• Dick Morris on Changing Politicians

    โ€œGenerally, in politics, when you change your positions or your image, the only people who believe you have changed are the ones who used to like you and donโ€™t anymore. The people who used to dislike you, who you are trying to appease by your metamorphosis, donโ€™t think youโ€™ve changed at all and generally still canโ€™t stand you.โ€ โ€“Dick Morris (writing on the Presidential Primaries and John McCain in particular).

    Too bad the Virginia GOP didnโ€™t hire Dick Morris to advise them on the disastrous, so called Transportation Compromise bill (AKA Bill Howellโ€™s Tax Increase Bill).


  • Mass Transit and the 1/4-Mile Dictum

    Arthur C. Nelson, co-director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has re-written one of the most commonly used “rules of thumb” used by the planning profession: the idea that pedestrians are willing to walk no more than 10 minutes, or a quarter mile, to reach a transit destination.

    For years planners have argued that transit-oriented development — taller buildings, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes — should be permitted with a quarter-mile radius of transit stations. In a recent presentation to the Montgomery County, Md., planning board, however, Nelson argued that the quarter-mile radius might be too restrictive. As reported by Examiner.com, Nelson said:

    โ€œWe have identified three categories: the saunter, which is walking a quarter of a mile, the business walk, getting one kilometer in 10 minutes, and the New York walk, three-quarters of a mile.โ€ The business walk, he said, is most common.

    Adopting the new metric would argue for increasing the area of transit-oriented development (TOD) around rail stations. Said Nelson: โ€œWe should design our TODs around that, which will increase the total area three times.โ€
    (Photo credit: Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.)

  • NoVa Politicos Favor Regional Transportation Authority

    Local elected officials in Northern Virginia say they are likely to approve a regional transportation financing package that could raise more than $400 million a year for local improvements, according to Timothy Dwyer with the Washington Post.

    Two-thirds of the nine NoVa localities must approve granting the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority power to impose a barf bag of regional taxes and fees ranging from hotel, rental car and auto repair taxes to vehicle registration and inspection fees.

    Loudoun Supervisor Scott K. York summed up the prevailing attitude: “I will probably be inclined to support it because, simply, we need the revenue if we want to fix our roads. You can’t fix it with the tooth fairy. It’s a multibillion-dollar problem.”


  • Hampton Roads Politicos Favor Regional Transportation Authority

    Mayors and council chairmen representing seven of 12 Hampton Roads localities say they support, or lean toward supporting, creation of a regional transportation authority to raise taxes and fees for transportation projects, reports Tom Holden with the Virginian-Pilot.

    At least seven of 12 municipal governments representing at least 51 percent of the area’s 1.5 million inhabitants must pass resolutions approving the authority’s new power. Once the authority is empowered, at least seven of 12 representatives to the authority would have to approve the full package of taxes and fees in an all-or-nothing vote.

    According to Holden’s nose count, the mayors of Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg and the chairmen in James City and Isle of Wight counties support the authority. Those opposed include the mayors of Chesapeake, Hampton and Poquoson and the chairman of York County.


  • WaPo SPEAKING

    Summarizing what officials told him without a direct quote, Tim Craig said the following yesterday in a Metro Section story titled “Va. Transportation Bill On Verge of Approval:”
    “Traffic congestion will continue, they say, but might not be as bad as it would have been without the new revenue.”

    That is a “the glass is way, way half full” statement. It is far more optimistic than any rational person (Craig was paraphrasing “officials”) would describe the situation.

    Jim Baconโ€™s last two posts are right on! Official actions on land use patterns and densities and the transport systems intended to provide access and mobility are taking citizens in the wrong direction at an increasing speed.

    There will be no improvement in access and mobility, regardless of how much money is spent on which facilities unless there is a Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns and that will require a Fundamental Change in governance structure.

    You have heard that before but here is a new twist: In the same paragraph as the above quote, Craig also said the northern part of Virginia population “… is expected to grow by more than 500,000 residents over 20 years…”

    In todayโ€™s WaPo N. C. Aizenman cites new data from the US Census Bureau suggesting that the “Metro Area Growth Has Scaled Back Considerably” with an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent.

    So, not to worry the population is not growing very fast.

    But wait! A multiplier of 1.007 results in a population growth of 792,041 over 20 years. If this is true, then population has slowed but is still growing faster than the 500,000 projection suggests.

    Then again, the census numbers are for “The Washington area” also called the “the Washington Metropolitan region.” Just what it this? The “new” Washington Primary MSA or something else? See our column “Where is Northern Virginia?” from 11 August 2003.

