Comments on Bacon's Rebellion: Caucusing with "lepers and tramps"

IF, the cost of cleanup vs the value of cleanup we...

2008-03-16T01:13:00.000-05:00

IF, the cost of cleanup vs the value of cleanup wer linear, this would not be an issue.

But, they are not. Generally, they are quadratic.

The first time you clean a paintbrush, you remove half the paint, the second time, one quarter, the third time one eighth, etc.

But each time, takes the same amount of solvent.

To get the paintbrush pervectly clean reuires an infinite number of washes, and and infnite amout of solvent.

And the solvent must be disposed of. If you require that the solvent be cleaned - you have the same problem over again.

At some point, you have to make a choice. But, as far as I can tell, the environmental movement (generally) is denying this fact, and (eventually) this will be their undoing.

If, EMR is right, WHO will be left out, and WHO not?

At what point does environmentalism equal genocide, or something like it?

You will deny this is an issue, because you believe that efficiency = productivity = sustainability.

Non-sustainability means we run up against the edge of the petri dish and die.

Sustainability means that we die before we run up against the edge.

That just means we have to make hard choices sooner.

RH

"efficiency = productivity = sustainability."I sai...

2008-03-16T00:37:00.000-05:00

"efficiency = productivity = sustainability."

I said this was wrong. sustainability is not part of the equation.

I'll modify that response. It is only part of the equation if the timeframe is infinity, or until we run out of other resources.

That is equivalent to saying that sustainability has an infinite value. That we can afford to do ANYTHING today in favor of the future. That means we must have an infinite discount rate.

Which is exactly the sort of thing that got us into the current mortgage mess.

--------------------------

This week, there was a big news bou-ha-ha over new ozone standards. Different sides advocated different standards, and in this case, lower standards won out.

By your previous arguments, the system must have worked. Both sides had an opportunity to make thie case,based ont the facts available.

I'm not so sure.

On one side, a higher standatrds representative said, "I'll be satisfied when people can breathe clean air".

It's hard to argue with that sentiment.

On the other side, some (industry) representative said that the science was being misrepresented. That people would wind up paying (as a matter of certainty) for (death and morbidity) benefits they might never see.

I think BOTH sides are misrepresenting the case.

What we really have is "I'll be satisfied when people can breathe clean air (regardless of the cost, even if it means a cure for cancer)".

vs

"People would wind up paying for benefits they might (or might not) ever see."

In the end, the most probable value is the probability of success times the cost of the attempt.

Mathematically, this is NOT the same as an infinite expenditure to prevent failure, times the probablility of failure.

RH

"I think you might be hopelessly confused about ef...

2008-03-16T00:04:00.000-05:00

"I think you might be hopelessly confused about efficiency, productivity and sustainability."

I don't think so. I have more than a few graduate level courses on these topics. Of course, my instructers were only PHd's.

"You confuse efficiency with a vehicle that can go faster than other vehicles."

Only if it can go faster using the same amount of fuel. Or carry more cargo using the same amount of fuel. That is why I chose sailboats, using renewable fuel as an example.

"more productivity means that you produce MORE for less money for the resources used to produce."

I agree. Why are you arguing?

"Making a manufacturing facility faster and faster is of no use if in the end, it costs you more per unit to produce."

Not necessarily. It is a question of WHEN your payback ooccurs, and WHEN your market runs out.

If you hit a runaway bestseller, like the hula hoop, or this weeks box ofice hit movie, you had better be poised to capitalize quickly.

"efficiency = productivity = sustainability."

This is completley and utterly wrong. Sustainability is not part of that equation. I would like to think it is as much as you, but I know better. It violates every law of physics and thermodynamics, not to mention, economics.

"You can take the most efficient car in the world -the one that uses the least fuel and costs less than any other vehicle to own and maintain .. and put it on a race track and it will come in so much dead last that it would not be funny."

Depends on the race. I have bet a race aginst my stink pot friends many times. My sailboat against their power boat.

Annapolis to Cape Town.

I have yet to have someone take the bet.

It is all a "system". After the officials convert all the dung burners to kerosene (to reduce pollution), then they will have to have a new system ot go out and collect all the dung.

They will probaby use trucks that create pollution.

