Price Caps Are Hurting Managed Lane Performance

Share this article on:
Priced managed lanes provide drivers with an option to bypass congestion for a small fee. The key to ensuring uncongested travel is raising or lowering the variable toll to ensure the managed lane operates at a level of service D or better, allowing travel at 45 mph or higher. Toll rates typically range from $0.10 to $1.00 per mile, with higher rates on very busy corridors such as I-66 in Northern Virginia. The low overall toll rates haven’t stopped misleading news stories and claims by anti-toll advocates that Americans are being forced into poverty by high tolls. Since voters have a negative visceral reaction to tolls, some politicians have pressured managed lane operators to impose price caps. While these people may mean well, a price cap undermines the purpose of pricing, worsening travel conditions in the managed lane without improving conditions in the general purpose lanes. Traffic throughput versus speed is a sideways U-shaped curve. At 40 mph, a freeway lane has a throughput of 2,000-2,500 vehicles per hour. However, at 10 mph a freeway lane can accommodate only half that many vehicles. Further, when a significant share of managed lane vehicles are buses and vanpools, managed lane travel speeds have an even more dramatic impact on the number of people moving through a corridor. Pricing the managed lanes too low hurts almost every user of the highway. A recent Texas A&M Transportation Institute study written by Nick Wood quantified the impact of price caps on two managed lane corridors: I-95 in South Florida and I-405 in the Seattle suburbs. Speed, volume and toll rate data were collected. The study focused on weekdays; weekends and holidays were not examined. Wood found that the price cap limits the effectiveness of the 95 Express lanes in South Florida. In the northbound lanes during the afternoon peak period, the capped toll rate is in effect between 4:15 and 6:45—the peak of the peak. While the cap is in effect, traffic speeds and managed lanes performance nosedive. The speed drops below the federally-required minimum of 45 mph for 3 hours (4:00-7:00). The number of vehicles the managed lane can accommodate drops from 1,267 per hour at 3:30 PM to 1,123 during the peak travel time. Overall PM peak period capacity falls by almost 10 percent. Despite having the legal ability to do so, FDOT has not increased the cap. Originally, the Florida Legislature limited the maximum toll between mile markers 4 and 12 to $1.50 per mile. However, Florida DOT can increase the toll by up to $0.50 per mile if the managed lanes reach the capped toll rate on at least 45 days in a six-month period. Thus far FDOT has not increased the toll cap. Further, if a customer’s average trip speed falls below 40 mph, a recent Florida law requires that they be charged a minimum toll (although it is unclear what that toll would be). The South Florida price cap leads to some perverse effects. While traffic moves at the speed limit early in rush hour, as more users flood the lane the speed quickly drops. As a result, commuters are penalized for leaving work later. Those who use the Express Lanes at 3:30 PM pay $7 to travel at 52 mph. But those who use the lanes at 6:00 PM pay $10 to travel at 35 mph. Travel speeds in the managed lanes average only 10-15 mph higher than the GP lanes during rush hour. The entire purpose of managed lanes is to provide a congestion-free option during rush hour when the general purpose lanes are more congested. If the managed lanes are almost as congested as the GP lanes, managed lanes are not operating as intended. The Washington State price cap is even more problematic than Florida’s. In the one-lane southbound segment during the morning peak, the capped toll rate is $0.68 per mile between 7:20 and 8:35 AM. As with the I-95 lanes, performance suffers. During the peak morning rush, managed lane speeds average 24 mph. GP lane speeds are only 2-6 mph slower. The managed lane speeds are well below the federally-required 45 mph for three hours (6:10-9:10). Managed lane carrying capacity drops from 1,592 vehicles/hour at its peak to 1,063 vehicles at 8:30 AM. Overall AM peak capacity decreases by 27 percent. The Washington State Transportation Commission is more limited in its ability to adjust the $10.00 cap. The managed lanes must meet the federal performance minimum of at least 45 mph at least 90 percent of the time, yet WSTC cannot raise toll rates to limit overloading the managed lanes. Further, humans are not allowed to override the algorithm, even in the case of an accident. As a result, when a traffic crash occurs in the GP lanes, the price in the managed lane cannot be increased, so it is quickly overloaded, losing most of its effectiveness. The Washington cap, combined with geometric design shortcomings in the corridor, has led to poor managed lane performance. A University of Minnesota study sensibly recommended that the $10.00 cap be eliminated. It also found that the variable toll rates do not rise fast enough; some drivers were paying $4 less than others in similar conditions. Building on the University of Minnesota study, I have several recommendations to improve managed lane performance on both I-95 and I-405. First, DOTs and toll road agencies need to eliminate or at least the raise price caps. Second, they should further limit free passage for carpools in managed lanes, so that nearly all vehicles are subject to variable pricing. Finally, USDOT needs to enforce strictly the rule that federally aided managed lanes operate at 45 mph or more at least 90 percent of the time, and require states operating managed lanes that consistently violate this rule to repay federal highway construction funds. Most managed lane agencies’ goals are to 1) provide a guaranteed uncongested travel option and 2) move more people through the corridor in cars, vanpools and buses. Agencies need to operate the lanes to best serve their customers. The threat of loss of funds should help ensure that political interest does not take precedence over serving managed lane customers.

A version of this column first appeared in the February 2019 edition of Surface Transportation Innovations.

Baruch Feigenbaum Email this author
Posted in Transportation | Comments Off on Price Caps Are Hurting Managed Lane Performance

What Is (and What Isn’t) a “Wetland"

Share this article on:

(Editor’s Note:  With hundreds of rivers and tributaries (not to mention the Chesapeake Bay), rules defining “what is a wetland” are critically important for the state’s Agriculture industry.  Here, Gary Baise explores what is (and what isn’t) a wetland under new rules proposed by the Trump Administration – and what they can mean for Virginia’s farmers.)
What Is a Tributary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have proposed a new regulation defining waters of the United States (WOTUS).
The December 11, 2018 proposal defines a tributary, impoundment, wetland, and ditch, which I explained in this blog. Many pages are devoted to explaining what EPA and the Corps are proposing to regulate as a tributary and other water features. The agencies explain what they are proposing, why the definition is being proposed, how the agencies intend to implement the proposal, and finally, what issues the agencies are seeking to solicit comments.
The proposed regulation curbs EPA’s and the Corps’ jurisdiction regarding what is an existing tributary. The agencies describe their tributary proposal this way:  “[It]…is…intended to limit federal jurisdiction over ephemeral flows and other ordinarily dry land features in order to preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states…”
The Supreme Court’s Rapanos case is quoted, which chastises the Corps and EPA because their present definition “seems to leave wide room for regulation of drains, ditches, and streams remote from any navigable-in-fact and carrying only minor water volumes toward it…”
The new proposed rule defines a tributary as such: “…a river, stream or similar naturally occurring surface water channel that contributes ‘perennial or intermittent’ flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year (defined later) either directly or indirectly through other jurisdictional waters such as tributaries, impoundments, and adjacent wetlands…”
Critical words
The two words “perennial” and “intermittent” are critical.
The proposed regulation also defines excluded waters as not being a tributary. It states “…excluded waters and features are incapable of providing perennial or intermittent flow…” The Trump administration’s EPA and Corps state tributaries “…do not include surface features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, such as ephemeral flows, dry washes, and similar features.”
Perennial, intermittent and ephemeral are also defined in the proposal:

  • Perennial means “…surface water flowing continuously year-round during a typical year.”
  • Intermittent means “…surface water flowing continuously during certain times of a typical year, not merely in direct response to precipitation, but when the groundwater table is elevated…or when snowpack melts.”
  • Ephemeral means a “…surface water flowing or pooling only in direct response to precipitation such as rain or snowfall.”

Even this language will likely be the subject of much continued litigation.
The good news from these new definitions is that a tributary must now contribute a “perennial or intermittent” flow to a traditional navigable water in a typical year. Even the term “typical year” is defined. It means a year is “…within the normal range of precipitation over a rolling thirty-year period for a particular geographic area.” A typical year does not include periods of drought or extreme flooding.
The Trump administration is clearly attempting to restrict agency officials who believe any water running downhill gives the respective agency jurisdiction.
EPA and the Corps, under the Trump administration, are proposing a definition of ‘tributary” which is “…consistent with the Rapanos opinion that the waters of the United States [are to] include only relatively permanent, standing, or flowing bodies of waters…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels…or ephemeral flows of water.” It is attempting to draw a clear line on what is or what is not a tributary.
The good news from the proposal is that ordinarily dry channels where water flows occasionally or intermittently do not constitute a tributary.
The U.S Supreme Court, in the Rapanos case, hammered EPA and the Corps by saying WOTUS “…cannot bear the expansive meaning that the Corps would give it, …”. The Trump administration’s EPA and the Corps are no longer taking the position that any insubstantial hydrologic water flow may be determined to be a tributary.
What Is Not a Wetland
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) clarify in a new proposal for Waters of the United States what is NOT a wetland. Groundwater, including groundwater which is drained through a tile system, is one of these exclusions!
This exclusion is aimed at the Des Moines Water Works case and others who want to claim farm tile or any agricultural drainage through a tile should be a point source.
Ephemeral surface features and diffuse stormwater runoff such as sheet flow over uplands is excluded as a WOTUS.
Ditches, too
EPA and the Corps “…would exclude all ditches from the definition of waters of the United States except those ditches identified in paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed rule.” The ditches which would be WOTUS are those connected to a tributary which would satisfy the conditions of being a tributary.
Another exclusion helpful to agriculture is prior converted cropland. This exclusion has been in prior definitions of what is or is not a wetland.
What continues to be dangerous to farmers regarding this exemption is USDA’s definition of the swamp buster provision administered by NRCS. For example, if land has been productive and used decades ago and then allowed to go fallow and farming begins again on the land after December 23, 1985, a farmer or rancher may get attacked by USDA.
Even so, there’s more good news in the new proposal.
“The agencies also propose to exclude artificially irrigated areas, including fields flooded for rice or cranberry growing, that would revert to upland should application of irrigation water to that area cease.” This exemption appears to be aimed at a case in Massachusetts where EPA has pursued one cranberry farmer and his family for approximately 28 years.
It would appear relief has come too late.
The Trump administration, to be very clear, proposed to “…exclude artificial lakes and ponds constructed in upland, such as water storage reservoirs, farm and stock watering ponds, settling basins, and log cleaning ponds, as long as they are not subject to jurisdiction under either paragraph (a)(4) or (a)(5) of the proposed rule.”
EPA and the Corps under the Trump administration will exclude water-filled locations in uplands which are created by mining, construction activity, from obtaining fill, sand, or gravel. Under the Obama administration there was a possibility of these water-filled depressions being declared a WOTUS.
Environmentalists howling
Environmental groups, of course, are howling over the fact that many water features are no longer subject to the long arm of EPA and the Corps. The agencies do make it clear these water-filled depressions must be in “uplands”. For example, stormwater control features which are excavated or constructed in uplands to treat or store stormwater are excluded from WOTUS. Note that these features are not excluded from WOTUS if they are constructed in a wetland.
To make it clear, the agencies exclude any structure such as “…detention, retention, and infiltration basins and ponds and groundwater recharge basins.” Again, all these must be constructed in uplands. EPA and the Corps rely on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rapanos. That case made it clear that the waters just discussed “…were not primarily the focus of the CWA (Clean Water Act) such as channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall.”
The proposed Trump administration rule from EPA and the Corps claims that it wants to be very specific about excluding waters and water features from being a WOTUS. The two agencies believe they have comprehensively excluded certain waters and features which are not WOTUS.
This proposal is a clear example of the President and his administration attempting to keep government agencies from taking private property.
A version of this column originally appeared in the January and February issues of Farm Futures.
Email this author

Posted in Agriculture, Environment | Comments Off on What Is (and What Isn’t) a “Wetland"

What Is (and What Isn’t) a “Wetland"

Share this article on:

(Editor’s Note:  With hundreds of rivers and tributaries (not to mention the Chesapeake Bay), rules defining “what is a wetland” are critically important for the state’s Agriculture industry.  Here, Gary Baise explores what is (and what isn’t) a wetland under new rules proposed by the Trump Administration – and what they can mean for Virginia’s farmers.)
What Is a Tributary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have proposed a new regulation defining waters of the United States (WOTUS).
The December 11, 2018 proposal defines a tributary, impoundment, wetland, and ditch, which I explained in this blog. Many pages are devoted to explaining what EPA and the Corps are proposing to regulate as a tributary and other water features. The agencies explain what they are proposing, why the definition is being proposed, how the agencies intend to implement the proposal, and finally, what issues the agencies are seeking to solicit comments.
The proposed regulation curbs EPA’s and the Corps’ jurisdiction regarding what is an existing tributary. The agencies describe their tributary proposal this way:  “[It]…is…intended to limit federal jurisdiction over ephemeral flows and other ordinarily dry land features in order to preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states…”
The Supreme Court’s Rapanos case is quoted, which chastises the Corps and EPA because their present definition “seems to leave wide room for regulation of drains, ditches, and streams remote from any navigable-in-fact and carrying only minor water volumes toward it…”
The new proposed rule defines a tributary as such: “…a river, stream or similar naturally occurring surface water channel that contributes ‘perennial or intermittent’ flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year (defined later) either directly or indirectly through other jurisdictional waters such as tributaries, impoundments, and adjacent wetlands…”
Critical words
The two words “perennial” and “intermittent” are critical.
The proposed regulation also defines excluded waters as not being a tributary. It states “…excluded waters and features are incapable of providing perennial or intermittent flow…” The Trump administration’s EPA and Corps state tributaries “…do not include surface features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, such as ephemeral flows, dry washes, and similar features.”
Perennial, intermittent and ephemeral are also defined in the proposal:

  • Perennial means “…surface water flowing continuously year-round during a typical year.”
  • Intermittent means “…surface water flowing continuously during certain times of a typical year, not merely in direct response to precipitation, but when the groundwater table is elevated…or when snowpack melts.”
  • Ephemeral means a “…surface water flowing or pooling only in direct response to precipitation such as rain or snowfall.”

Even this language will likely be the subject of much continued litigation.
The good news from these new definitions is that a tributary must now contribute a “perennial or intermittent” flow to a traditional navigable water in a typical year. Even the term “typical year” is defined. It means a year is “…within the normal range of precipitation over a rolling thirty-year period for a particular geographic area.” A typical year does not include periods of drought or extreme flooding.
The Trump administration is clearly attempting to restrict agency officials who believe any water running downhill gives the respective agency jurisdiction.
EPA and the Corps, under the Trump administration, are proposing a definition of ‘tributary” which is “…consistent with the Rapanos opinion that the waters of the United States [are to] include only relatively permanent, standing, or flowing bodies of waters…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels…or ephemeral flows of water.” It is attempting to draw a clear line on what is or what is not a tributary.
The good news from the proposal is that ordinarily dry channels where water flows occasionally or intermittently do not constitute a tributary.
The U.S Supreme Court, in the Rapanos case, hammered EPA and the Corps by saying WOTUS “…cannot bear the expansive meaning that the Corps would give it, …”. The Trump administration’s EPA and the Corps are no longer taking the position that any insubstantial hydrologic water flow may be determined to be a tributary.
What Is Not a Wetland
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) clarify in a new proposal for Waters of the United States what is NOT a wetland. Groundwater, including groundwater which is drained through a tile system, is one of these exclusions!
This exclusion is aimed at the Des Moines Water Works case and others who want to claim farm tile or any agricultural drainage through a tile should be a point source.
Ephemeral surface features and diffuse stormwater runoff such as sheet flow over uplands is excluded as a WOTUS.
Ditches, too
EPA and the Corps “…would exclude all ditches from the definition of waters of the United States except those ditches identified in paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed rule.” The ditches which would be WOTUS are those connected to a tributary which would satisfy the conditions of being a tributary.
Another exclusion helpful to agriculture is prior converted cropland. This exclusion has been in prior definitions of what is or is not a wetland.
What continues to be dangerous to farmers regarding this exemption is USDA’s definition of the swamp buster provision administered by NRCS. For example, if land has been productive and used decades ago and then allowed to go fallow and farming begins again on the land after December 23, 1985, a farmer or rancher may get attacked by USDA.
Even so, there’s more good news in the new proposal.
“The agencies also propose to exclude artificially irrigated areas, including fields flooded for rice or cranberry growing, that would revert to upland should application of irrigation water to that area cease.” This exemption appears to be aimed at a case in Massachusetts where EPA has pursued one cranberry farmer and his family for approximately 28 years.
It would appear relief has come too late.
The Trump administration, to be very clear, proposed to “…exclude artificial lakes and ponds constructed in upland, such as water storage reservoirs, farm and stock watering ponds, settling basins, and log cleaning ponds, as long as they are not subject to jurisdiction under either paragraph (a)(4) or (a)(5) of the proposed rule.”
EPA and the Corps under the Trump administration will exclude water-filled locations in uplands which are created by mining, construction activity, from obtaining fill, sand, or gravel. Under the Obama administration there was a possibility of these water-filled depressions being declared a WOTUS.
Environmentalists howling
Environmental groups, of course, are howling over the fact that many water features are no longer subject to the long arm of EPA and the Corps. The agencies do make it clear these water-filled depressions must be in “uplands”. For example, stormwater control features which are excavated or constructed in uplands to treat or store stormwater are excluded from WOTUS. Note that these features are not excluded from WOTUS if they are constructed in a wetland.
To make it clear, the agencies exclude any structure such as “…detention, retention, and infiltration basins and ponds and groundwater recharge basins.” Again, all these must be constructed in uplands. EPA and the Corps rely on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rapanos. That case made it clear that the waters just discussed “…were not primarily the focus of the CWA (Clean Water Act) such as channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall.”
The proposed Trump administration rule from EPA and the Corps claims that it wants to be very specific about excluding waters and water features from being a WOTUS. The two agencies believe they have comprehensively excluded certain waters and features which are not WOTUS.
This proposal is a clear example of the President and his administration attempting to keep government agencies from taking private property.
A version of this column originally appeared in the January and February issues of Farm Futures.
Email this author

Posted in Agriculture, Environment | Comments Off on What Is (and What Isn’t) a “Wetland"

Richard Florida’s Case for Devolution

Share this article on:

For several decades, some policy analysts on the center/right have advocated a more-robust 21st century version of federalism, under which there would be something of a return to the founding fathers’ vision in which the federal government focused on a relatively limited number of functions (defense and foreign policy, macroeconomic policy, ensuring interstate commerce against state interference, etc.) with states and local/regional governments resuming their historic roles of being responsible for nearly all the civil and criminal law, education, urban policies, and infrastructure. The legal aspects of this perspective are reflected in the work of the Federalist Society, and policy ideas along these lines have emanated from some conservative and libertarian think tanks and other organizations.
So it was a revelation when I discovered a long article by new urbanist Richard Florida in the July/August 2017 issue of Politico Magazine. Headlined “A Declaration of Urban Independence,” its subhead read, “Cities are under assault in the age of Donald Trump. It would be better for the country if they ran themselves instead.” As I read the article last month, I kept underlining, while marveling that this piece had received so little attention. I commend it to your attention, but would also like to summarize and quote a few key points.
After reviewing the increasing cultural and political divide that many commentators have discussed in recent years, Florida opines that “the stark reality is that our geographic and partisan divides are too deep and too wide to allow for any sort of national consensus to emerge on urban issues.” This leads to the following paragraph:

“It’s time to confront a simple but stunning fact: When it comes to urban policy and much else, the federal government is the wrong vehicle for getting things done and getting them done right. Whether it is controlled by the left or the right, no single top-down, one-size-fits-all strategy can address the desires and needs of a country as geographically and culturally divided as America. Big cities and metropolitan regions, far-flung exurbs, suburbs, and rural areas are very different kinds of places, with vastly different desires and needs.”

Florida goes on to cite various political analysts on the differences between Red America and Blue America, and cites social psychologist Jonathan Haidt on the extent of anger and hostility that have been spiking upward in recent years, and saying “It just seems fairly hopeless that we are going to somehow come to understand each other and work together.” Florida’s answer is that “The only way to do that is to pare back the power of our increasingly dysfunctional nation-state and give it to cities and localities.”
Among those Florida cites as having reached similar conclusions from the right are Yuval Levin and Sen. Mike Lee (R, UT). In his book The Fractured Republic, Levin called for devolution of power to the local level, and Lee noted in The Atlantic that the Constitution was designed for this kind of division of responsibilities between federal, state, and local levels of government: “When you respect federalism more consistently and faithfully, you allow more of the people in America to get more of the government they want and less of the government they don’t want.”
I was also pleased to note that Florida reports having reached out to his “chief critic and sparring partner” Joel Kotkin—whose writings I often cite—to co-author a piece for the Daily Beast on devolution. (“To Reunite America, Liberate Cities to Govern Themselves,” April 11, 2017) And he adds, “The fact that erstwhile enemies like Kotkin and I were able to come together on this issue and become genuine colleagues, collaborators, and friends signals that this is an area where real bipartisan consensus is possible.”
As we discuss and debate the need to renew much of America’s aging infrastructure, these thoughts on rethinking the respective roles of federal, state, and local/regional governments are worth serious consideration.
A version of this commentary first appeared in the February 2019 edition of Surface Transportation Innovations.
Email this author

Posted in Local Government, Transportation | Comments Off on Richard Florida’s Case for Devolution

TCJA Remains Big Revenue Gain for State

Share this article on:

Neither the House nor Senate Republican tax plan returns more than half of the TCJA windfall.  The House GOP does propose to set aside another $517 million in the first year for some form of added tax relief, to be determined later this year.

