Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

More Analysis of Kaine’s Transportation/Land Use Amendments

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A reader has passed along an “initial staff analysis” of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s proposed amendments to the Republican transportation package. Viewed in context of the broad scope of the legislation — transportation funding, VDOT reform and land use reform — the Governor’s changes seem modest indeed. View the PowerPoint here.

Among the important points not noted previously on this blog:

  • CBT board. The Governor would eliminate a General Assembly bid to appoint a number of members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board — a clear power grab. This provision strikes me as a bargaining chip that legislators will willingly yield.

  • Urban Development Areas. The Governor would expand the number of jurisdictions required to create Urban Development Areas (UDAs) where growth and infrastructure improvements would be channeled. Not only would the requirement apply to jurisdictions showing a 15 percent growth rate between the last two census years, the UDAs would apply to localities with populations over 20,000 showing a five percent growth rate — about 75 in all. Clearly, the Governor has accepted, even expanded upon, a key land use provision of the legislature.

  • Impact fees. First, the Governor is extending to about 75 localities an existing road impact fee authority that is authorized for only eight counties now, and actually utilized only by Stafford County. Second, he kept in the bill the broad impact fee authority available to six large counties but limited their use to outside Urban Transportation Service Districts, and only for land zoned for agricultural being developed for residential purposes. (Thanks to Reader Roll Tide for correcting my previous explanation.)

Kaine accepted the following changes designed to improve VDOT performance:

– Performance Measures for Project Evaluation and Selection

– Competitive Bidding of VDOT Functions

– Automated Toll Collection

– Reassignment of Road Classification Based on Function

– Creation of Transportation Accountability Commission

The financing portion of the legislation — both the statewide piece and the regional pieces — is such a sorry mess, even after Kaine’s amendments, that my brain goes into a death lock at the mere contemplation of it. If you want details, you’ll have to consult the PowerPoint.

All things considered, this is extremely complex legislation, and we’ll be sorting out the implications for months, if not years, to come.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “More Analysis of Kaine’s Transportation/Land Use Amendments”

  1. Roll Tide Avatar
    Roll Tide

    Mr. Bacon, A correction concerning impact fees. You are mixing the two types contained in the governor’s amendments.

    First, he is extending to about 75 localities [it is based on the same criteria as for UDAs] the existing road impact fee authority that is authorized to only 8 counties now. Currently, only Stafford County imposes road impact fees under this authorization.

    Second, he kept in the bill the broad impact fee authority available to six large counties [except Chesterfield, it can only levy the fees for transportation], but they can only be imposed outside of the UTSD and only for land zoned for agricultural being developed for residential purposes. For example, while Fairfax County has this expanded authority, there is no land zoned for agriculture in the county, so this would not help them.

    This impact fee authority is very straight forward and does not require the level of analysis as the road impact fees noted above do. Also, the broad impact fees must be adopted by December 31, 2008 or the authority expires.

    Finally, you forgot to mention that if one of the six counties creates a UTSD to impose impact fees, then it will be required to take over road maintenance within the district. In order to fund that service, the county will have the authority to levy an additional real estate tax for that service and to receive the equivalent of the urban maintenance allocation from VDOT.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Roll Tide, thank you for setting me straight — obviously, I had difficulty understanding the “initial staff analysis.”

    I have modified the original post to incorporate your explanation.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Excellent power point…

    Roll Tide must be “connected”.

    I don’t think I’ve seen the all of the info in the power point.. in any of the papers.

    Second point – does anyone have any idea of how other RoVa fares moneywise?

    For instance, how much more money would the Fredericksburg area expect to receive as a result of this?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As a VDOT employee, I laugh when I see people talk about VDOT reform like it is the root of all evil. If people only knew how much money has been wasted on these reforms which seemingly come around with every governor.

    From this current list-

    – Performance measures for Project Evaluation and Selection – I spend infinitely more time on project performance evaluations with VDOT than I ever did in the private sector. VDOT Construction Inspectors used to inspect construction, now they push paperwork to show that every t is crossed and i is dotted.

