|
What's
Next for Interstate 81?
I
am delighted to see you deal with transportation
issues in Bacon’s Rebellion. The three opinion
articles about taxes, land use, and I-81 provided a
lot of food for thought. With regard to the I-81
article ("Thrill
Ride," June 9, 2003), I would like to offer
a slightly different point of view.
The
need to improve I-81, which serves as western
Virginia’s main street and a river of commerce
between southwest/northeast USA, is a long-standing
concern for the Virginia Department of
Transportation. It came into focus as far back as
1986-90 when I was both VDOT Commissioner and
Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
With all the demands on financial resources,
however, I-81 got a lower priority when we compared
it to several other highly congested Interstate
projects.
When
I returned to VDOT as Interim Commissioner in 2002,
I-81 had become a higher priority because of the
growing number of trucks and safety concerns.
Virginia faced a significant dilemma. Improving I-81
would cost billions yet the funding crisis required
a program funding reduction of several billion.
Today, with preliminary approval to put tolls on the
interstate under a federal pilot project
authorization, the financial picture has changed and
so, too, is the likelihood that improvements can
actually take place.
Commissioner
Shucet returned the I-81 PPTA proposal to STAR
Solutions in the late summer of 2002. It seemed
clear to me that western and southwestern Virginia
needed an affordable alternative that improved
safety and capacity for both cars and trucks.
Bud
Oakey (a former transportation advocate with the
Roanoke Chamber of Commerce and now President of
Advantus Strategies), Steve Pearson (a
transportation lawyer from the Reed Smith law firm),
and I (as Virginia Tech’s Transportation Fellow)
met to brainstorm the options. We made a reality
check of cost, safety, and capacity alternatives. We
roughed out a proposal and approached Fluor Virginia
to be the lead project developer. Fluor
thought the proposal had merit and after several
months consulting with design build construction
firms, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
faculty, the trucking industry, Norfolk Southern,
passenger rail advocates, aviation, bus, and bicycle
interests, Fluor submitted an alternative conceptual
proposal.
The
Fluor Team chose an intermodal rail freight plan to
divert trucks from the roadway. We proposed
financing rail improvements that can divert
somewhere between 500,000 to 1.5 million or so truck
loads each year to rail at a very feasible cost of
about $115 million. We are exploring other rail
alternatives as well. We looked at an evaluation of
the Norfolk Southern diversion proposal I had
completed in 2001 and concluded I-81 improvement and
rail improvements were not an either/or proposition.
Both need to be done, and as quickly as possible. I
think the Fluor proposal is the only one that can
realistically include a significant rail component.
We
consulted with some of my colleagues here at the
Transportation Institute and concluded that [the]
inside truck lanes [proposed in the Star proposal]
had serious weave/merge maneuvers at the hundreds of
interchanges —trucks have to cross two high-speed
car lanes both entering and exiting. Adding a
continuous barrier had additional safety issues
involving “slip ramps” to get trucks in/out of
the inside lanes. Furthermore, if a truck accident
occurred in the separated lanes, trucks would have
to be diverted into the car lanes. Of course, local
trucks traveling from one exit to the next and slow
moving campers could still congest the car lanes.
The
Fluor proposal recognizes that two-thirds of the
traffic on I-81 is cars, and automobile traffic will
increase as well as truck traffic. Therefore, adding
a “car only” lane provides new capacity for both
cars and trucks. With three lanes, climbing lanes
for trucks and campers, trucks restricted to the two
outside lanes, and a rail improvement, the road will
be safer for both cars and trucks. I would rather
not see trucks crossing the two lanes in front of me
as they slow down to exit at an interchange or slip
out from behind a barrier on my left.
Finally,
there is the reality of affordability. The total
payout for the Fluor concept, including debt service
is about $2.5 billion. The total payout to build
“truck lanes”, including debt service is about
$12 billion. The Fluor proposal does not require any
state or federal funds. The “truck lane” concept
is seeking $1.8 billion from two successive federal
transportation authorizations that may or may not
pass Congress twice over the next twelve years, and
an annual appropriation of federal funds during that
twelve-year period. Even if we count the problematic
federal funds, available State funds, and much
higher tolls for trucks, the “truck lane”
financing is still $1.8 billion short of its
estimated cost. That shortfall will have to be made
up by additional state funds, additional federal
funds, higher tolls, or tolls on cars.
I
think these differences are important and we
considered each ingredient carefully. A conceptual
proposal might look good when viewed from a general
perspective, but a careful examination can show
consequences that change that picture. Our goal is
to deliver the safest and least costly facility
possible in the shortest possible time. I would like
to drive on an improved I-81 during my lifetime, and
during the next 30 to 40 years, invest in new
technologies and new approaches to move people and
freight.
Ray
D. Pethtel
University
Transportation Fellow
Virginia
Tech
rpethtel@vt.edu
I-81:
The Bermuda Triangle of
Western Virginia
As
one who has had to traverse the I-81 Road to
Disaster for the four years of my son's education, I
thought your depiction of the drive as the best
theme park thrill was accurate. The only thing you
left out of your discussion, and what appears to be
a major hidden cost in any of the alternatives, is
Mother Nature. That particular stretch of highway is
subject to conditions that change as rapidly as Mt.
Washington with equally devastating effect. Fog,
rain, ice, snow, and wind shear combine frequently
to degrade any trips into that area to a Bermuda
triangle experience.
Unfortunately,
the economic effects are not easily quantifiable
other than the increased maintenance and salvage
costs that come during these adverse conditions. It
would appear that the STAR solution, though
initially more costly, would provide the best
solution factoring in Mother Nature's wrath.
Tom
Antonelli
Lynchburg
tantonelli@FBPINC.com
I-81:
Trucks and Flux
Good
story leading Bacon's Rebellion this week. As a
regular I-81 road runner, traveling the Abingdon-Staunton
stretch before switching to I-64 and over the
mountain to Richmond, I am angrily familiar
with the games truckers play, passing each
other going up the mountains. It's an auto driver's
driver's nightmare. Traffic can be boxed
up for miles back as the big rigs race eac
other side-by-side. This week my own speed
was reduced to an average of 45 miles per hour
for 15 minutes while two truckers did the NASCAR
thing on Christiansburg mountain.
One
of the most puzzling aspects of some garish wreckage
i have witnessed is that so many deadly accidents
occur on dry roads in perfect driving conditions.
Getting
your vehicle mashed up like an accordion under
an 18-wheeler on ice in Rockbridge county in January
is one thing. But the deadly dry-road factor tells
me that speeders catch a tailwind when smokey's
putting out forest fires.
Joyce
Wise Dodd
Richmond/Abingdon
jrwdodd@yahoo.com
Wrong
Way to Save Downtown Richmond
I
found this article ("Never
Give Up," June 16, 2003) to be very
disturbing. What it says to me is that some
out-of-town developers were able to convince
Richmond city government to put the city into debt,
displace existing small businesses, tear down a mall
that it had almost finished paying off, and fund
some construction on Broad Street, and for what? The
Queen of England, the chance to "shore up"
a D.O.A. Convention Center (that we are supposed to
proud of?), and "jumpstart" a
brand new opera house for the rich?
In
the meantime, poor people are struggling under
increased utility bills, real estate taxes, a
proposed increase in the meals tax, and God know
what else. I am furious that Council can fund these
white elephants, one Richmond Renaissance failure
after another, but cannot seem to invest in its own
citizens' future, symbolized by a shorted school
budget carefully put together by a reform-minded,
dedicated school board. What is up with all this
corporate welfare?
Do
city council members realize they have also signed
away their governance of Broad Street to the
Community Development Authority? Between VCU, the
Riverfront Development Corporation, and this, the
citizens now have no say on how special interest
groups rule these places. As a Richmond taxpayer,
citizen and resident of downtown, I am wishing we
were back to the Ukrops proposing epic-sized Olympic
natatoriums so we could just laugh, dismiss, and get
on with putting this city together the way we like
it. (Why is the train station not open yet and when
we will be allowed to elect our own damn Mayor?).
Bottom
line: I did not vote for Ken Powell (who assembled
the CDA bond package) and I have no way of holding
him or others accountable for the opportunity costs
of these investments, never mind the subsequent
costs if they fail. Of course, Richmond, due to its
great geography, natural resources, and hard-working
citizens, is poised to grow despite the white
elephants. As citizens we can only hope that
Richmond's natural growth will offset the corporate
stupidity that is being forced on us.
Scott
Burger
Richmond
burp@mindspring.com
Save
the 6th Street Marketplace
I
was disappointed by your glowing article on
redevelopment of downtown Richmond. The 6th Street
Marketplace is less than 18 years old and the
city is ready to hand this structure over to the
developer's bulldozers. We invested $25
million to $30 million -- $15.5 million of which was
public money.
The
Marketplace belongs to the City of Richmond and,
more importantly, the people of Richmond. It
doesn't belong to the City Council, the Broad Street
CDA, or Richmond Renaissance. The CDA was created
through a mechanism by which the Marketplace could
be demolished without much public comment and no
political fall-out for members of City Council.
Check
out this
article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch of
Sept. 23, 1984. It states how the Marketplace
development was the first major
"public-private" partnership for
Richmond. The fatal ending for the Marketplace
should give food for thought about the CDA plan,
which lacks public accountability, is more expensive
than the entire 6th Street Marketplace project, and
drives the city into a massive debt repayment
schedule for the next 30 years.
As
you correctly noted in your article, the
Marketplace's failure was due largely to the closure
of the two big anchor stores. After that, poor
management and an inability to revitalize downtown
ensured its failure. But why tear it down now?
