Thank you. My name is Stewart Schwartz, and I am the Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We are a 17-year-old non-profit and the leading voice for smart growth in the DC region, with expertise in transportation, land use and affordable housing. As a professional, and as a full-time resident of Alexandria for over 20 years and part-time for a few more, I have participated extensively in Alexandria planning including Potomac Yard, the Wilson Bridge, Beauregard, Braddock Metro, and more. I am very familiar with the stretch of King Street in question.
Category: Virginia
Update on The Bi-County Parkway: A Chance to “Take a Second Look”
During his campaign, Governor McAuliffe said he would take a hard-look at the controversial $440 million Bi-County Parkway, reevaluating this project and others proposed by VDOT. In his campaign platform, under the section titled “Pick the right projects; build the best ones,” he stated:
Letter of support for Alexandria’s King Street Bike Lanes
Mayor Euille and Members of Council: I have been quite surprised and concerned that opponents to safe, connected bike lanes on King Street between the Metro and Janneys Lane have elevated the issue to make it a national cause célèbre in conservative circles with extremely hostile OpEds in the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator. They are bringing negative publicity upon Alexandria and threaten the ability of our city to attract young, well-educated, creative, entrepreneurial workers that are so critical to the future of our economy and tax base. Alexandria has been making great progress in bringing sustainable new development, investing in new transit, setting up bike-sharing, and more, but this particular debate is casting a shadow on that progress and will chase away the creative economy workforce and the businesses they attract…
Group appeals 460 plan
Representatives from nine groups opposed to the new Route 460 have put their names on a letter to governor-elect Terry McAuliffe, calling on him to halt the project immediately.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter, Virginia Conservation Network, The Piedmont Environmental Council, The Coalition for Smarter Growth, Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program, Partnership for Smarter Growth and Wetlands Watch sent the letter to McAuliffe on Dec. 18.
“The proposed new U.S. Route 460 is one project that does not make sense economically or environmentally, and we agree with your recent statements about the wisdom of halting further spending on this project pending careful consideration of its merits,” the groups wrote.
“We believe the new Route 460 proposal is clearly not in the best interests of the commonwealth, and therefore urge you to take the further step of terminating this project.”
The groups claim the limited-access toll road would run parallel to an existing 460 that is underutilized to begin with, and note the $1.4-billion cost hits taxpayers for almost $1.2 billion while the rest comes from tolls.
Taxpayers will have to pay to maintain both new and existing roads, they say, and the project “would cause significant environmental harm, yet it would do little to address the critical transportation needs of the Hampton Roads region.”
Money earmarked for the project would be better spent on upgrading the existing Route 460, rail in the 460 corridor, Interstate 64 or U.S. Route 58, building the I-564 to I-664 connector, or extending light rail to Virginia Beach, they say.
Also, transportation officials should consider “buying down” the cost of coming tolls on the Midtown and Downtown tunnels, the groups write.
The letter goes on to cite a recent sizeable expansion in estimated wetlands impacts, describing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ concerns regarding the environmental cost versus public benefit, as well as mentioning impacts on farms and open space, habitat of endangered species, and air and water quality.
The project would “spur inefficient development along its lengthy route,” the groups wrote.
Arguments for the project proffered by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the outgoing Gov. Bob McDonnell, including freight and economic development, traffic and safety, hurricane evacuation and military connectivity, are criticized in the letter.
“Every one of the justifications for the proposed new Route 460 can be more effectively accomplished at lower cost to taxpayers by investing in other alternatives,” the groups state.
Finally, the groups call upon McAuliffe to request the McDonnell administration halt work on the project both ongoing and planned, including engineering, design, and right-of-way acquisition.
“We hope you will agree that this project is unnecessary and would waste scarce resources that should instead be invested in projects that can do far more to address Hampton Roads’ critical transportation needs,” the letter concludes.
Prince William’s reexamination of the Bi-County Parkway comes at important moment
Prince William County’s Dec. 3 decision to reexamine its position on the Bi-County Parkway comes at an important moment in the long, contentious debate over whether the road should be built, opponents say.
The parkway, a controversial 10-mile road that would connect Interstate 66 in Prince William and Route 50 in Loudoun County, faces several hurdles in the coming months, said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which opposes the project.
