by James A. Bacon
Whoah, dude! There was a lot more in Gov. Bob McDonnell’s Round 2 package of transportation legislation than his Friday press release summary let on. In my haste to knock out a quick story late in the day, I focused on the garnish on the bill — the proposed grant of road, bridge and highway naming rights to commercial interests — and missed the meat. (See “Name that Tunnel!”)
There was a potentially explosive provision hidden within the larger package. In the bland words of the press release, the transportation “funding and reform” bill submitted by Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge, “Amends statutes regarding local transportation plans to ensure that state and federal dollars are spent in a timely and cost-effective manner.”
Sounds pretty inconspicuous, doesn’t it? In fact, this measure would dramatically expand state authority over local transportation decisions under the rubric of integrating land use with transportation planning. In the abstract, I have long advocated stronger ties between transportation and land use. Whether this particular legislation is a good thing or a bad thing, I cannot say, but it surely looks like a very big thing. (Thanks to Bacon’s Rebellion reader “Bosun” for actually reading House Bill 1248 and bringing this to my attention.)
As part of their comprehensive zoning plans, localities are required to identify transportation infrastructure that will be needed to support growth and development. HB 1248 would require localities also to include a map showing those improvements as well as VDOT’s estimates of how much they would cost. Further, the plans must be consistent with the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s (CTB’s) Statewide Transportation Plan and Six-Year Improvement Program. “The locality shall consult with the Virginia Department of Transportation to assure such consistency is achieved,” mandates the bill.
In a related measure, the bill contains a paragraph designed “to integrate land use with transportation planning and programming, consistent with the efficient and economical use of public funds.” If the CTB finds that a local or regional long-range transportation plan is inconsistent with its own Statewide Transportation Plan or Six-Year Improvement Program, it can “withhold federal and state transportation funds for transportation capital improvements.” Likewise, if a locality or regional planning organization requests the termination or alteration of a transportation project that has received state or federal funds, the localities involved shall be required to reimburse VDOT for all such funds expended.
What is the thinking behind this measure? What abuses is it designed to correct? Does it represent a lead-up to devolution? Would the bill give too much power to VDOT and the CTB? Would it encumber localities with more bureaucracy? I have lots of questions and no answers. I’ll start digging. But one thing is easy to predict: Local governments will raise a ruckus.