Author: Joe Wisniewski

Strategies Detailed to Remedy DC’s Affordable-Housing Crisis

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

Lack of affordable housing is an unintended consequence of a region’s success, and can certainly be seen in the Washington D.C. metro area.

As the public demand for walkable neighborhoods has increased, low- to moderate-income residents are being priced out of those neighborhoods. And unfortunately, the public policy regarding housing affordability in the United States remains “drive until you qualify.”

Thus began Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institution at a recent seminar entitled “Walkable Neighborhoods: How to Make Them for Everyone,” sponsored by the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

The seminar also featured Ed Lazere of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and David Bowers of Enterprise Community Partners, who brought their own unique spins on the affordable-housing problem in D.C.

Lazere illuminated some startling statistics regarding housing affordability (D.C. lost half of its low-cost apartment rental units from 2000 to 2010). Bowers added the human element with stories of how housing affordability has affected some actual D.C. residents (illustrating his concept that “data without stories are just numbers”).

Leinberger pointed out that Hollywood does more market research than any other U.S. industry, crediting the popularity of television shows such as Seinfeld and Sex and the City supplanting that of, say, Leave it to Beaver, as reflecting the national consumer demand for walkable neighborhoods away from suburban forms of development which remained in demand until the mid-1990s.

The result of this increased demand has naturally been an increase in land values in walkable communities, specifically in D.C.’s 139 designated activity centers. This, coupled with the lesser issue of increased construction costs associated with the development of walkable neighborhoods, according to Leinberger, has led to gentrification.

Bowers pointed to D.C.’s U Street and H Street corridors as the city’s two most recent neighborhoods to undergo gentrification which, Leinberger stated, was either good or bad, depending on where you sit.

The side effect of gentrification, of course, is pricing out D.C.’s low- and moderate-income residents from these neighborhoods, often displacing long-time residents in the process. And where are they to go? Bowers pointed out that 20 percent of D.C. residents spend half of every take-home dollar on housing already. “They are drowning,” Bowers said.

The main solution to housing affordability in walkable urban places, Leinberger stated, is simply to create more walkable urban places. This is a recognition that housing affordability in in-demand neighborhoods is, by definition, a supply/demand problem.

Leinberger enumerated additional remedies, of which the following is a subset:

  1. Offering standard tax credit and vouchers from the local government in lieu of increased tax revenues from other parts of the walkable urban district;
  2. Participating in federal government programs associated with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Choice Neighborhoods, the next generation of the department’s Hope VI programs;
  3. Instituting inclusionary zoning to require affordable units within a district with higher walkable urban infrastructure investment;
  4. Implementing fee capture upon resale of any market-rate unit within a district with such infrastructure investments;
  5. Allowing ancillary units in for-sale housing (i.e., “granny flats”) to expand the housing supply; and
  6. Encouraging employers to locate in transit-oriented developments in order to increase tax revenues in those districts.

These remedies are not just theoretical, but have been implemented in jurisdictions nationwide. Likewise, they are made possible based on increased profitability that does indeed occur in walkable neighborhoods.

Chris Leinberger dropped a staggering statistic regarding how much D.C. land values have increased in the past decade. On one particular site in Capitol Riverfront, he noted that the land value was probably at around $5 per square foot a decade ago. That same land was recently sold to Toll Brothers at a cost of $825 per square foot. “That increase is stunning,” he added.

In addition, in Arlington County, Virginia, the eight significant walkable neighborhoods occupying 10 percent of the county’s land today generates 55 percent of the county’s revenue, up from 20 percent just a few short decades ago. The county now captures part of this value growth by requiring that developers apportion a percentage of their residential units as affordable housing, or make a contribution to the county’s affordable housing fund.

While there is no one silver-bullet remedy, jurisdictions can, with perseverance, creativity, and hopefully a sense of urgency, address the “unintended consequence of success” that housing affordability poses as they create the walkable communities preferred by consumers of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Click here to read the original article from Mobility Lab. 

Photo courtesy of  Paul Goddin.

 

Congestion Pricing Draws Skepticism From Area Commuters

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

Commuters are skeptical that congestion pricing will reduce traffic congestion in the metropolitan Washington area, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. Instead, they prefer alternatives to driving, in the form of commuter rail, express bus service, or bicycling and walking, the study found.

“They really want to make sure that there are clear benefits,” says TPB planner John Swanson. “That it’s going to fund new transportation alternatives, better transit, bikes, peds, all those new improvements, but particularly transit and high quality bus.”

