TC 05-19-08 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, Deputy Director - Transportationt''
RE: May 19, 2008 Transportation Committee Meeting
DATE: May 12, 2008
The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, May 19,
2008 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North
Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
AGENDA
1. Traffic Impact Analysis Standards
2. Secondary Road Project Prioritization
3. Route 37 Study
4. MPO Update
5. 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
Item 1: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards
Attached please find the first draft of the proposed TIA standards. This draft has been submitted to a
number of sources in VDOT and the private sector for comment. Those comments are due back to
staff in time for inclusion in the discussion at the meeting.
2
Traffic Impact Analysis Standards
Draft 105/06/08
A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is required in order to allow County Officials and staff the
opportunity to assess the impact of a proposed development. The TIA should provide sufficient
information to allow this assessment to take place. In addition, to the extent possible, the TIA should
be presented in such a manner as to be readable and understandable by lay people without excluding
technical details required by more experienced personnel and the requirements of these standards.
Any application that includes a TIA, as determined by planning staff, which does not meet the
standards laid out herein shall not be considered complete.
When a TIA is Required:
1. Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Chapter 527 regulations.
2. Any proposed action that is expected to generate more than 499 vehicle trip ends per day
or more than 74 vehicle trip ends in any single hour, and has not previously had a TIA
done for similar or greater trip generation. Additionally, staff may require a TIA for any
level of traffic generation on corridors facing significant congestion as determined by the
professional judgment of planning staff.
3. Any significant intensification of use, as determined by planning staff.
4. An updated TIA shall be required for any TIA that is nine months or greater old so long
as the delay which causes the TIA to be out of date is not primarily due to actions by the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Planning staff shall have the ability to
waive this requirement if they determine that the age of the TIA does not significantly
impact the ability to determine impacts of the proposed action on the surrounding
network.
Process and Report Requirements:
1. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping with VDOT and County staff.
2. Each submittal must include two paper copies and a CD that includes a PDF copy of the
full report and the associated modeling files.
3. Each TIA must include a copy of the approved VDOT scoping form.
4. An executive summary discussing the development, significant findings of the TIA, and
proposed mitigation must be included.
5. All proposed access points and details about what the type of access would be must be
included and analyzed.
6. Each TIA must include sections that depict existing traffic, existing with background,
and existing with background and proposed development build out.
7. Accident data for the most recent three year period must be included.
8. Output report sheets from analysis software shall be included in the appendix.
9. Appendix pages of the TIA must be grouped according to output type and location.
10. Planning staff may require additional analysis as required by the uniqueness of each
development.
Technical Details:
1. Trip generation must be determined using the most recent addition of the ITE Trip
Generation Report unless agreed to by VDOT and planning staff. Only codes approved
by VDOT and planning staff at scoping may be used.
2. The TIA must depict a worst case scenario allowable under the proposed zoning as
determined by planning staff. The applicant may depict a less than worst case scenario if
their proposed proffers would limit their uses to uses that produce equal or less traffic
than what is depicted in the TIA.
3. Only scenarios approved by VDOT and planning staff may be included in the TIA. If the
applicant wishes to include other scenarios in their presentation to the Board of
Supervisors and/or Planning Commission, that will be allowable.
4. Partial build -out conditions of previously approved developments will not be allowed
when considering background traffic.
5. Existing signal timings provided by VDOT must be used for existing conditions.
6. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all movements and approaches.
7. When level of service does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, the
report must include suggested improvements that would meet the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
8. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed. This analysis
must include a signal progression analysis.
9. When conditions of existing, or existing with background scenarios, result in level of
service F, additional analysis must be done when development traffic is added in so that
the impacts of the new development may be considered. Some details to consider in this
additional analysis would be changes in delays, queue lengths, and vehicle to capacity
ratio. Planning staff could also consider additional analysis that would depict the
development impacts in this situation.
0
Item 2: Secondary Road Project Prioritization
At the April meeting of the Transportation Committee meeting, staff received some guidance on the
prioritization of the list below. In hopes of refining this prioritization further, staff is coordinating
with VDOT and using the guidance we have received so far to develop a recommended priority of
the list below. This effort will be presented at the meeting.
1. Spine Road from the Haggerty Development to Senseny Road
2. Double Church Road from Route 277 to the location of the future relocated Route 277
3. Warrior Drive from Route 277 to Double Church Road
4. Realignment of Brucetown Road
5. Realignment of Valley Mill Road at Route 7 (West)
6. Senseny Road widening
7. Extension of Smithfield Avenue to Brooke Road and associated disconnection of Brick Kiln
Road from Brooke Road
Item 3: Route 37 Study
Staff has been coordinating with VDOT to develop a scope of work for the next phase of study
required for the Route 37 Eastern Bypass. That scope is attached. Should this scope be found
acceptable, staff will notify VDOT to begin.
0
PRELIMINARYDRAFT
SCOPE OF STUDY
WINCHESTER - ROUTE 37 EASTERN BYPASS
February 13, 2008
A. PURPOSE
1. The purpose of this Study is to provide Frederick County with the design and mapping
information necessary to allow the County to provide developers the information they
need to plan and design residential and commercial developments in Frederick County in
the area of the proposed Route 37 corridor.
B. LIMITS
1. The current adopted location of Route 37 is identified as "Corridor C" and is shown on
preliminary plans prepared by Maguire Associates in the 1990's which were part of the
"Route 37 Interstate Access Study" dated December 11, 1998 prepared by Michael Baker,
Inc. The Route 37 corridor is defined as "Corridor C" as shown in the October 1992 plans
prepared by Maguire and Associates and titled "County of Frederick, Route 37 Corridor
Study, Functional Design".
2. The Study will begin at existing Rte 37 XX miles west of the I-81/Rte 37, Exit 310 and
continue along above Corridor "C" in Frederick County counter -clockwise around
Winchester. The Study will end at existing Rte 37 west of I81. Approximate centerline
length is 14 miles.
C. TRAFFIC FORECASTS
1. The consultant will update traffic forecasts on mainline existing and proposed Route 37
within the study limits and at all proposed interchanges along the entire corridor.
2. The current WinFred MPO model is primarily based on land use data/forecasts developed
in 2004. Land use data and forecasts will need to be reviewed and updated by WinFred
MPO localities. Roadway network data will also need to be reviewed and updated. It is
recommended that 2035 forecasts be estimated in this study, which will match the MPO's
upcoming 2035 Long Range Plan effort.
3. VDOT's TMPD section will be requested to perform model runs as needed. If TMPD is
unable to perform these runs, then the consultant will perform model runs. The
consultant may need to post -process model results to develop final model forecasts.
4. The consultant will develop final forecasts based on final model results, forecasts
available from other traffic studies, and application of growth rates on existing count
data.
D. SURVEY.
1. The survey must be coordinated with the methods that the County of Frederick used to
map the Corridor for GIS applications, how Maguire Associates prepared their October,
1992 corridor study, and what mapping was completed by VDOT for the Environmental
Impact Statement and Public hearing for the corridor study.
7
2. Scope of Survey Work
a. Control all of the 14 mile corridor and proposed access points to NAD 1983 and
NADV 1988 datum using concrete control monuments with consideration given to
Network GPS methods.
b. Fly all 14 miles to achieve design grade dtm and locate utilities. Limited topo cover to
physical features without developing the property data.
c. Consider limited survey work to support the tax map layout of properties and property
lines.
E. ALIGNMENT
1. In general, the location of Corridor "C" will be used to establish the roadway centerline.
In those locations where a developer has already proffered right of way to the County for
Route 37 or has reserved it, (which may include Crosspointe, Senseny Village, Haggerty
Track, Carroll Industrial Park, Rutherford Farms, Glendobbin Stonewall Industrial Park,
etc.) the proffered or reserved R/W shall be used unless there is some overriding reason
for not doing so. If a site plan has already been approved, the R/W contained in the
approved site plan will also be given primacy. In any event, if there is R/W that is already
proffered/reserved/approved, that location/route will have primacy.
2. Establish the centerline of the roadway using ground and aerial survey methods.
3. To establish the centerline, prepare detailed mapping of the corridor based on ground and
aerial mapping. The mapping will show all accessible physical information (topography,
utilities, development, etc) along with property lines and ownership information.
4. The centerline will be based on the 1992 "Functional Design" corridor study plans, but
improved where development has encroached on the original alignment or as needed to
meet current standards.
5. A typical roadway section will be established based on current standards.
6. The centerline will be established based on current standards for horizontal and vertical
alignment. A preliminary (PFI quality) horizontal and vertical alignment will be
established from which limits of construction can be established.
7. Provide preliminary plans showing limits of construction.
8. Provide preliminary drainage where FEMA floodplain crossings occur and/or where a
proposed structure would substantially affect vertical grade.
9. MOT plans will not be required; however, the preliminary design will consider
constructability.
F. INTERCHANGES
1. Evaluate the need for existing and proposed interchanges throughout the length of the
Study.
2. At each interchange location (selected in the above step), prepare an interchange model
using traffic analysis projections to the year 2035.
3. At each interchange, perform an operational analysis to evaluate alternative
configurations and to establish the conceptual layout required based on traffic projections
and the operational analysis.
4. At each interchange, prepare a preliminary (PFI quality) design layout meeting current
design standards.
G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. Consultant will provide presentation materials for consultation with local government.
Consultant will be expected to present final work to Board of Supervisors and present
separate Public Informational meeting(s), if required.
8
2. No change to Environmental Document is envisioned since all work is proposed within
the approved corridor.
H. METHOD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
1. Option 1- Frederick County takes lead to get consultants on board and is responsible for
completing the study. VDOT would play an advisory and review/approval role to the
County.
2. Option 2 - VDOT takes the lead and is responsible for completion of the study with
consultants and/or in-house resources. County would be advised of progress and would
provide advice and concurrence to insure that County goals are met.
9
Item 4: MPO Update
No significant items to report at this time.
10
Item 5: Article Review
11
Flat gas tax revenue, economy leaves Colo. roads
unfixed
MAY 11, 2008 9:59 AM (1 DAY AGO) BY COLLEEN SLEVIN, AP
DENVER (Map, News) - It was "non-negotiable, an absolute must."
Colorado needed to find $500 million a year to fix and maintain its crumbling roads and bridges. Building new roads
and adding transit to ease congestion would cost another $1 billion, according to a governor's task force.
That was before the Legislative session that ended last week.
Despite lawmaker warnings that Colorado is playing "structurally deficient bridge roulette", the Democratic -controlled
Legislature and Gov. Bill Ritter didn't find a solution.
Democrats and Republicans were quick to fix blame for the failure of a "fix it first" plan that would have raised $300
million at most. That did nothing to change the statistics:
- Colorado has one of the highest state gasoline taxes in the nation. But 17 percent of its bridges don't meet current
design standards or have significant deterioration.
- Forty-one percent of Colorado's roads are in poor condition, and 20 percent have to be replaced because there's
not enough left to be repaired.
Legislators criticized each other for a lack of political will
Majority Democrats said election year politics bogged down efforts to raise car registration fees and rental car taxes,
which don't require voter approval. They blamed Republicans for not cooperating.
Republicans, traditional backers of transportation funding, criticized Democrats for not truly negotiating with them
and not finding money within the state's $17.6 billion budget. They cited approval of education funding that was $113
million above what is constitutionally required, 1,300 new state positions, and $2 million to subsidize home solar
panel installations.
The school funding, in part, will pay for more children to go to preschool and kindergarten and provide more
kindergarten classrooms. About half of the new state employees will be paid for with user fees, rather than tax
dollars, and about 300 of them are prison guards.
Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany said Democrats backed away from a fee increase because they realize that
voters "think like Republicans." Ritter acknowledged concerns among Democrats that Republicans could campaign
against them this fall on the issue of fee hikes.
McElhany said he and House GOP leader Mike May told Ritter that all kinds of fee and tax increases were on the
table. He said he gave up when Ritter refused to back a constitutional amendment requiring that the money be used
for roads.
Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the constitution already has too many conflicting spending mandates. He said
Ritter offered to protect a stream of money into transportation once the rest of the budget was funded but never
heard from the GOP.
Republicans also proposed taking constitutionally -required funding increases for education under Amendment 23
and shifting them to transportation when that provision of the amendment expires in 2010.
Those familiar with the state's confusing budget formulas and restrictions say the problem has been a long time in
the making and that it would be nearly impossible to cobble together enough cuts each year - and get lawmakers to
agree on them - for Colorado's roads without some kind of tax or fee increase.
The bulk of Colorado's highway funding comes from the state's 22 -cent per gallon gasoline tax, along with taxes and
fees from vehicle registrations and usage taxes. In good economic years, once the state's budget grows up to the
maximum 6 percent limit allowed by law, extra money can flow into state construction projects, including highways
and bridges.
12
Next year, largely due to the weakening economy, there will only be $130 million in that "spillover," and the federal
government will contribute $87 million less than the current fiscal year. That means there will be $925 million for
maintaining and building roads, about 28 percent less than the $1.3 billion for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
The gasoline tax - the nation's 22nd highest - doesn't increase with the price of gas and revenue has slowed
because vehicle fuel efficiency has been increasing. But the cost of materials to fix roads and bridges has increased
at about 6 percent a year as world demand for steel, concrete and asphalt grows, said Heather Copp, chief financial
officer for the Colorado Department of Transportation.
"We're fighting this uphill battle all the time," she said.
Other states are struggling with stagnant revenue and declining federal funding. In Virginia, lawmakers plan a special
session next month to deal with road funding. There are no plans to do that in Colorado.
Former Republican state Rep. Brad Young, who served on the budget committee, said Colorado's tax base and strict
spending limits play a big role. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights, which took effect in 1992, limits the amount of taxes the
government can take in to a formula based on population growth and inflation. Anything above that amount must be
refunded to taxpayers, a provision which voters agreed to suspend for five years in 2005.
In the late 1990s the state was taking in so much money only to refund it later under TABOR that lawmakers decided
to lower the income tax rate from 5 percent to the current 4.63 percent in 2000- Young said the $3 billion that was
refunded over a five-year period could have gone to transportation.
After recession hit in 2001, there wasn't any extra money for transportation projects. Colorado continued building
roads, including the widening of Interstate 25 in metro Denver and 28 other projects, based on earlier borrowing. But
that bonding authority has been exhausted.
Nearly a fifth of next year's $925 million transportation budget will go to those bond payments, Copp said.
"Without a new source of revenues, I think that transportation will still be lacking," Young said.
Bob Tointon, a Republican who served on Ritter's task force and former president of a concrete and jail equipment
manufacturer in Greeley, said warnings about bridge "roulette" is more rhetoric than reality. If a bridge is structurally
deficient, he said, the state will first decrease weight limits, or just close it.
Tointon says the state's real problem is more mundane. The longer it waits to fix its roads and bridges, the more
expensive the work will be.
"I'm just concerned the deterioration is about to accelerate," Tointon said.
After November's election is done, Tointon hopes lawmakers can agree on a plan next year and possibly send some
kind of tax increase to voters.
Senate President Peter Groff D -Denver, hopes to come up with a proposal next year that would be the first bill
introduced in the Senate.
"Understand that my caucus is ready to do that," he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or redistributed.
13
May 11, 2008
Better roads needed, but at what cost?
By Bill Gunther
A RECURRING THEME in the presidential debates is the widely acknowledged infrastructure crisis in the
United States.
The collapse of the Interstate 35 West bridge in Minneapolis in 2007 with the loss of 13 lives brought the
transportation infrastructure issue sharply into focus.
The Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation estimated in 2005 that 26.2
percent of all bridges in the United States were either "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete."
We can add to the 155,000 bridges needing attention some 161,750 miles of federal highways that are
rated "unacceptable."
While the extent of the need is debatable there is general agreement that the current funding mechanism
for highway and bridge funding can't meet the challenge.
How it's funded
More than 60 percent of funding for federal highway construction projects comes from a federal tax on
gasoline, which is currently 18.3 cents per gallon and has been at this level since 1993. The "purchasing
power" of these highway funds has steadily eroded as the prices of construction materials have increased.
While the gasoline tax per gallon has remained constant since 1993, cement prices are 195 percent
higher and asphalt prices are 215 percent higher. If the fuel tax had been indexed to the cost of highway
and street construction, it would currently be 34.4 cents per gallon, not 18.3 cents.
Fortunately (for the Highway Trust Fund at least!), rising fuel consumption during the 1990s offset the
fixed per gallon tax rate, producing increasing revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. That's about to
change.
The combination of concern over global warming, foreign energy dependence, a declining dollar,
geopolitical uncertainty and rapid economic growth in BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China)
have created a perfect storm for oil prices.
Oil prices are now more than $120 per barrel and the average price of gasoline in the United States is
over $3.50 per gallon. Consumers are reacting rationally and have been switching to more fuel-efficient
automobiles and are finally beginning to reduce consumption.
Consider the fact that during the period from 1992-2002, gasoline consumption increased at an average
rate of almost 2 percent per year.
More recently (2007-2008) consumption has been growing at less than one-half of 1 percent per year.
Since the fuel tax is based on gallons consumed, revenue growth in the Highway Trust Fund is slowing
accordingly.
Rising highway construction costs and slowing revenue growth can only lead to falling rate of investment
in the transportation infrastructure.
14
Needs to be done
The need for increased spending in the country's transportation infrastructure has been well documented.
The current funding mechanism cannot meet the challenge of funding these projects and the political
reality of no new taxes, particularly on fuel, is obvious.
If we fail to improve the infrastructure we may find increased delays due to greater highway congestion as
well as bridge closures for safety concerns. These delays will increase our commute "costs," as well as
shipping costs.
Alternatively we may see "user fees" such as the increased use of highway tolls, higher license fees on
heavy equipment, conversion of free HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes to fee-based lanes and use of
the private sector to provide necessary highway programs.
While it is not clear exactly how a new highway revenue system will be structured, it is clear that one way
or another it is going to cost us more to drive.
As economists say: There is no such thing as a free lunch
15
Short money means a short legislative session
By John Fuquay
Staff writer
RALEIGH — Unlike a year ago, available money for this year's budget will leave little room for lawmakers to
wrangle and will likely result in a relatively speedy session.
"The goal is eight weeks," said Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat. "We should be able to finish fairly
quickly."
The session begins Tuesday. With less money available, lawmakers will have little room to pad some of their
priorities, such as enhancing teacher pay and supplementing dropout prevention programs.
Two areas sure to receive attention this session are transportation and mental health. Last year, lawmakers
came to Raleigh with a $2 billion surplus and applied $1.8 billion of new spending to a record $20.7 billion
budget.
This year, a sour economy has left a much smaller surplus. A third-quarter budget report released last week
projects a $152 million surplus from income tax, sales tax and other sources at the end of the fiscal year June
30. The current budget also is expected to leave $400 million in unspent money.
Lawmakers use so-called "short" sessions in even -numbered years to make midyear adjustments to the biennial
budget. They usually save drastic cuts, tax increases and other controversies for long sessions in odd years.
State employees normally get an annual raise — a 1 percent increase costs about $100 million.
Gov. Mike Easley's chief budget adviser, Dan Gerlach, said the surplus is $67 million less than projected,
which will require cuts. In Easley's budget, to be released Monday, Gerlach said most of the cuts will come
from making state agencies reduce costs and tighten spending.
None of the cuts would be felt in the classroom or in human services, he said. There are also no plans for
university tuition increases.
There is still room for teacher and state employee raises, a new drought team in the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, probation and parole staff and added support services for military
families, such as helping pay college tuition for children who lost parents in combat.
The governor's budget is a non-binding recommendation for the General Assembly.
Gerlach declined to reveal specific amounts of cuts or new spending, but said the governor's budget is 4
percent above the current spending plan, which would top $21 billion.
A large expense to be debated is the amount to spend on the state's highways.
A transportation study group is asking lawmakers to consider a $2 billion bond package that would require
voter approval in November.
Lawmakers approved debt last year for water and sewer projects that did not need voter approval, but they
withheld new money for roads.
Meanwhile, the gap between available highway funding and the need to keep pace with growth is reaching
mind-boggling numbers. The state Department of Transportation estimates that $65 billion for road projects
will be needed in the next 30 years.
16
Both Senate party leaders — Democrat Tony Rand of Fayetteville and Republican Phil Berger of Rockingham
County have endorsed spending for highways. Berger wants at least $2 billion, while Rand says "as much as
possible."
"We'll look at it in the context of all our other monetary issues. What's the funding potential? What can we
do?" Rand said. "How can we `securitize' our income stream and build as much as possible? Infrastructure is a
good investment. It has a stimulus effect."
Rep. Paul Stam, the House minority leader, also supports a $2 billion plan for roads. He and Berger say the
General Assembly should stop the annual $172 million transfer from a highway reserve fund into the state's
general fund to help pay for education, public health, prisons and most other agencies. The transfer began years
ago and was meant to be temporary.
The Republican leaders say the money, which comes from the state gas tax, would be enough to cover annual
bond payments.
Gerlach said the governor's budget does not include bond money for transportation, but it does begin a phase-
out of the annual fund transfer.
If a bond is approved by voters, the money would be used over several years, going to state road programs and
matching federal funds for U.S. and interstate highway expansions to relieve congestion and make roads safer.
Glazier also supports bond money for roads, but he said lawmakers will debate the amount.
He said the General Assembly will also address mental health. Recent news reports in Raleigh cast doubt on
the effectiveness of mental health spending. Glazier suggests a long, thorough review.
"There should not be a knee-jerk reaction to the mental health reform problems," Glazier said. "But there
should be a serious attempt to get a grip on both the structure of mental health and the resources available."
He said more substantive reform should be considered next year.
Rand agrees that mental health needs scrutiny. "We need to stabilize the mental health system to make sure
money goes where it needs to go," he said.
The governor's budget takes away money from mental health administation and provides more for services,
Gerlach said.
Among other issues awaiting lawmakers is a proposed moratorium on forced annexation. Rep. Joe Boylan, a
Moore County Republican, is among a group of lawmakers expected to propose a one-year ban on the law that
lets cities take in surrounding unincorporated areas. A House committee is recommending a statewide
moratorium until June 30, 2009, which would give lawmakers time next year to change the law.
Residents forced into a city by annexation oppose having to wait years for water and sewer connections while
having to pay city property taxes immediately.
About 42,000 Fayetteville residents were unwillingly annexed in 2006, and the annexation of the Gates Four
subdivision is pending. Annexations also are pending in several surrounding counties.
In another expected bill, Rep. Margaret Dickson, a Fayetteville Democrat, said she intends to bring camera
enforcement of red-light traffic violations back to Fayetteville. Cumberland County schools support the bill.
Associate Superintendent Ricky Lopes said the ticket revenue would provide up to $600,000 for the school
system.
The revenue was used until 2006, when the state Appeals Court said the funding formula was unfair to
Fayetteville because revenue failed to cover the city's expenses after the school system received 90 percent of
the revenue. Lopes said Dickson's bill has a formula that would not cost the city.
17
Supervisors Reject Route 7 Proposal
By Julia O'Donoghue
Thursday, May 08, 2008
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has asked the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
to hold a hearing on the addition of second left -turn lane from Route 7 to Georgetown Pike.
Supervisor John Foust (D-Dranesville) had tried to get the board to reject the idea of adding a second
turn lane altogether but he could not get any of the other board members to support his proposal. The
other supervisors on the board had concerns about rejecting a traffic pattern they had previously
approved for the area.
Foust said the new traffic pattern would encourage more drivers to use Georgetown Pike for
commuting, especially since VDOT was now delaying the widening of Route 7 all the way to Tysons
Corner.
"All they are doing is dumping traffic from Route 7 onto Georgetown Pike.... We should take care of
Fairfax County residents not Loudoun County residents," he said.
Foust added that the money saved by eliminating plans for the dual left turn lane could be used to
widen Route 7 further down the corridor.
The other supervisors said that commuters had already found their way onto back roads in many
areas of the county.
"Unfortunately, this is a problem that we all have. Residents are already finding their paths to work
through neighborhoods," said Cathy Hudgins (D - Hunter Mill).
Board chairman Gerry Connolly also said there are safety concerns at the intersection. Traffic backs up
to such an extent in the one existing left -turn lane that cars are sticking out into oncoming through
traffic, he said.
18
Kaine plans special session over transportation funding
The governor will lead a series of town hall -style meetings to promote
his funding proposal.
By Michael Sluss
(804) 697-1585
RICHMOND -- Gov. Tim Kaine will call the General Assembly into a special session on June 23
to consider new transportation funding proposals, administration officials said Wednesday.
Kaine wants lawmakers to repair regional funding plans for Northern Virginia and Hampton
Roads and to approve tax increases to pay for rising highway maintenance costs throughout the
state. Kaine will unveil his own transportation plan next week and begin a series of town hall -
style meetings to promote the proposal in advance of the special session.
Kaine has raised the possibility of pursuing an increase in the sales tax on vehicles, a proposal
that lawmakers have twice rejected during his term. He has not ruled out seeking an increase in
the state's 17.5 -cents -a -gallon gas tax, despite record -high prices at the pump.
Virginia's latest transportation funding debate was triggered by a Virginia Supreme Court ruling
in February that invalidated the tax -collecting powers of regional authorities in Northern Virginia
and Hampton Roads. The court ruled that unelected bodies could not impose the tax increases
that would fund transportation projects in the two congested regions. The regional plans were key
pieces of a transportation funding bill passed last year.
Lawmakers must revamp the regional funding plans to comply with the court's ruling. But Kaine
has said the regional fixes will mean little if lawmakers fail to approve additional statewide
revenue to pay for rising highway maintenance costs.
Virginia transportation officials reported earlier this year that a slowing economy and rising
maintenance costs would force the state to divert $388 million in highway construction funds to
meet maintenance needs during the fiscal year that begins July 1. The deficit could balloon to
more than $575 million by 2014 unless lawmakers approve new revenue for maintenance,
according to Kaine's administration. By law, road maintenance has priority over new
construction.
Lawmakers from Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads met near Richmond on Wednesday to
discuss needs in their traffic clogged regions. Some lawmakers from those regions have said they
can support new statewide taxes for highway maintenance, but only if the regions keep the
revenue they generate.
A group of 25 business and advocacy organizations sent a letter Tuesday to Kaine and state
lawmakers urging them to approve transportation tax increases. The coalition, which includes the
Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, insisted the state needs at least $1 billion annually in
new revenue for transportation. The group called for an unspecified increase in the state gasoline
tax and a 1 percentage -point increase in the retail sales tax.
19
"All of the arguments have been made," the letter states. "The needs are great, and the time for
action is at hand."
9C
Item 6: Other
21