• Guns for Whackos? No way, Virginians Say

    And…. one more set of poll questions from CNU’s Center for Public Policy. The highest priority issue facing the General Assembly, according to Democrats and Republicans alike, is “changing the law to stop people with a history of mental health problems from purchasing guns.” Three out of four respondants gave issue that a “highest priority” rating.

    Number two on the list, with 68 percent rating it as a “highest priority”: “Require gun purchasers at gun shows to undergo the same background check required for guns purchased at gun shops.”

    Number three, scoring 54 percent: “Cracking down on businesses that employ illegal immigrants.”

    Poor Tim Kaine. The Governor’s proposal to expand funding for pre-K programs logged only 30 percent rating as a highest priority.


  • Virginians on Illegal Aliens: Cut Public Services – but Not Emergency Room Treatment

    More good stuff from CNU’s Center for Public Policy polling: Virginians harbor ambivalent sentiments about illegal immigrants. When asked if they favored cutting public services to undocumented workers, even children, 53 percent said yes. And 55 percent agreed that police should have the authority to stop any driver they suspected of being an illegal alien to check their legal status.

    But dig deep enough, and there are signs that Virginians have a heart: 75 percent opposed the idea of denying illegal immigrants access to emergency room care. And a solid majority — 58 percent — recoiled at the idea of deporting undocumented workers if it meant forcing them to leave U.S.-born citizen children behind. (That question was somewhat loaded: The Center might have gotten a different answer if it had asked whether people would favor deportation “even if it meant taking their U.S.-born children with them,” as opposed to assuming that the family had to be split up.)

  • Virginians to General Assembly: Cut Spending… And Start with Transportation

    Christopher Newport University’s Center for Public Policy asked Virginians how they thought the General Assembly should deal with the state’s revenue shortfall this year. The answers should warm the hearts of fiscal conservatives everywhere: 56 percent picked the response, “Cover the shortfall by reducing spending as much as needed but donโ€™t raise taxes and donโ€™t tap the Rainy Day Reserve Fund.”

    Gov. Tim Kaine’s approach — “reduce spending on some programs but continue to fund most programs at their current level by tapping the Rainy Day Reserve Fund” — received only 31 percent positives.

    And an audacious 9 percent responded, “Cover the budget shortfall with tax increases but donโ€™t touch the Rainy Day Reserve Fund.”

    And what programs would people cut?

    55 percent picked “transportation” as their first or second choice.
    41 percent chose, “social services to low-income Virginians”
    27 percent “public safety”
    18 percent “health care”
    16 percent “education”
    14 percent “all areas equally”
    19 percent, don’t cut anything

    Ladies and gentlemen of the legislature, you have your marching orders.


  • When Land Conservation and Sustainability Conflict

    Most people agree that creating a sustainable future means relying less upon cars and trucks and more upon trains. We can disagree on how we reach that future, but there is little dispute that passenger trains can carry people more energy efficiently than cars, and freight trains can move goods long distance more energy efficiently than trucks.

    Now comes Norfolk Southern Corp., which wants to expand existing railroad tracks through Warren county. The company, reports the NV Daily, wants to double a stretch of track so two trains can pass at the same time. To build a parallel track, the railroad needs to acquire a strip of land about 20 feet on average for a length of 15 miles.

    Here’s the problem: The land would include a 1.5-mile section between Ashby Station Road and Fairground Road in a conservation easement held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. And some people have a problem with that.

    A representative from Scenic 340, which aims to preserve the rural character of U.S. 340, expressed opposition to the expansion during the county Board of Supervisors meeting last week. “To take land under easement must be an absolute last resort,” said Bentonville resident Jim Guy. “While we support the railroad’s efforts to remove traffic on the roads, we do not support this application.”

    Do you ever get the feeling that the requirements of contemporary civilization are getting so complex and that so many groups and institutions have conflicting interests that it may be impossible to get anything done?


  • There’s a Right Way and Wrong Way to Get Rid of Gene Nichol. This is the Wrong Way.

    Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, is tweaking liberal noses again. This time the object of his outrage has nothing to do with sex (except indirectly, if you consider this). He has submitted a bill that would require the College of William & Mary to have a majority of its 17-seat board of trustees elected by alumni, not appointed by the Governor. Reports the Daily Press:

    Marshall’s proposal calls for the next nine members whose terms expire to be replaced by members elected by alumni. He said he modeled it after Dartmouth College’s governing board system, which includes members elected by alumni.

    Said Marshall: “A board composed mostly of alumni would be on top of things a little better because they’d have an emotional tie to their alma mater.”

    Predictably, the W&M administration disagreed: Michael K. Powell, the college’s rector and a 1985 alumnus, responded that “alumni are a critical constituency and letting them have some input in the selection process has merit. … But I do not think having a set number of seats controlled exclusively by one segment of the college community is wise or workable.”

    I’m no more a fan of W&M President Gene Nichol than Marshall. I, too, would like to see the guy run out of town on a rail. But I’m not sure that letting politicians tinker with the university’s governance structure is the answer. If a conservative Republican governor were making the appointments, I suspect Marshall would be perfectly happy with things the way they are. Governance structures should be based on underlying principles, not political expediency.


  • Money in Politics: Another New Record

    The final financial reports have come in for the 27th senatorial district campaign last year. Spending for all candidates, including R’s, D’s and I’s and primary candidates, totaled $3,623,431.19, according to the Winchester Star. That campaign, in which Republican Jill Holtzman Vogel emerged victorious, was the most expensive in Virginia senate history.

    I’m old enough to remember when statewide gubernatorial campaigns didn’t cost that much!


  • Two Approaches to Fixing Our Schools

    I’ve long argued on this blog that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to many of the crucial issues facing Virginia today. But education does seem to be a topic where a glimmer of daylight appears between the two. With Democrats, the answer is simple: mo’ money. Republicans often chant the same mantra, but they occasionally deviate from the more-money-solves-all-problems orthodoxy.

    Reflecting the differences in philosophy, here are two examples from two e-mails that I have received in the past couple of days. The first comes from Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, D-Hot Springs, who has submitted several bills and budget amendments relating to education. One bill, SB 267, stands out for creating an open-ended financial commitment. It would require that the average salary of a Virginia teacher be equal to or greater than the national average. Virginia, notes Deeds, currently ranks 31st nationally in teacher pay.

    Gee, Mr. Deeds, while you’re at it, could you please submit a bill requiring Virginia writers and journalists be paid more?

    Seriously, should the state be setting arbitrary minimums for teacher salaries, which vary widely according to local supply, demand and cost of living? If recruiting teachers is a problem for some localities, why not let them adjust compensation as they deem necessary? Does this do anything other than transfer money directly from taxpayers to teachers and reward the Virginia Education Association, a steadfast ally of the Democratic Party?

    Another e-mail comes from Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, who supports the so-called “65% Solution,” as embodied in HB60 submitted by Jeffrey M. Frederick, R-Woodbridge. As Bolling explains, only 60 percent of Virginia’s educational expenditures on average make it to the classroom; the rest gets soaked up by administrative overhead. Frederick’s bill would set a goal for school systems to direct 65 percent of their educational dollars to the classroom. If they fall short, they would have to create a plan to increase instructional spending by 0.5 percentage points the following year.

    Statewide, achieving the 65 percent standard would funnel an extra $400 million into higher teacher pay, smaller classrooms or other classroom priorities that schools boards selected.

    The Deeds approach: Mo’ money, no accountability. Just open up your checkbook. The Frederick approach: Restructure top-heavy school administrations and spend more money where it counts. I know which approach I prefer. How about you?


  • Spotsylvania: A Looming Tiff over TIFs?

    Developers of the proposed Summit Crossings project in Spotsylvania County have proposed creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to pay for $127 million in road, water and sewer projects. Says Hart Rutherfoord, spokesman for Tricord Companies: “We’re doing the work to create the funds to deliver the infrastructure, and the county doesn’t have to do a thing. All they have to do is say yes.”

    Tricord wants to rezone 925 acres south of Fredericksburg near the Massaponnox interchange on Interstate 95. Built in three phases over 20 years, the project would create a high-density, mixed-use community with 3 million square feet of office space, 185,000 square feet of retail, a hotel and nearly 6,000 homes, mostly condos. The existing road infrastructure would not adequately serve the traffic generated by the project, so Tricord also proposes building a four-laned Summit Crossings Parkway and upgrading the interchanges at I-95 and U.S. 1, as well as adding to water-sewer capacity.

    The way Dan Telvock explains the TIF district for the Free Lance-Star, Tricord would create a special tax district — presumably encompassing the property subject to rezoning.

    Local governments earmark tax revenues from property value growth within a designated area to finance development in that same area. For example, if undeveloped property in a TIF district is worth $10 million in tax revenue and the value rises to $30 million when developed, all or a portion of the $20 million difference goes to the TIF.

    The county would still receive the $10 million it was getting prior to development, and could get more depending on what percentage of the increase it dedicates to the TIF. Once the TIF expires, the county receives the entire tax benefit.

    I don’t know how the numbers will all crunch out — a key unknown is what percentage of the increased property tax would be dedicated to the TIF and what percentage would flow into county coffers — so I’ll withhold judgment. But if I were a Spotsylvania supervisor, I would inspect the numbers very closely. The county will incur a growing cost of school, public safety and other services as those 6,000 homes are built and new families move in. Not only will the county have to pay those operating costs, it will have to pay the up-front capital expense of building new school buildings and fire/police/rescue stations.

    Will Summit Crossings generate enough tax revenue to do all that? If it can attract enough commercial tenants to its technology center and federal corporate campus, maybe so. But that’s an iffy proposition. Even if the TIF revenues were split in such a way as to cover all the county’s costs on paper, Spotsylvania would be taking a risk that Tricord would line up those commercial tenants — even though Spotsylvania has no track record of luring major commercial investment — and that the revenues would come in as projected.

    Tricord should assume the risk of real estate development, not Spotsylvania County. One possible way to get around the problem might be to use TIF financing as overlay tax district — generating a stream of tax revenues over and above what the businesses and homeowners ordinarily would pay. If tax revenues met or exceeded the amount required to pay for public services, perhaps a portion could be rebated to property owners.

    Bacon’s bottom line: TIFs can create useful options for financing growth. But they’re tricky. The risks are difficult to appraise. Private businesses are accustomed to dealing with risk — that’s what they do for a living. Municipal government employees aren’t trained to evaluate real estate development risks. County supervisors and City council persons, most of whom know even less about municipal finance than government employees, need to make sure they know exactly how the financing works and what risks they are assuming.


  • Who Owns Whom?

    These General Assembly days, one can’t get past any newspaper without another idiotic attempt to somehow disenfranchise foreigners or foreign-born Virginians. Some 100 laws are now proposed to “restrict” undocumented foreign residents. If successful, no “illegal” immigrant (and perhaps some legal ones) could go to a state school, get a drivers license, work for various cities or counties or get stopped by a cop without getting patted down.

    You could get fired from your job for “not speaking English” or you could lose your business license if you knowingly or unknowingly hire foreign-born individuals (most likely dark-skinned”) whose papers are not entirely in order with the State Department or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to State Sen. Richard Saslaw, some of the laws “are the most mean-spirited” proposed in recent memory.

    So, it is indeed curious to read the left-hand leader in Sunday’s New York Times. Foreigners, it seems, are buying or making huge investments in U.S. firms at a massive level. Kuwaitis, for instance are taking a $9 billion share of Dow Chemical, separate groups from United Arab Emirates and Singaporeans now have a a big chunk of Citigroup and Britain’s AstraZeneca has a whopping $14.1 billion stake in Medimmune.

    Last year, foreign investors poured $414 billion into U.S. firms, the Times reports. The reason? The stocks markets in the U.S. have taken deep dips in recent weeks over recession fears. There are plenty of bargains. The U.S. dollar is weaker than it has been in a long time. Although reeling from the mortgage meltdown and tight money, U.S. companies are still regarded as excellent investments.

    To be sure, the foreign spending spree is likely to bring on protests by the more xenophobic “patriots” in the U.S. The same thing happened in the late 1980s when Japanese firms, just before their real estate bubble burst and their economy shrunk in a decade-long, deflationary implosion, were buying up New York landmark real estate properties with a vengeance. The outcries were huge. The same spirit forced one of China’s biggest oil companies to back away from a major U.S. investment a few years ago.

    Still, the investments are good news because they bring U.S. money back into the good ole U.S.A. The growing globalization of thw world economy may have its downside with shuttered manufacturing towns aroud in the Great Lakes or textile South, but the cross-investments are likely to create jobs, some of which might replace the ones lost.

    If anything the trend towards cross-investment will continue. Foreign stock markets such as Euronext are merging with ones on Wall Street. The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, mindful of the convergence of trading, has made it easier for foreign firms to list their stocks in the U.S. and is working towards reconciling different corporate accounting systems. In fact, serious trends are underway that would dump the accounting system used by U.S. firms in favor of a more international one that was started in Europe and is used already by most countries in the world.

    Ratcheting our focus down to the Virginia level, you would think it is still the 1950s, when old-style, white-run corporations and governments held sway with their traditional and peculiar ways and mores. Those dark-skinned guys working the lawns and flower beds had better stop speaking Spanish or whatever the immigrant “underclasses” use. And if Virginia lawmakers have their way, they’d all better have all paperwork signed and sealed with all the “Ts” crossed, even though ICE is many months behind in procesing legitimate attempts by foreigners workers here to get themselves squared away.

    Ironically, the lawmakers leading the charge tend to be from Northern Virginia, which is the most internationalized part of the Old Dominion. Once again, as I have written before, this state seems to be a kind of parallel universe where what happens elsewhere is irrelevant.

    Globalization won’t be irrelevant forever. I can’t wait for the day when one of thse yea-hoo, xenophobic, would-be American patriots and lawmakers confronts his boss for not speaking English and is promptly fired.

    Peter Galuszka


  • Watkins Bill Would Revolutionize Impact Fees in Virginia

    Sen. John C. Watkins, R-Powhatan, has submitted what could be the most important legislation of the 2008 General Assembly session: a bill that would transform the way proffers and impact fees are administered across the state.

    The bill addresses one of the most critical issues facing Virginia today: how municipal governments pay for the infrastructure (roads, schools and public safety buildings) required to support growth. Watkins’ status as one of Virginia’s most experienced legislators and support from the Home Builders Association of Virginia guarantees that the measure will receive serious consideration.

    (The bill hasn’t been posted online yet, but I have a copy, courtesy of Andrea Epps, of Watkins’ summary and some explanatory remarks. For details, click here.)

    As Watkins describes the legislation, it would eliminate cash proffers (while still allowing in-kind, on-site contributions such as parcels of land) and substitute impact fees on residential and commercial development. Here’s the biggie: The impact fees also would apply to by-right residential and commercial development, currently exempt from either proffers or impact fees. The bill would put all forms of development on an equal footing.

    Says Watkins: “The overall objective of the proposed legislation is to broaden the base of those that make growth-related contributions to the cost of public infrastructure, and consequently to reduce the per unit cost.” Using the example of Chesterfield County, which resides in his senatorial district, Watkins said that Chesterfield collected $27.1 million in proffers between fiscal 2004 and 2007. Under his legislation, the county would have collected $88.7 million.

    Key features of the bill would:

    • Eliminate cash from the proffer system. But grandfather any existing cash proffers that have been pledged.
    • Retain the non-cash proffer system. The value of non-cash proffers would be credited against the impact fees.
    • Enact an impact fee statute to cover roads, schools and public safety buildings. All cities and high-growth counties (5 percent population growth per decade or more) with populations over 20,000 could impose impact fees. Ordinances would apply “to all residential and commercial rezonings and by-right residential and commercial development (so-called stale zoned land) within an impact fee service area….”
    • Require localities outside Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to enact a Real Property Relief Fee. Property owners would pay 20 cents per $100 on the sale of their property to be deposited in a locality’s capital improvement fund. (NoVa and Hampton Roads already have such a fee.)

    Here’s where it gets complicated. Ordinances would create “impact fee service areas.” The Watkins document I link to does not explains how these service areas would be set up. Would they be synonomous with the Urban Development Areas created under 2007 legislation? I don’t know. Additionally, Watkins alludes to Level of Service (LOS) requirements within the service areas, as well caps on impact fees.

    Bacon’s bottom line: This sounds like a promising start, although the devil is in the details. Watkin’s proposal would advance the objective of “making growth pay its own way,” and it would put by-right development on the same proffer/impact-fee footing as rezoned development. By doing so, it would dramatically shift the balance of market power away from the scattered, disconnected pattern of growth associated with by-right development in favor of larger, more rationally conceived development projects. (It is no accident that Watkins has a big financial stake in such a planned development, the Watkins Center, in Chesterfield County.)

    This bill is no cure-all by any means. But it does address one of the thorniest problems related to growth: how to pay for it. My initial reaction is favorable, although I want to hear what others have to say. If Bacon’s Rebellion still had outside funding, I would sic Bob Burke or Peter Galuszka, or both of them, all over this story to make sure all facets of the proposal were properly understood. Alas, we no longer have those resources, so we will have to content ourselves with tracking the bill on the blog. Hopefully, readers will contribute their insight.

    Update: The bill, SB768, has been filed.


  • What Does Jimmie Massey Have Against Business Assistance?

    Del. Jimmie Massey, R-Richmond, has introduced a bill that would abolish the Department of Business Assistance and transfer its functions to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. There are good reasons to keep the two economic development entities separate, which makes me wonder if there’s some kind of hidden agenda behind the move.

    Business Assistance runs a grab-bag of programs, mostly related to small business finance and small business assistance, that rightfully belongs in the portfolio of agencies under the Secretary of Commerce and Trade. The VEDP, by contrast, is set up as a quasi-independent authority with the sole focus of promoting Virginia outside the Commonwealth. Massie’s proposed transfer would effectively remove Business Assistance from the operational control of the Governor and create a mixed mission for VEDP.

    What’s the point? I can’t imagine that VEDP asked for this expansion of its authority. It does a good job of industrial recruitment and, I would guess, would prefer to keep its focus unmuddled. There’s no obvious scandal or crisis driving this proposal. But the bill has several co-sponsors. Something must be going on. Anybody know?


  • Hey, Can Students’ Parents Buy Tickets, Too?

    Virginia is looking more like California every day. The William & Mary student council has agreed to provide $1,450 to help bring the Sex Workers Art Show to campus. The event, which is on nationwide tour, features monologues and performances by porn actors, strippers and other sex workers, reports the Daily Press. More than a dozen student groups are co-sponsoring the show.

    Wrote Zach Pilchen, president of the Student Assembly: “There is no better place to discuss the sex work industry and its phenomena than at a liberal arts college.”

    University President Gene Nichol now must decide whether to grant a campus venue for the production. Wow, what a tough decision for a broad-minded university president to make! On the one hand, it’s so vitally importance to display an openness toward a broad range of sexual lifestyles and proclivities. We wouldn’t want to send the message that the university is intolerant in any way. But on the other hand… feminist ideology stridently objects to pornography and other practices that “objectify” women as sexual objects. We wouldn’t want that either! Tolerance… objectification. Toleratance… objectification. What a choice!

    I’m looking forward to seeing what decision Nichol makes, how he justifies it to the campus community and how he explains it to parents and alumni. Meanwhile, I’m interested to see what my daughter (a senior) has to say.
    Update: My daughter, Ginny, responds by e-mail as follows: “If pro-life organizations on campus can use their funding to bring in evangelical Christians with signs that have pictures of bloody fetuses on them who shout at and harass people on their way to and from class, then student council funding for the Sex Workers Art Show is just fine.”

  • Status Quo Solutions

    Just to follow-up on my earlier post about a proposal to hike the federal gas tax by 40 cents per gallon over five years (and then afterwards to increase it yearly, based on inflation), Transportation Secretary Mary Peters takes to the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal to make her Bacon-esque case for no tax hike at all. Snip:

    Even if Congress loses its taste for pork, raising gas taxes and spending more on highways still won’t improve the quality of Americans’ commutes, though it would likely make them more expensive. We tried this already and it simply doesn’t work.

    Over the past 25 years, the federal government has increased transportation spending by 100%, yet traffic has grown by over 300%. Not surprisingly, recent studies, including one last summer by the Government Accountability Office, have found that higher gas taxes do nothing to improve traffic congestion.

    We believe that this country can do much better than simply charging drivers more to sit in never-ending traffic jams. Thanks to technology, an innovative private sector, pioneering state and local officials, and a sustained effort by our administration to encourage reform, a clear alternative has emerged.

    This past year, over 20 major cities in the U.S. have submitted proposals to the Department of Transportation to implement some form of electronic tolling that will both reduce congestion and generate needed revenue for transportation projects. Thanks to new open-road technology, these pricing programs can be put in place without forcing a single driver to slow down to pay a toll or have their transponder “read.”

    It’s worth reading in it’s entirety (I think Rupert has made the Journal’s op-ed pages free to all).

    One thing that has always fascinated me about the debate over gas taxes on Bacon’s is that no one (that I know of…forgive me if it has) has discussed the Pigouvian angle.

    Now that’s an argument worth having.


  • Look Who’s Defending Abuser Fees!

    I missed this when it was first reported, but I’m reminded of it by a communication from the Virginia Club for Growth:

    Yesterday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee voted to block an emergency clause on, SB 1, the repeal of the abusive driver fees, sponsored by Democrat Ed Houck. The emergency clause would have made the bill effective upon Governor Kaine’s signature, instead of January 1, 2009, which is when legislation without the clause becomes active.

    Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw told the Washington Post he voted against the emergency clause because he didn’t think enough votes would be in the House of Delegates for its passage. Other Democrats who voted against the clause include Senators Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Reynolds, Puller and Deeds.