Federal transportation authorities are examining the parkway proposal, but the final outcome probably rests with the administration of Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D), Schwartz said. McAuliffe said during his campaign that he would study the issue, and it’s unclear whether his administration would push the Bi-County Parkway when his term begins Jan. 11.
Schwartz said he hopes that state and federal transportation officials consider the board’s recent decision. “The new governor will hopefully ask for a major reevaluation,” Schwartz said. “The views of local elected officials . . . can carry weight.”
In a 7 to 1 vote, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors agreed to conduct a $100,000 study of the project to determine whether it should remain part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan, it’s long-term planning document. Supervisor W.S. Covington III (R-Brentsville), a supporter of the parkway, was the only vote against the move.
It’s unclear whether the board’s study will have any effect on the process. Supervisor Peter K. Candland (R-Gainesville) said supervisors should hold a simple up or down vote on the parkway itself.
The Bi-County Parkway has been the subject of much heated discussion over the past year. Supporters say the road is necessary to bolster economic development and connect two of the fastest-growing counties in the country. Opponents — particularly those who live in the path of the proposed route — say that the road would affect their property and way of life, as well as the county’s federally protected Rural Crescent and the historic Civil War grounds near Manassas National Battlefield Park.
Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which supports the road, told supervisors before the vote that nothing has changed despite the ongoing debate. Northern Virginia is growing, and new transportation infrastructure is needed for traffic and job growth, he said.
“As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things,” Chase told the board. “There are certainly a lot of wishes, inclinations, surrounding these issues. . . . The need for the Bi-County Parkway is well documented.”
Candland, a vocal road opponent, said supervisors chose the easy way out by appearing to take action without actually staking out their position. Because the vote was technically on a study to determine whether the parkway should be removed from the county’s Comprehensive Plan, Candland said the action meant little.
“Certain individuals don’t want to take a straight up-or-down vote on the Bi-County Parkway,” Candland said. “Enough is enough. We’ve talked about this issue ad nauseam.”
Candland said time is of the essence because the Virginia Department of Transportation is moving forward on an agreement with federal transportation authorities, upon whose approval the project is contingent. Once that agreement is signed, supervisors may no longer have a voice on the issue, Candland said.
Supervisor Martin E. Nohe (R-Coles) said supervisors might have more time than they think as McAuliffe considers his position on the subject.
County staff members plan to study the parkway and other area roads in a comprehensive traffic, road and land-use analysis. That study would then go to the Prince William County Planning Commission, and supervisors would have a final vote on the Bi-County Parkway and other area improvements, a process expected to take about a year.
Testimony to Alexandria Traffic & Parking Board Re: King St Bike Lanes
In the most recent version of the King Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements proposal, we are concerned by the removal of a continuous bicycle lane from Cedar Street to Janneys Lane. Alexandria adopted a Complete Streets policy almost three years ago to ensure balance in planning for the transportation needs of its residents. A key part of this should be a King Street that allows cyclists and pedestrians to travel through the neighborhood more safely.
Express lane future paved with gold?
During a meeting last month in Falmouth, a Virginia Department of Transportation official was asked a probing question about the Interstate 95 express-lanes project.
Rupert Farley of Spotsylvania County wanted to know what would happen if the high-occupancy toll lanes attract so many vehicles that are allowed to use them free that the company building them doesn’t recoup the money it expects.
“Maybe you can refresh my memory on a point that you did not bring up tonight,” started Rupert Farley, a Spotsylvania resident well known in transportation circles. “If this project is so widely successful that it gets used …by HOV free [traffic], that means Fluor[–Transurban] doesn’t get any income and they start losing money.“At that point, do the taxpayers of Virginia have to start kicking in out of their pockets to subsidize the project?” asked Farley, who is a member of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Area Planning Organization’s Transportation Advisory Group.
“No,” said Toymeika Braithwaite, VDOT Megaproject’s express lanes public affairs manager.
“That’s not what I’ve been told,” said Farley, who is also a member of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Area Planning Organization’s Transportation Advisory Group.
“If Transurban doesn’t make the money they want to make, it is not up to Virginia taxpayers to subsidize that,” said Toymeika Braithwaite, VDOT Megaproject’s express-lanes public affairs manager.
