Loading...
TC 09-29-08 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 - Transportation a -e RE: September 29, 2008 Transportation Committee Meeting DATE: September 22, 2008 The Frederick County Transportation Committee will be meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, September 29, 2008 in the first floor meeting room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. AGENDA 1. PhotoRed Enforcement 2. Revenue Sharing Priorities 3. Enhancement Grant Application 4. Article Review 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: PhotoRed Enforcement Attached please find summary information and an example ordinance for the PhotoRed program. Unless the Committee has additional questions or concerns, staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 2 Photo Red Enforcement Key Questions 1. What must be done first? Per code of Virginia section 15.2-968.1, the locality must pass an ordinance establishing a traffic signal enforcement program imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle. Maximum fine $50. Once the ordinance has been established or concurrently it would be appropriate for the Board to appoint a committee to issue and RFP and work toward obtaining a vendor. The County would also be required to undertake a public information campaign prior to beginning the program. This effort would be spearheaded by the vendor. 2. How many intersections are we allowed to enforce using cameras? 1 per 10,000 of population. Currently for Frederick County, that would equate to 7 intersections. 3. Where do we put the cameras? The County would work with VDOT and the chosen vendor to study key intersections to determine if they are feasible candidates for photo red enforcement. The vendor undertakes the cost of the study. All locations must receive final approval by VDOT. 4. What is the implementation cost? Physical installation would be at no cost to the County. 5. What is the operations cost? Maintenance, repairs, and billing are taken care of by the vendor. There would be some minimal cost to the County in the form of staff and possibly computer costs for a deputy to review and approve the violations on a daily basis. Contract costs with the vendor are covered by the violation revenue. 6. What is the revenue potential? The purpose of photo red enforcement is to improve safety through improved compliance with traffic laws, however there does tend to be a surplus of fine revenue that varies by location. 7. Are there limitations on the use of the revenue? No. However, it would be recommended that the revenue be reinvested in the transportation system as matching funds for revenue sharing or other grant programs, or as County funding on transportation projects. City of Fairfax Sec. 98-21. Use of pboto-monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals; penalty. (a) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the registered owner of a vehicle on record with the department of motor vehicles. "Traffic light signal violation monitoring system" means a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded images of each vehicle at the time that the operator of the vehicle fails to stop or remain stopped at a steady red traffic light signal in violationof Code of Virginia, §§ 46.2-833, 46.2-835; or 46.2-836, as amended, which are incorporated by reference in section 98-1. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally entered that intersection.. (b) The city manager or the city manager's designee may install and operate traffic light signal violation monitoring systems at no more than ten intersections in the city for the purpose of imposing monetary liability on the operator of a motor vehicle for failure to comply with traffic light signals in the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. (c) The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light signal witlun the city. (d) Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law enforcement officer employed by the city authorized to impose penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs; microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to this section. (e) In the prosecution of an offense established under this section, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the summons issued pursuant to subsection (d) above was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle was the person who committed the violation. Such presumption shall be rebuttedif the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle (i) files an affidavit by regular mail with the clerk of the general district court for the city that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation or (ii) testifies in the general district court for the city, under oath that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such presumption shall also be rebutted if a certified copy of a police report, showing that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time of the alleged violation of this section, is presented, prior to the return date established on the summons issued pursuant to this section, to the general district court for the city adjudicating the alleged violation. (f) Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made a part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. No monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this section shall exceed $50.00, nor shall it include court costs. (g) A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to Code of Virginia, § 19.2-76.2, as amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Code of Virginia, § 19.2-76, as amended, the summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the address of the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle as shown, in the case of vehicle owners, in the records of the department of motor vehicles or, in the case of the vehicle lessees or renters, in the records of the lessee or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person's ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection (e) and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in Code of Virginia, § 19.2-76.3, as amended. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 60 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation. (h) Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system installed and operated pursuant to this section shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the enforcement of traffic light violations. A private entity may not obtain records on behalf of the city regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with traffic light signals. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs, microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system shall be used exclusively for enforcing traffic light violations and shall not (i) be open to the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light violation or to a vehicle owner or operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of Code of Virginia, §§ 46.2-833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836, as amended, or is requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If the city does not execute a summons for a violation of this section within ten business days, all information collected pertaining to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days. The city shall annually certify compliance with this section and make all records pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the commonwealth transportation commissioner or the commissioner of the department of motor vehicles or his designee. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000.00. (i) A private entity may enter into an agreement with the city to be compensated for providing the traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment, and all related support services, to include consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law enforcement officer employed by the city may swear to or affirm the certificate required by subsection (d). The city shall not enter into an agreement for compensation based on the number of violations or monetary penalties imposed. (j) )XIen selecting potential intersections for a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, the city shall consider factors such as (i) the accident rate for the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection (number of violations per number of vehicles), (iii) the difficulty experienced by law enforcement officers in patrol cars or on foot in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability of law enforcement officers to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation. The city may consider the risk to pedestrians as a factor, if applicable. The city shall submit a list of intersections to the Virginia Department of Transportation for final approval. (k) Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system at an intersection, the city shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location -specific safety features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on the recommended methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. All traffic light signal violation monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5 -second grace period between the time the signal turns red and thetime the first violation is recorded. If recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the city shall make reasonable location -specific safety improvements, including signs and pavement markings. (1) The city shall evaluate the traffic light signal violation monitoring system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public. (m) The city shall place conspicuous signs within 500 feet of the intersection approach at which a traffic light signal violation monitoring system is used. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such signs were in place at the time of the commission of the traffic light signal violation. (n) Prior to or coincident with the implementation or expansion of a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, the city shall conduct a public awareness program, advising the public that the city is implementing or expanding a traffic light signal violation monitoring system. (Code 1978, § 13-26.2; Ord. No. 1999-20, 7-27-1999; Ord. No. 2000-19, 9-26-2000; Ord. No. 2007-14, 6-26-2007) Item 2: Revenue Sharing Priorities Attached please find a copy of VDOT analysis regarding the Routes 50 and 522 areas surrounding the Winchester Medical Center Interchange. An approach has been suggested regarding these improvements that would require partial County participation in the form of the revenue sharing program on a multiyear basis. Staff is seeking a discussion of this strategy by the committee and a potential recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. M.ouT".e 371 Route 50 f koute 522 System Improvement Concepts September 10, 2008 Staunton District Planning A • Sorne examples in flhe �mmsdftte vichilty of the Winchester Medical Center: 4illow Run "AftW! lorn-erb y (Remaining D,evelopmenL a Transportation per f-ormance measured by: Letvej_Qf Level of ServkP;gt3 w L+C�S NIT rp(1S{,•rrla'all rd S (a) tc 7Z= What it means Mung Wx.dwoy At It lot,,o �n� Ir E art kw [anti ct,!c .I Y. In 19 NIT rp(1S{,•rrla'all rd 'c"m 3I,)p tc • Three different ey es of weaves: Type A, B & C • Vehl,calle%sthat mast cross the path of of her dehi%cles such as a • Three key thing ��e consider: ExHIBIT 13.8. 'TYPE A WSWING SEWENTS a RaMP4.1 awa -------------------- - - - - -- C ---------------------------- B E CRIBIT 139. TYPES WEAVING SEGMENTS a, ftajorY4sewim Esse 89— A st Fxit CAre S ttaJorVhtan wish tdngru A --+-•_.._ FnIaY Caro _-.�...,.---' C _ cElajal Y.bwawiCr t: ergs KEnN Core anp iane6alarg.t Crit Gore A_ ___________ _ _ C i Y_Ff iy MiNUT 13.10. TYPE C 1MVI iGSEGIIII413 �, a.AajorY.ariewiftiALana esmofmaigilg A- _ --= �.-----mac.-------- C t TIA"lleC t'tcme A - - - --- -- -- --- - - - - - p -`------- ----------------- .. B .,-.rn campus) 0 Winchester Medical Center Bridge CoNectorlDfistributor Roads (CO Lanes) Large Scale improver Partial V -M -C inteirchange/ParaNei Roadvivay System-mvide impravwnents (13 -fiery ir provements System -wide Improvements (3 -tier) F-Zt- 5,11, V H S ra in% iibU i T, 7" ui f7j 74M IL Rt. ''e *not to scale Rte. 522 Hospital Interchange Rte. 50 System -ride improvements (3 -tier' $19.-$25 million Potential Project Planning -level Cost Estimate (2007 $'s) Construct additional thru lane along Rt. 37 from a point north of Rt. 522 to a point south of Rt. 50 in each a direction; Rt. 50, Rt. 522, VHS ramp improvements as necessary 6,800,000 Rt. 522 — Add 1 thru lane for EB and WB 1,800,000 Add 1 lane to SB on-ramp 1,100,000 Add 1 LTL to SB on-ramp 500,000 Add 1 lane to NB on-ramp 1,100,000 Add 1 LTL to NB on-ramp 500,000 Make WB RTL a free movement to NB on-ramp 400,000 Rt. 50 — Add 1 lane to SB off -ramp 900,000 Add 1 SB off -ramp LTL 400,000 Add 1 NB off -ramp RTL 500,000 b Add 1 EB thru lane 800,000 Add 1 WB thru lane to SB off -ramp 900,000 Make EB RTL to SB on-ramp channelized and free - movement 600,000 Make SB off -ramp RTL channelized and free- movement 800,000 Add 1 lane to NB on-ramp 1,100,000 Make WB RTL a free movement to NB on-ramp 500,000 Extend EB RTL at Campus Blvd to full length RTL 400,000 C Combination of projects a+b 19,100,000 $19.-$25 million Thank you. Questions? Item 3: Enhancement Grant Application Once again, staff is pursuing Enhancement Grant funds for the Senseny Road corridor in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School (graphic attached). This is our third consecutive application for this project. The previous two applications have resulted in nearly $400,000.00 in awards not including County matching funds. N }{ •`{•KEEN MRCS fiFRrlr�Gt-nfYL$ � ' ASRAM5 POfNf E% ylili r ,� •, `", ..± q MAW, FIt,I,J¢ , ow of +, C AM jLl- CROSsmKil. f. .. I UN RW OF Olt - _ •" - -. FAIRWRYF.$TATES ..:',; s yy� , „11.. I .PAI ION s +�, .. 7 r 81•_M11RYDC,k fi[.IGHi S. - k �'..' „.y1y... " w ' 'h �! Y � I _ �4 4' - w 5 -+'- a . •, r,1 GI i F N'VGOO l-1k..IGHTS kF fo L 0' 1 -r;f I'fiZ`S,. Item 4: Article Review Fairfax Station -Clifton - The Connection Newspapers Pagel of 3 Fairfax Station ^* Clifton HOT Lanes Contract Negotiations Continue Email this Article Construction of Interstate 95/395 HOT Lanes will not begin before 2010. By Nicholas M. Horrock Friday, September 19, 2008 The Virginia Department of Transportation and private group Fluor/Transurban are in contract negotiations for the $1.2 billion, 56 -mile High Occupancy Toll Lanes project that will ultimately stretch from the Pentagon to the Route 17 in Stafford County. These car pool lanes would be free to vehicles with three or more occupants and open to others by paying a toll. If it is completed, said Robert Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, it will be the longest leased toll lanes project