Transportation in Hampton Roads – working towards a solution (part two)
By JR Hoeft | Monday, February 1st, 2010 | PolicyThis is part two of a series of posts by Mike Barrett that will present his view on the transportation issue. Bearing Drift is also seeking other leaders in the transportation debate to offer alternative perspectives. The goal is to have a conversation on transportation without undue partisanship or a strident tone. – J. R. Hoeft
Guest post by Mike Barrett, member of the Board of Directors, Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce and SPSA and CEO of the Runnymede Corporation
It has clearly been established by the political establishment in Virginia, and of course, by most rational citizens, that the condition of our transportation infrastructure is deplorable. Some have described the infrastructure in Virginia as that of a third world country. But despite this near unanimous consensus, the real rub is what to do about it. In this installment, I answer that question.
Fact is, just recently there was general consensus about what to do about the funding problem, and it was passed by both Chambers of the General Assembly, and signed by the Governor. Of course, the Supreme Court did not agree about the manner in which the taxes were levied, but of course, the Court seemed fine with the increases in taxes and fees needed to stop the degradation and begin to improve the system.
Let’s review. In Hampton Roads, the Legislation would have created a Hampton Roads Transportation Authority, and if implemented, it would have generated about $170 M per year for regional transportation projects. Taxes and fees that would have been raised included inspection fees, a tax on automobile repairs, an increase in the Grantor’s tax, a motor vehicle rental tax, a one time additional registration tax, an annual vehicle registration fee, and a retail tax on motor fuels sales. Hard to argue that these taxes and fees don’t have a nexus to the use of highways, bridges, and tunnels.
Tolls were included as part of the plan, and of course the HRTA could engage in public private partnerships if this was the most cost effective and efficient manner to complete a project.
Now, there were some optional discretionary fees that could have been levied as well, and the Authority would have had the opportunity to borrow in order to get projects started as the annual revenue was built up.
Looking back, it is hard to believe that any citizen could really have cared who levied the taxes and fees, especially in view of the continue decay and deterioration of our system. Those for whom no new taxes is their mantra would have been really angry, and those for whom congestion, delay, deterioration, and personal inconvenience, would have been overjoyed that we would finally take the bull by the horns and get started.
Could this solution work today? Of course. It simply requires political will and Delegates and Senators who are compelled to vote in the public interest. Is that too much to ask?
Read Part one
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
13 Responses to "Transportation in Hampton Roads – working towards a solution (part two)"
Funny how you don’t mention what the “optional discretionary fees” were.
Like a commercial real estate tax increase.
Maybe the “optional discretionary fees” were future taxes and licensing fees for skateboards, motorcycles with sidecars, bicycles, tricycles, roller blades, scooters, shopping carts, furniture dollies or in other words, anything with wheels. And what about those old antique cars? Anyone who can afford to own an antique is rich and needs to pay more for the privilege to drive them.
Here we go again, Mike Barrett & his Hampton Roads Partnership/Chamber lobby pals keep pushing the same rejected regional tax, toll, and fee plans to fund the same collection of the WRONG transportation projects!
The PORT LOBBY’S $5B third crossing – a projec the state owned port should pay for – not us locals.
HB 3202 specified the projects that were to be build with the tax hikes – they did NOT include adding any new capacity to the HRBT.
No Downtown Tunnel improvements either, but a “law” that declared the Midtown Tunnel and Downtown Tunnel to be one in the same so tolls could be placed on the Downtown Tunnel to pay for other “improvements”.
No improvements to the 264/64 interchange or no new off ramps for RT 264 in Virginia Beach.
The HRTA was an abomination and another step in the WRONG DIRECTION of creating unaccountable, all-apointed regional governing. It was another citizen-hotile nightmare and the citizens of Tidewater are far better off without it.
Last I checked, our nations fought for independence from England over the matter of taxation without representation. But guys like Mike barrett don’t have any concerns about such things. They just seek more tax money to spend. In Mike’s world, the ends justify the means.
Face it the MPO/TPO list of 6 regional projects found in HB 3202 and SB 668 are not the MOST NEEDED transportation improvements.
They are a business lobby’s wish list of speculative economic development spending being marketed as if they are some sort of “solution” for our region’s transportation needs.
Mike wants to discuss how to raise new taxes, tolls, and fees for spending more money.
Perhaps we need to decide what we NEED first – and then decide how to pay for it – and more importantly – WHO will pay for it?
Reid,
In over 7 years, your VBTA has never come out with an alternate set of projects. Therefore, I give your complaining all the credence it deserves – none.
