|
Falling
Short
The
transportation
bills before the Senate and House of Delegates
conferees fall short of the fundamental reforms
needed in
transportation planning and priority setting.
The Governor and
senior legislators have noted that Virginia needs to
better link land use and transportation and that we
cannot build our way out of congestion. The
conservation and smart growth community strongly
concurs and has called for fundamental reevaluation
of transportation spending priorities and for
critical land use and transportation accountability
reforms. But it is our belief that current
efforts to provide additional transportation funds
have not done enough to advance the fundamental
reforms we need.
If we fail to change
transportation plans and the direction of spending,
Virginia will continue over the next 20 years to buy
a highway-oriented transportation system -- just
when higher energy prices call for changes in land
use and greater investment in transit, local
streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
other measures that would reduce the amount
Virginians must drive. Moreover, since
Virginia will face damage from global climate change
such as increased flooding in Hampton Roads, we
should be taking the lead in reducing carbon
emissions. Among other things, green, energy
efficient buildings, more compact development in
our cities, towns and suburbs, and investment in
alternatives to driving will be necessary to achieve
major emission reductions from power plants and
transportation.
We are concerned that
the Governor and General Assembly have not
adequately evaluated, prepared and planned for a
more energy efficient and economically competitive
future for Virginia, whether in land use,
transportation, or energy policy.
Reiterating
our position regarding the transportation bill and
budget:
1) Funding for Transit, Rail,
and Non-Motorized Transportation: The consistent
position of the Virginia Conservation Network has
been that a substantial proportion of new money
should go to transit, passenger/freight rail, local
streets and pedestrian/ bicycle facilities. Our
benchmark has been 50 percent of new money because the need
for these services is increasing. About 60
percent of
the state’s population lives in the urbanized
crescent between Northern Virginia, Richmond and
Hampton Roads. Local street investments
support more compact development and reduce
congestion. Freight and passenger rail
investments reduce pressure on our highways. An
increasing number of senior citizens need transit
alternatives. Transit should be eligible for a share
of all new funding sources, and transit operations
and maintenance should be a state priority equal to
that applied to the Highway Maintenance and
Operating Fund (HMOF). The current
transportation bill and budget fall far short of
these goals.
2) Project
Prioritization: Additional transportation funding being
proposed this year has not been linked with a
reevaluation of VDOT’s major project priorities or
with the adoption of performance standards tied to
demand reduction. As a result, it would fail
to fund more critical needs, fuel sprawl
development, and fail to reduce congestion. We
have critiqued
several of the projects VDOT has positioned to begin
with new funding. Many of these
projects will spark a new round of sprawl
development and traffic and leave us worse off than
we are today.
3) Public-Private
Transportation Act (PPTA) and Taking of General
Funds: We oppose the significant funding
proposed for the Transportation Partnership
Opportunity Fund for PPTA projects, many of which
would contribute to sprawl or would involve transfer
of significant state highway assets to private
control. The PPTA process lacks adequate
oversight by the public and elected officials, is
distorting project priorities, and taking public
subsidies without generating the private resources
promised.
4) Regional
Funding:
While targeting increased funding to the most
congested areas of the state makes sense, the
proposed structure means that local officials will
be asked to raise taxes and fees in an election year
-- a difficult prospect. With other funding
going to statewide uses, the goal of increasing
metro area funding therefore may well not be met.
Northern Virginia deserves credit for developing
prioritization criteria to better link land use and
transportation. The proposed regional funding
also places the correct priority on transit,
secondary and urban roads. Yet, other project
priorities set by VDOT, like I-66 inside the
Beltway, the HOT lane proposals, and the Tri-County
Parkway, require reconsideration.
The
regional plan for Hampton Roads falls short of the
integrated approach to land use and transportation
that is needed. The proposed priority projects
fail to adequately address congestion within Hampton
Roads and on its crowded arterials, and would place
sprawl-inducing projects like Route 460 and the SE
Expressway ahead of congestion reduction in existing
communities. Congestion management and bus
service followed by increased tunnel capacity and
the addition of rail transit and freight/passenger
rail across Hampton Roads should be a top priority
instead of being deferred in the current funding
package.
5) Land
Use: We commend
the Governor and legislators for speaking out about
the need to link transportation and land use, but a
much stronger approach is needed that promotes
revitalization of cities, towns and older suburbs
where we already have infrastructure, and that
ensures that transportation and other state
infrastructure funds are tied to more compact,
mixed-use development.
While falling
short of what is needed, we believe that the
Senate’s version of the land use provisions in the
omnibus bill is better overall. We support
urban development areas, impact fees, and
subdivision street criteria. But for UDAs to
be effective, then not only transportation funds,
but other funds such as money for water and sewer
should be tied to efficiently designed UDAs.
Local governments should also be given additional
tools to use outside the UDA including adequate
public facilities authority at the subdivision or
site plan stage.
We support study of
secondary road responsibility, but believe that the
far more significant spending issue involves
VDOT’s major highway spending priorities. We
oppose transportation service districts as designed
because they are tied to an unsustainably low
density of one unit per acre. The bill would
grant twice the funding to counties that cities
currently receive, while dividing up an already
small pie among more jurisdictions without providing
additional funding. This is the wrong
financial signal for the state to send if it is
committed to more efficient patterns of
development.
Finally, clarification of
the authority to deny rezonings due to traffic
impacts should be included in any package. It
is a common sense policy to every Virginian dealing
with poorly planned growth and traffic.
Summary: An effective and financially
responsible plan for Virginia’s future would not
simply throw more money into existing transportation
plans but would target a wide-range of policies and
spending to support more efficient and lower
emission development patterns and modes of
transportation. We urge the Governor and the
General Assembly to tie stronger reforms to proposed
increases in funding and to direct more funds
towards alternatives to driving.
--
February 20, 2007
|
