- VDOT central office, Richmond
The Virginia Department of Transportation would gain extensive powers over local transportation planning under a bill awaiting the governor’s signature. That makes local governments and citizen groups very nervous.
by James A. Bacon
Gov. Bob McDonnell’s omnibus transportation bill is less far-reaching than when first submitted to the General Assembly in January, but important elements have survived the legislative meat grinder. Among its many provisions, the bill would dramatically increase the state’s control over local transportation planning and, by extension, land use planning.
Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton describes the bill as an effort to address the fiscally ruinous practice of county boards making land use decisions and expecting the state to build the roads needed to serve the resulting growth. Counties and their sometime-allies in the Smart Growth movement view the bill as an momentous transfer of power over transportation and land use into the hands of an unresponsive Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) bureaucracy.
In a deal hashed on the last day of the General Assembly session, Republican lawmakers stripped out many parts of the bill that the McDonnell administration had pushed for, most notably two controversial provisions for siphoning revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Trust Fund. (The bill still provides for the transfer of a portion of General Fund surpluses to the transportation fund.) But they stuck with measures that (1) would require local transportation improvement plans to be consistent with the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s State Transportation Plan and Six Year Improvement Program and (2) require counties to pay back any state and federal funds spent on canceled projects at the counties’ request.
Under the bill, local governments would have to submit their transportation plans to VDOT for review and comment. If VDOT determined that a plan was not consistent with the state plans, it would refer to plan to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which approves all state-funded transportation projects, for appropriate action.
“This basically gives the state veto power over transportation improvements in a locality,” says Ted McCormack, director of government affairs for the Virginia Association of Counties. “We’re working on a plan of response. We’re very concerned about these land use provisions in the bill and would like to see some changes.”
The bill goes “completely against community vision,” says Dan Holmes, director of state policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council. “The new law will make it impossible to deny projects put into place by VDOT.”
The aim of the bill is to bring transportation and land use planning into closer alignment, an abstract goal that all parties agree is desirable. One way to accomplish that goal would be “devolution” — shifting responsibility for building and maintaining secondary roads from VDOT to the counties. (Cities already have that responsibility.) But local governments reject that option on the grounds that the state would saddle them with major obligations without sufficient means to pay for them.
The counties may not like devolution but the status quo is unacceptable, says Connaughton. Counties are making land use decisions and transportation plans that impact state finances. While proffers from developers might cover some of the cost of making road improvements, counties sometimes assume that the state will take up the slack. The state incurs additional, ongoing expense for maintaining the roads. Read more.
I appreciate the further reporting on the issue but I’m not making this connection: ” “The new law will make it impossible to deny projects put into place by VDOT.”
How does VDOT review and approval of proposed development translate into the inability of local governments to oppose VDOT-initiated projects?
That WOULD BE a serious issue but I’m not getting the “connect the dots” view….
in terms of localities approving projects that degrade and damage state roads – I’m surprised.. no I’m SHOCKED that the Smart Growth folks do not acknowledge this as a significant existing problem.
Keep in mind that the state and VDOT have a responsibility to protect interstates, primary roads and roads that have a statewide significance and that clearly in the past and ongoing .. localities have demonstrated a prodigious propensity to crap up the performance of the road network in a single-minded effort to improve their own economic development prospects.
How many frickin bypasses has VDOT built, in response to the locality glomming on to a state maintained road … and destroying it’s utility as a transportation purpose and converted it into a commercial business venue?
I’m totally puzzled why the folks who traditionally are concerned about bad development practices that crap up roads which in turn motivate new location roads that are often “sprawl” induced… have jumped the shark here on this.
Let’s put it this way. What would the Smart Growth folks do to retain the good part of this legislation to rein in counties who really don’t care what they do to transportation infrastructure… to neuter VDOT’s “power” to propose and build new location roads without opposition?
If I see one more BOS wag his finger at a VDOT guy telling him just how bad traffic has gotten a year or so after they approved massive new developments (and in turn more traffic).. I’m going to shout jezzusHkeeeeriiistttt!
The Smart Growth people generally don’t want to see any significant number of new roads built. For example, they have argued most of the non-grid of streets set forth in Table 7 to the Tysons plan are not needed. Mixed use, heavy density, sidewalks, rail, buses and bikes will address the transportation problems, according to their argument. I find the position unacceptable because they don’t address the traffic studies.
Given the choice between Fairfax County’s traffic studies and bald statements that density solves all, I choose the former. It is my belief, therefore, that the Smart Growth people tend to believe that they can have an easier time influencing local officials than they can the CTB or VDOT.
I have serious concerns about the potential power of an unreformed CTB. But short of devolution of local streets to counties, this might be a step towards a better link between land use and transportation.
Ahhhh …. the Clown Show at its finest.
Let’s review:
1. The political elite in Richmond have been unable and/or unwilling to effectively fund transportation in Virginia for the last 26 years. Fact: Only one state has gone longer than Virginia in failure to raise the gas tax – Alaska: a state awash in crude oil tax revenues.
2. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is intended to provide regional representation for the spending of the few transportation dollars that the Clown Show does manage to collect each year. However, the regions in the CTB were defined in 1932 and have not changed to keep pace with Virginia’s changing demographics. A bill to correct this idiocy was bypassed by the General Assembly this year.
3. VDOT was assumed to be out of funds until Bob McDonnell took office and “found” over $1B of unallocated transportation money in VDOT’s coffers.
4. The same Clown Show who wants more control of transportation in Virginia recently debated, voted and signed into a law a major transportation reform bill. That bill was immediately and unanimously found to be unconstitutional by the Virginia Supreme Court.
5. The state government in Virginia (who wants more power over transportation) has recently been cited as one of the most corrupt state governments in the United States (47th out of 50).
6. Virginia voters have the smallets chance in the nation to change the state government as Virginia has been found to have the least competitive state government elections in the United States.
And now these people want more power?
I never thought I’d agree with anything endorsed by the Piedmont Environmental Council but I am with them on this one.
Just a small point of fact: Virginia’s state government was rated 47th for transparency and accountability, not corruption. That may be a slender distinction in practice, but I thought I’d point it out.
Fair point. That was the study I was referencing. However, I recall some other study that rates states for corruption. It was discussed on BaconsRebellion. The MSM article about the study was poorly written so we couldn’t figure out if the rating was good or bad. I’ll try to dig it up and see if I can track down the details.
OK. They talk about “corruption risk” rather than corruption.
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10812551-states-with-the-most-lax-anti-corruption-laws
“Corruption risk.” I would go along with that.
And here’s the study where Virginia is rated the second most corrupt state. At least, upon review of the study, I think it is second most corrupt rather than second least corrupt.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/05/09/the-most-corrupt-states.html#slide1
I remember that Daily Beast ranking. I blogged about it when it came out and puzzled whether a No. 2 ranking meant Virginia was very clean or very dirty. I concluded, on the basis of comparisons with other states, that it mean that Virginia was very clean. However, I may be wrong. The Daily Beast provided little in the way of explanation.
DJR puts too much trust in local government to do the right thing. VDOT’s control over Routes 7 and 123 and its insistence federal and state highway standards be followed was a major factor in preventing Fairfax County from adopting an insane plan for Tysons. There was strong local sentiment to narrow the drivable width of the roads, rather than widen them, as part of the Comp Plan revisions. The idea Fairfax or any other county really wants to fix transportation is laughable. They don’t want control over local roads. They don’t want to be responsible for linking land use to transportation. If they did that, they would need to reject many rezonings. They don’t want home rule. The Dillon Rule provides major political cover. People in power locally like the status quo vis a vis transportation and land use.
Oh TMT … for goodness sakes.
We will never have visibility into Richmond. Never. The political elite in Richmond are genetic crooks. They can’t help themselves. Dishonesty is in their DNA.
The Fairfax BoS may be slippery too. But, at least, I can keep an eye on them. I can see what they are doing. I know the roads they talk about. Within 45 minutes I can be anywhere in the county to see whatever I want to see.
We will never get control of the Clown Show in Richmond. Better to put all the eggs in the county basket and then beat the snot out of the county supervisors when things go wrong.
I lived in Chicago long enough to see two things:
1. Corruption and a workable city can co-exist
2. Local aldermen with power makes things happen for locals.
In Virginia, all I have learned is that the state legislature is corrupt and the present approach hasn’t worked for decades and won’t work ever again.
Time to change.
Time to drop the Clown Show.
Mr. Holmes is misinformed regarding the Virginia Surface Transportation Plan. VDOT, after conducting a needs assessment, proposed a draft recommendation to widen Rt 15 between Culpeper and Orange counties. Based on local feedback the recommendations were modified (in both the Surface Transportation Plan and associated Rural Long Range Plan) to cover targeted safety and maintenance improvements (turn lanes, shoulders, bridges, etc). See for yourself – http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Rural/Rappahannock_Rapidan.pdf and http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/vtransNew/resources/VSTP_%20by_Chapter/Chapter%206%20by%20Region/Chap6_3BlueRidge.pdf.
I believe VDOT has been very sensitive and responsive to local and regional needs and desires as it relates to their long range planning processes. In addition, VDOT has invested millions to support planning in rural and small communities. To say “VDOT frequently puts projects into its long-term plans that local governments don’t want” is inaccurate at best. If asking was “a lot of work” to get the recommendation removed, then maybe there is an unrealistic notion of how easy the transportation planning process should be. My $.02.
I think TMT is dead on. The localities, including Fairfax want as much money as someone will give them regardless of where it comes from as long as it is not them, they don’t want VDOT telling them what they can’t do, they want to do land-use the way they want to without being held accountable for the adverse impacts and when things go to hell in a handbasket transportation-wise they want a convenient whipping boy or boys… VDOT and Richmond will do quite nicely, thank you very much.
re: VDOT planning roads that localities don’t want.
I understand the part about VDOT reviewing locality development plans to determine the impacts to taxpayer-provided existing infrastructure but I’m still not clear how that translates into VDOT forcing a road down the localities throat.
Not to say that VDOT does not plan some stinker roads like the Western Transportation Corridor..but I still fail to see how these “new” review powers translate into any more of than than we have already seen.
Sometimes – it seems to me that the advocacy groups get up on a “message” but actually trying to understand it beyond a talking-point is not easy.
When the Smarter Growth folks and the SLC come out with a concern, USUALLY there is a very good reason but in this case.. I guess I’m being thick-headed and someone will have to draw out a map…. for me to see the problem.
Reading some of Connaughton’s comments gave me a chuckle. Neither he nor anyone in the administration lifted a finger when in 2011 the General Assembly gutted some of the provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis regulations, such as VDOT review of comprehensive plan changes and by-right development, at the request of developers. This past summer, his VDOT rewrote further the TIA regulations at the request of counties and developers. At the same time, his VDOT weakened the subdivision street regulations with respect to connectivity at the request of developers. And he complains about counties not allowing connectivity. No one saw him in the committee room or at the table trying to save those provisions, much less strengthen them.
This past session, he was nowhere to be seen when the legislature did away with urban development areas, a key piece of the McDonnell/Howell/Republican HB 3202 “solution” to the transportation problem. UDAs had become ‘radioactive’ to the Tea Party Agenda 21 crowd and no 0ne wanted to upset them. It will be interesting to see what the Agenda 21 crowd thinks of Connaughton’s new law to give the Commonwealth control over road improvements and thus, land use development. I suspect that at some point in the near future, after counties have to amend for a second time their comprehensive plans (first time to add the now defunct UDAs), the hue and cry from the Agenda 21 crowd will result in repeal of the VDOT veto provisions. Bosun
Bosun – doesn’t this new wrinkle consolidate and increase VDOT’s power over land-use decisions?
Do you understand why the Smart Growth folks don’t like this?
I did not know that they had trashed the TIAs and subdivision connectivity policies… that’s bad.
UDAs were a joke. All they required was a designation that they would be allowed if a rezone proposal was made. That ability existed all along. Any developer can make any proposal anywhere in a county and the county can approve it or not.
