DENVER | Transportation Thread

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Denverite

And does anyone know if this means that the gas tax at the pump will be eliminated? In other words, will our gas at the pump be 40-cents/gal less?

If they did this, it would replace the gas tax. As for the other question of why CDOT, or the State of Colorado generally, doesn't raise the gas tax, its because of TABOR. Same reason why we simply haven't done an inflation indexed tax or a percentage tax.

[Denverite]

On the issue in TABOR - I am familiar with it having lived here since its inception but can someone explain how TABOR prohibits gas tax increases specifically? Is there specific language to that kind of tax or is it every kind of tax that TABOR affects?

How does our gas tax rate compare to other states?

Are you sure that the gas tax would be eliminated at the pump? What about tourism - autos from out of state? They wouldn't be paying the tax and I can't imagine Colorado would try to gather mileage data from each individual that may have driven through Colorado that lives elsewhere.

The fact that this eliminates the tax at the pump gives even more incentive for gas guzzlers. Which is so insane to me. What's the logic in penalizing clean autos?

I find this proposal indefensible. And I'm a pro-tax kind of guy.

[TakeFive]

Denverite...

With respect to gas taxes among states there are two good sources for that (and many other things): Wikipedia and the Tax Foundation.

With respect to raising the fuel taxes in Colorado the Legislature would need to pass a proposal and present it to the voters across the state for approval. Voters would prefer NOT to have higher gas taxes but could be convinced. But before voters would buy in you'd need political harmony with a majority of both parties supporting such a move. That has proven elusive or impossible to date. In essence TABOR makes the task nearly impossible - at least w/o political agreement and enthusiastic support. By contrast it's much easier to get local approval for something a smaller group of people like or at least accept as necessary.

The problem with a VMT tax is there are many technical and other complexities; I'm very skeptical. In any case I doubt they would eliminate the gas taxes but just augment them with a VMT. But anything is possible ofc.

[TakeFive]

Denverite...

A big issue with TABOR is that it limits state budget increases to the cost of inflation plus growth. The cost to do certain things often runs well head of the CPI. This is how and where philosophical differences between political parties make choices more difficult and CDOT has been the stepchild unfortunately. No other state has this problem.

Historically, states have relied heavily on Federal funds which come (primarily) from the Federal fuel taxes which also hasn't been raised since 1993. States would then use their own fuel taxes to have necessary matching funds and for maintenance.

This model has been breaking down so many states have had to take steps to raise their own funding typically through gax tax increases. Many states have also used other state funding to meet their growth and transportation needs. Two growing states, Washington and Georgia last year raised funding for their state DOT by a $billion per year. Each state will use somewhat different sources. Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma and North Dakota use oil and gas fees for example.

[Denverite]

Thanks for the input, guys. Responses were what I expected to hear. I think this will prove to be an incredibly unpopular approach. Particularly because of the unfair advantage for gas guzzlers. I find it outright offensive.

What doesn't make sense is being that I believe that this will indeed be so unpopular, why not just focus on convincing voters to increase the gas tax? Seems like a waste of money in consulting and testing this sort of thing.

I still can't reconcile in my head where our tax money is going. I know it's a typical thing to say, and it's a complex issue, but it sure seems strange. Hickenlooper is proposing to slash education and infrastructure funding, meanwhile CDOT builds toll roads and can't even agree to a sound barrier wall when they previously did (C-470 expansion). Where is this money going?

Granted, Hickenlooper is the word Democrat, ever.

[bunt_q]

Suggest the following google searches:

"colorado governor state budget"
"colorado department of transportation budget"
"colorado office of state planning and budgeting"

And when you're done reading, having taken on some small measure of personal civic responsibility, perhaps you will have some more narrowly tailored questions that we can help answer. "Where is my tax money going" isn't a productive place to start. It's lazy.

Also, you seem pretty fired up about this for no apparent reason. Most progressives would support a VMT approach as more equitable. And all of this nonsense about punishing clean vehicles - where are you getting that? Seems awfully premature. Our registration fees are already tiered by vehicle weight. If a VMT fee was added, why would you assume that it couldn't, or wouldn't, be similarly tiered?

The intriguing question to me is whether a VMT fee could be imposed (similar to the bridge surcharges) with simple legislation, rather than a vote, since TABOR only applies to taxes, not fees. My off the cuff, off the record, three-glasses-of-wine-in, instinctual and very unofficial response is that it probably could be.

I doubt there has been any discussion of whether it would supplement or replace the gas tax. Probably would depend on the relative balance of equities and cost to administer both. The federal gas tax would still have to be imposed, I would assume.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Also, you seem pretty fired up about this for no apparent reason. Most progressives would support a VMT approach as more equitable. And all of this nonsense about punishing clean vehicles - where are you getting that? Seems awfully premature. Our registration fees are already tiered by vehicle weight. If a VMT fee was added, why would you assume that it couldn't, or wouldn't, be similarly tiered?

Well, here's how the Post is writing about it. As written, it perpetuates the idea that a VMT punishes cleaner cars, but the Post ignored the fact that the U.S. Congressional Budget Office report on VMTs did have a weight-per-axle recommendation in it.

[Octavian]

VMT fee is more efficient revenue system for building and maintaining roads. As use increases, revenue increases. You only pay for what you use. Through registration, you know how much a car weighs so you could adjust it for the weight of a Hummer vs a Fiesta if desired.

Gas tax is better if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases. If you are CDOT though, the biggest part of your job is maintaining roads so VMT makes more sense. Greenhouse gases are a different policy objective. If you want to do that, do that on its own merits. Washington State just had a carbon tax initiative fail which would have lowered other taxes and fees.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Octavian

VMT fee is more efficient revenue system for building and maintaining roads. As use increases, revenue increases. You only pay for what you use.

Not really and only in theory and i'm sure we're not thinking about all the potential kinks. Sounds like a glitchy, hackers dream-come-true to me.

Unless you don't care about the goods and services you rely on every day, how commercial vehicles are taxed is an issue. Plus there's a boatload of out-of-state vehicles that won't be accounted for unless the whole country went to such a system.

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Well, here's how the Post is writing about it. As written, it perpetuates the idea that a VMT punishes cleaner cars, but the Post ignored the fact that the U.S. Congressional Budget Office report on VMTs did have a weight-per-axle recommendation in it.

Sadly, news organizations which are struggling to make money don't drive traffic by being factually correct but boring.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The intriguing question to me is whether a VMT fee could be imposed (similar to the bridge surcharges) with simple legislation, rather than a vote, since TABOR only applies to taxes, not fees. My off the cuff, off the record, three-glasses-of-wine-in, instinctual and very unofficial response is that it probably could be..

A vehicle miles traveled tax-fee has a funny ring to it. Methinks the wine got the best of you on this one.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I doubt there has been any discussion of whether it would supplement or replace the gas tax. Probably would depend on the relative balance of equities and cost to administer both. The federal gas tax would still have to be imposed, I would assume.

I do think there may be many good reasons to utilize both.

[Denverite]

Anyway, TakeFive and a few others, thank you for your replies. I did do due diligence on trying to figure some of this out - as indicated by the fact I cited the link to the news article and the calculator, but I am not an expert on TABOR and was looking for some responses from people who are more on top of things than I am on the subject.

Back to the VMT fee. Why not just continue to build toll roads if the concept is to pay for what you use? That way all users can choose to pay it and their contribution is the same regardless of vehicle make and model.

[Cirrus]

Public service announcement: If you do not want to read a particular person's posts, you can literally have the forum software filter out their posts so you don't see them. Click that person's name to view their public profile, then click "user lists," and then "add to ignore list."

Step 1:


Step 2:

[seventwenty]

Cirrus, we're still allowed to mock each other through our profiles, right?

[bunt_q]

If we could toll existing lanes, relying on toll lanes along might work. But there are legal barriers to that. When you're limited to adding rolled managed lane capacity ,where choosing to pay is always optional, it's pretty unusual that the tolls alone are enough. The economics of rolling is tricky. An investment grade traffic and revenue analysis is expensive and time consuming, and is a necessary precursor to using tolling to issue long term debt. C-470 will be the first toll corridor that mostly pays for itself in the short term, but it's because there will be no free HOV, it's a predictable commuter corridor, and most importantly, folks down there are rich, so the money value of their time is higher than average. All of that leads to a tolling-friendly financial structure. But pick basically any other corridor That matters and it's been looked at already and rolling won't generate the revenues needed.

[trubador]

Originally Posted by Octavian

VMT fee is more efficient revenue system for building and maintaining roads. As use increases, revenue increases. You only pay for what you use. Through registration, you know how much a car weighs so you could adjust it for the weight of a Hummer vs a Fiesta if desired.

Gas tax is better if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases. If you are CDOT though, the biggest part of your job is maintaining roads so VMT makes more sense. Greenhouse gases are a different policy objective. If you want to do that, do that on its own merits. Washington State just had a carbon tax initiative fail which would have lowered other taxes and fees.

Are there any hybrid models out there. I am all for a VMT AND a gas tax. Don't want to lose any of that gas tax from tourists.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Public service announcement: If you do not want to read a particular person's posts, you can literally have the forum software filter out their posts so you don't see them. Click that person's name to view their public profile, then click "user lists," and then "add to ignore list."

Step 1:


Step 2:

I see how it is...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Cirrus, we're still allowed to mock each other through our profiles, right?

Certainly not.

Originally Posted by RyanD

I see how it is...

The responsibilities of power. Er, I mean sorry, can't hear you complain, filtered you out.

[Cirrus]

Apparently Amtrak may add service between La Junta and Pueblo by splitting 1 railcar off the Southwest Chief at La Junta and sending it separately to Pueblo.

Fascinating way to add service to a city without adding any more trains.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Certainly not.

[Agent Orange]

So the G line being delayed to next year is probably not a shock to anyone at this point, but it looks like the R line has problems of its own that will push it back to 2017 as well: DBJ.

[trubador]

I'm not sure what the holdup on the R line has been. The track has been complete for at least 3 or 4 months and they are doing the final touches on all the stations, but I am still not seeing the test trains run end to end.