But, it will be OK becuase of all the jobs created.

RH

Some ecnomists claim that, if you did the accounti...

2008-03-15T23:47:00.000-05:00

Some ecnomists claim that, if you did the accounting correctly, and take into account depreciation for natural resources, then the GDP is actually negative.

I don't disagree. And this argument is central to the environmental movement.

The question, then, is whether we can increase the use of (present) renewable resouces enough to compensate for the overuse of (previous, cetacious) renewable resources.

Given that the previous renewable resources had a few hundred million years head start, the outlook isn't all that good.

EMR has said that what we need is fewer people consuming fewer resources. This is one of the places he and I agree.

If sustainable resources are, like dung, less efficient than fossil resources, then we may have already passed the point at which what is sustainably sufficient is sufficient for all.

We don't know if that is the case. People like youself believe that we can achieve sufficiently greater efficiencies that we can put off the eventual reckoning.

If it turns out, now or eventually, that what is sustainable is no longer sufficient, then we are going to have to face some harsh realities.

Today, we call it genocide. The Chinese call it "One Child". At present, we consider such practices aberrant, and localized.

Eventually we will ahve to make some decisions as to what is worth doing and what isn't.

RH

Dung burns at a low temperature, which means you h...

2008-03-15T23:27:00.000-05:00

Dung burns at a low temperature, which means you have to use a lot of it to make a cup of tea.

And, because it burns at a low temperature, dung creates a lot of pollution. By contrast, the sun burns at a high temperature, and creates relatively little pollution, pound for pound.

Dung creates so much pollution that authorities are attempting to supplant it with kerosene.

Not a perfect answer, but a better answer, given the conditions.

We could attempt to supplant dung with solar cookers, if you don't mind starving during monsoon season.

Sustainable is NOT the same as efficient. In the end, it will necessarily be sufficient, but that means a lot of (current) people will do without.

We can see this in the current debate over the (real) sustainability of biofuels.

RH

RH - I think you might be hopelessly confused abou...

2008-03-14T11:19:00.000-05:00

RH - I think you might be hopelessly confused about efficiency, productivity and sustainability.

You confuse efficiency with a vehicle that can go faster than other vehicles.

that's not efficiency.

Race cars get 4 mpg on high octane fuel and engines that are not even usable for normal road use.

These vehicles have every part of them tuned for one thing - speed.

efficiency on the other hand means more productivity.

more productivity means that you produce MORE for less money for the resources used to produce.

Making a manufacturing facility faster and faster is of no use if in the end, it costs you more per unit to produce.

You could have the fastest manufacturing facility in the world but if your widget has to sell for more than other widgets then your competitors will beat you - and that is called sustainability.

efficiency = productivity = sustainability.

race cars and boats are very expensive niche vehicles that sacrifice everything else to accomplish a single thing - speed.

You can take the most efficient car in the world -the one that uses the least fuel and costs less than any other vehicle to own and maintain .. and put it on a race track and it will come in so much dead last that it would not be funny.

So you're totally misunderstanding what true efficiency is...in an economic context.

"dung is sustainable but inefficient"

hey, don't you think they would already be using something else other than dung if it WAS sustainable?

what else would be MORE sustainable?

Do foreclosed properties pay property taxes ? It a...

2008-03-13T14:22:00.000-05:00

Do foreclosed properties pay property taxes ? It appears not, and if not how is it legal to not pay taxes ? I recently called the Loudoun county treasurer's office and they didnt seem to have a clue, they put me on hold for 15 minutes and then came back and said its up to the owner to pay the taxes and I then repeated my question and said, "The bank is the owner"...took em a minute to recover and say oh, uh I guess they dont pay it...they will have the new owner (when it ever happens) pay the back taxes to take the property...

Does this sound wrong or what ? I know I have to pay my taxes on time, why do the banks/title holders not have to pay their taxes ? And if not, what is their incentive to sell the home in a timely fashion, think of all those uncollected taxes the county is not collecting and then look as your tax rates go up up....I think this is a national issue

The racing boat is more efficient because it gets ...

2008-03-12T13:46:00.000-05:00

The racing boat is more efficient because it gets more speed out of the same power (derived from the wind).