    We have not had a chance to run down the numbers but we would suspect that if one used the Washington-Baltimore New Urban Region for the July 2005 to July 2006 estimates, the growth rate for the real region was a lot higher than 0.7 percent per year.

    If you can make sense out of this apply to WaPo for an editors job. Otherwise, stay tuned into Bacons Rebellion.

    EMR


  • Meet the New Bottleneck, Same as the Old Bottleneck

    Controversy is brewing over a $75.6 million project that would expand westbound Interstate 66 in Arlington from two lanes to three over a 10-mile stretch. The main foe of the project: Arlington County.

    As Eric M. Weiss reports for the Washington Post, project supporters say the roadway has become a regional chokepoint. Widening the road would improve traffic for commuters heading west in the evening, as well as reverse commuters heading for the Dulles corridor in the morning. But Arlington County leaders, who have opposed widening the Interstate inside the Beltway since it opened in 1982, argue that the project would simply replace existing chokepoints with others — at great expense.

    Says Chris Zimmerman, a member of the Arlington County board of supervisors: “We’ve called for years for a multi-modal study to see what alternatives would be most effective in improving mobility in the I-66 corridor. All of that is being bypassed.”

    I don’t know the particulars of Interstate 66, so I can’t comment on it. But the project reminds me of the clamor to build the Third Crossing in Hampton Roads. That crossing would tie into the existing Monitor-Merrimac bridge-tunnel just before it touches ashore in Newport News. The traffic from the two bridges then would funnel onto Interstate 64, which is already so congested that traffic routinely backs up for miles. From what I can tell, all the multi-billion dollar Third Crossing would do is move the chokepoint from the two existing bridge-tunnels to a point a few miles west on I-64.

    Traffic projects must be evaluated in the context of the larger transportation system. When spot improvements can eliminate a bottleneck and restore free-flowing traffic, they may warrant funding. But when projects simply shift the location of bottlenecks from one location to another, they would seem to be an utter waste of money.


  • The Curtain Drops on Act One of the Transportation Debate

    Except for the mutual backslapping, the lawmaking is over. HB 3202, the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007, is now law.

    House Speaker William J. Howell is touting the bill, not without reason, as the most significant legislative initiative on transportation introduced since 1986. The Republican caucus came into the session desperately needing a political victory. Howell got a big one. Between the transportation act and other legislation — expansion of the death penalty, protection of property rights, reregulation of the electric power industry — Howell can plausibly claim that “the 2007 Session of the General Assembly will be remembered for being one of the most productive in Virginia history.โ€

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine expressed satisfaction as well: “The bipartisan compromise legislation will allow us to make significant and responsible investments in our transportation system. This compromise offers new tools to officials in traffic-clogged Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to address their regional transportation challenges. The compromise makes significant investments in bus and rail operations statewide, will generate long-needed new revenue for our overworked infrastructure, and protects transportation dollars in a โ€˜lockboxโ€™ so Virginians can be assured these new revenues will not be diverted to other purposes.”

    So, everybody’s happy. But the story’s not over. Better to say that the curtain has dropped on Act One and that it will soon rise for Act Two. The scene now shifts to the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads regions, to local governments and to the Virginia Department of Transportation. There are three major sets of issues.

    First, NoVa and Hampton Roads must empower regional transportation authorities to spend about half the new money to be raised. However, a majority of local governments must go along first, which guarantees debate in each locality over what it has to gain and lose from participating. Before that’s even possible, the legislation may have to survive challenges to its constitutionality. Leesburg Today reports that Supervisor Mick Staton, chairman of Loudoun’s Transportation/Land Use Committee, questions whether the regional transportation authority’s taxing powers are legal. “It’s something that needs to be taken seriously,” he said, adding that the board of supervisors “needs to be prepared to defend its citizens, in court if need be.”

    Second, about half the localities in the state will be required to establish Urban Development Areas, where growth, road improvements and infrastructure will be concentrated. That may require extensive changes to local comprehensive plans. Additionally, boards and councils of qualifying jurisdictions will have to consider the desirability of imposing transportation impact fees. That guarantees yet more debate.

    Third, VDOT has a new set of marching orders. More outsourcing, new metrics for rating road projects, reclassification of roads and possibly in some instances, devolution of responsibility for secondary roads to local governments.

    The transportation issue is far from over. Indeed, it’s about to ratchet up to a higher level intensity. Snap on your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be a wild ride.