However, the public–private project contract signed with Transurban Group and Fluor Corp. includes stipulations that could force Virginians to pay the companies if non-toll-paying HOV traffic reach certain thresholds.
The threshold is based on a complicated formula comparing the percentage of free HOV traffic to toll-paying drivers. If the HOV traffic reaches the threshold, the state has to pay the companies 70 percent of the toll rate.
That agreement is no secret; it’s in the contract, which has been online since the summer of 2012.
But those details have flown under the radar since the state struck the deal with Transurban and Fluor on the massive I–95 express-lanes project. And those who attended that October meeting in Stafford County likely had no idea about that part of the contract, which is what Farley was alluding to.
Under the agreement, the companies are paying for most of the nearly $1 billion project, which will extend the current HOV lanes in the median of I–95 to Garrisonville.
State officials have said that without the agreement the express lanes wouldn’t have been built because the state funds weren’t available.
The same has been said of the Interstate 495 express lanes, which have been open for more than a year. The state has the same deal with Transurban and Fluor on those new lanes.
The I–95 express lanes are on target to open by early 2015.
Like the I–495 express lanes, the new I–95 lanes will be electronically tolled. Buses, motorcycles and vehicles carrying at least three people will be able to use them for free.
The companies hope to take in the toll revenues from other motorists and use them first to pay off loans used to build the projects.
After that, the companies hope to ring up profits. The state eventually would also get a percentage of any profits.
Usage of the lanes is no guarantee, though.
The I–495 express lanes, for instance, haven’t drawn much traffic so far. While it was expected to take up to three years for traffic to consistently use the I–495 lanes, thus far they haven’t produced the traffic, or revenue, Transurban expected.
With constant congestion problems on I–95, it’s a good bet drivers who don’t qualify to use free HOV lanes will be open to paying a toll in order to move.
Still, there could be a significant amount of HOV commuter traffic using the lanes. And the more free traffic there is on the express lanes, the lower the profit.
VDOT doesn’t think there will be a problem.
Tamara Rollison, VDOT’s division administrator of communications, said in an email that the companies bear the “risk of traffic volume and revenue. VDOT is not responsible for making up any shortfall that may occur if traffic volume and revenue are below 95 Express’ forecasts.”
She acknowledged the agreement on the HOV threshold, but said it is unlikely to be met.
“Should that happen—VDOT is prepared to compensate 95 Express Lanes LLC,” she said. “While we expect HOV use to grow over time, we don’t think it will climb to the point that the threshold will be exceeded, triggering compensation.”
If HOV traffic does exceed the threshold, Rollison said that would mean the lanes would be “moving tremendously more people than ever expected, which would greatly help ease congestion on the general purpose lanes.”
Another part of the I–95 express-lanes project includes the expansion of bus service and the addition of 3,000 new commuter parking spaces along the corridor.
Despite the benefits of the project, there are still critics of the public–private deals for the express lanes.
Farley is a fan of toll roads, especially those that manage congestion like the express lanes are designed to do.
But he thinks the state got a raw deal.
“It’s unconscionable that they’d sign a contract so one-sided,” he said.
Stewart Schwartz, executive director for Coalition for Smarter Growth, also doesn’t like the express lane deals.
“We have long argued that the closed-door deals by VDOT under the Public–Private Transportation Act for the HOT lanes have compromised good planning, prevented effective analysis of alternatives, and failed to evaluate all of the impacts,” he said in an email. “In addition, the requirement that the taxpayer reimburse the private toll road operator for too many HOV users is counter to the goal we should have of moving more people in the peak hour. In fact, instead of encouraging HOV use, at a certain point VDOT will now have an incentive to discourage HOV use.”
Peter Samuel, who writes for the website TollRoadsNews.com, doesn’t see the express lanes as such a bad deal.
“I don’t think it’s too risky,” he said. “I doubt there’s going to be a huge increase in carpooling.”
He believes the companies are taking the bulk of the risk. If the express lanes aren’t profitable, they lose, not the state.
Transurban has already experienced failure with another Virginia toll road.
The Australia-based company lost more than $100 million on the Pocahontas Parkway, Interstate 895, according to TollRoadsNews and other reports.
The toll road failed to generate enough money to cover Transurban’s debt, and earlier this year a consortium of European banks holding that debt became the state’s new partner with the toll road.
Officials said the change wouldn’t affect the toll-road operations.
Regardless of the Pocahontas Parkway problems, Samuel says the I–95 express lanes will be a “good thing for motorists.”
“It gives them another option,” he said. “How well it’ll work out for the investors is another question.”
The same could be said for Virginia taxpayers.
Joint Environmental Groups’ Letter to Terry McAuliffe against Bi-County Parkway
Dear Governor-Elect McAuliffe: Congratulations on your victory and thank you for your support for so many of our conservation and smart growth priorities. With regard to transportation, we are particularly pleased with your support for building sustainable communities, seeking the least intrusive solutions, adapting infrastructure to serve community needs, and commitment to “pulling the plug” on transportation projects that fail to meet these standards. In keeping with those priorities…
Will Terry McCauliffe Sign Off on a Notorious Sprawl Project in NoVa?
With Terry McAuliffe about to move in to the Virginia governor’s mansion, it’s unclear what will become of one of the state’s most contested transportation proposals — the Bi-County Parkway, a $440 million highway in the outer D.C. suburbs.
Though it seems likely the current administration of Republican Governor Bob McDonnell will make a forceful push to get approvals sealed before the end of the year, the timeline is tight. Then there’s the big question of how McAuliffe, a Democrat, will manage the controversial proposal.
As planned, the four-lane divided highway would run 10.4 miles north-south between Route 50 and Route 66, two notoriously clogged commuter roads into D.C.
Critics of the Bi-County Parkway — who have been varied and outspoken — warn that the new highway would do little to ease congestion, and would in fact create even more traffic in this mixed region of farmland, cul-de-sacs, and Civil War landmarks. Smart growth advocates see the developers salivating over the project and predict that the road will simply perpetuate the trend of isolating housing from jobs.
“From what we see, all it’s going to encourage is more residential development in an area that lacks sufficient infrastructure,” said Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. “It’s putting more cars on top of the funnel.”
The proposal is at a critical juncture now, with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) aiming to submit a final environmental impact statement to the feds by the end of the year — before McDonnell leaves.
McDonnell has aggressively pushed the Bi-County Parkway, even going so far as to hire a public relations firm to pitch the project.
“He has fast-tracked the planning and approvals and all that,” said James Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion, a Virginia public policy blog. “He clearly made it a priority.”
And though several aspects of the project are still tied up in negotiation — particularly due to the government shutdown — many believe McDonnell will make an all-out effort to get Federal Highway Administration sign-off before 2014.
“The McDonnell Administration is flooring the gas pedal… hoping to get final approval before their time runs out,” wrote Morgan Butler, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an email. “The administration has downplayed (or ignored outright) major community and environmental impacts and given short shrift to alternatives, as they try to get their pet projects to a point of no return before they leave office.”
A study published by SELC and other smart growth and environmental groups this summer, “Rethinking the Bi-County Parkway,” argues that the project won’t help the region’s biggest transportation problem — east-west travel — and will undermine preservation goals for Manassas National Battlefield Park. Instead of the highway, the report recommends transit improvements like extensions for Metro and VRE and an express bus on Route 50. VDOT has not formally analyzed any of those other options.
Critics of the Bi-County Parkway have also worried the project will help resurrect old plans for other roads, like a 45-mile “north-south corridor of significance,” and even a larger “Outer Beltway,” which VDOT has denied.
VDOT’s pitch is that the new highway will ease congestion by increasing connectivity between Loudon and Prince William counties and replacing a route through the battlefield park. Supporters have also said the highway will spur more air cargo activity at Dulles Airport, though a researcher at George Mason University disputed that claim.
So far there’s no definitive indication of how the next administration will deal with the Bi-County Parkway. When the topic came up during election debates, McAuliffe avoided taking a firm stand, saying he needed more facts. McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, was more forthright in opposing the proposal, though he expressed support for some type of north-south connector.
For some voters, the issue was enough to bring them over to the “Democrats for Cuccinelli” camp, said Charlie Grymes, chair of the Prince William Conservation Alliance. Even more interesting, he said, was the way it forced some Virginia delegates to mark their positions. Bacon’s Rebellion also noted the unusual camaraderie the issue forged between populist conservatives and liberal smart-growth advocates.
While Cuccinelli’s stance stemmed from his fiscal conservatism, McAuliffe has made it clear that he intends to pour big bucks into transportation. As Politico notes, his campaign played up his support for Virginia’s new law to raise $1.4 billion for infrastructure through increased sales taxes and other fees.
To Bacon, that may make McAuliffe more inclined to support wasteful projects like the Bi-County Parkway.
But The Washington Post also notes that McAuliffe’s platform highlighted “elements that appeal to advocates of livable, walkable communities.”
Schwartz sees the new administration as a fresh opportunity to examine alternatives. With McAuliffe “walking into a transportation agency which enjoys significantly higher levels of funding,” he said, it’s going to be “incumbent to look at how we can spend funds more wisely.”
Also critical will be McAuliffe’s decisions about transportation leadership. Many view the Bi-County Parkway as a pet project of Sean Connaughton, the current transportation secretary.
“Once he’s gone, the project’s going to lose a big backer,” said Bacon. “On the other hand, the political constellation around it won’t disappear.”
Fight Over Virginia Transportation Priorities Takes on New Importance
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia’s decision-making panel on roads, rails and other mobility efforts, is ready to spend money. Now that the governor and General Assembly have given the board more revenue to work with, a lull that set in over the past few years may yield to a more active phase of transportation projects.
Many Northern Virginians are aware of this changing dynamic, so they came to a public meeting sponsored by the board Tuesday night in Fairfax County to argue for or against particular projects. The most frequently mentioned were the rebuilding of the interchange at Interstate 66 and Route 28 — everybody’s for that one — and the proposed Bi-County Parkway, which has generated strong opposition in the neighborhood bordering the north-south corridor on the western edge of the Manassas National Battlefield Park.
The broader issues at play emerged when two people spoke: Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth and Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.
Schwartz urged the transportation officials to pursue a “fix it first” strategy in setting priorities. Rather than focusing new spending on expansion of the roads network, rebuild the deteriorating parts of the existing system to make it easier for people to get around.
Schwartz doesn’t equate road building with congestion relief, which puts him at odds with many of the people who supported Virginia’s new transportation revenue law. New lanes, he said, “can generate more traffic than you relieve.”
Land use policy that focus development near transit “is a regional traffic solution” and does a lot more to address congestion than new lanes, Schwartz said. This may be the way of the future as empty-nesters who no longer need their big houses but want to stay in Northern Virginia seek new housing positioned to let them stay mobile as they age.
Schwartz opposes the Bi-County Parkway as, among many other things, a traffic-inducer. But it’s an unfair shorthand to characterize him as anti-road. Of the plan to rebuild the I-66/Route 28 interchange, he said, “We agree it should be fully funded.” But planners deciding how to ease the awful congestion all along the I-66 corridor need to address the public’s desire for better transit service, Schwartz added.
He also noted that Virginia state officials who are contemplating the new transportation revenue need to get interested in Metro’s long range plan, called “Momentum,” to expand the transit system’s capacity, including the purchase of enough rail cars to make all trains eight-cars long.
The shorthand for Chase would have him be the road-building guy, but that’s also unfair. Chase backs construction of Metro’s Silver Line. Key elements in his vision are that transportation projects can solve congestion problems, but we need to think big, and the projects selected need to have regional impact.
Chase praised state leaders for approving new transportation revenue that can refill budgets for maintenance and construction. “After many years, we finally are talking about additions, rather than subtractions,” he said.
In this new environment, Chase said, a “big picture perspective is more important than ever.” Planners must target “regionally significant transportation investments that will reduce congestion,” and he looks to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation to provide the leadership that will support such projects, including the Bi-County Parkway. People who say they don’t want a parkway in their yard have a right to oppose it, he said, but to say that the region doesn’t need a north-south route in that area isn’t factual. The state must base it’s decisions on regional needs, Chase said.
Chase and Schwartz have been fighting it out along this line for years. The key difference in 2013 is that they’re now talking to officials who have money to spend.
Photo courtesy of Karen Bleier. Click here to read the original story.