The racing car is NOT more efficient because it gets more speed by consuming more energy.

One racing car may be more efficient than the next, if it gets more speed for the same energy consumed.

In the case of race cars, you just put your foot down, and the engine is computer controlled. all the adjustments are made for you.

The race boat requires that you monitor all the adjustments, to get the most out of it. Another boat may sail itself, but not be able to maintain the same speed.

So the race boat is more efficient as far as extracting power from the wind is concerned. But that calculationn ignores what it takes out of the operator.

So, you put an energy measuring device on the two operators or captains, and you find that one covers the distnce with much less effort. He is more efficient, but his boat is less efficient.

Next, you fill the boats with cargo. The racing boat will still go faster, but not so much because it is loaded down. The other boat can carry a heaver load with less performance loss.

When you get to destination you figure

How much did boat cost?
How long was the trip?
How much work did I have to do?
How much could the boat carry?
What did it sell for?

Was it worth it?

Sooo, now, you can compute the efficiency of the entire system.

You seem to think that if "A" is better, then having more "A" makes everything better. Ignoring everything else.

-----------------------------------

"The idea of HOT lanes is not to have empty roads but not to have gridlock either - instead to manage for efficiency."

But, we already know that isn't what is going to happen. Maximum efficiency (road through put) means something like 35 mph and three car lenghts apart.

They are going to manage for maximum revenue: charge more for higher speeds and get fewer cars through.

-----------------------------

The HOT lane won't be empty, but it won't be as full as it would be at max capacity. Some of the postponed trips will happen and some won't.

The loans will be guranteed by the government, which means the people take the risk, and the operator takes the profit.

It means that people who never use HOT lanes will help pay for those that do. Their business will suffer to help others.

--------------------------------

"There is little room for road expansion in NoVa..so how would you propose to avoid gridlock and enable the road network to be more efficient if NOT with HOT Lanes?"

But you DO have empty roads. In order to better manage what you have...

I'd condemn some downtown office buildings and move them to Springfield, etc.

No new road capacity required.
People drive less distance.
No new taxes (Tolls).
Less dysfunctional sttlement pattern.
Better overall management of what you have, instead of managing just the roadways.
More roadways working at closer to capacity, so better ROI per road.

Better SYSTEM efficiency.

------------------------------

"more efficiency frees money and capital to be used for other purposes."

That's right. Thats why efficiency promotes MORE consumption. But only if it is REAL efficiency: not the kind that robs Peter to pay Paul.

If the SYSTEM forks over $10 to free up $5 in "efficiencies" then no one is better off. It is just a wealth transfer.

Something that is truly efficient does not "work you to death", which is exactly why I presented the sailboat example. It is a false efficiency: It is pretty, expensive, exciting, and fast, but not necessarily efficient.

Like a Lexus on the HOT lane.

-------------------------------

Commuters that buy gas where they live and then commute to NoVa jobs don't pay a penny for their use of NoVa roads right now. The gas tax money goes to where they live.

Well, we don't really know that, do we? If that was true, NOVA would have plenty of road money, but road money isn't the problem.

Anyway, those NOVA residents vacation all over the state, without paying tolls. If you were advocating universal tolls instead of HOT lanes..........

--------------------------------

""efficiency" ... implies.. sustainability... processes that are not efficient are not inherently sustainable..."

Wrong. We have plenty of processes that are sustainable and inefficient. Some cities suffer excess pollution because slum dwellers cook and heat with dung. It is sustainable but inefficent. Authorities are trying to set up ways to distribute more kerosene cookers to cut down on pollution.

But then they will have to clean up the dung.

RH

"efficient than my local hardware, and that enable...

2008-03-11T21:24:00.000-05:00

"efficient than my local hardware, and that enables people to consume more stuff."

efficiency is productivity.

more efficiency = greater productivity

more efficiency frees money and capital to be used for other purposes.

something that is truly efficient does not "work you to death".

What you have there is maximum speed AT THE EXPENSE of operational efficiency.

You're essentially saying that a RACE CARE is an efficient vehicles .. except that it's not very practical.

"efficiency" ... implies.. sustainability... processes that are not efficient are not inherently sustainable...

but you also say... "that roads in NOVA have a higher ROI to the state as far as revenue produced goes, than empty roads do."

but you won't have empty roads. The idea of HOT lanes is not to have empty roads but not to have gridlock either - instead to manage for efficiency.

... and how do we reconcile that
"congestion is often characterized as ....threatening the economy of NoVa"...ergo the State of Virginia - ergo it's in the best interests of Virginia not to have gridlock in NoVa?

There is little room for road expansion in NoVa..so how would you propose to avoid gridlock and enable the road network to be more efficient if NOT with HOT Lanes?

You're basically down to trying to better manage what you have.. since major expansions are not physically nor fiscally feasible...unless tolled...

HOT lanes will also CAPTURE revenues from out-of-jurisdiction users of the NoVa road system that it does not get right now.

Commuters that buy gas where they live and then commute to NoVa jobs don't pay a penny for their use of NoVa roads right now. The gas tax money goes to where they live.

How would you deal with that problem if not with HOT lanes?

"A trip not made at rush hour - for some purpose i...

2008-03-11T20:14:00.000-05:00

"A trip not made at rush hour - for some purpose is NOT a trip NEVER made..."

Good point. But SOME of them will never be made. Those will be the low value trips that were marginal to begin with. The ones that aren't worth what the toll costs. They add up.

"every time two folks decide to go somewhere in one car instead of two - you count that as an economic loss..."

Not at all. I count it as an economic loss if it turns out to be a false economy. I need to go to the farm store to get something I need to get on with my day. Wife wants to pick up a couple of things. Her couple of things turns out to have difficulties of some kind and I blow the whole day. I would have been better off to take a separate car.

I definitely do not believe that maximum consumption is the best economy. Unfortunately, it does generally result in the most cash flow.

Ultimately, the best economy will be the best sustainable economy. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it will be anywhere near as robust as the one we have now. It will support fewer people at a lower level of subsistence.

If we are lucky. Otherwise we kill each other off fighting over resources before we get there.

We don't know when ultimately will happen.

"you see more efficiency as the enemy of more consumption..."

Nope, never said that. True Efficiency is the engine of consumption. Home Depot is more efficient than my local hardware, and that enables people to consume more stuff.

Not all efficiency is true efficiency. A modern racing sailboat is highly efficient. Only problem is that it will work you to death in the process of operating it, when a more normal boat will sail itself.

I'm not in favor of peak hour pricing simply because I believe it is being oversold, and cannot possibly deliver as promised. It is so obvious to me that it cannot deliver as promised that I have to think the people making the promises have another agenda.

-----------------------------

I believe that roads in NOVA have a higher ROI to the state as far as revenue produced goes, than empty roads do. I believe the HOT lanes will be more empty and deliver less money to the state coffers.

And I beleive that means the state will ask me for more money sooner.

They are not a good deal to me, even if I never drive on them.

RH

...."Maybe the GA is just trying to give NoVA a fi...

2008-03-11T16:54:00.000-05:00

...."Maybe the GA is just trying to give NoVA a fighting chance to get into heaven."

I really do hope... that in a few weeks or months.. there will be a website that I can visit that will have things like the school and road formulas... and other info that provides better transparency and understanding of how Virginia does business...

The more information that is available the more citizens can understand and participate in a meaningful way.

Sometimes it truly is a simple matter of providing a link that goes directly to the info... other times.. it may take some tweaking and fusing of data to produce more information...

I think ... two places that currently deserve "attaboys" is VPAP and Richmond Sunlight.

VPAP has been working hard to provide more info on lobby folk and more financial info on local elections...

Richmond Sunlight has been .. in the absence of a willingness of our legislators to take recorded votes in sub-committees and committees has been laboriously capturing video of the deliberations and putting it on the website. From what I understand, it is all consuming chore...

Slowly but surely the internet is going to open up the legislative and governing process to citizens who want to know.

People who make more money should pay more taxes. ...

2008-03-11T16:16:00.000-05:00

People who make more money should pay more taxes. They should pay more dollars and should pay a higher rate. People with more money should contribute more than they receive so that those with less money can receive more than they contribute.

I am fine with all that. If that means Fairfax County pays more than it gets back - fine. If that means I pay more then I get back - also fine. As EMR says, the Pope now considers excessive wealth accumulation a mortal sin. Maybe the GA is just trying to give NoVA a fighting chance to get into heaven.

All I want is an honest accounting. How much is paid by city / county (legal entities, EMR) and how much goes back. If it's relatively fair - I'll shut up. But the more opaque the process is the less confidence I have that it's fair.

EMR - A suggestion. When you learn a new language the teacher does not just hand you a dictionary and say, "All the words are in this book". Instead, the teacher starts with basic words and phrases and expands after they are learned. Is there a "Top 10" set of clear words that should be learned first?

Larry - Work is getting in the way of my database project. That and getting Bacon to agree to run it. Given my recent debates with Jim over the reasons for Virginia's fall from economic grace I should probably not be surprised. ;).

"HOT lanes migh cost you more than you collect fro...

2008-03-11T15:11:00.000-05:00

"HOT lanes migh cost you more than you collect from them"

let me guess.. you're going to provide a before and after economic study that proves that HOT lanes reduce GNP.. right?

:-)

I don't think you get it at all.

A trip not made at rush hour - for some purpose is NOT a trip NEVER made...

it's a trip deferred.. or it's 3 trips combined into one trip that does 3 things instead of 1 thing per trip.

It's efficiency.

It's why two friends decide to share a car trip rather than drive separately.

If I believe you.. every time two folks decide to go somewhere in one car instead of two - you count that as an economic loss...

and it's really only a loss if you believe that maximum consumption is the best economy and anything less than that done for efficiency actually harms the economy.

I see now why you're not in favor of peak hour pricing...

you see more efficiency as the enemy of more consumption...

re: computing per capita revenueson average.. does...

2008-03-11T14:59:00.000-05:00

re: computing per capita revenues

on average..

does the average Virginian pay approximately the same in gasoline, sales and income taxes taxes as a Northern Virginian?

Probably not.

Certainly not in sales tax if one assumes that higher income folks will spend more ...

then .. it's not even so simple as comparing NoVa average driver miles with RoVa average driver miles because of the commuting patterns that transcend NoVa boundaries.

There IS a formula that VDOT uses.. just as convoluted and weird as the formula for schools in it's own separate way...

Groveton -this is another reason you need to get on the stick with your data vault idea...

:-)

Think of it this way.Someone gets on the road for ...

2008-03-11T14:26:00.000-05:00

Think of it this way.

Someone gets on the road for a reason, to buy or sell something, as a general rule. NOVA roads are highly congested, but they also buy and sell far more stuff than the rest of the state.

Therefore, roads in NOVA have a higher ROI to the state as far as revenue produced goes. They get a lot more use, per hour, and probably a lot more sales per use. It ought to be worth more to the state to invest more in NOVA, than is some low use low revenue place.

Now consider the logic behind a HOT lane.

Someone gets on the road for a reason, as before, and he has some utility value for his trip. Say it is ten dollars per trip: if the trip costs more than that, then he has lost what he figures is his value or profit for the trip.

We set the toll on the HOT lane at $12. So if there is a guy out there whose utility is more than 12 dollars, then we get his 12 dollars in tolls and we get the taxes from whatever he went on that trip to buy or sell, because his trip was still worth it to him.

But, we lose ALL or substantially all of the trips for everyone whose utility value is smaller. So we don't get their tolls or congestion, but we don't get the urpose of their trip, either, or the revenue that derives from it.

HOT lanes migh cost you more than you collect from them.

RH

"The sole purpose of the exercise was to see if No...

2008-03-11T14:13:00.000-05:00

"The sole purpose of the exercise was to see if NoVa was getting back ..in transportation funding what their citizens pay in gas, sales and income taxes

.. and they do.. at least this year..."

Groveton is right. You can't determine this with the information you use. It assumes that the per capita VDOT number is paid equally by everyone in the state, which is far from true. You would have to assume that the taxes paid are more or less related to the amount earned.

Try it again and weight the amount paid by population and average income per county.

RH

Larry:I guess I am clueless but your approach does...

