The Special Session on Transportation -- There was One?
Posted by Chap at 10/2/2006 8:31 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
Last week, the Virginia General Assembly briefly regrouped to deal with the "transportation issue." There was an impasse between the House of Delegates and State Senate. As a result, there was no agreed plan, and there will be no new solutions offered by the 2006 Assembly.
To those familiar with Virginia politics, the standoff between the House and Senate is deja vu all over again. Essentially, it's the clash of two different Republican ideologies: the "no new taxes" of the House against the "tax and pave" of the Senate. Neither is popular. Efforts by both sides to rally public support are usually a flop.
There is a void for a Democratic alternative. Here's one:
1. Manage demand of scarce resources. Both sides in the House vs. Senate debate ignore the value of conservation. The global temperature is rising and fossil fuels are depleting. Yet the Assembly has passed no legislation that limits fuel usage or encourages alternative (e.g. ethanol) fuel production. It should also establish funding benchmarks for public transit. Finally, any proposed new taxes should be on fuel use in order to measure and limit demand.
2. Seek an integrated vision. A major transportation package should change the landscape of the Commonwealth, much like canals and railroads in the 19th century. High-speed rail along the 95/64 corridor is one such vision. Another is the conversion of freight traffic along the Rte. 81 corridor from road to rail. These projects can link our urban areas and promote better land use. These types of projects will also challenge the status quo at VDOT. People can get excited about the future.
3. Level the Playing Field on Taxes: No transportation plan can succeed without a dedicated revenue source to finance projects. Yet the House plan was based upon exorbitant fines for traffic violations -- which are levied largely against the least prosperous. Many of these fines will go unpaid, which will only increase the number of unlicensed drivers. The bottom line is that criminal law should punish anti-social conduct, not rely upon it for funding social improvements. The taxes to support transportation should be drawn equally from the pool of users.
If the Assembly would incorporate these ideas, then maybe somebody (outside the Chamber of Commerce) would care about this debate. And maybe we could actually get something done.
Chap
To those familiar with Virginia politics, the standoff between the House and Senate is deja vu all over again. Essentially, it's the clash of two different Republican ideologies: the "no new taxes" of the House against the "tax and pave" of the Senate. Neither is popular. Efforts by both sides to rally public support are usually a flop.
There is a void for a Democratic alternative. Here's one:
1. Manage demand of scarce resources. Both sides in the House vs. Senate debate ignore the value of conservation. The global temperature is rising and fossil fuels are depleting. Yet the Assembly has passed no legislation that limits fuel usage or encourages alternative (e.g. ethanol) fuel production. It should also establish funding benchmarks for public transit. Finally, any proposed new taxes should be on fuel use in order to measure and limit demand.
2. Seek an integrated vision. A major transportation package should change the landscape of the Commonwealth, much like canals and railroads in the 19th century. High-speed rail along the 95/64 corridor is one such vision. Another is the conversion of freight traffic along the Rte. 81 corridor from road to rail. These projects can link our urban areas and promote better land use. These types of projects will also challenge the status quo at VDOT. People can get excited about the future.
3. Level the Playing Field on Taxes: No transportation plan can succeed without a dedicated revenue source to finance projects. Yet the House plan was based upon exorbitant fines for traffic violations -- which are levied largely against the least prosperous. Many of these fines will go unpaid, which will only increase the number of unlicensed drivers. The bottom line is that criminal law should punish anti-social conduct, not rely upon it for funding social improvements. The taxes to support transportation should be drawn equally from the pool of users.
If the Assembly would incorporate these ideas, then maybe somebody (outside the Chamber of Commerce) would care about this debate. And maybe we could actually get something done.
Chap
Your comments are misleading. Neither the Governor nor the Senate addressed the state auditor's report that found VDOT has NO cost controls and the CTB funds transportation projects based on which special interest group has the best lobbyist and without regard to the project's relationship to an integrated transportation plan. In other words, VDOT & the CTB waste tax dollars. Shouldn't taxpayers be assured that these major flaws are fixed BEFORE we are asked to pay more in taxes. Prove the reforms work and then talk about money.
Also, if Virginia needs transportation money, why are we spending $4 billion (before cost overruns) to build the Silver Line when the State's own evidence shows that it will NOT reduce traffic congestion. Final EIS, Table 6.2.-2. Answer it with numbers, not adjectives? I won't hold my breath.
Since West Group and its executives were big contributors to Tim Kaine and they stand to make billions with rezoning of Tysons, why should we not presume that our Governor's support for the Silver Line is not a payback for this support?
Who will pay the inevitable cost overruns for the Silver Line? Your approach to transportation is superficial and misleading. Address Table 6.2-2.
TMT:
THanks for the email. After 10 years of marriage, I'm used to a good verbal bashing (and usually deserve it).
