These HOT lanes could also be used by a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that can be built at a fraction of the cost of heavy rail.

    But there is no money to be made by the special interests in a BRT system, so naturally the Governor and his cronies are ignoring the most cost-effective solution that can be implemented immediately.

    Let’s don’t forget that heavy rail is a 19th Century technology, while a flexible HOT/BRT solution is the transportation solution of the 21st Century. What Gov. Warner is promoting is akin to shutting down the high-tech companies in the Dulles corridor and start replacing them with 19th Century sweatshops.

  24. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Will: Partisan, Moi?

    Of course the letter is partisan–it was meant to be partisan. And look at the blog activity it’s generated, both pro and con. So obviously, it’s a hot button issue.

    Barnie hit the nail on the head with his caustic comment about taking partisanship out of politics. Can anyone imagine being ruled by a monotonous bunch of non-partisan moderates? What will Barnie and I argue about? We might as well close down this blog as it would turn into a boring discussion of daring subjects like fence-sitting, walking the middle lane, not taking right or left turns, etc. 🙂

  25. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    John K: Just to dispel any doubts, I also support school vouchers!

  26. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Hate to agree with Phil 3 times in the same post, but yeah – partisanship is AWESOME. Occasionally people need to take a deep breath though…

  27. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    Partisanship has its place, but it’s only effective when used sparingly.

  28. Barnie Day Avatar
    Barnie Day

    In the best non-partisan fashion, John Chichester,the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, fired a shot yesterday at Jerry Kilgore’s ‘cold fusion’ approach to the state’s transportation needs. ‘Cold fusion?’ The notion that you can build roads and other infrastructure without money. Kilgore and Co. may not realize it yet, but this shot was not across the bow. This one went in below the water line.

  29. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    Barnie: I don’t know what Chichester is talking about, since Kilgore is proposing to raise a lot of money for transporation by giving taxing authority to regional transportation authorities, re-incarnating the Albo traffic abuser fees, etc.

    That’s why Kilgore is not getting much traction with fiscal conservatives who will either vote for him holding their noses or will stay home on election day.

    I take it, it’s more of a case that Kilgore isn’t proposing to do it Chichester’s way–i.e., raise the gasoline tax at a time when gas prices are going through the roof.

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “And even if the rail to Dulles ever comes to fruition, it’s highly unlikely that the toll road users could use the subway because of incompatible traffic patterns.” —which will have changed by then.

  31. Ken Reid Avatar
    Ken Reid

    The real issue is the diversion of tolls — which is designed for highway improvements, and specifically, the facility which is charging the toll – to Metro, when Metro services but 3% of trips. THis decision in the Dulles Toll Road case could have consequences for other toll facilities in Virginia, unless politicians start waking up and realizing we need more highways, not more rail. Highways can carry a multitude of vehicles — cars, trucks, buses, even bicycles. A rail line carries but ONE mode of transportation, and is exorbitantly expensive to build and maintain. It also is bad precedence to spend about $500,000 on a PR/ad blitz to tell everyone in N. Va. how great is is we’re raising tolls for rail, and then lie to the public about its benefits. theyve evne called it “Rail to Dulles” when in fact, it’s rail to Reston. When the Pocohontas Pwy raised tolls, there was no such campaign to “alert” people. So, this is a classic case of our govt. using our tax dollars to lie to us. I hope all of you will visit notollincrease.com and join our effort to block future increases in tolls for dulles rail.

  32. Doug W. Avatar
    Doug W.

    Just save a little pity for us Comcast subscribers in Arlington who, for the last three weeks, have been bombarded with the Choo-Choo People’s obnoxious, idiotic, poorly-produced commercial.

    For those lucky enough not to have seen it, it featured a chorus of women and children singing “I’ve been working on the railroad” over pictures of happy commuters gleefully tossing their unneeded quarters into Toll Road collection baskets.

    Your tax dollars at work, or what passes for work these days…

  33. U. R. A. Moron Avatar
    U. R. A. Moron

    What about the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE, that the convoy of SUVs that clogs the toll road every day is doing just a wee bit of harm to the environment? Did it ever occur to you that mass transit reduces air pollution? You’re the idiots that choose to work in arlington but live in reston (or vice versa), so now you get to pail for the rail that you so clearly need. If I had my way, they’d raise the toll to $10, and most of y’all would take the bus.

  34. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    U.R.A. Moron, You raise legitimate points about mass transit and pollution. But your argument would carry more weight if you didn’t refer to bloggers who disagree with you as “idiots.” We all get exasperated at times when others fail to discern our brilliance, but we try to keep a civil tone. Thanks, The Publisher.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That Choo Choo commercial only made me laugh and shake my head at first, but after being subjected to it at every commercial break for a month I was angry. I imagine the people who came up with that idea would have worked for Joseph Goebbels had they been Germans 60 years ago. It’s one thing to insult everybody’s intelligence on the air, but to get paid to do it BY THE VERY PEOPLE THEY ARE INSULTING was too much for me.

    U.R.A Moron, did you ever think that many people who use the Toll road can’t afford to live near where they work, or they work and visit various locations? Also by your logic if eveyone lived where they work, nobody would need the rail line they are being taxed to build.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT