Virginia Coffee House

[rusthebuss]

Va. Senators propose a tax increase on gas and new, used cars!!!!

It says tax on a new car that costs 20k would normally be 600 but it would jump to 1k with the new proposal.

[vdogg]

Va. Senators propose a tax increase on gas and new, used cars!!!!

It says tax on a new car that costs 20k would normally be 600 but it would jump to 1k with the new proposal.

Ouch, but it may be necessary. You won't feel that shock right away, it'll be factored into your vehicles payment

plan so really it would mean a slight increase in monthly payment over the normal 2-5 year loan period.

[wrldcoupe4]

I think Kaine is opposed to raising the gas tax... from what I've read, he's proposing a tax increase on only new car sales.

[rusthebuss]

I think Kaine is opposed to raising the gas tax... from what I've read, he's proposing a tax increase on only new car sales.

Yeah a ridiculous amount of tax on a car.

[wrldcoupe4]

actually.... from what I read, he's proposing making the car SALES tax equal to the state SALES tax of 5%...

[rusthebuss]

actually.... from what I read, he's proposing making the car SALES tax equal to the state SALES tax of 5%...

going from 600 dollars in tax to a 1000 is alot. That is ridiculous. Pocket raping IMO and they don't have alternatives for people either. This will make it where someone that is not financially well off struggle. They need to have mass transit before doing something like this.

[wrldcoupe4]

so buy a used car...

[rusthebuss]

so buy a used car...

tax is going up on used and new cars

[Former Resident of HR]

Lets talk politics!

Wilder is fixing Kaines screw ups now and someone is going to have to do the same when he leaves the governors office

Is this kind of like how Gilmore screwed up the state by deciding to eliminate the car tax just when the economy tanked?

[Former Resident of HR]

Tolling the existing harbor crossings is justified, IMO. The toll revenue will help finance the construction of the Third Crossing, which will benefit ALL trans-harbor travelers. Indeed it's being built to alleviate congestion on other crossings. If you use the HRBT the 3rd crossing will benefit you and therefore you should be responsible for sharing a portion (toll) of the cost.

I think tolls and other auto-related charges (DMV fees, gas tax, increased violation fines, etc) pass the cost burden to those who will use the system. Sales tax is regressive, meaning those who earn the least pay a higher proportion of their income than wealthier people. I don't see why someone working minimum wage who takes the bus to work should be made to subsidize highway construction at a higher proportion than those who will actually use the highways.

BTW how many states charge a sales tax on non-prepared food? I think VA is one of only 10 or 15.

Hmmmm. I guess that you have not read the reports that the new "third crossing" will barely help reduce traffic at the main bottleneck in our area, the HRBT. Much of our traffic happens in the summers when we have tourists who want to go to VA Beach and NOT Suffolk/Portsmouth. Tolling all the existing crossings YEARS before there is any relief is not only absurd, it should be criminal. The main reason for a 3rd crossing is to develop the ports' capacities and to help get commercial traffic in and out smoothly. Fair enough, but being as the cost is about twice as much as expanding 64 and HRBT, the state should kick in the extra cost (being as they get all the port revenue).

Tolls are a form of tax and are regressive as well. If tolls were charged based on direction traveled, time of day, type of car driven through them, etc, they would be fairer. Someone living in Hampton driving to Norfolk at 7AM paying the same as someone driving to Newport News from Suffolk at 10PM makes no sense whatsoever. Just like we pay for "peak" and "off peak" phone rates, tolls should be based on the same principal.

And just as you don't see why someone who rides the bus to work should subsidize the person on the highway, I would argue that many of us don't enjoy subsidizing the bus riders. It's not like HRT turns anything remotely close to a profit.

[BGW]

going from 600 dollars in tax to a 1000 is alot. That is ridiculous. Pocket raping IMO and they don't have alternatives for people either. This will make it where someone that is not financially well off struggle. They need to have mass transit before doing something like this.

Someone who isn't financially well off isn't going to be buying a $20K car in the first place.

[wrldcoupe4]

I like the portion of the proposal that calls for higher fees on tickets for traffic offenses:

[rusthebuss]

I like the portion of the proposal that calls for higher fees on tickets for traffic offenses:

[lammius]

JPN, congestion or peak period pricing is a good idea that I support. Many places in Europe have done it and a few of the bridges in the New York area charge higher toll rates during the peak period. Whether or not it lessens volumes during peak periods I don't know.

I haven't read any reports on the 3rd crossing, apart from occasional news bytes. Do you know what agency or consulting team produced the ones you discussed?

[VAGATOR]

A few points....

-Tolls are coming....its the only tax the state would be willing to raise that would allow these super projects in Hampton Roads and NOVA to be built

-You can toll the bridge tunnel, just require people to have EZ Passes, not very complicated, especially in the year 2006

-The Third Tunnel and not an enlarged HRBT will be built. As the Pinners Point project has showed, expanding the Port of Hampton Roads into the largest on the East Coast is the a major goal for the state.