    – Competitive Bidding of VDOT Functions – This always sounds like a good idea, until the first big snow storm. Then VDOT has to come in and clean up where the contractor left off. My personal favorite is that every maintenance VDOT job that is privatized takes a solidly middle class job with good benefits and creates a low class job with minimal benefits and no job security.

    – Automated Toll Collection – In my opinion, if the politicans had some balls there would be no need for tolls.

    – Reassignment of Road Classification Based on Function – How do you think we classify them now?

    – Creation of Transportation Accountability Commission – I thought that reform was intended to make government less bureaucratic rather than more. What this really means is “I want VDOT more accountable to me.” (Insert name of politician here) It is the stated goal of VDOT to make the agency more transparent to the public, and improvements are made all the time.

    Don’t get me wrong, VDOT is not perfect, but it is much better than most people think (for a comparison, spend some time in Pennsylvania). Instead of more red tape, VDOT needs the funding to build and maintain roads.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Interesting comments and I can relate – having worked for DOD for 30+ years…. reading newspaper accounts of $600 toilets while also having an insider perch also.

    VDOT employee – have you read the JLARC and Auditor of Public Account reports?

    What is your opinion of the issues raised in those reports?

    What is your opinion with respect to Asset Management in VDOT?

    What would be YOUR top 3 areas of reform for VDOT?

  6. Pat Murphy Avatar
    Pat Murphy

    VDOT Employee:

    “More funding”??????

    Please address the fact that VDOT has found over a BILLION TAX DOLLARS to build tv camera’s, “smart traffic centers”(oxymoronic at best), electronic signs (that seldom work), radio stations (you can’t hear)(and when you do the info is outdated), hurricane gates, publicity campaigns, BUT SCREAMS, ‘WE NEED MORE FUNDING’!!!

    What is the gurantee, that if you get “more funding” it will be spent on roads, and not on toys?

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Ooh, ooh.

    Nice one Pat. Consider the FAA and the air transportation system. We can proposes all the new toys we want, sophisticated radars, new spacing algorithms, more controllers, etc. etc., but at the endo of the day, when you get down to the basiscs what you find is that we need more runways, or more airports (more “places”), or both.

    Nothing else is going to make a difference.

    However, the variety of comments in this string also point out that almost nothing is cut and dried.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The VDOT employee’s basic response was “give us more money”.

    and then what?

    This is the problem that I have.

    more money to do more of the same – build highways and buy high tech toys…. which MUST mean that we are making progress….

    The idea about actually using metrics to measure whether or not you are actually accomplishing something beneficial to the public – you know the guys paying the bill – is like an alternate universe.

    This is why – on one side – you have VDOT buying high tech signs and paying people to program them – VDOT thinks by doing this – they are demonstrating that they are stayhing with the technology.

    But on the other side – you talk to customers who complain that the product itself – the “outputs” that customers use – is bad – old data, irrelevant data, etc….

    VDOT does see these things as KEY to customers concerns and expectations but rather merely a part that needs “tweaking” for better performance.

    This is why folks don’t trust giving VDOT more money for this stuff.

    Their attitude towards customers and taxpayers and the folks who actually pay the bill is that those folks are not their boss.

    VDOT’s activities seem focused on what their peers in other states are doing…and in the transportation research community than in whether their application and implementation – OPERATIONALLY is actually providing a useful service to .. .customers.

    I’m admit to using a broad brush sometimes with regard to VDOT but the point is that you can do a lot right but if what the public see’s is the wrongs – it leaves a bad taste.

    Shucet KNEW this. He knew that it was important to recognize that have a customer focus was imperative to building trust and confidence.

    You can have the best traffic information system – infrastructure-wise in the world but if it is putting out bad info – your customers are not going to like what they see nor will they be inspired to support – more of the same.

    Some day – VDOT might “get” this.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    VDOT Employee here –

    I did not mean to suggest that more money is the only solution to our transportation problems. What I was trying to get across is that we need money more than another study or reform. Every politician that comes along thinks that they know how best to run VDOT, when what they really want to do is get projects in their district and save money everywhere else. The end result usually diverts funds away from the most pressing needs.

    Let me reiterate, VDOT is far from perfect. There are many things that need to be fixed; just a few were listed in the above comments. VDOT never gets credit for doing anything good. You should see the list of complaints we get when we are repaving a subdivision in Chesterfield. We get 5-10 calls a day and no less than 15 emails, because a big truck is in their way. When we leave and they have a nice smooth road, nothing. You might say that is VDOT’s job and it does not deserve praise for doing its job. How would you feel if your boss only berated you, and never appreciated your work? I think you would look for a new job.

    Larry – I have seen some of the JLARC reports related to maintenance, I haven’t read any pass the summaries. (Policy is more of a hobby than part of my job description.) From what I remember, the report said VDOT could not adequately monitor the performance or cost effectiveness of the maintenance contracts. I know the infrastructure within VDOT responsible for the maintenance contracts is getting larger, but I don’t know if it is doing anything better.

    I am not yet convinced that private contractors can maintain the interstates better and for a lower cost than VDOT. I think that many of these savings could have been found within VDOT without contracting the work out. Take snow removal – in a bad storm you may need several hundred workers and trucks to keep an area clear. VDOT accomplishes this by including employees not primary assigned to maintenance. Contractors hire groups of snow removal subcontractors to do the work. These subs are usually committed to clearing private parking lots, subdivisions, and driveways in addition to the interstate. I have seen several times when these subs didn’t show or weren’t up to the task (underperformance) and VDOT had to send crews to do the work (more expensive). When we already have the infrastructure, equipment, and trained workers how can contractors do the work for less? They buy our equipment, use our infrastructure, and hire a few of our workers (the rest the get cut rate inexperienced laborers). Surely we could have done better on our own and cut out the middle man.

    My three VDOT reforms:

    1. Give employees more motivation and ownership over their work. As with most government work, an employee is treated nearly the same whether he does the work of two people, or does nothing at all. I think it would go a long way if there were some form of meaningful performance bonus. Conversely workers that suck should be easier to fire.

    2. In a perfect world I would take all of the politics out of VDOT. Baring that, I would like to see a system that allocates construction and maintenance projects based on need, and not who yells the loudest.

    3. I am personally not a big fan of the DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) program. In my experience we end up paying more for work that is of a lower quality. A personal story – we needed a new video camera to document construction work. We had to obtain it though a DBE firm. We paid $1000 even though it cost only $700 from Circuit City, and it was shipped directly from Circuit City. We paid the DBE $300 to place the order for us, they never touched the box.

    Pat- Depending on where you live and commute these “toys” may be essential tools in your daily life. Cameras, electronic signs, Smart Traffic Centers, 511, websites, and radio provide information to drivers so that they can chose the best route for their trip. The more info a driver has the better.

    As for the hurricane gates, those are a “best practice” based on the experience of New Orleans and Houston. They may look silly now but if needed, they will help keep traffic moving in an emergency.

    Larry – I agree with you 100%. VDOT must make sure that their work serves the public. A new road or sign that doesn’t meet a need of the public is a waste of money.

    I disagree that VDOT does not “get” this. Every decision I make, I consider the needs of the driving public first. Customer service is not just a buzz word to me and those I work with. We are actively working to do the best we can to meet the needs of Virginians. I think many people in VDOT feel this way, from the Commissioner on down.

    Obviously we still have work to do, but I think we are headed in the right direction.

  10. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    VDOT employee, I appreciate your participation in the blog. My impression is that most VDOT employees are dedicated public servants who, like you, do consider the needs of the driving public. I also get the sense that most VDOT employees are at their jobs. The problem in Virginia is not with the employees. The problem is the politicized and bureaucratic structure they work in.