JR, I want to thank you for the opportunity to attempt a civil discussion about a need recognized by just about every political leader in the Commonwealth. Regretfully, it is the solution about which there is no consensus. Perhaps you and I had both thought that rational, moderate citizens who realize the impact of failing to deal with this issue has repercussions every day, could discuss it on this forum. Regretfully, you and I are both wrong. Mob psychology reigns supreme today, and our Nation and our Commonwealth are the victims. Perhaps another time. Thanks again. MJB sends!
Mike spews his same ole, same ole. Henry attacks the VBTA that stands in the way of Henry’s light rail & buses dream. And then Mike wants to pretend that he is “civil”? Pleaseeee. I have read enough Mike Barrett tirades and distortions to fill an aircraft carrier.
Mike, if you want to discuss moving forward for solutions, how about bringing something NEW to the table?
Your old ideas have already been rejected by the region’s voters (in 2002) and they have failed due to their unconstitutional aspects (2007)and the scheme to tax those that do not benefit most from the business lobby’s choice of major regional transportation projects.
Henry, another lie. Thanks again for proving your lack of accuracy or honesty. The VBTA did publish a position paper on the projects we support, how to fund them, and how to improve the regional decision-making process.
Folks, Mike Barrett and Henry Ryto are two people that don’t understand “civility”, but who apparently want to TRY to hide behind “civility” in another effort to push the same tax, toll, fee, and borrow schemes to push the WRONG projects for our region.
Mike and his pals just keep pushing the same things – THEY are a major reason our true transportation NEEDS are left unaddressed. They have hyjacked the region’s transportation decision-making process and prevented any real NEEDS from being addressed until AFTER they get the projects THEY want.
I agree with Reid that the projects list (which to my knowledge are still the same as those on the 2002 referendum) is flawed.
I also agree with Henry that when criticizing one should offer an alternative-so here goes (a new “top five” suggestions)
1.Midtown Tunnel-one that the original list got right, and would probably be on the top five of anyone alternative plan developed by anyone thinking regionally and not just about one part of Hampton Roads. Furthermore, this one has seen no significant opposition.
2.High Speed Rail-it has been shown that the direct line parralleling 460 would logistically work far better than running this down the peninsula. HRMPC has endorsed this plan.
3.Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel-For most of us on the Peninsula this project is the most important. However I have placed it third as I am trying to think regionally. I know that Norfolk is opposed, but the Peninsula members of HRMPC voted with SHPT ROADS members in favor of the 460 rail instead of the 64 rail. Compromise works both ways and in both cases this route makes logistical sense-remember MPO’s computer study that stated that HRBT expansion would do more to alleviate congestion than any other project. THis expansion would also include widening I-64 from Wards Corner to the HRBT to 6 lanes, or preferably from Wards Corner to the Hpt Coliseum to (including the tunnel) to 8 lanes.
4.Downtown Tunnel-This major bottleneck needs to be addressed. Along with widening the midtown tunnel this could (at least until it is widened) move some traffic from the HRBT to the M&M. One of the problem with using the M&M is getting across the Elizabeth River to get to it.
5.Since they are the region’s largest locality, and none of the above projects were located there I am proposing that the fifth project should be in/servicing Virginia Beach. I’ll defer to the VB folks to debate what they want (with the suggestion to focus on congestion relief and picking a project that will contribute less, not more, to suburban sprawl).
Reid,
The VBTA hasn’t stopped anything since 2002, so no one is quaking in their boots over them.
SE VA MWC Alum,
The big, expensive matter on the table for Virginia Beach would be I-264 interchange improvements. Last estimate I saw had them at $1-1.2 billion.
On High Speed Rail, it would come out of a different pot of money, so it shouldn’t be on the same list with roads projects.
Thank you Henry, (although it doesnt seem that long ago that that interchange was redone). Guess it does provide the main access to most of Va Beach though.
If the “transportation trust fund” does not pay for any of the rail project then my proposal for the new fifth project would be eitherthe widening of 64 to three lanes each way all the way to Bowers Hill, or the widening of 64 or the Peninsula to three lanes all the way to Richmond. (fully understanding that the latter would likely be much more costly) I am certainly open to other suggestions though.
SE VA MWC Alum, the HRPDC/MPO (aka “TPO” has a list of the most critical intersections, bridges, and roadways that need attention, expansion, or rework. This list is assembled after a great deal of work and formal evaluation by professionals. What amazing me is how the Hampton Roads Partnership/Barrett & Co/Chamber of Commerce/Port Lobby simply ignore this list and keep pushing the wrong projects – with the bank (taxpayer)-busting $5B so-called “Third Crossing” being the prize the growth lobby is unwilling to admit is far from the top of the list of true NEEDS – it is a “want”, plain and simple. The “want” stems from a dream to expand the PORT of Virginia – and flood our region’s highways with thousands of new trucks each day!
