Bacon's Rebellion

  • The Emerging Conservationist Majority

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Environmentalism isn’t just for Democrats anymore. Strong support of environmental priorities cuts across party lines, according to a statewide public opinion survey sponsored by the Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and the Piedmont Environmental Council.

    The conservation coalition that emerges is as diverse as the electorate itself, ranging from Republican-leaning audiences, such as conservatives who attend church at least weekly, to liberal secular voters. Voters support a conservation agenda and conservation candidates, contend the survey’s sponsors. Says Lisa Guthrie, Executive Director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund: “There is a clear and growing “Conservation Majority” of voters that is demanding that our Commonwealth take further actions to preserve and enhance our communities.”

    Some of the findings:

    • 61 percent of voters believe the State must have a large role in solving the issue of global warming.
    • 61 percent say cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay is a top concern in deciding their vote for candidate for public office.
    • 68 percent prefer a candidate for public office who supports more transportation options for Virginia, such as more commuter rail and expanded bus services to reduce traffic.
    • 65 percent say that a candidate’s view on land use, growth and curbing sprawl will be the most important or an important factor in their voting decision

    To see details of the survey, click here.

    Republicans, take note. Environmental issues have traditionally been Democratic issues. As a rule, Democrats have an affinity for government- and rules-oriented public policy solutions. That’s why solutions to environmental issues tend to augment the power of government at the expense of free markets and property rights. If you don’t like an expanding role for government, you’d better embrace the environmental ethos as your own and devise market-based solutions.

  • More Roads, Worse Congestion. Could There Be a Connection?

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Chesterfield County has 4,000 miles of roads and streets, and it’s adding new roads at the rate of 35 miles per year — more than any other locality in Virginia. Despite a massive gift of state General Fund dollars to pay for construction of the Rt. 288 circumferential highway, Chesterfield officials worry that they need hundreds of millions of dollars more. About $1 billion more.

    Under the new transportation funding legislation, Chesterfield will get a little more money for new construction but not much: only $45 million over the next six years for secondary roads. According to Julian Walker with the Times-Dispatch, Chesterfield officials are considering raising some $300 million in local funds to play catch-up.

    Some of the options: higher impact fees, issuing bonds through Community Development Authorities to be repaid through special tax districts, and issuing county-backed bonds to be repaid.

    Here’s what’s not being considered, assuming that Walker’s article is fairly comprehensive in covering the spectrum of debate: Reforming land use patterns. Although the county has approved, or is in the processing of approving, a handful of major mixed-use, New Urbanism-style developments, it is responding to the initiatives of the development community, not making the changes proactively. There is no discussion of creating Balanced Communities. There are no moves, above and beyond the current modest initiatives, to aggressively re-develop aging districts of the county already served by roads. There is no discussion of Transit Oriented Development served by rail.

    You’d think someone among Chesterfield’s leaders would ask: If we’re building more roads than anyone else, why are traffic conditions deteriorating faster? Could we be building roads in the wrong places? (Is Rt. 288 accelerating the pattern of leapfrog, disconnected, low-density development at the root of congestion?) Is building more roads really the remedy? How about making better use of the roads we already have? How about building communities where people can drive fewer, shorter trips in their cars?

    Unless there is a breakthrough in thinking, traffic congestion in Chesterfield County will continue to get worse, not better, no matter how much money the County raises for new construction.

  • New Urbanism Comes to an Old Downtown

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Once again, John Sarvay, author of the Buttermilk and Molasses blog, has demonstrated that he is a “must read” for land use issues in the Richmond region. In his latest post, he sets the scene for the update of the city’s Downtown Master Plan, with particular attention to the urban design firm, Dover Kohl & Partners, that will lead the effort.

    One of the most important decisions in updating the Master Plan is deciding which firm to engage to run the charrette. Very appropriately, in a recent post, “The Downtown Master Plan Revisited: Part One: Huh?”, Sarvay asks, just who is Dover Kohl & Partners?

    Dover Kohl, though based in Florida, has Virginia roots: The principals graduated from Virginia Tech. Then they studied under New Urbanism gurus Andres Duany and his wife Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk at the University of Miami. Among many projects, they have worked with the City of Fairfax on a master plan to re-develop Fairfax Boulevard (Rt. 50).