The tax relief proposals advancing in both the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia Senate return at most half of the estimated additional state revenue created by the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) over six years.

As Virginia leaders have debated what to do about the situation, all have been working off an estimate of the additional revenue provided by an outside economic consultant last year. It projected $1.2 billion in the first two years and more than $4.5 billion in the first six years as the addition revenue Virginia would collect from conforming to the TCJA, absent changes in Virginia tax policy.

According to the official fiscal impact statements on the House and Senate legislation, so far sponsored and voted for only by Republicans, the two bills end up with a very similar six-year impact of just over $2.2 billion, leaving the state treasury with the other $2.3 billion.  One of the impact statements was challenged by the Republicans but confirmed by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.

The question of how to respond to TCJA was showing signs of a partisan train wreck on Friday, before the revelations about Governor Ralph Northam’s yearbook page photo and the subsequent effort to force his resignation.   The 14 months Virginia leaders have sat on their hands, failing to broker a compromise before the session, may now prove disastrous.

The Senate bill, which contained the conformity provision and an emergency clause, was defeated on a party line vote (an emergency clause needs 80 percent approval).  Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment then stripped off the clause, so the bill could pass with the 21 Republicans only, and openly acknowledged the need for a broader conversation.  What was true Friday afternoon had also been true in February 2018.

It has been obvious all along that any bill seeking to conform Virginia’s tax code to TCJA, allowing taxpayers a smooth filing process, needed a strong bipartisan vote.  It has been clear what the Governor and Democrats wanted in the deal (cash benefits for low income workers), Republicans had a laundry list of proposals in front of them, and there is no valid excuse for their failure to act during 2018.   Who didn’t return who’s phone call?  We may never know.

It was also clear in the Chainbridge Solutions data released in August that the initial two years were just the start, and the revenue impact would grow in subsequent years, especially from the state’s corporate income tax.

The Senate proposal includes no individual tax reform element for the first year of the TCJA windfall, tax year 2018, but instead offers a flat $110 per person, $220 per couple state rebate for every taxpayer with a tax liability, a disbursement of about $420 million by their estimate.  That can be done through the budget, and indeed it is reflected in the budget amendments adopted by the Senate Finance Committee Sunday on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.

For individual taxpayers started with the next tax the Senate GOP plan increases the standard deduction by 50 percent, saving taxpayers $415 million this year and then about $280 million in 2021, with slight growth from there.  The 2020 number is higher because it represents 18 months of collections.  A higher standard deduction, especially in the out years, was and still is possible.  Indexing key benchmarks to inflation remains possible.  The business community has blown its chance for a corporate income tax cut with its apathy toward the idea.

The House bill on conformity may suffer the same fate as Norment’s today, failing because it needs a bipartisan vote.  A second House bill dealing with the tax policy issues could advance, as did Norment’s, without an emergency clause and with a simple majority vote.   Like the Senate bill, the House version makes no individual tax policy changes for 2018.  Instead, the bill dealing with conformity directs the TCJA revenue (estimated at over $500 million) into a holding fund for a decision later this year on how to disburse it.

For 2019 and beyond, the House bill increases the standard deduction 33 percent and allows individuals to split their decision and continue to take itemized deductions on their state tax return while taking the now-higher standard deduction on their federal return.  Both the House and Senate bill allow people who itemize to disregard the new $10,000 federal cap on deducting local taxes.  Both restore deductions important to a handful of huge businesses.

It was noted by Senator Steve Newman Friday that it takes an 80 percent vote to pass a bill with an emergency clause, but only a simple majority to adopt an emergency clause offered as a Governor’s amendment.  That only further underlines that a bipartisan compromise was always required, and the only way to get the Governor to sign a bill was to offer something – in the parlance – he could not refuse.   Starting in August, Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne was claiming to be open to discussions, and to his credit Governor Northam didn’t rule out tax relief provisions in recent comments.

Now, almost 14 months after the federal bill passed, it seems we can start the real work.  Let’s hope.

The column originally appeared in the February 4, 2019 issue of Bacon’s Rebellion.

Email this author

Posted in Taxes | Comments Off on TCJA Remains Big Revenue Gain for State