PDA

View Full Version : SENATE BILL 09-108 - maybe it's time to put the 80 on diet


Tch2fly
05-14-2009, 09:38 PM
I haven't read the entire thing but I was concerned when I heard I'll pay more for registration based on the truck's weight.:mad:

(a) (I) A ROAD SAFETY SURCHARGE, WHICH, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
20 PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (III) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (a), SHALL BE
21 IMPOSED UPON THE REGISTRATION OF ANY VEHICLE FOR WHICH A
22 REGISTRATION FEE MUST BE PAID PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART
23 3 OF ARTICLE 3 OF TITLE 42, C.R.S. ...

...6 (C) TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS FOR ANY VEHICLE THAT WEIGHS
7 MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS BUT NOT MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND
8 POUNDS;...
__________________________________________________________________

1 PURPOSE, TO IMPOSE A BRIDGE SAFETY SURCHARGE, WHICH, EXCEPT AS
2 OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (III) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (g),
3 SHALL BE IMPOSED, ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 2009, OR ON AND AFTER SUCH
4 LATER DATE AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE BRIDGE ENTERPRISE, UPON
5 THE REGISTRATION OF ANY VEHICLE FOR WHICH A REGISTRATION FEE MUST
6 BE PAID PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 3 OF ARTICLE 3 OF TITLE
7 42, C.R.S. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (IV), (V),
8 AND (VI) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (g), THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGE SHALL
9 NOT EXCEED: ....

....17 (C) TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS FOR ANY VEHICLE THAT WEIGHS
18 MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS BUT NOT MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND
19 POUNDS; ....

Effective July 1. If I read it right, that will just about double my registration :rant:
Here is the The more you weigh ... the more you pay Senate Bill 108 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/636E40D6A83E4DE987257537001F8AD6?open&file=108_01.pdf) if you like to read that kind of crap :rolleyes:

nakman
05-14-2009, 10:02 PM
And are they going to install scales at the DMV? or just go off the door sticker info? either way, I don't think an 80 ever weight under 5000 pounds, does it?

but their justification implies it's either this or raise gas prices...

DUE TO THE DECLINE IN THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE
15 REVENUES GENERATED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL TAXES,
16 THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO MAINTAIN,
17 REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND IMPROVE SURFACE
18 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN A STRATEGIC, TIMELY, AND
19 EFFICIENT MANNER, WHICH HAS ALREADY CAUSED MANY BRIDGES IN THE
20 STATE TO BECOME STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT OR FUNCTIONALLY
21 OBSOLETE AND WORSENED THE CONDITION OF ROAD SURFACES, DELAYED
22 CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECTS, AND INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION
23 AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS; AND
24 (d) BECAUSE THIS DECLINE IN PURCHASING POWER IS ONGOING
25 AND BECOMES MORE SEVERE WITH EACH PASSING YEAR, THE STATE AND
26 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN,
27 REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND IMPROVE SURFACE
-5- SB09-108
1 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN A STRATEGIC, TIMELY, AND
2 EFFICIENT MANNER, AND THE SAFETY, EFFICIENCY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
3 IMPACT OF THE STATE'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WILL WORSEN
4 MORE QUICKLY IN THE FUTURE IF SUFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE FUNDING
5 SOURCES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CANNOT BE FOUND.

that's what we get for conserving, huh? :)

Tch2fly
05-14-2009, 10:26 PM
And are they going to install scales at the DMV? or just go off the door sticker info? either way, I don't think an 80 ever weight under 5000 pounds, does it?


Knowing the government .. I went on the high side and figured GVWR but I think the curb weight is listed at 4700 lbs +- so it could be less ($5 per surcharge) than what I posted but still a huge increase

corsair23
05-15-2009, 01:34 AM
that's what we get for conserving, huh? :)

Yep...Just like the Denver Water situation a couple years ago where they encouraged people to conserve water and people did such a great job of it that they had to raise rates to make up for the shortfall in revenues...

As gas prices go up and/or more and more people get more fuel efficient cars and the gas useage goes down, the state will see less $$ from taxes. So to thank us they'll start getting creative on ways to bring in the $$ :(

And people wonder how it is possible that when the government actually cuts tax rates (to a point) they actually bring in more revenue vs. less...

10 years from now we'll all be driving hybrid cars the size of the Smart cars, and it will still cost $80 to fill the tank because gas will be $6/gal :eek:

Trapper50cal
05-15-2009, 04:30 PM
So glad I have collector plates good til Oct. 2013...

DaveInDenver
05-15-2009, 04:52 PM
They're even I guess putting the screws to my little ol' truck. The door label says GVW 5,350 lbs with a curb weight of 3,580 lbs (hopefully they don't use GVW!). I have weighed my truck and it comes in at 4,400 lbs empty and no WilderNest with just the driver and I end up between 5,500 and 6,000 lbs when fully loaded. For the Rubithon I'd have no surprise if I easily blew past the 6,000 lbs side.

Beater
05-16-2009, 07:16 AM
playing lucifer's attorney here, BUT:

these fee's pay for road maintenance. Most of these vehicles live 80% on those roads. I know I use those roads to make a living. Costs are going up. Revenue is flat. This is not a situation where you can say "just get more customers" because the cost ratio now for the current service model is flat to negative. Something has to change, so increase the revenue stream by increasing price based on something tangible that actually impacts the required maintenance and or product output.

Seems logical to me. You can complain about curb to gvw all you want, we drive vehicles designed to carry loads. To Dave's point, we do carry them. You do not build networks to carry the mean average, you build networks to handle the max spike repeatedly.

Ok - fume away

PabloCruise
05-16-2009, 07:34 AM
http://www.risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=9211

DaveInDenver
05-16-2009, 08:01 AM
The point is taken, John. But we already pay an agreed amount in the original license fee. This is changing the rules after the fact, which I do think is shifty. I do agree that heavier users should pay proportionally more. Maybe it should be a simple flat fee, $1/100 lbs or something. The GVW line is arbitrary, how much less damage is a 4,900 lbs truck doing than a 5,100 lbs truck?

The problem is that fee are not proportional. A 65,000 lbs semi truck does not pay per lbs or mile the same as I do or really an average user. If you ask me (and no one did), the only fair way is to make them toll roads and have everyone pay as they go. Why should some granny who puts 2,000 miles on her 2008 Lincoln pay the same registration as a CEO who does 15,000? Or why should a guy with a FZJ80 that weighs 4 tons but is driven twice a month pay the same registration as a concrete contractor with a F350 whose 4 ton rig is used every day?

Mendocino
05-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Another approach that is being used extensively in Europe is GPS based tolling incorporated into telematics systems. By doing this commercial vehicles are charged by actual usage.

Tch2fly
05-18-2009, 10:13 AM
playing lucifer's attorney here, BUT:

these fee's pay for road maintenance. Most of these vehicles live 80% on those roads. I know I use those roads to make a living. Costs are going up. Revenue is flat. This is not a situation where you can say "just get more customers" because the cost ratio now for the current service model is flat to negative. Something has to change, so increase the revenue stream by increasing price based on something tangible that actually impacts the required maintenance and or product output.

Seems logical to me. You can complain about curb to gvw all you want, we drive vehicles designed to carry loads. To Dave's point, we do carry them. You do not build networks to carry the mean average, you build networks to handle the max spike repeatedly.

Ok - fume away


We already have some of the highest registration fees in the nation. It certainly it makes more sense to charge more for heavier vehicles but the percentage increase on an older vehicle is a bit of a jolt. I would be curious to see if a $.02 increase in the fuel tax wouldn't actually generate FAR more revenue since it would have visitors paying their "share" of road usage (while costing residents less)

So I agree that as time goes on we need to increase revenue as costs increase BUT I also have an issue with the way the money is currently being spent. Over the past few year I have watched several road projects and was dumbfounded by the "waste".

Medians built and then ripped out again a year later ... landscaping that is installed ... dies .. and replaced only to die again. Along that same line ... what about "pretty" bridges ... seriously WTF? Does anybody here live a better life by driving under or over an ornate bridge? How about the decorative sound barrier walls .... sure plain concrete is unattractive but should we really be looking away from the road enough to notice?

Honestly I have NEVER understood why we worry about that stuff. While I concede that others may feel it is important now that costs are up and revenue is down ... we need to quit wasting money on them.

Groucho
05-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Another approach that is being used extensively in Europe is GPS based tolling incorporated into telematics systems. By doing this commercial vehicles are charged by actual usage.

Just another way to sneak into my personal space without me having a say in how that invasion is being done or the information used. I like the toll road idea because I can PHYSICALLY CHOOSE to take a drive on the road and pay for use or not to, or even how much. With a lo-jack in my car and a black box under my seat, someone else chooses to read the data of my personal choices and use that data to tax me or whatever.

How many of us who imbibe in the water of the barley recipe want to have a BAC meter tapped right into our arteries? And when the BAC goes over an amount designated by the government the police show up and fine or arrest you? Not me. If I want to get stupid drunk in my own home by myself, I want to know I can make that choice as freely as I wish. Granted, if I were to disturb the neighbors, then somebody has an argument to whether or not I should be confronted to cease what I am doing that disturbs.

Point being, this idea that every citizen owes X amount regardless is phooey.

Hulk
05-18-2009, 12:54 PM
Along that same line ... what about "pretty" bridges ... seriously WTF? Does anybody here live a better life by driving under or over an ornate bridge? How about the decorative sound barrier walls .... sure plain concrete is unattractive but should we really be looking away from the road enough to notice?

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I disagree with your statements above.

It is always hard to justify making architecture look nicer in the face of the "It's a waste of money" argument. But if everything was made to the cheapest standard available, all buildings would be made of gray concrete with only enough windows for fire safety. Bridges would all look the same: boring, flat, lifeless. Everything would look like it was constructed in East Germany under communist rule. Horrible.

Life isn't about saving every penny all the time. Every time I drive under the new bridges on I-25, I smile. They look nice: elegant and refined. They look better than what they replaced (which is always my standard for tearing down old stuff). They will likely stand for 50-100 years, and people will still enjoy and appreciate the care and design that went into them long after we're dead and the T-Rex debt has been retired.

The sound barrier walls have a strange design on them, but at least they tried. It's still better than flat concrete. If money was no object, I'm sure we'd all love red brick covered with ivy, but obviously that would be cost prohibitive. Stamping the flat concrete with a design probably didn't add much to the cost but it definitely improved the visual appeal.

Here are a few public works projects were someone didn't choose the cheapest option. They took engineering and make it art. I love stuff like this.

Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge , Brasilia , Brazil

The JK Bridge in Brasilia is a lesson in elegant bridge design. The 3 huge arches diagonally hopping over the deck of the bridge give the structure an amazing visual fluidity and make the whole 1.2km bridge look effortlessly cool. Since being built the bridge has won awards for its design but is still massively underappreciated on a wider scale.

12887

Rolling Bridge, London , UK

Thomas heatherwick's award-winning rolling bridge is an ingenious addition to the grand union canal system in London and is unique in its design. Unlike regular movable canal bridges, the rolling bridge curls up on itself to form an octagon by way of hydraulics. It's an amazing sight and a reminder that a fresh perspective can produce great, innovative results, even when dealing with a structure as common as a bridge.

12888

When I plan vacations to cities, I always want to go see the architecture. Every piece makes a difference. Not every bridge will be celebrated as a design icon, but if thousands of people see it everyday, it's worth making it nice. IMHO, of course. :)

Mendocino
05-18-2009, 12:58 PM
I thought you might comment on this...:D Where is the "Nathaniel-has-gone-off-the-deep-end-again" emoticon.;)

For the record: In general, I am not a fan of GPS/GNSS based telematics positioning, particularly on individuals or private vehicles. However, I can see some merit to it in COMMERCIAL applications. I should also point out that if you have a cell phone today you ARE being tracked.


Just another way to sneak into my personal space without me having a say in how that invasion is being done or the information used. I like the toll road idea because I can PHYSICALLY CHOOSE to take a drive on the road and pay for use or not to, or even how much. With a lo-jack in my car and a black box under my seat, someone else chooses to read the data of my personal choices and use that data to tax me or whatever.

How many of us who imbibe in the water of the barley recipe want to have a BAC meter tapped right into our arteries? And when the BAC goes over an amount designated by the government the police show up and fine or arrest you? Not me. If I want to get stupid drunk in my own home by myself, I want to know I can make that choice as freely as I wish. Granted, if I were to disturb the neighbors, then somebody has an argument to whether or not I should be confronted to cease what I am doing that disturbs.

Point being, this idea that every citizen owes X amount regardless is phooey.

DaveInDenver
05-18-2009, 01:10 PM
I thought you might comment on this...:D Where is the "Nathaniel-has-gone-off-the-deep-end-again" emoticon.;)

For the record: In general, I am not a fan of GPS/GNSS based telematics positioning, particularly on individuals or private vehicles. However, I can see some merit to it in COMMERCIAL applications. I should also point out that if you have a cell phone today you ARE being tracked.
You have the option of turning it off and there may be an inconvenience, but no legal consequence of doing so. With a mandated telemetric vehicle tracking used to calculate road fees there would presumably be some (maybe serious) penalty for ripping the Big Brother POS from under the dash and throwing it into Chatfield Rez. Not that anyone would do such a thing. :-/ Give me a cash-fed toll road, plain, simple and anonymous.