    To get a flavor of the kind of thinking that Dover Kohl might apply to downtown Richmond, I refer you to the article by the Fairfax Times about the Rt. 50 plan. The vision there is to transform the suburban arterial into “a tree-lined, multi-lane roadway.” Three major nodes along the boulevard would offer a classic New Urbanist mix of residential, commercial and retail. The plan would give special emphasis to walkability.

    The challenges for the City of Richmond are very different. The “old” urbanism of Downtown already provides high densities, minimal setbacks, a gridded street pattern and highly walkable streetscapes. The only obvious challenge that strikes me is figuring out how to accelerate the revival of downtown residential.

    The City of Richmond and its civic boosters have fallen prey in the past to the allure of the “mega project” that will magically stimulate downtown revival. The 6th Street Marketplace, the Convention Center and the Performing Arts Center are the most notable fiascos, although there have been others. The good news about Dover Kohl, suggests Sarvay based on his Internet readings, is that New Urbanists like Dover Kohl appear to be nudging the market away from mega-projects. Their goal, if I might interject an editorial observation, is to create a zoning and conceptual framework that enables market forces to engage in smaller-scale projects that function effectively together, so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    My sense is that dowtown Richmond actually works remarkably well and, left to its own devices, will flourish. The most important thing is not to screw things up, and not to induce the community into backing more foolish projects. Unfortunately, I won’t have time to attend the Downtown Master Plan charrette. If Sarvay does, I will relay his observations to you.

  • Transit Sustainability

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    As much as he is a fan of passenger rail, Kevin Page, Virginia’s director of rail transportation, is realistic: He understands that passenger rail in the Old Dominion is not everyone’s preferred mode of travel, and he knows that it can be difficult to justify economically.

    Page espouses “transit sustainability.” Even if a local government or regional authority can cobble together the funds to launch passenger rail, someone needs to fund ongoing operations, he explained to me in a recent interview. Under Page’s doctrine, any mode of mass transit must be able to recover a significant proportion of its costs through passenger fares. The idea is to start with the most cost-effective method of mass transit — that which loses the least money — and test the market. Only if ridership increases does it make sense to upgrade to more expensive, higher-volume systems.

    Thus, Page envisions mass transit routes starting, say, with city buses in city streets. They might be supplanted by Bus Rapid Transit, a higher-volume system that relies upon dedicated bus lanes. A BRT system, if supported by the market, might evolve to a light rail system, and then to a heavy rail system. The idea is to “get people more connected with transit” and move to more ambitious systems upgrades as the market materializes.

    “Transit sustainability” is an interesting way of appraising the practicality of competing projects. It certainly makes more sense than doling out Virginia’s rail and transit dollars to whomever has the most political clout. I’m still not totally convinced, however. As I argued in “Midlothian Leviathan,” a private-sector, developer-driven approach to mass transit might make more sense.

  • Preserving the Routes of Abandoned Railroad Lines

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    One of the most torturous aspects of building a new road or rail line, especially in urbanized areas, is acquiring the right of way. Urban land is expensive, and the acquisition process can be lengthy when landowners resist selling. It is difficult to imagine a replay of the 1950s-era acquisition of rights of way for interstate highways, which were routed through neighborhoods of the poor and politically powerless.

    That’s why it’s so urgent, when we have rights of way for potential transportation corridors, that we protect them. But it seems that rights of way for old, abandoned railroad lines around Virginia are being allowed to lapse. Indeed, it doesn’t appear that anyone in Virginia even maintains a master list of abandoned railroad lines.

    That’s what I found out in an interview with Kevin Page, Virginia’s director of rail transportation, during the course of researching my recent column, “Midlothian Leviathan.” I didn’t use any material from the interview in that column, but Page made a number of observations that are worth recounting in the blog.

    One of the questions I asked: Has anyone conducted a survey of deactivated or under-utilized rail lines in Virginia? Such lines, it seemed to me, could serve as potential routes for local passenger rail service. No one conducts a statewide survey, said Page, although local Metropolitan Planning Organization officials may undertake local studies of their own.

    The subject is more complicated than it might seem. “Sometimes abandoned rail lines can be difficult to resurrect,” Page says. It depends on the terms of the abandonment. Sometimes the land can revert to the owner of the land before the railroad acquired it.

