Hampton Roads Transportation

[cpeakesqr]

I don't like a authority that really answers to no one. Thats pretty scary. Just because the city Mayor is elected to that office doesn't mean he is affected on the authority board. They need people to be elected by the public to be put in those chairs with time limits on each chair so if we get idiots we can move beyond them. Only makes sense to do it like that

I wonder if it would it be possible to have the regions vote for the members of this board...? That would be a mess too without knowing whether or not people running for a seat were actually qualified, and wanted what's best for the region... It would still tax people though, so it would be unconstitutional.

I was under the impression that western Virginians were the one's holding up a statewide transportation plan, because they really don't care about or understand the importance of both N. Virginia's and HR's quality of transportation. If this is true, what hope is there?

[rusthebuss]

if that is the case why should tax dollars out of this region go for their farms and fixing their roads. This is for the better of the state not just our region. Our taxes generated from this area doesn't stay in the region but is distributed throughout the state. Sometimes it needs to come back to the region.

[spiker3]

I was under the impression that western Virginians were the one's holding up a statewide transportation plan, because they really don't care about or understand the importance of both N. Virginia's and HR's quality of transportation. If this is true, what hope is there?

I think the $30 - 40+ billion price tag is the hold up, not western VA. There's just too many projects needed and not enough money, and not enough time. It's going to take getting creative to fix it, which is what this plan was.

[rusthebuss]

I don't like the logic that something is better than nothing. We need to look at this and not rush into it. This should have been looked at 20 years ago but we are here now. We need to do this smart since this will be apart of the region from now on. We need to have people that will answer to the people for mistakes and ill decisions. We don't need people that are going to do things that the people really don't want.

[vdogg]

I think the $30 - 40+ billion price tag is the hold up, not western VA. There's just too many projects needed and not enough money, and not enough time. It's going to take getting creative to fix it, which is what this plan was.

The rural portions of VA are very much the hold out. Their representatives have indicated quite explicitly that they do not want their tax dollars paying for our roads. Hell, for what it's worth, we might as well just secede from the state. Obviously no one in Virginia believes in the "we're all in this together" mantra.

[Former Resident of HR]

Oh wow I think the sky just fell! Or was that the US economy? Anyway, now we're all going to die because the gridlock is going to be so bad that we won't ever be able to get to the store and buy food now! And think of all the gridlocked ambulances! OMG! People may actually get out of their cars and walk somewhere!

Seriously, what difference will it make if they build the roads in one big batch or if it takes them a million years? I have driven in LA, NYC, San Fran, Seattle and DC. All of them have traffic that is worse than our worst nightmare scenarios. All of them have much more dynamic economies than us. Traffic here is awful in a few places and I have not noticed that it has gotten worse or better over the years to be honest. It gets worse from Memorial day to Labor Day. So throw up tolls that are low for commuters ($1-2) and $3-5 for a one-time pop. Cancel the third crossing and make an extra set of reversing tubes at the HRBT/MMBT and put that tunnel linking the two and charge some toll for that. Yeah everyone hates tolls, but what options do we have?

[spiker3]

Oh wow I think the sky just fell! Or was that the US economy? Anyway, now we're all going to die because the gridlock is going to be so bad that we won't ever be able to get to the store and buy food now! And think of all the gridlocked ambulances! OMG! People may actually get out of their cars and walk somewhere!

Seriously, what difference will it make if they build the roads in one big batch or if it takes them a million years? I have driven in LA, NYC, San Fran, Seattle and DC. All of them have traffic that is worse than our worst nightmare scenarios. All of them have much more dynamic economies than us. Traffic here is awful in a few places and I have not noticed that it has gotten worse or better over the years to be honest. It gets worse from Memorial day to Labor Day. So throw up tolls that are low for commuters ($1-2) and $3-5 for a one-time pop. Cancel the third crossing and make an extra set of reversing tubes at the HRBT/MMBT and put that tunnel linking the two and charge some toll for that. Yeah everyone hates tolls, but what options do we have?