If we believe the hype, that section of Broad Street
is about to turn around -- why tear down the
Marketplace within a year of completing the
Convention Center? The tourists will need shops and
restaurants, the Marketplace has space for 80 shops
and is only one block away.
Have
you been to the Marketplace lately? It appears to be
in excellent condition. It's not a crumbly ruin. The
same buildings today would closer to $40 million to
build today according to an article at richmond.com.
The Marketplace is nearly paid off and it could
actually generate income for the city through rents
and taxes. ... The city could use some of the space
as incubators for promoting small business
owned by City residents.
Your
lack of common sense on this matter is
disappointing, and your fervent support of the new
development is more of the same old
"economic-development" idealism that
is so common nowadays and dangerous to free people.
Please
read Greg
Will's paper on the Broad St. Community
Development Authority, it is available at my Save
6th Street Marketplace site.
Silver
Persinger
Richmond
timeblur@hotmail.com
Jackson
Ward Rules
Jackson
ward was never the "Harlem of the South".
Those Harlemites came to Jackson Ward and studied us!
Nessa
Baskerville Johnson
Richmond
nbaskerville@hotmail.com
Rural
Virginia Is Moving Ahead in Broadband
Development
I
just revisited your article on broadband deployment
in
Virginia
("Virginia Is
Slipping in Broadband Deployment," June 9,
2003), in part because I have recently attended
Virginia Economic Development Association and
Workforce Council meetings where the issue was
discussed. As we all know, the economic future of
Virginia is directly tied to this issue.
You
are certainly on the right track to point out that
Virginia
may have broadband challenges, especially in rural
areas,
but I would remind you that people like Karen
Jackson and Terry Woodworth of Virginia's Center for
Innovative Technology have made valiant efforts to
bring
widespread
coverage to the state, and should be commended.
Like
the Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP), CIT has
provided
resources for infrastructure development that many
jurisdictions could not provide on their own. As an
example,
Highland County is implementing broadband service
directly
as a result of CIT support. The Shenandoah Valley
Technology
Council also has benefited from CIT's financial
support and direct involvement in promotional
activities.
Unfortunately,
CIT appears vulnerable to budget cuts or
partisan
sniping, which greatly concerns me. This is a
multi-faceted issue, and state leaders should look
long and hard and what is working "out
here" before making decisions.
Robin
Sullenberger
Chairman,
Highland County Board of Supervisors and
Executive
Director, Shenandoah Valley Partnership
sullendx@jmu.edu
In
Defense of
Larry Sabato
Paul
Goldman’s piece on professors Larry Sabato and
Robert Holsworth ("Chichester's
Unreported Contribution," June 9, 2003) implies
that there is an inherent conflict of interest in
simply working for the state and in commenting about
governmental affairs. Following this line of
reasoning and applying the rule of unintended
consequences, the Commonwealth’s best and
brightest at institutions of higher learning –
including econ, business and public policy
professors – who, because of their excellence as
academics secure additional professional
opportunities, should flee the state system for the
safe confines of a private university.
That’s an interesting strategy for improving
Virginia’s system of higher education.
Ultimately,
politics is the art of who gets what, when, why and
at whose expense. Mr. Goldman is obviously familiar
with this – as he notes in his piece, the lesson
has been with him for the better part of 18 years.
The budget is the quintessential political tool.
That earlier lesson notwithstanding, perhaps Mr.
Goldman needs to sit in on one of the Government 101
classes Mr. Sabato teaches each spring semester,
because he certainly has targeted the wrong folks as
the antagonists with this piece.
It’s
fairly easy to write a superficial piece about
personalities, speeches and appropriations; harder
– if one is so inclined - to write a piece about
the process that creates an environment for the
things the author finds objectionable to flourish
and what we might do to alter it.
Larry
Schack
larrysch@microsoft.com
On
the Third Crossing
The
State has totally missed the point, and obviously
Mr. Dwight Farmer (quoted in "The
Third Crossing," May 26, 2003) has
too. If the port in Hampton Roads is to increase in
size, therefore increasing the revenue to Virginia,
than Virginia should provide the money for the
infrastructure to provide this increased revenue
including roads for the trucks to travel on!
The
trucking companies will schedule their trucks to
miss the tolls, Mr. Farmer can schedule his work to
miss the tolls, or have the taxpayers pay for them,
but I can't! Why doesn't he move to another state,
to relive me of the responsibility of moving to
another locality to avoid these tolls? (If I did
move to avoid the tolls, then Mr. Farmer would have
to find another way to pay for them) I think
that the state and Mr. Farmer still believe that
they can make the Stupid Ignorant Backwater Roadies
pay for these road improvements one way or the
other! They haven't considered that we aren't as
stupid as they report us to be!
Kent
Sylvester
kentsylvester@cox.net
--
June 30, 2003
|
