Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The House Proposes Overhaul in Allocation of Transportation Dollars

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , ,

congestionby James A. Bacon

In September House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, gave a major policy speech to the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce declaring that money alone cannot solve Virginia’s transportation problems. He called for a “new way” to think about those problems that relies heavily upon new technology and prioritization of projects by Return on Investment.

Part of the promised legislative package came to light in a bill filed by Del. Christopher P. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach. in which the Commonwealth Transportation Board, acting in cooperation with regional organizations, shall develop a process for prioritizing funds allocated under the Six-Year Improvement Program.

There are two critical pieces to the reform. First, funding categories shall include highway, transit, rail, roadway, technology operational improvements and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. While technology projects have been getting more funding in recent years, there still is a bias in the Virginia Department of Transportation to increasing capacity by building new roads and adding new lanes. The bill potentially puts technology and TDM projects on an equal footing.

The other breakthrough is the methodology used to rank priorities. States the bill: “The prioritization process shall be based on an objective, quantifiable analysis that considers at a minimum the following factors relative to the cost of the project or strategy: congestion mitigation, economic development, accessibility, safety, and environmental quality.”

The CTB may assign different weights to the factors based upon geographic location and other factors. Small pots of money — air quality funds, state matching funds and the like — are exempt.

The bill was expected to win approval by the House of Delegates some time today.

Bacon’s bottom line: I’m not so naive to think that these reforms will totally take the politics out of transportation funding decisions. I’m sure the special interests will have a lot to say about the factors and weights that go into the ranking methodology, and I’m certain they will make the case that certain projects are so unique that they should be exempt from this review altogether. Still, objectively quantifying the touted benefits of projects and calculating the Return on Investment for each should be a real eye-opener. When it can be demonstrated that a politician’s pet project offers fewer benefits per dollar expended than competing projects, it will be a lot more difficult to push it through.

This reform likely would divert money from splashy, high-visibility mega projects to smaller projects with more localized impact but a higher ROI. The new methodology also is likely to steer more money into technology and TDM programs, which have gotten short shrift in the past.

Presumably, the CTB would build upon the ranking methodologies already under development in the Secretariat of Transportation, so we won’t have to wait for years until the new prioritization process is approved. This bill is unlikely to generate one one-hundredth of the visibility that Governor Bob McDonnell’s transportation tax overhaul did but it is every bit as important. Virginians can be assured that their money will be better spent.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

12 responses to “The House Proposes Overhaul in Allocation of Transportation Dollars”

  1. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Forcing reasonable analysis and quantification requirements on funding decisions is better than where we are today. I think it will make it tougher, but certainly not impossible, for “economic development” projects to take precedence over others with harder data supporting them.

    I go back to early last year when Leo Schefer spoke to the McLean Citizens Association’s Transportation Committee about the need to build at least part of the Outer Beltway to help Dulles Airport. While Mr. Schefer did more than wave his arms, he really had no hard data or facts behind his argument. He argued Dulles has high operating costs and lower passenger counts. Since Dulles doesn’t get a state subsidy like TMBWI does, Dulles needs taxpayers to build a road for trucks to deliver and pickup airfreight from Dulles and also permission to go into the non-air traffic real estate development business. As my late father-in-law might say, “A fellow with high operating costs might try to reduce those costs.” But the Virginia way is to seek taxpayer subsidies. If this bill makes it harder to do so (for any type of transportation infrastructure), it is a step in the right direction.

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” “A fellow with high operating costs might try to reduce those costs.”

    well that sorta depends if said “fellow” is a private entity or a govt entity!

    😉

    I’m not sold on what they’re selling. I see this as not too different from trying to “prioritize”, get the best ROI on education or law enforcement, etc.

    Having spent a few years learning about transportation funding at the MPO level – the simple truth is that it’s a rat’s nest / rabbit warren nightmare with funds divided up into a dozen or more pots of money that can only be spent on some things – not other things.. you can’t, for instance, compare a METRO proposal against widening the beltway, etc.

    interstate highway money cannot be spent on Federal Aid highways and federal money that can be spent on Va primary roads cannot be spent on secondary roads. It gets worse… try thinking about this is annual rolling 6-year windows…because Virginia does not fund a project then build it.. it plays out over years.. instead.

    so the folks at VDOT know this.. and apparently have chosen not to let the legislation-writing critters in the GA know it or worse, they know and their legislation is dripping with cynicism.

    Unless I get convinced, this is window dressing for the gullible ….

    and after all the guff about having to pass legislation before you know what it really does, consider this as in that genre.

  3. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Larry, MWAA has much lower operating costs at Reagan National. It needs to manage down its Dulles costs and try to attract one or more low-ticket-price airlines.

    And maybe it would not hurt for Virginia to study funding sources and suggest any modifications that seem appropriate. That’s why we have a congressional delegation. If more flexibility in the federal pots of money would better serve the public and not some lobbyist, why don’t we propose changes and push our representatives and senators to get such changes enacted.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – you can see how Dulles might have to wait to get low cost airlines (or make a better deal with them). Richmond spent years trying to attract low cost carriers without a great deal of luck.

    I generally don’t think roads can be truly justified on a tight nexus of ROI and certainly not on a short term basis…

    I’m just pretty skeptical that this process is anything more than “feel good” for those who keep asking for “priorities” and “ROI”.

    this is one of these deals, in my view, that if you ask for ROI and priorities and you don’t provide a model then what you’re going to get is not going to be what you thought you’d get.

  5. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    If the management of MWAA cannot deliver results over a reasonable period of time, change management.

    I tend to agree that we won’t get precise science by examining ROI, but simply engaging in the exercise is better than a bunch of words. We should push for reductions in traffic congestion and improvements in safety.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      I tend to think the public does not have a clue how to lay down a real specification for prioritization and ROI…

      it’ s mostly a sound-bite concept.. and if you turn it over to VDOT and the GA to let them develop a specification – it’s not going to be much more than words on a piece of paper …

      … because.. if you think about it yourself and how you’d write such a specification – it’s hard as heck….

      you want congestion relief ? where? when? at rush hour across the entire NoVa metro area?

      ROI? – is there a single non-toll road in the entire US where ROI has been actually measured?

      does anyone even know – for a given stretch of road – how much money has been put into it for original construction, operations and maintenance?

      if you can’t pick a single road where you know this cost – then how could we even begin to try to figure out “benefits” to the folks who use that road?

      so the public will totally punt on these issues and expect VDOT and the MPOs to come up with something that “works”?

      sorry… the public is frustrated … but the are also a low bar on doing their part in helping to develop real metrics to measure…sound-bites concepts are about all most of them are capable of.

      the short answer here is – if we (the public and advocacy groups) want real measures – we have to get in that game ourselves and develop things that VDOT has to respond to – as opposed to thinking VDOT or MPOs are really going to develop something that we ourselves basically have no clue how to specify.

      dealing with congestion on one road – at rush hour – in a context of a region-wide congestion issue at rush hour – is not useful unless it’s a notorious bottleneck – AND by improving it – you don’t just release that traffic to clump up at the next bottleneck. It’s a costly exercise in futility – in my view.

      The toll road operators have a better idea about this than we do in my view.

      they have determined that it’s not a FAST or FASTER trip that is important – it’s how dependable the travel time is. People can plan if they can dependably know the travel time. People who always wait to the last minute and hope for a faster trip are not folks who should be catering to – to start with.

      The easiest and most practical way to deal with congestion – is to put a price on it. Then people will react the same way they would to anything else that becomes more costly or less costly depending on their need.

      “free roads” “reduced congestion” , etc, are concepts that are, at best, simplistic in meaning… and part of the problem in my view. If you want a “better” trip, put a price on it… and you’ll get to what is worth doing much quicker.

      1. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        Larry, not sure what happens in your part of the state, but in Fairfax County a number of civic groups (McLean Citizens Association, Great Falls Citizens Association, Reston Citizens Association, the various District Councils) all have engineers and economists on their boards and committees. They review and comment on various VDOT documents. Ditto for Fairfax County documents. A bogus ROI in Fairfax County is not going to go unnoticed and unchallenged.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          Oh we do too TMT – I’ve just seen a specification for ROI and until recently not for prioritization and the one for prioritization is so full of holes that it’s basically swiss cheese.

          I’m not saying we cannot get more precise on these – only that both are more of how you hold your mouth than something that 10 people can use and all 10 come up with the same answers.

          we don’t do “objective” well on roads.. in my view the most reliable test of “need” is if people are willing to pay a toll to use a road; there is no doubt about that one… ask the folks who did Pocahontas vs…say the DTR… and it’s pretty clear what folks are willing to pay for – or not but if both of those roads were “free” – the traffic would be far different and no doubt in my mind that the DTR would be as bad as I-95 rush hour and Pocahontas would be “busy”.

          we do not have truly objective standards for determining “need”, “congestion-relief” or ROI – at this point.. everyone has their own view and most of them are more sound-bite than empirical.

  6. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Any ROI methodology will be rough and imperfect at first. But it will tell us more than what we had before, which was nothing. And it will get better over time.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      RE: ROI

      we really don’t even have a way to put a value or worth on a single auto trip.

      perhaps I’m missing something but if we have no standard way to put some kind of a value on one auto trip… how do you even being to calculate a “return”?

      let’s talk about this… my view is that if we don’t have an idea how to do this and we turn that job over to the folks who build roads – would you really expect them to take an approach that is truly objective?

      maybe this is a start.. but boy are we at square one!

  7. cigarunner Avatar
    cigarunner

    I think rural interests should be concerned. looking at money poured into rte 29 around Lynchburg and then notice the lack of traffic might put other -mainly rural projects- lower on priorities. Also under the recent change to the Va. constitution VDOT cant condemn for economic developmnt. If they try to justify a rural projct on eco dev the lawyers will get lots of business

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      It’s never explicitly clear how much each VDOT district receives in annual allocations – and one should not expect the total state revenues to be all allocated as VDOT will keep some for roads of statewide significance as well as central office allocations, and probably some kind of rainy day/ contingency fund.

      but after that – the question is – should each VDOT district receive an equivalent share – perhaps based on per capita or similar?

      The idea that one part of the state deserves more money than another is rife with political value judgments that would pit things like urban congestion with other values – even generic “economic” benefit though cigarunner has an interesting point that probably would force VDOT to more carefully state a rationale for a particular road than an overt claim of economic development – even then some disgruntled may choose that as a challenge to a VDOT ED action.

      but places like NoVa and Hampton generate transportation revenues basically on a per driver basis.. which is the same basis that things like congestion might get measured.

      I’m not sure if I see an objective an justifiable reason why a more congested VDOT district should get more money than it might generate in fuel taxes.

      once you do that – all kinds of subjective judgments start getting involved in allocation issues. (and perhaps that is the way it already is).

Leave a Reply

Read More