Traffic has certainly gotten worse, especially at the tunnels and bottle necks in the area. Add in the construction at Hampton (thankfully over now) and Battlefield with the dozen drawbridges, too-narrow lanes (264) and others....yeah traffic sucks. LA, NYC, San Fran, Seattle and DC, yes all have traffic. We'll never do away with traffic obviously. But one of the largest knocks on the cul-de-sac of the east coast is the amount of traffic with no cure or end in site. DC is constantly updating and working towards relief. Boston funded the largest traffic construction project in history. San Fran re-routed and destroyed an interstate smoothly rerouting. What have we done? Exactly like rus said, it should have been thought of 20 years ago.

As far as the projects to use, the third crossing is the one project that will never go away. At first i was an opponent and skeptic, but now i understand that project would do more for this area than anything else. A interstate/bridge system essentially devoted to port traffic (not exclusively but close) would remove tractor trailers from the downtown, midtown and HRBT. You don't think that would speed things up exponetially? Reversing tubes isn't a bad idea but it just delays a few years, instead of a longterm fix, or help.

rus, i disagree, i think something at this point is better than nothing. I'm tired of losing two hours of my day to traffic because i bought a house in Portsmouth. I want the leaders that we elected to put together something, anything towards the single biggest problem affecting this area. Was the TA perfect? Of course not. But you bet your butt i'd gladly pay an extra $1 per tank of gas, $3 every year on registration, etc. to get to and from faster. It's going to take compromise, sacrifice, and guts. I think the GA put together a great combination of the three. I understand where the courts are coming from, even if i personally disagree. But something's got to be done (i'm sure Gov Kaine and the GA realize this)

[spiker3]

Mayor's Support of Expanded Bridge Tunnel Could End Regional Rift over Transportation

In a concession that state lawmakers say likely will mend a regional split over transportation, Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim has agreed to support an expanded Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.

....

Members of the region

[spiker3]

Regional Lawmakers Support HRBT Expansion But Have No Pay Play

Regional lawmakers backed expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel on Thursday but acknowledged they have no plan to pay for it or billions of dollars worth of other transportation improvement.

The commitment to enlarge the tunnel could be a step toward uniting fractious legislators on both sides of the Elizabeth River as they try to reach a road funding compromise, some legislators said.

After Fraim's announced support, it looks like an expanded HRBT is going to be a definite addition to the regional transportation package. The only question is does it replace one of the six, or become an addition?

The bigger question that's bothering me, these plans look great on paper, and i think that the third crossing and the expanded HRBT will have a definite impact, but overall, are these going to fix the current problems, simply postpone them, or be too little too late? Without doing something like a Big Dig in Boston, i don't know that these projects are going to be a solution, i think it's playing catch-up, and by the time they're completed the problem will have grown past what they were intended to fix in the first place. Of course, first and foremost we have to find $12 billion to pay for this, but i don't have to write the laws, just have to pay for them

Edited April 4, 2008 by spiker3

[cpeakesqr]

Regional Lawmakers Support HRBT Expansion But Have No Pay Play

After Fraim's announced support, it looks like an expanded HRBT is going to be a definite addition to the regional transportation package. The only question is does it replace one of the six, or become an addition?

The bigger question that's bothering me, these plans look great on paper, and i think that the third crossing and the expanded HRBT will have a definite impact, but overall, are these going to fix the current problems, simply postpone them, or be too little too late? Without doing something like a Big Dig in Boston, i don't know that these projects are going to be a solution, i think it's playing catch-up, and by the time they're completed the problem will have grown past what they were intended to fix in the first place. Of course, first and foremost we have to find $12 billion to pay for this, but i don't have to write the laws, just have to pay for them

Although I don't think we need a "Big Dig" here to solve the problems, we definitely could use some of the federal dollars the Big Dig received... The area has the largest naval base, several important airfields, and either the 2nd or 3rd largest port on the East Coast, why aren't we getting the support from Washington we deserve?

[scm]

OK -- it is a cold day in hell. I agree with Paul Krugman on something.

Stranded in Suburbia

Any serious reduction in American driving will require more than this

[PeninsulaKiddo]

As the American population continues to grow and our cities expand more and more, I think EVERY major city will have to answer this question... and perhaps at some point, reverse the patterns of urban development that have continued for decades. The manner in which American cities are constructed, arranged, and function must - at some point - be drastically altered. It's just a matter of when. One day we'll have to follow the "Berlin" model, indeed the model of almost every European city. Not once was driving an issue when I lived in Europe. Of course, I was also far too young to drive (18 in Germany), but I also didn't need to drive often. I lived in a completely walkable city, with train access to surrounding towns and cities. A town of 28,000 in Germany, with very little money or state funding, had better transportation than Hampton Roads, a metropolitan area of over 1.7 million. Hopefully one day we'll catch up. In a few decades, we won't have a choice with oil prices continuing to rise and oil/energy companies dragging their feet on expanding alternative fuel sources.