  • Get Up, Stand Up

    National Review’s Jonah Goldberg takes to the pages of USA Today and asks where, oh where, the real conservative is in the GOP presidential field.

    It’s worth reading, if you’re curious. But he touches on another matter that is really far more important:

    The 2000 GOP convention’s theme was “Prosperity with a Purpose,” and in Bush’s acceptance speech he insisted that “American government was made for great purposes.” In some ways, Bush was ripping off Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was a homage to Teddy Roosevelt and the need for Americans to unite in a “cause greater than themselves.”

    And while the war gets most of the attention, it has hardly escaped notice that the president is a proud “big government conservative” championing everything from government-funded marriage counseling to a new prescription drug entitlement to the federal government’s intrusion into education.

    In 2003, Bush declared that “when somebody hurts, government has to move.” More recently, he explicitly rejected William F. Buckley’s dictum that conservatives should yell “Stop” to ever-expanding government, saying instead that he believes conservatives must “lead.” This makes for an interesting prologue to the 2008 election.

    Yes it does. More than the war, I think, the 2008 race will (or ought to be) a referendum on oxymoronic big government conservatism. In some ways, the seeds of that referendum are already sprouting. Some of the right are looking to bolt the GOP and focus their resources on changing the culture (good luck with that). The economic conservatives (and libertarians), too, are discontented. The explosive growth of the entitlement state under Bush, his surrender on the “Ownership Society” and the logrolling, pork barreling habits of the congressional wing of the party are making it more and more difficult for some of them to continue to lend their time, money and votes to the edifice George has built. Not a small portion of the GOP’s congressional losses could be placed on the doorsteps of these disillusioned factions.

    So far, the top tier choices in 2008 are, as Jim would say, a dog’s breakfast of would-be authoritarians, wing nuts (Tom Tancredo, call your office), and horses so dark they don’t even show up on radar.

    Some say the bold choice, the “dangerous” choice, is Newt. Yes, yes it would be dangerous. But the nation has probably had its fill of cads in the Oval Office, so he’s not exactly a wise choice.

    Fred Thompson? Okay, sure, he’d be a telegenic candidate. But is there anything inside that suit? I don’t know.

    My preferred candidate is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. But he’s not running. That leaves…just about no one.

    Maybe it’s time to go fishing.


  • In Virginia, Medicaid HMOs Are Working

    A rare piece of good news on the budgetary front. It looks like payments to Medicaid HMOs will plateau next year — a welcome respite from the 4-percent to 7-percent annual increases that have been typical in recent years.

    As David Ress reports for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, an outside consultant is crunching numbers to set the rates the state will pay next year to its Medicaid HMOs, who administer the taxpayer-funded program for the poor and disabled. Said Patrick W. Finnerty, director of the Department of Medical Assistance Services: “It’s not looking like we’re going to see the kind of increases we had been seeing; it looks like that is flattening.” Indeed, HMO profits are hefty enough that the state actually could order a cut in Medicaid HMO rates.

    The HMOs have cut expenses while improving quality by introducing programs such as preventative care for newborns, diabetes and asthma.

    What the story doesn’t tell us is what percentage of the total Medicaid budget the HMOs account for. If it’s a large percentage, Virginia can look forward to a slowdown in the increase in total Medicaid spending, one of the state’s main budget busters. If it’s a small percentage, then the Kaine administration should seek to extend the HMO concept to a broader cross-section of the population.


  • The Greening of Fairfax County

    Gerald E. Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, wants to make Fairfax County more green. In the “Cool Counties” initiative he launched two weeks ago, Connolly aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that result from automobile emissions and coal-fired power plants that generate electricity. He has taken on a formidable task.

    Fairfax County has an embedded infrastructure of buildings, roads and utilities — an investment worth hundreds of billions of dollars — built to serve automobility. Much of the development in th ecounty is scattered, disconnected, low density and energy inefficient. In describing Connolly’s challenge, Amy Gardner with the Washington Post hones in on the Fairfax County government complex as a monument to dysfunctional land use.

    The 670,000-square-foot government center, built in the early 1990s when energy prices were low and environmental consciousness even lower, could have anchored a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented community of homes, shops and jobs. “But,” Gardner writes, “the five-story mass of granite and glass, which rises squatly from an isolated, 86-acre sea of asphalt and lawn near Fair Oaks Mall, is suited to nothing of the sort. For years, critics have said the government center is an emblem of sprawl: far from Metrorail, sequestered by divided highways, intimidating to walkers and bicycle riders.”

