Loading...
TC 05-21-07 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner,20 RE: May 21, 2007 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: May 14, 2007 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, May 21, 2007 in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration. Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. Transportation Impact Fees 2. 2008-2013 Six Year Improvement Program 3. Article Review 4. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 Item 1: Transportati®n Impact Fees At the Board of Supervisors work session on transportation policy held Friday, May 11, 2007, staff advised the Board of significant changes to the language of the State Code governing the use of transportation impact fees. The Board has tasked staff to coordinate with the Transportation Committee and create some example impact fee service districts to report back to the Board. Below, staff has inserted the pertinent section from the State Transportation Bill (HB 3202). As you will note, though many of the language changes seem minor, their impact on the applicability of this code are significant. § 15.2-2317. Applicability of article. This article shall apply to500,000 of more as deteffflifled b having a population between 58,000 and 62,000 as detefmined by the 1990 U.S. Census, (Vi) any locality that has adopted zoning pursuant to Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 and that (i) has a population of at least 20, 000 and has a population growth rate of at least 5% or (ii) has population growth of 15% or more. For the purposes of this section, population growth shall be the difference in population from the next -to -latest to the latest decennial census year, based on population reported by the United States Bureau of the Census. § 15.2-2318. Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Cost" includes, in addition to all labor, materials, machinery and equipment for construction, (i) acquisition of land, rights-of-way, property rights, easements and interests, including the costs of moving or relocating utilities, (ii) demolition or removal of any structure on land so acquired, including acquisition of land to which such structure may be moved, (iii) survey, engineering, and architectural expenses, (iv) legal, administrative, and other related expenses, and (v) interest charges and other financing costs if impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by the locality to finance the road improvement. "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed against new development in order to generate revenue to fund or recover the costs of reasonable road improvements ne-eessitated by an attfibutable benefiting the new development. Impact fees may not be assessed and imposed for road repair, operation and maintenance, nor to expand existing ,-oads to meet demand which existed prior to the new development. "Impact fee service area" means land designated � y e.diia ice * i � 4't an area designated p �,aa�a.v.. � YY1{.11111111V� gn within the comprehensive plan of a locality having clearly defined boundaries and clearly related traffic needs and within which development is to be subject to the assessment of impact fees. "Road improvement" includes construction of new roads or improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable ^,.,, tion standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality with road maintenance responsibilities, to meet increased demand attributable to new development. Road improvements do not include on-site construction of roads which a developer may be required to provide pursuant to §§ 15.2-2241 through 15.2-2245. § 15.2-2319. Authority to assess and impose impact fees Any applicable locality may, by ordinance pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this article, assess and impose impact fees on new development to pay all or a part of the cost of reasonable road improvements attributable in stibstanfia4 pai4 to that benefit the new development. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, a locality shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. The committee shall be composed of not less than five nor more than ten members appointed by the governing body of the locality and at least forty percent of the membership shall be representatives from the development, building or real estate industries. The planning commission or other existing committee that meets the membership requirements may serve as the impact fee advisory committee. The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to assist and advise the governing body of the locality with regard to the ordinance. No action of the committee shall be considered a necessary prerequisite for any action taken by the locality in regard to the adoption of an ordinance. § 15.2-2320. Impact fee service areas to be established. The locality shall delineate one or more impact fee service areas within its comprehensive plan. Impact fees collected from new development within an impact fee service area shall be expended for road improvements within benefiting that impact fee service area. An impact fee service area may encompass more than one road improvement project. A locality may exclude urban development areas designated pursuant to § 15.2-2223. 