Stewart Schwartz - Greater Greater Washington

Shocking rhetoric from John Townsend and AAA

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:02:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff, Ken Archer, David Edmondson, Ben Ross, Aimee Custis, Dan Reed, Geoff Hatchard, Rahul Mereand-Sinha, Jaime Fearer, Topher Mathews, Matt Johnson, Michael Perkins, Martin Moulton, Steven Glazerman, Tracey Johnstone, Tim Krepp, Steven Yates, Sandra Moscoso, Nick Casey, Joe Weedon, Canaan Merchant, Bradley Heard, Jereme Altendorf, Jacques Arsenault, Brent Bolin, Abigail Zenner, John Muller, Brian McEntee, Ben Harris, Sarah Lewis, Sally Hobaugh, Ryan Sigworth, Darren Buck, Mark Jordan, Miles Grant, Jessica Christy, Laura Dallas McSorley, Nolan Treadway, and Stewart Schwartz

This week's Washington City Paper cover story quoted AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend calling Greater Greater Washington editor David Alpert "retarded" and a "ninny," and comparing Greater Greater Washington to the Ku Klux Klan.

Many other reporters, people on Twitter, and residents generally have clearly stated in response what should of course go without saying, that such personal attacks are beyond the pale.

Some may get the sense that there is personal animosity between Townsend and the team here at Greater Greater Washington. At least on our end, nothing could be further from the truth. We simply disagree with many of his policy positions and his incendiary rhetoric.

Spirited argument is important in public policy, but it should not cross into insults. When it does, that has a chilling effect on open discourse. Fostering an inclusive conversation about the shape of our region is the purpose of this site, but discourse must be civil to be truly open. That's why our comment policy here on Greater Greater Washington prohibits invective like this. In our articles, we try hard to avoid crossing this line, and are disappointed when we or others do, intentionally or inadvertently.

The "war on cars" frame unnecessarily pits drivers against cyclists and pedestrians instead of working together for positive solutions. The City Paper article, by Aaron Wiener, does a good job of debunking that, and is worth reading for much more than the insults it quotes.

When pressed, Townsend told Wiener he wants to back away from the "war on cars."

"I regret the rhetoric sometimes," he says. "Because I think that when you use that type of language, it shuts down communication with people who disagree."

We hope Townsend, his colleagues, and their superiors also regret the things he said about David and Greater Greater Washington. We look forward to the day when AAA ceases using antagonistic language and begins working toward safety, mobility, and harmony among all road users.

In the meantime, residents do have a choice when purchasing towing, insurance, and travel discounts. Better World Club is one company that offers many of the same benefits as AAA, but without the disdain.

289 comments

Follow the money in Virginia's transportation bill

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:48:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

Virginia's complex transportation funding bill, HB2313, is headed to Governor McDonnell for his signature and potential amendments. The bill is a prime example of political sausage, seeking to satisfy Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, transit and road constituencies.

Photo by jimmywayne on Flickr.

It also represents poor public policy by undermining the "user pays" principle, failing to reform VDOT spending, allocating far too little to transit in an urbanizing state, and off-loading responsibility for local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

Some political observers argue that the only way Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads could win rural legislators' support for new revenues would be to place the burden on themselves. And they have, by increasing local sales taxes, recordation fees and transient occupancy (hotel) tax, and with a higher state sales tax, which derives heavily from the two regions.

Virginia's smart growth and conservation community expressed concerns with the bill on Saturday.

While Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will able to raise (tax themselves), keep, and allocate new transportation revenue, VDOT escapes responsibility for meeting the needs of the two most economically important parts of the Commonwealth. The bill frees VDOT to take more of the statewide sales tax revenues for highway construction outside the two regions.

Now that the bill has passed, and presuming the Governor signs it, it will be incumbent upon legislators, local elected officials and the public to watch-dog how the money is spent, starting with the next update of the state's 6-year transportation plan, due in June. Setting the right priorities with the local money from and for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads will be equally important.

Who voted for and against?

The 25 to 15 vote in the Senate included 17 Democrats and 8 Republicans voting yes, and 3 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Senators George Barker, Charles Colgan Sr., Barbara Favola, Mark Herring, Janett Howell, Dave Marsden, Toddy Puller and Richard Saslaw, all Democrats. No votes were Democratic Senators Adam Ebbin and Chap Peterson, and Republican Senators Richard Black and Jill Holtzman Vogel.

The 60 to 40 vote in the House included 25 Democrats and 35 Republicans voting yes, and 4 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting no. Northern Virginia yes votes were Democratic Delegates Robert Brink, David Bulova, Eileen Filler-Corn, Charniele Herring, Patrick Hope, Mark Keam, Kaye Kory, Robert Krupicka, Alfonso Lopez, Kenneth Plum, James Scott, Mark Sickles, Luke Torian and Vivian Watts; and Republican Delegates David Albo, Mark Dudenhefer, Thomas Greason, James LeMunyon, Joseph May, Randall Minchew, and Thomas Rust.

Northern Virginia no votes came from Democratic Delegate Scott Surovell and Republicans Richard Anderson, Barbara Comstock, Timothy Hugo, Scott Lingamfelter, Robert Marshall, Jackson Miller, and David Ramadan.

The complete bill history can be found here.

Follow the money

The best source for tracking the new taxes and the funding allocations is the HB2313 Transportation Conference Report, but even this requires interpretation.

While the bill no longer eliminates all taxes on gasoline, it still reduces what road users will pay in daily operating costs. It eliminates the 17.5¢ retail gas tax and shifts to a wholesale sales tax on gas. This reduces user fees in 2014 by nearly one-third, and by 20% in 2018 assuming the receipts increase because of a rise in gas prices.

The bill makes up for reducing gas taxes primarily by increasing the sales tax on new car purchases, charging a $100 fee on alternative fuel vehicles like hybrids, and tapping statewide sales taxes on goods and services (but not food).

Day-to-day vehicle user costs will decline, and all taxpayers will pay more even if they drive little or not at all. Meanwhile, transit fares are likely to continue to climb in the absence of adequate state support for transit maintenance and operating costs.

VDOT is free to continue wasting money on unnecessary highway projects

The statewide portion of the bill is truly a highway bill: it directs $538 million (annually by 2018) to the highway maintenance accounts, but this will effectively free up an equal amount in highway construction funds, allowing the current administration to continue a pattern of funding rural highways with little traffic demand.

