Bacon's Rebellion

While political maneuvers swirling around transportation taxes garner the newspaper headlines, some members of the General Assembly are quietly working to address critical issues that shape the transportation debate: the financing of roads, schools and other public improvements through proffers and impact fees.

In a letter addressed to key industry and conservation groups, House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, has outlined some of the key issues. Writes Howell:

It is fair to say that members of [the House of Delegates] understand and are sympathetic with industry concerns about housing affordability and the affects of the current cash proffer system. Members also recognize, however, that local governments may have few alternatives to replace the cash proffer payments they are now receiving, and that any change in the existing proffer system must therefore provide an effective avenue to meet infrastructure requirements. Further, the ongoing strain on existing infrastructure and land conservation efforts caused by increased sprawl bring additional challenges to the table which, in my opinion, must be a part of any solution.

Howell notes that the House Rules Committee voted to widen the scope of a two-year study on proffer reform to encompass the larger set of issues. He continues:

To be truly successful, I believe the outcome of the discussions should recognize what the General Assembly was trying to accomplish when it passed the forward-looking land-use portions of the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007 (House Bill 3202), which I patroned last year. Specifically, we charted a new way forward toward more efficient and compact growth management, which preserves open space outside of designated urban development areas. Virginia state law and public policy now embraces the fact that neither the state nor local governments can afford to continue development practices of the past that sometimes resulted in unbridled sprawl.

Howell is clearly on the right track, although he hasn’t quiiiiite stretched his thinking as far as it needs to go. Not only should proffers and impact fees be considered in the large context of land use and governance structure, so should transportation funding. But he appears to be light-miles ahead of Virginia’s other political heavy weights.

Sadly, Gov. Kaine, who once campaigned on making the transportation-land use connection, appears to have abandoned the cause. Sen. Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax, has no discernible interest in the issue. Howell may be Virginia’s only hope.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and members of the General Assembly haven’t yet said publicly where they expect to raise more money for transportation, but there’s little doubt about one thing: Wherever the money comes from, more of it will go to light and heavy rail than in the past.

I happen to be agnostic on the great rail-versus-road debate. I just want Virginia’s transportation dollars to be invested to the greatest effect possible, as measured by objective criteria such as mobility provided, pollution reduced and traffic congestion mitigated. If that means building dirt paths for foot-powered scooters, then I’m OK with it.

What worries me is that a lot of people regard commuter rail as an end to itself — regardless of the cost or benefits. In theory, light rail passenger trains can move many people as eight lanes of freeway. That’s why rail buffs often advocate running light rail lines down the center of freeways in preference to adding more lanes of asphalt. In the real world, though, rail traffic can be constrained by people’s ability to get to the train stations, and a host of other factors.

Writing for the Independent Institute website, John Semmens quotes a Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center study that evaluated several alternatives: HOV lanes, HOT lanes, general purpose (GP) lanes and light rail. AzDOT calculated the cost per person-mile for each. The conclusion: HOT lanes that accommodate Bus Rapid Transit have the lowest cost.

I would hope that Virginia does similar cost-benefit calculations when transportation dollars are allocated. If such comparisons exist for, say, the Dulles Corridor or the I-95 corridor, I haven’t seen them. Maybe advocates of greater investments in rail can point to studies like Arizona’s in their support. But then, maybe the decision to shift money from road to rail has been made on a purely political basis, whether to garner favorable headlines, curry favor with particular interest groups or some reason unknown.

If the rail-versus-road studies are out there, I would surely love to see them. Someone please tell me where to find them.

TysonsTunnel.org, the organization that vocally supported an underground Metro Rail line through Tysons Corner, is out of money. The group was a major player in the debate over the heavy rail project. One reason it maintained such a high profile is that it spent more than $3 million on marketing and advocacy. Most most of that money came from WestGroup, reports Amy Gardner with the Washington Post.

Trouble is, WestGroup, the value of whose landholdings on the proposed Metro route would have been maximized by underground stations, has provided no money to the group for a year, and senior executives are happy to see the heavy rail project moving forward. Further controversy would only slow the project down, and WestGroup would rather see it built aboveground than not at all.

Founder Scott Monett is still fighting the good fight, however, calling for a rally later this month to revive the debate and raise money. I’ll be interested to see what level of interest he can generate.

Even more, I’d love to know all the money spent on advocacy, lobbying and lawsuits in Rail-to-Dulles. I wish someone would do a nose count of all the special interest groups mobilized to promote one view or another, and then add up the total funds expended. As aside exercise, I wish someone would add up all the groups organized to represent the interests of Dulles Toll Road commuters… Oh, I forgot, that’s easy. No one represents the toll road commuters. Their job is just to pay their money every day and sit quietly in the corner.

Dilemma: Development and traffic are increasing along portions of Rt. 15 in Loudoun County. The two-lane highway, which runs through woods and farmland, is one of the most picturesque in Virginia. How does one accommodate higher volumes of traffic at busy interchanges like Gilbert’s Corner (where U.S. 15 intersects with Rt. 50) without building obtrusive and land-consuming interchanges?

Roundabouts. At least, that’s the hope. The footprint of the roundabout is considerably smaller than that of conventional interchanges. They’re safer: Crashes tend to be sideswipes, not t-bones. And they’re less expensive to build — $16 million, compared to an estimated $70 million at Gilbert’s Corner. The roundabout at that intersection, for which construction has just begun, will increase the traffic capacity of the existing roads significantly — some roundabouts can handle up to 50,000 cars per day — though not as much as an interchange would.

Says Peter Schwartz, co-chairman of the Rt. 50 Task Force: “This is a process that started many, many years ago. It focused on the great effort of moving traffic while still maintaining the history of the area. This project really is an example of what a community can do when it takes an active role in transportation planning.”

Leesburg Today has the story. Here’s the VDOT page on other traffic-calming measures along Rt. 50.

Supporters of the Rail-to-Dulles Metro project are in ecstasy over the apparent reversal by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters over federal funding for the first leg of the project. Judging from the Washington Post, however, the switch looks more like a triumph of political pressure rather than a dispassionate re-evaluation of the facts.

Grassroots pressure was intense. As the Post reports, members of the Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce deluged state and federal officials with thousands of faxes and emails daily. There can be little doubt either that members of Virginia’s congressional delegation twisted arms. As Sen. Jim Webb states in a press release: “I intend to continue to work closely with my colleagues in Congress and in Virginia government … toward a successful outcome for the Dulles rail extension project.” (My italics.) U.S. Representatives Tom Davis and Frank Wolf have been hectoring the Bush administration as well.

I have no idea if Ed Risse is right in his surmise that the Bushies backtracked to provide political cover for Wolf, whose congressional district is trending Democratic, while leaving themselves an out so they can kill the project later. But it’s a reasonable hypothesis.

Our blogger friend Too Many Taxes has provided a copy of the letter that Peters sent to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, which provides some insight into what’s going on. Without question the feds have left themselves two gigantic loopholes should they choose to spike the project at a later date.

On the positive side, Peters wrote:

As a result of the collaboration between Federal and State officials, the project sponsor and other stakeholders, the financial stability and oversight of the Project has improved. Cost reductions have been verified, and mechanisms have been established to enhance inter-organizational cooperation, technical capacity and project management.

But the transportation secretary pointed to two issues that still could derail the project. One of those concerns — belabored on this blog, I might add — is the financial condition of the Metropolitan Washington Area Transit Authority, which would operate the rail service. Writes Peters: “I want to re-emphasize the importance of the upkeep and maintenance of the existing system. WMATA recently identified $489 million in urgent unfunded capital needs over the next 6 years over and above its current capital funding plan.” Here’s the poison pill:

I am asking your office, WMATA and members of the WMATA jurisdictions to commit to undertake the required steps to guarantee the significant capital rehabilitation necessary for the overall system to enter into and maintain a good state of repair. These steps should include … identifying and committing funds for the first year of those needs.

Think about that: Washington area jurisdictions have fallen $489 million behind in capital funding for the Metro system. It would be a political miracle if they simply stopped falling farther behind. Under current fiscal circumstances — the state tapped out much of its borrowing capacity when it approved the latest round of higher-education bonds — actually making up the difference would be a herculean achievement.

Peters’ other concern was the risk that, during a period of increasing inflation in the construction sector, the project could experience massive cost overruns. “We believe that the Project still represents substantial risk to the taxpayers,” she wrote the governor, “and we urge you to continue efforts to reduce exposure and transfer risk from the public to the private sector.”

Again, Peters was expressing a legitimate concern. But how is the Kaine administration supposed to mitigate risks at this advanced stage of the project? Reopen contract negotiations with the construction contractors, Bechtel and the Washington Group? Given ongoing construction inflation — an Associated General Contractors of America report notes that price increases are greatest in the “highway and street” and “heavy” construction categories — Bechtel/Washington Group is less likely to respond with concessions than with demands to raise the price of its bid or to shift risks back to the state! Peters has put the Kaniacs between a rock and a hard place indeed.

On the other hand, the feds signaled these concerns a long time ago, and the Chamber boosters, Virginia’s congressional delegation and the Kaine administration have bulled ahead despite the warning signs. I’ll leave the last word with state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, who wins my vote for best quote of the day: “It’s the greatest tragedy for taxpayers in a long time. It’s going to suck down every available transportation dollar that comes within its gravitational pull.”