Bacon's Rebellion

The state Senate has approved a budget that strips out a major taxes-for-transportation provision that had bogged down talks with the House of Delegates. The chances are vastly improved that the Senate and House can agree upon a budget for fiscal 2007-2008 without triggering a government shutdown. Assuming that compromise is now attainable, what’s next for transportation?

My sense is that the terms of debate have decisively shifted. The logic of the situation dictates that legislators’ focus will move from “how do we pay for more roads and rail?” to “how do we encourage motorists to drive less?”

The Senate leadership, backed by the Warner and Kaine administrations, narrowly defined traffic congestion as a matter of insufficient transportation capacity. The solution: Raise revenues to increase capacity. The ultimate expression of this thinking was the VTrans2025 report published by the Warner administration, which asserted that the state faced a funding shortfall of $108 billion over the next 20 years — an average of $5.4 billion a year. That document was predicated upon the assumption that the state would match increases in travel demand with construction of new capacity, either roads or rail. But Senate proposals to increase taxes by roughly $1 billion a year would have fallen far short. According to the Senate’s own calculus, the sum was a mere fraction of what was needed.

The irrefutable conclusion is that Virginia’s transportation policy — the policy that has guided the state for a half century or more — is broken. Sustaining the current policy framework requires massive sums of money that the political system is not willing to disgorge. There is no escaping the necessity to re-think transportation from top to bottom.

The first assumption that must be abandoned is what Ed Risse refers to as the “Private Vehicle Mobility Myth,” the notion that individuals have a right to drive wherever they want, whenever they want, in their own private cars, without suffering the inconveniences of congestion. In Virginia, that myth has run off the road and slammed into the brick wall of tax resistance.

The second assumption that must be abandoned is the idea that a transportation policy geared toward cheap fuel is practical, or even desirable, in an era of moderately priced fuel, never mind in an era of expensive fuel. Long commutes are one thing when gasoline sells at $1 per gallon and quite another when it sells for $3 gallon. As drivers change their behavior, transportation policy must adapt.

Instead of feeding the driving “habit” — the average Vehicle Miles Driven per licensed driver has increased 70 percent over the past 25 years — by continuously adding to capacity, it is clearer than ever that the Commonwealth must devise policies that enable people to drive less. In other words, it’s time to beginning managing transportation demand. And that means, above all else, changing the scattered, disconnected, low-density pattern of development that has prevailed in Virginia since the 1950s, and gotten increasingly worse with each passing decade.

If the Senate and the Kaine administration want to devise a “stable, long-term solution” to Virginia’s transportation woes, then land use reform is where they must start. The laws enacted in 2006 represent a positive step forward but only a tentative one. Much more needs to be done.

Bob Holsworth, Virginia Commonwealth University’s oft-quoted observer of Virginia politics, has been promoted to dean of VCU’s College of Humanities and Sciences. He had been serving as director of the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs and director of the Center for Public Policy.

As appreciated as Holsworth is for his political commentary, he is even more respected for his skills as an academic administrator. At VCU he oversaw the merging of four distinct but related disciplines — government & politics, urban planning, criminal justice and public administration — into a unified interdisciplinary program. He also helped launch VCU’s B.A. degree program in Homeland Security, the nation’s first.

I don’t imagine that Holsworth will have the time to follow Virginia politics as closely as he has been. His sober analysis will be missed.

(This news is a few days old. If other bloggers have picked it up already, my apologies for failing to give credit. I’m still catching up after my bout with the flu.)

The anticipated closing of the Ford Motor Co. plant in Norfolk was back in the news today. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Mayor Paul D. Fraim met with leaders of the United Auto Workers to brainstorm on the future of the plant’s 2,275 workers. (Read the Virginian-Pilot story here.)

How important is the closing of the Ford plant? Consider this point of comparison: The 15 plant expansion/relocation announcements made by the Kaine administration so far are expected to create new 1,882 jobs. (See the Virginia Economic Development Partnership website.) More than four months of industrial recruiting work canceled out by one plant closing.

There is nothing that the Kaine administration could have done to save the Norfolk jobs; the plant closing was based on internal Ford considerations. But the continued loss of manufacturing jobs in Virginia is a real possibility. Thus it came as a disappointment to read in the Richmond Times-Dispatch Saturday that Kaine had vetoed a measure to provide some modest tax relief to the manufacturing sector.

Local governments collect an estimated $194 million a year in machinery and tool taxes in 2005. A bill supported by the Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) would have reduced the length of time from 12 months to three that machinery had to stand idle before it could be exempted from the tax. R.J. “Buddy” Klotz, a VMA board member and founder of Electromagnetics Inc., of Ashland, said that the structure of the tax hurts companies’ abilities to adjust to changing market conditions. Kaine sided with local governments, which worried about the potential impact on municipal revenues.

The state offers millions of dollars a year in “incentives” to attract manufacturing business. The Kaine administration would be well served to think about what it takes to keep manufacturers here. No one wants to see any more closings on the scale of Norfolk’s Ford plant.

FREDERICKSBURG, Va., May 23 (Christian Newswire). The Fredericksburg City Council has told the Rev. Hashmeal Turner that he is not allowed to pray in the “Name of Jesus,” at City Council meetings.

There will be a vigil on Tuesday, May 23, at 7:00 P.M., in front of the Fredericksburg, Virginia, City Hall building ( 715 Princess Anne Street).

The Rev. Hashmeal Turner filed an historic federal lawsuit against the City of Fredericksburg arguing that his First Amendment rights are being violated.

This marks the first time a lawsuit of this nature has been filed in federal court.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, comments, “We are gathering in support of the Rev. Hashmeal Turner’s right to pray according to his own faith tradition. No one should be told how they are to pray by civil authorities. The First Amendment affords every American the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and faith practice. By denying Councilman Turner the right to pray in the ‘Name of Jesus,’ the City of Fredericksburg is crushing the principles of religious freedom and liberty. Both are cornerstones of a free and open society.”

I look forward to a legal victory for free speech as this works its way through the courts.

Seventeen students arrested during in a “sit in” at the University of Virginia president’s office have been found not guilty by Judge Robert H. Downer Jr., of the Charlottesville General District Court. The judge’s rationale: They were not given enough time to leave the building before their arrest.

What’s going on here? Does the People’s Republic of Charlottesville operate by a different set of laws than the rest of the Commonwealth?

Demanding that UVa President John Casteen pay “a living wage” to the university’s lowest-paid employees, the students held a sit-in in the lobby of Casteen’s office in Madison Hall. Casteen gave the students numerous opportunities to leave without being arrested. On day one of the protest, university authorities denied food to the students; on day two, they cut off wireless access. Then before the arrests, according to Carlos Santos’ account in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, Leonard W. Sandridge Jr., UVa’s chief operating officer, read a statement giving them five minutes to leave.

But Judge Downer said the students had less than five minutes before they were arrested by UVa police. Santos quoted Downer as follows: “It didn’t appear to me that anybody was going to leave … But that time (five minutes) had not elapsed.”

What does that have to do with anything? Did the students trespass, or did they not? Were they there illegally, or were they not? How is it even remotely relevant that, after occupying the lobby for two days, they were given less than the promised five minutes to leave?

There may be considerations omitted from Santos’ story, so I am willing to modify my statements in the light of additional information. But based on the facts presented, Downer comes across like some radical lefty judge from California who bases his ruling on personal whim, not the law. I hope this ruling is not typical. Do any of our readers know anything about Downer?

Yesterday was an absolutely gorgeous day for graduation. Grand day for all. When the odd balloons carried by students to help family find them in the crowd of black robes and bright faces were let go, they soared into the breezy, bright, blue sky. The Lawn was beautiful.

Glad to see the Colors applauded and saluted when they came forward. Shared the Pledge and National Anthem with thousands, not expecting either, but not knowing, really, what would be observed. This was my first graduation at The University.

Gov. Timothy Kaine’s speech was expertly delivered. I can see why many non-ideological voters would be quite taken with him. His positive personality came through in a very natural, engaging way.

His speech was good. I was so grateful it wasn’t some political junk. The Governor spoke on the theme of 400 years of Virginia’s celebration – yes, celebration. The graduates were encouraged to seek adventure, discovery and surprise like the original colonists.

Gov. Kaine touched on the big ideas in establishing and expanding the freedoms of the English-speaking Peoples in Virginia with their complexity without the Liberal pandering. Well done.

He mentioned the selfless service of graduates in teaching, the Peace Corps and Foreign Service, but forgot to add the selfless, dangerous service of the ROTC graduates going into the Armed Services.

President Casteen closed with one obligatory, Liberal comment about racial diversity. But, he finished with the stirring words, even though we may interpret them differently, of individual rights, freedom, the Rule of Law and the Republic.

My daughter, Maggie Kyle Bowden, graduated with a degree in English. She starts a marketing job in Atlanta on 1 July. So thrilled to share our joy and pride with her.