The 65-page report (pdf) weighed the attitudes of 300 area residents from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Study participants were asked to consider three scenarios: 1) placing tolls on all major roadways including interstate highways; 2) charging a per-mile fee measured by GPS systems installed in cars; and 3) creating priced zones similar to London that would charge motorists to enter a designated area. The scenarios received tepid support.

For many, driving not a choice

The study participants spoke of congestion in personal terms: in family time robbed, or the stress of dealing with incessant traffic. To most commuters, driving is not a choice.

“The availability of other options besides driving — such as transit, walking and biking — increased receptiveness to pricing,” the report states. “Participants also spoke favorably of proposals that would maintain non-tolled lanes or routes for those who cannot or do not want to pay.”

Transit advocates see the report as validation.

“What’s most interesting about this report is that it was an effort to seek public support for congestion pricing, but what it documented was the much stronger support for transit and improvements in how we plan land use in order to give people more choices to get around,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Changing attitudes on gas tax

The study’s authors — the TPB partnered with the Brookings Institution — found that respondents favored raising the gas tax as an easier, fairer alternative to implementing a congestion pricing program.

The gas tax “is a hidden fee,” said Swanson. “We learned that people actually like that. There is a general sense of the invisibility of the gas tax being a problem and potentially a benefit, something that’s strangely attractive to people.”

Participants by-and-large identified transportation funding shortfalls as a critical problem, yet expressed doubts the government would make the right choices if additional revenues were made available through congestion pricing.

“I think people get that there is a lack of funding. They also get the fact there are a number of other problems. There aren’t alternatives,” says TPB board member Chris Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, whose background is in economics, is unsure congestion pricing would even work.

“Even if you are paying a gas tax, it’s not related to your use of any particular road,” Zimmerman said. “An economist looks at that and says of course you are going to get inefficiency and congestion.”

The Washington region saw two major highways shift to congestion pricing in 2012. The ICC in Maryland charges variably priced tolls; the 495 Express Lanes charge dynamically priced tolls and offer free rides to HOV-3 vehicles.

In the case of the Express Lanes, the state of Virginia will not receive toll revenues for 75 years per its contract with its private sector partner, Transurban.It remains to be seen if the new toll lanes will ultimately reduce congestion in the heavily traveled corridor. The ICC also has its critics more than one year after the first tolls were charged, with critics noting the road is underused.

Read the original article on WAMU.

 

Photo courtesy of Michael Galvosky.

Smart Growth Forum Reveals Stunning Land Value Increases in DC

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

On Tuesday night, the Coalition for Smarter Growth kicked off their Walking Tours and Forums series with a discussion about walkable neighborhoods. Chris Leinberger of Locus Development, Ed Lazere of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and David Bowers of Enterprise Community Partners met to discuss affordability and access issues in urban, walkable neighborhoods. In DC, as well as other cities, walkable urban areas are becoming more desirable than sprawling suburban ones, and the rapid increase in land and housing values are leading sought-after sections to be out of reach (cost-wise) for more and more people.

As you might expect from an event hosted by the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the talk had an urbanist, pro-walking, anti-car slant. Here are a some of the more interesting sound bytes and statistics:

The Increase in Land Values in Certain Sections of DC is “Stunning”

Chris Leinberger dropped a staggering statistic regarding how much DC land values have increased in the past decade. On one particular site in Capitol Riverfront, he shared, the land value was probably at around $5 per square foot a decade ago. That same land was recently sold to Toll Brothers at a cost of $825 per square foot. “That increase is stunning,” he said.

DC’s Supply of Housing in Constrained

In part because of zoning regulations and the height limit in areas surrounding the downtown core, supply in DC is unusually limited, keeping the costs up. Leinberger was heartened that both are under discussion. “We have to understand that zoning isn’t handed down from God,” he said. “We made it and we can change it. Creating more walkable urban places with drive down land values.”

No Car, More Money

“If you remove one car from your household, you can increase the mortgage you can afford by $150,000,” Leinberger said last night, based on car payments, insurance payments and monthly gas outlays. Another interesting car-related fact from Leinberger: If a city reduces car ownership by 15,000 owners, $127 million stays in the city.

The Lack of Affordable Housing Must Be Addressed

Ed Lazere pointed out that DC lost half of its low-cost rental units and 70 percent of its low-value homes in the last ten years. In 2000, half of the apartments in the city rented for $700/month or less, a rate that seems unbelievably low now.

David Bowers told a few stories of long-time residents getting pushed out of their homes in rapidly-developing neighborhoods like Columbia Heights and Petworth. Now, organizations are starting to look to the new frontiers — Anacostia and Congress Heights — to start helping residents stay put. “It’s a preservation and resident displacement prevention initiative.”

A few of the possible solutions discussed include supporting Choice Communities (formerly known as HOPE VI), a program that turns housing projects into mixed-income projects; supporting the creation of accessory dwelling units or “granny flats”; and funding the Housing Production Trust Fund and programs like the Home Purchase Assistance Program and the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act.

Read the original article on Urban Turf.

 

Photo courtesy of CTDataHaven.

DC Commuters Want Less Traffic, More Transit — And No Congestion Pricing

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

Commuters are skeptical that congestion pricing will reduce traffic in the metropolitan Washington area and raise revenues to fund transportation projects. Instead, they favor alternatives to driving: commuter rail, express bus service, or bicycling/walking.

A  report released Wednesday by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) weighed the attitudes of 300 area residents who participated in five forums: two in Virginia, two in Maryland, and one in the District of Columbia. The participants were asked to consider three scenarios: 1) placing tolls on all major roadways, including interstate highways; 2) charging a per-mile fee measured by GPS systems installed in cars; and 3) creating priced zones similar to a system in London that would charge motorists to enter a designated area.

These attitudes are being probed at a delicate time for transportation funding in the region: Virginia’s governor is proposing the elimination of the state gasoline tax — while Maryland is looking at increasing theirs. Meanwhile, the area’s largest transit project, the Silver Line, has yet to be fully funded.

But the funding scenarios posed to study participants received tepid support.

“This study shows people are cautiously open to concepts of congestion pricing, but they really need to see if it’s going to work, and they have doubts about that,” said John Swanson, a TPB planner.

“They really want to make sure that there are clear benefits, that [congestion pricing] is going to fund new transportation alternatives… particularly transit and high quality bus [service],” he added.

Scenario one – charging tolls on all major roadways – was supported by 60 percent of study participants, who engaged in extended exchanges of ideas and opinions. Scenario two – using GPS to track miles traveled – was opposed by 86 percent, even though drivers’ actual routes would not be tracked, only the number of miles.

“I don’t want to discount privacy concerns,” Swanson said. “I don’t think, however, the concerns were simply the classic ‘big brother’ concerns. There was a lot of code language for broader anxieties.  It was a complicated proposal that was hard to understand.  It seemed to be hard to implement.  A lot of people said it looked like it would be expensive to implement and, frankly, they are right.”

The study participants spoke of congestion in personal terms — family time robbed, the stress of dealing with incessant traffic. Most commuters said driving is not a choice.

“The availability of other options besides driving—such as transit, walking and biking—increased [the] receptiveness to pricing. Participants also spoke favorably of proposals that would maintain non-tolled lanes or routes for those who cannot or do not want to pay,” the report said.

Transit advocates say the report shows shaping land use strategies to improve access to transit and create walkable, densely built environments is the best way to mitigate the region’s traffic jams.

“Newcomers to the region are very frequently choosing the city or a place near transit rather than a place where they have no option but to drive,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

“What’s most interesting about this report is that it was an effort to seek public support for congestion pricing, but what it documented was the much stronger support for transit and improvements in how we plan land use in order to give people more choices to get around,” Schwartz added.

The study’s authors – the TPB partnered with the Brookings Institution – found most participants were unaware the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon) hasn’t been raised since 1993.  However, they also favored raising the gas tax as an easier, fairer alternative to implementing a congestion pricing program.

Support for increasing the gas tax increased over the course of the sessions –  from 21 percent when the study convened to 57 percent upon its completion.

The gas tax “is a hidden fee,” said Swanson. “We learned that people actually like that. There is a general sense of the invisibility of the gas tax being a problem and potentially a benefit, something that’s strangely attractive to people.”

Eighty-five percent of study participants identified transportation funding shortfalls as a critical problem, yet expressed doubts the government would make the right choices if additional revenues were made available through congestion pricing.

TPB board member Chris Zimmerman, who’s also a member of the Arlington (VA) County Board, took exception to the wording of the study’s questions using the word “government” because he felt it provoked a negative response.

“If you are trying to interpret what people say, you have to be careful of what question you ask them,” Zimmerman said. “I think people get that there is a lack of funding.  They also get the fact there are a number of other problems.  There aren’t alternatives. For many in this region, they drive not because that’s what they are dying to do, but because they have no choice.”

