"Richmond" Has a Credibility Problem - Is There a Solution?
The Kaine administration has a credibility problem in Northern Virginia when it comes to matters of transportation. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation has proposed diverting a big chunk of an anticipated $195 million in revenues from HOT lanes along Interstate 95/395 to the Virginia Railway Express. That would mean fewer Bus Rapid Transit buses serving the Interstate -- and Northern Virginia politicians are not happy about it. "It's bait and switch," says Alexandria Mayor William D. Euille.
As Eric Weiss explains the problem in the Washington Post, Washington area leaders went along with the plan to turn the carpool lanes on Interstates 95 and 395 into express toll lanes on the understanding that $195 million would be devoted to mass transit, including 184 clean-fuel buses that would ferry commuters into the District or the Pentagon. But DRPT had a different idea: In addition to $40 million for VRE, the state now wants to spend $76.6 million on park-and-ride lots and other facilities south of the converted HOT lanes.
Northern Virginians lost no time in painting "Richmond" as the villain. "This is diverting resources needed here to another part of the state," said Gerald E. Connolly, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. "These are our resources."
"This is classic," Weiss quotes Fairfax resident Bob Perotti as saying. Have you noticed that Richmond has the best roads in the state and Northern Virginia has the worst traffic?"
Mr. Perotti might be interested to know that Spotsylvania County, where some of the improvements would go, anchors the south end of the I-95 HOT lane corridor and is at least two counties removed from the "Richmond" metropolitan area, and also that the VRE heads north from its point of origin, not south. He also might be interested to know that Pierce Homer, the secretary of transportation who defended the DRPT study, cut his political teeth in Prince William County before joining the Warner administration and staying on with the Kaine team.
Regardless, the perception of facts has greater political import than the facts themselves. And the perception is that the politicians and planners "in Richmond" -- regardless of who appointed them, whom they represent, or where in the state they might have come from -- cannot be trusted. Once again, Northern Virginians see "Richmond" grabbing their money and spending it for the benefit of someone else.
In this instance, the perception really isn't fair. The Kaniacs contend that the new plan still would add five new Rapid Bus Transit stations and 76 buses. Their analysis suggests, however, that they could divert more drivers off the Interstate by investing the balance in VRE and the park 'n' ride lots. By expanding the frame of reference from I-95 proper to the I-95 corridor more broadly conceived, they get a different result.
An I-95 Corridor Authority. The issue here is one of trust. Fairly or unfairly, Northern Virginians don't trust anyone from "Richmond." That itself is a political reality that must be addressed. How do we change that suspicion?
The political dynamic would be very different, I believe, if Virginia embraced the idea of planning transportation around "congestion corridors." Interstate 95/395, stretching from Spotsylvania to the 14th Street Bridge, would logically fall into a single corridor. But the corridor should be defined more broadly than the Interstate alone. It should include U.S. Route 1, which runs parallel for most of the distance, as well as the VRE. The goal should be to improve mobility and access for the entire corridor, not just a single component of it.
The corridor would need an operating entity -- the "I-95 Corridor Authority" -- that would administer the congestion toll revenues and plan how best to spend them. Currently, the politically correct solution is to plow all the revenues into Bus Rapid Transit or VRE. Those may be the best solutions -- but, then, maybe they aren't. No one has seriously examined other options for improving corridor mobility, such as: (1) ramp metering to reduce congestion at interchanges, (2) improved incident response teams to get wrecks off the road, (3) traffic light synchronization along U.S. 1, or (4) more sensors and monitors to measure, and respond to, traffic flow. (If these options have been considered, they have never made it into newspaper accounts.)
If I might speak even more boldly, I might suggest that a corridor authority should have input into land use planning along the corridor. City councils and boards of supervisors tend to consider the impact of their decisions only upon their own localities. Someone needs to analyze impacts that spill over municipal borders. It is not yet clear how well the Virginia Department of Transportation can fulfill that function -- there's that bugaboo of trust. As long as the authorities are transparent and accountable, citizens and politicians may trust a regional authority to better represent their interests than "Richmond" does.
(Hat tip: Jim Wamsley.)
Labels: Transportation/land use
posted by Jim Bacon @ 8:04 AM
79 comments
links to this post
79 Comments:
I'm astounded that the NoVa folks have drawn a circle around their region to EXCLUDE transit provisions for the commuters from the outer rings to NoVa jobs - and then have the nerve to blame Richmond for "interfering" with NoVa.
It's total idiocy for NoVa to essentially pretend that traffic on their roads does not consist of substantial outer jurisdiction commuters.
So NoVA was counting on TOLLING the outer jurisdiction commuters and then NOT using some of that money to provide park n ride and mass transit to those commuters
and instead use ALL of the money for NoVa-only infrastructure.
.. the net result of such idiotic thing.. that outer jurisdiction commuters would Continue to clog NoVa roads.
What kind of sense does this make?
And what is really disheartening about this is that the WashMetro MPO - the TPB - knows FULL WELL the geographic commuting realities of NoVa traffic.
and folks.. do we really think that a different conclusion would have been reached if the NoVa MPO consisted of ELECTED NoVa officials?
and with regard to the "trust" issue and elected authorities, take note of the following:
....."He questioned the fairness of a board that raises what he said are essentially taxes with no elected officials, pointing to regional transportation authorities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads that the Virginia Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional for the same reason."
the "he" above was questioning the authority of the Richmond MPO to raise tolls on the Powhite Parkway".
He goes on to say:
"This is an RMA that's not directly accountable to the public and controlled by one of the jurisdictions deciding to raise tolls,"
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-23-0183.html
It all depends on where you draw the boundaries. If you draw them for I-95 and VRE you get the VDOT answer. If you draw them for the region you get the TPB answer. Buses, 184 of them, that would have reduced the time between buses at stops in Alexandria and Arlington and Fairfax counties to a maximum of 22 minutes. They would run all day, eliminating the need for second cars for many in the three jurisdictions. Of course, bus service allows improvement in settlement patterns, decreases air pollution, and reduced cost of government follows. Alexandria is debating the lowest tax rate in the region.
I can see how some settlement pattterns are more conducive to bus service than others, but I don't quite see how it is that bus service allows improvement in settlement patterns.
re: "It all depends on where you draw the boundaries."
For every person that takes a job in NoVa and buys a home in the outer-ring ... how do you draw this line?
let me rephrase:
How SHOULD you draw the line?
Does NoVA take no responsibility for being an employment center that cannot or will not offer an adequate supply of affordable housing .. which does result in NoVa employees seeking housing outside of the NoVa "boundary"?
Did NoVa think that they were ALSO entitled to the HOT lane tolls OUTSIDE of the NoVa "boundary"?
What is the justification for the NoVa approach?
Would NoVa not care if VRE was shut down?
From a study on how to predict the level of transit use:
"A large array of potential transit use predictors were considered, including demographic, socioeconomic, land use, transit supply quality, and pedestrian environment variables.
The best predictors identified through model estimation include two global variables, regional accessibility to employment and percentage of households with no car, and three local variables, employment density, average number of cars in households with children, and percentage of Black population."
Notice that it says regional availaibilty of jobs and local employment density. That plus the percentage of households with no cars.
Getting the best value out of our transit dollars might have nothing to do with the kinds of decisions being made in NOVA.
RH
Here's an equitable solution.
You DO draw the boundary at the edge of NoVa.
Then the NoVa MPO gets the HOT lane tolls on it's side of that boundary and the FAMPO - Fredericksburg Area MPO get's all the HOT lane tolls on it's side of the boundary.
Then the Fredericksburg folks will spend that money for Fredericksburg Area infrastructure needs ... and let NoVa figure out what to do with the outer ring commuters on NoVa roads.
Everyone support that idea?
No.
Hot lane tolls are an unacceptable solution that will not solve the problem at hand. Arguing about how you will distribute the funds that are supposedly raised to reduce congestion and pollution just shows how crazy this idea is.
This should go the way of Rail to Tysons, and then we need to get out a blank sheet of paper.
BUT
Given that you will have HOT lane tolls, then certainly those that pay the most (long distance riders) should get some benefit at both ends of their trips. Otherwise, Fairfax is exporting it's housing problems and importing it's transit revenue.
Pretty good deal, if you can get it.
RH
Bus service reduces pollution?
Let's see.
CO2 emissions for 40 and 60 ft buses run from 66 to 198 grams per passenger mile deending on the type of power and based on 23 passengers.
But based on the APTA factbook average passenger loads on transtown buses is only 10.
Therefore, According to a report in the Journal of Public Transportation this works out to 397 grams per passenger mile for private vehicles of all types and 294 grams of CO2 for buses.
But, that is based on revenue miles, not total vehicle miles.
Once you account for all the nonrevenue miles driven to relocate buses travel to repair shops etc. Their total CO2 per passenger mile is no better than the average private vehicle, including all SUV's and Light trucks.
RH
Larry:
I love your solution. Because it is demand pricing, the outer pricing stations, with little demand will generate little revenue. When the cars get to the stations at the Potomac River Bridges the demand and revenue will increase.
Were you influenced by VDOT price per mile toll schemes and not thinking “demand pricing?”
When you compare automobile emission and bus emission you have to add the equivalent of 30 miles to every automobile trip for cold start up. When you do the calculation correctly it will match that of the TPB.
This post has been removed by the author.
re: demand pricing
no. I understand the concept.
But the concept of using the HOT lane revenues for transit is to provide public transportation alternatives - choices - for those influenced by demand pricing tolls ...
that concept as a SUBSET of the MSA ring boundary such that within that boundary.. you provide options and outside of that boundary... you do not.
I guess the concept is to NOT provide attractive alternatives to daily SOLO commuting - OUTSIDE of the NoVa boundaries and to let those folks make their decisions of how far to commute - based on toll costs.
I'm not sure why you call this VDOT's concept since wasn't it the DPRT that advocated VRE funding from the HOT lane revenues?
but you're right about the tolls. the amount of money that the first few stations will generate at the outer ring level is going to be relatively small compared to the inner ring/bridge levels.
that might leave VRE out in the cold as far as funding is required...
who should pay their subsidy - the NoVa tolls or the FAMPO tolls or should they split it or should VRE sink/swim on it's own fares?
re: "Because it was never about affordable housing now was it? It was about lifestyle choices."
You are correct of course.
I myself have expressed the same viewpoint - countless times.
and to be honest.. I've made the point that outer jurisdiction commuters to NoVa - clog NoVa's roads without paying a penny in compensation because most buy their fuel where they live in the outer jurisdictions.
Is the idea that the money for VRE is REALLY a subsidy for outer jurisdiction commuting - something we should NOT encourage?
Larry:
"Does NoVA take no responsibility for being an employment center that cannot or will not offer an adequate supply of affordable housing .. which does result in NoVa employees seeking housing outside of the NoVa "boundary"?".
Your arguments live in a fantasy world. The people who commute from the "outer ring" to NoVA are living in large, single family homes. They make the long commute because of lifestyle decisions, not a lack of affordable housing.
Please read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032202086.html
I wonder how many of the people incurring long commutes from their $450,000 house in Fredricksburg will sell and move into a foreclosed $175,000 house in Sterling? Oh yeah - none. Because it was never about affordable housing now was it? It was about lifestyle choices.
"Richmond" (read:GA) has a credibility problem because there is a competence problem. They pass laws with gaping holes (e.g. out of state drivers and abuser fees). They pass laws that are not constitutional (e.g. transportation authorities). They claim all is well with federal funding for Rail to Dulles when it is not well at all. They set up congestion tolling schemes and then completely change the rules (e.g. VRE vs. bus mass transit). They promise that the Dulles Toll Road will have the tolls removed once the bonds are paid. Then the bonds are paid and they raise the tolls on the roads to pay for rail. Then the rail falls through and they keep the raised tolls (who knows for what).
This has nothing to do with affordable housing. Nothing.
It has everything to do with an incompetent and dishonest state legislature which cannot be trusted in any way.
Get the GA's slimy hands off of NoVA transportation issues.
Death to Dillon's Rule.
"Is the idea that the money for VRE is REALLY a subsidy for outer jurisdiction commuting - something we should NOT encourage?".
Maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. The trouble is that it is a different idea than what was sold when the tolls were first proposed.
As Jim Bacon clearly writes:
"As Eric Weiss explains the problem in the Washington Post, Washington area leaders went along with the plan to turn the carpool lanes on Interstates 95 and 395 into express toll lanes on the understanding that $195 million would be devoted to mass transit, including 184 clean-fuel buses that would ferry commuters into the District or the Pentagon. But DRPT had a different idea: In addition to $40 million for VRE, the state now wants to spend $76.6 million on park-and-ride lots and other facilities south of the converted HOT lanes.".
There's always a new idea. It's never what was originally proposed. There is always a scheme or scam. If this is such a great idea - why wasn't it part of the original proposal? Because the original proposal would not have been accepted. "Bait and switch" - that's exactly what this is.
The GA has no credibility. None.
re: .."Washington area leaders went along with the plan to turn the carpool lanes on Interstates 95 and 395 into express toll lanes on the understanding that $195 million would be devoted to mass transit, including 184 clean-fuel buses"
okay.. WHO proposed THE plan to the Washington Area Leaders?
do you think it was the VA GA?
so... WHO made the Plan?
do you 'think' that the Washington Area Leaders had .. MORE to do with said plan than Richmond?
:-)
but I'll be happy if you just tell me who made this plan... that... Washington Area Leaders... err.. turnip truck rubes.. just naively accepted exactly as presented to them....
Based on the commuter census data if EVERYONE in Loudoun, PW, and Stafford who works outside the county but inside the state worked in Fairfax, then they would still represent less than one third of the work related commuter travel.
Larry:
Here is the WaPo article from the beginning of this plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602648.html
In fact, Bacon's Rebellion published an article on the same day as the WaPo article. Your thoughts are posted in the comments section.
http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2007/05/one-step-closer-to-i-95-congestion.html
As you can see, the original plan was approved by by the Northern Virginia Transportation Planning Board. The plan was created by Flour Virginia and Transurban. As the more recent WaPo article points out - the original plan was significantly rewritten. From the recent WaPo article:
"After reviewing the proposal, the state Department of Rail and Public Transportation recommended that some of the money be spent differently -- and farther south. In addition to $40 million for VRE, the state would spend $76.6 million on park-and-ride lots and other facilities south of the converted HOT lanes, expected to open in two years.
And because the state's plan would eliminate many fare-collecting buses in favor of capital spending projects such as buying railcars, it would bring in about $92 million less in revenue than the original plan, officials said.".
Anon 2:16 - excellent point. There is an absurd belief that there are lots of jobs in Fairfax County but nobody can afford to live there due to a deficit of "affordable housing". Of course, this argument ignores the fact that Fairfax County is, by far and away, the most populous political entity in NoVA (no matter how you define NoVA). So, the place where nobody can afford to live has the most people living there.
"Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore - it's too crowded".
It's a policy issue with respect to whether or not toll revenues should be used to finance alternative mode transport choices to all commuters no matter whether they originate inside of NoVa or outside of NoVa.
In a way.. one can think of this as the virtual equivalent of Cordon tolling much like NYC's current congestion pricing proposal where they will charge every car that crosses the designated boundary and (as far as I know) use those tolls to fund public transit only WITHIN those boundaries. (not verified as fact).
The MSA recognizes .. rightly so.. that economies and commuting transcend jurisdictional boundaries... but they are still somewhat arbitrary AND static - only updated every decade or so.
The original HOT lanes were not proposed to go to Spotsylvania.
They were to end in Northern Stafford.
They were extended after FAMPO - the MPO for the Fredericksburg Area - at the behest of Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg made the request.
Tis interesting..
it appears that NoVa does not claim any responsibility towards providing alternatives to solo driving to outer ring commuters to NoVa jobs.
oh.. and I'm still awaiting an answer to the question as to who authored this plan and then presented it to NoVa....
answers please...
Larry:
As I wrote in my comment:
"The plan was created by Flour Virginia and Transurban.".
Did you miss that sentence or do you disagree?
"it appears that NoVa does not claim any responsibility towards providing alternatives to solo driving to outer ring commuters to NoVa jobs.".
Correct!
If the "outer ring" wants to put in toll roads or charge to get on the highway - they should do exactly that. Then, the "outer ring" jurisdictions should take that money and build whatever infrastructure the "outer ring" thinks best. NoVA should not tell Fredricksburg what to do and Fredricksburg should not tell NoVA what to do.
Fredricksburg is a nice place. I'd like to live there myself. I am sure I could afford a bigger / nicer home for the same money I spent in Great Falls. Only I work in Reston and don't want to spend 1:30 each way commuting. See Larry - that's my choice. And anybody who wants to live in Fredricksburg but work in NoVA - that's their choice. This is all about choice. NoVA is under no obligation to pay for the commuting costs of those who CHOOSE to live in Fredricksburg but work in, let's say, Reston.
Shazaaammmm Groveton!
re: "The plan was created by Flour Virginia and Transurban.".
hmmm... What Fluor and Transurban proposed was the infrastructure...
WHO made the proposal to use the tolls for Transit?
come on now.. Groveton.. don't go wobbly on me here...
WHO proposed to use the tolls for NoVa transit?
Not Fluor and not Transurban - right?
and don't tell me it was the tooth fairy... either..
"When you compare automobile emission and bus emission you have to add the equivalent of 30 miles to every automobile trip for cold start up. When you do the calculation correctly it will match that of the TPB."
JW:
That is a good point. My Prius has a recording MPG guage so that you can see the MPG in 5 minute increments over the last 30 minutes, plus the current instantaneous value and the average since last fill up.
You can easily see that for the first five minutes it gets half of the usual average, for the second five minutes it gets 80%. After that it is 46MPG for me, ususally.
But I very seldom go 30 miles in ten minutes:-). And it still gets better than half my ususal average while warming up. So I wonder where you came up with that 30 mile figure. That sounds like leaving it idling in the driveway for 30 minutes and going nowhere.
Maybe bigger engines take longer to warm up. Since the average trip to work is only 22 miles, that 30 mile figure seems excessive. If it is correct, then its a good plug for electric cars.
------------------------------------
My understanding of the article was that the values were based on measured average output of various vehicles, in which case cold starts (should) have been considered for both POV's and buses.
I don't deny that the POTENTIAL is there for lower emissions per passenger mile. It is just that achieveing that potential is harder than most imagine.
And, as you see, the measured values for transit were only based on revenue miles, when the proper measure of overall pollution would be total miles driven.
-----------------------------
Automobiles use parking as a resource instead of cruising around for passengers; they never go anywhere without at least one passenger. Buses spend less time parked, and using parking resources, but more time traveling around mostly empty. It's a trade we make, and part of the difference is that your car is waiting for you, instead of you waiting 20 minutes for the bus.
The initial load ratio for an auto is 20%, but when the first passenger gets on the bus, it is only 2%. So it is the same as your argument about cold engines, in a way: when the bus first starts up it isn't very efficient, either.
Let's find out how many gallons of fuel Loundoun Transit buys -total- and how many passenger miles they carry and the figure out the grams per passenger mile. My guess is that if you are lucky, the real net savings is 5 to 8% lower than just using cars, not 50%.
Now buses (on average, according to the stats quoted) carry ten passengers, so that's more than five times as many as an average car. So, if the bus was as efficient as the car, you would expect it to produce 5 times less CO2 per mile, and that clearly isn't the case.
In a general way, I don't have a problem with the generalization that buses produce less pollution per passenger. But I have a big problem with the impied idea that it is worth any amount of toll and inconvenience and re-jiggering how and where we live, just to get 8% pollution savings on commuter travel which is only 25% of the total travel problem at hand.
--------------------------------
The actual pollution generated is important, but even that isn't the whole case. I believe that money is a proxy for resources and energy. If A costs more than B then it probably pollutes more, even if the measurable pollution is less.
Larry asks "should VRE sink/swim on it's own fares?" and HE is the "user pays" guru. I'd just say that if it costs more it probably results in more pollution, in the final analysis. And, it takes a LONG time to get one of those diesels warm. When they fire up in the morning in Manassas, it is pretty gross.
I think it is worth subsidizing VRE until their market is fully built up. After that, they should be on their own. So, here they are, the trains are SRO, the platforms are not long enough, they have congestion problems of their own (after the lines join), and they still have their hand out. At what point do we say, well we need higher fares or this is a money losing deal?
I believe that auto drivers OUGHT to be willing to pay SOMETHING to support VRE. But that ought to be related to the actual benefits they get in congestion and pollution reduction. Same for METRO.
But, after you dig through all the pro-transit generalities, and outright false claims, and figure out on a fair basis what the real benefits amount to, I think you'd be lucky to come up with a figure that says VRE/METRO deserves 10% support out of auto drivers.
And, after they paid that in addition to their other costs, THEN we would have to give up on the argument that autos don't pay their way, wouldn't we? We would have to start promoting them so that we could get more money for the externalities.
All of which is a long way of saying that buses are expensive to operate on a per passenger mile basis (and again, that's calculated against revenue miles for some reason, so the figures quoted are lowball).
So, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt in the pollution calculation, you then have to add in all the pollution that supports the driver, just for starters. And everything that is related to adminsistration of the bus service. When you look at the whole deal its a lot less attractive.
Especially if you think we need to rebuild all our other structures in such a way to redefine transportation in such a way that the bus wins. That is a truly huge subsidy for public transit.
--------------------------------
In the end, you are correct:
When the cars get to the stations at the Potomac River Bridges the demand and revenue will increase. but only for a while. Once you increase the fees, demand DECREASES, and those people will then demand to go someplace else. So wea re going to help thme meet that demand by subsidizing VRE.
and
Alexandria has the lowest property tax rate. But it doesn't not have the lowest expenditures per resident person. In fact, it isn't much diferent on that score than Loudoun county, and it is HIGHER than Fauquier county. Just like the bus situation, once you stop drinking the kool aid and step back a little,then the scenery is a lot different.
There are other reasons Alexandria's residential taxes are low. It isn't just a matter of affordable housing, it is a matter of comparable housing. There is simply no point in comparing a $400,000 home in Alexandria with a $400,000 home in Quagmire, Alabama.
Whether one can afford it or not, the question is where is the demand? The more tolls and fees, and expenses and aggravations you slap on closer in, the more demand there will be farther out.
My message is two fold: If the idea is to promote what is usually touted around here as amore funtional settlement pattern, then taxing the central core and using the money to support long distance VRE tarvel is as dumb as toast.
Second, if we REALLY want to promote functional settlement patterns maybe we whoud go measure a few things and be willing to accept the results.
I might be wrong. Buses might be a LOT cleaner than cars, but I think the right anser is maybe a little bit cleaner, sometimes. Alexandria might be a lot cheaper than Fauquier (it is,) if you divide the budget by persons per square mile instead of by persons. It might pollute a lot less over all, but I don't think so because of all the socialized resource and energy useage.
But I would really hate to go off and spend a bunch of money, or charge other people a bunch of money on the idea that we will save 50% of our travel pollution with buses, and then have it turn out to be only 3%.
Now THAT would be a colossal waste of resources, that would far outstrip the environmental bus savings, no matter what shade of green we paint them.
Meanwhile, here we are. People want a lifestyle with yard bigeenough to play frisbee. Businesses want to be located in clumps where people can't get to them. Lord knows why.
But we ought to figure out how to make what we have work, and maybe have some incremental improvements towards what actually works better, without fabricating ideas in order to support forcing our ideas of how things should be on others.
RH
"See Larry - that's my choice. And anybody who wants to live in Fredricksburg but work in NoVA - that's their choice. This is all about choice. NoVA is under no obligation to pay for the commuting costs of those who CHOOSE to live in Fredricksburg but work in, let's say, Reston."
Nicely said.
User pays is fine, until it hits home.
RH
WHO proposed to use the tolls for NoVa transit?
Oh - spare me.
Everybody proposed that the revenue from the tolls be used for NoVA transit. Everybody. Fairfax County BoS, Arlington BoS, The National Capital Transportation Planning Board, everybody.
Everybody except the "clown show" in Richmond. While they said they would use the toll revenue for NoVA transportation they actually changed the proposal to use the toll money to fund transportation needs outside of NoVA.
Didn't they?
So ... when you say it was the General Assembly who proposed using the tolls collected to fund NoVA transportation I assume you'd also say they are trying to do something else right now.
Bait and switch.
Hey Larry -
Hot off the presses. It seems that Maryland is going to impose a tax on technology companies (beyond the usual taxes).
Here's the letter:
"RE: Open Invitation – Tech Businesses Welcome in the Commonwealth of Virginia
To Maryland Information Technology and Computer Services Firms:
You’ve worked hard to inform your General Assembly about the consequences of targeting technology firms for higher taxes. Now that efforts to repeal the “tech tax” have been rejected in Annapolis, you are looking at your options.
I would like to take this opportunity to personally invite you to relocate your business to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia has consistently been rated one of the most business friendly states in the nation in independent assessments, including receiving Forbes Magazine’s top-ranking for the last two years. Here in the Commonwealth, we believe that business is the lifeblood of the economy and I am personally committed to making sure we remain welcoming to business owners.
As a legislator, I understand the challenges of slowing tax revenues, but raising taxes on the most vital and forward-thinking businesses is never the answer. For the long-term health of the economy, businesses must have adequate incentives to grow, re-invest profits, and hire excellent employees.
In order to expand the economy, government must tighten its belt in tough times and rely on the private sector to do what it does best: innovate and produce. Because government inevitably takes more than it can give, legislators ignore this principle at their own peril.
As you consider your best options for the health of your business, please consider bringing your expertise to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Right here in Fairfax County, we have space in the high-tech Dulles Corridor that is calling your name. I would love to hear from you and connect you with resources for business owners here in Virginia.
We are open for business and we would warmly welcome you.
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Senate of Virginia
Any of the Fredricksburg politicians trying to hustle up some business from high technology companies in Maryland?
no.. I never though the GA proposed anything .... I was asking you if you thought the VA GA came up with the idea of using the HOT lane tolls for NoVa.
they did not... in fact.. I'm not sure what role if any they are playing in any of this.. EXCEPT for the DRPT suggestion that SOME of the tolls be used for VRE.
and yes... the folks who cooked up the idea of HOT lane revenues being used for NoVa transit ONLY were the NoVa folks.
surprise., surprise.
It's interesting that the HOT lanes tolls even in the base case are projected to generate MORE than a billion annually - as compared to the 300 million that wasp projected for the defunct Transportation Authority.
NoVa is going to be FLUSH with money if the HOT lanes get extended beyond the base case and they eventually fix the TA problem.
NoVa could end up with 2-3 Billion per year for transportation...
At that point I would fully expect NoVa to go for Statehood.
:-)
Actually in Fredericksburg there is currently a big dust up over the money that the Economic Development folks spend every year - a million dollars .. and have nothing to show for it .. save for perhaps a heavily-subsidized water park... and Slave Museum...
Remember.. we tried to get the armed services to related some of their Wash Metro agencies to A. P. Hill near Southern Spotsylvania and there was immediate and massive fear and loathing of the folks who worked in those agencies and lived in NoVa .. fearing being banned to the Virginia equivalent of Siberia....
The 184 bus plan was proposed by VDOT. The Project Manager is listed as Larry Cloyed – VDOT.
Details are at: http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/proposed/6%20-%20I-95%20395%20HOV%20BUS%20HOT%20Lane.pdf
Mr. Cloyed's name is on the HOT lane proposal ....true...
.. but here is what it says about TDM:
"Transit/TDM Plan There are numerous transit elements integrated into this Project, including a proposed increase in bus service along the I-95/395 corridor, expansion of HOV capacity from two lanes to three lanes, ....
"This is a preliminary transit plan that has been developed for the conformity analysis, and is based on what is reasonably expected to be funded by this Project."
and then this:
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), in cooperation with the Transit Advisory Committee (“TAC”), a group established by the VA Secretary of Transportation to facilitate coordination between the transit service providers in the corridor and the Project, has is developeding a detailed Transit/TDM Plan."
"The TAC will, working with the City of Alexandria,"
Now we have the DPRT acting as if a final decision has been made that they do not agree with and so they are making their VRE suggestion... which makes me think they actually made that suggestion in the meetings also...and were ignored...
beginning.
Then this statement:
"The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) and Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) will approve any transit/park-and-ride plans for the areas under their purview, and these will be submitted as inputs to the 2008 CLRP/Conformity update."
something smells here folks..
DRPT was always part of the TDM process .. from the beginning...
then a decision was made about the buses.. that apparently DRPT did not agree with.. so they issued a statement of their own...
and guess what.. the NVTA folks throw the "Richmond is interfering" penalty flag...
tell me I got this wrong JW...
was DRPT a member of the TDM group from the very beginning and involved in the process from the very beginning?
The 184 bus plan is the one that was in the Conformity Plan tested by COG. You need an amended plan and a new test to change it. The VRE proposal has not reached that stage.
In regard to who shot John – It doesn’t matter. The problem is the Indians left the reservation and the Chiefs are trying to get them back.
The 184 bus plan is a step in the right direction. Top VDOT wants to do an about face.
this is interesting....
The 184 bus plan and the VRE plan do not deal with the same traffic.
The VRE plan, as far as I know has been in place for a while - and they were looking for a way to get it funded.
Didn't the 185 bus plan surface just recently as a result of the HOT lane idea?
It is interesting that the folks the 184 buses are to be moving is not the same folks that VRE is moving.
In terms of who shot John...
IF DRPT was a participant from the very beginning than the claim that the VRE proposal is an after-the-fact bait and switch ...
made by a fellow participant who sat at the same table that DRPT sat at...from the beginning...to then go public and accuse Richmond of interfering because of DRPT's view of how to do TDM...
why would someone who had knowledge of DRPT's initial and continuing presence in the TDM process.. go to the papers and accuse Richmond of interfering via DRPT?
and a separate comment
If the HOT lanes had ended on North Stafford - it would have pretty much remained a MWCOG/TPB/NVTA geographic boundary issue.
so.. when the proposal was made to extend the HOT lanes to Spotsylvania/Massaponax, the project turned into something that extended beyond the NoVa region (but not NOVa commuting influence).
The question in my mind is WHO approved the extension?
and I suspect that it was not the TPB/NVTA.. so that implies to me that such decisions are not their total purview... or else.. given their current actions, they would have flat rejected extending the HOT landes to Spotsylvania/Massaponax.
No?
Nova is going to be flush with moey they take out of one pocket and put in another. Unless we can show there is a positive ROI on this plan,there is no net gain. If the money is going to be poured down the black hole of transit, it will be less than no net gain.
Ask the poor SOB's paying those tolls every day how flush they feel. Their face might be flush, but not their pockets.
Meanwhile, you can be sure that the rest of the moeny they pay for transportation will go to Richmond, never to be see again. "What, or what? You've got all that toll money, don't bug me."
Of that 2.3 billion, how much goes to the contractors? How much of it comes from selling roads we already paid for, so we can be tolled on them?
RH
A higher gas tax ($1/gallon) would raise gas prices. This would cause people to alter their behavior in various ways:
1. Drive less.
2. Purchase more fuel efficient vehicles.
3. Slow down.
4. Move closer to work.
5. Move work closer to homes.
Tolled HOT lanes will cause people to alter their behavior several ways.
1. Drive someplace else - maybe farther and slower.
2. Keep their old vehicle longer because they can no longer afford new.
3. Drive faster - which is the whole point of HOT lanes.
4. Avoid areas with Tolls like the plague. Especially when purchasing homes.
5. Move work closer to home.
RH
"Zoned Out
Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use"
Jonathan Levine
"This book introduces a new and important dimension into the debate about the causes and results of urban sprawl. Levine argues persuasively that extensive single-family residential zoning is a constraint on the exercise of a free market in real estate development and that denser urban development would result from a more open market. Levine very convincingly shows the inconsistency in the 'free market' arguments of some of the anti-smart growth critics. . . . This book could become an intellectual benchmark in the ongoing discussion of American land-use patterns." --Martin Wachs, University of California, Berkeley
"Jonathan Levine forcefully demonstrates as groundless the belief that compact development must prove its transportation and other benefits before it is permitted as legitimate. That view implicitly accepts the status quo of low-density development as "normal" or "privileged" until proven otherwise. In reality, the existing laws that spawn sprawling development are distortions of market forces that restrict the housing and living style choices of millions of American households. Leaving powers over land-use planning solely in the hands of parochial local governments will forever enshrine exclusionary zoning and prevent affordable housing from becoming more widespread."
--Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
http://www.rff.org/rff/RFF_Press/CustomBookPages/Zoned-Out.cfm
"and yes... the folks who cooked up the idea of HOT lane revenues being used for NoVa transit ONLY were the NoVa folks.".
Not really.
There is at least one Henrico County resident who has been saying this for years. Or, Mr. Bacon, did I misunderstand you?
Every time a gas tax hike is proposed I hear the same thing, "That will never be approved. People downstate aren't going to pay for NoVA's roads".
OK, fine. So, we have a new proposal - all transportation-related monies raised in NoVA will be spent on NoVA transportation needs. Now, nobody else has to "pay for NoVA's roads".
Ohhhh..... but now that's unfair. Not only should NoVA pay for its own roads it should pay for transit facilities outside of NoVA with money collected in NoVA.
And you wonder why "Richmond" has no credibility.
Statehood for NoVA? Fine by me. Let's add DC, Montgomery County, MD and Prince George's County, MD too.
That will be 2 very liberal Senators and 2 (I think it's 2) very liberal representatives.
Maybe I'll run for office. Governor Groveton. ;)
Groveton, I'm not sure who cooked up the idea of HOT lanes being used for NoVa transit. I presumed that it originated in the original negotiations between Fluor/Transurban and VDOT. From the very beginning, it was understood that toll revenues would go to Rapid Bus Transit in the I-95/395 corridor. Whether the idea originated with Fluor/Transurban, VDOT or other parties, I don't know.
What is clear is that the VDRT idea is new, and represents a chance from what had been accepted before. I can understand the NoVa suspicion, but I would suggest that people take time to understand what VDRT is actually proposing.
Spotsylvania may not be "in" Northern Virginia, but it is part of the NoVa commuting shed. I would suspect that the VDRT logic is something like this: If you take a passenger off I-95 in Spotsylvania, you divert a driver who is likely to clog the Interstate for a greater distance than if you divert a driver who hops on in, say, Dale City. You reduce congestion over a greater length of Interstate that way. If I'm right in my speculation, the idea *does* make sense... even if you live in NoVa.
the point is that DRPT was an original member of the HOT lane TDM committee - they appear to have been there from the very beginning.
I would strongly suspect that they did not sit there MUTE and then later.. issue a statement from Richmond.
and yet.. that is how NoVa is portraying their role...
I don't think that the VDRT idea is "new".
I strongly suspect that all along - they wanted some of the money to help fund VRE.
I think it is pretty clear.. that NoVa interests have sought to hijack the HOT lanes from the State - because the State (VDOT) negotiated with the Feds to get Fed funding for the HOT lanes and the VDRT were on the TDM committee from the get go.
it also implies that the Wash Metro MPO (the TPB) ... AND the NVTA folks were not the originators of the HOT lane concept... which seriously undercuts their claim that this is a NoVa-only issue.
I think there is a legitimate policy issue with respect to whether or not transit options should be provided to outer ring commuting jurisdictions...
but to claim that Richmond is "interfering" with NoVa business with "bait and switch" tactics is not true....if indeed VDRT was on the original TDM part of the HOT lanes as it appears to have been.
Why would NoVa folks .. who sat at the same TDM table with VDRT from the beginning .. go to the papers and make the "Richmond is hijacking the process" claim?
"I would strongly suspect that they did not sit there MUTE and then later.. issue a statement from Richmond.".
I would strongly suspect that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a "bait and switch" from the start. They did sit there MUTE while the plans were being drawn up because they knew that any talk of VRE, etc. would have scuttled the plan with NoVA.
"I think it is pretty clear.. that NoVa interests have sought to hijack the HOT lanes from the State - because the State (VDOT) negotiated with the Feds to get Fed funding for the HOT lanes and the VDRT were on the TDM committee from the get go.".
Where are these HOT lanes? Are they in Henrico County? Are they in Winchester? NoVA "hijacked" the plans for roads in NoVA? That is such a "Richmond" statement. People who want to make their own transportation decisions (and pay for those decisions) are "hijacking" Richmond's authority.
Larry - the true color of your argument is showing through. You are argunig for more transfer payments from NoVA for things that should be financed by Fredricksburg. And you want your friends in "Richmond" to impose the subsidy.
Who developed the plan? Flour and Transurban. There is nobody in "Richmond" smart enough to have come up with the plan. However, there are plenty of people in "Richmond" who are slimy enough to siphon off money generated by anybody's plan.
Meanwhile, the people in Fredricksburg claim that they are trying to create economic growth. So, what happens when Maryland passes a "computer services tax"? Sen Cuccinelli invites the Maryland companies to come to Fairfax County. The politicians in Delaware and Pennsylvania do the same. And the politicians in Fredricksburg? They are too busy trying to steal more money from NoVA.
from a policy issue - with respect to whether or not public policy should be encouraging/incentivizing outer ring commutes...
... at the LEAST .. I support these folks paying their fair share of the commutes that they have willingly chosen.. as you say to get their nice houses and to, in general, maximize their higher-than-average NoVa salaries.
And .. indeed.. I support the estimates of 30 bucks one way for a commute the length of the HOT lanes.
But it appears from a process point of view that VDOT and FHWA began the HOT lane discussions and that DRPT was involved early on.
If you are saying that NoVa would have NEVER agreed if VRE was to receive money from the HOT lanes... then I don't have any proof the contrary but you'd have to do some pretty fast tap dancing (short of proof) that NoVa would walk away from a billion or two dollars of funding over 20-30 million?
Convince me that is the way it went down...
NoVa is going to walk away from 2 Billion over.. 20 million?
:-)
Even us rubes think NoVa is smarter than that...
"And .. indeed.. I support the estimates of 30 bucks one way for a commute the length of the HOT lanes."
So, what you are telling me is that for a $120 dollars you would rather see four cars paying 30 bucks than one four person car poll traveling for free.
Is that the the economic/environmental trade you are comfortable with?
RH
Well, let's see.
$2 billion times one per cent is 20 million.
You think there is a probability greater than one percent that Clara Barton Parkway and GW Parkway will be turned over to private interests?
You throw that $2 billion around like it was a done deal and money in our pocket. The proabable value of that money is a lot less, for now.
RH
re: " So, what you are telling me is that for a $120 dollars you would rather see four cars paying 30 bucks than one four person car poll traveling for free."
I support letting the commuter make those choices according to their own priorities.
re: "You think there is a probability greater than one percent that Clara Barton Parkway and GW Parkway will be turned over to private interests?"
I think there is a near zero possibility of them being turned over to private interests and a much higher probability that wherever those roads connect to non NPS surfaced street - a toll will be assessed.
I also predict that if they do this - that they'll monitor the tax-evading corridors and put tolling on them also...
there will be no escape...
:-) conformity is required.
"NoVa is going to walk away from 2 Billion over.. 20 million?".
You act like the $2B is a gift. It is not. It is a charge for using NoVA roads by those driving on those roads.
The only thing we would "walk away from" is the privlege of charging ourselves for roads we have already paid for.
And ... we get to send some of that money elsewhere - again.
No thanks.
I'd walk away.
I'll live with the congestion before I'll open another spigot of NoVA money to flow elsewhere.
Because what starts as $20M becomes $40M then $100M then ... who knows.
This is just another scam. This is just another example of "Richmond" the Robber. This is just another "bait and switch".
Walk away?
I'd run away.
I am very interested in Jim Bacon's thoughts on a very specific point.
Jim - As I understand it, you have maintained that tolls should be endorsed by NoVA because it's one of the few feasible ways to raise transportation money for NoVA.
I've said that I don't trust "Richmond". I've said that money raised in NoVA would be spent elsewhere.
Given all this - who was right?
Thank God the GW Parkway is owned by the feds and not the thieves in "Richmond". I'd take 100 chances with teh federal government or 100 chances with the Fairfax County government befored I'd take 1 chance with "Richmond".
Groveton, I suppose you could say I tried to split the baby. On the one hand, I said that NoVa has good reason to be suspicious of "Richmond" (and by "Richmond" I mean the state government, lobbyists and other special interests that congregate there, not the good people of the region like myself). Therefore, any dictum coming down from Richmond regarding the disposition of tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars of toll revenues generated by NoVa commuter will be regarded with distrust -- and rightfully so.
On the other hand, I suggested that the Virginia Department of Rail and Transit may have had legitimate reasons for recommending ways to spend the money otherwise. A dispassionate analysis might -- might, I emphasize because I have not seen the study -- show that more NoVa congestion could be alleviated under its plan than under the original plan. Rather than respond in a kneejerk fashion, NoVa political leaders ought to take a close look at what the VDRT logic is.
The point I tried to emphasize in my original post is that the way these deals are structured matters. It would be easier for NoVa to buy in to changes of the original deal if NoVa people were calling the shots... The local pols may be crooks and charlatans, but at least they're NoVa's crooks and charlatans. If they squander the toll funds of stupid projects, at least they're squandering the funds in NoVa. Bottom line: There needs to be a mechanism for the people living in the I-95 corridor to make the decisions -- like a congestion corridor authority.
"I think there is a near zero possibility of them being turned over to private interests "
Yes. But aren't both the GW Parkway and the Clara Barton Parkway part of the plan that is required to raise that $2 billion? Aren't they part of the additional (existing) lanes that the contractors need to keep this thing out of the red?
If that possibility is near zero, so is the $2 billion.
---------------------------------
Groveton is right. No matter how this thing is sold, it's a tax increase on NOVA to support ROVA.
Either (admittedly nearby parts of) ROVA get their hands on NOVA toll moneys directly,
OR
NOVA toll monies stay in NOVA but the regular transportation money NOVA provides simply disappears downstate because "NOVA's got all that toll money".
--------------------------------
Re breaking up car pools. We have long heard that the only answer to congestion and the only way to avoid sending Larry a bill for somebody else's bad choices is to avoid driving solo, and increase the number of multiple user cars.
Studies predict that toll lanes will do the opposite. Apparently we are willing to accept increased congestion and pollution - for the right price.
RH
How about if NOVA collects the tolls and keeps the money, but we get a waiver on the sales tax, gas tax, and other fees normally used for transportation funds?
"It would be easier for NoVa to buy in to changes of the original deal if NoVa people were calling the shots... The local pols may be crooks and charlatans, but at least they're NoVa's crooks and charlatans. If they squander the toll funds of stupid projects, at least they're squandering the funds in NoVa.".
Exactly.
And NoVA's crooks and charlatans will lose their favorite excuse:
"We know this is screwing NoVA but we don't have enough votes to do anything about it.".
VDRT has plenty of time to bring up their alternate plan. The proposed approach was approved last May. The Washington Post wrote an article. You wrote a column. Now - what happens? From the recent WaPo article you cite:
"Washington area leaders agreed to turn the carpool lanes on Interstates 95 and 395 into express toll lanes in part to raise $195 million for transit, a plan that included buying 184 clean-fuel buses that would speed commuters into the District or to the Pentagon.
But that was before the proposal got to Richmond. The state's transit agency reworked the plan, put together by the Virginia Department of Transportation and a consultant. It wants to use toll revenue to extend Virginia Railway Express train platforms in Fredericksburg and to pay $1.3 million for storage for six Fredericksburg-bound train cars that would be bought with $12.6 million in toll money.
And all those new buses? The number has been reduced to 76.
"It's a bait-and-switch," said Alexandria Mayor William D. Euille (D).".
Once again "Richmond" knows better. The Nanny State will tell us how to spend our money. And this is the same "Richmond" that has created an epic disaster in NoVA transportation over the past 20 years.
We've listened to "Richmond" long enough.
I think the congestion corridor is a thought in the right direction. However, it is too limited. If we took that approach, there would be a whole lot of congestion corridors. There would be the I95 congestion corridor, the I66 congestion corridor, the Rt 29 congestion corridor, the GW Parkway congestion corridor, the Rt 7 congestion corridor, the Dulles Toll Rd congestion corridor.
If "user pays" through tolls is the answer then we might as well bite the bullet and make NoVA one big congestion corridor.
And yes - "Richmond" means the state government not the good people of Richmond. Just like "Washington" often means the federal politicians (very, very few of whom are from Washington).
NoVA's problems are not the fault of Richmond. Our senators and delegates enable other parts of Virginia to screw NoVA, most especially Fairfax County. Virtually every bill that has hosed NoVA has passed with substantial support from NoVA legislators.
For example, the Warner-Chichester tax changes takes more than $100 M each year in higher taxes from Fairfax County residents, but has not returned $15 M in new revenues for public schools. And, of course, there wasn't a dime for transportation. Yet, the bills (tax and budget) passed with support from most NoVA legislators. Why is that that the fault of Richmond or legislators from other parts of the Commonwealth?
The recent fiasco by the state Senate that would replace most cash proffers with well-below cost impact fees was passed with NoVA support. Why was that the fault of Richmond or legislators from other parts of the Commonwealth.
Most NoVA legislators, from both parties, are scared to death of the Washington Post. The Post's editors smell a tax increase and become orgasmic even when it hurts their local readers -- those that remain, that is. With a few exceptions, the NoVA legislators shrink in the face of editorial stupidity and vote against the best interests of their constituents.
Most legislators of both parties are owned, body and soul, by the real estate development industry. In Virginia, this crowd is so used to receiving massive taxpayer subsidies that they wouldn't know how to operate in a free market. The real estate industry supports higher taxes on everyone else but themselves. And the weak-kneed NoVA delegation kow-tows. Why is that the fault of Richmond or legislators from other parts of the Commonwealth?
We get what we deserve.
TMT
"How about if NOVA collects the tolls and keeps the money, but we get a waiver on the sales tax, gas tax, and other fees normally used for transportation funds?".
Exactly.
And that option should be available for any region in Virginia - not just NoVA.
re: when things were decided...
take a look at the doc that JW provided a link to...
http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/projects/proposed/6%20-%20I-95%20395%20HOV%20BUS%20HOT%20Lane.pdf
now.. notice some things...
like the org that has the doc - MWCOG the MPO - not the state
.. then the date on it Jan 08
and then look at the number of strike-outs... indicating ongoing changes
next - who did the infamous congestion study that had the 3 scenarios of tolling ranging from the base HOT lane case to area-wide roads..
and ranged from a billion to 2.5 billion in revenues
who did that study?
hint: it was not Richmond
I don't know the truth as to whose hands are in what parts of the plan ...
but if you're going to allow the HOT lanes to start in the outer ring suburbs.. and you ARE going to allow carpools, buses, etc in those HOT Lanes.. where will the cars park and who will pay for the park n ride lots?
Will the buses that originate from the southern HOT lanes NOT be clean fuel buses paid for by HOT lane revenues?
so.. it appears that the Wash Metro MPO will have a separate independent plan for the TDM inside of it's boundaries and they'll leave the Fredericksburg MPO - FAMPO to pursue it's own plan.
but the document I referenced above says otherwise.. go look...
what does the TDM doc say that the TPB, FAMPO and DRPT will develop the TDM plan?
is that "bait and switch"?
I think the ardor for NoVas interests is completely missing what the facts show.
take a look at the link and tell me that you stick with your views.
"There would be the I95 congestion corridor, the I66 congestion corridor,....."
As I understand it, that is exactly what is in the plan that brings in the $2 billion --- all those extra roads, already built, soon to be turned over to private industry.
RH
"Most NoVA legislators, from both parties, are scared to death of the Washington Post. The Post's editors smell a tax increase and become orgasmic even when it hurts their local readers -- those that remain, that is. With a few exceptions, the NoVA legislators shrink in the face of editorial stupidity and vote against the best interests of their constituents. ".
I disagree.
NoVA politicians are scared to death of the Virginia Republican Party or the Virginia Democratic Party. And those parties make their living using NoVA as a "piggy bank". And even that would be OK if "Richmond" left enough coins in the "piggy bank" for things like road building and maintenance.
As for the NoVA politicians being "in the pocket" of local developers - that has been absolutely true. However, some changes have begun to occur. For example, John Foust's victory over Janet DuBuois was, in my mind, clearly an anti-developer vote. Four years ago DuBois defeated Foust. Last November, Foust beat DuBois (53% to 47%). What changed? The attitude of the voters, that's what changed. Former Supoervisor DuBois was seen as too supportive of unbridled development.
I also remember 40 year Republican Delegate Vince Callahan saying over and over again the he "just doesn't have the votes" to do the right thing. Thank goodness he retired. And what happened? His hand picked successor lost the election. Even if you don't like Margi Vanderhye she represents a voter backlash (in my opinion).
The revolution has begun.
The demographics of "Northern Virginia" are giving NoVA more and more power. The voters are rejecting the developer / politician cabal. The GA's incompetence is becoming both obvious and a crisis.
The times they are a changin'
"Will the buses that originate from the southern HOT lanes NOT be clean fuel buses paid for by HOT lane revenues?"
I just read a report that claims clean fuel buses are very little cleaner. They spew less NOX and particles but more hydrocarbons and CO2.
They are heavier because of the fuel tanks, and less powerful. That won't make much difference on the highway runs, but it slows things down in stop and go conditions.
Furthermore,the article claims the service interval is much shorter, so they cost more to run.
Needless to say, the article was promoted by those with interests in diesel technology.
RH
There seems to be a bit of confusion over congestion tolling and revenue tolling. The HOT lanes will be demand management tolled. This means that they will not be empty because of car avoiding the toll. The toll goes away when the drivers don’t use the roads.
Because of this feature you can’t toll by the mile. You also can not toll in areas where VDOT has built more roads then needed. You can’t toll in areas that lead to congested bottlenecks because the bottleneck tolls will discourage your drivers from using your segment of the road.
In Northern Virginia that means that toll can be collected at the Occoquan River, Springfield, King Street area and 14th Street Bridge in the I95 corridor. The beltway would be the WWB, Braddock Rd area, both sides of I-66 and near Georgetown Pike.
Congestion tolls won’t work further south because of the VDOT policy of allocating money based on vehicle miles of travel with out regard to lane mile costs.
Last but not least, you should focus the discussion on congestion and not on revenue if you hope to solve the congestion and air pollution problems of Virginia.
"The demographics of "Northern Virginia" are giving NoVA more and more power. The voters are rejecting the developer / politician cabal. The GA's incompetence is becoming both obvious and a crisis.
The times they are a changin'"
Yep.
"Leaving powers over land-use planning solely in the hands of parochial local governments will forever enshrine exclusionary zoning and prevent affordable housing from becoming more widespread."
--Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
The times they are a changin and the more they change the more they stay the same.
RH
Larry-
We have a problem of philosophy. As far as I am concerned, anybody who wants to drive (or ride) on NoVA streets can do it NoVA's way. Or, they can elect not to drive (or ride) on our streets. They do not get a vote. They do not get a subsidy. They do not get to take any of our money to use for their purposes. In return, I think anybody driving (or riding) on Fredricksburg's streets ought to do it Fredricksburg's way. Or, exercise their choice to drive (or ride) somewhere else.
The GA has failed Larry. It's partly their intrinsic incompetence. It's partly the kind of scam that they are trying to pull with the toll revenues.
We don't want to spend our toll money on VRE. If you want to spend money on VRE then establish tolls and spend all the money you can collect.
Sorry, but the politically correct BS about "us all being in this together" is just that - BS. The cost of NoVA's roads should be bourne by NoVA. The plans for NoVA's roads should be made by NoVA. "Richmond" (and Fredricksburg for that matter) should butt out. If you don't like our plans - don't come here.
"The HOT lanes will be demand management tolled. This means that they will not be empty because of car a