Category Archives: Transportation

A VDOT Breakthrough in Paving Productivity

The Landford crew used a Wirtgen paver that scraped up asphalt, reconstituted it and paved it on the spot. Photo credit: VDOT.

by James A. Bacon

America’s Interstate highways are reaching the end of their design lives. Reconstructing them could cost Virginia billions of dollars  and cause massive disruptions to traffic while they are under repair. Fortunately, the Virginia Department of Transportation has developed a system for cutting the costs and slashing construction times that could make the cost affordable and the reconstruction process tolerable.

In a first-in-the-nation demonstration project, VDOT repaired 3.7 miles of Interstate 81 near Staunton last year that could provide the prototype for rebuilding the state’s interstate highway system. Working with contractor Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., of Roanoke, the highway department combined three existing processes — cold in-place recycling, cold central-plant recycling and full in-depth reclamation. The project cost $7.4 million as opposed to an estimated $40 million using traditional techniques.

“Using these pavement recycling methods has the potential to revolutionize how we rehabilitate our aging roads, both in Virginia and nationally,” said Governor Bob McDonnell in a press release.  “We expect to continue using these processes, where appropriate, to save money and materials as we rebuild older roads throughout the commonwealth.  VDOT next plans to use cold in-place recycling to rebuild a section of U.S. 17 in Isle of Wight County in Hampton Roads during the 2012 paving season.”

Highways consist of three layers:  a compacted soil base, a foot of compacted stone aggregate and a foot of hot-mix asphalt. On I-81, the right, southbound lane had received the heaviest pounding and needed the most work. The contractor milled down the upper asphalt layer, stockpiling it on site for reuse. Then it applied a stabilizing agent (cement or lime) to strengthen the aggregate below. The milled asphalt was processed at a nearby mobile plant and applied as a new top layer. For the left southbound lane, which was in better shape, five inches were pulverized in place, mixed with a binding agent, applied back to the roadway and topped off with four inches of traditional hot-mix asphalt. Much of the material work was conducted at ambient, rather than hot, temperatures.

“Savings on the I-81 in-place pavement recycling project go beyond time, money and materials,” said VDOT Commissioner Greg Whirley.  “It saved fuel because it reduced the need to transport as much new and old materials. It increased safety for drivers and road workers on the project, because it reduced work-zone congestion. This section of rebuilt pavement also will be stronger from bottom to top, extending its service life and reducing the need for such complex maintenance for many years.”

Using traditional methods, the work would have consumed a year or more non-stop during which much of I-81 traffic would have been diverted to Route 11, where it would have conflicted with local traffic. With the new process, the plan called for work to be confined to eight five-day stretches. In actual practice, only three or four of those segments were needed, says Sandy Myers, public relations manager for the Staunton transportation district.

The project also used a novel traffic-management plan to detour cars onto U.S. 11 away from the construction while large trucks used a lane on I-81 that was not under construction. VDOT alerted motorists to the work several hundred miles from the project via on-road, Web and other communication tools.

Subscribe To Site:

Taking a Closer Look at the Jobs Governor’s Industrial Policy

by James A. Bacon

Tax subsidies for businesses locating in the proposed 55-mile Route 460 Corridor-Interstate 85 Connector Economic Development Zone could add up to $50 million over 2015 and 2016, if HB 1183 is passed into law. Remarkably, no one seems to be questioning the propriety of such aggressive use of the tax code to promote industrial development.

The bill would allow out-of-state companies to exempt taxes on income generated from activities within the zone, which includes the counties of Isle of Wight, Prince George, Sussex, and Southampton and the Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. Twenty-five percent of income would be exempted for companies employing at least 25 full-time employees, 50% for 50 employees, 75% for 75 employees, and 100% for 100 employees. Companies must be engaged either in maritime commerce or import-export manufacturing.

The bill, sponsored by Delegates Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, and Bob Purkey, R-Virginia Beach, is part of a larger McDonnell administration initiative to stimulate commerce and manufacturing along the U.S. 460 corridor between Petersburg and Hampton Roads. (SB 578, sponsored by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, is the counterpart bill in the senate.) Gov. Bob McDonnell also has allocated $500 million toward the upgrade of U.S. 460 between Petersburg and Suffolk into an Interstate-caliber highway by means of a public-private partnership.

If Republicans want to establish their bona fides as fiscal conservatives, this is not the way to do it. Fifty million dollars in tax credits? No wonder tax revenues are stagnant — a multitude of credits, exemptions, deductions and carve-outs has shot Virginia’s tax code full of more holes than Bonnie and Clyde. If legislators want to subsidize corporate interests, then let them put a line item in the budget where it is highly visible to all. Don’t hide behind the tax code!

The General Assembly has already agreed to sweeten the pot of discretionary funds available to the governor to grease the skids for economic-development deals statewide. Now the governor needs more? Tax breaks for the Port of Virginia plus a 500 million state contribution to upgrade U.S. 460 isn’t enough? Surely the Governor’s Opportunity Fund should be sufficient to entice companies employing no more than 100 employees. It’s not as if we’re trying to land a new automobile assembly plant here — is it?

There are at least three points worth making.

First, if the Port of Virginia is so well positioned to attract new cargo traffic when the Panama Canal widening is complete in two years, and if the state is already subsidizing construction of a new stretch of Interstate-quality highway, why do we need to subsidize corporate investment to the area? Is Virginia that uncompetitive?

One possible response is that other states are subsidizing new corporate investment, so we need to as well. That logic fails utterly, too, as I shall explain in the second point:

Do we really want to create an expectation among companies investing in Virginia that subsidies are there for the asking? That just encourages them to press for more, whether they need the assistance or not. The giveaways vitiate the fiscal conservative’s ideal of creating a level tax playing field for everyone. Our goal should be to make the tax base as broad as possible in order to set rates as low as possible. Tax subsidies may create short-term job gains — jobs that might have come to Virginia anyway — but they are the ruin of tax policy. The existence of tax loopholes keep rates higher, thus discouraging economic activity in sectors not favored by politicians. Trouble is, we never see the jobs not created, so we never know what we are losing.

Thirdly, the argument for subsidizing job creation ignores the impact of those jobs on the demand for infrastructure and government services in areas now lacking them. It’s one thing to land jobs in a population center like Norfolk-Virginia Beach where thousands of unemployed factory workers could be put back to work without relocating or straining public services. It’s another thing to bring the jobs to out-of-way places like Sussex and Isle of Wight counties.

Why do I mention Sussex and Isle of Wight? Because those are the counties where, according to a recent McDonnell administration-funded economic impact analysis, two new “mega manufacturing” industrial sites are planned. (See “U.S. 460 Project as Economic Development Powerhouse.”) The new manufacturing firms have the potential to support 2,635 permanent jobs directly and thousands more indirectly.

Perhaps someone deep in the bowels of the McDonnell administration has addressed the implications, but I have seen nothing. How well equipped are Sussex County (population 12,056) and Isle of Wight (population 35,457) to handle the influx of jobs and population? How much will the state have to spend on new roads? How much will the counties have to spend on new schools, utilities and public services?

Meanwhile, the McDonnell team would make matters worse with another piece of legislation that would capture new state revenue attributed to a transportation project, siphon it out of the General Fund and into the Transportation Trust Fund, and thus weaken the ability of the General Fund to pay for education, Medicaid, corrections and other things that only the General Fund can pay for.

This welter of economic development initiatives may burnish McDonnell’s credentials as “the jobs governor,” but it is not well thought out from a tax perspective. Virginia is becoming as bad as the federal government. We are creating so many subsidies and tax loopholes that it’s impossible to keep track of it all, much less to make economic decisions based on economic fundamentals. Conservatives have a name for this kind of boosterism. It’s called “industrial policy.” It is antithesis is small government and free markets.

Gov. Bob has aspirations, it is said, to be selected as a vice presidential running mate. Really? For which party?

Update: A reader reminds me that the Virginia Port Authority board agreed in principle back in September 2011 to chip in $5 million a  year in state port funding to help pay for up to $250 million of the road. That would represent yet another subsidy, although a defensible one. The ports are the No. 1 beneficiary of the highway project and should be expected to contribute. Meanwhile, the Virginia Department of Transportation has applied for a $20 million federal TIGER grant and $200 million in federal TIFIA loan guarantee financing.

Subscribe To Site:

Legislators Spike Mandatory PLA for State Projects

Virginia legislators delivered a rebuke to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) yesterday when both the House and Senate passed bills that would prohibit government-mandated Public Labor Agreements (PLA) on state and state-assisted projects in Virginia. The MWAA board had previously declared its intention to mandate a PLA requiring a union workforce for Phase 2 of the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project.

HB 33, sponsored by Del. Barbara Comstock, R-McLean, passed on a mostly party-line vote 69 to 27, while SB 242, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, passed the bill in a 20-20 vote in which Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling broke the tie.

MWAA now faces a tough decision. It can maintain its support for a mandated PLA as the time grows nigh to solicit bids for Phase 2, or it can risk losing the $150 million in supplemental funding promised by the state late last year in a restructuring of the project’s financing.

Foes argued that the PLA would discourage many non-union construction firms from bidding on the METRO extension, which is estimated to cost $2.8 billion. Fewer bidders increases the likelihood of a higher price by the winning contractor. Additionally, legislators argued that because the vast majority of Virginia’s construction workers are non-union, any agreement requiring the prime contractor to hire from a union work hall would mean that many workers would end up coming from Maryland.

The McDonnell administration had previously publicized a Memorandum of Agreement with MWAA that upheld the rights of non-union workers under the Virginia right to work law. But there was confusion as to what that MOA meant for the mandatory PLA. In the lead-up to the House and Senate votes, however, administration officials made it clear that they opposed mandatory PLAs.

Now the ball’s in MWAA’s court. The board has refused to seat two new board members appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell until Virginia and Washington, D.C., ratify changes to the bistate compact governing MWAA. That means the existing MWAA board will have a free hand until the necessary ratification goes into effect July 1. There is a high probability that MWAA will issue its guidelines for the Phase 2 bids before then. According to a recent “presolicitation paper,” MWAA expects to issue its RFP in May.

The MWAA board meets again Feb. 15, but it has to be careful not to antagonize McDonnell and the Republican-dominated General Assembly — MWAA still needs that $150 million in supplemental state funds to make the Phase 2 project financing work. If cooler heads prevail, MWAA may keep mum on its intentions until after the General Assembly session, giving legislators no cause to deny the extra money. I’m not enough of a parliamentarian to know what happens if the General Assembly approprites the funds but MWAA subsequently includes a mandatory PLA in its RFP. Is there a way for McDonnell to withhold the funds?

Whatever the answer, this drama is far from over.

– JAB

Subscribe To Site:

MWAA’s Double Standard

Rob Whitfield, a member of the Dulles Corridor Users Group, raises a good point regarding Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) governance. Earlier this year, the board refused to seat two new members appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell in accordance with federal legislation that expanded Virginia’s representation on the board. MWAA officials justified their defiance by noting that the authority’s bi-state compact between Virginia and Washington, D.C., had not yet been ratified by both Virginia and D.C.

Why, then, asked Whitfield in an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner, did not MWAA seek similar ratification “when former Gov. Tim Kaine unilaterally decided to transfer control of the Dulles Toll Road and responsibility for building Dulles Rail to MWAA in December 2005, an action that significantly amended provisions of the 1986 congressional act, which created the bistate MWAA compact?”

It’s blatant inconsistencies like this that make many outsiders regard the current MWAA board as a self-dealing clique eager to amass power and authority with no accountability. Controversial decisions to build a super-expensive METRO station at Dulles airport, since revoked, and to mandate a Project Labor Agreement for Phase 2 of the Rail-to-Dulles project have come to light. What other decisions have been made, what other practices have been tolerated?

MWAA runs Virginia’s two largest airports as well as the Dulles Toll Road. The more the board resists accountability, the more outsiders wonder what it has to hide.

– JAB

Subscribe To Site:

LeMunyon Seeks to Restructure CTB Representation

From this...

Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, has proposed reorganizing representation on the Commonwealth Transportation Board to give more power to Virginia’s fast-growth areas. The idea is simple: Instead of appointing a member from each of the state’s nine transportation districts, in which Virginia’s major metro areas are under-represented, his bill would appoint a member from each of Virginia’s congressional districts.

... to this?

LeMunyon’s proposal, submitted as HB 600, would keep the size of the board constant by dropping one “rural at-large” member and one “urban at-large” member.

A new representation scheme for the CTB would come at a time when the body is wrestling with fundamental issues like the devolution of secondary roads to local governments, the fine-tuning of maintenance and funding formulas, and the approval of a slew of transportation mega-projects initiated by the McDonnell administration.

In theory, there should be a big split between the interests of Virginia’s densely populated metropolitan areas and those of the lightly populated hinterlands. In the six months I have been covering the CTB, however, I have seen little evidence of such a divide — even though I have been looking for one. (Hey, I’m a journalist — I thirst for controversy!) The CTB seems to be a collegial group with few overt conflicts. (The sole exception that I have seen was over the Charlottesville Bypass.) As a rule, only two or three board members raise uncomfortable issues or ask uncomfortable questions. It appears to be up to the discretion of the chairman, the secretary of transportation, whether or not to elevate an issue to a concrete agenda item or to assign staff time to flesh out more information. Furthermore, the governor has the authority to replace any member at will if he gets too obstreperous.

For the most part, the CTB functions as a rubber stamp for the administration, which at present happens to be the McDonnell administration. LeMunyon’s bill would represent a step forward in making the board more democratically representative of Virginia’s population, and thus should be passed. But would it make the board any less passive? Would anything change in practice? I doubt it.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and then was assigned to Sub-Committee #4. The subcommittee tabled the bill Jan. 26. However, the underlying issue — the misalignment of representation — will not go away. There is a near-universal sentiment in Northern Virginia (whether valid or not) that it gets a raw deal in the distribution of highway dollars. LeMunyon, or someone who thinks like him, will be back.

Update: Upon further reflection, appointing CTB representatives by congressional districts makes no more sense than the congressional districts themselves do. They’re all gerrymandered, for crying out loud! They don’t reflect any natural community of interest. In a better world, CTB representatives would represent organic components of human society and economy such as Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Four from NoVa, three from Hampton Roads, two from Richmond, one from Roanoke, with the balance consisting of rural, at-large members… something like that.

JAB

Subscribe To Site:

Who Is Mamadi Diané, and Why Did He Serve on the MWAA Board So Long?

Abidjan, capital and commercial center of the Ivory Coast.

by James A. Bacon

Consider the odd case of Mamadi Diané. The former Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) board member, whose term expired last year, was cited, though not by name, in two recent letters during the General Assembly imbroglio over Virginia’s representation to the tri-state authority.

The McDonnell administration was lobbying Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville, among others, to support emergency legislation that would reform the board representation of MWAA in accordance with recently passed federal law. The bill would increase Virginia’s representation on the board and would terminate members’ service at the end of their term rather than allow them to serve until their replacements are seated. (See “Why the Opposition to House MWAA Bill?“)

In a letter to Toscano dated Jan. 16, Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton referred to an incident that occurred in early 2011. “These amendments are a direct result of a number of recent controversies involving the Board. One example is a Board member voting on matters while under house arrest in Africa even though his term had expired and he had not attended an MWAA meeting for two years.”

Another letter to Toscano, from Tom Davis, MWAA vice chair, and Rust Conner, chair of the MWAA finance committee, dated the same day, made a similar point. “Current law allows [board members] to cast a deciding vote for the hiring of the new CEO, from the Ivory Coast, although he had not attended a meeting in two years and had not taken part in any of the interviews conducted to fill the position.”

(Read the two letters on the House GOP Caucus’ unofficial blog.)

Holy moly! What a story! A guy casting a vote while under house arrest… in the  Ivory Coast… after his term had expired? It sounds like the MWAA was totally out of control. No wonder the McDonnell administration wanted to rush through emergency legislation to reform MWAA’s governance! I, too, have been critical of MWAA’s governance, and this was just too good to pass up. I resolved to find out more. Who was this mysterious board member?

After making some inquiries, I found that the board member in question was a certain Mamadi Diané, who had been appointed by the mayor of Washington, D.C., and who, according to his MWAA bio, was the founder and CEO of AMEX International. AMEX describes itself on its website as a small business that for 25 years has provided “quality consulting, shipping and procurement services to US government agencies, foreign governments, international institutions, and private corporations worldwide.”

Diané became briefly embroiled in controversy in February 2011 when the MWAA board was considering the appointment of a new CEO for the authority: Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., the head of San Francisco’s municipal transit agency. While Ford had excellent credentials, concerns emerged over back taxes owed and allegedly lavish use of company credit cards. The issue made the Washington Post when one board member, H.R. Crawford, suggested that critical questions posed to Ford, an African-American, were racist. According to the Post, he also wielded a “proxy” from Diané , who could not attend, tipping an informal board vote to 7-6 in favor of Ford. The board subsequently decided to start the CEO search over.

Diané, according to WaPo reporting, had attended “only one meeting in two years; his most re­cent absence was because he is stuck in a ho­tel in Ivory Coast because of post-election po­lit­ical unrest.” Another article noted that “Mr. Diane spends much of his time over­seas” and had met nei­ther Ford nor the oth­er leading can­didates.

According to the BBC’s Asia Africa Intelligence Wire in 2002, Diané had been naturalized as an American citizen “several years” before. The report described him then as “a fund-raising specialist for the Democrats in Washington,” and he was in fact an active contributor to Democratic candidates. The report also described him as “well-known in American political and financial circles.”

One of his pals, according to this article in the Times-Picayune, was disgraced Rep. William Jefferson, the New Orleans congressman whose freezer was infamously found stuffed with cash. Diané was instrumental in linking Jefferson with Vernon L. Jackson, the Kentucky telecommunications executive who subsequently was convicted of paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson to gain help in obtaining business deals in Africa. Diané and a business partner, Jack W. White, had encouraged Gates to broaden his company’s horizons to Africa. Diané was never accused of any wrong-doing.

Diané ‘s consulting work frequently got him involved in African politics. According to the Times-Picayune, Diané once served as the unofficial Washington spokesman for former Zaire dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who was exiled in 1997.  In 2002, according to the BBC, he created an organization aimed at fighting President Lansana Conte’s dictatorship in Guinea. In 2010, he was still active in that country. Voice of America quoted him as objecting to election irregularities there. In February 2011, the Ivory Coast, where Diané was supposedly detained, was locked in a stalemate when the losing candidate Laurent Gbagbo, refused to relinquish office.

That much can be gleaned from the Internet. I tried contacting Diané via his AMEX office in Washington, D.C., but was told that he was out of the country and could not be contacted by email. But his brother Mori Diané, AMEX vice president, did return my phone call. Their father was from Guinea and mother from the Ivory Coast, said Mori. He does not recall exactly where his brother was in February 2011, he said. Mamadi travels frequently to the Ivory Coast and might well have been there. But Mori  insisted that his Mamadi was never “under house arrest” there, as described in Connaughton’s letter. Mori also said he did not recall his brother having been “stuck in a hotel” as described by the Post, although he was less emphatic in his denial. He also said that, to his knowledge,  Mamadi never acted as a spokesman for Mobutu. Mori said he knew nothing of his brother’s activities on the MWAA board.

Mamadi Diané was appointed to his first term on the MWAA board in February 1999 by the then-mayor of Washington Anthony Williams, and reappointed by Williams in 2003. He served on the Audit and the Planning & Construction committees. His term expired in 2009 but he remained on the board because the mayor did not replace him. When I asked MWAA spokeperson Kimberly Gibbs about his attendance record, she replied by email that he had attended “multiple meetings in 2008.” Her narrowly worded response did not contradict the claim in Connaughton’s letter that Diané “had not attended an MWAA meeting for  two years,” which would have encompassed 2010 and 2011.

Regarding Diané’s “proxy” vote, Gibbs sidestepped my question of whether an informal vote had taken place. Rather, she stated, “Formal votes by Board members must be made in public and the Members must be physically present.” It’s not clear that “casting an absentee vote,” as the Post put it on the basis of anonymous sources, is an accurate description of what took place. The vote may have been more akin to a straw poll, indicating sentiment going forward. In such an instance, it would not have been inappropriate for Crawford to express Diané’s sentiment. The exact circumstances remain murky.

However, it is clear that Diané remained a MWAA board member long after his term expired in 2009. He didn’t drop off until March 2011, when he was replaced by Shirley Robinson Hall. That was an eight-year gig — two years beyond the normal six. Presumably, MWAA board members Davis and Conner speak from personal experience when they say that Diané attended no board meetings in the last two years. Other than the Post‘s assertion that he had attended only one meeting, I have yet to see any evidence to contradict the assertion.

Bacon’s bottom line: While some of the particulars of the Connaughton and Davis-Conner letters probably were inaccurate, they got the most important point right: An MWAA board member remained on the board for two additional years even though he had largely ceased performing his duties.  It is entirely reasonable to require MWAA to remove from the board members whose terms have expired. Whether that rises to the level of emergency legislation now that Diané has been replaced is another question for another blog post.

Subscribe To Site:

Beware Optimistic Traffic Forecasts

What happened between 2005 and 2009 to account for such dramatic changes in WSA's forecast?

by James A. Bacon

Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), a transportation consulting firm, is scheduled to soon complete its third traffic and revenue forecast for the Dulles Toll Road for use in a final go/no go decision on Phase 2 of the Rail-to-Dulles project. Don’t trust the results, says a study released Friday by the Reston Citizens Association. WSA chronically over-estimates its traffic counts.

In “Wilbur Smith Associates’ Traffic and Revenue Forecasts: Plenty of Room for Error,” the authors provide an extensive review of the literature on the hazards of traffic forecasting. “Optimism bias,” the overestimating of road traffic and revenue in forecasts, is endemic in the industry, with a mean forecast error of 25% to 30% over actual traffic.

The report is must reading for anyone concerned about the financing of Rail-to-Dulles Phase 2, which will come mostly from tolls paid by users of the Dulles Toll Road, as well as for citizens analyzing the economic viability of a slew of mega-bridge and highway projects being unleashed by the McDonnell administration. Over-optimistic traffic forecasts can induce public officials to proceed with projects that fail to live up to expectations, with potentially calamitous financial results. In the case of Rail-to-Dulles, if toll revenues fail to materialize as expected, the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority (MWAA) could be faced with a decision to jack up rates more aggressively and incur the risk of driving away more commuters and falling short on revenue anyway.

According to the Reston Citizens’ report, a national study of 26 U.S. toll roads found that the average overestimate of revenues for each  year of the first five years was 109% — more than double actual revenues. WSA accounted for half the identifiable forecasts and its results differed little from the others.

Absent significant changes in WSA’s methodology, the Reston Citizens report warns that WSA’s upcoming study is likely to over-estimate revenues again. In two earlier forecasts, WSA had used the highest available estimates of population and employment data for Fairfax County. “Checked against the 2010 data, the forecasts for employment were overstated by 25% in the 2005 report and 52% in the 2009 report, contributing to near certain overestimates in the forecast.”

WSA’s Dulles Toll Road forecasts also showed huge, unexplained discrepancies in toll and revenue forecasts between its 2005 and 2009 reports. “WSA’s 2009 forecast for 2030 t0lls are nearly quadruple and revenues double those in the 2005 report.”

The Reston Citizens report identifies five risks from over-estimating Dulles Toll Road traffic and revenue:

  • The risk that the financial community will not fund MWAA’s Dulles Toll Road debt or will require state or federal guarantees or funding for an investment grade rating.
  • The risk that toll rates would need to double those forecast by WSA to meet debt servicing and other expenses.
  • The risk that the higher toll rates on the Dulles Toll Road will limit the economic development potential of the Dulles Corridor as well as force traffic on to already congested nearby roads.
  • The risk that MWAA would have to use airport revenues to pay Dulles Toll Road debt servicing obligations.
  • The risk that MWAA may default or need to restructure its debt servicing agreements,resulting in more debt over a longer period and even higher tolls for toll road users.

The Reston Citizens reports urges Rail-to-Dulles stakeholders to defer making a decision to proceed with Phase 2 until an independent Traffic Revenue forecast can be completed.

