Kaine on the Transportation Session

In a blog conference held this afternoon, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine laid out his expectations for the upcoming transportation session of the General Assembly. Abandoning the proposal he pushed earlier this year to raise taxes by $1 billion a year, he will focus on areas of common agreement with the Senate and the tax-averse House of Delegates.

The Governor said he hopes to make progress in three broad areas: (1) reform and privatization of the Virginia Department of Transportation; (2) making the connection between transportation and land use planning; and (3) bolstering stable, ongoing transportation funding through the dedication of more modest revenue streams than he’d proposed earlier this year.

VDOT reform. VDOT has made significant improvements in delivering construction projects on time and on budget, but that’s just a start. Kaine said he expects to see more construction performed under public-private partnerships, and to see an increase in the percentage of road maintenance conducted by private contractors. He anticipates additional VDOT reform bills to surface in the special session.

In a related matter, he said, “you’ll see some announcements on personnel that will take the reform issues further.” (The Governor is expected to announce his selection for the permanent VDOT commissioner after Labor Day.)

Land use. The Commonwealth has “turned a corner” in making the connection between land use and transportation, Kaine said. He has appointed a “community development” sub-cabinet — encompassing the secretariats of Administration, Commerce & Trade, Transportation and Natural Resources — to look for ways “to do planning in different ways than we did in the past.”

Kaine refused to divulge details of any new land use-related legislative initiatives, but he did mention one previously announced issue that he wants to solve: What are the circumstances under which the state accepts subdivision roads into the state road system?

When local governments approve zoning changes or amend their comprehensive plans, they can create new road-maintenance obligations for the state. “A private developer builds the road, then the roads come into the state system to be maintained in perpetuity,” Kaine explained. About 200 miles of road are added to the state highway system each year that way. As maintenance expenses soar, cutting into funds available for new construction, the state has little say about the new obligations it’s forced to take on.

In a related issue, Kaine said that the issue of VDOT subdivision road standards also is “actively under contemplation.” It’s a rare topic upon which builders and environmentalists agree: VDOT standards for road widths are too wide. Builders complain that the roads are expensive to build, while environmentalists contend that wide roads and cross-walks make it difficult to create pedestrian-friendly communities. “Are we being rigid without a real purpose?” asked Kaine rhetorically. “It’s fair game for analysis.”

Dedicated funding streams. “There are ‘free lunchers’ who think we can have a B+ infrastructure on a D+ revenue stream,” Kaine said. “They’re wrong. You’ve got to have reliable resources to do it.” But he acknowledged that House Republicans aren’t likely to budge on his desire for $1 billion in new taxes. He does think, however, that it is possible to reach consensus on some smaller revenue streams. Dedicating automobile insurance premiums and traffic abuser fees to transportation, and supplementing them with General Fund surplus funds, could inject a meaningful amount of money into the transportation system.

Additionally, the Governor sees promise in proposals to create regional transportation solutions that draw upon a combination of regional taxes, local fees and tolls — with all revenue to stay within the region. Such an approach could make a big difference to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Regional plans are not sufficient in themselves to address all the state’s problems, especially in places like Southwest Virginia, but they can be part of the solution.

In sum, Kaine said, “Let’s focus on the areas where we agree.” A number of people are pessimistic that the special session will yield anything meaningful for transportation. “I’m not among them. We have an opportunity to make some great things happen. I’m certainly more optimistic than I was 60 days ago.”

Update: Vivian Paige has an good wrap-up of the blog conference, covering topics that I didn’t address in my post.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “Kaine on the Transportation Session”

  1. Insider Avatar

    wow! a special session to enact the regional plans that were rejected by referendum!

    Brilliant!

  2. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Some of these questions raised by the Governor are important, including the acceptance of new subdivision streets by the State. As he said, new subdivisions can absorb a large sum of tax dollars. But why isn’t he also asking why the taxpayers and commuters should be asked to absorb the likely cost overruns for extending Metro, the added yearly subsidies and a transfer of additional overheads to Virginia from D.C. and Maryland because of the addition of track and stations in Virginia.

    Why is Scott Kasprowicz involved in decisions involving Metrorail’s expansion when he owns real estate near a proposed stop in Reston? What is the relationship of the large campaign contributions made by West Group, its executives, and other Tysons Corner landowners to Tim Kaine? Why are we spending billions to extend Metrorail when it does not remedy traffic problems when we supposedly are short of transportation tax revenues? How many other projects, including the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway to meet the needs of the relocation of jobs to Fort Belvoir, could be accomplished with the same amount of money that would be wasted on the Silver Line?

    Will the Governor also direct VDOT to perform a traffic study on Tysons Corner similar to the study performed on the proposed 28,000 new homes in Loudoun County? If not, is is because the Loudoun County Board is controlled by the GOP, while the Fairfax County Board is controlled by Democrats? Or is it because of the relationship between Governor Kaine and the Tysons Corner landowners or between the Governor and PEC or both? Or will our Governor do the right thing (order the study) because it is the right thing to do? (I would not discount the latter possibility.)

    As to the Governor’s apparent change of heart and return to the general themes that won him his job (tying land use to transportation capacity, i.e., you can’t build when the roads are insufficient to handle the added demand, and “we cannot pave our way out of this mess”), I give a lot of credit to Vince Callahan. His experience and willingness to dig against the “business-as-usual” crowd likely brought Kaine back to his senses and closer to his campaign promises.

    P.S. I don’t expect we see any direct answers to any of these questions from the Governor’s Office.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    TTM, I have to agree with you, it is remarkable that the MSM has shown no interest whatsoever in the web of relationships between Gov. Kaine and the backers of the METRO project. If it were Gov. Gilmore, or any other Republican, in Kaine’s shoes, teams of investigative reporters would be all over it.

  4. I’m surprised there is nothing in here about reducing transportation costs or pollution.

    With regard to pollution, I’ve made the point about looking at things as a total system. Here is an example.

    “CNW Marketing research concluded in a long-term study of “dust to dust” energy costs for passenger vehicles that the Scion xB was the most energy efficient car of 2005. According to the site, “The research tracked and calculated the energy cost of each model sold in the U.S. in 2005 from initial concept to the projected time it is scrapped.” The xB costs $.48 per mile to drive over its lifetime, whereas in comparison the Toyota Prius costs $3.25 per mile.”

    This is just a little example. If our land use plans save a billion in transportations costs and create a bigger cost somewhere else, then we may be buying a Prius when we could have had a Scion.

Leave a Reply