2008-03-11T13:01:00.000-05:00

Larry:

I guess I am clueless but your approach does not seem to allow for differences in taxes paid. Let me make a ridiculous example as a way of understanding your methodology. Let's assume that I personally pay all the federal gas tax, state gas tax and all sales taxes in Virginia. I live in NoVA. Would that alter your analysis of this issue?

VDOT would still get the same amount of money.

Virginia would still have the same population.

NoVA would still have the same population.

I think that VDOT would still allocate the same amount of transportation money to NoVA. But maybe this is where I have gone astray.

So - if I personally paid 100% of the taxes used to fund tranportation would that change your analysis?

Actually.. what I did...was :1. -calculate the per...

2008-03-11T12:23:00.000-05:00

Actually.. what I did...

was :

1. -calculate the per capita allocation of the VDOT annual budget - which INCLUDES.. Fed, State gas tax, 1/2% sales tax AND some dedicated General Revenues

2. - then I went and found out what the population of NoVa is.. about 2.4million..

3. - then I multiplied the per capita VDOT number times the population in NoVa

4. - THEN.. I went to the document that shows the Total Transportation Spending for NoVA - which is the Virginia Portion of the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program).

The sole purpose of the exercise was to see if NoVa was getting back ..in transportation funding what their citizens pay in gas, sales and income taxes

.. and they do.. at least this year...

but it does appear in the out years that NoVa will get shortchanged...

UNLESS.. the projected numbers indicate a fall-off in Fed and State gas tax receipts...

Now.. if folks want to expand out the discussion to include OTHER taxes in terms of NoVa being a net donor/recipient.. that's fine..but it strays from the core discussion about what NoVa spends on transportation.

... it's true that the school funding issue disadvantages NoVa but I don't think it has any "legs" on the transportation funding issue in the GA...

The papers today are saying that HR/TW legislators are supporting a 1 % sales tax for transportation for that region.

I thought ..that... that was what those guys rejected in 2002...

so.. either attitudes are changing in HR/TW or their elected are playing suicidal political games..

Larry:NoVA may be getting more than their share of...

2008-03-11T11:57:00.000-05:00

Larry:

NoVA may be getting more than their share of transportation funds. However:

1. I think you have to look at all costs and all tax revenues - not just transportation.

2. Where in your calculation do you compute the taxes paid by residents of NoVA? As I understand your calculation, you first set a per capita budget based on total VDOT budget divided by total Virginia population. Then, you allocate NoVA's share by looking at VDOT spend in NoVA versus NoVA population. You conclude that NoVA gets more than its per capita share of the VDOT budget. No doubt true. However, you never asnwer the question as to whether NoVA pays more than its share of the taxes used by VDOT. No? If NoVA commuters spend forever in traffic jams they also buy more gas per capita than elsewhere. Therefore, they pay more of the gas tax. Do I have this right?

I'd also suggest that the Republicans in the audience think this through. Alienating people with New Urban Regions will push the votes to the party that does not alienate these people. As Republicans call for no new taxes and the traffic jams continue the voters in the NUR start thinking that the Republicans "just don't get it". The Democrats say there must be more taxes collected. While nobody wants to pay more in taxes the Democrats seem to have an answer (short term, at least). They say - roads are underfunded, gas tax has not been raised in 21 years, therefore, we need to raise the gas tax and improve the roads. The Republicans say nothing. They hate tax increases but offer only vague talk of reducing the size of government, etc. However, when elected, they never actually shrink government. In fact, it seems to grow faster under Republican leadership than under Democratic leadership. They talk about functional patterns of human settlement but never seem to have any specific ideas as to how these new patterns can be implemented.

So, as people living within the NURs sit in traffic they hear candidates from the Democatic Party give a tough message - we need higher taxes to pay for higher costs. And they hear the candidates from the Republican Party with no plan whatsoever - government should miraculously shrink and then everything will be fine.

As the traffic jams get worse and worse - guess which party gets more and more of the NUR votes?

And as a higher percentage of the population lives within the NUR - guess which party starts to dominate the political landscape?

The sun is setting on the Virginia Republican Party. It may not yet be dark but it is dusk.