Thus, ends 11 years of my family having a kid on campus in Virginia universities. We may grow to miss I-64. Or not. The school loans will be paid in another 10 years.

Wah-hoo-wah!

Gleaned the dialogue (both the online and offline) generated by the column “The Problem with ‘Mass’ Transit” are the following observations:

It is important to keep in mind several axioms that can be distilled from the principles found in The Shape of the Future:

• Limiting citizen’s access erodes quality of life, eliminating the need for a vehicle to achieve access enhances quality of life.

• Eliminating the ability to make trips erodes citizen’s quality of life, eliminating the necessity of making vehicle trips (except for joy-rides and touring places like Tuscany, Bavaria and the Alsace) enhances quality of life.

• Shared-vehicles are more efficient and provide access to more destinations than private vehicles due to the space required to move and park private vehicles.

• Shared-vehicles can support a much higher flux and diversity of the sort of places that citizens need and want to be, Autonomobility disaggregates origins and destinations of vehicle trips and thus creates dysfunctional settlement patterns.

• Balanced Communities create places where citizens are already where they want and need to be.

It is also important to understand as documented in our three columns on settlement patterns starting with “Wild Abandonment” 8 Sept 2003 at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com that:

• The market values on property in the Untied States demonstrate without fail that citizens most highly value those places that meet the criteria for viable components of Balanced Communities.
• Citizens are willing to pay far more for functional places on a square foot basis than for places that required vehicle trips to get everywhere they want or need to be.
• Viewed from the perspective of maintaining a democracy with a market economy, desirable mobility options are far different than when viewed from the perspective of traditional transportation agencies geared to providing a vehicle (private or shared) for every desired trip.
• Business-As-Usual makes money from building and running big, expensive vehicles (private or shared) and the systems to support them. BAUI agents never fail to attack any alternative.

It will require a broad understanding of these axioms and relationships before citizens can move beyond providing for homes, places to work and places to seek services, recreation and amenity for Jim Bacon’s Pod People.

Also note the “Housewatch” column by Katherine Salant on page F 5 (Real Estate Section) in the Saturday 20 May WaPo. “Today’s Housing Model Is Unsustainable for the Long Haul.” Now that the builders of houses in dysfunctional locations are desperate to advertise, WaPo can run this sort of column without fear of the advertisers boycotting the paper. Look for BAUI agents to attack.

EMR

I returned from Charlottesville Sunday, where Honorable Daughter No.1 graduated from the University of Virginia. I had accumulated several bloggable observations, which I had hoped to post this morning. But I’ve been laid low by a nasty virus. I’ll return to blogging as soon as I am able.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine wants to add another $300 million to out-of-control spending on K-12 education by creating a universal pre-school program for four-year-olds. He has appointed a Strong Start Pre-K Council to oversee development of the programs. (See the Richmond Times-Dispatch story here.)

Kaine appears to be willing to invest significant political capital into launching this program. Predictably, he will generate a lot of opposition. Writing for the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine late last year, Chris Braunlich evinced skepticism in his column, “Does ‘Universal Pre-K’ Work?” Today, the Times-Dispatch editorial page sounded similar themes.

Color me skeptical — but open to persuasion. We have eight months until the next General Assembly session. Both sides cite social scientific research in support of their arguments. There’s no excuse for not giving that research a thorough airing.

Virginia needs more conversations like the one sponsored by the Prince William Council of 100 yesterday. The Council invited four speakers representing distinct perspectives to participate in a roundtable discussion about transportation.

The speakers included Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer; Speaker of the House William Howell, R-Stafford; Coalition for Smarter Growth Director Stewart Schwartz; and development attorney Patrick McSweeney. What a great line-up!

The speakers didn’t reach a consensus, the Gaineville Times observes, but at least they “exhibited none of the anger that has been characteristic of the transportation debate in Richmond.” Hey, it’s a start.

The big transportation story played up by the Washington Post yesterday was the dedication of the first of two drawbridges in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which will expand the capacity of Interstate 95 across the Potomac River. I’m sure that’s exciting news to commuters, who have to wait only three more weeks for the long-awaited span to finally open. But the important transportation news — important in the sense that it may presage changes to Business As Usual — was buried in a two-paragraph insert in the Fairfax County Times.

Addressing the Dulles Area Transportation Association, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced a regional pilot program that will use Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties as a testing ground for Senate Bill 699. That bill, which will officially go into effect in 2007, allows localities to submit rezoning and comprehensive plan changes to VDOT staff for an analysis of the transportation impact. The idea is to alert local governments when growth resulting from proposed zoning changes would overwhelm local transportation facilities.

