Can “Objective” Ratings for NoVa Transportation Projects Be Truly Objective?

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Are the LeMunyon-Marsden bills a stalking horse for another Potomac crossing?

by James A. Bacon

Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, and Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Burke, have introduced companion bills (HB 599 and SB 531) that would require the Commonwealth Transportation Board to evaluate “all significant transportation projects in and near the Northern Virginia Transportation District” for the purpose of providing an objective, quantitative rating for each one.

Relying upon computerized transportation simulations conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation and/or the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, the CTB would publicize the quantitative ratings for each project, and update its findings at least every three years, with the first report to be made no later than Jan. 1, 2013.

Each report would contain two lists of at least five projects best rated to (1) reduce congestion as quickly as possible during typically congested periods, and (2) maximize regional mobility and minimize loss of life in the event of a homeland security emergency.

Projects would include not only roads and highways but commuter rail, Bus Rapid Transit, and even additional Potomac River crossings. The lists, state the bills, “shall be used as guidance by the Board in making decisions regarding the allocation of funds.”

I have long called for such objective prioritization of transportation projects. I would amend the criteria, however, to consider the impact upon  safety, which, according to the AAA, accounts for roughly three times the economic loss of congestion, upon the environment, and possibly upon  economic development if a methodology could be settled upon (which I doubt it could, for reasons too complex to go into here). While an improvement over a planning process that seemingly has no objective rating criteria, these bills do not go far enough.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth sees little redeeming in the two bills at all. The smart growth organization has attacked them on the grounds that “they would centralize all transportation decisions in Richmond with unaccountable, unelected officials.” The bills, which the CSG asserts are pushed by the highway construction lobby, “would take power from elected officials in Northern Virginia who are most familiar with our transportation challenges and hand it to the … CTB. The bills are also designed to be anti-transit and to push segments of the controversial Outer Beltway.”

Moreover, notes the CSG, the bills would waste tax dollars by creating a redundant and duplicative planning and prioritization process. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority already prepares transportation plans for Northern Virginia and updates it every five years. The NVTA’s performance standards include improving travel times, reducing delays, connecting regional activity centers, improving safety, improving air quality and moving the most people in the most cost-effective manner.

States the CSG: “The bill would apply too narrow a criteria for addressing the challenges of northern Virginia transportation.”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

7 responses to “Can “Objective” Ratings for NoVa Transportation Projects Be Truly Objective?”

  1. Nailing Jello to a tree.

    First decide what the goal is.

    Is it immediate congestion relief?
    Congestion relief that endures at least ten years?
    Or is it to support evacuation plans?

    If it is both, then what is the weighting, between the two?

    Suppose you decide that your goal is to ease travel and increase commerce coming form Maryland. Then other golas like safety projects on other roads are off the table, not part of this discussion.

    After you decide waht the goal is,then you can decide what metrics to use, and how to set pass fail levels on the metrics.

    Do it any other way, and you are just fooling yourself.

  2. Nailing Jello to a tree.

    First decide what the goal is.

    Is it immediate congestion relief?
    Congestion relief that endures at least ten years?
    Or is it to support evacuation plans?

    If it is both, then what is the weighting, between the two?

    Suppose you decide that your goal is to ease travel and increase commerce coming form Maryland. Then other golas like safety projects on other roads are off the table, not part of this discussion.

    After you decide waht the goal is,then you can decide what metrics to use, and how to set pass fail levels on the metrics.

    Do it any other way, and you are just fooling yourself.

  3. I am sure that this process of rating and ranking transportation projects will have its ups and downs. But Marsden’s and LeMunyon’s attempts should be adopted. They are much better than the lobbyist-pleasing process used by the CTB today.
    The Smart Growth crowd doesn’t like this because hard metrics are not very good for transit.

  4. in a network…. you can put in a new road or expand an existing one and mute the congestion… at that place … but often what you do – especially at rush hour -is just relocate the congestion..much like what happens where the HOV lanes re-enter the mainline at rush hour.

    in peak hour conditions…for example the entrance to a military base or a big manufacturing plant… you get backups at rush hour.. but all you can really do is add “stacking” capacity because if you actually were able to move all the rush hour traffic further down the road – it would just back up where the lanes narrowed down again.

    If you think about this in the context of a metro area like Washington at rush hour… spending millions/billions of dollar to reduce localized congestion … often does not work… it just moves the congestion.

  5. HardHatMommy Avatar
    HardHatMommy

    I absolutely love raising my kids in Northern Virginia. But there is a nagging voice inside my head that often asks “what happens if there is an emergency – can you get to your babies or will the roads be clogged?” For me, congested roads is the one and only complaint I have about living here. It is a source of stress for me and I know I’m not alone.

    Trains and buses are wonderful but they won’t help those who do a lot of local business travel during the day and it won’t help the mom who has to drop kids off at different schools before heading off to work. Some people are just always going to need their vehicle.

    It sounds like this bill isn’t perfect, but it sure sounds like it’s better than what we’ve got. I’ll take incremental improvements to the process over no improvement at all.

    What are other state governments doing to plan and prioritize and can we learn from them? I find it frustrating that state and local governments don’t seem to share and exchange good ideas.

  6. other state govts have the same problem. there are no good ideas for everyone wanting to drive their cars …and not want to pay for it.

    the solution is going to be toll roads. If you want to drive everywhere – find – pay your share….

    tolls roads are going to end up like cell phones. you play -you pay.

  7. Marsden’s and LeMunyon’s attempts should be adopted. They are much better than the lobbyist-pleasing process used by the CTB today.

    ================================================

    I agree, good b=metrics canbe had, but they ar not cheap.

    And, you have to agree onthe goal or the mission first. If the goal is to eliminate autos, you are going to need a different set of metrics than if your goal is to have the chepaest and most efficient transortation mix.

    Larry as ususal is still stuck on toll roads, and is incapable of understandoing how completely wrong that is going to turn out.

    Toll roads will wind up like cell phones. A few private companies making fortunes selling us the use of airwaves (resourvces) that once belonged to us.

Leave a Reply