One of the best things for the Republican Party would be an effective regional Transportation Authority. If implemented, they could say that they have given the responsibility and authority to the regions. They could mumble something like "government closer to the governed works better than government further from the governed". While this, in and of itself, would solve nothing - it would push the biggest problem out of the GA without the state-wide Republicans having to overtly raise taxes (although this will be the inevitable consequence of regional transportation authorities).

Right now, the Republican Party is well on its way to creating Gov. Moran. And that will be a debacle of epic proportions.

I meant state revenue, not income. And remember re...

2008-03-11T11:33:00.000-05:00

I meant state revenue, not income.

And remember real estate taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes also support road funding. Where do you suppose most of that comes from?

RH

Run those figures again only with a weighted avera...

2008-03-11T11:31:00.000-05:00

Run those figures again only with a weighted average of income or taxes paid included.

Your argument actually plays right into Groveton's hand.

NOVA provides what, 42% of all state income?

RH

Groveton:take the annual VDOT budget of 4 billion ...

2008-03-11T10:01:00.000-05:00

Groveton:

take the annual VDOT budget of 4 billion dollars and divide it by 7 million people (the population of Virginia)...

4,000,000,000 / 7,000,000 = $571.43

now multiply that per capita number times the population of NoVa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia

do the math...

571.43 x 2,432,823 =
$1,390,188,046

Now go to the Virginia portion of the MPO TIP for NoVa:

2008 Total = $3,484.4 (millions)

http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/tip/fy0812tip/DRAFT_FY_0813_TIP.pdf

I'd say that NoVa is getting quite a bit MORE than their share...

of course.. 2009, 2010 and the years beyond look pretty sad...

IN PARTICULAR - look at the amount of Federal and State funding for the 'out' years of 2009-2013.

Fed money for 2008 = 1.5 Billion
Fed money for 2013 = 311 million

This is why the TA is so critical for NoVa.

What I suggest is that we stop arguing about what ...

2008-03-11T08:45:00.000-05:00

What I suggest is that we stop arguing about what is fair, and instead have a discussion about how to decide what is fair. Right now, it's just a question of who can scream the loudest and has the most votes. Whether it is the truth or not - whether it is equitable or not.

RH

"so that more folks can move in without paying pro...

2008-03-11T08:42:00.000-05:00

"so that more folks can move in without paying proffers "

I never said without paying ANY proffers.

You are right. It isn"t any more realistic than the fifty cent gas tax. but what is real is that what they have been doing (or rather not doing) since 1987 isn't realistic, either.

We have deferred our true costs for decades, and now we want to put an UNDUE portion on the back of newcomers. Some of that will be done by denying owners the right to improve their property. (Providing us with more customers, more taxes, and more options. We all like options, right?)

Everytime we do that, we are effectively borrowing money from them. We are denying them because we percieve some benefit to ourselves. And that is a benefit we are unwilling to pay for.

And, we may not even get the benefit we think we are getting. Jim Bacon would argue that such denials really just deny ourselves the chance at "better" patterns of habitation.

------------------------------

Fifty cents isn't off the planet in terms of feasibility. Europe does it. We can think small and say everything is unrealistic and unfeasible, or we can think big and make it happen. We could even make universal tolls happen instead of gas tax, if we choose to make it feasible.

But it is going to take a lot of money to do it. Any way you get it, whatever you call it, its a tax.

RH

Ray is on a roll here:"Plan b is to have an adequa...

2008-03-11T08:30:00.000-05:00

Ray is on a roll here:

"Plan b is to have an adequate gas tax until we get some other uniform system working.".

Exactly.

"If the gas tax had just been pegged at per dollar instead of per gallon, how much would it have already gone up since 1987?".

Exactly. Kind of like the sales tax and the income tax, etc. etc.

"What region provides the most funds to the state? What region has the least congested roads?".

Exactly. An income statement by region. Then, and only then, a debate about fairness.

"Maybe that's why they are trying to choke NOVA to death.">

Maybe. However, the geniuses who might want to choke NoVA better start thinking about the jobs moving to Maryland (easy), DC (easy), California / Texas (lots of electoral votes), etc. This philosophy (if true) would be indicitive of Virginia's political incompetence. Clowns in Virginia plot the demise of NoVA and end up with nothing. Then, they can blame poor soil and the Civil War for Virginia's further fall from prominenece.