    The seven Republicans on the Courts of Justice Committee all voted for the emergency clause. They include Senators Stolle, Quayle, Norment, Cuccinelli, Obenshain, McDougle and Hurt.

    I know I’m late blogging this, but after bashing Republicans for instigating and supporting Abuser Fees, I felt I had to tell the rest of the story. Looks like the main reason the Dems opposed the fees was so they could flail Republicans at election time. But when it comes to actually parting with the revenue, they just can’t bring themselves to do it.

    Update: According to an anonymous comment on this post, this legislative maneuver may not be what it seems, and I may have totally misinterpreted its significance. Read the comment and decide for yourself.


  • How NoVa Spends Its Transportation Dollars – And Why Nothing Is Ever Enough

    I love the idea of street cars running up and down Columbia Pike, increasing the traffic-carrying capacity of that important corridor in Arlington and Fairfax Counties. And I’m impressed by the plan to support the trolleys with appropriate adjustments to land use and urban design (see “Street Cars and Zoning Codes.”) But I’m not real excited about the $40 million that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has air-dropped onto the project.

    According to the Connection newspapers, some members objected to the funding, which will “go towards the studying and design of the proposed streetcar,” on the grounds that the money could have paid for widening roads somewhere.

    Ay yi yi. Where do I begin? If it can be demonstrated that an investment in street cars can provide more mobility and access than adding a couple of lane-miles of urban roadway, then, by all means, let’s go with the street cars! Only someone in the business of laying asphalt would have a problem with that. But the problem is, we don’t know which option is more cost effective.

    Go to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority website and you’ll find a six-year project list. That list will describe the project and provide some cost numbers. But the website does not make available any data required to compare the benefits of the projects in any meaningful way. Although the list includes a project score of obscure meaning — apparently some 18 prioritization criteria were used — the website does not provide that data. In sum, there is no transparency into the process used to rank the projects.

    How much will the Columbia street car system cost? $40 million just for study and design? Holy smokes! That’s a lot of dineros. How much capacity will the trolleys add to the thoroughfare? How many passengers are expected to ride the trolleys? How much congestion will it relieve? What will be the ongoing costs of maintaining and operating the system? What is the return on public dollars invested — either in terms of improved safety or reduced traffic congestion?

    Of course, precisely the same kinds of questions should be asked for other projects such as: Metro station access improvements, the Ashburn park ‘n ride lot, bike path improvements in Alexandria, widening of the Prince William County Parkway, intersection improvements on Chain Bridge Road, the municipal parking lot in Falls Church, the Rt. 28 grade separation overpass, and all the other recently approved projects.

    Not only does there appear to be no way to rank projects by Return on Investment, there is no mechanism to coordinate the transportation improvements with changes to land use. (If the Columbia Pike streetcar system happens to be coordinated with land use in the corridor, that’s because Arlington County is one of the few jurisdictions in Virginia to take planning seriously, not because of any requirement of the NVTA.) No one is asking, if Project X is approved, what impact will that have on development and redevelopment in the area, and what impact will that have on subsequent traffic patterns? No one is asking, if Project Y is built, what changes to land use could leverage the benefits of that public investment? No one is asking, will Project Z contribute to the creation of communities that balance trips generated with transportation capacity?

    To all appearances, the NVTA is simply doling out a lot of money — a little here, a little there — and taking great care to spread it all around the region so nobody can whine that “So-and-so got more money than we did.”

    Despite these obvious deficiencies in the allocation of transportation funds, the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, representing 18 major business organizations, insists that the $300 million a year to be raised through newly enacted taxes and fees is not enough. At a minimum, the group recently resolved, the region requires $400 million a year.

    All I can say is that if the business executives of Northern Virginia ran their enterprises the way they propose running government functions, Fairfax, Alexandria and Arlington County would resemble the Third World. Every successful business ranks major investment projects by ROI! Every successful business views asks if investments advance a larger strategic objective. But somehow it’s OK to ignore those fundamental business principles when it comes to investing in transportation infrastructure. Simply amazing.

    Update: Kala Quintana, interim PIO for the transportation authority, responds in the comments section that the scoring process for projects was transparent during the compilation of the Transaction 2030 plan. The scoring criteria are spelled out here, and “NVTA is in the process of transferring all of the Tranaction 2030 info to the main NVTA site. We’re working as fast as we can!”

    (Image cutline: Corridor map of Columbia Pike. Image credit: Arlington County.)