-The Third Tunnel is the best option to relieving if done right. That means I-64 has to be enlarged to 4 lanes(one HOV) to Williamsburg and 3 lanes to Richmond, and second midtown tunnel and an expanded 158 out of Suffolk to I-95 Richmond. This would allow Suffolk, Cheaspeake, and lower Virginia Beach to avoid 1-64 all together, thus moving a lot of traffic of that road.

-NOVA's population has probably doubled in the last 15 years. Clearly the state wasn't ready or expected that occurance to happen. When that kind of growth happen, traffic is going to be terrible. Personally, I think the roads up here in pretty good shape, just too many damn cars.

[tombarnes]

This is ridiculous. From the Virginian Pilot....

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...n=93558&tref=po

Edited January 26, 2006 by tombarnes

[vdogg]

This is ridiculous. From the Virginian Pilot....

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...n=93558&tref=po

It's sad they feel they have time to debate such nonsense.

[rusthebuss]

That is a stupid song! Why do we even have to have a state song anyways?

[Cadeho]

Why do we need a state bird or beverage? I think it's tradition... our state song is like our state anthem. It should show our pride in the state... like anyone really knew the old one... or any of the state symbols other than the bird and flower.

But that song... it's about a region instead about the state. Heck I'd nominate "FFV" from 1776 over that one.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Cadeho

[lammius]

How about "Virginia" by Clipse?

[urbanfan]

Why do we need a state bird or beverage? I think it's tradition... our state song is like our state anthem. It should show our pride in the state... like anyone really knew the old one... or any of the state symbols other than the bird and flower.

But that song... it's about a region instead about the state. Heck I'd nominate "FFV" from 1776 over that one.

What? Carry me back to old Virginny? I don't think there's too many people who don't know it. It's a pretty easy song to remember.

[tombarnes]

What? Carry me back to old Virginny? I don't think there's too many people who don't know it. It's a pretty easy song to remember.

Carry Me Back to Old Virgnny was retired for obvious reasons. I don't mind the idea of a state song, but the selection they have made defies reason. I also heartily agree that too much legislatorial time should not be wasted on the subject. Choose something and get on with more important matters.

[Former Resident of HR]

-The Third Tunnel and not an enlarged HRBT will be built. As the Pinners Point project has showed, expanding the Port of Hampton Roads into the largest on the East Coast is the a major goal for the state.

-The Third Tunnel is the best option to relieving if done right. That means I-64 has to be enlarged to 4 lanes(one HOV) to Williamsburg and 3 lanes to Richmond, and second midtown tunnel and an expanded 158 out of Suffolk to I-95 Richmond. This would allow Suffolk, Cheaspeake, and lower Virginia Beach to avoid 1-64 all together, thus moving a lot of traffic of that road.

As you say, the 3rd crossing is the priority for the state to develop the Port of Virginia. Therefore the state and the federal government should be chipping in a good portion of the cost because they are the two biggest factors in making the cost of a new crossing almost double.

The 3rd crossing will do very little to aleviate traffic on the HRBT. VDOT even admits this in their reports (which no, I do not have on my computer but I will look for them...) Even if the Midtown tunnel were expanded, it still dumps out onto city streets that are not freeway-grade. The downtown tunnel is constantly backed up in either direction every rush hour. Most of the peak traffic here occurs in the summer months and most of the tourists have no desire to take a huge detour to sit in another traffic jam anyway. Even if they take 664 and then go back over the "uptown tunnel" or whatever it is that is slated to meet 64 near the present 564, they will still have to sit in the massive traffic jam from 564 to the High Rise Bridge.

None of the proposals seem to address HR's worst traffic problems: 1. the HRBT, 2. I-64 from 546 all the way past the High Rise Bridge, 3. the 264 interchange and 264 at the 4. Newtown, 5. Independance, 6. Rosemont and 7. Lynnhaven interchanges and the 8. High Rise Bridge. The 3rd crossing is an overhyped and overpriced system that will only aid the ports and developers wanting to turn Suffolk into Chesapeake. Again I am all for that option, but we should have a VOTE on it and we should also be refunded the difference if we vote for the cheaper option (expanded HRBT) and the state still goes ahead with the 3rd crossing.

[Stunad]

I agree with the notion that an expanded HRBT is the best option for our traffic woes. The third crossing, from what I've seen, will just create another bottleneck down stream in the system. In my proposal (haha)the current HRBT should be used as an extention to the HOV on I-64...that way there would be HOV from Chesapeake to Newport News. They should build a new span over the water that can accomodate three lanes in each direction and run parallel to the current span. Imagine a commute to either side of the water with region wide HOV...maybe folks would use it if they didn't have to mix back into the clogged highway like they do now.

[urbanfan]

I think the best option to solve this problem is to just build the 564 extension out to the MM with an extension down to 164 without expanding the current 664 and floating in new tunnels. The capicity of MM is no where near capacity therefore why widen it. Just build the 564 extension with the extension to 164 and the port wins by having direct access to tunnels that are more than adequate in height. Then take all of the other money that would have been spent on new tunnels for the MM and put that toward new tunnels for hampton roads bridge tunnel. Every body wins, we get a wider I-64 and the ports get there direct access for little more than the full price of the third crossing project.