Category: Statewide

VDOT’s Outer Beltway

VDOT’s Outer Beltway

Posted on by acustis

VDOT’s OUTER BELTWAY
Community Meeting
Monday, March 11
7:00 – 9:00 PM
Chantilly Regional Library
4000 Stringfellow Rd – Chantilly (map) – served by Fairfax Connector bus rt. 605
Come early to view maps & displays

Resources

At the meeting, we discussed how the Outer Beltway would affect traffic in the region, the impacts on our property and communities, how much new land the project would open to new development, and how many new commuters we can expect on I-66, Route 50, and other major routes

Building a bypass

Posted on by acustis

Outer Beltway, North-South Corridor, Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Corridor of Statewide Significance.

It’s been called many things in the 30 years since Virginia’s leaders first recognized the need for a bypass linking Interstate 95 in eastern Prince William to U.S. 50 near Dulles Airport in Sterling. Today, it’s inching closer to reality.

Once projected to be complete in 2035, the Bi-County Parkway – as it is now called in Prince William County – has the support of Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton, as well as many regional leaders and interest groups.

Decades ago, Congress also recognized the need to preserve the Manassas National Battlefield by relocating Va. 234 Business out of park, passing two pieces of legislation addressing the issue.

The proposed Bi-County Parkway would do both.

‘A 19th century road system’

“The need for this is growing every day and it is more than obvious we need to go forward. Between Prince William and Loudoun counties we are near reaching a point that there will be almost 800,000 people,” Connaughton,  former chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, said in a recent interview.

“When we talked about this 30 years ago, people were concerned about growth and what this road would do,” he said. “We’ve now gotten the growth, but we do not have the transportation facilities. That is what this road would do.”

While there are critics, both the Prince William and Loudoun boards of county supervisors support the plan and have included it in their comprehensive plans.

“Prince William and Loudoun counties are two very quickly growing communities and yet if you’ve ever tried to drive between them, you know it’s very difficult,” said Prince William County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at-large during the Prince William Chamber of Commerce’s State of Prince William event last week. “We’ve got a 19th century road

system between those two counties and it’s got to change.”

Deciding a route

When the Virginia Department of Transportation began studying the corridor in the 1980s, it came up with several routes, some traveling through Fairfax County.

In May 2011, the Commonwealth Transportation Board defined the 45-mile corridor in question as “the area generally east and west of the Route 234/Prince William Parkway and the CTB-approved location of the Tri-County Parkway between Route 95 and 50, and connections to the Dulles Greenway and Route 7.”

Last June, the CTB approved $5 million to start engineering and design work for a 10.4-mile section of the project.

The Bi-County Parkway would begin near the intersection of Interstate 66 and Va. 234 Bypass/Prince William Parkway. It would make a zigzag around Manassas National Battlefield Park, run along U.S. 29 and then follow Pageland Lane along the northern side and western edge of the park. The parkway then would extend north to U.S. 50 in Loudoun County near Dulles.

A second part of the corridor project, now being called the Loudoun County/Tri-County Parkway, would link State Route 7 in eastern Loudoun County to western Fairfax County and Interstate 66. Eventually, the corridor would wind its way to Interstate 95 in eastern Prince William.

Proposed routes and timeframes for the rest of the project are still on the table. For now, Connaughton and county leaders are pushing to see the 10-mile stretch from the 234 Bypass to U.S. 50 complete sooner rather than later.

Highway through history

Over the years there have been plans, studies and public hearings. However, the Bi-County Parkway project now has momentum and Connaughton wants to it continue.

“The situation is going to get worse before it gets better and that’s why we need to move forward now,” he said.

As one of the next steps, many major governmental and historic entities need to sign off on a “programmatic” agreement, an agreement in principle, to build the road. Among them are VDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the state Department of Historic Resources and the National Park Service, which is a key player in what happens next.

Connaughton and Ed Clark, superintendent of the Manassas National Battlefield Park, both said they felt an agreement is near and should be ironed out this year.

“If we can reach a point where the park service believes that the conditions are such and the mitigations are such that it is to the net benefit of the park then we will sign on,” Clark said.

“We are working to ensure that we and other preservation-minded people have the ability to be very directly involved with the design of the (Bi-County) Parkway along the edge of the battlefield to make sure that things like sight and noise are addressed so that you minimized their impact on the battlefield,” Clark said

While the state had always planned to close U.S. 29 and Va. 234 inside the park when the parkway was completed, Connaughton said it is now considering closing portions of those roads as the parkway is built in stages.

Clark said that couldn’t come soon enough. About 52,000 vehicles, of those 13 percent are trucks, travel through the intersection of U.S. 29 and Va. 234 within the park every day.

“A lot of people say, ‘Why would you want a road beside you?’ To get the road out of the middle of it,” Clark said. “We want to get as much of the traffic that we can out of the battlefield.”

Connaughton calls the traffic inside the battlefield “a dishonor to the people who fought the two battles.”

There’s also the tourism lost to congestion.

“We believe this will create a true green space in Prince William where today it is essentially a commuter route,” Connaughton said.

The constant rumble of traffic makes experiencing the battlefield difficult for visitors trying to imagine the park as it was in 1861, Clark said.

Fighting traffic and always having that modern intrusion really distracts from that,” he said.

Finding funding

VDOT estimates the parkway could cost about $210 million to build.

Connaughton said the state does not yet know when it will get under way or exactly how it will be funded.

The General Assembly’s passage of a broad transportation plan to bring money for road and rail to Northern Virginia will likely help, he said. He said some state funds could be spent on engineering for the parkway and right-of-way acquisitions.

But he is hopeful that a private-public partnership, not unlike the one between the Potomac Nationals and the state for a new stadium and commuter parking in Woodbridge, could help fund the parkway.

“It would be our hope to get this project under way in the next five years,” he said.

Support and Opposition

That’s good news to Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.

“The need for this and other north-south corridors has been well established for decades,” Chase said. “The need is obvious to people who live in Prince William and Loudoun counties, who need to get to the airport, who need better connectivity to jobs in those two jurisdictions.

“The list of why this is important and necessary is quite extensive,” Chase said.

Yet there are environmental groups and others that disagree. They worry the road will encourage more development in the western Prince William region known as the “Rural Crescent” and encourage more commuting, Instead, transportation improvements should be focused on I-66, U.S. 50 and U.S. 1 in Prince William, they say. They also worry about the impact on the battlefield.

“This ‘dumb growth’ road is designed to bust the rural area. The rural area steers growth so new public facilities that cost residents less in property taxes,” said Charlie Grymes, Prince William Conservation Alliance Board chairman.

He said the parkway would perpetuate high taxes on homeowners and limit the funds needed to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal for new parks, managing stormwater to protect the Chesapeake Bay, and creating the live-work-play community described in the county’s Strategic Plan.

“Our strategic vision is to develop into a place where businesses choose to locate,” Grymes said.

The conservancy wants the county to invest in bringing in new jobs.

“Roads that export workers to other jurisdictions undercut our vision,” Grymes said.

A 39-page letter signed by several opposition groups was sent last summer to comment on the proposed programmatic agreement.

“Our organizations recognize the irreplaceable value of Manassas National Battlefield Park. We share the important goal of removing commuter traffic from the two highways that currently cross the battlefield. However, we are committed to ensuring that the chosen solution does not increase the overall impacts to the battlefield from traffic or simply shift the negative impacts from one area of the battlefield to another – especially when far less damaging alternatives have not been adequately considered,” the letter stated in part.

It was signed by Southern Environmental Law Center, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Parks Conservation Association.

Connaughton dismisses criticism that the parkway will encourage growth since it has already happened. He said he believes the impact on the battlefield will be positive.

“We think this is just a great opportunity for everyone. It will be good for historic preservation, good for the environment and good for transportation. It’s a win-win-win,” Connaughton said.

 Read the original article at Inside NOVA >>

Photo by Jeff Mankie for Prince William Today

 

Virginia’s Transpo Future: Charge Drivers Less to Build More Roads

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Congratulations are owed to Bob McDonnell. He’s scored a victory on his transportation funding plan, cementing his legacy (though infuriating conservatives, including his hand-picked successor). His achievement is being called the first bipartisan initiative to pass in Virginia in decades. And what does this great deed accomplish? Secure revenue to fuel a new era of wasteful road-building in the commonwealth of Virginia.


McDonnell’s new transportation funding plan will pay for the wasteful and unnecessary expansion of Route 460. Photo: Doug Kerr/flickr

Virginia’s state House and Senate both voted this weekend to approve McDonnell’s funding plan for transportation, despite opposition from anti-tax activists. McDonnell’s original proposal to eliminate the gas tax entirely got massaged a little bit, turning into a 3.5 percent tax on the wholesale price of gas.

His proposal to raise the sales tax survived the legislature, as did the $100 tax on alternative fuels – an idea that is somewhat less backwards now that some semblance of gas tax remains. Democrats hate it, though, and McDonnell has already signaled a vague willingness to “review” it.

The sales tax hike, however, is as backwards as ever. McDonnell is raising the sales tax 0.3 percent in most parts of the state but 6 percent in the populous Hampton Roads and northern Virginia areas. Much of the extra funds raised in those areas will go to local projects, but it still means the most urban and transit-rich areas, where most of the state’s non-drivers live, will pay more for a plan that disproportionately funds rural roads.

Drivers will pay five cents per gallon less than they did under the old gas tax, given current prices — shrinking their contribution by about 30 percent. Rather than strengthen the gas tax’s small but important incentive to drive less, McDonnell’s plan turns it the other way.

The other reason the sales tax hike won’t do the trick is that sales taxes aren’t an appropriate tool when what you need is a stable source of funding.

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff said the same thing last month when outgoing AASHTO Director John Horsley proposed a percentage sales tax on gas instead of a flat tax. “In transit-land, sales taxes rise and fall with sufficient amplitudes here that it makes or breaks projects,” he told an audience at TRB later in the day when Horsley made his proposal. “Just because it’s a sales tax doesn’t mean that it’s stable.”

According to economists Michael Madowitz and Kevin Novan, writing in the Washington Post, California’s transportation sales tax fluctuated 13.5 percent over the past decade while the fixed gas tax fluctuated just 1.2 percent.

“Given that it is far easier to predict gas consumption than prices,” they wrote, “it is prudent to tie transportation revenue to consumption.”

The one thing that’s predictable about gasoline consumption is that it will continue to drop. People are driving less, and the cars they’re driving are using less gas. Any gas tax solution is only a temporary fix. Does this mean McDonnell is right to want to drop the gas tax altogether? Not at all. Does it mean he’s smart to look to other sources of income for transportation? Of course – though he’s still looking in the wrong place.

Worst of all, the transportation expenditures envisioned in McDonnell’s plan are heavy on sprawl-inducing highways. He touts the multimodal aspects like high-speed rail and finishing the silver line to Dulles airport. But Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth characterizes the legislation as “truly a highway bill.” Even the maintenance funds it allocates ($538 million a year) will only serve to free up construction funds for rural highway-building.

Trip Pollard of the Southern Environmental Law Center called the package “too road-heavy” and said, “Virginia has to move toward a more balanced approach that provides greater transportation choices and a cleaner, more efficient system.”

Pollard’s and Schwartz’s organizations, together with other smart-growth groups, lamented the lack of reforms required in the funding bill. “It doesn’t require wiser spending by VDOT even as it effectively allows for about $500 million a year in additional highway construction funding for VDOT,” they wrote in a statement.

In his article for Greater Greater Washington about the bill, Stewart Schwartz wrote about where the money is going:

Just last week, VDOT announced it would allocate another $869 million in federal Garvee bonds to Route 460 and the Coalfields Expressway, two of the most wasteful, unnecessary projects in the history of Virginia. Four questionable projects—Route 460 ($1.4 billion), Coalfields Expressway ($2.8 billion), Charlottesville Bypass ($240 million), and the Outer Beltway in Northern Virginia (estimated $1 billion)—total a potential $5.5 billion in misallocated spending.

Many expect that Secretary Connaughton intends to divert a substantial portion of the new statewide money to the controversial and sprawl-inducing Outer Beltway, rather than to the critical commuter corridor needs of the metro regions.

He notes that just 21 percent of the statewide funds go to transit and passenger rail in 2018.

Photo courtesy of Doug Kerr on flickr

Read the original article here >>

McDonnell pushes through landmark transpo bill – Sequester rhetoric ratchets up – W.H. warns states of cuts – Will you change your travel plans?

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

McDONNELL’S LEGISLATIVE LEGACY: To Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Saturday was a big deal. After nearly three decades of population growth, increasing gridlock and waning transportation revenues, the potential 2016 contender got done a comprehensive transportation revenue that evokes many of politics’ great compromises: No one loves it, but a majority didn’t vote against it, either. “It’s a broad, bipartisan compromise to [address] an intractable problem, that will serve Virginians well for a generation,” McDonnell said in an interview Sunday, just a few hours after his landmark bill passed. It wasn’t easy, even for him, to come around to the package that passed. But it had to be done, he explained, describing Virginia as having a “math problem” rather than a political one. “I really struggled with this early on, about the fact that as part of the final agreement, there were going to have to be some new revenues,” McDonnell said. “Reagan said, ‘Look, we have not raised the gas tax in 20 years and our infrastructure is crumbling.’ … He said the same thing I said: ‘I don’t like it, this is not my first choice, but we don’t have another solution.’ So he signed the bill.” Alex Burns and Burgess take it away: http://politi.co/VH4M47

What D.C. can learn: If McDonnell’s successful push to rejigger his state’s tax system to deliver more transportation money is any guide, the federal government needs to get out of the per-gallon gas tax game to get conservatives onboard. His state will spread new transportation revenue across the board: a reduced at-the-pump tax, new wholesale fuel fees, a larger share of sales tax revenue for transportation and a $100 annual fee on hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. And though it doesn’t kill the state gas tax like he originally envisioned, he got a lot of what he wanted — and avoided receiving a bill he would feel compelled to veto. “I said at the beginning, we’ve got to reduce our reliance on the gas tax. Gas tax is on a long-term death spiral,” he told MT. So does this bill send a message that Virginia doesn’t expect any more revenue help from the feds? “At least in the short term, yes. They’ve got the same problem,” he said. “As long as the state or federal gas tax … is a flat cents [fee], you are going to have the same problem.” Burgess has more: http://politico.pro/15Jfknz

Want more? It’s a fairly complicated scheme, and WTOP has the conference report in legislative form: http://bit.ly/136lVc4. And Coalition for Smarter Growth has a good, simple summary: http://bit.ly/15b1nxs

LaHOOD: SEQUESTER SPOKESMAN: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been the administration’s loudest voice against the sequester, going on a media blitz in recent days to warn of long lines and fewer flights if the automatic spending cuts go through. On Sunday, LaHood went on CNN’s “State of the Union” (http://politi.co/UXXYjC), where he talked about furloughs and his job as an ambassador to his former House GOP colleagues. Right after that, the secretary hopped over to NBC’s “Meet the Press” (http://politi.co/YoNbwP), where he said that, even with less than a week to go, “there is still time to reach a compromise.”

For shame, good sir: A few big-name Republicans weren’t too happy with LaHood’s remarks on the Sunday talk shows. “Shame on Ray LaHood,” Arizona Sen. John McCain said on CNN after the secretary spoke (http://politi.co/WcvcgB). And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after LaHood spoke on “Meet the Press”, told the president to “stop sending out your Cabinet secretaries to scare the American people.”

Fact-check one two, one two: The White House released a series of White House fact sheets Sunday evening on the sequester’s impact on all 50 states, each offering the latest version of its warnings that cuts to the FAA and TSA would have a national effect on aviation. They caution that the FAA “would be forced to undergo a funding cut of more than $600 million,” prompting the agency “to undergo an immediate retrenchment of core functions by reducing operating costs and eliminating or reducing services to various segments of the flying community.” Team Transportation takes it away: http://politico.pro/137QrCx

Prognosis negative: The Senate Democrats will try to pass a package of cuts and tax increases to avert the automatic cuts, but the outlook isn’t too positive right now. Rogers report: http://politi.co/X5gruK

Friday surprise: Before hitting the talk show circuit, LaHood swung by Friday’s White House press briefing. The secretary said the cuts could mean “calamity” for travelers and will have “a very serious impact on the transportation services that are critical to the traveling public.” At the same time, FAA put out comprehensive lists of air traffic control towers where overnight shifts could be ended (http://1.usa.gov/12Ymq80) and a separate list of control facilities that could be closed (http://1.usa.gov/X07npr). But top aviation Republicans weren’t sold. “Before jumping to the conclusion that furloughs must be implemented, the administration and the agency need to sharpen their pencils and consider all the options,” Commerce ranking member John Thune, House T&I Chairman Bill Shuster and T&I’s Aviation Chairman Frank LoBiondo said in a joint statement. Burgess and Kathryn break it down: http://politi.co/X2ygKR

Want more? Those wanting the full exchange between LaHood and White House reporters can check out everything in the transcript: http://bit.ly/ZxKLjY

MONDAY FUNDAY. Thanks for reading POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on trains, planes, automobiles and early-morning TV hits. If it moves, it’s news. Do stay in touch: beverett@politico.com and asnider@politico.com. Twitter: @AdamKSnider and @BurgessEv. More news: @POLITICOPro and @Morning_Transpo.

“So don’t jump in front of my train …” http://bit.ly/UAN4yM

SEQUESTER, STATE-BY-STATE: Three states — Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont — avoid any of the sequester’s aviation closures or cutbacks. California, on the other hand, has 23 facilities slated for outright closure. And Texas would be hardest hit during midnight shifts, with six facilities in cities from Austin to El Paso and Fort Worth identified for overnight shutdowns. Burgess take a state-based look for Pros: http://politico.pro/XPxG1q

Get the facts from a Republican: According to some background info distributed by a GOP source, FAA could weather the storm better than the administration is suggesting. The info notes that flights are down 27 percent since 2000 and that FAA’s operations account is up nearly $3 billion from 2002 and stands at $9.7 billion right now. “Before implementing furloughs, the FAA should review their $2.7 billion in non-personnel costs, such as $500 million for consultants, and $200 million for supplies and travel,” the two-pager concludes.

Metro morsel: The subway system expects to see fewer riders and would lose some of its federal funding as part of the cuts, according to Post Metro maven Dana Hedgpeth. http://wapo.st/WfDpv8

Scrumquester: We’d like to direct you to the POLITICO podcast “The Scrum,” on everything sequester with Maggie Haberman, Alex Burns, Jonathan Allen and Kate Nocera, hosted by Alexander Trowbridge. http://politi.co/13feRcW

WANT MORE SEQUESTER WATCH? — The specter of sequestration looms, and Jonathan Allen’s Sequester Watch delivers Pro readers a daily roundup of all of the twists and turns. To continue getting emails on all things sequester, sign up here: http://politico.pro/lvfnLQ, go to “Customize Your Topics” and select “Sequester Watch.”

WHAT THE FAA IS SAYING: LaHood and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, in a letter to the major aviation groups, rounded up some of what we already knew about sequester but added a few more details that the secretary talked about at the White House. “We are aware that these service reductions will adversely affect commercial, corporate and general aviation operations,” they wrote. Read the letter: http://1.usa.gov/YMiCQb

LOTS OF REACTIONS: Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller called the sequester cuts “reckless” and said that “everyone who travels for business or pleasure will be adversely affected.” NATCA President Paul Rinaldi cautioned that the cuts “may not be reversed,” adding that “closing air traffic control towers means the system will be even more compromised than anticipated.” Regional Airline Association President Roger Cohen said the “government is playing an irresponsible game of chicken — with no winners — and the traveling and shipping public will be the losers.” ACI-NA President Greg Principato thinks “decisions on cutting air traffic control services should be made based on most efficiently serving the needs and safety of the traveling public and in consultation with airports, airlines as well as affected communities.” A4A’s Jean Medina said that “no one wants to see the sequester happen,” and AOPA President and CEO Craig Fuller said he’s “deeply concerned” that the cuts “will compromise aviation safety and severely damage the efficiency of general aviation flight operations nationally.”

Busy week for controllers: NATCA also has a busy week talking about our other favorite “s” word (the first one isn’t fit to print). On Wednesday morning, the group puts out a report detailing the sequester’s effects on the aviation network, including a “detailed analysis” of more than a dozen airports. Later that day, Rinaldi speaks at the AeroClub luncheon and will chat with reporters afterwards. NATCA is also making some of its representatives available for media talks at major airport towers.

COLLISION COURSE: Truckers and safety advocates have run headlong into each other in a public spat over who to blame in crashes between cars and trucks. Both trucking groups and safety advocates are trying to bring science to bear in their arguments, with each side citing studies full of obscure terms and charts that would easily be at home in a scientific journal. Beyond the science, the problem has real-life implications: Thousands of people die every year from crashes involving big rigs, and truck-car crashes are twice as likely to cause fatalities as two cars colliding. The heated debate bubbled up again with a recent ATA study finding that car drivers are usually at fault for crashes with trucks. The Truck Safety Coalition was “appalled” at that report and shot out a strongly-worded letter. ATA replied by pointing to a FMCSA-commissioned study to back up their claims. Like every good drama, there’s a twist — the deputy FMCSA administrator who stood by the study in 2010 used to be a Truck Safety Coalition spokesman. Adam runs it down for Pros: http://politico.pro/X4Ofbh

DREAM DREAM DREAMLINER: The tête-à-tête between Boeing and the FAA on Friday afternoon on a potential fix for the company’s 787 Dreamliner fleet was “productive,” according to a statement from Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel, who said the airplane manufacturer is “encouraged by progress made toward resolving the issue.” But even in the best-case scenario, the 787 fleet may still be in chocks for weeks or longer while the FAA analyzes Boeing’s proposals. If the FAA signs off on the plan, it will still have to conduct some sort of recertification process, which is usually a monthslong process, if not longer. Birtel gave no details on the meeting except that Ray Conner, the president and CEO of Boeing’s commercial wing, and Huerta attended.

MT POLL RESULTS — Most-missed senator: It was a close one, but with 51 percent of the vote, MT readers dubbed Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller the most-missed transportation senator of the five who have so far announced their retirements. Frank Lautenberg was a close second, with 46 percent. With those two transportation titans, Sens. Tom Harkin, Saxby Chambliss and Mike Johanns didn’t stand a chance. Of note: Two readers think another big transportation name will call it quits before the year is up.

NEW MT POLL — Sequestration vacation: You’ve read all the stories about sequestration, air traffic controllers and long TSA lines. But if the cuts kick in, will you rethink your travel plans? Will you just get to the airport much earlier or look for alternate methods? Maybe you’ll just keep doing the same thing and hope you don’t regret it. Let us know what you’re doing to deal with air travel, just do it before Sunday at noon: http://bit.ly/1247xS5

REPORT-BAG — Insert tolling pun here: HNTB has a new white paper on “maximizing toll collection on multistate facilities.” The summary has a good description of the issue: “Aging bridges and four-lane interstates can’t keep up with the ballooning populations of multistate regions. Neither can departments of transportation, when budgets rely on funding sources as antiquated as the infrastructure.” The paper explores the background, the climate shaping policy and much more. Read a summary and download the report here: http://bit.ly/ZxAioX

THE AUTOBAHN (SPEED READ)

– Is it taking too long for NHTSA to do its work? NYT: http://nyti.ms/VGiTXz

– France clams it will be offering the cheapest HSR tickets in the world. Transport Politic: http://bit.ly/136XpI2

– California High-Speed Rail Authority settles a second CEQA lawsuit. http://bit.ly/YuLdZG

– California Senate puts forward CEQA reform effort. CAHSR Blog: http://bit.ly/ZCbEU1

– Majority of Californians support licenses for undocumented immigrants. The Field Poll: http://bit.ly/WcyAZ1

– A fascinating look at contrails and climate change, featuring some great satellite images. Atlantic Cities: http://bit.ly/XQllaG

– The Century Foundation has added Michael Likosky as senior fellow; he will focus on infrastructure issues. http://bit.ly/YIjIxN

TRIVIA NIGHT: POLITICO Pro Trivia is back tomorrow at 6 p.m., featuring POLITICO Pro’s Tony Romm and Juana Summers teeing up questions on all things policy, politics and D.C. RSVP with teams of four to eholman@POLITICO.com.

THE COUNTDOWN: The new sequestration deadline is in four days. It’s been 27 days since Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced his departure, and DOT funding runs out in 31 days. Passenger rail policy runs out in 218 days, surface transportation policy in 586 days and FAA policy in 948 days. The mid-term elections are in 617 days.

CABOOSE — Awesome bus stop: Qualcomm got creative with its advertising at a bus stop, putting up posters asking, “In a hurry?” or “Seen it all?” with a web page. Brave bus-waiters who visited the site were then surprised with rides from an attractive woman driving a Lamborghini, an on-the-road dog sled — and even a bus full of circus performers. The two-minute video, via Gawker, is definitely worth a watch: http://gaw.kr/XQlQBD

Read the original article here >>

Follow the money in Virginia’s transportation bill

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Virginia’s complex transportation funding bill, HB2313, is headed to Governor McDonnell for his signature and potential amendments. The bill is a prime example of political sausage, seeking to satisfy Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, transit and road constituencies.


Photo by jimmywayne on Flickr.It also represents poor public policy by undermining the “user pays” principle, failing to reform VDOT spending, allocating far too little to transit in an urbanizing state, and off-loading responsibility for local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Some political observers argue that the only way Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads could win rural legislators’ support for new revenues would be to place the burden on themselves. And they have, by increasing local sales taxes, recordation fees and transient occupancy (hotel) tax, and with a higher state sales tax, which derives heavily from the two regions.

Virginia’s smart growth and conservation community expressed concerns with the bill on Saturday.

While Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will able to raise (tax themselves), keep, and allocate new transportation revenue, VDOT escapes responsibility for meeting the needs of the two most economically important parts of the Commonwealth. The bill frees VDOT to take more of the statewide sales tax revenues for highway construction outside the two regions.

Now that the bill has passed, and presuming the Governor signs it, it will be incumbent upon legislators, local elected officials and the public to watch-dog how the money is spent, starting with the next update of the state’s 6-year transportation plan, due in June. Setting the right priorities with the local money from and for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will be equally important.

Who voted for and against?

The 25 to 15 vote in the Senate included 17 Democrats and 8 Republicans voting yes, and 3 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Senators George Barker, Charles Colgan Sr., Barbara Favola, Mark Herring, Janett Howell, Dave Marsden, Toddy Puller and Richard Saslaw, all Democrats. No votes were Democratic Senators Adam Ebbin and Chap Peterson, and Republican Senators Richard Black and Jill Holtzman Vogel.

The 60 to 40 vote in the House included 25 Democrats and 35 Republicans voting yes, and 4 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Democratic Delegates Robert Brink, David Bulova, Eileen Filler-Corn, Charniele Herring, Patrick Hope, Mark Keam, Kaye Kory, Robert Krupicka, Alfonso Lopez, Kenneth Plum, James Scott, Mark Sickles, Luke Torian and Vivian Watts; and Republican Delegates David Albo, Mark Dudenhefer, Thomas Greason, James LeMunyon, Joseph May, Randall Minchew, and Thomas Rust.

Northern Virginia no votes came from Democratic Delegate Scott Surovell and Republicans Richard Anderson, Barbara Comstock, Timothy Hugo, Scott Lingamfelter, Robert Marshall, Jackson Miller, and David Ramadan.

The complete bill history can be found here.

Follow the money

The best source for tracking the new taxes and the funding allocations is the HB2313 Transportation Conference Report, but even this requires interpretation.

While the bill no longer eliminates all taxes on gasoline, it still reduces what road users will pay in daily operating costs. It eliminates the 17.5¢ retail gas tax and shifts to a wholesale sales tax on gas. This reduces user fees in 2014 by nearly one-third, and by 20% in 2018 assuming the receipts increase because of a rise in gas prices.

The bill makes up for reducing gas taxes primarily by increasing the sales tax on new car purchases, charging a $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles like hybrids, and tapping statewide sales taxes on goods and services (but not food).

Day-to-day vehicle user costs will decline, and all taxpayers will pay more even if they drive little or not at all. Meanwhile, transit fares are likely to continue to climb in the absence of adequate state support for transit maintenance and operating costs.

VDOT is free to continue wasting money on unnecessary highway projects

The statewide portion of the bill is truly a highway bill: it directs $538 million (annually by 2018) to the highway maintenance accounts, but this will effectively free up an equal amount in highway construction funds, allowing the current administration to continue a pattern of funding rural highways with little traffic demand.

Just last week, VDOT announced it would allocate another $869 million in federal Garvee bonds to Route 460 and the Coalfields Expressway, two of the most wasteful, unnecessary projects in the history of Virginia. Four questionable projects—Route 460 ($1.4 billion), Coalfields Expressway ($2.8 billion), Charlottesville Bypass ($240 million), and the Outer Beltway in Northern Virginia (estimated $1 billion)—total a potential $5.5 billion in misallocated spending.

Many expect that Secretary Connnaughton intends to divert a substantial portion of the new statewide money to the controversial and sprawl-inducing Outer Beltway, rather than to the critical commuter corridor needs of the metro regions.

Just 21% of the statewide funds go to transit and passenger rail in 2018, although passenger rail advocates are rightly pleased that $44 million in 2014 and $56 million per year by 2018 will go to current Amtrak services for which Virginia is now responsible, and for capital investment in the passenger rail network. An existing funding source supports upgrades for freight rail.

The $84 million for public transit isn’t a lot of money when it must be shared among transit agencies across the state. The bill allocates a separate $300 million to Dulles Rail, but like some of the road money it’s coming from the existing state sales tax at the expense of General Fund needs like education and health care.

The bill fails to address the empty secondary and urban road capital accounts, unless the administration commits to use some of the freed-up road money in the Transportation Trust Fund for this purpose. Instead, the bill implicitly off-loads the cost of local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads through the local sales tax increases in those two regions. Shifting this responsibility allows VDOT to spend more money on rural highways.

Part of the future depends on a bill in Congress

Part of the bill also depends on the federal Marketplace Equity Act, a bill in Congress which would let states charge sales tax on Internet purchases. If that does not pass by January 2015, the sales tax on gas will rise another 1.7 percentage points to make up for the expected revenue from the MEA. This would bring gas taxes back to a level comparable to where they are today, if not a little higher at current per-gallon prices.

The Washington Post also reports that Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) secured another provision that would kick in if the MEA does not pass. In that case, the amount of general fund revenue directed to transportation would drop from $200 million a year to $60 million a year.

More taxes rise in NoVa and Hampton Roads

The bill would raise between $300 and $350 million per year in and for Northern Virginia by 2018. It does so by increasing the sales tax in northern Virginia by 0.7 percentage points on top of the statewide 0.3 point increase, for a new total of 6%.

There’s also a 0.25% recordation tax on recorded deeds and a 3% transient occupancy (hotel) tax. The bill retains the existing local 2.1% tax on fuel. 70% of the funds will go to “regional” projects and 30% to local projects in the locality where the money is raised. The funds can go to roads or transit, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority will decide how to allocate the money.

For Hampton Roads, the bill would raise $219 million in 2018, using a local sales tax increase of 0.7 percentage points and a 2.1% local tax on fuel. However, the legislation directs these funds only for roads, despite the great need for transit and widespread support for light rail in the region.

Following the success of “The Tide” light rail in Norfolk, 62% of voters in Virginia Beach’s referendum last November supported extending light rail to the beach. The Navy has also expressed its strong support for extending light rail to Norfolk Naval Station.

In a final example of VDOT off-loading costs onto the two metro regions, the bill failed to allocate state funds to Hampton Roads’ Midtown/Downtown Tunnel project which local officials want. Instead, the authors of the bill say that localities should use the new regional funding sources if they want to buy down the costs of the tolls, even as VDOT diverts $1.12 billion of state and federal funds to the unnecessary Route 460 over the objections of many in the region.

Photo courtesy of jimmywayne on Flickr

Read the original article here >>

Historic Transportation Bill on its way to Virginia Governor

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

The final hours of the Virginia State Senate session have handed Governor Bob McDonnell the legacy-building legislation he’s been fighting for.

Lawmakers voted for a landmark transportation funding package that will raise $880 million dollars for road construction, maintenance, and transit.

The legislation replaces the per gallon gas tax with a 3.5% tax on gas at the wholesale level and a 6 % wholesale tax on diesel fuel.

The state’s sales tax will increase from 5% to 5.3%.

And the motor vehicle sales tax will rise from 3% to 4.3%.

In a statement, McDonnell called this an historic day.

“We have worked together across party lines to find common ground and pass the first sustainable long-term transportation funding in 27 years,” McDonnell says.

When it’s fully phased in, the reform bill will raise more than $500 million dollars to erase the maintenance budget deficit, and fund new roads, mass transit, and provide more money for Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.

There’s a whole wide range of projects, the key is though they have to reduce congestion and be on a regional plan,” Delegate Vivian Watts (D- Springfield/Anandale) says.

Stewart Schwartz from the Coalition For Smarter Growth is cautiously optimistic.

“We need to ensure that we’re fixing congestion at Tyson’s, I-66, and the Route 1 corridor and investing in transit that Northern Virginia needs.”

Getting this bill through was in jeopardy up until the last few hours on the final day of the session.

Senate Democrats had threatened to block passage of the tax and fee increases, unless the Governor agreed not to block expansion of Medicaid to 400,000 uninsured in Virginia.

Read the original article here >>

Senate Vote Passes $880 Million Highway Reform

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

The state Senate has passed the first long-term reform to Virginia’s floundering 27-year-old system for funding repairs and upkeep of its 58,000-mile network of highways.

The 25-15 vote sends to Gov. Bob McDonnell what would be the defining policy legacy in the fourth and final year of the single, non-renewable term Virginia allows its governors.

It would replace Virginia’s 17 1/2 cents-per-gallon retail gasoline tax with a 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline and a 6 percent levy on diesel fuel. It boosts statewide sales taxes from 5 percent to 5.3 percent. It increases the titling tax on car sales and adds a $100 registration fee for fuel-sipping hybrid vehicles. It also rules out proposed tolls on Interstate 95 south of Petersburg.

“Giving localities the responsibility to raise taxes to pay for a limited range of projects, while most existing revenue is diverted to wasteful new highway projects, is not a good deal. Over the long term, it will result in local tax base, not state transportation revenues, covering the cost of the transportation systems that serve the majority of Virginians,” Chris Miller, President of The Piedmont Environmental Council said in a statement.

The Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth said it is now up legislators and local elected officials to watch-dog how the money is spent.

“Where we spend our tax dollars and whether we are supporting more efficient, smarter growth with our transportation investments should be a central topic of this year’s Governors race,” he said.

Photo courtesy of WUSA9

Read the original article here >>

Why the Transportation Bill is Bad Public Policy and a Bad Deal for Virginia

Posted on by acustis

VIRGINIA – “Look beyond the deal specifics and look at the real implications of the announced deal on HB2313, and you’ll see a bill that represents bad fiscal policy and bad transportation policy,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “It’s a bad deal for Virginia. Without reforming VDOT spending the statewide component of the funding will be wasted, and all Virginians will have to pay for this waste. On the same day that the conference committee announced a deal proposing about $850 million per year in additional transportation funding, we learned that VDOT is wasting yet more of the $3 billion in funds approved by the General Assembly in 2011,” said Chris Miller, President of the Piedmont Environmental Council. “Yesterday, in a presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, VDOT said it would allocate $869 million in borrowed federal funds to Route 460 and the Coalfields Expressway, two of the most wasteful projects to ever be proposed in Virginia. Then there is the $1.25 billion or so they propose to waste on the Charlottesville Bypass and the NoVA Outer Beltway. ”

House transportation bill to face Senate Democrats

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

RICHMOND — The path forward on a long-term plan to fund transportation projects in Virginia will have to move through skeptical Senate Democrats, though it was still unclear Wednesday what a final package might look like.

A version of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s proposal survived the House of Delegates but the state Senate rejected its own version of the bill on Tuesday after Democrats balked at the ideas of swapping the gas tax for a higher state sales tax and of paying for transportation using general fund revenues.

Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) said Wednesday that Democrats were still looking for a substantive plan that would generate closer to $1 billion a year for the state, steer clear of the general fund and not rely on would-be revenues from the passage of federal legislation related to the collection of Internet sales taxes. That legislation, they have said, has stalled in Congress.

“I think that’s the signal we sent last night,” said McEachin, who dismissed accusations that Democrats were unwilling to bargain. “We’re still willing to roll up our sleeves and do some hard work.”

On Tuesday, the Senate sent its legislation to the Finance Committee, effectively killing it and raising doubts about the prospects for the House measure on its way to the Senate. The House-approved bill is now the only surviving version of the governor’s package, and the Senate could amend or kill it.

“I’m very disappointed,” McDonnell (R) said in an interview Tuesday night. “I think the Democrats have a lot of answering to do tonight. They’re going to have to tell us what they’re willing to do. This is a party that says no to everything but higher taxes. I think the Democrats are way out of touch and they need to start being reasonable.”

While Senate Democrats were in lockstep Tuesday, four House Democrats voted in favor of their chamber’s transportation proposal: Rosalyn R. Dance (Petersburg), Luke E. Torian (Prince William), Roslyn C. Tyler (Sussex) and Onzlee Ware (Roanoke City). They cited regional concerns among their reasons for breaking with their party to support the bill.

Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), who voted against the Senate version of the plan, said her Republican colleagues did not offer a plan with adequate funding for public transit projects.

“I’m looking for . . . a plan I can sell to my constituents,” Howell said. “I haven’t seen that yet.”

Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance President Bob Chase said the House bill is “very much a work in progress.”

“The emphasis in the House has been to get something out,” said Chase, an early supporter of McDonnell’s plan. “I think it’s been crafted . . . in a way to try to show as many legislators as possible that there’s something in the bill that they ought to like. Where the bill stands now doesn’t necessarily preclude anything from being considered in conference.”

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said the House’s version of the governor’s plan is “still a very flawed bill.”

“Eliminating the gas tax makes no economic or transportation sense,” Schwartz said Tuesday. “If it reduces gas prices like the governor projects, it is likely to increase the amount of driving, decrease transit use and increase congestion, especially in the two most urban regions of the state. There is nothing in this to guarantee that local jurisdictions across the state will get the local funding hey need. There’s no way to make this plan better at this point.”

Schwartz also wasn’t optimistic about the plan’s chances for improvement in a conference committee, which he predicted would be “disastrous” for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

“Once it goes to a closed-door committee . . . dominated by the governor’s party, you are unlikely to get a bill that would address the many concerns that the metro regions have identified. The worst thing would be to have such a flawed plan move forward.”

Read the original article here >>

Background Memo on Virginia Transportation Funding

Posted on by acustis

1. VDOT is wasting money on the wrong projects. These include: Route 460: This $1.4 billion proposed new highway between Suffolk and Petersburg; over $1.1 billion of taxpayer funds, plus tolls. The current Route 460 carries just 11,000 trips per day. Coalfields Expressway: $2.8 billion for a new highway in least-trafficked area of the state. Charlottesville Bypass: This $243 million project doesn’t solve congestion and saves minimal travel time for commuters. North-South Corridor: This estimated $1 billion piece of an Outer Beltway around D.C. doesn’t address commuter needs and would add development and traffic in areas without infrastructure. Meanwhile, the state says it will not contribute to roads for Tysons, it hasn’t provided adequate funds to reduce tolls for Dulles Rail and Midtown/Downtown Tunnels, and it has zeroed out secondary road funds.