in the United States. The state signed an agreement in October 2006 with Fluor/Transurban to begin the planning, but the actual contract must still be worked out. Early reports suggested the contract would be completed by December 2008 and construction could begin in 2009. But Steven M. Titunik, Communications Director, VDOT Mega Projects Center, said "We are a anticipating a deal closure by end of 2009." The cost estimate is likely to grow by the end of 2009 considering that a 14 -mile Beltway project now underway is priced at $1.9 billion and Interstates 95 and 395 may end up being more complex. Titunik said that the project was not delayed. "When you plan these types of projects some early estimated start dates might be ambitious," he said. "When you get into the weeds and really start taking it apart [with] reviews, preliminary engineering and outreach to elected officials and citizens, time has a way of moving out a bit. Once you get into the project, it takes time to really get into the entire process. This is a hell of a big project," he said. He said the Interstates 95 and 395 HOT Lanes will be built in two phases. Phase I will be the 28 miles from Arlington's Eads Street near the Pentagon to Dumfries. Phase II would be from Dumfries south another 28 miles to where Route 17 intersects Interstate 95. VDOT IS planning at least two major public hearings on the plans and a series of briefings and contacts with public officials along the route, Titunik said. The Interstates 95 and 395 HOT Lanes project is the second project that VDOT has leased to Fluor/Transurban. The company broke ground this summer on a Beltway HOT Lanes project that runs from Route 193 some 14 miles to Springfield and will later connect with cars desiring to use the speed lanes to get to Tysons Corner and beyond. HOT Lanes are designed to allow drivers who are willing to pay a fee to enter lanes where the traffic would move faster than the crowded regular lanes of the Beltway or Interstates 95 and 395. It was first proposed in the early 2000s when traffic in Northern Virginia was virtually strangling the main routes to Washington, D.C. and around the Beltway. Under the contract, the HOT Lanes must accommodate drivers for free who have two http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/articleprint.asp?article=319809&paper=81 &cat=104 9/22/2008 Fairfax Station -Clifton - The Connection Newspapers or more passengers and who now use the old HOV lanes. In the Interstates 95 and 395 project, the developer will be converting HOV lanes to HOT Lanes. THE NATIONAL economic crisis and several unexpected reversals have left the ambitious Northern Virginia transportation plans in disarray. Though the Dulles Corridor Rail project has received early approval, its development timetable is in doubt and other road repairs and construction were put on hold when the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a plan to let the Northern Virginia Transit Authority collect taxes and issue $3 billion in bonds to pay for the improvements. Republicans in the House of Delegates scotched any plans to restore this money in a special session in June. This has left the only two new "mega projects," adding HOT Lanes to the Beltway and the Interstate 95/395 Corridor, still moving forward. In theory, this is because the money for these two projects comes from a private contractor and not taxpayers. In fact, as the Beltway contract showed, Fluor/Transurban put up relatively little of the $1.9 billion cost. Virginia contributed a $409 million grant and U.S. Department of Transportation loaned Fluor/Transurban $588 million and issued $600 million in "private activity" bonds to the partnership. The money is to be repaid by the tolls on the highway. The Beltway contract leases the HOT Lanes to Fluor/Transurban for 80 years, allowing five years for construction and an opening is planned for 2013. Titunik said the Interstate 95/395 project will have a similar long lease, but that all other details of the contract are being worked out and will not necessarily include items in the Beltway contract. UNDER THE BUSH Administration, the Department of Transportation has actively pushed the "privatization" of highway construction projects and the use of toll lanes as a way of managing traffic congestion. James S. Simpson, chief of the Federal Transportation Administration, told a transportation conference in San Francisco in June that "We need to do a better job of leveraging our public funds and taking advantage of the $400 billion in capital the private sector has available to invest in infrastructure." He pointed to several successful projects in Europe. But though managing traffic congestion through tolls has become popular with cashed strapped state and local governments, many of the voters and state officials have backed away from giving private companies long leases on state roads. Last month, Fitch Ratings, a major credit agency on highway construction, changed