    We could turn VDOT into a model of world-class administrative efficiency, cut internal costs and drive down head count — and save tens of millions of dollars a year. That’s a necessary step, but only a very small one, towards solving our transportation problems.

    VDOT could improve its performance to the point where its projects are 100 percent on time and on budget, and that would potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs. Again, a necessary step but noe one that will solve our transportation problems.

    VDOT could implement world-class asset management programs to improve the efficiency of its maintenance programs, and that might save tens of millions of dollars a year more. One more necessary step… but not enough to solve our transportation problems, which require (under traditional approaches) the injection of billions of dollars a year.

    When it comes to building roads and transit projects, the most important thing that VDOT needs to do is set priorities and spend the money where it yields the greatest return on investment, as measured by traffic congestion mitigated. That’s in the hands of the politicians, not VDOT.

    Even prioritizing investment is only a part of the problem: It does not address the most fundamental problem of all: the spread of transportation-inefficient human settlement patterns. And that is something that VDOT has no control over whatsoever.

    In sum, “reforming” VDOT could potentially $100 million+ a year, but that’s nowhere near enough to address Virginia’s transportation problems. Flogging VDOT for Virginia’s transportation woes is largely a waste of time. The problem, and the solution, is so much bigger.

  11. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Jim:
    You hit the nail on the head with:

    “When it comes to building roads and transit projects, the most important thing that VDOT needs to do is set priorities and spend the money where it yields the greatest return on investment, as measured by traffic congestion mitigated. That’s in the hands of the politicians, not VDOT.”

    It becomes a VDOT problem when the CTB looks to VDOT to do its job. I call it the Virginia Code 33.1-23.03 assignment. CTB is not doing it. It is instead presenting everything through the filter of the allocation formula. For those who need a reminder here is the proposed language.
    Ҥ 33.1-23.03. Board to develop and update Statewide Transportation Plan.
    The Commonwealth Transportation Board shall conduct a comprehensive review of statewide transportation needs in a Statewide Transportation Plan setting forth an inventory of all construction needs for all systems, and based upon this inventory, establishing goals, objectives, and priorities covering a twenty-year planning horizon, in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements. This plan shall embrace all modes of transportation and include technological initiatives. This Statewide Transportation Plan shall be updated as needed, but no less than once every five years. The plan shall promote economic development and all transportation intermodal connectivity, environmental quality, accessibility for people and freight, and transportation safety. The plan shall include quantifiable measures and achievable goals relating to, but not limited to, congestion reduction and safety, transit and high-occupancy vehicle facility use, job-to-housing ratios, job and housing access to transit and pedestrian facilities, air quality, and per capita vehicle miles traveled. The Board shall consider such goals in evaluating and selecting transportation improvement projects. The plan shall incorporate the approved long-range plans’ measures and goals developed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. Each such plan shall be summarized in a public document and made available to the general public upon presentation to the Governor and General Assembly.
    It is the intent of the General Assembly that this plan assess transportation needs and assign priorities to projects on a statewide basis, avoiding the production of a plan which is an aggregation of local, district, regional, or modal plans.”
    I agree completely with 8:40 PM, Anonymous “Every politician that comes along thinks that they know how best to run VDOT, when what they really want to do is get projects in their district and save money everywhere else. The end result usually diverts funds away from the most pressing needs.”

    The fish stinks at the head. The VDOT problem is not at the working level.

    Jim your second thought “Even prioritizing investment is only a part of the problem: It does not address the most fundamental problem of all: the spread of transportation-inefficient human settlement patterns. And that is something that VDOT has no control over whatsoever.” misses the role the failure to allocate transportation spending rationally has on settlement problems.

    If the CTB and VDOT prepared the Virginia Code 33.1-23.03 assignment we would know where transportation investment is needed. Then we could “throw the bums out” if that is the solution.

Leave a Reply

Read More