Just last week, VDOT announced it would allocate another $869 million in federal Garvee bonds to Route 460 and the Coalfields Expressway, two of the most wasteful, unnecessary projects in the history of Virginia. Four questionable projects—Route 460 ($1.4 billion), Coalfields Expressway ($2.8 billion), Charlottesville Bypass ($240 million), and the Outer Beltway in Northern Virginia (estimated $1 billion)—total a potential $5.5 billion in misallocated spending.

Many expect that Secretary Connnaughton intends to divert a substantial portion of the new statewide money to the controversial and sprawl-inducing Outer Beltway, rather than to the critical commuter corridor needs of the metro regions.

Just 21% of the statewide funds go to transit and passenger rail in 2018, although passenger rail advocates are rightly pleased that $44 million in 2014 and $56 million per year by 2018 will go to current Amtrak services for which Virginia is now responsible, and for capital investment in the passenger rail network. An existing funding source supports upgrades for freight rail.

The $84 million for public transit isn't a lot of money when it must be shared among transit agencies across the state. The bill allocates a separate $300 million to Dulles Rail, but like some of the road money it's coming from the existing state sales tax at the expense of General Fund needs like education and health care.

The bill fails to address the empty secondary and urban road capital accounts, unless the administration commits to use some of the freed-up road money in the Transportation Trust Fund for this purpose. Instead, the bill implicitly off-loads the cost of local roads to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads through the local sales tax increases in those two regions. Shifting this responsibility allows VDOT to spend more money on rural highways.

Part of the future depends on a bill in Congress

Part of the bill also depends on the federal Marketplace Equity Act, a bill in Congress which would let states charge sales tax on Internet purchases. If that does not pass by January 2015, the sales tax on gas will rise another 1.7 percentage points to make up for the expected revenue from the MEA. This would bring gas taxes back to a level comparable to where they are today, if not a little higher at current per-gallon prices.

The Washington Post also reports that Senator Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) secured another provision that would kick in if the MEA does not pass. In that case, the amount of general fund revenue directed to transportation would drop from $200 million a year to $60 million a year.

More taxes rise in NoVa and Hampton Roads

The bill would raise between $300 and $350 million per year in and for Northern Virginia by 2018. It does so by increasing the sales tax in northern Virginia by 0.7 percentage points on top of the statewide 0.3 point increase, for a new total of 6%.

There's also a 0.25% recordation tax on recorded deeds and a 3% transient occupancy (hotel) tax. The bill retains the existing local 2.1% tax on fuel. 70% of the funds will go to "regional" projects and 30% to local projects in the locality where the money is raised. The funds can go to roads or transit, and the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority will decide how to allocate the money.

For Hampton Roads, the bill would raise $219 million in 2018, using a local sales tax increase of 0.7 percentage points and a 2.1% local tax on fuel. However, the legislation directs these funds only for roads, despite the great need for transit and widespread support for light rail in the region.

Following the success of "The Tide" light rail in Norfolk, 62% of voters in Virginia Beach's referendum last November supported extending light rail to the beach. The Navy has also expressed its strong support for extending light rail to Norfolk Naval Station.

In a final example of VDOT off-loading costs onto the two metro regions, the bill failed to allocate state funds to Hampton Roads' Midtown/Downtown Tunnel project which local officials want. Instead, the authors of the bill say that localities should use the new regional funding sources if they want to buy down the costs of the tolls, even as VDOT diverts $1.12 billion of state and federal funds to the unnecessary Route 460 over the objections of many in the region.

58 comments

Floor debates begin on flawed McDonnell transportation bills

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:48:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

Governor McDonnell's transportation funding bills (HB2313 and SB 1355) are on the floor of the Virginia House and Senate today and tomorrow. The McDonnell Administration is facing objections on many fronts, but the Republican majority quickly pushed the bills through committee.

Photo by MSVG on Flickr.

Votes to pass the bills must take place before "cross-over" on midnight Tuesday in order for them to survive and cross over to the other chamber.

Many legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, will seek amendments on the floor, but observers believe that the Governor and leadership want to push the bills into a closed-door conference committee where the Republican majority will control crafting the final bill. That means the best opportunity for major amendments is now.

If you are concerned about these bills, you can get the latest from the Coalition for Smarter Growth, contact your elected officials, and monitor @csgstewart and @betterDCregion for a Twitter play-by-play.

Without critical amendments, the bill that ultimately emerges from the conference committee is unlikely to be a good deal for Northern Virginia or other metropolitan areas of the state. The McDonnell administration has squandered much of the $3 billion in borrowed funds the legislature authorized in 2011. The governor spent it on highway projects in rural areas, while neglecting funding for Dulles Rail, Tysons Corner, and Hampton Roads' top priorities—their bridge-tunnel crossings.

Prominent among the McDonnell Administration's wasteful projects have been Route 460, the Coalfields Expressway, Charlottesville Bypass and the Outer Beltway. If Virginia continues to pursue these projects it could waste a combined $5.5 billion, but if the legislature makes review and reevaluation of these projects a condition of new funding, there's still a chance to redeploy the funds to real transportation needs.

Eliminating all taxes on gasoline, the centerpiece of McDonnell's bill, could make traffic in our metro areas worse, reducing transit use and increasing driving. It cuts the sensible tie between transportation use and funding, forcing Virginians who drive less to subsidize those who drive more, hurting seniors and low-income people, carpoolers, transit users, those who live closer to their jobs.

Switching to the sales tax could also make Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads further subsidize long-distance driving throughout the state. It would also divert state general funds essential for education, health care, public safety and conservation.

Without amendments to ensure the Virginia Department of Transportation sets better priorities, there is no guarantee in these bills to meet the needs of the metro areas or the state's growing transit needs. There is no guarantee these bills will restore funding for local roads; for the past 2 years, VDOT has zeroed out funding for secondary roads in localities despite record transportation spending.

Fortunately, nearly all of the Democrats and a number of Republicans believe that eliminating all taxes on gasoline is a bad idea. Opposition to the idea also extends from the smart growth community to the Wall Street Journal.

On January 15, a Wall Street Journal editorial argued that McDonnell's scheme "violates the user-pays principle" of sound public finance:

[It] would mean that a Virginia resident who may not even own a car has to pay more for road repairs when he buys a cell phone, computer or Big Mac. Motorists who benefit most from the roads would pay almost nothing directly to use them... [F]unding transportation through a sales tax "makes roads free," at least in terms of direct payments, and thus will lead to more driving and more gridlock—the opposite of what McDonnell says he wants to achieve.

Let's hope the legislature rejects the Governor's proposal to eliminate the gas tax. We hope the legislature will vote for the following amendments:

Include mandatory reevaluation of VDOT's megaprojects. We could save much of the $5.5 billion to use to address our real transportation needs.
Reform the Public Private Transportation Act to ensure greater public oversight.
Keep the gas tax. It is an appropriate user fee tying payments to use of Virginia's roads, and it ensures out of state drivers also contribute. Apply the sales tax to gas at the wholesale level and/or index the gas tax to inflation.
Withdraw any increase in the statewide sales tax. A statewide increase will mean the state (VDOT) will just siphon the money from Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Allow a local sales tax for transportation in Northern Virginia that Northern Virginia controls and the same for Hampton Roads. Let our two most congested regions decide what to fix and build.
Require 25% of the new funding to go to transit, both urban and rural.
Require 15% of the new funding to go to local roads. VDOT has zeroed out money for local roads in order to build unnecessary highways in lightly trafficked areas. If we don't specify this, then we still won't get local street funds including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Keep the $15 vehicle registration fee for intercity passenger rail and public transit funding.

Without these amendments, the legislature should reject the Governor's bills and new funding for the state transportation agencies.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of where we find nearly $5.5 billion in waste:

Route 460: This $1.4 billion proposed new highway between Suffolk and Petersburg costs over $1.1 billion of taxpayer funds, plus tolls. The current Route 460 carries just 11,000 trips per day.
Coalfields Expressway: A $2.8 billion new highway is in the least-trafficked area of the state.
Charlottesville Bypass: This $243 million project doesn't solve congestion and saves minimal travel time for commuters.
North-South Corridor: This estimated $1 billion piece of an Outer Beltway around DC doesn't address commuter needs and would add development and traffic in areas without infrastructure.

8 comments

Move forward and be smart about Montgomery BRT

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:20:00 EDT

by Alex Posorske and Stewart Schwartz

Rockville Pike is the best place to first launch a "gold standard" Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, says a recent report. The report is less certain about other potential routes, but that shouldn't stop the county from investing in top-quality BRT on key corridors, and being smart about how to phase in BRT and other bus improvements elsewhere.

Rockville Pike, the best spot for BRT. Photo by tracktwentynine on Flickr.

Our region must invest in the next generation of transit to provide alternatives to sitting in traffic, to grow more sustainably, and to remain economically competitive. The demand to live in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods has never been greater and will continue to grow. These are the motivations behind Montgomery County's bold proposal for a network of BRT lines.

Linked with investment in the Purple Line, improvements to Metro service, and walkable, transit-oriented communities, the "RTV Network" proposed by the county's Transit Task Force will be critically important as the county absorbs at least another 200,000 residents in the next two decades.

Yes, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)'s report, which Ben Ross wrote about Friday, takes a much more cautious approach for implementing BRT than did the Transit Task Force. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward.

Instead, it pushes the county to be smart about BRT. It's best to methodically phase in each new transit route, adjusting each one as necessary to work in the neighborhoods it passes through while seeking to maximize high-quality, frequent service.

Start with gold-standard BRT on Rockville Pike

Some areas and corridors in the county have the potential right now for high quality BRT, and the county needs to move forward before it's too late—before congestion drives away jobs and investment. As the ITDP report notes, the rapidly urbanizing Rockville Pike has the most immediate potential for what they have defined as "gold" standard BRT—with its own dedicated right-of-way, very frequent service, rapid boarding, and real-time information, among other features.

The county and the City of Rockville have recognized that the best way to absorb growth, to protect suburban neighborhoods and the Agricultural Reserve, to manage traffic, and to meet the demand for transit-neighborhoods is to reinvent Rockville Pike as a mixed-use, walkable transit corridor tied both to the Red Line Metro Stations and a new BRT line.

"Gold standard BRT" in this corridor, combined with new local street networks, is essential to make the new residential and commercial development succeed and to maximize transportation performance and livability. Montgomery County has the opportunity here to build what could be the nation's best new BRT line.

The ITDP report underestimates BRT's potential

The ITDP report took a unreasonably cautious approach toward BRT, recommending the county narrow down its BRT to just the Rockville Pike corridor. Much of this turns on the definitions: the task force advocated for "gold standard" BRT on all routes, and ITDP suggests gold standard is not appropriate for many of these. However, not every route has to truly meet the gold standard to make a substantial difference.

ITDP relies on current bus ridership numbers in Montgomery County, comparing them to other countries with far higher numbers of bus riders. But frequent, dedicated-lane service can indeed attract new riders and connect the county's growing urban neighborhoods. Comparing Montgomery County to a metropolis of 7 million like Bogotá, as the ITDP report does, and comparing its multiple "gold" standard BRT routes to Montgomery County's current, traditional bus ridership, simply isn't apt.

Montgomery County is growing quickly, and something needs to be done. The Maryland Department of Planning estimates that the county will add over 200,000 new residents and 130,000 jobs between now and 2040. That will make it the only Maryland jurisdiction with more than a million people.

The county faces the challenge of how to grow without repeating past mistakes of simply building and widening more roads, which inevitably leads to more spread-out development and even more traffic.

These population projections might even be conservative, and may also assume far too many workers commuting long distances into the county. Study after study shows that more and more Americans want to live in walkable, transit-accessible communities and closer to jobs.

Transit ridership continues to increase, and it's becoming clear that the younger generation will be much less tied to their cars and much more likely to take public transportation than before. Recognizing this, WMATA is expecting Metro ridership to double between 2001 and 2025.

So let's be smart about implementing much-needed new transit in Montgomery. Fund Metro's rehabilitation and service improvements, build the light rail Purple Line to connect the high-demand transit market between Montgomery and Prince George's counties, and phase-in BRT routes. Start with the "gold" standard BRT for Rockville Pike. Then implement some of the Task Force's Phase 1 routes that have the best potential, tailoring the design and service to the particular conditions and potential of each of those corridors.

How could BRT realistically work elsewhere in the county?

The Transit Task Force report included the following routes as part of its Phase 1 proposal:

Rockville Pike (MD-355) from Montgomery Village Avenue to the Bethesda Metro Station: 12.1 miles
Viers Mille Road (MD-586) from Rockville Metro and the county office buildings to Wheaton Metro and Georgia Ave: 6.7 miles
Colesville Road (US-29) from Burtonsville/MD-198 to Silver Spring Metro: 10.7 miles
Georgia Avenue (MD-97) from Olney to Viers Mill Road: 9.8 miles
ICC (MD-200) from I-270 to Colesville Road: 22.9 miles
Randolph Road from Rockville Pike to FDA Boulevard: 12.5 miles

Proposed BRT phase 1.

Viers Mill Road is served today by the Metrobus Q line, which has the highest ridership of any WMATA line in Maryland. Approximately 10,000 riders took the Q on the average weekday in 2009. With slightly lower ridership than Viers Mill Road, the Georgia Avenue corridor also has some of the highest ridership levels in Maryland, according to WMATA.

WMATA's report also notes that the Q line route suffers from overcrowding and "frequent delays caused by traffic and other factors." Traffic, lack of dedicated lanes, lack of bus priority at traffic signals, substandard bus stops, and other hurdles discourage "choice" riders (those who have the option of driving) from taking the bus. This is where BRT can make a real difference, even if it's not 100 percent "gold" standard.

The Task Force recognized the importance of physically separating the transit vehicles from general traffic to the maximum extent possible. But the Task Force also noted that there are several different ways to do this and that any one route could potentially have multiple configurations, such as the preferred center running dedicated lanes, reversible lanes depending on the commute flows, curbside lanes, or, as a last resort, running in mixed traffic on occasion.

Even non-"gold standard" BRT can attract choice riders while significantly improving service for transit-dependent riders. Modern BRT vehicles, signal priority, quick boarding, and robust route and arrival information and on-board wireless can provide faster and better service.

The alternative to BRT would be the fruitless, business-as-usual approach of widening roads and intersections just for cars, disrupting neighborhoods with controversial and wasteful new arterials like M-83, and still sitting in traffic without a viable option. BRT offers that viable option with the advantage of adding more vehicles and more frequent service year after year.

Frequent, high capacity bus and BRT service between Montgomery County's growing mixed-use residential and employment centers and interconnecting the Purple Line and Red Line will allow Montgomery County to grow in an environmentally sustainable way, vastly expand transportation options, and compete for the next generation of workers and high-tech businesses.

Neighboring Fairfax County has reached this same conclusion. They are building the Silver Line, and planning for the Columbia Pike Streetcar and other dedicated lane bus or rail transit corridors like Route 1. Montgomery County should move forward with a bold transit vision while being smart about the implementation and committing to funding all three legs of the "three-legged transit stool:" Metro, the Purple Line and the BRT network.

30 comments

Montgomery's bus future is more than BRT (Oct 19, 2012)
Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system (May 22, 2012)
For gold-standard BRT, Montgomery must start now (May 30, 2012)
Start Montgomery BRT today with priority corridors (May 2, 2012)
Could RTV transform Montgomery's transit? (May 24, 2012)

Highway would fuel sprawl, pave over history at Manassas

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:09:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

In July 1861, the Union and Confederacy met at Manassas (Bull Run) in the first great clash of armies in the Civil War. On August 28-30, 1862, the armies clashed in the Second Battle of Manassas. Exactly 150 years later, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is proposing a highway through the historic landscape of Manassas, with particularly harmful impact on the landscape of that second battle.

Photo by CEBImagery.com on Flickr.

A Washington Post article this week characterized the controversial Tri-County Parkway as a "done deal," citing a draft agreement between the National Park Service (NPS) and VDOT.

But the draft agreement and the Tri-County Parkway are a bad deal for the historic landscape at Manassas and for area commuters. VDOT and NPS failed to study a lower-impact alternative that would protect the battlefield and focus resources on the area's most pressing transportation needs.

Slated to run through the Manassas Battlefield Historic District, the new Tri-County Parkway would open up rural land to development, multiplying the already-major traffic woes on major commuter routes like I-66 and Route 50.

More harm to a historic land

Controversy over unwanted development in the area is hardly new. Manassas has been the scene of some of the nation's biggest preservation fights. Many longtime area residents will remember the 1994 fight to stop Disney's theme park just west of the Battlefield, which drew national attention.

Fewer may recall the fight in the late 1980s when local residents stopped developer John 'Til' Hazel from building a new shopping mall on then-unprotected battlefield land. Federal taxpayers paid an astounding $134 million to buy the Battlefield land and keep Hazel from building the mall.

VDOT now proposes to run a highway past that same land acquired at such financial cost in the 1980s and contested at such personal cost 150 years ago.

According to documents related to the 2006 expansion of the historic district surrounding the Battlefield, "The battlefield retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association with the historic events that occurred on the property during the Civil War. With reference to the man-made resources, such as the dwellings, military embattlements, and the Unfinished Railroad, Manassas Battlefield has integrity of design, workmanship, and material."

Map of proposed Outer Beltway routes. The current Tri-County Parkway plan follows the western alignment.

The Tri-County Parkway would cut directly through that historic district, taking up 20-35 acres of land, running past the August 28, 1862 position of the right flank of Confederate troops led by Stonewall Jackson and the left flank of the Union General Pope's troops. It would also cut off the August 29 approach path of General Longstreet, which led to the largest massed counterattack of the entire Civil War. Longstreet's approach path across Pageland Lane would be replaced by a 4-6 lane highway and major intersection.

This battle at Manassas enabled General Lee to march into Maryland, led to the Battle of Antietam, and played an important role in the series of battles that led President Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps the Post misquoted Manassas Battlefield Park Superintendent Ed Clark when he reportedly questioned the historical value of the western edge of the battlefield. From our reading of history and the 2006 expansion of the historic district, the historic district and its rural landscape are indeed important to the setting of the Second Battle of Manassas and the critical strategic positioning of the Confederate army that led to their victory in that clash. The land in the historic district merits permanent preservation.

VDOT's own letter to reviewing agencies confirms the damage the new highway would likely bring. The letter states that the Parkway will "convert a portion of relatively intact rural landscape" into a highway, "introducing into this setting an increase in traffic-generated noise and visual elements that will alter and potentially obscure significant battlefield viewsheds. These direct and indirect effects will result in a diminishment of the integrity of setting, feeling and association of [Manassas National Battlefield Park] and the [Manassas Battlefield Historic District] [the adjacent land not formally in the park]."

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Association, Piedmont Environmental Council and Southern Environmental Law Center carefully reviewed the draft agreement between VDOT and the NPS, and submitted strongly critical joint comments.

In our view, VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration were obligated by law but failed to study prudent and feasible alternatives that could avoid harm to a historic resource like Manassas Battlefield. The composite low-impact alternative that we have repeatedly offered during both the Tri-County Parkway and Manassas Battlefield Bypass studies would not only preserve the historic landscapes of the battlefield, but also meet the National Park Service's goal of closing the roads through the Battlefield.

A misallocation of resources

By focusing on north-south highway movement in this particular area, the Tri-County Parkway also represents a misallocation of scarce transportation dollars. Expert review of the Tri-County Parkway study and our review of the most recent traffic counts based on VDOT's numbers show that the vast majority of traffic in the area of the new highway is moving east-west on I-66 and Route 50 to reach jobs. We also show that much less costly local road upgrades including roundabouts will address local trips, moving them efficiently around the Battlefield.

VDOT needs to husband every last dollar to invest in road and transit improvements in those corridors, including Virginia Railway Express, dedicated express bus and HOV lanes, parallel local roads, and fixing intersection bottlenecks. For those trying to reach Dulles Airport, the expanded I-66 and upgraded Route 28 offer the fastest route to the terminal and will continue to do so. The Tri-County Parkway and connecting routes west of the airport would be about three miles longer than these existing routes.

The development link

It's not surprising that advocacy for new highways follows speculative acquisition of land for development. Til Hazel's original purchase of battlefield land for a shopping mall strategically secured a site next to the future interchange with the 234 Bypass, the former name of the Tri-County Parkway corridor. VDOT constructed a section of the 234 Bypass from southwest of the City of Manassas up to I-66 based on a 1988 approval with the hope by proponents like Til Hazel that it would be extended northward past the Battlefield. Land records show that today others are hoping for a windfall, including an entity named "Route 234 LLC" farther north along Pageland Lane, reflecting an expectation of the extension of the Route 234 Bypass.

Loudoun County recently approved the southward extension and expansion of "Northstar Boulevard" and "Belmont Ridge Road," denying that these were connected to the Tri-County Parkway even as they plotted these roads on the same exact route as the Tri-County Parkway. The highway also corresponds with the 1997 proposed route for the Western Transportation Corridor and forms part of an Outer Beltway.

According to the Post, VDOT Secretary Connaughton says he might change the name of the highway to "234 Extension," the name it had back in 1988. Intentional or not, the many names for the road corridor can get confusing, and make it difficult for the public to track and evaluate the proposals.

Just a week after the Loudoun Board's decision on Northstar and Belmont Ridge roads, another Board matter proposed authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire land from two developers along the Northstar Boulevard/Tri-County Parkway corridor.

Secretary Connaughton told the Post that the Tri-County Parkway "could be financed in the future traditionally or through public-private partnership," which could involve proffer trade-offs with developers or private builders who collect tolls. This certainly indicates the continued close tie between development and new highways.

Simply put, the Parkway and connecting roads are about opening rural land in Prince William County's Rural Crescent and Loudoun County's lower density Transition Zone to much more development. This development would mean thousands more cars commuting on Route 50 and I-66.

In addition, Dulles Airport boosters have campaigned to create a freight warehousing and distribution center around Dulles Airport and want the highway in order to draw thousands of trucks into Loudoun County and western Prince William County. This proposed economic development strategy and related truck traffic would seem to undermine the quality of life for area residents, including those who were attracted to work in Virginia's knowledge economy.

A better way

Preservation of the historic district around Manassas National Battlefield and the associated rural lands would ensure less traffic from this area in the future. Conserving our scarce transportation dollars to invest in commuting options for the Route 50 and I-66 corridors and funneling growth to the right places would better address the priority needs of commuters.

Adopting a lower impact alternative and winning legally-binding commitments to close the roads through the Battlefield would preserve the Battlefield for future generations. But conceding to VDOT's highway and the draft agreement would destroy our history and waste our tax dollars.

If you're interested in learning more about the Tri-County Parkway and the Outer Beltway, visit the Coalition for Smarter Growth's Outer Beltway Resource Center. Convinced the new highway is a bad idea? Sign the Coalition's petition to Governor Bob McDonnell asking for the real transportation choices northern Virginians deserve.

29 comments

The zombie outer beltway returns (Aug 5, 2011)
Virginia insiders pulling bait-and-switch for Outer Beltway (Feb 25, 2011)
Three-Beltways boosters perpetuate myths about growth (May 24, 2010)
Virginians: Ask your reps to oppose bad highway bills (Jan 20, 2011)
More people support transit than new or wider highways (Mar 6, 2012)

McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2

Tue, 15 May 2012 15:34:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

Virginia Governor McDonnell says he fully supports the timely completion of Phase 2 of the Silver Line. Yet his administration's political roadblocks are the biggest threat to the project.

Dulles rail construction. Photo by wfyurasko on Flickr.

In a Washington Post op-ed this weekend, McDonnell wrote, "Unfortunately, the project has been marked by many controversies, ranging from escalated costs, the prospect of soaring tolls on the Dulles Toll Road, legal and labor issues, and the overall accountability, membership and transparency of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA)."

The governor is blowing out of proportion MWAA's governance, legal, and labor issues in a way that unfairly sows doubt about the transit line. Today's interim report by the USDOT's Inspector General found real transparency, spending, and accountability problems at MWAA, but does not find that the agency mismanaged the Silver Line project.

The high tolls are a direct result of the state's failure to invest its own money in this critical transportation project, placing the burden fully and unfairly on northern Virginians. Instead of making the case to the Loudoun Board of Supervisors for the importance of moving forward, McDonnell's administration is making it easier for them to vote no, endangering the whole project.

The Governor just threatened again, via a budget amendment, to withhold the state's meager $150 million contribution to Phase 2 if his new appointees to MWAA were not seated immediately instead of on July 1st. Fortunately, the Virginia House of Delegates voted yesterday to kill the amendment, stopping this latest threat.

One of the main points of disagreement between the McDonnell administration and MWAA has been Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). These have been successful on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and Dulles Rail Phase 1 projects.

PLAs are not just about regulating union labor and wage rates for workers. They also require unions to help secure an adequate supply of skilled trades for these massive projects, and to ensure effective coordination among the dozens of trades and subcontractors, both union and non-union, for smoothly functioning, safe, and timely construction. The preference for PLAs in the bidding process seems a reasonable solution. We should move forward with these provisions.

The governor says he is greatly concerned that Virginia doesn't have a majority of seats on the MWAA governing board, which controls Dulles and Reagan National Airports, as well as the Dulles Toll Road and the Silver Line project. But this regional agency has effectively served our region for a long time, completing major and complex expansions of both airports.

It is true, however, MWAA could be much more transparent and accountable, as the IG report notes. The Coalition for Smarter Growth was among the first to raise this issue in 2006 when the Kaine administration proposed handing control of the project over to MWAA. Pressure from the governor, our federal and state legislators, and local elected officials has resulted in key reforms at MWAA. These reforms should continue, but so should the Silver Line.

The attacks on MWAA may have more to do with securing state control of future toll road revenues, for use on road projects like the Northern Virginia Outer Beltway and other rural highways, than about fixing the governance of MWAA.

We can't know that for sure, but it's very plausible given the administration's power grab at the Virginia Port Authority. After reorganizing the port authority's board to ensure control from Richmond, the administration pressed new board members to approve diverting $250 million to Route 460, a rural highway between Hampton Roads and Petersburg that Hampton Roads leaders say is not their top priority. A similar effort by the governor to secure a controlling majority on MWAA in order to do the same thing would not work to the best long-term interests of Northern Virginians.

McDonnell says that he could not even contemplate funding another $300 million for Dulles rail without raiding other projects throughout the state. But is he setting the right priorities? What money might actually be available?

The governor is proposing to spend over $750 million on the Route 460 project. Another $244 million is being earmarked to the controversial Charlottesville western bypass, a road that appears to be ineffective and a waste of money. Millions are going to the Coalfields Expressway to support mountaintop removal in an area with little traffic.

Even accounting for these projects, there may be another $400 million available in the $1.5 billion Public-Private Transportation Act fund. Setting different priorities would free up hundreds of millions more.

It's hard to respond to the governor's argument that Northern Virginia is getting its fair share of the state's funding without seeing the full picture. A clearer accounting of complicated funding flows would be helpful for both the public and legislators. Certainly, making significant investments in addressing the transportation needs of Northern Virginia should be a priority given the importance of the region to the state's economy.

Perhaps symbolic of the administration's priorities, Virginia Deputy Secretary of Transportation David Tyerar made two recent trips from Richmond to Leesburg to appear before the Loudoun Board of Supervisors. He didn't go to make the case for Dulles Rail. Rather, he spoke to promote the Outer Beltway.

The governor and secretary revived planning for the Outer Beltway, added it as a new Corridor of Statewide Significance, and are exploring the route for yet another public-private partnership. Yet this highway would do little to help massively congested corridors like I-66, Route 50, and Route 7. The contrast between the obstacles put before Dulles Rail by the McDonnell administration and their full-court press for the Outer Beltway couldn't be starker.

If the Silver Line's phase 2 fails, it will be on Governor McDonnell's watch. He should lead the way to compromises that will allow the project to move forward, and focus more of the state's transportation resources on this economically critical project.

40 comments

Thwarting unlikely terror attacks beats building decent transit on MWAA's Silver Line priority list (Nov 8, 2010)
Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line (May 11, 2012)
Virginia insiders pulling bait-and-switch for Outer Beltway (Feb 25, 2011)
McDonnell transportation plan: Mortgage future, build roads (Dec 10, 2010)
MWAA: A public authority in even more need of scrutiny (Mar 7, 2011)

Small transport projects can be best and build a better region

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:39:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

To hear some people talk, the only way to "solve" traffic issues in the Washington region is to go big or go home. But smaller local projects could have a much bigger impact on making the region a better place to live, and an easier place to navigate.

Photo by neoporcupine on Flickr.

Individuals like Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton or organizations like the 2030 Group prey on the frustrations of Washington area drivers by proposing gargantuan projects like the Outer Beltway and multiple additional Potomac River crossings.

They promise that these projects from the 1950's can solve, in one fell swoop, traffic problems that have developed because of our reliance on specific forms of development and transportation in the years since World War II.

Leave aside for the moment whether, in this era of limited public funding, the money even exists for these projects. You still run into a simple problem with these "solutions"—a focus on highway capacity expansion hasn't been effective at solving our traffic problems.

Fortunately, we don't think the situation is hopeless. It just requires a different way of thinking about the problem to get at those different results.

While we're not going to go into every possibility in this particular post, we do want to focus on the idea that smaller, localized projects taken as a whole can be better than the larger, flashier projects. Smaller projects can offer more travel options, improved livability, and better regional transportation performance for a fraction of the cost of a megaproject.

Focusing on simple projects like making it easier to walk or bike to school in a given locality, adding housing close to jobs and in commercial shopping corridors, connecting local streets, or incentivizing development at an underutilized Metro station can have a ripple effect on transportation in our region.

This is not to say that there is never a time or place for major infrastructure projects. But we can sometimes can get much better dividends by instituting common sense, smart growth solutions that give people real choices on neighborhood scale and transportation options. And we can often use our existing infrastructure instead of an over-reliance on creating something new.

To help demonstrate that, we're starting an occasional series on localized projects and themes that, when looked at as a whole, could provide real options in transportation and living arrangements. This piece-by-piece approach can improve the performance of our transportation system in the Washington region at the same time it strengthens our communities.

Our first posts will focus on smart growth in the Rockville Pike corridor in Montgomery County, creating Safe Routes to School in Fairfax County, and citizen involvement in Gaithersburg.

In the coming weeks we hope to present similar pieces from different areas throughout the DC area to highlight a range of solutions that together will offer regional benefits. Do you have some ideas of your own for your particular part or sector of the metropolitan region? We'd love to hear your thoughts. Let us hear your suggestion by submitting it as a post and we may include it as part of this series.

25 comments

In 2050, the region will be a web, but how strong? (Nov 11, 2009)
CSG's 2011 State of the Washington Region (Feb 1, 2011)
Make Fairfax Circle a real circle (Nov 6, 2009)
What will we fund if Maryland increases the gas tax? (Jan 11, 2011)
Loudoun blindly pushing massive, senseless road widenings (May 19, 2010)

The zombie outer beltway returns

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:50:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

Zombies are notoriously hard to get rid of. They keep coming back. The same is true of a 1950s concept for an outer beltway that has been revived by Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton.

Proposed alignments. Image by VDOT.

In response, the Coalition for Smarter Growth has launched a petition campaign arguing that the outer beltway would waste scarce taxpayer resources, intrude upon Manassas National Battlefield, and induce more traffic congestion than it solves.

If we don't act now to call for different solutions, Secretary Connaughton will force the outer beltway through with minimal public involvement or analysis of alternatives, as he did recently for another questionable highway near Charlottesville.

A little history: The zombie outer beltway has had many names and a colorful past. In the late 1980s it was the Washington Bypass, a controversial and costly proposal for a complete outer loop highway through Maryland and Virginia. That proposal was eventually dropped.

In the late 1990s two individual segments of the original loop plan were pursued, the InterCounty Connector (ICC) in Maryland, and the Western Transportation Corridor (WTC) in Virginia. The proposed WTC would have run between I-95 in Stafford and Route 7 in Leesburg.

In 2001 highway proponents pushed for a new northern Potomac River bridge between Virginia and Montgomery County that would be part of a proposed road called the Techway. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) halted that effort after concluding the new bridge would harm communities on both sides of the river.

In 2002 voters in Northern Virginia rejected a proposal for a dedicated transportation sales tax in a public referendum, in part because the tax would have funded multiple segments of the outer beltway.

Finally, in 2005 and again in 2011, VDOT has proposed what they call the Tri-County Parkway, a new highway to run between I-66 in Prince William and Route 50 in Loudoun. Their preferred alignment for the Tri-County Parkway runs along the western boundary of Manassas National Battlefield. It is the same alignment studied in 1997 as the Western Transportation Corridor.

It is this highway that Secretary Connaughton has made a top priority, by designating it as a new Corridor of Statewide Significance. It is this highway that the Coalition for Smarter Growth opposes today.

Instead of building yet another wasteful highway that induces more traffic and more sprawl, VDOT should focus our tax dollars on more important transportation needs. They should also avoid harming the historic Manassas Battlefield, which would be impacted by the Tri-County Parkway.

The Coalition has performed an exhaustive study of the parkway / outer beltway, and found that the major traffic problems in its vicinity are on radial east-west commuter routes, not on north-south roads. The parkway won't relieve any congestion because it doesn't serve travel paths that are congested.

This table, based on information from VDOT traffic counts, compares traffic volumes on roads in the vicinity of the Tri-County Parkway. It clearly demonstrates that radial corridors have dramatically higher volumes than any north-south routes.

Only Route 28, which connects to the strong job centers on the east side of Dulles Airport, carries significant north-south traffic. Among north-south roads west of the airport and in the vicinity of the proposed Tri-County Parkway, Route 659 carries just 9,100 vehicles per day (VPD) from Prince William to Loudoun, and Route 15 carries just 15,000. In contrast, I-66 carries up to 63,000 VPD in Prince William, and Route 50 carries up to 40,000 VPD between Loudoun and Route 28.

In 2005 the Coalition for Smarter Growth commissioned a national traffic modeling expert, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., to analyze VDOT's Tri-County Parkway study. He demonstrated significant flaws in that study, finding that the new highway would induce new development and traffic, but not reduce congestion. Marshall recommended a more efficient set of solutions focusing on land use, conservation, transit, and demand management.

A more recent review of the Loudoun County Transportation plan by Lucy Gibson of Smart Mobility found that transportation engineers were overestimating north-south traffic compared to east-west traffic volumes.

Overall it is clear that the push for the new outer beltway is driven at least in part by those seeking to spark more development in western Prince William and Loudoun Counties, rather than focusing our scarce transportation funds on existing congestion problems. The Tri-County Parkway is an unnecessary and costly diversion from more rational transportation planning. We urge you to sign the petition against it.

53 comments

Virginia insiders pulling bait-and-switch for Outer Beltway (Feb 25, 2011)
Do "we have to do something" about traffic but not transit? (Oct 26, 2009)
Three-Beltways boosters perpetuate myths about growth (May 24, 2010)
Virginians: Ask your reps to oppose bad highway bills (Jan 20, 2011)
Loudoun blindly pushing massive, senseless road widenings (May 19, 2010)

Great East Falls Church plan approaching the finish line

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:40:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz and Laura DeSantis

The Arlington County Board will be voting tomorrow on whether to adopt the East Falls Church area plan. They should enthusiastically support this great proposal.

Image from the East Falls Church Plan.

Today, too much of the environment around the East Falls Church Metro station is dominated by wide roads and fast traffic which makes walking and bicycling and access to the station difficult and unsafe. I-66 has divided the neighborhoods and the area lacks the neighborhood services and activity that are possible in a Metro station community.

This plan represents a modest level of development. This level of development—- 600,000 square feet—is essential for the community to gain a range of benefits including neighborhood retail services and redesign of the streets to be safer for all users, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit-users, drivers and people of all abilities. Additional development capacity may be needed to meet the county's affordable housing goals, and could be provided without undermining the plan or detracting from the community.

Why is this plan so great?

It's particularly friendly to pedestrians and cyclists by incorporating wider sidewalks, on-street parking and bike lanes, as well as narrower streets to reduce car speeds.
It includes a proposed platform extension with connection to a park and bicycle/pedestrian access to the Falls Church side of the station. Combined with the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to Washington Boulevard, Lee Highway and Sycamore Street, the two sides of the community will be knitted back together.
The overall design is appropriate, including the redevelopment of the Metro Station parcel with a mix of uses, and with heights that are appropriate and step back to the highest heights next to the highway. This approach will transform the Metro station parking lot into a vibrant community with residences, neighborhood retail services, and a public square.
The analysis of the transportation performance shows that this approach to development will not add measurably to future traffic and will in fact offer more non-auto options for local and regional travel.
The plan will contribute to the revitalization of the area around the Metro station by improving safety on surrounding roadways and adding neighborhood retail and a mix of housing.

The plan includes provisions for affordable housing, offering options for a diversity of households (but see our testimony (PDF) for additional recommendations).
It manages traffic well and offers balanced parking solutions to serve current and future residents and businesses.

In addition, the extensive process that has gone into the development of a sustainable, walkable vision for the future has incorporated input from a citizen task force that included representatives of neighborhood associations and other stakeholders, as well as additional analysis and refinement by county staff based on feedback from the community. Clearly, there is great support for this plan.

With the coming of the Silver Line to Tysons Corner and beyond we have the opportunity to expand our region's network of transit-oriented communities and the transportation performance must be seen in this light. We know the plan isn't perfect and have made suggestions to the County Board, including a recommendation that careful consideration be given to the design of the Metro station parcel to ensure that retail is located on the right frontages and that the public green is in the best place to ensure active use and its potential role as a center of the community. In addition, we'd like to see the addition of more affordable housing.

Nonetheless, we've reviewed dozens of mixed-use transit-station plans, and we see this as an excellent and appropriately scaled plan that offers a range of community benefits. The plan offers the opportunity to make the streets and access to Metro safer, to reduce medium and long-term traffic, provide convenient neighborhood services, and to enhance the desirability of surrounding neighborhoods.

If you are interested in showing support for the plan, you can testify tomorrow morning or email the County Board. Here's how:

How to testify: The County Board meeting will be held tomorrow, Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 8:30 am in the County Board Room at 2100 Clarendon Blvd (Near Courthouse Metro station), 3rd Floor. You can find out about speaking procedures and download a speaker form on the Arlington County website.

While the Board meeting begins at 8:30 am, there are a number of consent items for the Board to work through. This means the East Falls Church Plan discussion (Agenda Item #33) would likely not come up before 9:30 am. If you live close by, you can monitor the hearing online or on Comcast Channel 74 to see how it's progressing.

Provide feedback online: If you can't make it out Saturday morning, you can still make a difference. Show your support for the East Falls Church Area Plan by emailing the County Board. It only takes a few minutes.

12 comments

East Falls Church plan endorsed, but opponents mobilizing (Jun 10, 2010)
Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
East Falls Church needs more bike racks (Oct 28, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

Virginia insiders pulling bait-and-switch for Outer Beltway

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:52:00 EDT

by Stewart Schwartz

After a long battle, it looks like the Virginia General Assembly will approve the Governor McDonnell's borrow and spend transportation plan. Even before this plan has finally passed, state officials are poised to pull a bait and switch to add a controversial Outer Beltway project that wasn't on the list of projects sold to legislators.

The Governor's plan does not include an outer beltway. But behind the scenes it's a different story.

In a meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) last week, the Governor's Secretary of Transportation and two CTB members announced a renewed effort to prioritize a highway connecting I-95 in Prince William to Route 50 in Loudoun with an ultimate goal of connecting into Maryland.

This segment is known as the Tri-County Parkway—the latest name for the same road that has been rejected by the public every few years since the 1960s, sometimes called the Western Bypass.

This outer beltway would destroy the historic landscape on the western boundary of Manassas Battlefield—in the very year we are honoring the 150th anniversary of the First Battle of Manassas. Furthermore, this highway would not solve our traffic problems—it would actually make them worse.

If you live in Virginia, please email Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton and the CTB today telling them you oppose the Tri-County Parkway.

If you take action today, we can also let your legislators know ASAP—their session ends tomorrow!

The bait and switch

In public, the Governor has offered a list of some 900 road projects that might be funded by the new debt. This list does not include the controversial outer beltway project around DC. The public list played a key role in getting Delegates and Senators—who face reelection this year—to sign off on the risky borrowing)

But during last week's CTB meeting, the Secretary of Transportation brought up an issue not on the published agenda, asking two of the CTB members, Gary Garzynski and Doug Koelemay, if they had a resolution to offer. After describing a new highway connection that follows the route of the proposed TriCounty Parkway/Western Bypass, they said that the resolution was not quite ready yet, but that they hoped it would be by the next CTB meeting in March.

Secretary Connaughton, who used to Chair the Prince William Board of Supervisors, then said, "You guys would never make it on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors; we live for bushwhacking people."

Bushwhacked (ambushed) is exactly how we feel. It's no way to conduct the public's business. First the administration had the Secretary of Transportation hold out a list of projects that was a key to winning many legislators' support for more debt and spending. Then, off the radar screen from the legislature, the media, and the public the administration is maneuvering the revival and addition of one of the most controversial highways in the state.

In fact, the inclusion of the Western Bypass and other outer loop roads was a key factor in the public's strong rejection of the Northern Virginia sales tax increase in the public referendum of 2002.

More traffic, not less—and a waste of money

This massive road, often referred to as the "Outer Beltway" or "Western Transportation Corridor," has been repeatedly rejected because it doesn't relieve traffic on the Beltway, I-95, I-66 or local roads. In fact, it would make traffic worse by opening up thousands more acres to development and feeding more traffic from the west onto gridlocked east-west roads.

Construction of an Outer Beltway would encourage increased development in areas which lack the necessary support infrastructure (water, sewer, schools, services, roads, etc.)—making existing congestion, fiscal, and environmental problems worse. The real transportation need in western Prince William and Loudoun counties is for improved east-west connections, including transit.

On top of that, the project would siphon money away from projects that citizens of the Commonwealth actually need, like repair, maintenance, and enhancements for our aging bridges, roads, and transit systems, and addressing major bottlenecks within the already built up areas of Northern Virginia and other metro areas.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board must vote on where to spend the multi-billion dollar transportation bond package. Please take a minute to write to the CTB, and ask them not to waste limited funding on a project as destabilizing and wasteful as the Outer Beltway.

116 comments

McDonnell transportation plan: Mortgage future, build roads (Dec 10, 2010)
Virginians: Ask your reps to oppose bad highway bills (Jan 20, 2011)
Do "we have to do something" about traffic but not transit? (Oct 26, 2009)
McDonnell trying to take WMATA seats from NoVA (Jun 4, 2010)
ICC Junior: Montrose Parkway (Dec 28, 2008)