I'm no 'eco-hippie' - I love my supercharged Celica engine - but I wouldn't be upset if I had cleaner, cheaper fuel sources either. Or maybe an EFFECTIVE light rail network....

[vdogg]

This situation has become absolutely intolerable

State cuts funds to 503 projects to pay for repairs

With lawmakers returning Monday to consider transportation funding, the state's highway planning panel cut hundreds of projects for lack of money Thursday.

A few hours later, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine unveiled his proposed fix. His bill would generate nearly $1.1 billion a year for statewide highway maintenance and for new projects in the most populated regions.

The Commonwealth Transportation Board voted unanimously to divert $2.75 billion in the next six years from new road construction to cover soaring costs of maintaining the state's network of highways and bridges, a problem Kaine called "significant and undeniable."

That means 503 road building projects the CTB approved a year ago and which were already under way are now either dead or delayed indefinitely. Another 104 projects the board had identified as priorities for inclusion this year were dropped.

I would like to think this would cause the GA to act, but they already proved spineless last year when they tried to pass on their financial responsibilities to local city councils. No need for me to believe they'll grow a spine now.

[cpeakesqr]

This situation has become absolutely intolerable

State cuts funds to 503 projects to pay for repairs

I would like to think this would cause the GA to act, but they already proved spineless last year when they tried to pass on their financial responsibilities to local city councils. No need for me to believe they'll grow a spine now.

It would be an insult to the mentally disabled to call the people running this state absolute retards.

[MissySchmidt]

This situation has become absolutely intolerable

State cuts funds to 503 projects to pay for repairs

If you live or work in Virginia and whether you've been stuck in highway gridlock or not, your future is at stake! If we don't fix transportation now, we may never be able to fix it. Statewide, delay is costing millions of dollars per day, more than it would cost to build the roads we need. Help us beat the drum for new transportation funding

[vdogg]

If you live or work in Virginia and whether you've been stuck in highway gridlock or not, your future is at stake! If we don't fix transportation now, we may never be able to fix it. Statewide, delay is costing millions of dollars per day, more than it would cost to build the roads we need. Help us beat the drum for new transportation funding … to Beat The Gridlock by visiting http://www.BeatTheGridlock.com/

What can you do?

[MissySchmidt]

vdogg-please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding. this is a state-wide issue, and I wasn't sure where to post it for a state-wide viewing. thanks for any guidance you can give.

[vdogg]

vdogg-please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding. this is a state-wide issue, and I wasn't sure where to post it for a state-wide viewing. thanks for any guidance you can give.

No harm. I understand what you're trying to do. I just wanted to let you know why I had to delete some of the posts. It's definitely a worthy cause and you're free to discuss it here.

[rusthebuss]

I wouldnt post it in the Richmond forum, they get their roads built!

[scm]

I would like to think this would cause the GA to act, but they already proved spineless last year when they tried to pass on their financial responsibilities to local city councils. No need for me to believe they'll grow a spine now.

Actually, there was a valid reason to pass those responsibilities to local governement, and it is at root of one of the two things wrong with the current funding furor.

1. There is no tie to land use issues, and the only entities that can control local land use are local governments. There is no body that will force HR city governments to look at their land use decisions with an eye to a single impact past their city boundary. VB can approve McMansions all the way to the NC border, then stand back and let the cries mount for a state funded SE Parkway. There has to be a way to tie development decisions to transportation needs, and ergo funding. Until there is, we are fated to chasing our tails in a never ending chain of crisises, and paid PR flacks manipulating public opinion on a regular basis. As much as it was wrong, at least the local transportation authority would have forced communities to be accountable for the impact their decisions had on transportation, at even an elementary level. The Governor's proposal lets them off the hook, with no solution in sight.

2. There is no tie to the concept of "user pays". There are plenty of government functions that can't be paid for by the user, and should be socialized -- education, police and fire, health services chief among them. Isn't quite so clear when it comes to transportation. The current furor, and funding proposals, all go to socializing the cost to the maximum, and minimizing the user payment. Look at the Third Crossing. I don't think there is any argument that the chief beneficiary will be the ports. Some commuter benefit, but not nearly as much-- despite how it is being sold. I also don't think there is much argument that the benefits are spread across the state. Then why should the socialized costs fall only on residents of HR, and the user costs fall on every driver in HR? If there are state benefits, then make the case to the state as a whole, and let everyone participate. If there are user costs, then let the users pay. One concept is to model the LA "container tax" -- $40 on every container that enters or leaves the port, refunded if it leaves by rail. We could add by ferry or barge -- because either way, we avoid highway construction. Pay the $40 right into the revenue stream for the Third Crossing, and possibly throw in the 460 expansion -- since they both are only being built for the port. You will hear a cacaphony of procrustean reasoning to deflect that port benefit reality. Doens't make it true. Same thing for the SE Parkway. Pure development enrichment scheme. So tell me once again why I have to pay a grantor tax to pay for projects with a limited scope of beneficiaries? The USERS need to pay, and there isn't a tie to that concept, to any meaningful extent.

So what we have, is a demonization of one side as "anti-tax neanderthals". On the other side, we have a governor that inherited a $1B surplus, after running on a bunch of promises, and hasn't delivered much. Plenty of excuses, and an election that pretty much went his way last fall. Time to govern, Tim, and that requires leadership, which is usually more than finger pointing and posturing. I would imagine there are plenty around here that wouldn't pee on the President if he were on fire, but at least as Governor of Texas, he found a way to work with a democrat Senate and House and fix things. It would make sense, but I doubt Tim will be seeking his advice on how to do the same in Virginia.

Edited June 22, 2008 by scm

[cpeakesqr]

House Republicans send tax plan to Senate without vote.

To me, this is the most partisan and frankly, most cowardly thing a politician could do. These people aren't leaders. What kind of leader refuses to even fairly consider a plan before the Senate Democrats vote?

[scm]

House Republicans send tax plan to Senate without vote.

To me, this is the most partisan and frankly, most cowardly thing a politician could do. These people aren't leaders. What kind of leader refuses to even fairly consider a plan before the Senate Democrats vote?

Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. There is an alternative view point, that says that the Governor, as the executive, is responsible for building consensus, and finding a middle ground. Nowhere near as "partisan" as saying "If you don't do it my way, I will work to defeat you in the next election," which has been the only words coming out of the governor's mouth. The House is just calling his bluff. If the governor doesn't at least have his party, which controls the senate, onboard, then what kind of leader is he?

[vdogg]

Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. There is an alternative view point, that says that the Governor, as the executive, is responsible for building consensus, and finding a middle ground. Nowhere near as "partisan" as saying "If you don't do it my way, I will work to defeat you in the next election," which has been the only words coming out of the governor's mouth. The House is just calling his bluff. If the governor doesn't at least have his party, which controls the senate, onboard, then what kind of leader is he?

The Governor has been trying to build consensus since he's been in office, and actually succeeded last year in getting a bipartisan bill passed. I'm sure by now he is getting tired of these idiots, as are many people, and he realizes nothing will ever happen until they're out. The only way that bill passed last year was because they were allowed to pass their constitutional responsibility onto local governments. In other words, they didn't want to take the heat for making the tough decisions. Fast forward to this year and again, they've chickened out. There is definitely a pattern emerging where these people are more than willing to allow our state to fall into disrepair and economic stagnation, rather than put their hides on the line for anything. Leadership, this is not.

[vdogg]

Actually, there was a valid reason to pass those responsibilities to local governement, and it is at root of one of the two things wrong with the current funding furor.

1. There is no tie to land use issues, and the only entities that can control local land use are local governments. There is no body that will force HR city governments to look at their land use decisions with an eye to a single impact past their city boundary. VB can approve McMansions all the way to the NC border, then stand back and let the cries mount for a state funded SE Parkway. There has to be a way to tie development decisions to transportation needs, and ergo funding. Until there is, we are fated to chasing our tails in a never ending chain of crisises, and paid PR flacks manipulating public opinion on a regular basis. As much as it was wrong, at least the local transportation authority would have forced communities to be accountable for the impact their decisions had on transportation, at even an elementary level. The Governor's proposal lets them off the hook, with no solution in sight.