Looks like you are pretty firmly aligned with one side of the equation here and I won't bother trying to change your mind. In fact, I think you make some good points. Let me address a couple:
1. I have never been comfortable with the CTB system for allocating road $$. To me, these decisions ought to be made by engineers based upon proven metrics -- not by political appointees. So we're even there.
2. We actually inserted a number of VDOT reforms and cost controls in 2003. I can't tell you for certain how they have effected output, but this was an effort that Gov. Warner took to heart.
3. As far as the Silver Line, you are right that there is some serious heartburn about cost overruns and usage. Do I say differently? My opinions are not based upon any financial contributions; I can tell you that. If you have facts & figures that you want to share, then I'd love to see them.
Now you can take a breath again ...
Having spent some driving around western Fairfax County and northern Prince William County this past weekend, I was reminded of how terrible the traffic situation is here in Northern Virginia. Living in Arlington, I am fortunate in that I don't have to deal with it every day as do many others.
As for what to do about it, I'm honestly not certain. New roads (and widened roads) will help and should be implemented if possible. For example, I think widening I-66 inside the Beltway is a no-brainer (and I say that as someone who lives about 1/4 mile away from it in Arlington).
Improved (or at least expanded) public transportation is also a necessity. For example, a network of express buses to the Tyson's Corner area from various residential centers could be very useful in reducing commuter traffic in and out of Tysons. The key is to make the public transportation as user friendly as possible, even if it runs at a "loss."
However, I don't think there is enough room left (or enough available money) to build enough roads to eliminate or even seriously reduce our long-term traffic problems. We simply have too many people living here for our road capacity. This seems clear to my (non-expert) opinion every time I read reports that project the traffic situation 10 or more years down th road. I don't believe this mean that we should be limiting population growth (which is the result - and perhaps also, at least in part, the cause - of the tremendous economic activity of our region). What it does mean is that we need to be getting used to the idea that we will never "solve" the traffic problem, and that we will simply have to get used to it. I think that someone of public consequence (likely one who isn't planning on running for elective office) is going to have to start beating that drum.
Chap:
I agree that Warner and Shucet made big improvements at VDOT. But they are not enough. The state auditor's report came out last winter, not three years ago. This is not to say that Warner failed; he didn't. I maintain, however, that Kaine needs to pick up and go further with reforms. He talks a good game, but has not delivered. Rather, he has aligned himself with Chichester and the other defenders of taxpayer waste. Kaine can do better than this.
Let's audit VDOT in two years. Let's see if it has effective cost controls before we give it more money. Let's require any lobbyist making contacts with the CTB to post them on the Internet for all to see. Require the CTB to rank projects based on engineering and economic data and to address them in every funding decision it makes. Do this now; prove it works; then, let's talk about funding.
Kaine should also fight as hard for zoning law changes as he has for tax increases. He could have said (& still should say) "I won't sign a tax bill that does not also include authority for local governments to reject new development where the roads are inadequate." Remember that this was the issue that put him in his job in the first place.
As to the Silver Line, I've published Table 6.2-2 on my blog "A Dog with Five Legs" on September 9. I'd email you the table if I had an address. The entire EIS is on the Dullesmetro.com website.
The table, which was prepared by the Commonwealth, shows that the full-build option provides no measurable traffic relief than if the no-build/do-nothing option is chosen. Are we so darn flush with tax money that we can spend at least $4 B and not improve traffic? Take a look at the evidence. Explain it. The Silver Line is being built at a cost of billions solely to permit Gerry Connolly and his colleagues to give West Group and other big landowners and campaign contributors windfall profits from rezoning. As I recall, West Group and its executives put quite a bit of money into politicians' hands, especially those of our Governor. Could there be any connection? If not, please explain Table 6.2-2.
TMT:
First of all, feel free to email me at chap@oxroadsouth.com and I'll get it. Your points are good ones. I agree that Gov Kaine's statements regarding growth were key to his victory, esp. in Loudoun and western Fairfax. As far as cost controls at VDOT and CTB, I could not agree more. And I'll leave Rail to Dulles for a later post -- there are a lot of things to say. Bottom line, no system will ever be perfect (do you think Caesar complained about cost overruns for the aqueducts? I'll bet so). Eventually, you've still go to move forward.
Chap,
I'm glad to find agreement on the VDOT and CTB issues. Mark Warner made some good improvements at VDOT, but we need more to be done so that taxpayers get the best value for their tax dollars.
I don't think raising taxes before making big reforms make sense any more than it would make sense to give more money to an alcoholic or a drug addict with the hope that he/she will reform. Money enables the bad conduct and prevents reform.
Many members of the House have offered some meaningful reforms. The Senate would simply enable the current dysfunctional situation. We were fortunate that both Republicans and Democrats rejected the tax increases in committee. If Tim Kaine would announce that he wants reform first, we have two-thirds of the equation solved, as only the Senate would be mired in the mud of the current failed system. The alternative is continued transportation failure.
Not sure what the discussion is about, but absolutley gebius use of the phrase "there was one" in a serious setting.