Posts about Transportation Financing

Maryland's gas tax goes into the state's Transportation Trust Fund, along with the sales tax on car sales, fares paid on MARC trains and MTA buses, and revenues from BWI Marshall Airport and the Port of Baltimore. When the gas tax was last raised in 1992, the 23½¢ state tax was 33% of the pretax price of gasoline. The sales tax on other pur­chases was 5%. The heavy tax on gas could be described as a user fee paid by drivers.

Today, though, the state gas tax is a little more than 7% of the price of gasoline. When drivers buy gas, they pay 7% into the transportation trust fund and get 6% back from the state's general fund through the exemption of gasoline from the sales tax.

Ending the exemption would convert the gas tax back into a true user fee. Drivers would then pay a share of the cost of maintaining roads, just as transit riders pay a share of the cost of transit operations through their fares.

Many myths surround the subject of transportation funding, in Maryland as in other states. Transit advocates need to be vigilant as the legislature debates this issue to make sure that new funding builds transit lines and walkable grid streets rather than repeating the mistakes of the past. The better the public understands the realities of the state budget, the easier this will be.

Positive impacts

According to the study, the great benefit of streetcars will be that they tremendously expand the number of households and business properties that are within walking distance of a rail station. With streetcars complementing Metro, the share of DC residents within a quarter mile of a rail stop will increase from today's 16% up to 50%.

That will correspond to an increase in the value of properties along streetcar lines by $5-7 billion. Another $5-8 billion in new development can be expected, resulting in a total property value increase of $10-15 billion due to streetcars.

That would result in $238-291 million in new tax revenue for the city each year, after completion of the 37-mile streetcar network. At that rate it would take only 6 years for the city to recuperate the full $1.5 billion cost. After that, the additional property tax revenues would be pure profit.

Tax revenue isn't the only benefit, of course. Compared to a no-streetcars baseline scenario, over a 10 year period the streetcar network is anticipated to induce 6,300-7,700 new jobs in the District, up to 12,000 new households, and up to 1.3 million square feet of new retail development.

That is a big deal.

The study goes on to conclude that these sort of dramatic results are only practical with streetcars.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is often mentioned as a less expensive alternative to streetcars. However, according to the study BRT would require exclusive rights-of-way in order to begin to achieve some of the same benefits as mixed-traffic streetcars. The property acquisitions necessary to provide exclusive bus lanes would more than negate any cost savings achieved by using buses, and the impacts on development would still be less. At the end of the day, BRT would be neither cheaper nor as effective.

Meanwhile, the expense of Metrorail and light rail would make them cost prohibitive to use for such an extensive network. If the District wants 37 miles of new transit, they are not options.

Negative impacts

There are of course some negative impacts. The largest of which is the effect such a tremendous increase in development demand would have on affordable housing.

The study recommends a range of policies to mitigate that impact. These include upzoning certain areas for greater density so that supply can keep up with demand, mandating inclusionary zoning in new developments, and greater code flexibility to allow accessory dwelling units such as alley houses.

Another negative impact is that streetcars running on a curbside alignment preclude the possibility of converting parking lanes to travel lanes during the peak period. With curbside streetcars, parking lanes must be either permanent or absent.

The report also mentions the complications inherent to bicycle-streetcar coexistence. It notes that quality bike infrastructure will be necessary along streetcar corridors in order to minimize conflict.

Funding mechanisms

Although federal funding may become available at some time, any realistic scenario for the funding of this network must include a substantial local contribution.

In addition to DDOT's normal funding mechanisms, the study identifies potential other sources of streetcar construction funds. Developer contributions and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) appear to be the most promising.

Developer contributions may be possible where very large developments would benefit from streetcar services, such as at Walter Reed or the Southwest Waterfront. The city could negotiate for a contribution of a few million dollars, knowing that the value of the development will increase by a greater amount with the presence of a streetcar.

Tax Increment Financing has even greater potential to fund a very large percentage of the program. TIF is a process in which the city uses bonds to build the initial capital investment, then repays the bonds using the increase in property tax revenue.

The report estimates that using the TIF process, the District could realistically support $600-900 million in bonds. That would approximate to between 40-60% of the total $1.5 billion cost.

