Roads
Anti-livability bill passes Virginia House committee
One of two bills that would base all transportation decisions on models that prioritize the fast flow of cars passed the Virginia House's transportation committee Tuesday. All of Northern Virginia's Republicans on the committee and several Democrats voted for the bill.
Photo by Mrs. Gemstone on Flickr.
HB1998 would make it state law to base transportation decisions on traditional traffic models, which consider only the fast movement of cars and nothing about how closely people live to their jobs, the relative value of transit versus roads, safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists, or any other factors.
This bill is, in essence, the exact opposite of the USDOT's "livability" push. That agency has been retooling the formulas for federal transit funding to move away from only favoring projects that move the most people the longest distance.
Under the old formulas, if a city wanted to build a rail line to an empty warehouse district, they wouldn't get funding, because nobody lives there and therefore the rail line wouldn't move anyone. But, of course, the whole point was to attract people to that district who would then ride the line.
This bill would mandate the road analogue of the old-style formula. It requires that VDOT exclusively prioritize "(i) the total amount of reduction in traffic congestion regionally and, separately, (ii) the amount of reduction in traffic congestion expected to be achieved per dollar cost of the project."
Say there's a congested roadway and two potential transportation projects. One would simply widen that roadway, temporarily reducing traffic but also spurring substantial new auto-dependent office parks 30-50 miles from many of the existing residents in the area, which will fill up the new lanes and make traffic even worse than it is. Another would do less for the roadway itself, but would make it possible to add jobs near the residents to drive economic growth without adding traffic. The second option is actually better for congestion in the long run, but this law would require VDOT prioritize the first.
As Dan pointed out this morning, parts of our region which have attracted fewer jobs have somewhat less stifling traffic than the areas with more jobs. Adding infrastructure to an area draws growth and investment. If this bill passes, Virginia would have to continue neglecting areas where better transportation would drive needed job growth, and instead would have to keep pumping dollars into more and more freeways for those areas where people live far from jobs, thus have to drive long distances, thus creating congestion.
Last night's snow also showed how living long distances from work can create serious problems for commuting during major snows. Some people faced up to 5-hour or even 8-hour commutes home. Virginia shouldn't be creating legal requirements to develop in patterns that will only set the stage for more of these horrific experiences.
Rather than throwing more money to exacerbate existing problems, Virginia should invest in growing cities and towns with jobs and housing close together. The COG Region Forward project aims to steer development around such "activity centers." Bob Chase and other outer-Beltway boosters are trying to head off this approach before it starts by taking the planning authority away from COG and regional governments and locking in old-fashioned planning mechanisms.
Unfortunately, several Northern Virginia representatives including some Democrats supported the bill in the committee. All of the committee's Republicans voted for it, including five from Northern Virginia: Joe May of Leesburg, Tom Rust of Herndon, Tim Hugo of Centreville, Edward Scott of Culpeper, and Barbara Comstock of McLean.
Four Democrats voted for the bill: Hampton's Jeion Ward, Newport News's Mamye BaCote, Charlottesville's David Toscano, and Richmond's Dolores McQuinn. Eileen Filler-Corn of Springfield wasn't present for the vote but voted for it in the subcommittee. The only no votes came from Arlington's delegates Adam Ebbin and Bob Brink, and Richmond's Betsy Carr, all Democrats.
Unfortunately, there was no debate on the bill in the committee. House committee chairs have been rushing bills through full committees with absolutely no debate after they receive approval from only a small subcommittee. The Virginia legislature already has a too-compressed schedule; skipping debate pushes the legislature to make more rush decisions on important issues.
Please contact your delegates and senators to ask them to reject this bill and its companion, HB1999, which hasn't come up for a vote yet in the Transportation Committee, as well as HB2016. Here's more about those bills. Or, if you are in Ebbin or Brink's districts, thank them for their efforts.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
by oboe on Jan 27, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 27, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
by ksu499 on Jan 27, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report
global warming is really starting to affect things -- namely, the frequency of extreme weather events.
other than that, i do get the point of this post, and think it's worthy to contest the sprawl-inducing bill, and i'd also like to talk more about 'good and bad congestion' -- feel like some nuance is needed.
and, politically, maybe we can work on getting either 'congestion' or 'traffic' redefined -- so, right now, 'traffic' really means 'automobile/motorized/car/truck traffic' -- but what about 'soft traffic'? even to get new bills to have to state explicitly that their goal is move more motorized traffic faster and further we be a step in the right direction -- then we get to ask important questions like, "well, since the corridor is not congested with soft traffic, how will we allow soft traffic to utilize this taxpayer-funded corridor?"
by Peter Smith on Jan 27, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
It happens. Also, remember 9/11. Different cause, similar result.
by Steve on Jan 27, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Jan 27, 2011 3:01 pm • link • report
The two examples used in the editorial are bunk.
1. Why in the world should we build a transit line to a vacant warehouse district? We already have densely populated areas that are underserved by transit that are struggling to get funding. Why would you dedicate scarce funds for projects that have no clear use?
2. And as ksu499 says, using last night as an example is BS. Most of the issues were in our most densely populated areas, not places that would be served by this mythical "outer Beltway" (which of course is a figment of the writer's imagination).
by movement on Jan 27, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report
Apparently I should blame that on Virginia, rather than a totally inept response by the Gray administration. Where were all the regular DDOT traffic cops at major intersections? Why wasn't a snow emergency declared in DC mid-day so as to get cars off major streets? Where was the coordinated plan with MD and VA officials?
If you're going to use last night's traffic debacle to blame Virginia for how it spends its transportation funding, then at least it should be on-point and relevant.
by Fritz on Jan 27, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report
Anyway, this post isn't meant to say don't fund roads its saying that the metric used for determining new roads/widenings proposed by these bills isn't a good metric and fails to take into account some of the things that created the traffic in the first place.
by Canaan on Jan 27, 2011 5:26 pm • link • report
by Fred on Jan 27, 2011 6:07 pm • link • report
by Shawn G on Jan 28, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
See www.commutercars.com for THE solution - ultra-narrow car design. It's simple and effective. Watch this video for further information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VPz38Xkgsc
The solution doesn't have to be small. Enormous straddling buses also can alleviate congestion by allowing traffic to go through and below the buses while the driver and passengers transport above: http://www.chinahush.com/2010/07/31/straddling-bus-a-cheaper-greener-and-faster-alternative-to-commute/
Like the scene in "Up in the Air" when George Clooney's character throws away the wide suitcase, to rid our society of unnecessary traffic congestion it's time to replace cars with room wasting passenger sides with ultra-narrow vehicles.
For the record, George Clooney himself bought the first Tango, and the owners of Google own two themselves.
by Michael Weiser on Jan 28, 2011 7:57 pm • link • report
------------
Subject: URGENT REQUEST: Help to Support Vital Transportation Funding in VA!
AAA urges you to support Virginia's Transportation Funding and Trust Fund Protection Plan.
Dear Jasper,
The General Assembly is now considering Governor McDonnell's proposals to fix transportation funding and to protect the Transportation Trust Fund with a constitutional amendment.
While not a panacea for Virginia's funding crisis, Governor McDonnell's plan is a strong step in the right direction. It combines much needed constitutional protections for the Transportation Trust Fund with over $4 billion of new funding to address some 900 clearly identified transportation projects.
A constitutional amendment to protect the Transportation Trust Fund is an essential component of the plan. Without it, any transportation funding could simply be raided for any non-transportation purposes as has happened too many times in the past.
For more information on this important issue, please visit our Legislative Action Center. I encourage you to join our advocacy efforts and contact your legislators to support this plan to fix Virginia's roads and bridges, reduce congestion and improve highway safety.
Click now to make your voice heard.
Please feel free to forward this email to your family and friends who also live in Virginia and ask them to join our efforts.
Sincerely,
Ronald W. Kosh
Vice President, Public and Government Affairs
---------------
Obviously, when you follow the links you can only agree with AAA's POV. I e-mail back that I do not support their POVs and that our Gov is an fiscal fraud. Also, I noted they should allow opposition to their dictates. And that they should actually check with their members first before they air positions. The e-mail bounced from an "unmonitored mailbox", so looked up their comment form on the site, and copy-pasted my initial response plus the observation that sending e-mail from an "unmonitored mailbox" is no sign of being open for comment.
Yeah, I had some free time on my hands.
by Jasper on Jan 29, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
Add a Comment