All the UDA did was attempt to get those counties who did not have designated growth areas..to think about it a bit but even then it did require them to accept any proposal as a “by-right” even if it was inside a designated UDA.
larry g – yes, the new wrinkle gives VDOT increased power over land use decisions since new or expanded roads open up areas for development. A new road designated by the CTB could be in an area where the local comprehensive plan, developed with citizen input, said no growth should go. Yes, the Smart Growth folks don’t like this because it completely negates the wishes of the electorate. I agree that things change with each election (a perfect example is the U.S. 29 bypass), but that is the political process. From a state perspective, that plays havoc with long range transportation planning, but after all, it is suppose to be a cooperative, state-local process.
Everyone must remember that the trashing of the TIA and the subdivision connectivity policies occurred on Connaughton’s watch with nary a peep from him.
Several people said that UDAs were just old wine in new bottles. It did require that “to the extent possible” state and local spending for infrastructure should be directed into the UDAs. Bosun
how does VDOT get expanded powers over land use decisions if their involvement in Comp Plans and specific projects via the TIAs has been scaled back?
It seems counter-intuitive. What specific powers has VDOT acquired that they did not have before that gives them more say over what a locality can do with regard to land-use?
Call me thick-headed but all I’ve heard so far is the assertion without really giving a clear example of how this new power works.
Also VDOT seems to favor devolution as of late… and in my view..that would put the onus on the locality for subdivision connectivity and TIAs since the locality would be picking up the tab for the needed improvements (at least for secondary roads).
As far as Primary roads go… I still see a significant VDOT involvement especially with regard to access management. I’ve see two local projects where the locality wanted one option to better serve local needs and VDOT overruled them to preserve the integrity of the road for regional connectivity and utility.
It’s hard to understand exactly what VDOT is doing these days. Is there, for instance, a reference or cite for them abandoning the TIAs and subdivision connectivity policy?
How does VDOT get expanded power over land use? It’s an indirect power. If VDOT can veto local transportation plans, which are integrated with county zoning and land use plans, the department can render county zoning functionally inoperable. If the roads can’t be built and the growth zones cannot be supported, the county is in a real pickle.
Thank you for that elucidation. It does a better job than my reply to Larry G. in the following comment.
re: VDOT veto of transportation projects. That has never stopped localities from making bad land-use decisions before. In fact, the problem often has been that the locality has lines drawn on a map but no money, local or state to build them.
Now, if the new rule is like the rule for MPOs which says you cannot have a road in a plan unless you have identified funding for it then that might be interesting.
In fact, right now if you look at the localities roads that are in the MPO long range transportation plan and compare it to the roads that are in the localities COMP PLan you’ll see that there are far more (unfunded) roads in their comp plan because there is no rule in Va that the roads in the Comp Plan also are in the county CIP.
There is also is in the Va code a law called Official Maps which allows a county to draw future road corridors which lets citizens know where so they know to not buy where a road is planned but the caveat to this is that if the owner decides to sell the land, the county must buy it at that point.
That, in turn, means the county must have a fund for purchasing right of ways and may have to add more money to it in years where a lot of land is purchased.
I checked the VDOT website and they HAVE INDEED made changes to the subdivision connectivity standards as related by Bosun but they did not kill them totally it appears..they put a number/traffic count threshold on them.
But – Bosun is saying that VDOT has abandoned some dictates but Jim is saying they’ve gained more power over localities.
I don’t see how veto power over local roads per se changes much because in truth – most counties rezone land willy-nilly without showing new road or new road improvements, often until after the fact but even if they did… vetoing those roads which are nothing more than lines on a map (verses a funded priority in a CIP)… would be meaningless.
So far.. no one has shown the code or the particular regulation nor laid out the specifics on this new power.
Okay, I FINALLY saw a news story about this new power. Apparently the locality Comp Plan has to ALIGN with VDOT’s 6-year funding plan.
In other words, the localities can no longer draw imaginary lines on a map and claim that it is a road that will be built – but they never say when.
This is a bad thing?
I see this as a GOOD THING. This is exactly how localities approve growth and claim that the roads to serve it will be built. They just draw a line on a map and claim it’s a road even when they have no clue when or if the road will ever get funded or built.
Why would the Smart Growth folks oppose the requirement that Comp Plans be realistic rather than the fiction they are right now with regard to transportation planning?
