Mr. Guernsey's Trucks

David Guernsey, a local Fairfax County businessman who sells envelopes and other office products around the region, is angry because the Virginia General Assembly did not agree to raise taxes for transportation. Apparently, the traffic congestion is causing problems for him and his colleagues. Mr. Guernsey complains, for example, that he was forced to build a second distribution center in Beltsville, MD to service customers. He keeps his delivery trucks on both sides of the Potomac now.

He also complains that it's become more difficult to make deliveries or to have deliveries made to his operations in Chantilly. Finally, Mr. Guernsey bemoans the fact that many businesses are having a hard time persuading people to move here. The quality of life seems to be deteriorating. His solution -- raise taxes on you, me and the gal behind the tree. He's also planning to give campaign contributions to people who will raise those taxes.

Well Mr. Guernsey, there are many other factors that you seem to ignore. One obvious tool to address congestion that our neighbors in Maryland use is to authorize local governments to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances. Those laws defer growth where the roads, schools, parks, libraries, sewers, etc., are insufficient to handle the added growth. Perhaps, had those laws been in effect in Virginia, we wouldn't have as bad of traffic jams as we do. Or, as often occurs with APFOs, the developers and builders construct, or pay for the construction of, the necessary public facilities. Either way, things would be better in Virginia without raising taxes.

I've never met Mr. Guernsey, but I'll bet you that he would likely respond by arguing that APFO hurt economic growth. They stop necessary development. But I'd retort that he just built a distribution center in Maryland -- a place with APFO. He built because he needed to serve a market and felt he could do so profitably even with the added costs. By imposing an APFO, Maryland likely received contributions towards public infrastructure from Mr. Guernsey's company or from his landlord and it also obtained new jobs that were in Virginia. Sounds like a winner for Maryland residents and it did not require a tax increase.

Mr. Guernsey also ignores various traffic management tools that could be used. For example, we could reduce traffic congestion measurably by getting trucks off the road during prime commuting time. Virginia could, for example, adopt congestion pricing for trucks using interstate highways and primary roads during rush hours. Companies like Mr. Guernsey's could then either pay extra fees to drive these roads during rush hours or move deliveries to before or after commuting time. Perhaps, he could discount his prices for early or late deliveries. I'm sure that, if his company could not adapt to this change, others, such as Staples, Office Depot or WalMart, would find a way to adjust prices and make a profit. The use of congestion pricing would help improve traffic flow and it wouldn't require a tax increase.

What I really found absurd about Mr. Guernsey's remarks was his complaint that people should pay higher taxes because Mr. Guernsey and other business operators are having trouble recruiting people to work in this area. If you are having trouble hiring good people, you need to pay them more or start moving operations to a less-expensive area. A very strong economic case can be made that we would be better off if more good-paying jobs were located in places such as Fredericksburg, Warrenton, Culpeper, etc. We'd have less congestion on our roads and many workers' commuting times would be reduced. I suspect, however, that Mr. Guernsey might sell fewer envelopes and copiers if more jobs were located outside this area. But it's hardly a reason for us to pay higher taxes to help Mr. Guernsey's business.

I could go on and on. He failed to address VDOT's lack of cost controls, the fact that we fund roads based on who can best lobby the CTB, Fairfax County fails to negotiate and collect sufficient cash proffers for roads, we are spending more than $4 billion to build the Silver Line that does not reduce traffic congestion. The bottom line is that many things could be done that would make traffic improvements but that do not require a tax increase. Let's do them first.

We Needed More from the Governor

Like many others, I was not surprised to see the special session of the General Assembly produce nothing. There is no consensus in Virginia as to what can and should be done about transportation problems. On one side we have Senator John Chichester, who seems devoted to preservation of the existing, but flawed, system (e.g., VDOT lacks cost controls, the CTB can be manipulated into funding road projects that don't fix safety or mobility problems). Senator Chichester just wants to pour more taxpayer dollars into the broken machine, presumably with the hope that something good might happen.

On the other hand, we see many rural GOP House members who oppose another tax increase, having been burnt in 2004. The fact that many of their districts aren't suffering severe traffic congestion likely adds to their reluctance to raise taxes yet again.

In the middle were other GOP House members who offered either to shift funds to transportation in Hampton Roads and NoVA or, even, to raise some taxes in those regions.

Based on his recent remarks, one would have thought Governor Tim Kaine was also in the middle. But the Governor failed to lead; he abandoned the middle for Chichester. That was a big mistake on Kaine's part. One that might well cost the Commonwealth.

The Governor could have (and should have) attempted to broker a deal somewhere in the middle. He should have abandoned Chichester's position, which supports the current failed system, and made it clear that he wanted the middle ground also. I suspect that, if enough senators saw Chichester as isolated, they too might have looked for something in the middle.

Kaine continues to talk a good game, but does not seem able to follow through. Perhaps, he did not mean it when he campaigned as a fiscal moderate. (Jerry Kilgore warned us about that.) Maybe Kaine wants to duplicate Warner's feat of raising taxes with a GOP legislature. Kaine could be trying to reward big campaign contributors, many of whom want to see more road and rail building to enhance their real estate investments. But, in any event, the Governor missed an opportunity. He had the chance to be a leader, but he failed. We needed more from the Governor.

Same Old Stupid Answer from the Washington Post

Years ago when my son resisted reading, I used to tell him that, unless he learned to read and analyze information, the only job he would likely get was cleaning porto-potties. (It sunk in even at that early age. He's now a strong reader and good student.) But I was wrong; without an education and the ability to think, one could still write editorials for the Washington Post.

Today's (9/27) left-wing rant for more transportation taxes in Virginia continues the Post's superficial foolishness. Oh, I'm not arguing that the plans of Delegates Rust and Albo for increased local taxes and fees for transportation improvements in NoVA are necessarily wrong. But a thinking person, be they liberal or conservative, would also explore solutions to the many other complexities involved in Virginia's transportation mess. Can we also make improvements without first raising taxes?

The Posties rattle off a list of projects that wouldn't be funded, but don't address whether those projects would actually improve traffic or merely result in induced demand and more congestion, or simply worse, spark even more development. Never mind facts, raise a tax! Keep in mind that the very same editorial writers continually blast development in Loudoun County. (But that's probably because the BoS there is controlled by Republicans.)

What about air quality? The Post normally complains about air quality and demands more regulation. What about in Virginia? Would the EPA even permit the Commonwealth to engage in a large-scale road-building program in NoVA? Air quality matters not when taxes could be increased.

The Post discusses Metrorail and its need for more and more money. What about the gross mismanagement and lack of government oversight plaguing WMATA? What about all of the problems uncovered by the Post's reporters? What about spending at least $4 billion to build the Silver Line despite the fact that it does not relieve traffic congestion? Just pour more money into the flawed beast demands the Post.

What about land use controls? Just about every Virginian would agree that last year's strong vote for Tim Kaine was because he promised to stop the insanity of permitting more development when the roads couldn't handle the traffic. I suspect that most Virginians would favor laws authorizing local governments to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances, just like they have in Maryland. Has the Post ever discussed this issue in an editorial? Of course not; why should it when the solution is higher taxes?

The Post needs editorial writers who have the ability to think beyond the single solution of higher taxes to every problem. Perhaps, the Post's owners could have a group of first graders replace its existing crew. We'd get much more thoughtful analysis.

VDOT Maintenance

What do VDOT's historical expenses for road maintenance look like? The following chart, which was obtained from the General Assembly staff, shows total expenses, expenses for secondary roads and payments to those local governments that maintain their own streets -- cities, towns, Arlington and Henrico Counties.

One-Note Ideologues -- The Washington Post Editorial Writers

Webster's defines idealogue as: 1) an impractical idealist and 2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology. Either definition fits the people who write editorials for the Washington Post. Today's (9/24) foolish editorial on transportation funding in Virginia clearly demonstrates the Post's scribblers' devotion to taxes as the one and only solution to each and every problem in Virginia.

The Post rants about the refusal of the Virginia House majority to endorse the ill-thought plan of Governor Tim Kaine and the Senate to raise taxes again by $1 billion for transportation. As with each and every other editorial by the left-wing idealogues, this one ignore real issues in favor of higher taxes.

For example, the Post has never addressed the issue of VDOT's lack of internal cost controls. The Post, which has a cadre of good reporters, has written stories about VDOT's enormous operating problems, but refuses to address them in any editorial, preferring that we simply give more of our paychecks to Richmond.

I find it interesting how the Post regularly blasts the role of lobbyists in government. Yet, the same group of intellectually dishonest writers sweeps the influence of lobbyists on the Commonwealth Transportation Board under the carpet of higher taxes. I guess that lobbyists influencing the federal government, the D.C. government, Maryland government, etc. is wrong. But it is commendable for Virginia land speculators and developers to hire lobbyists to steer transportation tax dollars to fund roads and rails to locations that benefit real estate plans, rather than to address transportation problems. It must have something to do with higher taxes.

The Post supports development fees in Maryland, but certainly not in Virginia. At least not when taxes could be raised! Your inconsistency has not fooled all of us.

The Post is a top-notch paper with some very excellent reporters, but its editorial staff lacks basic intellectual honesty when it comes to Virginia issues. Let's get some people on staff who are more than one-note idealogues on tax increases.

More on Maintenance of Secondary & Local Roads

We often hear that: 1) road maintenance costs are overwhelming Virginia's pool of transportation funds; and 2) growth in secondary roads is crushing the State's ability to construct other roads all over Virginia. What do State data show?

Are maintenance costs for secondary roads a larger percentage of VDOT's maintenance budget now than ten years ago? According to VDOT data, 44% of VDOT's maintenance budget for 1996 was spent on secondary roads. In 2005, secondary road maintenance costs had dropped to 42% of VDOT's total maintenance budget. Even when one considers the more costly payments for local road maintenance made by VDOT, total secondary and local road maintenance costs as a percentage of VDOT's total maintenance costs dropped from 56% in 1996 to 53% in 2005.

From these figures, it does not appear that maintenance for local streets is overwhelming VDOT's budget. We cannot afford to ignore these costs, and VDOT needs to strive for more efficiencies; but secondary and local road maintenance does not seem to be the big budget killer that it is purported to be.
Perhaps, the truth is that the road-building crowd (developers, land speculators, contractors, etc.) simply want to see more pavement for their own private benefit? Or does the Virginia business community and the press just mouth slogans, rather than examine data? Could our problems require more sophisticated solutions than "we need more money"?

Clearly, Virginia is adding more secondary streets at a rate that is exceeding growth in primary and interstate highways. But is that found throughout Virginia? Which jurisdictions are the culprits for adding these local roads to the system? According to State data, they are as follows:


This chart helps explain why many Virginia legislators don't see the crisis felt by others.

There remain many questions about transportation that need consideration. It's too bad that the bulk of Virginia's press and organized business community aren't participating seriously in this analysis and discussion.

VDOT's Efficiency Edge

I, like many others in Virginia, often criticize VDOT. Indeed, it's fairly easy to do.

I now need to give VDOT a cheer. I've discovered an area where VDOT seems to have an edge -- maintenance costs for local streets.

I was given some materials on transportation by a friend, who, in turn, received them from the State. I copied some of the data into a spreadsheet to see what I could find. One finding was that, in terms of the cost of maintaining secondary roads, VDOT seems to be much more efficient than those local governments that maintain their their own streets, when measured in cost per lane mile. Otherwise, the state funding to local governments for road maintenance is too generous.

As I understand the rules, Arlington and Henrico Counties, along with Virginia's incorporated towns and cities, maintain their own streets. VDOT, in turn, sends each such locality road maintenance funds on a quarterly basis. (Prior to 2003, this aid was adjusted by formula. Since 2003, state aid has increased at the same rate as VDOT's maintenance budget is increased.) For all other secondary roads in Virginia, VDOT is in charge of maintenance.

In 1996, there were 93,191 lane miles of secondary roads maintained by VDOT, and 25,112 miles of roads maintained by local governments. VDOT's maintenance cost per lane mile (secondary roads only) was around $3,171, while the state aid per lane mile for the affected localities was almost $7,449 -- a difference of more than $4275 per lane mile. The comparable figures for 2005 are: 97,579 lane miles (VDOT secondary), 27,675 lane miles (local streets), $5,149 (VDOT maintenance per lane mile), and $12,257 (state aid per lane mile).

Either VDOT is much more efficient than localities doing their own maintenance or the state aid formula is overly generous. In any event, this subject needs more scrutiny.

Tony Griffin's Promise to Pay for Silver Line Cost Overruns

A friend of mine recently shared a letter with me -- one that I heard about, but had not seen. The letter was written last year (November 1, 2005) by Fairfax County Executive Tony Griffin. It was sent to Virginia's Secretary of Transportation, Pierce Homer. The letter, copy displayed below, discusses the County's commitment to the extension of Metrorail through Tysons Corner and to Dulles and beyond.





Griffin's letter then discusses cost overruns and, without authorization from our elected supervisors, commits Fairfax County taxpayers to fund the County's "share" of cost overruns. How? Using a "pay-as-you-go" plan using General Fund revenues, which, of course, come chiefly from real estate taxes that are paid by all of us. And we thought the days of double-digit real estate tax increases were over! Alternatively, Griffin's suggests that the County would seek approval to issue bonds and go into debt to pay for cost overruns.

Of course, as a non-elected employee of the County, Tony Griffin can no more commit Fairfax County taxpayers to pay for cost overruns than could a clerk in a county office. But was Tony Griffin instructed or, at least, encouraged by one or more supervisors to send a signal to the State and the Tysons Corner landowners that the supervisors would do all in their power to make ordinary citizens pay for the inevitable cost overruns? If the supervisors were not supportive of this "commitment" of taxpayer money, why didn't they officially countermand Griffin?

Why discuss a letter that's almost one year old? The letter is material because we are soon likely to learn from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) whether there will be federal funding for the Silver Line. The FTA could quickly decide whether the current proposal passes the cost/benefit test. If federal funding is available, the project will go forward.

But that's not the end of the financial issues. Few, if any, large construction projects do not experience cost overruns. The Silver Line will certainly cost more than $4 billion to build. Who will pay for these extra costs? Not the federal government. Its share is limited to $900 million. Unless there's a change in the special tax district, not the Tysons and Dulles Corridor landowners. Their commitment is limited to $400 million for Phase I.

Who is left? Certainly not the Virginia treasury. Northern Virginia gets very little from the State. Toll Road drivers. Probably, but just how high could tolls be raised before we have a revolt -- especially since the Toll Road would not receive the benefits from rate hikes? That leaves the residents of Fairfax County in the bulls-eye. Absent some legislative protections, there is a significant risk that real estate taxes paid by the county's residents will be increased to pay for Silver Line cost overruns. That's why Tony Griffin's letter is still very important today. His letter suggest that this fear will likely come true. We are likely to see our property taxes increase to build a rail line that does not reduce traffic congestion, but only enriches a select group of landowners. This is wrong.

We need Gerry Connolly to address this issue. We also probably need legislation to prohibit Fairfax County from recovering any Silver Line capital expenses in real estate taxes.

Uncle's Cutting His Tech Spending

The Washington Post's business section (9/11) contained an interesting article on the slowing pace of the federal government's technology purchases. Virginia, especially NoVA, has been riding a big horse (government contracting for technology) since 9/11. Many people would give this huge economic stimulus credit for the boom times in Virginia. (Well, not the editorial writers from the Post. They assume that Mark Warner's tax increases caused the boom.)

I've been of the opinion for some time that the rate of government contracts being let was going to slow sooner or later. Today, it looks more like sooner than later. The story was not gloom and doom, just a slowing to more historic patterns.

But now what happens? A few years ago, we had the big Internet/Telecom bust. (Of course, the accounting scandals didn't help.) Quite a few people lost good jobs. Many, but certainly not all, of the Techies moved to government contracting. There's also been great pressure to increase the number of H1-B visas to bring in more technology experts from overseas.

Many of the owners and workers in government technology also took advantage of the ultra-low interests rates and purchased bigger houses than the high schools they attended. We've seen interest rates rise, and many homes placed on the resale market. Will this problem be exacerbated by a slow-down in government contracts? What happens if both real estate and government contracting are hurting?

Our Governor and General Assembly have not exactly learned from the last fiscal mess. Spending is up way beyond population growth and inflation. Will Tim Kaine face fiscal problems during the latter part of his term? If so, will he propose higher taxes? Can a second governor con enough senators and delegates into one more tax increase? Shouldn't we all get spending discipline soon?

I suspect I'll be writing much more on this subject. These are just some initial reactions?

More Questions about Table 6.2-2

The Commonwealth's own projection indicates that spending at least $4 billion to build the Silver Line provides essentially no improvement in traffic congestion. The State's employee explained this seemingly absurd result at a public meeting late last fall, in McLean, as being caused by all of the additional development that Fairfax County's supervisors are likely to approve once the Silver Line is authorized for construction.

It would be very useful if the State were to reveal what assumptions about development in and around Tysons Corner it relied upon in making its traffic projections. Those assumptions should be released to the public. Was Table 6.2-2's forecast based on the greater level of density that was proposed by the County in the last revision of the Comprehensive Plan for Tysons in the 1990s? Did it assume more density than that? The Tysons area landowners have requested substantially more density than either they have today (obviously) or what was proposed in the 1990s' plan. Shouldn't this information be made public?

If the density assumed by the State in its 2004 EIS is less than what is being proposed by the landowners to the Fairfax County supervisors, we might well see a further deterioration in traffic flow beyond what the EIS suggests would occur in the event that the Silver Line is built as planned. That would mean spending at least $4 billion to see traffic congestion increase. I submit that such a result is well beyond the absurd. It would have made a great Twilight Zone episode!

It is important to note that the 1990s' plan for greater density at Tysons was premised on various transportation infrastructure improvements, most of which have never been made. Thus, even developing Tysons Corner to the existing plan would mean even more gridlock than we have today unless public facilities are also bolstered. What did State planners know about this situation when they wrote the Final EIS and how did they address this in the traffic forecast?

Why isn't the MSM asking these questions? They seem fairly fundamental.

Why aren't local Fairfax County businesses asking the same questions? Why are most of these sophisticated executives simply nodding agreement with the Tysons Corner landowners? The latter stand the risks of: 1) seeing no improvement (or worse) in levels of traffic congestion; 2) losing billions in transportation funds that might be spent on projects that could actually help reduce gridlock; 3) experiencing further degradation in the "quality" of Fairfax County; and 4) facing higher taxes to pay for Silver Line's inevitable cost overruns. Solidarity or stupidity?

Four Billion Dollars (or More) for Nothing in Return

There are many questions that elected officials don't want to answer. One of them is: Why are taxpayers and Dulles Toll Road users being asked to pay at least $4 billion dollars to build the Silver Line extension of Metrorail in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties when the Commonwealth of Virginia's own data demonstrates there will be virtually no traffic relief? This probably seems counterintuitive, but it is true. Take a look at Table 6.2-2 from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (December 2004) for the Dulles Metro Project. A copy of the Table is shown. The Table can also be found online at http://www.dullesmetro.com/pdfs/FEIS_I/FTA_FEIS_Chapter_6.pdf. The Table is found on page 6.25.




Doesn't this seem absurd, even for Fairfax County? This table demonstrates that we, who live and/or work in Fairfax County, will face traffic congestion that is at least as bad as we have it today after spending $4 billion of taxpayer and Toll Road user money.

How can this be? Last year, an employee of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit was asked this very question. The response was: The Silver Line will certainly take drivers off the roads, but the rezoning of Tysons Corner and other locations near rail will add so many new cars to our streets that all of the gains from the multi-billion dollar project will be undone. That means we are spending billions of dollars to help bring more people and more cars to Fairfax County. Good idea?

Then, of course, there are the cost overruns that occur with any large construction project (Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, Boston's Big Dig). How big will the Silver Line's cost overruns be? Who will pay for them?

This is stupid by any person's standards -- unless, of course, you just happen to work for one of the major Tysons Corner landowners or their contractors and agents.

Is Virginia that flush with transportation money that we can waste billions without improving traffic?