The Senate Yields, Now What?

The state Senate has approved a budget that strips out a major taxes-for-transportation provision that had bogged down talks with the House of Delegates. The chances are vastly improved that the Senate and House can agree upon a budget for fiscal 2007-2008 without triggering a government shutdown. Assuming that compromise is now attainable, what’s next for transportation?

My sense is that the terms of debate have decisively shifted. The logic of the situation dictates that legislators’ focus will move from “how do we pay for more roads and rail?” to “how do we encourage motorists to drive less?”

The Senate leadership, backed by the Warner and Kaine administrations, narrowly defined traffic congestion as a matter of insufficient transportation capacity. The solution: Raise revenues to increase capacity. The ultimate expression of this thinking was the VTrans2025 report published by the Warner administration, which asserted that the state faced a funding shortfall of $108 billion over the next 20 years — an average of $5.4 billion a year. That document was predicated upon the assumption that the state would match increases in travel demand with construction of new capacity, either roads or rail. But Senate proposals to increase taxes by roughly $1 billion a year would have fallen far short. According to the Senate’s own calculus, the sum was a mere fraction of what was needed.

The irrefutable conclusion is that Virginia’s transportation policy — the policy that has guided the state for a half century or more — is broken. Sustaining the current policy framework requires massive sums of money that the political system is not willing to disgorge. There is no escaping the necessity to re-think transportation from top to bottom.

The first assumption that must be abandoned is what Ed Risse refers to as the “Private Vehicle Mobility Myth,” the notion that individuals have a right to drive wherever they want, whenever they want, in their own private cars, without suffering the inconveniences of congestion. In Virginia, that myth has run off the road and slammed into the brick wall of tax resistance.

The second assumption that must be abandoned is the idea that a transportation policy geared toward cheap fuel is practical, or even desirable, in an era of moderately priced fuel, never mind in an era of expensive fuel. Long commutes are one thing when gasoline sells at $1 per gallon and quite another when it sells for $3 gallon. As drivers change their behavior, transportation policy must adapt.

Instead of feeding the driving “habit” — the average Vehicle Miles Driven per licensed driver has increased 70 percent over the past 25 years — by continuously adding to capacity, it is clearer than ever that the Commonwealth must devise policies that enable people to drive less. In other words, it’s time to beginning managing transportation demand. And that means, above all else, changing the scattered, disconnected, low-density pattern of development that has prevailed in Virginia since the 1950s, and gotten increasingly worse with each passing decade.

If the Senate and the Kaine administration want to devise a “stable, long-term solution” to Virginia’s transportation woes, then land use reform is where they must start. The laws enacted in 2006 represent a positive step forward but only a tentative one. Much more needs to be done.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

21 responses to “The Senate Yields, Now What?”

  1. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Interesting framing of the problem, Jim.

    Why is the answer one for the Commonwealth? Why isn’t the problem of density for work and living an issue for the localities? Or, shudder, Regions?

    In other words, assuming you framed the problem correctly, and you can find a best answer, then is that answer one that should be implemented across Virginia or should localities choose between the best and less than best for their own future?

  2. nova_middle_man Avatar
    nova_middle_man

    I agree that this is a regional issue. NoVa has been screaming for years to run things by itself.
    However, the reality is that economic success in one region benefits another region and losing the economic activity of NoVa would be disasterous for the rest of the state.

    In NoVa the surface answer is easy. We need more and cheaper housing and/or businesses need to start building in the exurbs.

    The reality isn’t that simple. There are lots of condos being bulit where I live but the starting price is usually around 300k for a one bedroom and up. The developers all say that they would build more condo rooms at cheaper prices but to satisfy the high cost of land and market factors it makes more economic sense to build bigger more expensive condos than smaller cheaper ones. So, the average person is forced to search for cheaper housing farther away and contributes more to the problem.

    Of course the other complicating factor is constantly changing job patterns and families having the parents work in two seperate locations. Also, telework is a beautiful concept in theory but the strong client interactions and security related work in NoVA make it especially difficult to implement.

    Businesses are beginning to refuse to locate in Northern Virginia. This could be a net positive if these companies would relocate in another part of the state but for the most part they are choosing less congested metropolitan areas in other states.

  3. The idea that we can pave our way out of the traffic mess we have is absurd. As is the idea we can simply stop all projects and “land use plan” our way out.

    I’d like to hear a politically practical way we can achieve the long-range vision of land use reformers and make a significant impact on today’s generation of workers and families.

    But thus far, all I ever hear is that we need to reform living patterns, as if we can shuffle people around at our will.

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    What companies have refused to locate in NoVa or have relocated out of NoVa?

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Encouraging motorists to drive less cannot possibly, in no way shape or manner, solve our tansportation problems.

    Transportation means moving people and things, and you can’t do that by not moving or moving less, how hard is that to understand? (Well, maybe you can get some efficiency and travel a little less, if you spend a lot of money and if you are very lucky.)

    Otherwise, Nova-Middle-Man hit it on the nose. You cannot build more and cheaper stuff in town, because it is too expensive. One reason it is expensive is because of friction caused by transportation gridlock.

    Even if you pull off some miracle and fix part of the problem in fifteen or twenty years, by then, the problem will have changed.

    If you have a spinning wheel that is out of balance, then what you do is move the balance weight, or add new ones. Either way, you have to transport the balance weight, and as the tire wears out, you may have to move it again.

    JAB: the only we we can possibly get to our collective best future is if each of us is allowed to get to our individual best future. The bigger the area you try to set the goals for, the fewer goals you can reach, and the longer it takes, and the more individuals get sub-optimized in the process.

    Our best collective future depends on a giant Delphi process because that process allows the maximum amount of brainpower applied at the maximum number of points in the system.

    If you say that “the Commonwealth must devise policies that enable people to drive less. In other words, it’s time to beginning managing transportation demand.”
    then what you are really saying is that you want laws which force people to drive less. What that does is limit the options for each individual to figure what works best, and if you do that enough times, you will necessarily have a suboptimal solution.

    What Bacon is openly suggesting here is that we no longer be allowed the right to travel, albeit with some caveats. It doesn’t matter how that occurs, whether it is by limiting places where people are allowed to build and live, or by forcing auto users to pay tolls to construct and support rail that most cannot use, the result is fewer choices and therefore fewer good choices and far fewer satisfactory choices.

    Jim is right about one thing: conditions have allowed us to travel far more miles. Conditions have also allowed us to fly far more miles. We have chosen to do so because it meets our needs, and because it is cost effective: we profit by it. When conditions change, we will drive less, or the same but smaller and cheaper. But if those conditions are changed arbitrarily and artificially for the sole purpose of reducing our VMT, then it will necessarily also remove the profit and other benefits we presently derive.

    This cannot lead to a best overall answer.

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    In response to JAB: You ask, “Why is the answer one for the Commonwealth?” Good question. At present, the reason seems to be that everyone is turning to the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth has defined the problem as insufficient funding and transportation capacity, and only the Commonwealth can come up with the money necessary. But once you reframe the question along the lines suggested in my post, it’s clear that the Commonwealth cannot possibly solve the problem alone. Any solution requires the participation and buy-in of local governments because local governments control land use.

    You rightly point out (amid shudders) that traffic congestion is a regional problem — a problem not contained within the boundaries of any one jurisdiction. The solution for any given New Urban Region must be regional in scope. Norfolk cannot solve the transportation bottlenecks in Hampton Roads acting on its own. Either can Virginia Beach… Or Newport News. They must develop a regional approach.

    I know that’s horrifying to people, including myself, who fear the creation of another “layer of government.” But that’s just the reality of things. The fact is, our current system of government was developed for a predominantly agrarian society in which “cities” were geographically compact and distinct, when nothing like today’s “suburbs” existed. Our system of government as currently configured cannot adequately deal with transportation and land use issues because localities will always be tempted to make decisions that benefit themselves even if it passes off costs to their neighbors or the state.

    That’s what’s meant by “fundamental” reform — getting to the root of things.

  7. Shaun Kenney Avatar
    Shaun Kenney

    Great post, Jim — though I am a bit more inclined to argue that localities, and not the state, should shoulder the responsibility of transportation solutions.

    After all, localities are the ones making the land use decisions. So long as they make the decisions and VDOT has to play catch-up, we’ll never fix transportation in Virginia. Something’s gotta give.

  8. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bob, all I can suggest is that you browse way back deep in the archives of the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. You will find numerous posts from Ed Risse and myself regarding the specifics of what transportation and land use reform would look like. As a journalist, I focus more on tangible examples that people can readily related to. Ed works from a more theoretical perspective, but with a deeper knowledge base reflecting a lifetime of practicing and studying land use.

    If you do comb through back issues of the blog, you will find Ray Hyde dogging us and contesting us at every step. By all means, read what Ray has to say — he shows some real insight at times. But never, NEVER, take his representations of my views or Ed’s as accurate. For example, Ray says in the post following yours, “What Bacon is openly suggesting here is that we no longer be allowed the right to travel, albeit with some caveats.”

    No, that’s not even close to what I’m suggesting. What I have consistently said is that everyone should pay the full costs of their transportation decisions. Government should not bail people out of poor locational choices any more than it should bail people out of poor business decisions. I’m also saying that we need to do a better job of balancing housing, offices, shopping and amenities so people don’t have to drive so far to get everywhere. I’m saying we should allow developers a wider range of options when designing our communities, making it easier to build pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities. And I’m saying that we should inject more entrepreneurial innovation into the mass transit business. I believe that state government can be a more aggressive force in promoting tele-work, especially in its own workforce. I believe in free markets, consumer sovereignty and freedom of choice. I believe that government should not get into the business of picking or subsidizing the kinds of places people should live in. And you’ll see those principles, which most Virginians share, reflected in everything I write.

  9. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Saun, I agree with you totally when you say, “So long as [local governments] make the decisions and VDOT has to play catch-up, we’ll never fix transportation in Virginia.”

    I suspect that you and I can agree on this as well: the responsibility for making transportation and land use decisions should be aligned at the same level of government. We can debate whether it should be state, local or regional. But it’s pretty clear that what we’re doing right now isn’t working very well.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “The first assumption that must be abandoned is what Ed Risse refers to as the “Private Vehicle Mobility Myth,” the notion that individuals have a right to drive wherever they want, whenever they want, in their own private cars, without suffering the inconveniences of congestion. “

    I stand by my comment. What this says is that we must abandon the notion that people have the right to drive wherever they want; the caveats being in their own car whever they want, and without congestion.

    That’s a lot different from saying they should be able to travel as they please provided they pay their full costs.

    What is really going on here is that land use rules are being constructed such that there is no option other than congestion. Congestion is our friend because it will force people (through the land use laws) to accept transit, which is a lesser mode of travel.

    If I thought for a split second that the full cost argument was remotely intended to be evenly applied, we wouldn’t have an argument.

    As Nova-Middle-Man pointed out, even the condo builders can’t compete on cost: only the growth control laws (read growth restriction) can do that by artificially raising the cost of home ownership (and business development) where the costs are otherwise not so high.

    Apparently, the Senate has decided that we are going to do nothing to alleviate the congestion tax. In other words, those that live in or travel to congested areas are going to have to pay the cost. To then propose growth controls to prevent the only other option is hardly a blow in favor of free markets.

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I apologize in advance. You are not proposing growth controls, You are proposing more freedom for builders to design better, which I support. But it might well turn out that they decide the best way to use that freedom is to build out, not up. In any case, there is a widespread emotion in favor of growth controls, even if it does not come from you. The end result is what I described above.

    It should be easier to build pedestrian and transit friendly communities. Transit should be run by private enterprise. It should be easier to build homes or businesses, period. If that means we have private toll roads everywhere, so be it. I’m sure that developers would relish the opportunity for a continuing stream of revenue from every project they build. Hey, it’s a lot better than build and move on.

    But that means it has to be easier to build everywhere, not just where it results in pedestrian and transit friendly construction.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As always, Great post.

    Nova_Middle_Man is correct in his assertion that Businesses are beginning to refuse to locate in Northern Virginia.

    I’d like to add a bit to that thread by saying that a lot of businesses are also refusing to EXPAND their operations in NOVA. They are choosing to expand into other places in the country.

    Also, I work in the real estate field in NOVA. Have you seen how many houses are for sale?

    The reality is that a large % of those people are moving out of the area.

    How do I know this? I see 25-30 sellers each week and I ask them, “So are you staying in the area?” the overwhelming answer is, “No! Our lives are dictated by traffic and we are sick of it.”

    The housing bubble has all but popped in NOVA and one of the underlying causes is traffic congestion.

  13. Scott Leake Avatar
    Scott Leake

    I’m with Bob 12:28. We can do both long range reform and intermediate term relief produced by new construction. It’s not one or the other.

    Jim, I disagree that “the Senate leadership… narrowly defined traffic congestion as a matter of insufficient transportation capacity”. Go look at the START report. It contain other reforms proposals.

    I do agree that reform will play a major part in the post-budget conference transportation debate as it should; and the Senate will be a full partner in that discussion as it has been. But don’t look for funding needs to go away.

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Anonymous is right. When I first moved from center city to the far exurbs of Annandale/Alexandria, there were still (unused) barns in that area. Centreville was one row of townhouses and a bunch of horse farms, and Mansassas might as well have been in another country.

    Manassas is now a sea of construction trucks busy putting up new businesses. While these businesses and those now located in Centreville might not have refused to locate in NOVA they more or less brought the NOVA address with them when they built: NOVA is much larger than it once was. And there is now a proposal for a million square feet of office space as far out as Warrenton.

    Five Guys Hamburgers started in Alexandria, but they have branched out to Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Staunton, Warrenton, and other states. This is not exactly space and missile command central, but as the BRAC commission has shown us that they ae making the same kinds of decision.

    Bob and Scott are right: we can’t beat on one drum and expect to make music. We aren’t going to reform or land use our way out of this even if that is part of the solution. Neither can we make plans for ordering people around, unless we also make plans for what happens when that political pendulum swings.

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim:

    Good to see you whipped the virus! Great post! Not much to add except to note that in response to JAB’s first comment:

    It is not a question of a Commonwealth or a municipal role in transport.

    There is a Federal role (recall which level of governance is taking actions that drive most of the jobs in two of the three New Urban Regions, see our comments concerning Ft. Belvoir in “More on Conserving 400,000 Acres in Virginia” posted 28 April ),

    There is a multi-state / New Urban Region role (of the three New Urban Regions in the Commonwealth only Richmond NUR is not multi-state, Washington-Baltimore NUR falls in four states and the Federal District)

    The is a multi-state / National Capital Subregion role (three states and the Federal District),

    There is a state / Virginia role in three New Urban Regions and two Urban Support Regions,

    There is a Community role (we suggest the role of the Alpha Community is first among nearly equalLY important roles),

    There is a municipal role (County/Town and City) until the current municipal borders evolve to reflect the organic components of human settlement,

    There is a Village-scale role (for places like the Village of Bull Island aka, the City of Poquoson)

    There is a Neighborhood-scale role that needs to reflect the interests of Clusters and Dooryards,

    And every one of those roles involves both transport and land use (aka, settlement patterns)

    If this matrix of roles and responsibilities seems complex to readers, that just indicates how far citizens need to travel to have a basis for well-considered judgements on this issue.

    EMR

  16. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Thanks, EMR. I think who, at what level of government, makes the decisions is important to make the right decision.

  17. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    JAB:

    You are absolutly right!

    That is why democracy is so important.

    That is also why citizens need a decision making system that puts the level of decision at the level of impact.

    That balancing process means that the decision is offen shared but it has to be shared by the right stake-holders and they have to know the real impact of their decisions.

    EMR

  18. Tobias Jodter Avatar
    Tobias Jodter

    I don’t think anyone really needs to be concerned about the population of NOVA going down in the next few years. According to Supervisor Snow, Loudoun County will be home to 400,000 new residents in the next 20 years. He’s counting on it. I assume they will work somewhere in NOVA.

  19. Phil Rodokanakis Avatar
    Phil Rodokanakis

    What’s missing from this debate is what appears obvious to me, but seems to be ignored by most pundits. That is, the budget is allowed to grow by some 12 billion dollars for the 2006-2008 cycle, and yet not one penny of that new spending goes to transportation–what everyone agrees is one of our Commonwealth’s funding priorities.

    That’s akin to spending your entire paycheck on booze and then complaining that you didn’t have any money left over to spend on groceries.

    This is an anachronistic hang-up that precludes us from spending any general funds on transportation. As long as the legislature operates under such arcane, self-restricting principles, we are destined to be bogged down in a transportation gridlock.

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Phil:

    You are forgetting that more money, regardless of the source or the ammount will not imporve mobility and access (or the quality of life for citizens in the New Urban Region) without Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns.

    EMR

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Right. We need to stop adding any more settlement to the New Urban Region. That would be a fundamental change.

    Less transportation money (or none) surely won’t improve mobility and access, sowhat you are saying is that not only do we need more money for transportation, but we also need a lot more than that to alter the settlement patterns. Since we apparently can’t raise the transportation money, with or without fundamental change, we surely can’t raise the much larger sum to create the change.

    We are screwed. Take Anthony Down’s advice, and get yourself a car with comfortable seats and a good sound system. Don’t worry, be happy.

Leave a Reply