LarryG, can you provide a link to the news story cited above?
http://goo.gl/7sp9e (FLS)
The reason for TIA and SSAR was to give VDOT more input/control into local land use decisions. TIA allowed VDOT to comment on comp plan amendments and development proposals so if the county approved a development that would degrade the road network, the public would know that their leaders made a bad decision and the public would know who to blame – their electeds and not VDOT. SSAR was designed to, among other things, force connectivity between subdivisions so that county leaders, in the face of tremendous resident opposition, could say, “VDOT is making me do it” and go ahead a approve the connection of two adjacent subdivisions. Both, along with access management [the developer's next target] were put into place to keep the existing road network from degrading and reduce the need to build new roads or expand existing roads. And both were weakened in 2011 by the GA and VDOT at the request of developers and, to some extent, counties with respect to TIA.
Yes, localities make bad land use decisions, but so does VDOT. In addition, the supreme planning commission of the Commonwealth, a.k.a., The General Assembly, also makes bad land use decisions every year. It is human nature and that is what the electorial process is all about. Just ask Loudoun County where they go from pro-growth to slow-growth governing bodies every 4 years.
Right now, localities are required to include a transportation component in their comp plans and that has to be developed in consultation with VDOT and it has to show things like the cost of the facility, etc. So the county cannot just “draw a line on a map” without some idea what it will cost or if/when it would be built.
The problem that the Smart Growth folks and counties [and eventually the Tea Party Agenda 21 crowd] have about the new rules is that VDOT and the CTB can force ram road projects down the throats of counties regardless how much damage is done to the environment, historic resources, neighborhoods, or state finances. See, for example, the Charlottesville Bypass that really does not bypass much traffic. Every year the CTB adopts the Six Year Plan and frequently adopts an updated statewide transportation plan [VTRANS] and they could completely ignore input from citizens and localities. See, for example, the new corridor between Maryland & Virginia that will go through Loudoun County. These thing are often done in the name of improving the state or regional road network to improve travel time in the name of industrial or business development, which is the job of the CTB. Heck, who would not want to see fewer interstate trucks on I-95 in NoVa. But the impacts on local land use decisions are tremendous and counties will have to deal with them after the fact.
You think county land use decision are “willy-nilly” now, wait until the new Potomac River crossing lands in Loudoun. That county and the others through which the road will pass and finally connect up with I-95 will be playing catch up with development proposal, rezonings, comp plan rewrites for decades. Another thing is that a major road like that will have overwhelming impact on the local road network and how will that be paid for?
Finally, larry g, on these pages and elsewhere, is a big proponent of devolution. And surprisingly, many counties would agree IF THERE IS THE MONEY TO TAKE ON THE TASK WITHOUT RAISING REAL PROPERTY TAXES. Devolution is a dead letter because the money is not there. If the state does not have the $ to do the job now, what make you think that counties will have the $ to do it?
Unfortunately, counties know all to well that the state is a fickle mistress. There are many, many, many examples [including a big one from the 2012 session] where the state will assume a responsibility and once there is a state budget crisis, the responsibility is dumped on localities with little or no money to pay for it. Thus, localities have to cut services or raise local taxes while the Commonwealth and its leaders can brag about not raising taxes. They win and local elected officals look like cads.
Absent a constitutional amendment that gives counties at least an additional 10 cents on the gas tax indexed to inflation along with a prohibition against the legislature from reducing other funding to counties [like the did with the lottery proffits for schools while at the same time reducing the state's overall contribution for schools that use to come from other sources] counties will fight against devolution. Bosun
local decisions are more easily held accountable but most folks do not understand the cost issues with access management and subdivision connectivity so they want their median corssovers and cul-de-saced, no-exit subdivisions – as long of course as someone else pays …..
I’m okay with counties getting a local gas tax – as long as it is approved by voters and the county has to have a fiscally constrained transportation plan so there is no slush fund nor wish lists with no funding.
VDOT does have a responsibility to protect roads of state-wide significance which is the primary roads. I support access management and other measures to preserve those roads ..and to, in the process, slow down, stop, the process of having to build by-passes to make up for the main road getting crapped up by irresponsible access decisions for development.
But what Bosun says about the localities and developers lobbying Richmond is also true…sad to say – and they usually have success at it unless there are folks opposing them.