Zimmerman, who background is in economics, said it should be no surprise people are lukewarm about congestion pricing proposals, given the lack of alternative modes of transportation in some places.  He is also unsure congestion pricing will work.

“The way roads are run is there is basically no pricing of them at all. Even if you are paying a gas tax it’s not related to your use of any particular road.  An economist looks at that and says of course you are going to get inefficiency and congestion,” Zimmerman said.

“You are not talking about going from the current situation to instantly pricing everything perfectly.  You are talking about implementing costs on particular segments of roads and that gets a lot more complicated because there are secondary effects,” Zimmerman said. “We price one thing and many people shift to some other place.  Well, where is that some other place?”

“In practice, implementing that is very difficult.”

The Washington region saw two major highways shift to congestion pricing in 2012. Maryland’sInter-County Connector charges variably priced tolls; the 495 Express Lanes charge dynamically priced tolls and offer free rides to HOV-3 vehicles.

In the case of the Express Lanes, the state of Virginia will not receive toll revenues for 75 years as per its contract with its private sector partner, Transurban, and it remains to be seen if the new toll lanes will ultimately reduce congestion in the heavily traveled corridor. The ICC also has its critics, who say the recently constructed highway was a waste of money.

Read the original story on Transportation Nation.

Photo by NCreedplayer via flickr

McDonnell Pitches Tax Plan

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

Addressing a friendly audience this afternoon at the Commonwealth Transportation Board, Governor Bob McDonnell plugged his transportation financing plan, arguing that it was “economically sound, politically viable” and will “fix the problem.”

“Our problem is a math problem,” the governor said. “Revenues are on a downward path and the cost of asphalt is on an upward path.” Within a few years, $500 million a year will be diverted from the state’s construction fund to pay for maintenance.

“I’ve used every asset I can find” that the General Assembly has made available to him, McDonnell said. He has audited VDOT four times. He has issued bonds. He has tapped the General Fund budget surplus. He has leveraged state dollars through tolled Public Private Transportation projects. Now the options are exhausted and the state needs new revenue.

McDonnell has proposed a five-point plan: (1) scrapping the motor fuels tax (except on diesel) and boosting the sales tax by 0.8%, a revenue source that will increase as the economy grows; (2) diverting 0.25% of existing sales tax revenue from the General Fund to transportation; (3) charging an extra $15 per year for vehicle registrations; and (4) charging alternative-fuel vehicles $100 per year, and (5) collecting taxes on online sales.

As people shift to more fuel-efficient automobiles and alternate-fuel vehicles, the governor said, the gasoline tax is not a viable long-term revenue source. “Relying on the state gas tax will only make the funding situation worse because the gas tax buying power has greatly depleted over the years.  Switching to the state sales tax is the reasonable and logical solution to fund projects.”

Underlining the governor’s remarks, John Lawson, chief financial officer of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) told the CTB that his five-year revenue forecast had become significantly more pessimistic over the past year. Compared to last year’s five year forecast (2013-2018), the amount of revenue available to VDOT over the next five years (2014-2019) is $766 million less. State revenue is expected to decline $218 million while federal revenue will plummet $548 million. Those numbers do not take into account added revenues from the governor’s tax plan, which, in enacted, would raise an estimated $1.8 billion over the same period.

Between direct funding reductions and a delay to bond issues, that means the state will have $700 million less to spend on new roads, bridges and highways than expected. Even previous to Lawson’s revelation, the McDonnell administration had been saying that the state would run out of state construction funding within four to five years.

Touting the sales tax component of his plan as a first for the country, McDonnell said. The sales tax “is predictable, it’s reliable and it grows.”

A wide array of business and labor groups have endorsed McDonnell’s plan, as have key Republican legislators. Democrats have been relatively quiet, although some have expressed concerns about the idea of siphoning money from the General Fund, which would come at the expense of schools, health care and other priorities. Conservatives have expressed suspicion of anything resembling a tax increase. Free-market advocates have argued that the shift away from the user-pays gas tax would subsidize driving.  And smart growth advocates have slammed the bill for that reason and others.

Before approving another $1.8 billion in spending over the next five  years, said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, in response to the governor’s remarks, the General Assembly should take a close look at how McDonnell is spending the $3 billion it authorized for to borrow. The U.S. 460 Connector between Suffolk and Petersburg, costing more than $1 billion in public dollars, has a very low cost-benefit ratio compared to projects going begging in other parts of the state, he said. What assurance is there, he asked, that new tax revenues won’t be similarly wasted?

Read the original story at Bacon’s Rebellion >>

Photo courtesy of James Bacon.

Testimony to the Montgomery County Council re County Executive Ike Leggett’s Request for Supplemental Appropriation for Study of Rapid Transit System

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

The Coalition for Smarter Growth supports the supplemental request by the County Executive for $1 million to further advance the proposed Rapid Transit System. We believe that the request is focused on the important implementation issues including service planning, integration with RideOn and Metrobus, bike/ped access, transit signal prioritization, organizational structure and agreements with the state on the right of way. We also have some recommendations, which include ensuring integration with Purple Line and Metrorail service.

We understand the position of our long-time allies at the Action Committee for Transit, and their recommendation that the county first move forward with WMATA’s bus priority corridor network. Yet, we believe that a win-win approach is possible. The outlines of an expanded, integrated, higher capacity and speedier transit network are becoming apparent. It is a system that includes a rehabilitated Metrorail and robust transit-oriented development at all stations on both arms of the Red Line, includes construction of the Purple Line, and includes the most promising of the Phase I Rapid Transit System routes and also integration with the WMATA Priority Corridor Network.

We will all depend on the technical staffs to give us something that works effectively and selects the most effective service mode, not just for today, but for the evolving transit-oriented future, meeting the goal of a much more robust and transformative transit network for the county. Therefore, we believe that the funding should also enable close coordination between the county staff, Planning Board staff, WMATA and state officials to design this interconnected and operationally integrated system.

To gain maximum benefit from this funding, these agencies should deliver to the County Executive and to you a consensus system design that is appropriately tailored to each corridor in terms of mode and level of service, and, is closely linked to  walkable, transit-oriented development where that development is appropriate. By the end of these studies, the technical experts should be able to give you a system that has drawn from the research and data available in the Task Force report, in the Planning Board’s staff report, the ITDP report, the state transit studies and WMATA, including their Priority Corridor Network.

It should be a system that seamlessly links fares, schedules, routes and transfers, and delivers significant increases in ridership of both transit-dependent and the so-called “choice riders.” It should be a system that transforms the county and enhances the movement of people, their access to jobs and services, and increases the economic competitiveness of the county.

As you know, Fairfax County is investing in the Silver Line.  But they, like you, are also engaged in a study of their next generation of transit investments including BRT/LRT options for their commercial corridors and enhanced cross-county suburban to job center services. We hope that you will give them a run for their money in developing an effective transit and transit-accessible future!

Thank you.

Stewart Schwartz

Executive Director

Virginia Governor Proposes Eliminating State Gasoline Tax

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski

Virginia would become the first state in the country to eliminate its gasoline tax if a major transportation funding plan proposed by Governor Bob McDonnell (R) is approved by the General Assembly.

Revenue from the state gas tax of 17.5 cents per gallon, last raised by lawmakers in 1986, would be replaced by an increase in the state sales tax. That rate is currently 5 percent; the governor wants to raise it to 5.8 percent.

McDonnell’s proposal would also increase by half the portion of the sales tax already dedicated to road maintenance and operations. However, during the first three years, that tax would provide $300 million for the Silver Line rail project to Dulles International Airport — a $5.5 billion project that Virginia has funded only $150 million to date.

“Transportation is a core function of government.  Children can’t get to school; parents waste too much time in traffic; and businesses can’t move their goods without an adequate and efficient transportation system,” said McDonnell at an afternoon news conference, flanked by members of the General Assembly who will dissect his sweeping proposals during the 45-day legislative session.

If lawmakers pass the governor’s entire plan, which also includes higher vehicles registration fees and a $100 charge on electric and natural gas vehicles, Virginia would receive more than $3 billion over five years to fund road construction and transit development, including intercity passenger rail.

A primary aim of the funding package is to stop the yearly transfer of construction dollars from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to required maintenance projects, a process that will leave the fund empty by the end of the decade.

“My transportation funding and reform package is intended to address the short and long-term transportation funding needs of the Commonwealth. Declining funds for infrastructure maintenance, stagnant motor fuels tax revenues, increased demand for transit and passenger rail, and the growing cost of major infrastructure projects necessitate enhancing and restructuring the Commonwealth’s transportation program,” McDonnell said.

The governor has indicated in recent weeks that the state gasoline tax’s diminishing returns minimizes its effectiveness in raising new revenues.  Higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards, among other factors, have eaten into the tax’s buying power. The 17.5 cents per gallon tax currently accounts for about one-third of the state’s transportation funding, although the tax has lost 55 percent of its purchasing power when adjusted for inflation since 1986, the last time it was raised.