Bacon’s bottom line: I am extremely skeptical of traffic forecasts of any kind — for rail, road, highway — based on an extrapolation of past trends. I believe we have reached a major inflection point in the economics of transportation and land use, and that the past is no predictor of the future. By way of evidence, consider these previous blog posts:

Is Virginia’s Population Growth Slowing?

Demographic Trends and Trends and Traffic Projections

Stacking the Deck for Heavy Rail

A New Metric for Gasoline Affordability

Virginians Driving Even Less in 2011

Perhaps the most critical inflection point for Northern Virginia is the impending stall in the key driver of Northern Virginia’s population and economic growth: federal spending. You don’t have to accept my Boomergeddon hypothesis that the federal government will default on its debt to believe that spending cannot continue on the same upward trajectory that it has for the past 50 years. Something has to give, and when it does, Northern Virginia will feel the fall-out.

I agree 100% with the Reston Citizens Association that the Rail-to-Dulles stakeholders should engage an independent Traffic & Revenue forecast. I would also insist upon a sensitivity analysis that shows what traffic and revenue looks like under different a variety of population and economic growth forecasts for the region. To fail to do so would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Subscribe To Site:

What’s the Case for Inter-City Rail?

Inter-city passenger rail service is a wonderful thing… if it can pay its own way. The folks at the Department of Rail and Public Transportation managed to cut a really favorable deal with Amtrak, so the Virginia-backed regional service connecting Lynchburg and Richmond with Washington are both break-even propositions — virtually unheard of elsewhere in the country. Supposedly, the planned Norfolk-to-Washington passenger rail service will cover its costs as well. But new terms Amtrak is imposing on Virginia will likely be less advantageous. Over the next six years, the state will need $119 million to continue the operation of its six round-trip regional trains and to make passenger-rail infrastructure improvements in the current plans.

A new report, “The Case for Virginia’s Regional Trains,” advances an argument for making that investment. Amtrak ridership has surged 50% over the past five years, says the report. If there’s a likelihood that ridership will continue increasing at that rate, thus improving the economics of the service, then perhaps it’s an investment we should make.

But that’s a big if. More to the point: How many riders are using the trains? How many motorists are we taking off the roads? How much pollution are we preventing? What kind of Return on Investment are we getting for our public dollar? Can we improve the financial return by dropping under-performing rail connections? Finally, will Virginia be in a position six years from now to continue subsidizing passenger rail? The report doesn’t tell us. Perhaps that’s because no one in Virginia has been accustomed to document the ROI for any transportation project, including roads and highways. We need to start doing so.

– JAB

Subscribe To Site:

The Tab for Tysons Transportation: $3 Billion and Counting

by James A. Bacon

How much will it cost to build the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the increased density of the new-and-improved Tysons Corner? The Fairfax Department of Transportation issued updated estimates last week at a meeting of the Tysons committee of the Fairfax County Planning Commission (PCTC) — and the estimate increased 20% from the previous best guess to more than $3 billion.

Here are the numbers:


There is a considerable fudge factor in the numbers given the inherent uncertainty of projecting so far out — and the forecast does not include an estimated $850 million to build a street car circulator within Tysons — but no matter how you add up the numbers, we are talking serious money.

The effort to morph Tysons from a monument to helter skelter, auto-centric sprawl into a model urban community is one of the most ambitious suburban retrofits ever attempted… anywhere. The centerpiece is the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail commuter line that will connect Virginia’s largest business center to Dulles airport and to the rest of the METRO rail system. METRO will have four stations in Tysons. Fairfax County planners are playing by the smart growth handbook. They are increasing densities around METRO stops. They are planning for grid streets and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. They are incorporating mixed uses, including thousands of units of residential. And they are requiring developers to institute Transportation Demand Management plans. Yet the question remains, can Tysons successfully make the transformation? Or was the original design, such as it was, such an abomination that business center cannot make the transition without billions of dollars of outside subsidies?

Roughly half the cost of Rail-to-Dulles will come from commuters on the Dulles Toll Road, a multi-billion dollar transfer of wealth. Now Fairfax planners are saying the county will need another $3 billion (and a lot more if inflation is taken into account) — without any idea of where the money will come from. The feds and the state might cough up some, but most of it will have to come from local sources.