2. There is no tie to the concept of "user pays". There are plenty of government functions that can't be paid for by the user, and should be socialized -- education, police and fire, health services chief among them. Isn't quite so clear when it comes to transportation. The current furor, and funding proposals, all go to socializing the cost to the maximum, and minimizing the user payment. Look at the Third Crossing. I don't think there is any argument that the chief beneficiary will be the ports. Some commuter benefit, but not nearly as much-- despite how it is being sold. I also don't think there is much argument that the benefits are spread across the state. Then why should the socialized costs fall only on residents of HR, and the user costs fall on every driver in HR? If there are state benefits, then make the case to the state as a whole, and let everyone participate. If there are user costs, then let the users pay. One concept is to model the LA "container tax" -- $40 on every container that enters or leaves the port, refunded if it leaves by rail. We could add by ferry or barge -- because either way, we avoid highway construction. Pay the $40 right into the revenue stream for the Third Crossing, and possibly throw in the 460 expansion -- since they both are only being built for the port. You will hear a cacaphony of procrustean reasoning to deflect that port benefit reality. Doens't make it true. Same thing for the SE Parkway. Pure development enrichment scheme. So tell me once again why I have to pay a grantor tax to pay for projects with a limited scope of beneficiaries? The USERS need to pay, and there isn't a tie to that concept, to any meaningful extent.

I actually agree with the majority of this post. User fees, check. Land use policies, check. But in the case with user fees, many in the GA view tolls as a tax, so that won't happen. It is illegal to toll roads that have already been paid for, so that won't happen. Gas tax, can't have folks in rural areas paying higher taxes because the big cities need new roads. Even if you explain to them that these cities are the economic engine of the state, which give back far more than they take, the response to the gas tax is a resounding hell no. So, that won't happen either. What other user fees did you have in mind? As far as land use policies, perhaps some legislation that ties the use of state road funds to each city having a valid land use plan would be ideal. The Beach has made great strides in that area. Most future planning is focused around high density development and transit, and they've already made tangible steps towards both. I would have been glad if the HRTA would have been allowed to remain in effect, but the fact is that it was unconstitutional. Faced with this, the GA had the choice to enact the exact same package of taxes and fees and they refused, largely because they didn't want to take the responsibility themselves.

[scm]

It is illegal to toll roads that have already been paid for, so that won't happen.

Are you sure about that? I know the plan for the new tube on the Midtown called for tolls on the already paid for Downtown. VP, April 7, 1999 said:

Tolls were proposed by a group of private road builders, the Hampton Roads Public Private Development, under a state law that permits such financing to accelerate road projects when state money isn't available. The plan calls for tolls on the Downtown and Midtown tunnels that would remain in place for 50 years. The toll would be 50 cents for the first eight years, but eventually increase to about $2.70.

Gas tax, can't have folks in rural areas paying higher taxes because the big cities need new roads. Even if you explain to them that these cities are the economic engine of the state, which give back far more than they take, the response to the gas tax is a resounding hell no. So, that won't happen either.

This is the part I really don't understand (and I mean that -- hold your breath, I will admit to not knowing something ) OK, there are 44 Democrats in the GA, 54 Republicans, and 2 independants. But of the 54 Republicans, 5 are from NoVa, and 10 are from HR. All the governor needs, assuming he has his 44 Democrats in the bag (and if you read the paper, it is those anti-tax neanderthal Republicans that are the problem) are seven of the fifteen from the impacted areas, to come over to his side. Is he really such an inept negotiator, that he can't find common ground with less than half? He might have to give a little, and I (dangerously) assume that is the problem. He appears to not want to give on anything. I negotiate enough deals to know, you have to give a little, to get a little.

As far as VB staying ahead of development, have you been down Princess Anne, south of Sandbridge lately? McMansion hell. Just wait for the screaming to begin over "When are these outdated roads going to be rebuilt?" That feces no more needed to happen than the man in the moon -- more council in the hip pockets of developers, who are the only money people around here. Sprawl at its worst, and just wait for VB council to expect state road funds to bail them out.