    During a period of downsizing and restructuring a quarter century ago, freight railroad companies abandoned a lot of unprofitable routes. A handful have been converted to jogging/bicycle lanes. Many lie fallow. It would seem to be a horrendous waste to allow them to revert to former owners — or, more likely, the descendents of former owners — who can’t do anything economically useful with their fragments. Even if passenger rail doesn’t look profitable today, you never know when circumstances might change. We could well be kicking ourselves ten or twenty years from now for having let the rights of way lapse.

  • Abuser Fees and Unintended Consequences

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Peter Galuszka has tackled the issue of abuser fees for the Road to Ruin project in his article, “Abuser Fees or Abusive Fees?” While he covers some of the same ground as the Mainstream Media — primarily the fact that the fees don’t apply to out-of-state drivers — he also hones in on an aspect of the unfolding debate that continues to go under-reported: The unintended consequences.

    We know the intended consequences. Abuser fees for dangerous driving is supposed to raise about $50 million for transportation funding. It is also supposed to make drivers think twice before engaging in reckless behavior, with the hoped-for benefit of reducing the number of traffic accidents. Because traffic accidents are a major contributor to traffic congestion, the abuser fees should reduce congestion.

    Fortunately, it should be easy to find out if the intended consequences transpire or not. Will the incidence of speeding, DUI and other forms of reckless driving decline? Will the number of traffic accidents fall? The numbers are readily available.

    But it’s the unintended consequences that concern me. Will more motorists decide to contest their tickets in traffic court? Will traffic courts get more crowded? Will more drivers fail to pay their out-sized fines? Will more Virginians be driving on suspended licenses? Will more of those drivers get arrested and thrown in jail? I suspect that those numbers may be difficult to come by.

    Let’s assume that the abuser fees raise the full $50 million they are postulated to raise. How much will it cost in additional court costs and state trooper time to process an increased number of disputed tickets? How much will it cost to house people in jail when they’ve been arrested for driving on a suspended license? And, assuming that many of those people are not like Paris Hilton with rich daddies to fall back upon, who will support their families? How much money will the state spend on welfare?

    Add up all those ancillary costs, and how much will abuser fees cost the state in ways that nobody’s counting? Will the sum amount to more than the $50 million raised for transportation? Will the Commonwealth, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul — mugging Virginia motorists along the way? We’ll never know because no one is tracking the data.

  • CHESTERFIELD MOBILITY MARGINAL NOTES

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Jim Bacon sketched out a menu of potential actions for the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County in “Midlothian Leviathan” the column and Bacons News Service release he previewed in the Blog post “Challenged in Chesterfield” of 28 June.

    It is too bad that the loooooong Fourth of July weekend(s) seems to have sapped interest in discussion of the topic. Hopefully, governance practitioners will give attention to Jim’s ideas.

    Here are some marginal notes upon a first reading of Jim’s column:

    HOW IMPORTANT IS A NAME?

    Commuter Rail is commuter rail. The heyday of commuter rail was from 1890 to the 1920s and for good reason. Commuter rail is 19th century technology that fleetingly served a need to serve transitioning late Industrial Agglomeration settlement pattern. It was not just 19th century technology it best served 19th century settlement patterns.

    Even if one uses the old track in the old alignment this is 2007. Why not use new technology? How about light weight, quiet “hybrid” diesel / electric self-propelled cars?

    Rebuilt locos and rebuilt coach cars are the way VA Express started. As we all know ridership is stagnate even with terrible roadway alternatives. The new section of I-66 that opened recently and the Springfield interchange completion removes incentives on both lines to put up with bad service that is in part a product of old technology.

    Loco and coaches are slow to start, slow to stop and noisy going past. The reality of “commuter rail” will bring out the NYMBYs to oppose change. To generate ridership and spur quality development in the station areas, the service needs to be frequent, two way (bringing workers out as well as in), etc…

    BALANCED COMMUNITIES

    An even bigger problem than technology is the problem of a goal to serve “commuters.” Greater South Richmond / Chesterfield does not need commuter bergs. It needs Village-scale components of Balanced Communities focused at each station. Places like Andrea Epps suggested that Brandermill almost was for her in the earlier Blog comment.

    GETTING IT DONE

    Community Development Authorities are a nice idea but they probably cannot carry the load, even with major changes in the Comprehensive Plans, new regulations and incentives.

    How about some new thinking on the taxation of property owners enriched by the improvements both private and public.

    OK, we are talking Henry George at every station. OK, Henry was a mid-19th century guy. Not all 19th century ideas are bad, especially when the property tax is a realistic approach in an 18th century agrarian society. The property tax should reflect public and private investment and the increase in land value, not the buildings or worse vacant land.

    More on these three issues in “The Commuting Problem” 17 Jan 2005, “The Problem with Mass Transit” 15 May 2006 and “Solving the Commuting Problem” 5 February 2007.

    Oh yes, In 2004 (16 February) we wrote the “Shape of Richmond’s Future” based on two reports on the future of the Richmond New Urban Region. An idea like the one Jim sketches out might be a way to jump start the sort of real Regional rethinking that we advocated in that column. To work Mobility and Access solutions need to be Regional in scope, not just one or two corridors.

    EMR

  • Calling All Energy-Conservation Entrepreneurs

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    As required by newly enacted state law, the State Corporation Commission is holding a “proceeding” to determine if state electricity conservation goals — cutting electricity consumption, based on 2006 levels, by 10 percent by 2022 — can be achieved cost effectively.

    The SCC staff will invite all the usual suspects: electric and gas utilities, independent power producers, consumer groups, environmental groups and the others whose lobbyists make themselves known. The SCC, in all likelihood, will not go out of its way to notify entrepreneurial companies in the business of electricity conservation who aren’t large enough to hire lobbyists and whose business model is not predicated on rent-seeking behavior.

    One prospect comes immediately to mind. Richmond-based Tridium, where my wife works, specializes in creating software platforms that allow proprietary softwares controlling a wide variety of devices to communicate with one another. One of Tridium’s primary markets is building automation, and one of the driving forces behind building automation is energy conservation. Tridium is not a little jinky start-up. It was acquired last year by Honeywell, a major manufacturer of automated controls, and it does business globally. My wife recently returned from a business trip to Dubai and the Netherlands.

    Tridium knows electric conservation. Tridium knows how to reduce electric consumption on a large scale in commercial and industrial settings. Tridium should have a seat at the table. Whether the company, which is in fast-growth mode, will be able to spare an employee to engage in months of jaw-jaw with professional lobbyists is another question entirely.

    How many other businesses are out there whose business models are built on saving money by reducing electric consumption? How many vendors of energy-saving appliances and gadgets are out there? How many of them will offer any input into the achievability of reducing electric consumption by a modest 2/3 of one percent per year? How will their absence affect the goals set by the SCC?

    If you work for a company in the business of electric conservation, you need to be part of the process. Click here to find out more information.

  • Tim Kaine’s Urban Policy: Spend Mo’ Money

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    The Kaine administration has quietly made public its “Urban Policy Report” by posting it on the website of the Secretariat of Commerce and Trade. The report, which results from the labors of a task force appointed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine a year ago, never got much publicity. I don’t recall any articles written about in the Mainstream Media, and I couldn’t even find a notice of it among the Governor’s press releases for the past three months. Furthermore, no one seems willing to claim the report: Although the task force participants are listed, the authorship is anonymous.

    The purpose of the report was to outline achievable goals, actions and measurable benchmarks to track the progress of Virginia’s “urban” areas, defined as areas with population over 50,000 and density exceeding 1,000 per square mile. It encompasses both older cities and urbanizing counties.

    The report cites five broad goals:

    1. Promote economic integration in urban jurisdications and surrounding region (as a means of combatting inner city poverty).

    2. Improve the educational attainment and workforce readiness of urban populations.

    3. Strengthen the economic competitiveness of urban jurisdictions and surrounding areas.

    4. Ensure a high quality of life in urban areas.

    5. Ensure that urban infrastructure, transportation systems and the environment will support a prosperous future for current citizens.

    All worthy goals, to be sure. But in recommendation after recommendation, the report calls for more vigorous action by state and local government. The common theme can be summarized succinctly: Spend mo’ money. By contrast, nowhere does the report hint that perhaps reducing taxes to stimulate economic activity might exercise a palliative effect.

    Unfortunately for the Kaniacs, with state economic growth slowing, two rounds of tax increases since 2004, and the end of double-digit increases in state revenues, “mo’ money” is not likely to materialize. Just guessing: Budgetary realities may explain why the Governor never cranked up his spin machine for this report.

  • On Track for 400,000 Acres Conserved

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine isn’t waiting for others to act in order to meet his goal of conserving 400,000 acres of open space in the Commonwealth by the end of his four-year term. Meeting with local leaders to celebrate the easement of 4,000 acres along the Rappahannock River recently, he told the following story, according to the Free Lance-Star:

    Instead of waiting for landowners to start talking to state agencies about using easements and other tools to protect their land, Kaine said state officials — and sometimes the governor himself–are now trying to start those talks.

    He told a story about canoeing on the James River in Botetourt County last July 3 and taking out at a farm. Kaine asked the landowner if the farm was under conservation easement. It wasn’t, but the owner seemed interested. So Kaine had Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant call him on July 4, and the 700-acre property is now preserved forever under a conservation easement.

    In 2006, Kaine’s first term, 95,000 acres of Virginia land were preserved — about double the rate before then. But Kaine said he would have to step up his efforts to meet his goal. State officials are going after big chunks of land — 10,000-20,000 acres per shot. As a result, the Governor has been talking to paper companies with huge holdings of forest land.

  • Midlothian Leviathan

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Chesterfield County is the last place on the planet you’d expect to see commuter rail. Characterized by scattered, disconnected, low-density development and communities designed around the movement of automobiles, Richmond’s southern suburb epitomizes the autocentric society that destroyed mass transit in the 20th century.

    Ironically, Chesterfield enjoyed a vibrant commuter rail scene at the turn of the 20th century — before local government mandated “suburban” style zoning and state government began subsidizing leapfrog development. Some 100 years after commuter rail’s hey-day, developers are trying to revive the idea. Two large planned communities, Roseland and Watkins Centre, would like to see commuter rail running along an underutilized Norfolk Southern railway track from downtown Richmond out to their projects near the Rt. 288 circumferential highway.

    The Richmond Metropolitan Planning Organization sketched the outlines of Midlothian commuter rail project in a 2003 study, which should be updated this fall. But the study was none too optimistic: An up-front capital investment of $81 million plus ongoing operating deficit of $1 million annually would take only 170 passengers per workday off the roads. Not a very good return on investment. Judged by the study’s ridership metrics, Midlothian commuter rail is a poor candidate for state and federal funding.

    But, as I outline in today’s column, “Midlothian Leviathan,” there may be a way to establish commuter rail as a profit-driven enterprise. Readers of this blog will find the key concepts familiar: (1) Set up Community Development Authorities around the rail stations, (2) pay for the capital improvements by issuing CDA bonds, (3) pay back the bonds through tax-increment financing on property owners in the CDA, (4) overlay the CDA districts with Transit Oriented Development districts, (5) incentivize property owners to re-develop their properties by increasing densities around the stations, and (6) require developers to set up Transportation Demand Management programs to mitigate the impact of localized congestion on nearby residential neighborhoods.

    Under the Bacon schema, Midlothian commuter rail would require no government funding whatsoever. It would require no government coercion, no exercise of eminent domain to strong-arm anyone into participating. It would put into place measures to offset negative impacts on neighbors. And the rail line would fly, so to speak, only if it constituted a win-win-win for Chesterfield County, the City of Richmond, property owners, neighbors and commuters.

    Sound like a tall order? You bet. I fully acknowledge that I may have set the bar so high that the project would never work. But I lay out a developer-driven strategy that has never been tried before, at least not in Virginia, and not in recent history. Please check it out and point out any flaws you might see — or any possibilities that I might have overlooked.

  • Rabble Rousing at Its Best: Bacon’s Rebellion

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Aesthetes of the world, why trouble yourself with those mangey, lesser blogs when you can indulge in the very finest of social agitation and political perturbations at the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine? You can view the July 2, 2007 edition right here.

    Don’t miss a single malcontented issue — sign up for a free subscription here.

    Here are this week’s offerings:

    Midlothian Leviathan
    The impact of a Midlothian commuter rail project on the Richmond region could be enormous — if Chesterfield County puts into place the necessary zoning and special tax districts.
    by James A. Bacon

    Double Shot
    Virginians are finally debating the convoluted new law that punishes “abusive drivers” twice: with fines and fees. A little late, but better than never.
    by Doug Koelemay

    Still No Exit
    Earth is the only biosphere we’ve got. Gliese 581-C-A, the closest potentially earth-like planet yet discovered, is 20 light-years away. We must build a sustainable civilization here at home.
    by EM Risse

    Slow and Unsteady
    Economic growth will slow in Virginia next year. Short-term, we must restrain state government spending to match. Long-term, we need to devise a fix for boom-bust budgeting.
    by Michael Thompson

    A Party Divided Shall Stand
    Discord in the Republican Party is a sign of healthy struggle between the People and politicians who have been co-opted by the political system.
    by James Atticus Bowden

    Annoy a Politician
    Bypass the political establishment: Support an Initiative & Referendum amendment to the state constitution.
    By Norman Leahy

    Nice & Curious Questions
    The Tribes of Virginia: American Indians in the Commonwealth
    by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

  • It Could Be Worse: We Could Be Driving in California

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Virginia has the 18th best road system in the country in 2004, according to a national survey published by the Reason Foundation. That’s a far-from-stellar performance, but we can console ourselves that we outperform our neighbors in Maryland (38th) and North Carolina (31st). However, the sour pusses among you can take heart that Virginia’s performance fell significantly from the previous year, when it had ranked 11th.

    The rankings combine two sets of measures: roadway quality and performance measures, and cost measures. States ranking the highest tend to offer a combination of superior performance at lower cost.

    As a generality, Virginia fared well in cost measures — we spend considerably less on our roads than other states — but enjoy middling performance levels.

    We ranked 8th lowest in the country in receipts per state-controlled mile: $55,063. That compares to a low of $36,890 in South Carolina and a high of $2,370,630 (not a misprint!!) in New Jersey (Can anyone say “Mafia-dominated construction unions?”)

    Virginia was the 2nd lowest state in the country for Capital & Bridge disbursements per
    state-controlled mile, 27th lowest for maintenance disbursements, and 7th lowest in administrative disbursements.

    In the critical performance measure “urban interstate congestion,” Virginia ranked 21st best with 42.54 percent of our interstate miles congested. A handful of western and Great Plains states enjoy zero percent interstate congestion, but the numbers are high throughout the East Coast. The comparable numbers in Maryland: 68.58 percent. In North Carolina: 72.47 percent.

    With 83.33 percent congested interstate miles, California has the worst interstates in the country.

  • Surprise Hot Story of the Week: Abuser Fees

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    In the absence of a more compelling political narrative during the summer doldrums, the issue of abuser fees for reckless drivers has become the issue du jour in the Mainstream Media. A half dozen newspapers, plus the Associated Press, published articles on the topic yesterday.

    Down in Martinsville, the abusive driver fees have become a campaign issue. Jeff Evans, a Republican candidate for state Senate, has attacked his opponent, state Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Ridgeway, for introducing a version of the law on the behalf of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. As quoted in the Martinsville Bulletin, Evans said in a press release:

    “Of course [the fees] will place an undue burden on any of our low-income citizens and cause many more to simply ignore the law and place themselves in danger of serving jail time. Even worse, it applies only to Virginia residents. That is just not right.”

    The same day, someone raised the out-of-state angle during the call-in radio show with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. The Governor opened the possibility of extending the abuser fees for reckless driving and Driving Under the Influence to out-of-state drivers.

    The idea sounds reasonable — why should Virginians be held to a higher standard? But as Christina Nuckols with the Virginian-Pilot explains, the matter gets complicated very quickly.

    The fees are currently treated as civil penalties collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles. If you don’t pay the fee, your driver’s license could be suspended. The fees would have to be changed to criminal fines in order to collect from out-of-state drivers.

    Virginia’s constitution earmarks all court fines to be spent on school construction and teacher retirement benefits. The bad-driver fees were adopted to generate new money for road maintenance.

    Meanwhile, House Speaker William J. Howell has responded to criticism in the Free Lance-Star: The Kaine administration, he wrote in a column, estimates that only 150,000 people, 2.5 percent of all licensed drivers, would have been affected during the past few years. Further, writes Howell:

    A cursory check of the facts would have found that abuser fees have worked successfully in New Jersey, where the number of demerit points drivers have accrued for dangerous driving has fallen since that state’s fees were introduced. The direct results of Virginia’s plan will be better driving, safer roads, less traffic congestion due to accidents, and more money for transportation.

    Seems to me that we should have had this debate before the law was passed. Bacon’s Rebellion raised a number of issues during the transportation debate, but in the stampede to find new revenue sources, only a handful of others questioned the law. To this day, I have yet to see an an article that quotes Virginia traffic judges for their opinions of what the law might mean. We have only begun to explore the ramifications of this issue.

  • Challenged in Chesterfield

    Posted on

    by

    James A. Bacon

    Chesterfield County makes an interesting petrie dish for studying development. The county of 300,000 residents has a vast overhang of land zoned for residential housing– enough for 43,000 new dwelling units, according to Scott Bass’ article in Style Weekly. And the Board of Supervisors continues to rezone more land, at least for quality projects such as the proposed mixed-use Roseland development near the intersection of Midlothian Turnpike and Rt. 288, which is adding 5,000 houses, condos and apartments to the building stock. The Southern Environmental Law Center is projecting growth of 125,000 housing units by 2030.

    Most of the development, however, is small-scale and piecemeal: following the classic suburban pattern of walled off shopping centers and cul de sac subdivisions. There are very few mixed-use neighborhoods (although some are on the drawing boards). The pod-like pattern of development offers very little connectivity between the different pieces. As a consequence, Chesterfield residents rely upon a relatively small number of connector roads and arterials to get around. Compounding the problem, the county actively discourages mass transit.

    Despite the gift of newly constructed Rt. 288, paid for by the state, traffic congestion is heading to gridlock. The county lacks the means to build its way out of its jam. Although Chesterfield collects proffers of $15,600 per house on land rezoned today, houses on property rezoned in the early 1990s may yield proffers of as little as $2,000. The state, which runs Chesterfield roads, has very little money to contribute. And unlike Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the Richmond region is not empowered to raise taxes for regional road projects.

    Meanwhile, NIMBYs, reacting to the increased pressure on roads, schools and county finances, want to curtail growth through such ill-conceived measures as minimum lot sizes that would smear growth over larger areas that are even more expensive to serve with roads, utilities and public services.

    What’s a county to do? One proposal I’ve heard is to give the go-ahead to developers of large, mixed-use projects who have the knowledge and financial backing to build well-planned, well-conceived communities. Given a choice between living in pedestrian-friendly communities with a wide range of amenities available nearby or living in disaggregated, auto-dependent subdivisions, people will flock to the quality projects. The good stuff will get built, the argument goes, and the bad stuff won’t. Maybe. The hitch is that the large mixed-use projects are located on the urban periphery and rely upon Rt. 288 and a handful of other roads for connectivity with the rest of the metro area. Those roads will quickly get overloaded.

    The other strategy is revitalization of older suburbs, an example of which is the re-development proposed for the aging Cloverleaf Mall just off the Chippenham Parkway. But re-development works only when developers can increase density, and that doesn’t appear to be something that Chesterfield is willing to do on anything other than a spot, case-by-case basis.

    In next week’s e-zine, I will explore a third strategy: Encourage transit-oriented development along a commuter rail line running from the proposed Roseland project on Rt. 288 through Midlothian and into downtown Richmond. Follow Arlington’s example in zoning for higher density around the rail stops. And use Community Development Authorities to pay the up-front cost of setting up the heavy rail operation. Read the details Monday.

Now Available

Book cover of 'Dust Mites: A Second American Revolution' by James A. Bacon, featuring astronauts planting a flag with a blue and white emblem on a lunar landscape, with Earth visible in the background.
For sale on Amazon.com

The year: 2075. The American colonies on the Moon are getting restless under Washington’s tyrannical rule….

This second edition of “Dust Mites” has a snazzy new cover, includes helpful lunar maps, and is 5,000 words tighter than the original. The sequel, “Trogs,” is scheduled for publication this summer.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

About

Bacon’s Rebellion is Virginia’s leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.

Fund the Rebellion

Shake up the status quo! Your contributions will be used to pay for faster download speeds and grow readership. Make a one-time donation by credit card or contribute a small sum monthly.

Can’t wait until tomorrow

For your Bacon’s Rebellion fix?

Enter your email address to receive immediate notifications of new posts by email.

SUBSCRIBE

Search Bacon’s Rebellion

Categories

Archives

The Jefferson Council

Protecting Thomas Jefferson’s Legacy at the University of Virginia

Forgot Your Password?

Shoot me an email and I’ll generate a new password for you.

Latest