In an ideal world, property owners who will make a killing from added density and proximity to the METRO should share some of the massive increase in value that they did not create. One option would be a special tax district along the lines of the existing tax district that is contributing a modest share of the heavy rail construction cost. Writes one observer:

The problem, and it’s very big problem, is that many landowners are steadfastly refusing to pay for these transportation improvements.  Why, they reason, should they pay this tax when many of them do not plan to redevelop [sic] for a very long time (10-15 years or more) and when their land lies outside of the TOD areas and does not qualify for the much higher densities being given to landowners near the Metro stations. Also, Lerner and Macerich, who are inside the [Transit Oriented Development] area, have already obtained county approval for their significant redevelopments and see no benefit in paying this tax.

The reality is the landowners outside the 1/2-mile TOD areas WILL benefit from the transportation improvements, but they don’t want to pay as they feel the TOD area landowners lopsidedly benefit.   These problems associated with establishing a Tysons tax district are well-known within the Tysons landowner community, but this was the first time  [the Tysons Partnership] has discussed them in public testimony at a PCTC meeting.

Another problem is that, by state law, any money raised from a tax district must be spent within the district. Yet many of the needed transportation improvements are located outside of Tysons.

The improvements are so expensive, there are so many special interests jostling for position and the legal issues are such a thicket that it’s hard to see how the funding issues will ever be resolved. But there is one very important point to keep in mind. If commercial and residential growth doesn’t go into Tysons, where else will it go? And how much will it cost to provide the transportation infrastructure needed to serve it? Fairfax County is in so deep that it has no choice but to bull ahead and figure out how to make it work. Let’s hope they can do it without sucking in too many innocent bystanders.

Subscribe To Site:

Can “Objective” Ratings for NoVa Transportation Projects Be Truly Objective?

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Are the LeMunyon-Marsden bills a stalking horse for another Potomac crossing?

by James A. Bacon

Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, and Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Burke, have introduced companion bills (HB 599 and SB 531) that would require the Commonwealth Transportation Board to evaluate “all significant transportation projects in and near the Northern Virginia Transportation District” for the purpose of providing an objective, quantitative rating for each one.

Relying upon computerized transportation simulations conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation and/or the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, the CTB would publicize the quantitative ratings for each project, and update its findings at least every three years, with the first report to be made no later than Jan. 1, 2013.

Each report would contain two lists of at least five projects best rated to (1) reduce congestion as quickly as possible during typically congested periods, and (2) maximize regional mobility and minimize loss of life in the event of a homeland security emergency.

Projects would include not only roads and highways but commuter rail, Bus Rapid Transit, and even additional Potomac River crossings. The lists, state the bills, “shall be used as guidance by the Board in making decisions regarding the allocation of funds.”

I have long called for such objective prioritization of transportation projects. I would amend the criteria, however, to consider the impact upon  safety, which, according to the AAA, accounts for roughly three times the economic loss of congestion, upon the environment, and possibly upon  economic development if a methodology could be settled upon (which I doubt it could, for reasons too complex to go into here). While an improvement over a planning process that seemingly has no objective rating criteria, these bills do not go far enough.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth sees little redeeming in the two bills at all. The smart growth organization has attacked them on the grounds that “they would centralize all transportation decisions in Richmond with unaccountable, unelected officials.” The bills, which the CSG asserts are pushed by the highway construction lobby, “would take power from elected officials in Northern Virginia who are most familiar with our transportation challenges and hand it to the … CTB. The bills are also designed to be anti-transit and to push segments of the controversial Outer Beltway.”

Moreover, notes the CSG, the bills would waste tax dollars by creating a redundant and duplicative planning and prioritization process. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority already prepares transportation plans for Northern Virginia and updates it every five years. The NVTA’s performance standards include improving travel times, reducing delays, connecting regional activity centers, improving safety, improving air quality and moving the most people in the most cost-effective manner.

States the CSG: “The bill would apply too narrow a criteria for addressing the challenges of northern Virginia transportation.”

Subscribe To Site: