is something that smart-growth groups in Virginia are advocating. While we aren't so concerned about all the funding plans (although we support plans with $ for mass transit), we are more concerned about what this money is going to be spent on.  

Here's a question that I'm trying to get posed to former Commissioner Phil Shucet...

Considering increasing gas prices and the fact that vehicles miles traveled (VMT) has fallen over 4% nationally in reaction, shouldn't we now be reevaluating the statewide VTRANS 2025 plan and other metropolitan regional plans that were developed long ago when gas prices were much lower, and make sure we are buying the right transportation system for the next 50 to 100 years that's better matched to the way we want to develop out in the future?

They have already announced VTRANS 2035 to do precisely what you are proposing.  See www.vtrans.org.

Now then, lets knock off the paralysis by analysis and start building some roads.  Cars aren't going anywhere even if gas goes to $10/gallon.  Remember all the predictions of conservation when gas hit $3/gallon last year?  BDF, gasoline prices only affect vehicle use marginally (4% as you point out).

gasoline demand is relatively inelastic in the short-term.  In the long term, people can do more to change their behavior, conserve, and utilize gas more efficiently or not at all.  If you live out in the boonies now and commute a great distance to work, you can't change that overnight.  And there may not be a public transportation option that works for you.  A lot of people now are probably lowering discretionary spending to pay for higher energy costs (the lower discretionary spending is demonstrated in retail sales and durable goods sales).  

Sustained high energy prices are going to have a dramatic effect.  We just won't see it this year or next year.  But like the oil embargo of the 70s gave rise to Japanese automakers' market share in the 80s and the massive increase in oil produced outside of OPEC, this will have some major impact too.  Detroit is already looking for a cheaper battery for their plug-in hybrids.

But I digress, you are right about the need for transportation funding.  We need to get moving.  If a compromise requires an external audit of VDOT, I am fine with that.  Also, remember that this funding is going for road maintenance and not road construction.  So, you aren't getting new roads out of this.  And it is doubtful that anything will come out of the GA at all.  

Gasoline demand is certainly inelastic, however even over the long term price has only a marginal effect.  Before the 1973 oil boycott, Japanese cars were already making huge inroads in American marketshare, primarily because of price and reliability.  I drove a 1972 Toyota Corolla during the oil boycott.  It got about the same mileage as a Chevy Nova, but cost hundreds of dollars less and would last many years longer without major repairs.

Over my adult lifetime, gasoline has gone from 29 cents/gallon to over $3/gallon one year ago.  According to the Federal Reserve, 29 cents in 1970 was the equivalent of $1.62 in 2007.  And yet, the 12 MPG trucks and SUVs were still more popular last year than they were in 1970.  It will take a substancial and sustained increase in gas prices to change that.

BTW, road maintenance = road construction in throughput terms.  Improved intersections, wider lanes, etc, all increase traffic capacity and speed.  Look at the Springfield Interchange.

I suspect there's actually a relationship between the amount of money spent on mass transit and the amount of personal vehicle use in a peak oil market--vehicle use has falled off marginally, but given a broader spectrum of transportation options, would more people choose an alternative means of transport over not driving?

However, an audit of VDOT is not going to help with that one way or another.  VDOT has been externally audited eight times in the last seven years, so it's not like we don't have an available supply of recent data to look through.

It ought to be noted, by the way, that fuel prices aren't always going to be this high.  They're going to fall one way or another--either consumers will reduce demand by diversifying their energy sourcing and usage, or producers will increase demand specifically so consumers won't beat them to the punch.  The time for solutions is now.

it ought to say "producers will increase supply"

"They're going to fall one way or another--either consumers will reduce demand by diversifying their energy sourcing and usage, or producers will increase demand specifically so consumers won't beat them to the punch."

And there lies our challenge... I think.  Although, SD, when you say "beat them to the punch", do you mean producers racing to produce from more diversified energy sourcing so as to capture that new demand or do you mean producers racing to get more dirty product available in hopes of nipping consumer demand for clean energy in the bud?  

Exxon's making off like a bandit right now, but that will end for them if we decide to start putting money into researching hydrogen fuel cells and move away from needing oil (to put it in the terms previous posters used, the demand will become more elastic in the long term as consumers look for more choices when fulfilling their energy and transportation needs).  Eventually the oil-producing nations and the oil corporations are going to realize it's in their best interest to keep us addicted to oil, and they'll raise supply to lower the price.

More tax credits for hybrid and electric cars now.

the excruciatingly painful waning months of the Bush administration! We gotta hang tight!