1 from impact fee service areas. § 15.2-2321. Adoption of road improvements program. Prior to adopting a system of impact fees, the locality shall conduct an assessment of road improvement needs within benefiting an impact fee service area and in the leeafi4y and shall adopt a road improvements plan for the area showing the new roads proposed to be constructed and the existing roads to be improved or expanded and the schedule for undertaking such construction, improvement or expansion. The road improvements plan shall be adopted as an amendment to the required comprehensive plan and shall be incorporated into the capital improvements program or, in the case of the counties where applicable, the six-year plan for secondary road construction pursuant to § 33.1-70.01. The locality shall adopt the road improvements plan after holding a duly advertised public hearing. The public hearing notice shall identify the impact fee service area or areas to be designated, and shall include a summary of the needs assessment and the assumptions upon which the assessment is based, the proposed amount of the impact fee, and information as to how a copy of the complete study may be examined. A copy of the complete study shall be available for public inspection and copying at reasonable times prior to the public hearing. ki The locality at a minimum shall include the following items in assessing road improvement needs and preparing a road improvements plan: 1. An analysis of the existing capacity, current usage and existing commitments to future usage of existing roads, as indicated by (i) current and projected service levels, (ii) current valid building permits outstanding (ii) appfoye l r n itio .,1 .no' o al emeeptions, and , al use _ and (iii) approved and pending site plans and subdivision plats. If the current usage and commitments exceed the existing capacity of the roads, the locality also shall determine the costs of improving the roads to meet the demand. The analysis shall include any off-site road improvements or cash payments for road improvements accepted by the locality and shall include a plan to fund the current usages and commitments that exceed the existing capacity of the roads. 2. The projected need for and costs of construction of new roads or improvement or expansion of existing roads attributable in whole or in pao to projected new development. Road improvement needs shall be projected for the impact fee service area when fully developed in accord with the comprehensive plan and, if full development is projected to occur more than ten 20 years in the future, at the end of a ten-year 20 year period. The assumptions with regard to land uses, densities, intensities, and population upon which road improvement projections are based shall be presented. 3. The total number of new service units projected for the impact fee service area when fully developed and, if full development is projected to occur more than ten 20 years in the future, at the end of a ten ye--ar 20 year period. A "service unit" is a standardized measure of traffic use or generation. The locality shall develop a table or method for attributing service units to various types of development and land use, including but not limited to residential, commercial and industrial uses. The table shall be based upon the ITE manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) or locally conducted trip generation studies, and consistent with the traffic analysis standards adopted pursuant to § 15.2-2222.1. § 15.2-2322. Adoption of impact fee and schedule. After adoption of a road improvement program, the locality may adopt an ordinance establishing a system of impact fees to fund or recapture all or any part of the cost of providing reasonable road improvements ruby benefiting new development. The ordinance shall set forth the schedule of impact fees. § 15.2-2323. When impact fees assessed and imposed. The amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development or subdivision shall be determined before or at the time the site plan or subdivision is approved. The ordinance shall specify that the fee is to be collected at the time of the issuance of a ee fifieate of oeeuYun buildingpermit. The ordinance shall provide that fees (i) may be paid in lump sum or (ii) be paid on installment at a reasonable rate of interest for a fixed number of years. The locality by ordinance may provide for negotiated agreements with the owner of the property as to the time and method of paying the impact fees. The maximum impact fee to be imposed shall be determined (i) by dividing projected road improvement costs in the impact.fee service area when fully developed by the number of projected service units when fully developed, or (ii) for a reasonable period of time, but not less than ten years, by dividing the projected costs