Groucho
05-18-2009, 01:16 PM
I thought you might comment on this...:D Where is the "Nathaniel-has-gone-off-the-deep-end-again" emoticon.;)

For the record: In general, I am not a fan of GPS/GNSS based telematics positioning, particularly on individuals or private vehicles. However, I can see some merit to it in COMMERCIAL applications. I should also point out that if you have a cell phone today you ARE being tracked.

12889

Where is that P.O.T.s telephone I have again? Gotta get that thing back. :lmao:

Commercially it should be, and probably already is, in use for most companies for who it would make the most sense. Tracking employees performance should be one of the managers primary tools for improvement, so why not? Like I always say, when the cat's away the mice will play. Most employees don't realize that they loose the guarantee of their liberties when at work, unless they are in a protected class. The only real "right" employees have is to quit. Working for the man who uses big brother? Don't like it? Quit.

Living at home and big brother is watching? Don't like it? Throw the cell phone, the DSL line, the cable and the DTV converter box all in the trash for spring cleanup.But then you're relying on someone else to tell you when the next RS run is. :D

Groucho
05-18-2009, 01:18 PM
With a mandated telemetric vehicle tracking used to calculate road fees there would presumably be some (maybe serious) penalty for ripping the Big Brother POS from under the dash and throwing it into Chatfield Rez.
Not to mention that the Rez would overflow with the increased volume of POS tracking devices at the bottom!:lmao:

Mendocino
05-18-2009, 02:07 PM
Here is a nice themed picture...;)

DaveInDenver
05-18-2009, 02:23 PM
Be sure to watch your neighbors extra close.

Tch2fly
05-18-2009, 02:38 PM
I agree with the rest of what you said, but I disagree with your statements above.

It is always hard to justify making architecture look nicer in the face of the "It's a waste of money" argument. But if everything was made to the cheapest standard available, all buildings would be made of gray concrete with only enough windows for fire safety. Bridges would all look the same: boring, flat, lifeless. Everything would look like it was constructed in East Germany under communist rule. Horrible.
I know others feel the same way you do, as you said ... this is just my opinion.
If private enterprise chooses to build for aesthetics, I applaud the effort. Believe it or not I had considered becoming an architect and love the beauty in buildings. I have even taken vacations just to see Frank Lloyd Wright structures. I just don't feel that the expense it is appropriate in most road/bridge projects. If a structure's asthetic has a function, then I am all for it. Decoration for the sake of decoration should be avoided ( if you hadn't guessed I'm a "form follows function " guy). Yes, I would hate to see all government buildings bland and lifeless but in some cases it is perfectly suitable.


Life isn't about saving every penny all the time.

When it comes to spending our tax dollars ... it should be all about saving a penny( in this case and many others :rant:) so we will have to agree to disagree :D :thumb:

PabloCruise
05-18-2009, 03:08 PM
Interesting my post in February didn't quite hit this interest level.

I think the simplest way to allocate use would be a revised cost structure on fuel.

Do I feel like doubling my registration fee on my Civic is reasonable while an OTR semi w/ Kansas or Nebraska plates uses our bridges is fair? No.

Would it be if they put a few extra cents into state coffers when fueling in CO? I think that might be better.

It will be an interesting voting season...

nakman
05-18-2009, 03:24 PM
Interesting my post in February didn't quite hit this interest level.

I think the simplest way to allocate use would be a revised cost structure on fuel.

Do I feel like doubling my registration fee on my Civic is reasonable while an OTR semi w/ Kansas or Nebraska plates uses our bridges is fair? No.

Would it be if they put a few extra cents into state coffers when fueling in CO? I think that might be better.

It will be an interesting voting season...

They'll just fill up in Wyoming or Kansas where it's cheaper. You can probably drive all the way across Colorado both ways without filling up so if we just impose more gas tax then truckers will only buy what they need to make it to Utah or New Mexico where gas is cheaper again.

But the trucks that stay in Colorado would be duly punished, so there's something. nothing is perfect.

Tch2fly
05-18-2009, 03:45 PM
IMO ( again ;) ) the OTR rigs are not an issue. They pay their share when they hit the scales at the border.

This part is more troublesome ...
(III) THE BRIDGE SAFETY SURCHARGE SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED ON
11 ANY RENTAL VEHICLE ON WHICH A DAILY VEHICLE RENTAL FEE IS IMPOSED
12 PURSUANT TO SECTION 43-4-804 (1) (b).

A fuel tax increase would get rental cars the surcharge misses.

Hulk
05-18-2009, 07:37 PM
...so we will have to agree to disagree :D :thumb:

I disagree. Where does that leave us? :confused:

But seriously, I'm still pissed that government sold the name to our new Mile High Stadium. If Invesco wanted their name on it, they could have paid for the entire thing.