The law is the first tentative step toward linking transportation and land use planning. The Kaine administration has picked a good place to start: Much of the new growth in Washington New Urban Region is funneling into the Loudoun/Prince William area where the transportation infrastructure clearly does not exist to accommodate it. VDOT analysis will no doubt confirm what everyone already knows. Now we will be able to put numbers on the problem.

What the new law cannot do is tell us what to do with the information. Should Loudoun and Prince William impose growth controls, which might funnel growth to outlying localities even less prepared to handle it? Should they institute crash campaigns to build more roads, as Prince William appears to be doing? Or… and long-time readers knew this was coming… should the state acknowledge that one way to accommodate growth is to allow the Washington New Urban Region to grow up, by means of greater density in core municipalities, so it is not forced to grow out?

Del. Mark L. Cole, representing parts of Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fauquier counties, tells this story in a recent General Assembly update:

I recently ran into a situation that kind of highlights the need for reform in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). A neighborhood in my district wanted to get no through truck restrictions on their neighborhood streets in place. Keep in mind that this is a subdivision neighborhood and not a major highway or street. They went through the process of getting petitions signed, getting approval of the county Board of Supervisors, and the regional VDOT office. However, the signs still have not been posted and the restriction is not in place.

When I asked VDOT what the hold-up was they said that the request had been sent to the Commissioner of VDOT in Richmond for final approval. Why does the Commissioner need to approve a restriction on a neighborhood street? What value or insight can he provide for a neighborhood that he has probably never even seen? This is just a small example of the bureaucratic nature of VDOT and why they tend to be inefficient and slow in getting things done.

Good question: Why does approval for a neighborhood sign need to be approved by the VDOT commissioner?

Follow-up question: What important issues are not being considered as a result of the commissioner being inundated with this level of detail?

Virginia has a strong economy and a budget surplus now but faces major fiscal challenges ahead, warns Secretary of Finance Jody M. Wagner. Speaking to the Hampton Roads Tax Forum, Wagner offered a two-pronged argument: (1) that much of the state’s surging revenue comes from volatile sources such as corporate income taxes, capital gains and real estate recordation taxes that may not be sustainable; and (2) a new accounting standards will require state and local governments to report retirement liabilities differently. Funding for the Virginia Retirement System, she said, is only 82 to 85 percent of where it needs to be. And, of course, there’s the Medicaid bugaboo that continues to consume an ever-larger share of the budget.

Wagner apparently did not draw any policy implications — at least nothing mentioned by Tom Shean, the Virginian-Pilot reporter who covered the speech. But that hasn’t stopped a number of pundits from sounding the klaxon of imminent fiscal disaster unless Virginia raises taxes, preferably for the cause du jour, transportation.

Prudence dictates that Virginia base future spending plans upon cautious budget forecasts. Better to enjoy a surplus than suffer a deficit. But prudence likewise dictates that Virginia not increase taxes, as it did in 2004, in anticipation of deficits that may or may not materialize in the future. If the fiscal situation deteriorates, it makes more sense to deal with the situation then as it is — not now, as we think it might be.

Several comments on our PRT column “The Trouble With ‘Mass’ Transit” have been posted under the headings “Partial to PRT” and “Grab Your Flintlock…” below. Others have been sent directly to S/PI. As is usually the case, the most thoughtful comments both pro and con come from those who send us information directly.

(This is an interesting comment on the value and impact of Blogging which we will explore in a future column.)

One especially good critique by a professional who is actually developing a PRT system lists a number of additional sources and perspectives. We will not expose him to PRT Loonies but are forwarding his thoughts to those who are serious about the topic.

The last issue that is clouding the future of PRTs which we raised in “The Trouble With ‘Mass’ Transit as a was that the topic of PRTs is a “MAGNET FOR LOONIES.”

It turns that in 1956 the leaders of what we call the Autonomobility Lobby (automobiles, oil, rubber, concrete, asphalt, steel, land speculation, large lot urban home building, Realtors, lawyers and other agents of all stripes.) sat around their square table and adopted a Profit Finding:

“We have now eliminated interurbans and trolleys, decimated passenger rail service and put trucks on the road to eroding freight rail service. The Interstate Defense Highway system is now rolling with a dedicated funding source. The next priority is to establish a clandestine institution that lies in wait to discredit any idea that might challenge the private-vehicle system upon which the “American Dream” (aka, the “American Consumption Nightmare”) and our future revenue stream is based.”