    Of about 11,000 county employees, only 135 are known to use bus, rail or vanpools to get to work. The ratio is even smaller at the 2,900-parking-spot government center, where about 1,700 county workers are based. Gardner paints a word picture of an empty transit bus “creeping from shelter to shelter in a vain search for a rider. Not a single pedestrian was in view on the sidewalks and trails leading away from the building.”

    The “Cool Counties” initiative is designed to decrease government emissions of greenhouse gases by increasing the use of wind power, clean-burning vehicles and environmentally friendly building techniques. But Connolly concedes that it will take more than carbon fluorescent lightbulbs and hybrid cars to transform a government whose physical form, as Gardner puts it, “mirrors the expansive suburb it serves.”

    Connolly envisions a future in which the government center is surrounded by a more urban feel: affordable housing for county workers, more commerce and jobs — and even an extension of Metrorail along Interstate 66.

    Reading between the lines: The Greening of Fairfax County will require a built environment more hospitable to pedestrians and mass transit. And that will require the demolition and rebuilding of half the roads, buildings and utility infrastructure in the county. Even in the absence of political resistance and bureaucratic lethargy, that will take decades to complete. Connolly will not live long enough to see his vision fulfilled. But it’s accomplishment enough if he can get the process started.


  • Studying Illegal Immigration and Crime

    People have a lot of opinions about illegal immigration, but there’s precious little data to back up their views. That’s about to change in Virginia. The Virginia State Crime Commission, according to the Associated Press, is establishing a task force to study the effect of illegal immigration on the state’s criminal justice system.

    State lawmakers, frustrated with the federal government’s inaction on immigration reform, are taking on the issue. About 50 immigration-related bills were introduced during the 2007 General Assembly. “And each year, we still have almost no facts to base our decision upon,” said [Commission Chairman Kenneth Stolle, R-Virginia Beach].

    Virginia is home to an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 illegal immigrants. The crime commission will will examine crimes by and against those immigrants and tabulate the financial impact of those crimes.


  • Train a Grande Vitesse

    It’s not often that I give the French credit for anything other than their wine, but this is too good to ignore: A new train with a 250,000- horsepower engine and special wheels has broken the world speed record for conventional trains. Reaching 357.2 miles per hour on a 125-mile run between Paris and Strasbourg, the bullet train is exceeded in speed only by Japan’s magnetic levitating train. (Read the AP story.)

    Maybe the romance of the rails is suspending my capacity for critical thinking, but I think it would be surpassingly cool to link major East Coast cities in the United States with rail like this — even if it means importing the technology from one of the most anti-American countries on the planet. The speeds would be competitive with short airplane trips — and they could drop off passengers in city centers rather than airports on the metropolitan periphery. Think about it — from downtown Richmond to downtown Washington, downtown Norfolk or downtown Raleigh in less than an hour!

    Of course, I have absolutely no idea what it would cost to upgrade the rail lines to accommodate such a train — the number is probably frighteningly high. But it might make a good long-term investment if we consider the projected rates of increase in electricity vs. aviation fuel. Electricity has its drawbacks, as I’ve blogged here frequently, but I’ll take a home-grown coal- and nuclear-powered energy source over an imported fuel dependent upon the vagaries of international politics any day. The usual caveat applies: All such projects must offer a competitive Return on Investment compared to other potential transportation projects.

  • Kaine Backs Green Measures in Electric Rereg Bill

    On the subject of electric reregulation (see previous post), it’s going to happen whether we like it or not. Last week Gov. Timothy M. Kaine implicitly endorsed the framework of the electric reregulation bill passed by the General Assembly, although he did amend it to promote conservation and renewable fuels. According to the Governor’s website, his amendments would:

    • Give the State Corporation Commission more authority to consider keeping Virginiaโ€™s electricity costs competitive with other southeastern states when setting rates
    • Double the conservation and efficiency goal for Virginiaโ€™s electric utilities
    • Continue green-power tariffs for Virginiaโ€™s consumers and strengthen provisions for renewable energy use
    • Create more incentives for clean electricity generation
    • Provide faster refunds to utility customers
    • Provide additional flexibility for industrial and commercial consumers to use competitive electricity providers.

    Said Kaine: โ€œMy primary goals in amending this bill were to ensure that appropriate consumer protection measures were in place to keep Virginiansโ€™ electric rates among the lowest in the country, and to ensure that electric companies have incentives to conserve energy, produce cleaner energy, and take other steps to protect the environment.”

    I agree with Kaine’s big themes and priorities. But, frankly, I haven’t had a chance to delve into the details of how he proposes to achieve them. I’m crossing my fingers and hoping these amendments constitute a genuine improvement to the original bill.


  • Is Virginia Dumping Electric Deregulation When It Can Finally Do Some Good?

    I’m less than impressed with the quality of thinking brought to bear on the issue of electric deregulation and reregulation in Virginia. Deregulation of the electric power industry in Virginia, almost everyone has concluded, was a failure. The question that no one deems worthy of asking is this: Why was deregulation a failure?

    Could it be that “deregulation” is a misnomer? Consider the fact that when Dominion, the state’s largest power company, “deregulated” in 1999, it did so on the condition that its rates remain frozen for 10 years, with some exceptions for fuel costs. Is it possible that potential competitors were scared off by the knowledge that Virginia’s electric rates, already lower than the national average to begin with, would not increase for 10 years? Who would want to compete under those conditions?

    Here’s what else proponents of reregulation are not considering: “Deregulation” coincided with a period of time when Dominion did not need to build any new base-line power plants. The utility was able to import cheaper electricity over electric transmission lines from the Midwest. But that source of power can no longer be counted upon to accommodate future demand growth in Virginia. Dominion plans to embark upon a multi-billion dollar construction program to build its own power plants. “Reregulation” will ensure that Dominion has the field to itself: It doesn’t have to compete with outsiders to add that capacity.

    Another baneful effect of regulation, argues Jerry Ellig, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is that it will inhibit innovative pricing policies that could promote conservation. Writes Ellig in the Times-Dispatch today:

    Competition could facilitate dynamic pricing options that would vary retail electricity prices as the cost of producing electricity changes over the course of the day. Like cell-phone plans that offer free night and weekend minutes, dynamic electricity pricing would let consumers save money by moving some of their electricity use to times when electricity is cheap to produce, such as late at night.

    With less electricity demanded at “peak” times, fewer new power plants would be needed, and prices would be lower.”

    “Transparent price signals that better reflect the actual cost of power give consumers incentives to seek out novel products and services that better enable them to manage their own energy choices,” notes Lynne Kiesling, a lecturer in economics at Northwestern University who has studied dynamic pricing experiments around the nation.

    Don’t expect that kind of innovative proposal from monopoly utilities. Forced to charge the same price all day, regardless of cost, they can increase their profits only by selling more electricity and building more power plants.

    Electricity markets have changed in unanticipated ways since Virginia passed its restructuring legislation, so some regulatory changes may be necessary. But with higher prices all but certain, it makes little sense to abort consumers’ right to choose.


  • Party Poopers

    So my first BR column is up. And of course, there’s a lot more I’d like to add to it.

    Like a different photo of me. One where I don’t look like Garrison Keillor’s bastard son.

    But more to the point, after doing some additional reading on conservatives and their discontents, I stumbled across this passage in Ryan Sager’s “The Elephant in the Room.” It adds some additional, and not entirely complimentary, light on the various and several pouts of Richard Vigeurie:

    In the years before the organization of the Evangelicals, a related group of conservatives, known as the New Right, had been seeking political fortune. Led in part by direct-mail pioneer Richard Vigeurie, this band became extremely dissatisfied with the Republican Party after Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s choice of Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. They were so mad, in fact, that they agitated openly for a social-conservative alliance with the Democratic Party, or for conservative Democrats to join conservative Republicans in starting a third party.

    Their agitation fell apart when Ronald Reagan said “no.”

    So the latest Vigeurie, et al, stirring is in many ways just a 30 year old retread. But there are some critical differences this time, the most glaring of which is someone of Reagan’s stature to talk people off the ledge. For all their other attributes, Rudy, John, Mitt and the rest just don’t have the same hold on the conservative imagination. And folks like Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and, yes, our own Jim Gilmore may have “it” to a very small degree. But the chances of any of them becoming the GOP nominee — let alone one that galvanizes conservatives nationwide — are on the wrong side of none.

    Who could be that shining, Reaganite knight? George Allen was supposed to be the one, but instead of the Gipper, we got Bill Buckner. Fred Thompson? Well, he’s pretty smooth with a teleprompter. But he’s not in (yet). And what of (libertarian) internet darling Ron Paul?

    Not going to happen.

    Until that magic someone appears who can calm the angry conservative beast, unite its warring factions under a single banner and sound an optimistic message for the future, conservatives will either become more disconnected from the GOP and thus eager to form a long-threatened “third force” or…they may simply back away from politics entirely.

    They should pack along a copy of “Waiting for Godot,” just in case.