Today is a key day in the Virginia General Assembly, as the Republicans' "compromise" transportation plan comes before Chairman John Chichester's (R-Fiscal Responsibility) Senate Finance Committee. Also serving on that committee is Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax). Together, we can only hope that these two leaders will stop the reckless, irresponsible, mean-spirited, cynical, politically pandering, last-minute-desperation Republican "deal" on transportation. Why should they oppose this monstrosity? Let's hear what Chichester and Saslaw have to say. First, let's listen to John Chichester:
It would be nice for something to happen this year, as it would have been nice last year and the year before. But I would rather do nothing than make a huge mistake that will require repair after repair and be recognized as a lemon.
Why does Chichester call this plan a "lemon?" I'll let Dick Saslaw explain:
If it's still loaded up with general funds, then nothing has changed. If it comes to that, I am not going to flush public education, higher education, health and human services and all that to build a few roads around the state of Virginia.
In sum, according to today's Washington Post article on this subject, Chichester believes his colleagues' plan to be "wildly irresponsible." Along with Democrats like Saslaw, Chichester is "determined to protect the $250 million a year that the proposal would take from existing priorities such as schools, hospitals and the poor."
Instead, Chichester offers a responsible plan to pay for transportation investments by charging users an extra 5% on their purchaese of gasoline. Now, 5% may not amount to much for an individual (let's face it, paying $26.25 instead of $25.00 to fill up the gas tank isn't exactly going to break most peoples' bank accounts). Added up over the entire state, however, we're talking big money. Enough money, in fact, to provide a serious, secure, and steady stream of funding for needed transportation projects over many years to come. And, I would point out, increasing gas prices by 5% right now would still put them far below the $3-per-gallon peaks reached over the summer. Today, gas prices average around $2.16 per gallon, a bargain compared to last summer. Adding 5% to that price means a 11-cent-per-gallon increase (to $2.27 per gallon), but it also means we can start moving Virginia out of gridlock that threatens our economy and our quality of life.
That sounds like a fair tradeoff to John Chichester, and it sounds like a fair tradeoff to me. Which, of course, means that Chichester's proposal is politically Dead On Arrival. This is, after all, politics we're talking about. God forbid we should let economics or other forms of reality intrude! No, much better to go with the Republicans "borrow and raid" strategy that will crank up Virginia's debt while slashing vital services (health, education, police, Chesapeake Bay cleanup, etc.).
Anyway, we'll see what happens today in the Senate Finance Committee. Let's hope that there are a few more courageous polticians (is that an oxymoron), like John Chichester and Dick Saslaw, around there somewhere. In the meantime, I'd just like to say, "Thank you John Chichester," and "Thank you Dick Saslaw." Keep up the great work!
Saslaw's callous comment that he doesn't want to "flush" education, human services, etc., just to "build a few roads around the state of Virginia" shows that he is woefully out of touch with his constituency. I guarantee the greater number of them understand the connection between access to education and human services to increased funding for transportation. Hopefully that will be reflected at the polls.
Lowell, don't congratulate those senators whose only contribution to fixing the transportation debacle is in putting up road blocks to a real solution.
Nonetheless, as people who call ourselves progressive, I think we have missed an opportunity to remind Virginians that building new roads only feeds the greed of developers who are quickly spreading NOVA-style urban sprawl south and west of the Beltway. I know this argument seems bi-polar in light of my earlier comments, but I'd far rather see a real funding committment to mass transit than fund a 10 lane I-95. And, yes, that money should come from general fund dollars.
As far as the surplus is concerned, it may be "real" now, but who knows what it will be in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years from now. Transportation is a long-term challenge for Virginia, and we need a long-term solution that doesn't shortchange other, critical needs like health, education, and public safety.
Oh, but I forgot, Virginia's economy, which used to be based on slavery, is now based on death creation (tobacco and all those defense contractors that fill the suburbs).
We're 45th in cigarette taxes. http://www.taxadmin.... The median is 80 cents a pack, Virginia is at a whopping 30 cents.
Ahh, sounds so simple.
"Design control" is part of good planning and project management. As with other designs, Federal authorities seem to be saying the tunnel/aerial decision requires that the design be "locked" at some point before final project approval and funding. As with other locked designs and plans, however, changes can be made if the impact on the final locked design is carefully considered and justified:
Virginia is free, however, to pursue whichever option it chooses and the FTA will work with the state to achieve its desired end and will hold the project in the preliminary engineering stage until such time as the state decides. But, Simpson warned, the rail project's preliminary engineering has "essentially been completed," and if the state decides to look further into the tunnel option, there will be "scheduling and environmental review consequences."Scott Monett, president of TysonsTunnel.org, the group leading the push to convince the state to choose the tunnel option over the currently selected aerial alignment, said he views the letter as being an open door that gives his group and the state more time.
"The way I read it, the FTA doesn't want to be pushed too far or too late, but the state would have to ask for the tunnel," Monett said.