The rest is history. The resulting Business-As-Usual Institute (BAUI) has adopted hard-to-trace but effective diversions. For instance, if a group insists on the need for “mass transit” they are steered toward inefficient 19th century systems. Much of the cost of BAUI is covered by excess profits from the sale of automobiles, imported petroleum and from contracts to study mobility and access dysfunction and to design and build “solutions.” See notes on Raytheon / Rosemont, ILL. and on PUBLIC PORK AND PRIVATE PAYOLA in “The Trouble With ‘Mass’ Transit.”

We open our column “What is Wrong With ‘Mass’ Transit,” with the observation that “the failure of mass transit” is a favorite way to champion Autonomobility projects. For an example of how BAUI agents spin the “failure” of “mass transit” to sell road construction, HOT Lanes or other ideas see the 10 May posting “Walker Pours Withering Scorn…”

Contrary to what Chris Walker suggests, without METRO there would be absolute gridlock in the National Capital Subregion because of the focus of jobs near the Centroid. Using the percent of total trips as a metric to minimize the impact of METRO is a Bright Red Herring. BAUI has a monopoly on the fabrication and importation Red Herring of all shades.

Over the past few years, S/PI has become keenly aware of the actions of BAUI. As readers of Bacon’s Rebellion know, BAUI agents are trained to attack any suggestion that functional human settlement patterns can be created. This is because of the direct link between these patterns and efficient shared-vehicle systems in large New Urban Regions.

After extensive research it turns out the existence of BAUI is well documented and can be understood by deciphering the Norman Rockwell Code.

Because agents are equipped with the latest data mining technology and “PRT” sets off their system alarms we shall henceforth call the PRT systems “Non-Stop Shared-Vehicle Systems with Off-Line Stations” This phrase will trigger a clear Neural Linguistic Framework which should be as effective as “Ben and George’s Kiwi Downunder Strategy” is for property taxation. By the time BAUI moves to discredit the concept, citizens will already be aware of the importance of “Non-Stop Shared-Vehicle Systems with Off-Line Stations” – NSSVSOLS for short.

EMR

While the Roanoke Times editorial page displayed signs of thinking outside the box this morning (see previous post, “Roanoke Roundabouts”), the same cannot be said of the Newport News Daily Press, which is stuck in a rut: raging against its favorite target, House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, on the topic of its favorite excuse for raising taxes, transportation.

Howell, states the Daily Press editorial writer: “has held his Republican majority in the House of Delegates together, refused to consider new revenue sources, thumbed his nose at the governor’s entreaties and, now, the state Senate may very well throw in the towel and pass a budget that includes meager new transportation support.”

Let’s deconstruct that statement.

“Refused to consider new revenue sources...” Wrong, just plain wrong. Howell has not “refused to consider new revenue sources” — he’s merely refused to consider the revenue sources — new taxes — that the Daily Press is so enamored of. Howell has backed the idea of public private partnerships that issue bonds backed by tolls. He has backed the idea of privatizing revenue-generating pieces of the transportation system to raise funds to be invested elsewhere. He has backed raising fines on “traffic abusers” and devoting the proceeds to transportation. He has carved out dedicated revenue streams from the General Fund to back the issurance of bonds. And that list doesn’t include using the state surplus in the next biennial budget, like the last, for transportation.

(There are legitimate grounds for criticizing Howell’s approach to transportation, but not for reasons that the Daily Press would recognize. The Speaker, like the state senators whose fiscally outrageous spending plans he opposes, seems stuck in the mindset that the way to address traffic congestion is to match every increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled with an expansion of capacity. Howell would be well advised to pay more attention to the need for fundamental land use reforms, not the tinkering-on-the-edge reforms that have come out of this year’s session, and other strategies for moderating the relentless increase in travel demand.)

“thumbed his nose at the Governor’s entreaties…” If that characterization is apt, then it is fair to say that the Governor has “thumbed his nose” at Howell’s entreaties as well. I haven’t noticed any indication yet that the Governor is any more willing to compromise on transportation funding than the House is.

“the senate may very well throw in the towel and pass a budget that includes meager new transportation support…” Throw in the towel? That’s an interesting description for the Senate’s recognition that it should stop holding a figurative gun to Howell’s head by embedding the 2007-2008 budget with tax increases. Rest assured, had Howell tried a similar strong-armed legislative tactic in the absence of a consensus, the Daily Press would be crying bloody murder.

Note to the Daily Press: The transportation debate has left you in the dust. Virginia’s Business-As-Usual transportation policy is coming under wider and wider assault. You’re like the last Tyrannosaurus bellowing about the meteor strike while the mammals get on with taking over.