These funding strategies will have to be explored in greater detail, and the negatives associated with streetcars will have to be addressed. But if this study proves correct, streetcars are going to be a big, big win. A decade after the system is built the city will be a better and more livable place, construction debt will be repaid, and the tax revenue will be rolling in.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

The Camden and Brunswick Lines offer even less service. The Camden Line's 18 trains between Union Station and Baltimore accommodate reverse commuting, but only during limited hours, and with an average headway of almost 50 minutes. The Brunswick Line's 18 daily trains, between Union Station, Frederick, and Martinsburg, are useful only for an eastward commute during normal working hours.

None of the three lines offers weekend or holiday service, although Amtrak does serve a few Penn Line stops.

Such limited service is not enough to give people a meaningful alternative to driving. And it is surely not enough to support Governor O'Malley's designation of five MARC stations as priority sites for transit-oriented development (TOD). Would TOD at Laurel and Savage, on the Camden Line, actually reduce energy use by TOD's potential of a third to a half? Would TOD at Aberdeen, with 12 MARC trains per day, be a meaningful contributor to Maryland's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020?

To address inadequate service, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) released the MARC Growth and Investment Plan (MGIP) in September of 2007. Full implementation of the plan would triple passenger capacity by 2035. It would also reduce headways to 15 minutes on the Penn Line and 20 minutes on the Camden and Brunswick Line, provide all-day, two-way service on all three lines, and add weekend service as well. The estimated capital investment cost for the whole plan is $3.9 billion.

$3.9 billion over 27 years sounds like a lot of money. But compare it to the $2.5 billion cost of the Wilson Bridge replacement, the projected $2.6 billion cost of the disastrous Maryland Intercounty Connector, and the up to $4.6 billion cost of the absurd proposed widening of I-270 in Montgomery and Frederick Counties.

Putting money towards the MGIP instead would be far more cost-effective, making rail a viable choice in the dense I-95 and I-270 corridors. It would link residents in eastern Montgomery and Prince George's Counties to the jobs in the western parts of Montgomery County and enable the development of real TOD around MARC train stations. Further, it would reduce traffic congestion, dependence on foreign oil, air and water pollution, and our region's contribution to anthropogenic global climate change.

Unluckily for all of us, however, the MTA proposed the plan just in time for the recession. As a result, MARC service was actually cut. And although a few more trains were recently added to the Penn Line, there has been no funding of the MGIP.

Until (perhaps) now.

There is new and increasing political support for raising Maryland's gasoline tax, which makes up a significant proportion of the revenues that go into the state's Transportation Trust Fund. (Note that gas is exempt from the state sales tax.) Because Maryland's gas tax has been 23.5 cents per gallon since 1992, Transportation Trust Fund revenues have not even kept up with inflation. They are now inadequate for basic maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure, let alone expansion.

In the 2011 General Assembly session, 37 Delegates sponsored a bill to add ten cents per gallon and adjust the gas tax for inflation; the Montgomery and Prince George's County executives and the mayor of Baltimore testified in favor. Montgomery County state senators Roger Manno and Rob Garagiola also sponsored legislation, and Senate President Mike Miller was in favor of the idea. The 2012 General Assembly will surely consider gas tax legislation as well.

This is great news—but only if the money goes to useful projects. It must not be spent on building new roads, which will only increase traffic, pollution, and future maintenance costs.

Instead, much of the money must go towards maintaining existing transportation infrastructure, including mass transit, roads, and bridges. And it is crucial for the rest to go towards expanding mass transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, within and between Maryland's cities and towns. Not only will this benefit everybody, it will also offset the regressive effect of the higher gas tax on the people who are least able to afford driving.

Ideally, as Senator Manno's bill did last year, the gas tax will have earmarks for mass transit, including the MARC Growth and Investment Plan. The tax should go up as transportation infrastructure costs go up, either through annual adjustments or by switching from a per-gallon to a per-dollar levy. And, to increase political support, it will return some of the revenue to the counties to spend on their own transportation priorities.

Funding all-day, two-way, weekday and weekend MARC service through higher gas taxes will pay off with better mobility and a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable future for the region's residents. The alternative is more cars, more traffic, more sprawl, and more pollution. Is this really such a hard choice?

Besides, if Amtrak is selling almost every seat at its current fare points, there's little economic incentive to lower the fare. Lowering the fare wouldn't sell any more seats since they're selling out already. And it would bring in less revenue.

Capacity: Amtrak simply does not have enough coaches in its fleet to handle the amount of passengers who would want to ride the train if Amtrak fares were comparable to those of curbside buses. Furthermore, there is very little room on the existing railroad to add new trains, particularly at peak hours when tracks leading into New York Penn Station (from New Jersey) are already at capacity with both Amtrak and commuter train traffic.

Giving Amtrak the ability to handle the passenger volume that it could if it were price-competitive with buses would require sustained higher levels of capital investment from the federal government, or from private sector partners, which are absent a strong federal commitment. Unlike highways and aviation, Amtrak lacks a dedicated source of reliable annual funding.

Amenities: Aside from being generally faster (even Northeast Regionals hit top speeds of 125 mph between Washington and New York, while buses never top 80 mph), train travel is generally considered more pleasant than bus travel. Trains offer a smoother ride, more legroom, the ability to get up and walk around while in motion, and on-board food and beverage service. These amenities provide many passengers a justification for paying more than they would to take a bus.

Unlike buses, which operate over highways built and maintained by federal gas tax dollars (along with some general federal and state tax revenue), Amtrak owns its own tracks in the Northeast Corridor and has to bear the full cost of maintaining them, with limited federal assistance. If the bus companies had to pay their full share of highway maintenance, they could not get away with charging the fares they do.

Railroading, by nature, is characterized by high fixed costs. Fixed costs are those that do not vary based on how many people use a good or service (in this case, buy an Amtrak ticket). It will cost Amtrak roughly the same to maintain the tracks, signals and stations on the Northeast Corridor regardless of how many trains run and how many riders use them. Railroad labor costs are also largely fixed. Remarkably, Amtrak nevertheless covers over 80% of its total costs through revenue from passengers, whereas most of the world's passenger train operators fall in the 50% to 60% range.

Despite this, Amtrak trains in the Northeast Corridor actually make an "above-the-rail" profit. Fares bring in enough revenue to pay for operating costs on the Northeast Corridor, though not enough to pay for the maintenance backlog of the corridor.

The need to promote energy efficient travel, lessen highway congestion, and spur the development of walkable, livable communities around train stations are good reasons to encourage greater numbers to use the train instead of flying, driving or taking a bus. Increased federal investment in Amtrak infrastructure and equipment—in the Northeast Corridor and elsewhere—would allow the railroad to increase the frequency, speed and capacity of its trains. This would allow more riders to be carried over the line, thus spreading the fixed costs over more paying passengers, leading to lower fares.

Some form of ongoing public capital investment will be needed to keep the infrastructure and equipment in good shape. Federal funding should come from a dedicated "trust fund" with its own revenue source rather than from a Congressional appropriation, which would make the amount of funding reliable year after year.

If you support higher and more reliable funding for passenger trains as a viable leading choice for intercity travel, join us in the National Association of Railroad Passengers in calling on Congress to fully fund Amtrak and the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail grant program.

Two days before Earth Day, however, McDonnell had announced more than 900 projects that would be funded by his transportation plan, which he calls "the most significant investment in the Commonwealth's transportation system in a generation." The plan would spend $3 billion to "not only address the needs of the aging highway system upon which we all depend" but also "provide a needed injection of funding into our economy to spur recovery from the difficult recession of the past several years," according to McDonnell.

Experts are still analyzing the numbers that came out last week, which are exceptionally confusing. For instance, the first slide of a VDOT powerpoint presentation Streetsblog obtained shows that $8.1 billion will go to highway construction with $2.3 billion for rail and public transportation—a similar split to what transit gets from the federal government. But those numbers only include construction, not operations and maintenance, and clearly they add up to much more than the $3 billion investment that's the centerpiece of McDonnell's transportation plan. Reformers caution that a closer look at the numbers proves that transit isn't getting a good deal.

Indeed, in its announcement of the 900 recipient projects, the state DOT highlighted 14 flagship projects that would be funded—all road projects, most of them involving roadway widening. There are also several replacements of aging bridges. In a separate list, the press release lists several rail and transit projects, though it doesn't give a dollar amount dedicated to transit.

"State law requires that at least 14.7 percent of the [Transportation Trust Fund] go to transit," said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. "I would be quite surprised if the total six-year plan surpasses this share."

Throughout the development of the transportation plan, McDonnell's rhetoric has been almost exclusively about roads, and when the final numbers are crunched, many expect that the dollar allocation will show the same bias.

If the governor wants people to stop driving alone, this is probably not the plan he should be putting forth, said Schwartz. "Given the energy crisis that our nation faces and our oil dependency," he said, "we could be doing much more to invest in transit, local streets, and pedestrian and bicycle and carpooling needs than his plan calls for." Schwartz went on to say:

What are we buying with this money? The governor has never talked about the maintenance backlog in the state. This is all capital expenditures—it's not maintenance. So how are we going to meet the backlog of $3.7 billion in structurally deficient bridges; what's the plan? What about the billion in structurally deficient pavement—or more? That's never been discussed.

So, if we're using scarce transportation revenues we'd like to see us first address the maintenance needs of roads, bridges and transit. Certainly we could make up for the operating shortfalls transit is facing so desperately right now. After that, we'd like to see that we're supporting a more energy efficient future for Virginia and investing in energy efficient transportation and land use solutions.

That would argue not just for spending on transit, but really for a transportation system that would support smart growth outcomes such as revitalization of the cities, development near transit stations, revitalization in all of our suburban communities and commercial corridors, more compact and walkable, bikable land uses with good transit.

That does not appear to be the vision Gov. McDonnell has laid out.

Kala Quintana of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, also still combing through the numbers, said the governor's expressed support for transit has been heartening. "There seems to be an acknowledgement that, hey, there are alternatives out there, and we want to encourage people to use them," Quintana said. "This is not news to us, but we think it's great that it's coming from the governor's office, that he's trying to encourage people to seek out alternative forms of transportation."

But she wants to see a greater commitment from the governor to actually funding transit. Already, public transportation systems in Northern Virginia are at capacity, she said, and the only thing stopping them from adding more is that there hasn't been enough money allocated to buy more buses and pay more drivers.

While details of the plan are still coming out, what we do know is how it's funded. The debt the governor is planning to incur for the commonwealth of Virginia is by far the most controversial part of the plan. Of the $3 billion, $1.8 billion comes from 10-year loans approved by Governor Tim Kaine in 2007, which Gov. McDonnell is extending for 25 years—"even though it costs over 40 percent more to carry debt for 25 years than it does for 10 years," as Democratic Virginia House Delegate Vivian Watts wrote in the Washington Post. Another $1.2 billion is borrowed from expected future income from the federal government. McDonnell also wanted to create a state infrastructure bank but the legislature dramatically scaled back those plans.

Last spring, the McDonnell administration did an audit of transportation funds and found that Gov. Tim Kaine had significant unspent balances. Rather than praising Kaine's fiscal discipline or keeping some of that money for what it was meant for—hedging against the possibility that the federal government would continue to fail to pass a transportation reauthorization, or that it would be lower than expected—or holding onto the money for future maintenance needs, McDonnell treated the discovery as a treasure trove for plundering. The media happily went along with that version of the story.

But many transportation advocates criticize the governor for going so deep into debt for transportation investments that may prove to amount to little more than road widening. David Alpert wrote, "Borrowing in this way, of course, essentially means spending future decades' transportation money. From McDonnell's point of view, why not? He won't be governor. The easiest way to get credit for starting a lot of projects when he has no money is to spend future governors' money."

Scare-quoted words include "investing" (money on transportation projects) and "livability," which apparently is code for "using government funding to force people now living in the suburbs to move back into densely packed central cities where they would have to depend upon mass transit rather than privately owned vehicles." That's instead of the previous policy of using government funding to force people to live in places where they would have to depend on cars even to cross a street without being killed.

That's far from the most comic of the faux-free market arguments, where people actually seem able to argue with a straight face that the government spending money on one mode of transportation is totally just markets at work while spending public money on another mode is socialism.

The most extravagant argument comes from Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, who actually writes this:

If the law of supply and demand were operative, we'd see a smarter approach to improving transportation in America. The supply of cars would create a demand for more roads and bridges to accommodate them, just as food lines outside a grocery store create demand for more grocery stores.

Once again, the government is not building grocery stores. It is building the roads. And Barnes may not have noticed, but in grocery stores, you pay for the food you want. Last calls road pricing a way "to force drivers to put a dollar value on their commute." Like... in the grocery stores, where there's a dollar value on the food?

Meanwhile, Barnes obviously hasn't been on the Northeast Corridor Amtrak trains, or any of the subway systems in dense cities where people are clamoring for more trains and better service. Why doesn't that create demand for transit programs?

Because Barnes is sure they're not useful to anyone. "The simple fact is most people prefer to travel by car because it's convenient, which mass transit rarely is," he claims. Rarely in his experience, perhaps. Sure, driving is more convenient for many people in many cases. Transit is more convenient for other people in other cases.

Barnes argues that all the transit hasn't taken cars off the road, and that transit's mode share has declined. I have to assume he's just being disingenuous and trying to feed red meat to his base, because he must be smart enough to recognize that if you build very little transit and a lot of roads while the nation grows significantly, maybe the overall amount of cars will increase faster than the amount of transit ridership.

What's most frustrating about this argument from "conservative" commentators is that they're doing exactly what they accuse others of: coercing people to take only one mode. Barnes' argument isn't that we need both roads and transit. He only wants roads and nothing else. How does taking away choices create more freedom?

It's just like the groceries. Some people like milk. Others like orange juice. The government is subsidizing the growing of both in this country. But we aren't hearing "conservative" commentators argue that all orange subsidies have to end because adding a few new orange groves hasn't succeeded in curbing obesity all on its own.

Another Barnes assertion claims transit in Washington hasn't curbed congestion. Yet that Texas Transportation Institute report, which tautologically proves that if you build a lot more roads people spend more of their long commutes driving long distances fast instead of short distances slowly, showed that the Washington area has grown a lot since 1999 but without traffic actually getting worse.

The strange logic continues with a piece by Fred Utt of the Heritage Foundation criticizing transportation borrowing by Barack Obama and by Barbara Hollingsworth praising the same borrowing by Bob McDonnell.

Hollingsworth writes, "In order to take advantage of low construction costs, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and the General Assembly agreed to incur $4 billion in debt in order to expand and maintain the commonwealth's extensive highway system, which has become seriously degraded after years of neglect." But Utt decries federal transportation programs as "borrow-and-spend policies" and a "political slush fund."

What's the difference? It's simple: One has some transit, the other doesn't. Also, one executive is a Democrat, the other a Republican. Utt can't abide transit because some people belong to a union. He seems to forget that so do highway builders. Hollingsworth, meanwhile, just hates the Silver Line.

She has three main criticisms: It's expensive, there aren't a lot of people nearby, and the number of people who will take a train to the airport doesn't justify train service. Actually, there's some difference of opinion among transit advocates about the Silver Line's phase 2, from Wiehle Avenue through Dulles and into Loudoun County.

Starting with the third argument, Hollingsworth feeds off the common misconception many people have that this is primarily a "train to Dulles." It's really a train to Tysons and then to some park-and-rides near Dulles as well as the airport itself. Some people will use the train to go to the airport, but most riders in that section will be residents of the area using it to commute.

The Silver Line is expensive, but so are highways; it takes more local dollars because the federal government doesn't contribute as much money to such a project as to an equivalent highway. As with Barnes' claim that the little transit we've built hasn't reduced traffic enough, this argument uses circular reasoning. Because the feds don't pay much for transit, it's expensive; therefore, the feds should stop paying anything at all.

As for there not being a lot of people nearby, as Richard Layman explains, heavy rail transit creates its own population density. The Silver Line will trigger more development in the areas where it will go.

While phase 1 of the Silver Line serves Tysons, an already-dense area that's one of the largest job markets in the nation, phase 2 will primarily serve future development in western Fairfax and in Loudoun. To some, that's an argument against it, since like a rural highway, it's subsidizing far-flung development.

The fifth article, by Jonathan Last from the Weekly Standard, attempts to debunk the idea of induced demand, which he can't abide. It reads like one of those polemics from evolution deniers, full of statements that the "experts" insist something is true, but it can't possibly be.

Last cites 7 separate studies that back up induced demand, but then says it can't be true because if you ask the average person on the street, they'd tell you that of course building highways makes traffic better. Oh, and there was once one study that said perhaps it's overblown. Proof!

One group, he says, even went "spinning off into outer space" by trying to apply game theory. Because we all know that relatively new branches of mathematics never have any real application to existing problems.

Ultimately, this is all a lot of arguing over specifics. Individual studies or cost projections aren't going to change minds. The fact is that road building interests, suburban development interests, and the "conservative" mouthpieces they fund are going crazy that a long-standing, enormous funding imbalance in their favor might be shifting back, even a little bit.

These two pie charts, one from Transit Miami in 2009 and one from Streetsblog yesterday, tell it all:

Few scream more loudly than an interest group used to getting the entire pie, especially during a time when the pie is shrinking due to static gas tax revenues.

With minimal debate, Virginia Governor McDonnell's $4 billion transportation plan, which includes $3 billion in debt, is poised for final approval. All that remains is a small conference committee holding closed door meetings to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.

In Maryland, the "Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission" chaired by Gus Bauman, who is known for his former leadership of a booster group for the Intercounty Connector, is recommending a gas tax hike and an array of other new funding.

Ironically, the cost of construction and debt for the ICC has been a major contributor to the decline in available transportation revenues in Maryland, consuming $1.1 billion of the state's federal revenues and diverting toll revenues from all of Maryland's tolled bridges and tunnels. Our partners warned about the financial risks in a 2007 report.

How will Maryland spend its money?

As the Maryland General Assembly considers a proposal to raise the gas tax, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, 1000 Friends of Maryland and seven other conservation and housing groups under the banner of "Transportation for Maryland" (T4Md) have released a position statement and specific criteria that must be met for any tax increase for transportation in Maryland. T4Md's release responds to the failure of the commission to demand fundamental reform in what Maryland is buying with its transportation dollars.

T4Md recommends the following priorities for transportation funds:

• Maintain and repair existing infrastructure, including roads and bridges before building new;
  
• Revisit near-term spending decisions and long-term project selection to fund projects that meet the growing demand for more transportation choices that save time and money and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
  
• Spark innovation and cost-savings through a competitive transportation solutions program; and
  
• Fund the biggest jobs creator, public transportation.

Planning for major transportation projects must also routinely consider integrated land use, urban design, street network and transit alternatives that will support more efficient development. Too often, for major transportation projects, we see a failure to fairly and objectively evaluate a range of alternatives, especially integrated land use and transportation alternatives.

Cheap loans from Virginia, big profits for road builders

In Virginia, the legislature will be granting a blank check to Governor McDonnell. It looks like most of this money—$1.5 billion supplemented by low-interest taxpayer funded loans—would go for Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) projects and the large multinational companies that build these private toll roads.

The loans would be made by a new Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank and would be funded by siphoning $150 million from core services (education, health care, police and fire, etc) and another $250 million from road maintenance accounts as a result of the VDOT "audit."

According to Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton, the loans would be very low interest (2 to 3 percent) to companies that he says make a 14 percent return on their investment. Grants and loans are in addition to the 75 years of toll revenues signed-away to the companies.

Under the PPTA the Governor and Secretary of Transportation have total control over the negotiation of the contracts, so they will have complete discretion over the $1.5 billion fund.

As is the case with Maryland's transportation commission, Governor McDonnell has not addressed his state's $3.5 billion in structurally deficient bridges, about $1 billion in deficient pavement, or the significant operating and maintenance revenue shortfalls faced by the state's transit systems including Metro. His plan also ignores oil dependency and rising energy prices.

Would you buy this road?

Symbolic of the potential misallocation of resources, Governor McDonnell has said his top priority is Route 460. Quiz question for Northern Virginians: where is it?

This 55-mile new limited access highway would run through empty farmland and parallel to an existing highway and freight railroad. The existing highway carries far fewer trips than most other highways in Virginia and fewer than roads like Route 7, Route 50 and Route 236 in Northern Virginia.

A proposal from the private toll road builder calls for $782 million in subsidies from Virginia taxpayers and $491 million in low interest loans. Northern Virginians provide the largest share of tax revenues, so Northern Virginians will be primarily subsidizing this unneeded highway.

If Route 460 is the poster child for how not to spend our scarce resources, Governor McDonnell's failure to make a strong case to save federal Metro funding and the small share of his total package which "might" go to transit—11.5 percent—is evidence of his lack of support for transit.

So we're not buying Governor McDonnell's debt plan or a Maryland gas tax increase, unless the money is used wisely to address the priority challenges faced by our nation and our region. Anything else would be a huge waste of our tax dollars.