Villanueva Misrepresents Adrianne Bennett’s Position on Transportation
Not only did hopefully outgoing Delegate Ron Villanueva ditch the Lynnhaven River NOW forum without notice, he then tried to tell voters through a mailing that Adrianne Bennett wants to “double” the gas tax to pay for unfunded transportation projects.
If Villanueva had bothered to show up, he would have known that he wasn’t telling the truth in his mailing.
Voters in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake deserve to know the truth, not only about Villanueva’s record of supporting legislation cutting education, and criminalizing the medical choices of women; but also where Adrianne Bennett stands on these issues, and more, including transportation.
To find out where Adrianne Bennett really stands on the issues, visit her website by clicking here.
You can also watch the video the forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of South Hampton Roads, and hear about the issues directly from the candidates.
Remember to VOTE on November 8th!
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Although I live in Virginia Beach, I do not live in the district.
I visited Adrianne’s website and found it had nothing more expansive on this issue then it had previously. For funding transportation needs: “Find a dedicated reliable transportation revenue source to meet maintenance and construction goals over the next several years”. Not exactly clear on what revenue source she is in favor of. I hope she is like most Democratic politicians in being in favor of raising fuel taxes (if additional revenue is needed) over what Republicans seem to be in favor of, which seems to be to make every major highway in Virginia a tollway.
Personally I am in favor of increasing the fuel tax by 10 cents a gallon. What I fear though is that what will end up happening is that taxes on diesel will be raised by 20 cents a gallon for large trucks only (through increasing the surtax only large trucks pay) and the gas tax will remain the same. That is the way things seem to work, every time taxes are raised they seem to be specially targeted at me.
November 8th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Our long-neglected transportation system is a major limiting factor for economic growth in Virginia.
The $4 billion transportation plan by Gov. McDonnell and Del. Villanueva depends on borrowing $3 billion, to be paid back by taxpayers under some future Governor (who they will then undoubtedly blame for raising taxes).
I think Bennett is in favor of raising the gas tax, but was afraid to come right out and say so because she knew it would be used against her in the political campaign. Of course, Villanueva used it against her anyway and the Virginian-Pilot editorial cited her lack of clear stands on issues.
Raising the gas tax and dedicating that revenue to transportation is clearly the best option. The gas tax has not kept up with inflation and so it has gradually decreased transportation funding since it was last raised in 1987. The gas tax is a user fee on everybody who drives on the roads. Unlike tolls, the gas tax would require no new infrastructure or administrative costs and can’t be avoided by overcrowding alternate routes. It would seamlessly capture revenue from out-of-state drivers. It would have the additional benefit of incenting fuel economy.
At 17.5 cents per gallon, Virginian’s gas tax is the 37th lowest in the nation. Adding 10 cents (as you suggest) would raise $500 million a year for transportation. Drivers on I-95 would still stop in Virginia for gas, since our 27.5 cent tax would be less than North Carolina’s current 32.5 cents. Maryland is currently at 23.5 cents, but their General Assembly has previously proposed a 10 cent increase, and their Governor has recently floated a 15 cent increase (to be phased in over the next three years and indexed to inflation after that).
November 9th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Actually, North Carolina’s fuel tax is variable. It currently is 35 cents per gallon. I believe they adjust it semiannually based on wholesale prices. I think 32.5 cents is the minimum/floor of how much they would charge.
February 6th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
LittleDavid: Since you are a trucker, I’ll ask you to “weigh in” on this topic: House Republican have proposed increasing the federal weight limit of trucks from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds. Would that increase traffic fatalities, add stress onto our deteriorating roads and bridges, and reduce the demand for truck drivers, or would it be a good thing?
February 12th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
The increased weight limits would be a bad thing in my estimation.
What would happen is that a third axle would be added to the trailer. The argument is that with the additional axle, you would have two additional braking hubs, allowing about the same braking time. Also, the weight increase with the additional axle would be the same as allowed for existing axles.
Not completely true.
When coming down mountain grades, modern trucks have the advantage of engine compression brakes, commonly referred to as Jake brakes. There will be no increase in the ability of the Jake brakes to keep the truck from gaining speed and running out of control on long, steep mountain grades due to the increased weight. Have you ever seen the runaway truck ramps on some of these grades? Well, due to advances in technology, they are very seldomly needed anymore, but with increased weight, they will once again become life savers. I also predict that there will be increased numbers of tragedies caused on mountain grades where the trucks brakes have faded due to the heat and there is no runaway truck ramp available or the tragedy happens before the trucker can get to the ramp.
The additional weight distributed on an additional axle will save additional wear on most pavement when the truck is going in a straight direction. However, when the truck needs to make a sharp 90 degree turn, there will be additional scruffing and wear to the top surface of the pavement if it is asphalt. The leading and trailing axles will be drug slightly sideways as the rear of the trailer pivots on the center axle. This problem would be greatest on asphalt and gravel surfaces, less on concrete surfaces. This is already a problem with tandem axles, but the problem will be amplified by adding another.
Another problem not addressed by just adding another axle is what is referred to as the “bridge law” that the industry currently operates under. Under it, there is a minimum spacing allowed for carrying the various weights so as to limit the strain on bridges and overpasses from weight concentrations. The idea is that if you spread the weight out over a longer distance, the less fatigue it will cause to the structure. Just adding another axle towards the center would not keep the truck from violating the bridge law. I am not an engineer, but it is the engineers who told us that this was a concern. If it really is not that big of a concern, then why has the trucking industry been forced to comply with the bridge law for all these years if it really didn’t matter? Due to lack of maintenance funding, the condition of our bridges have deteriorated since the bridge law was enacted, so why would it not matter anymore now? If it was a concern back then, the concerns should be growing, not retreating.
There are some valid reasons for why increasing would be beneficial, however when you examine the entire picture it exposes that a few will benefit at the expense of the majority. It is a bad idea and it is not in the best interests of the greater good.
February 13th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Thanks for your insights. I am afraid my little Yaris will become a speed bump.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Ah, around Hampton Roads, you would have little more to worry about in your Yaris if weight limits were increased. Existing weights already are more then enough to crush your vehicle like an empty aluminum beverage container if something bad happens. As for braking, like I said, the additional axle would have two additional braking hubs, so around here the truck could probably still stop in around the same amount of distance even if fully laden. In fact, the additional braking capacity could lead to shorter stopping distances when the truck is carrying less then a full weight load, which would still often be the case.
I did state that the arguments in favor of increased weights and lengths are not without some merit. They are not lying, their arguments are truthful. However while they argue to benefits they will not tell you about the detriments. Those that want the increased weights will make more money if they are successful, so they are not going to explain to you the pitfalls. This is just one example of why our society must allow for open debate and why all citizens need to be willing to listen to both sides of the argument before reaching an unchangeable decision on where you stand.
I just love America, we might not be perfect over here, but look at the alternatives.