By the way, your petition is up to 115,704 signatures as of a  minute ago...

I think Albo's point was that $65M of revenue can bond off at least $700M over 20 years.

FYI from DMV:

Sidebar
In 2001, State Police patrolled 29,446,959 miles, assisted 208,563 motorists and issued 733,441 summonses.

The total summonses and/or arrests included 250,047 for speeding, 94,629 for reckless driving, 8,651 for driving while intoxicated, 44,872 for not wearing safety belts, 7,282 for not using child restraints, and 50,088 for equipment violations.

This is state police and doesn't include city/county issues infractions. 

Also remember that the alleged net of these "abuser fees" didn't factor in the increased costs associated with more trials, judges, prosecutors, clerks, court appointed lawyers or jail beds.  $65M is a rosy assumption. 

What Albo, et al. are dodging is that the Commonwealth's unmet needs are $105 BILLION over the next 20 years (see the VTRANS 2025 Report).  The overall "plan" (if fully adopted in NOVA & Hampton Roads) allegedly generated only $20 Billion over 20 years assuming that the surpluses hold (which already have vanished).  It's a drop in the state bucket.

Re: your last point, it's easier to build roads than to alter people's behavior.  Plus, the developers have one of the most effective lobbying organizations around. 

Abuser fees are one small part of this, but they are the most egregious example over over-reaching and Republican ideolgical bankruptcy.

This is one of those issues that I've been getting a strong bipartisan reaction from friends -- quite a few have signed the petition. 

The idea behind these penalties is a little bizarre too.  As a matter of principle, it's a strange way to go about attacking the transportation problem. 

Good drivers and bad drivers alike use Virginia's roads; yet the principle behind this one is that "bad drivers" are the only ones who should carry the financial burden for building better roads.  This is putting aside the fact that traffic laws are enforced in a different manner in different regions -- and even within different neighborhoods.  So this has the potential to be a really arbitrary way of raising needed revenue.

Not Harry Byrd raises another good point too about the likely secondary costs associated with litigation and collection of fines.  Odds are that the returns on this measure are likely to create more problems then it actually solves.  I suspect Delegate Albo probably designed the bill in this way, because, even though Virginia as a whole may lose, this seems like a good way for him to increase his own personal fortune.  He would probably deny this, but the conflict of interest is obvious enough.

I've also heard claims by Howell that this was intended to be some sort of Nanny State initiative (e.g. it will put "better" morality into driving around the state).  Although as you mentioned in your petition there is no evidence that increased penalties will result in safer roads.  Never mind that this bill was directed towards the revenue question -- and presumably assessed solely on those merits.

This bill is so wrong for so many reasons.  The reaction to the petition is evidence enough of this.  A lot of angry Virginians out there.  It needs to be repealed. 

While I may not be coming around to the Republican camp on the fees per say I would okay to see us take hard look at our very fine and penalty structure. Virginia does not ven come close to having the same level of fines for like offenses as other states. Then of course you have court fees that stay within the jurisdiction added on once you go to court. Maybe "abuser" fees, which I have to admit its kindof impressive all this opposition to something that given on balance most people would have no problem with. I mean we already nail people who are repeat offenders with different penalties, but mostly its jail time and not dollars. I do not really get the outrage of charging more fees over jail time when lessoning those being sent to jail would lower the expenses associated with keeping them there. I wonder how much that is per day.
Politically its a disaster no arguement.
As far as the estimates for the 1 cent gar tax, that is based on increasing usuage and more gas sold at the pump, well 2007 is flat over 2006. With the continue rise in gas prices it is likely to not increase as estimated to make the financial projection accurate.
I still think you should start a petition for $20 inspection fees with $4 of that going strait to transportation. It is apparent we need to be the ones solving this for the GA and the Governor.

I am not aware of any state that assesses a $3,150 three year fine for getting caught going 20 mph over the speed limit.  Failing to use a turn signal could also net a $900 three year penalty. 

At a certain point a person faced with $3,150 in fines would probably be willing to pony up several hundred dollars for the services of an attorney who specializes in traffic litigation.  And low and behold, that happens to be the profession of one of the bills key sponsors.

I agree that a $20 inspection fee is probably one good way to go, you could also find money in DMV registration fees, or in a partial roll back of the car tax assessment.  The move by the House to prevent local jurisdictions too just doesn't make any sense.  People who live in areas like Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads would be willing to pay a little bit extra to get a better quality transportation system in place.  I think the key here is to get some new members of the GA in place in 2007.  The representatives run for office and get paid to tackle these type of difficult problems.  The current membership of the GA doesn't seem to be especially interested in finding a remedy here.  I say let's get some leaders in place who are willing to do some heavy lifting, and who will find solutions that address the problem, not ones who are most interested in using elected office to find novel ways to enhance their personal wealth.

Bault, you touched on an idea that is rarely talked about.
Alternate work schedules.

I had to drive to McLean from Reston the other day.  If I left to get to McLean by 8:30 or 9:00, I would have been in an almost gridlock situation.  However, I did not have to be at an appointment until 10:30.  Non-stop to McLean. I maintained the speed limit all the way.  Maybe 17 minutes or less to get there.

Maybe start a petition asking how many people would be willing to work an alternate time schedule.  This is different from working from home.  I suspect that many employees do not have to be at their workplace at a specific time.  Granted due to shift changes some have to be there at 6, 7 or 8, but how many others could shift their schedule. 

Remember the disastrous result of the cut in local funding when Jim Gilmore and his Republican legislative buddies took away the car tax - then failed to find the money in the general fund to adequately fund local obligations?

Remember how Gilmore left a budget disaster to Mark Warner that endangered Virginia's bond rating?

Remember how Gilmore so mismanaged university funding that faculty layoffs, and record tuition increases followed?

For 3 years the Republican majority in the General Assembly has frittered with transportation funding - only to create this laughable "abuse fee" funding mechanism, and "regional authorities" to assume the responsibilities of the Legislature. 

These guys need a remedial class in mathematics. Better yet, they need to be retired by the voters.

We have a situation where we have abuser fees for people who are reckless on the road. That in itself is not a bad idea. It would raise money and possibly cut down on infractions. Here's my question: If the desired effect of this legislation is to raise money, wouldn't making the roads safer by cutting down the number of violators raise LESS money over time?

Create a tax, and call it something else.  Then bury the tax deep in the funding bill, and push it through at the eleventh hour. 

are the people who voted for this legislation rooting for people to break the law? Are they hoping that people speed and drive drunk? Because this law doesn't serve a purpose if it can't raise the funds. I think there's an opportunity to exploit that message.