We do not need to expand the PORT – and the PORT belongs to the STATE – thus, since the profits go to the STATE – and to the private sector that owns PORT facilities (Maerisk); let the PORT AUTHORITY and the private secotr pay for the PORT’s massively expensive bridge tunnel. Since the PORT is a state owned asset then why are only Tidewater folks being targeted to pay for it?
On my list is the need to add more lane capacity to the HRBT – as well as more lanes capacity on either side of the HRBT. Adding at least 1 more lane in each direction would be far better than what we have now, but adding 2 more lanes – and NO RAIL/Multimodal tunnel is most likely the best choice for a project – that along with placing each BRIDGE that has been scored low or in serious need of repair on a immediate list for immediate attention.
It is my understanding that after the HRBT bottleneck, the next greatest NEED is adding more lane capacity to the Downtown Tunnel. THAT is NOT, repeat NOT – found in SB 668 (2002) or HB 3202 (2007).
After that, the Midtown Tunnel is dangerious – having the potential for head on crashes is something that NEEDS to be corrected. As soon as possible adding 2 more lanes to the Midtown Tunnel should be considered. We taxpayers already spend over $100M for the Pinner’s Point expansion – only to create a greater bottle neck at the Midtown Tunnel – that is dumb. This opens up the can of worms about what to do about Hampton Blvd. How about some creative thought? How about adding an elevated (double stack) roadway along Hampton Blvd? Either than – or pick one side of the road and condemn and tear down the homes and businesses to widen Hampton Blvd. Of course, the folks that LIVE there will fight this tooth and nail. So, that is a mess that needs a solution- not light rail, but better roadways.
I agree that widening 64 all the way to Richmond would relieve bottlenecks when 3 lanes or 4 lanes narrow down to 2 lanes. But, the question is WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THAT? I believe that Mike’s “plan” (HB 3202) targets the wrong people.
In fact, the VBTA plan has a variety of funding strageties based on specific projects, not some “one size fits all” approach that creates massive slush funds that are subject to abuse and bait & switch.
If we learned anything from the 2002 regional referendum we learned that voters/citizens cannot TRUST transportation taxes, fees, and tolls, to be used only for the purposes they were enacted – and promised.
Nothing has been done to correct the TRUST problem.
Reid, evidently we are fairly close on projects. We both mentioned downtown tunnel, midtown tunnel, HRBT-even if in different order of priorities.
I also agree that something needs to be done to ensure that new revenues actually go to transportation. IMHO this should be done on a statewide basis via constitutional amendment to make it more difficult to “raid” the transportation “trust fund” (ex. require a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in both houses to borrow transportation money for the general fund & require a repayment plan with interest at prime)
Once this or a similar protection is adopted then the funding sources should be addressed. The best option, IMHO is to raise the gas tax due to the high correlation between gasoline purchases and road usage. It should also be indexed to inflation (based on overall CPI, not gasoline prices)to maintain a “real” gas tax rate that is constant. THe current system dilutes the gas tax in inflationary years and would essentially create a gas tax hike in a deflationary year.
Indexation is preferable to replacing the excise tax with a sales tax, as a sales tax would spike at the very same time that gas prices spike, thus hitting motorists the hardest at the very time that they can least afford it. Indexation reduces the risk of this situation but still avoids the dilution that is part of the current structure. That being said indexation should not take place until after the protections for the trust fund are in effect.
Tim J, you are in idiot. Do you know ANYTHING about ‘antique’ cars, how they are insured, what those insurance companies allow and do not allow regarding their use? Do you know how few miles they are driven? Any clue? Those ‘rich people’ owning them? As if all ‘antique’ cars were the same. How about those of us who live from paycheck to paycheck, and have a car that is now an antique, because we kept it that long, and just kept fixing it? Not all old cars are high dollar fancy sports cars. Many are ordinary family cars that just got very old, and have sentimental value to us as they got passed down from one generation to another, and have little monetary value.
@Reid you mention that VBTA published a position paper on the projects they support (how to fund them and improve the regional decision-making process); I’d like to read that. could you provide me a link so I may download?
for clarification purposes: Mike Barrett is Chair of the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance (HREDA) and not a member of the Hampton Roads Partnership (HRP) for whom I work as Communication Manager.
thanks, Bearing Drift, for providing an online forum for discussion of transportation issues.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.