Del. Jim LeMunyon, R-Oak Hill, has proposed reorganizing representation on the Commonwealth Transportation Board to give more power to Virginia’s fast-growth areas. The idea is simple: Instead of appointing a member from each of the state’s nine transportation districts, in which Virginia’s major metro areas are under-represented, his bill would appoint a member from each of Virginia’s congressional districts.
LeMunyon’s proposal, submitted as HB 600, would keep the size of the board constant by dropping one “rural at-large” member and one “urban at-large” member.
A new representation scheme for the CTB would come at a time when the body is wrestling with fundamental issues like the devolution of secondary roads to local governments, the fine-tuning of maintenance and funding formulas, and the approval of a slew of transportation mega-projects initiated by the McDonnell administration.
In theory, there should be a big split between the interests of Virginia’s densely populated metropolitan areas and those of the lightly populated hinterlands. In the six months I have been covering the CTB, however, I have seen little evidence of such a divide — even though I have been looking for one. (Hey, I’m a journalist — I thirst for controversy!) The CTB seems to be a collegial group with few overt conflicts. (The sole exception that I have seen was over the Charlottesville Bypass.) As a rule, only two or three board members raise uncomfortable issues or ask uncomfortable questions. It appears to be up to the discretion of the chairman, the secretary of transportation, whether or not to elevate an issue to a concrete agenda item or to assign staff time to flesh out more information. Furthermore, the governor has the authority to replace any member at will if he gets too obstreperous.
For the most part, the CTB functions as a rubber stamp for the administration, which at present happens to be the McDonnell administration. LeMunyon’s bill would represent a step forward in making the board more democratically representative of Virginia’s population, and thus should be passed. But would it make the board any less passive? Would anything change in practice? I doubt it.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and then was assigned to Sub-Committee #4. The subcommittee tabled the bill Jan. 26. However, the underlying issue — the misalignment of representation — will not go away. There is a near-universal sentiment in Northern Virginia (whether valid or not) that it gets a raw deal in the distribution of highway dollars. LeMunyon, or someone who thinks like him, will be back.
Update: Upon further reflection, appointing CTB representatives by congressional districts makes no more sense than the congressional districts themselves do. They’re all gerrymandered, for crying out loud! They don’t reflect any natural community of interest. In a better world, CTB representatives would represent organic components of human society and economy such as Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Four from NoVa, three from Hampton Roads, two from Richmond, one from Roanoke, with the balance consisting of rural, at-large members… something like that.
JAB
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.