necessitated by development in the next ten years by the service units projected to be created in the next ten years. The ordinance shall provide for appeals from administrative determinations, regarding the impact fees to be imposed, to the governing body or such other body as designated in the ordinance. The ordinance may provide for the resolution of disputes over an impact fee by arbitration or otherwise. No impaet fees sha4l be assessed or- imposed upon a development or- s4division if the subdivider- or- developef has proffer -ed eondifiens ptifstiapA to § § 1 §.2-2298 or- 15.2 23 03 for- off site W—ad § 15.2-2324. Credits against impact fee. The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements wi�in benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project. The locality shall treat as a credit any off-site transportation dedication, contribution, or construction, whether it is a condition of a rezoning or otherwise committed to the locality. The locality may by ordinance provide for credits for approved on-site transportation improvements in excess of those required by the development. The locality also shall calculate and credit against impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will sere benefit the development, (ii) new development will contribute to the cost of existing roads, and (iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impact fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. § 15.2-2325. Updating plan and amending impact fee The locality shall update the needs assessment and the assumptions and projections at least once every two years. The road improvement plan shall be updated at least every two years to reflect current assumptions and projections. The impact fee schedule may be amended to reflect any substantial changes in such assumptions and projections. Any impact fees not yet paid shall be assessed at the updated rate. § 15.2-2326. Use of proceeds. A separate road improvement account shall be established for the impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the interest-bearing account. Interest earned on deposits shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements i44thin benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for the impact fee service area. § 15.2-2327. Refund of impact fees. The locality shall refund any impact fee or portion thereof for which construction of a project is not completed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed fifteen years. In the event that impact fees are not committed to road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area within seven years from the date of collection, the locality may commit any such impact fees to the secondary or 5 urban system construction program of that locality for road improvements that benefit the impact fee service area. Upon completion of a project, the locality shall recalculate the impact fee based on the actual cost of the improvement. It shall refund the difference if the impact fee paid exceeds actual cost by more than fifteen percent. Refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is made. C • r: 11 Item 2: 2008-2013 Sin Year Improvement Program As VDOT begins the process of formulating the 2008-2013 Six Year Improvement Program, there will be a public input session on May 31, 2007 at 7:00 pm in New Market, VA. Staff will be attending and would extend and invitation to member of the Transportation Committee who may wish to attend. VA 0 Item 3: Article Review The following are a number of transportation related articles from the past month. In a pinch, 460 escape route's a squeeze By TOM HOLDEN, The Virginian -Pilot © May 14, 2007 Last updated: 11:54 PM Erik Jorgensen says he would evacuate his Hunningdon Lakes home if a major storm threatened the region. But going west is impractical because of the bottleneck at the 1-64 High -Rise Bridge. Gary C. Knapp/For The Virginian -Pilot CHESAPEAKE - When Hurricane Isabel churned through Hampton Roads in 2003, Erik and Dina Jorgensen watched with alarm as winds pushed up whitecaps on their back yard lake, stripped trees bare and shook their house Isabel was a small storm by hurricane standards. But after that experience, if the Big One ever threatens their city, the Jorgensens say they'll evacuate. "We just can't be here for a Category 2 or higher," Erik said. In planning their escape, they settled on a route to Interstate 64 to Bowers Hill, then on to U.S. 460 and relative safety inland. But they encountered a problem. U.S. 460 is a great evacuation route only if you can get there. For the Jorgensens and tens of thousands of other South Hampton Roads residents, quickly reaching the highway may be impossible during a major hurricane. Bottling up their exodus is the 65 -foot -tall High -Rise Bridge on 1-64, which offers only two lanes of passage on an ordinary day. "I would have to leave three days before because I could not make it out in two days," said Erik Jorgensen, who lives in Hunningdon Lakes with his wife and their two teen age sons. "I would not want to be here." Long outdated and inadequate for ordinary rush-hour demands, the bridge over the Southern B ranch of the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake regularly carries about 88,000 vehicles each day - 10,000 more than it was designed to handle. During a major evacuation, as many as 96,000 vehicles a day, or about 4,000 an hour, would be attempting to cross the bridge. 9 Should a vehicle break down on or near the bridge - a scenario that planners consider a virtual certainty given the volume of cars - traffic would come to a standstill. There are no shoulders for disabled vehicles. When sustained tropical -force winds of 45 mph or more settle over the bridge - again, a likely probability - the High -Rise would be shut down, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation's hurricane evacuation plan. The problems are a major reason VDOT officials want to build a new bridge. With another six -month hurricane season beginning June 1, it might seem that VDOT would be working on doing just that. But it's not. Instead, state officials are working on U.S. 460 - a lightly traveled four -lane highway several miles to the west of the High -Rise. Within the last year, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has moved forward with plans to rebuild the highway while taking no action to begin major work on 1-64 and the High -Rise, beyond the improvements under way at Battlefield Boulevard. Among the key decisions on 460, the board has: • Selected an alignment for a new, four -lane divided highway that has fewer interchanges and runs roughly parallel to the existing 460. • Accepted a draft environmental impact statement, an essential document needed before VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration can take further steps. • Named a review panel to consider proposals from three groups of construction companies to build a new highway from the Bowers Hill interchange to Petersburg. The generally accepted construction cost is about $1.5 billion. No date has been set for when work could begin on 460. For residents like Jorgensen, that's discouraging. "I just hope that we don't get hit with a big one because it's going to be a mess," said Jorgensen, the owner of a custom woodworking business. The 460 project has leaped ahead in planning over the High -Rise partly because of how Virginia officials want to pay for the projects. The rebuilding of 460 is envisioned as one that can be financed with a mix of public and private money, while the High -Rise project, estimated to cost $1 billion, would be paid for largely with state and federal dollars. State funding for new interstate construction is at its lowest level in decades and only recently received a boost that could result in more interstate projects moving into design and construction phases. "It is simply not possible to undertake all of the major interstate projects that are necessary in Hampton Roads at this time," said Transportation Secretary Pierce Homer. "We have to start somewhere, and that starting point is 460." Transportation officials say the High -Rise isn't the only evacuation option. The Gilmerton Bridge, which crosses the S southern B ranch of the Elizabeth River along South Military Highway, also is part of the region's evacuation strategy. But it's a shaky option. The Gilmerton has undergone extensive repairs, but engineers still post weight limits for trucks and heavy vehicles. "We're talking about a bridge that was built in 1938," said Eric Martin, Chesapeake's chief engineer. "It is past its normal life expectancy. The steel on it is corroding. We have done many repairs to sections of deck. " Asked if the bridge would be a safe alternative for evacuating Hampton Roads, Martin said, "It's certainly safe for cars." 10 Replacing the Gilmerton will cost $133 million, according to Martin's office, and the city is about $40 million short of the money needed to start work. If an evacuation becomes necessary - usually with the threat of a Category 3 hurricane or stronger - Virqinia Beach could take 26 hours to evacuate: Chesapeake could take 11 hniirs not including the expected influx from North Carolina's tourist -laden Outer Banks. Such lengthy delays in clearing densely populated areas are a main reason why state planners want a series of improvements to the region's interstates. "We need the High -Rise Bridge, the interchange in Bowers Hill and 460 to all move forward at roughly the same pace," said Dwight Farmer, deputy executive director for transportation at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. "If you get them out of sync, you will lose the cost-effectiveness of the projects." Stephany D. Hanshaw, manager of VDOT's Smart Traffic Center, thinks the congestion on the High -Rise can be managed during crises. But he acknowledged that the current road system's ability to handle a full- blown evacuation is worrisome. "We can take steps to spread the demand out so we don't have a major bottleneck, but that becomes much more difficult at Bowers Hill because you have multiple interstates coming into that area," he said. The convergence of Interstates 64 and 664 with U.S. 58 and local roads in western Chesapeake will require careful control of traffic flow - even it's moving slowly. "I don't believe it will be unmanageable, but it will be critical," he said. Like a funnel, he said, "You can pour much more into it than you can get out in the same time." Few engineers argue against improving 460. The road is antiquated. Drainage ditches run along much of its length. Lane widths vary from 10 to 11 feet - short of the 12 -foot modern standard. Its undivided design has led to a disproportionately high number of accidents, often involving trucks and cars, according to the draft environmental impact statement. And then there are the floods. At its juncture with the Blackwater River, the highway has been closed to traffic four times in the last seven years: for Hurricane Floyd in 1999, when nine feet of water closed the road for a week; for a nor'easter in 2006, and twice when storms damaged drainage culverts. For all its problems, 460 has one plus: I is fairly uncongested. At its busiest interchange, where 460 joins Va. 616 in Ivor, the average daily traffic count was 11,100 in 2003, according to the draft environmental impact statement. By comparison, the Downtown Tunnel, the region's most congested crossing, is used by an estimated 96,000 vehicles every day. Portions of Interstate 64 at the interchange with 1-264 carry 220,000 vehicles daily, according to the planning commission figures. Art Collins, executive director of the Planning District Commission, said the 460 project should be in the region's long-range transportation plan because the highway addresses future needs in Hampton Roads. "One of those needs was hurricane evacuations and the need to connect this cul-de-sac with the rest of the world," Collins said. Del. Leo Wardrup, R -Virginia Beach, the outgoing chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has long supported improvements to 460. 11 "It troubles me that we could be trapped in this cul-de-sac in the event of a disaster," he said. "The next question is, what's the best course of action? "If the only thing we can work on is 460 because that project is the furthest along, then that does not bother me," he said. Would I like to see work on 1-64 south side? Sure. "Would I like to see work on Bowers Hill? Sure, but it's a matter of priority." • Reach Tom Holden at (757) 446-2331 or tom.holden@pilotonline.com. HIGH-RISE BRIDGE MAY HINDER EVACUATIOhl ,� �4 T �� rrrr ct Transportation Planners af:, fCvat" lilf ie000bals 14 UJiitl J new },4t� IC Y U.S. 460 between Bowcrs Heti *nd Pictctfsburg to irnWow hurr4ane evsCi tions. but to reach the esca road. nwV CheStri-stake ants✓' Virginia Beach residents must Ctoss Ow HigIvRise I edge on intersiate 64, a ro6onal Che,,W pox+t The Gflawrton Brid& is another option. Nit it *$ old aril; Carrie$, weight restrictions. o 00hnl J tf tet, j sig` '� i� ?� I � , ift L SSC& Cad; sWrAritx; wn ra nwrn rxf� J/y +�" �S y l t 12 Norfolk, Beach back roads plan with a one-two punch By HARRY MINIUM AND DEIRDRE FERNANDFS, © May 9, 2007 Last updated: 11:15 PM Related: Portsmouth residents voice In actions that brought Hampton Roads one step closer to embracing worries about more fees, taxes taxes, fees and tolls designed to solve the region's transportation problems, the Virginia Beach and Norfolk city councils voted Tuesday to endorse the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority Act. If enacted by seven of the region's 12 cities and counties, comprising at least 51 percent of the population, the authority would come into effect and begin to impose taxes and tolls. Newport News has already endorsed the plan, which was passed by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine this spring. With the state's two largest cities - Virginia Beach and Norfolk - now on board, the plan has surpassed the 51 percent population threshold. It still must be passed by seven of the area's 12 cities and counties. Virginia Beach endorsed the plan by a vote of 8-2. Norfolk's council voted 8-0. Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim, who as head of the Hampton Roads Mayor and Chairs Caucus represented the region in negotiations with state officials, praised the actions of Virginia Beach. "From the start, we knew there could not be a plan without the support of Virginia Beach," he said. "The fact that they supported this plan in the fashion they did is a tremendous step forward." Both councils endorsed the plan with objections. "It's a bad bill," Fraim told the City Council before the vote. City officials object to fees on car repairs and car inspections, which they said disproportionately hit poor people. Fraim said he wrote every General Assembly member urging that they instead raise gas taxes, and if necessary, the sales taxes. In Virginia Beach, 12 speakers asked the City Council to wait and get more resident input or vote against the authority. "God bless our people, because you're going to tax them to death," Bob Hedrick said. The authority, made up of local government officials, would be permitted to levy a $10 registration fee, a 1 percent tax on the value of a vehicle during its initial registration, a $10 vehicle inspection fee, a 5 percent sales tax on car repairs, a fee of 50 cents per $100 on the sale of a home, a 2 percent gas tax, and a 2 percent fee on rental cars. The taxes and fees would raise approximately $168 million per year. The money would be used to pay for projects such as a new U.S. 460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, a new Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth, widening interstate highways on the Peninsula and the Southside, and a new harbor crossing between the Peninsula and the Southside. Some residents of Virginia Beach said their city will bear most of the cost, with nearly 30 percent of the money coming from local taxpayers, but not many of the direct benefits. Many of the road projects are in Chesapeake. Still, several Virginia Beach business leaders and Sen. Kenneth Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, said transportation is a regional problem and this is the only opportunity to raise enough money to ease congestion and help local industries, including tourism. "The truth of the matter is that if we don't pay for it, we're not going to be able to get in and out of Hampton Roads," said Virginia Beach Vice Mayor Louis Jones. 13 Norfolk Councilman Paul R. Riddick said the area has too many dysfunctional regional authorities. "We don't need another," he said. But in the end, he reluctantly agreed to vote yes. In Virginia Beach, council members Reba McClanan and Barbara Henley voted against the authority. Councilman Bill DeSteph left early to attend his daughter's choral recital but said he would have voted in favor of the authority. • Reach Harry Minium at (757) 446-2371 orharry.minium@pilotonline.com. • Reach Deirdre Fernandes at (75 7) 222-51211 or deirdre. fernandes@pilotonline. com. © 2007 Hampton Roads.com/PilotOnline.com 14 hqp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freewaylmay0l 0 525634 full story?coll=la-home- headlines Bay Area freeway repair speeds into the fast lane Demolition at the site of the overpass collapse is put on a 24/7 fast track. Monday's commute is easier than expected. By Maria L. La Ganga, Tim Reiterman and Lee Romney Times Staff Writers May 1, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO — One day after a tanker truck explosion melted a key Bay Area freeway interchange, the scramble toward recovery raced into high gear Monday in a region crippled 18 years ago by massive freeway collapses during an earthquake. The nightmare commute that officials had braced for largely failed to materialize, as many workers who normally flood into San Francisco from the East Bay either altered their hours or simply stayed home. But congestion was expected to worsen throughout the week as residents returned to their normal habits. "By no stretch of the imagination is there anyone who believes that we're out of the woods," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, adding that workday commuters significantly swell the city's population. Late Monday the company whose truck exploded apologized for the disruption as published reports surfaced that the driver had a criminal record. Meanwhile, with a state of emergency in force, the California Department of Transportation pressed forward with round-the-clock demolition at the Oakland disaster scene, which left a steel and concrete overpass draped over the freeway's lower deck like a surreal Salvador Dali clock. The 24/7 effort, to be carried out under an emergency $2 -million contract, will continue at least until the debris from Interstate 580 can be hauled away and engineers can assess the extent of repairs needed on the damaged stretch of Interstate 880 below it, said Dan McElhinny, a Caltrans chief deputy director. Since the extent of the damage is unclear, the cost and timeline for repairs are not known, he said, adding that Caltrans engineers have nevertheless begun to design fixes. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's emergency declaration allows for an expedited bidding process, and Caltrans representatives have been contacting contractors and steel fabricators throughout the country. Finding customized steel girders for the project probably will not be easy, McElhinny said. The accident caused two freeway spans of roughly 83 feet each to collapse after the tanker truck hauling 8,600 gallons of fuel overturned and exploded. The destruction severed one artery that carries 45,000 motorists daily from San Francisco to the East Bay, and another that carries 15 35,000 from Berkeley and Vallejo south toward San Jose. The interchange, known as the MacArthur Maze, is the most congested in the region, and evening commutes out of San Francisco in the coming weeks or months will prove the greatest challenge. "The Bay Bridge delivers traffic to the maze, where it separates into three connector ramps," said Caltrans spokesman Jeff Weiss. "One of those is gone for the evening commute.... If those people choose to drive, they'll clog the other connector ramps." A California Highway Patrol spokesman said the investigation into the cause of the 3:45 a.m. crash is ongoing, adding that the all -but -incinerated scene could still yield clues. CHP officials said earlier that it appeared that driver James Mosqueda had been speeding. A stunned and burned Mosqueda, 51, walked away from the conflagration shortly before the freeway collapsed in an apocalyptic scene reminiscent of Schwarzenegger's movie "The Terminator." Mosqueda's family released a brief statement from San Francisco's St. Francis Memorial Hospital, where he was being treated for second-degree burns, saying, "We are grateful that no one else was hurt and thank God that James is on the road to recovery." On Monday, more information emerged about Mosqueda. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Oscar Hidalgo said Mosqueda served two years of a nearly three-year sentence for drug possession in the late 1990s and was discharged from parole in 2001. But California Highway Patrol Officer Marc Johnston said Monday that there was no indication that drugs or alcohol played a part in the accident. "We are looking at this as a property -damage -only collision," he said. "We would not be looking into his criminal history." Sabek Transportation Inc., Mosqueda's employer, released a statement through a San Francisco television station, saying that Mosqueda "has had a safe driving record during his entire employment ... and meets all licensing and endorsement requirements as dictated by the state of California." But the federal Transportation Security Administration told the Associated Press on Monday that it would investigate whether it should have banned Mosqueda from driving a vehicle carrying hazardous materials. State and Bay Area officials expressed relief that the consequences of the collapse were not worse. 16 Meanwhile, they launched into well -rehearsed disaster preparedness mode to ensure that people and goods flowed as smoothly as possible and repair would be swift: Transit agencies increased service and waived fares Monday — a $2.5 -million expense that will be reimbursed by the state. Ferry services quadrupled on some routes, and Port of Oakland officials braced for disruption that did not materialize. Though the free rides expired at midnight Monday, the governor's office has pledged to cover the costs of expanded transit service — more buses, trains and ferries until the interchange is repaired. Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the administration Monday sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration seeking help to defray those costs. But during Monday's morning commute, the biggest question on the minds of most was: Where did everybody go? Whizzing westward on BART, recruiter Linda Haycox was reading the East County Times, whose Page One headline blared "Commute Catastrophe." She had raced to the Concord station, fearful that a crush of new riders would vacuum up all of the parking spaces. "But it was normal," the Pittsburg resident marveled. "I'm just surprised more people weren't on this thing." San Francisco Municipal Transit executive Nathaniel Ford said both street traffic and public transit use were lighter than average Monday. And a spokesman for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, which carries East Bay commuters into the city, said ridership seemed up only slightly but was spread out since many people chose to go to work later. Those who drove Monday also were pleasantly surprised. At 7 a.m., traffic was less congested than normal on the San Francisco approach to the Bay Bridge, which often is backed up or creeping along the downtown skyway. And in the East Bay, the customary quarter -mile and half -mile traffic jams at the Bay Bridge toll plaza were absent. The metering lights were not even turned on to regulate commute traffic heading into downtown San Francisco. At the nearby Port of Oakland, officials and truckers said the flow of traffic into one of the country's biggest container shipping terminals continued without major hitches. Port spokeswoman Marilyn Sandifur said three of the four freeway exits to the facility were unaffected — and credited good preparation and traffic control by law enforcement and transportation agencies with making Monday morning's commute uneventful. What comes next probably will be much messier, as commuters adjust to the new reality. "A lot of folks stayed home [Monday], but we can't count on that blessing," said Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesman Randy Rentschler. "The Bay Area is a busy 17 place and this route is the most congested place in the Bay Area — by far." In a region vulnerable to earthquake, many wondered whether the collapse hinted at structural weakness. But Caltrans officials said Sunday's inferno was not a teaching moment for Caltrans or for traffic engineers in earthquake country. "We design our structures to withstand earthquakes, a credible occurrence in the Bay Area," Weiss said. "This is an incredible occurrence that we don't design for." Others seemed to agree. Bridge expert Mark Allen Ketchum, a consultant who was lead engineer on seismic retrofitting of the Golden Gate Bridge and the west span of the Bay Bridge, said it would be reasonable for policymakers to reevaluate how much fire resistance freeway bridges should have. Bu he predicted that it would be very costly and possibly impossible to design a freeway to withstand a rare event such as Sunday's fire. "This was a hugely voracious fire fueled by more gasoline than any of us can imagine that managed to burn hot enough and long enough to soften the steel," he said. "In my opinion, most bridges have plenty of capacity to withstand the fuel from a burning automobile, or a typical semi -trailer truck, which holds between tens and hundreds of gallons of fuel." maria. laganga@latimes. com tim.reiterman@latimes.com lee. romneykIatimes. com 18 EESBURG (ODA The j«urn rl of Lauduur7 COURA Supervisors May Sue Over State Road Plan By Dusty Smith (Created: Thursday, May 3, 2007 8:45 AM EDT) At the urging of Supervisor Mick Staton (R -Potomac), the board of supervisors Tuesday voted unanimously to have County Attorney Jack R. Roberts report back in June about whether there are any constitutional conflicts involved with the transportation funding bill the General Assembly passed and Gov. Timothy Kaine (D) signed this year. One part of the bill authorizes the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to impose taxes on jurisdictions in the region if 6 of the 9 members representing at least 60 percent of the population of those jurisdictions agree. The full NVTA consists of 16 appointed members, many of whom do not serve in elected positions. The group has scheduled a 7 p.m. public comment meeting on May 10 at George Mason High School in Falls Church. Staton, who chairs the board's Transportation/Land Use Committee, said responses to a series of questions from legislators to the attorney general's office did not clear up the matter in his mind. His concern is that the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, which under the new law could impose taxes on localities against their will, lacks the constitutional authority to impose those taxes. Referring to various sections of the state code, Staton said if the NVTA is a regional government, it would require a referendum to impose taxes. On the other hand, if it's not a government, as representatives of the attorney general's office have argued, then it has no authority to impose taxes. "I think we're dealing with a very serious dilemma here," he said, adding that voters who oppose the taxes would have no recourse to vote out members of the NVTA. "This is a momentous point. In my opinion, this violates the Constitution of Virginia. It is our duty to defend that constitution." One at a time, each supervisor agreed "From the very beginning, I have shared some of these same concerns," said Supervisor Jim Burton (I -Blue Ridge), adding that Roberts' information would help the board determine whether to take legal action against the state. "We need to proceed with very much caution. We need to have it right before we make that move." Staton said that's why he was seeking Roberts' advice. "The purpose of this is that before we can actually take action, we need to determine: what is our standing," he said. Several supervisors said the ploy on the part of state legislators and the governor was to enact a law that can be touted during election season as having addressed the state's transportation crisis without having to raise taxes themselves. And since localities had balked at having to raise the taxes under the bill's original language as proposed by a group of Republicans from both houses, putting the burden on an unelected panel was a shrewd political move, they said. "I'm not sure our citizens know what just happened to them," said Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R -Dulles), pointing specifically to a new tax that would charge people who sell their homes 40 cents per $100 of assessed value. "Of your equity, you're going to be paying in arrears a tax." The Loudoun General Assembly delegation voted for the bill with the exception of Del. Robert Marshall (R-13). "Our citizens need to have a break out of all these things and sound off to Mr. [Del. Joe T.] May (R-33) and Mr. All - Who -Voted -For -it," Snow said. "It's a slick deal." Supervisor Bruce E. Tulloch (R -Potomac), the board's vice chairman, said the bill's confusing, regardless of its constitutional merit. 19 "It is so unbelievably messy that even if it's constitutional, administering this bill would be almost impossible," he said. "If anyone thinks transportation has been cured by this bill, they're sadly mistaken." Earlier in the day, Tulloch pointed out that the NVTA has begun working its way toward implementing the plan as soon as possible. Roberts will present information to the board during its June 5 meeting. n C 0 lte-m a: nther 21