Instead, we all are paying for it, but they get their name on it for a very small percentage of the total cost. (They paid $6 million out of a total cost of $364 million and change). I would have preferred to have paid an extra $10 and kept the Mile High name. :rant:

Again, the cheaper option is not always the better option.

I just hope in 2021 (when Invesco's naming purchase expires), they revert back to Mile High and keep it that way.

Tch2fly
05-18-2009, 08:27 PM
I disagree. Where does that leave us? :confused:

But seriously, I'm still pissed that government sold the name to our new Mile High Stadium. If Invesco wanted their name on it, they could have paid for the entire thing.

Instead, we all are paying for it, but they get their name on it for a very small percentage of the total cost. (They paid $6 million out of a total cost of $364 million and change). I would have preferred to have paid an extra $10 and kept the Mile High name. :rant:

Again, the cheaper option is not always the better option.

I just hope in 2021 (when Invesco's naming purchase expires), they revert back to Mile High and keep it that way.

12898Now you will get me going :rant:

I see no reason for City and County of Denver to have spent a dime on that stadium .... regardless of the name. It isn't what I want or need the government to do. I want government to support the societal infrastructure i.e. schools, police, fire, roads/bridges etc...
building sports stadiums for private enterprise is NOT something they should be involved with.

:rant::rant:

12899

Hulk
05-18-2009, 10:19 PM
I see no reason for City and County of Denver to have spent a dime on that stadium .... regardless of the name. It isn't what I want or need the government to do. I want government to support the societal infrastructure i.e. schools, police, fire, roads/bridges etc...
building sports stadiums for private enterprise is NOT something they should be involved with.

I completely agree with you -- I voted against it. But the majority of people in the Denver area disagreed. I thought the whole thing was a boondoggle to line the pockets of Pat Bowlen, who ain't broke to begin with.

But since I'm paying for it, it pisses me off that Invesco gets their name on our stadium. I would have rather paid the extra $10 to have maintained the original name.

One of the women who works with my wife is a lifelong Coloradan. She told my wife, "You just don't understand -- you haven't lived here all your life." Apparently, her hypothesis was that any native-born Coloradan understood that the Broncos were important enough to earn a free stadium. Those of us from out-of-state just didn't get it.

Groucho
05-18-2009, 10:45 PM
One of the women who works with my wife is a lifelong Coloradan. She told my wife, "You just don't understand -- you haven't lived here all your life." Apparently, her hypothesis was that any native-born Coloradan understood that the Broncos were important enough to earn a free stadium. Those of us from out-of-state just didn't get it.

My folks and I have lived here all of our lives. We are Coloradans. We didn't and don't approve of our dollars paying for the Broncos stadium. No private enterprise should be able to benefit from public dollars. Don't misinterpret what I am saying. If a private contractor is mowing the lawn at the state Capital, they should be paid for the job. The Broncos might have an indirect effect on the local economy, but I don't think it is to scale with the benefits they have as a private enterprise in Denver.

There are too many people who blindly and unequally speak out about private enterprise receiving public money. Some say that it is wrong and against the public's interest to subsidize rail travel in this country. These are the same people who turn a blind eye when the airline industry gets billions in subsidies all the time. If anyone ever asks me why public rail transport in the country is so far gone from those of Europe and other places, I tell them its because we would rather support individual travel alone than support both. Not because we don't have the infrastructure, because we tend to spend our public money to improve air travel.

Government spending should be on those things we as individuals cannot perform on our own. Private enterprise should not get their interests paid for by public money. If Denver wants a sports franchise, we should buy it and have it state run. Whats that? No player will come and play and win for $50, 000/year? Now you know how other state owned operations feel when they barely scrape by and are poorly run (not badly, just falling short of meeting expectations due to financial limitations).

Tch2fly
05-18-2009, 10:50 PM
One of the women who works with my wife is a lifelong Coloradan. She told my wife, "You just don't understand -- you haven't lived here all your life." Apparently, her hypothesis was that any native-born Coloradan understood that the Broncos were important enough to earn a free stadium. Those of us from out-of-state just didn't get it.

Faulty hypothesis ... or I need to turn in my Pioneer plates cause I don't get it :rolleyes:

Evrgrnmtnman
05-18-2009, 11:51 PM
You voted for change and you got it! Higher Taxes, more government regulations. It's Jimmy Carter time again.........

Hulk
05-19-2009, 06:21 PM
You voted for change and you got it! Higher Taxes, more government regulations. It's Jimmy Carter time again.........

What on earth are you talking about?

Red_Chili
05-19-2009, 07:16 PM
12903

:eek: :lmao: