The contrast between Virginia’s two gubernatorial candidates could not be more stark: Elephant clan candidate Bob McDonnell has thought long and hard about Virginia’s transportation issues and provides a detailed blueprint for how he would raise more money and spend it. Donkey clan candidate Creigh Deeds has very little to say about transportation at all. He conspicuously ignores the topic on the issues page of his website. And he has said little in his public pronouncements other than concede that, to quote the Washington Post, he would be willing to “sign a transportation plan that identifies new revenue to fix roads.”
Bottom line: McDonnell tells us with great specificity how he would squander billions of dollars in new revenue on transportation projects while Deeds asks us to take it on faith that he would squander the billions.
It appears that Deeds has little useful to say on the subject of transportation. Therefore we are left with the impression that either (a) he would pursue Business As Usual, or (b) he entertains ideas so radical that he doesn’t dare express them publicly for fear of not getting elected. In the absence of evidence otherwise, I will assume that the first explanation applies. Frankly, there is little more that we can say about Deeds’ approach to transportation.
McDonnell is much more complicated. His transportation platform does have a few good ideas. But a McDonnell transportation administration would focus on finding new money to inject into the system, not changing the way the money is spent. The phrase “land use” appears only once in his entire transportation treatise, and not in a context suggesting that he would build on the incremental reforms of the Kaine administration.
First, let’s talk about the good things in the McDonnell plan.
Prioritize traffic congestion and economic development. First, McDonnell would adopt the principle of prioritizing transportation projects based on their ability to reduce traffic congestion or promote economic development, in contrast presumably to projects flogged by lobbyists and politicians to open up new land for exploitation. “Just like any capital intensive business, we should invest in projects that make economic sense and are driven by demand, not projects that simply make it more likely for a politician to get re-elected.” (While this principle is fine in theory, I question whether it will be honored in practice, as I explain below.)
More technology, less asphalt. Second, McDonnell acknowledges that there are ways to mitigate congestion that don’t entail laying asphalt. He specifically mentions investing in traffic signaling technology. “It makes little sense … to skimp on technology investments because they may not offer the same kind of ribbon cutting opportunities that a new road does.”
Integrate growth, transportation planning. “Localities and regional entities should be encouraged to consider the relationship between land use policies and transportation policy when developing and assessing the impact of transportation plans.” Yes, McDonnell is right, regions should be encouraged to consider land use. Unfortunately, he has nothing useful to contribute on how they should be encouraged. The utter lack of detail suggests that a McDonnell administration would give no more than lip service to land use reform.
Now, let’s talk about the bad things in the plan. McDonnell, or the authors of his policy platform, have applied the vast majority of their creative energies into identifying new mechanisms for funding transportation that can’t be tagged as a “tax hike.” McDonnell’s proposals, if adopted, would create a flood of new revenue for Virginia transportation, which he would plow into a wave of new mega-project construction like Rail-to-Dulles, Interstate 81, the Coalfield Expressway, Interstate 66, the Hampton Roads 3rd crossing, high-speed rail and a host of others.
Apparently, McDonnell deems all of these projects to be high priorities. There doesn’t seem to be a regional mega-project that he doesn’t like. Based on his rhetoric, we can only surmise that he has already concluded without benefit of comparative cost-benefit studies that all of these projects make “economic sense.” So much for his core principle that transportation projects should be driven by “demand” — unless by “demand” he means the clamouring of lobbyists and special interests.
Here is a partial list of how McDonnell proposes to raise new revenues for transportation:
- Expedite the issuance of $3 billion in bonds authorized by the General Assembly in 2007.
- Issue another $1 billion in bonds for projects in congested areas.
- In years when General Fund revenue growth exceeds 5%, dedicate the surplus to transportation.
- Dedicate 75% of annual budget surpluses to transportation.
- Privatize the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control and funnel the estimated $500 million into transportation projects.
- Open up offshore oil and gas drilling and steer 80% of the royalties to transportation.
- Dedicate 30% of state revenue attributed to the growth of the ports of Hampton Roads to transportation.
- Slap tolls on Interstates 95 and 85 at the North Carolina border.
Ay yi yi! What do these measures have in common? They all support the illusion that transportation is an amenity that somebody else pays for. They have nothing to do with market-based principles whatsoever. At least with the good ol’ gasoline tax, the more you drive and the more gasoline you consume, the more tax you pay. It’s not perfect but at least there is a rational nexus between the tax and the benefit you derive from it. The same holds with tolls. McDonnell does endorse HOT lanes, but there is precious little else in his plan that squares with the user-pays principle.
While McDonnell says he would like to keep politicians out of the transportation decision-making mix, his financing schemes would only elevate their power. Who else would decide how to allocate bond monies, surplus General Fund revenues and the rest of the loose cash generated by McDonnell’s schemes?
In a nutshell, McDonnell would indiscriminately raise new transportation revenues from a variety of sources, sever the connection between those who use a transportation asset and those who pay for it, increase state indebtedness, make the system even more political than it is now, and plow billions into mega-projects favored by regional elites.
The nation is careening toward fiscal insolvency, and rather than tightening criteria for taxing and spending, McDonnell would open the money sluices for transportation. The globe is transitioning to an energy-scarce era of peak oil, and McDonnell would dump billions into projects conceived during an era of energy abundance. This isn’t mere Business As Usual, as bad as that would be — this is Business As Usual on steroids.
Update. Deeds has released his transportation plan, which he has packaged as part of a larger plan to jumpstart Virginia’s economy. Deeds supports the usual list of bridge-and-highway mega-projects, plus unspecified light rail and mass transit projects, without regard to social Return on Investment. Unlike McDonnell, he doesn’t say how he will pay for his “billion dollar transportation proposal.” I guess the money will materialize by magic. On the positive side, Deeds says he will promote telecommuting, flextime and ride sharing, and he would “connect transportation planning with smart land use decisions” by prioritizing growth in corridors already served by transportation infrastructure.