Instead of raising the tax or pegging it to annual inflation adjustments, the governor wants to eliminate it, although the state diesel tax would remain in place. Virginia would then abandon a fundamental premise of transportation funding: motorists who use the roads pay for the roads in the form of taxes.

“If this were adopted it would mean there would be no relationship to the extent to which people use the transportation network and what they actually pay for it,” said Bob Chase, the president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which favors road construction as a solution to traffic congestion.

“It’s a dramatic proposal to shift funding from the gas tax to the sales tax, and we’re going to have to look at what it means when you disconnect the tax from the actual use of the roadways,” said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth and frequent critic of the McDonnell administration’s funding priorities.

The General Assembly has for years evaded the responsiblity of injecting significant new tax revenue into transportation. While all observers agree the state’s needs total in the billions, there is no consensus on the best way forward. To Schwartz, prioritizing road construction amounts to squandering precious funds that could be used to develop public transit systems.

“Instead of addressing metropolitan area needs, the administration is spending $1.2 billion on Rt. 460, $200 to $400 million on the Charlottesville Bypass, and proposing to spend billions on the Coalfields Expressway and an estimated $2 billion on a Northern Virginia outer beltway,” he said.

Click here to read the original story on Transportation Nation.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (photo via flickr)

 

McDonnell Proposes Higher Sales Tax To Replace Gas Tax

Posted on by Joe Wisniewski
The governor unveiled a transportation plan that would eliminate the gas tax and the state sales tax and fees.

Virginia would become the first state to eliminate its gasoline tax if a major transportation funding plan proposed by Gov. Bob McDonnell is approved by the General Assembly.

To fund ongoing maintenance and new transportation projects, McDonnell is asking lawmakers to do away with the 17.5-cent state gas tax — which was last increased in 1986 — and replace it by raising the state sales tax from 5 to 5.8 percent.

The governor’s proposal also calls for increasing by 50 percent the amount of sales tax revenue already dedicated to transportation, mainly to fund road maintenance. During the first three years, however, that tax hike would provide $300 million for the Silver Line rail project — the $5.5 billion rail line to Dulles Airport that has only received $150 million in state funding thus far.

“My transportation funding and reform package is intended to address the short and long-term transportation funding needs of the Commonwealth,” McDonnell said during a press conference Tuesday. “Declining funds for infrastructure maintenance, stagnant motor fuels tax revenues, increased demand for transit and passenger rail, and the growing cost of major infrastructure projects necessitate enhancing and restructuring the Commonwealth’s transportation program.”

The gas tax, which currently accounts for about one-third of the state’s transportation fund, has lost 55 percent of its purchasing power when adjusted for inflation, McDonnell said.

The governor is also asking the General Assembly to approve a $15 increase in vehicle registration fees and a $100 charge to register an electric or natural gas car. McDonnell hopes to generate $844 million in annual new revenue by 2019 through these policies, which would mean $3.1 billion over the next five years for transportation projects.

“Those vehicles do not pay any gasoline tax, at the state or the federal level, but they use the roads the same amount as any other gasoline powered vehicle,” McDonnell says. “So it is an equitably change to ask alternative fuel vehicles to fund part of the infrastructure needs.”

A primary aim of the funding package is to stop the yearly transfer of construction dollars from the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to required maintenance projects, a process that will leave the fund empty by the end of the decade.

But McDonnell’s plan abandons a fundamental transportation funding premise: that those who use the roads pay for the roads in the form of taxes.

“It’s a dramatic proposal to shift funding from the gas tax to the sales tax, and we’re going to have to look at what it means when you disconnect the tax from the actual use of the roadways, and what signal that sends,”says Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which favors developing public transit instead of road building. “We will also have to look at whether this generates sufficient money for the transit needs of the state.”

Advocates of new roads and highways are also concerned about the possible elimination of the gas tax.

“If this were adopted, it would mean there would be no relationship to the extent to which people use the transportation network and what they actually pay for it,” says Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which advocates road building.

McDonnell’s plan also includes a constitutional amendment creating a constitutional requirement on transportation funding, which would have to be approved by voters. But the General Assembly has for years avoided injecting significant new tax revenue into transportation. While many agree the state needs billions of dollars of investment, there has been no consensus on the best way forward.

Click here to read the original story on WAMU.

Photo Courtesy of Amando Trull