the outlook on toll roads to "negative" from a "stable" issued as recently as March 2008. It reported that returns on many roads had not met expectations. Transurban, the Australian partner for Fluor, has felt this pinch. On June 30, 2008, it posted a $140 million loss in revenues. It already operates two roads in Virginia, the new Beltway lease with 78 years to run on Route 495 and 97 more years to run on Pocahontas Parkway near Richmond. The long leases that Virginia gave Fluor/Transurban without a public bidding have been a sharp point of criticism in the Beltway project. Steward Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Sierra Club and others questioned why the state could not build and collect the tolls directly. The newspaper.com, a trade blog reporting on the politics of public roads, reported last month that Transurban received $13.7 million in tolls and fees from running Pocahontas Parkway, which barely covered the payout to departing chief executive officer Kim Edwards whose salary and benefits on leaving came to $14, 316,553. Earlier this year, Transurban admitted making some $170,000 in illegal contributions Page 2 of 3 http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/articleprint.asp?article=319809&paper=81&cat=104 9/22/2008 Fairfax Station -Clifton - The Connection Newspapers to 90 Virginia political races. IN THE BELTWAY project, Virginia also agreed that if the use of car pooling exceeded the contract expectations of Fluor/Transurban, the state would pay amounts equal to 70 percent of the tolls "applicable" for the number of "High Occupancy Vehicles" using the HOT Lanes. Before the fuel crisis, this item would not have meant much. But beginning in June as gas prices hit $4 a gallon, car pooling on the Interstate 95/395 Corridor exploded. This system, a private, ad hoc picking up of riders known as "slugging" allows a driver to pick up one, two or more riders from several locations in Prince William and Fairfax County and use the HOV lanes. The same process can be used going back south at night. The institution begun in the 1970s has carried hundreds of thousands of people to and from Washington and the Pentagon. Titunik, for instance, a former Department of the Army official, used the slug lines to get to work at the Pentagon. He believes that one of the important things in the public meetings will find out what the "slugs" want. He said additional pickup points may be important, particularly in the 28 miles south of Dumfries. He said VDOT will also seek information from public officials. Corey Stewart the chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors has been opposed to HOT Lanes from the beginning. He and others think the cost is far too great and in the end will destroy a public, informal system of moving people. to vour comniunitN ©2008 Connection Newspapers. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy 7913 Westpark Dr. ♦ McLean, VA 22102 ♦ 703-821-5050 Site Design, Development and Hosting by Timberlake Publishing Page 3 of 3 http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/articleprint.asp?article=319809&paper=81&cat=104 9/22/2008 Looking for Sign -Free Roadsides County Considers Fact With VDOT By Sandhya Somashekhar Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 18, 2008; Page LZ01 Sick of those diet and day-care ads that clutter up the side of the road? Annoyed by the campaign signs that crop up in the median every year around election time? You're not alone. "They're the bane of our existence," said Joan Morris, a spokeswoman for the Virginia Department of Transportation. "Visual litter," said Loudoun County Supervisor James Burton (I -Blue Ridge). "It's organized crime," said Supervisor Stevens Miller (D -Dulles). Loudoun officials are considering cracking down on the signs, which not only annoy community leaders but also could also pose a safety hazard if they impair lines of sight, VDOT officials said. No signs are permitted in the VDOT right of way, Morris said, but VDOT does not have the time or staff to remove the ones that spring up by the thousands along roadways and in medians across Northern Virginia. On Tuesday, the Loudoun Board of Supervisors voted overwhelmingly to begin negotiating an agreement with VDOT that would allow members of the county's zoning staff and perhaps citizen volunteers to help clean up the signs. Any agreement would need to come back to the board for final approval. VDOT has such an agreement with Fairfax County, according to Loudoun officials. Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R -Sterling) cast the lone no vote, saying the money needed for a crackdown on signs would be better spent on zoning enforcement in his district. For nearly a year, the county has been trying to spruce up parts of Sterling with proactive zoning enforcement. Inspectors have been on the lookout for violations such as crowded homes -- an effort that county officials say they might not be able to continue without more funding. Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R -Broad Run) noted that some church congregations meet at schools and other makeshift locations and do not have permanent markers. She suggested that they be exempted from new regulations. County officials also discussed whether to prosecute repeat offenders of rules on signage. Typically, VDOT only removes signs that block visibility, Morris said. Every year, the department sends letters to candidates reminding them that campaign signs are not allowed in the right of way. But the problem does not abate, she said. "They're all over the place," she said. "Unfortunately, Northern Virginia is littered with these signs. They're trash.... But we don't have the money or the staff to do anything much about it." Several supervisors, including Miller, said they were reluctant to devote resources to new zoning enforcement programs when officials are bracing for a brutal budget season. But Burton, who proposed the sign crackdown, said the effort need not be an overwhelming task. "I don't think it is an extraordinary burden to ask our inspectors on a Friday afternoon ... to fill up the back of a pickup truck and drop them off at the landfill," he said. Also Tuesday, the board discussed making it a criminal offense to repeatedly allow too many people to live in a single-family home. Residential crowding in Loudoun carries a civil penalty. Although criminal violations could result in a heftier punishment than civil violations, they are harder to prove. The board is expected to take up the issue this fall. The board also discussed, without making a final decision, a suggestion by Burton to reduce the proposed size of a sheriffs substation planned for western Loudoun. Now trim highway pork: Printer -friendly version C* Vast ub Crourkr char tsti Now trim highway pork Monday, September 15, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Congress' approval of a rescue plan for the federal highway fund will ensure that states can meet their contract obligations and that road projects will go forward. The next step for the fund's long-term health should be eliminating, or drastically reducing, the earmark projects that drain limited transportation resources. Declining revenues were expected to put the highway fund $8.3 billion in the hole by the end of September, with another month left in the federal fiscal year. Compare that to the $24 billion cost of earmarked transportation projects for the year, and the argument for reform is easy to make. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters' call for an emergency appropriation was finalized with a voice vote in the Senate last week and is expected to be signed by President Bush, despite the earlier threat of a veto. Previously, a White House spokesman described the use of general revenues by the highway fund as "a dangerous precedent that shifts costs from users to taxpayers at large." More threatening to taxpayer interests is the persistence of highway pork. Secretary Peters said that the long-term financial health of federal highway funding requires that Congress "eliminate the billions in wasted spending, thousands of unneeded earmarks and hundreds of conflicting and contradictory special interest programs." Earmarks are typically obtained by members of Congress outside the normal process, thereby avoiding the requisite scrutiny for example, Alaska's notorious "Bridge to Nowhere." Congress had been warned of the problems with highway funding early this summer, when revenue losses became apparent with the decline in miles driven and in gas purchases. In a hearing before a congressional subcommittee in June, S.C. Transportation Secretary H.B. "Buck" Limehouse outlined the problems facing the highway fund and urged Congress to expand the revenue stream beyond the gas tax — an action that the funding emergency has since forced. "The fuel tax has proven ineffective in meeting the demands made on our highway system. This is a shrinking revenue source, and it doesn't apply to highway users who drive alternative fuel vehicles," Mr. Limehouse told the congressional panel. Without reform, the federal highway fund can expect more woes down the road. The difficulty in providing basic highway funding argues first for sharp cuts to highway earmarks. http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/sep/15/now trim highway_pork54545/?print 9/22/2008 Turnpike lease plan might fizzle - Breaking Midstate News with The Patriot -News Turnpike lease plan might fizzle Posted by dimiller September 14, 2008 23:54PM Patriot-NewsGov Legislature. Pagel of 3 STINE BAKER, The Ed Rendell's plan to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike might fall flat with the With the federal government's rejection of a plan to toll Interstate 80, Gov. Ed Rendell is pushing lawmakers to approve his proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to generate cash for highways and mass transit. But a turnpike lease might not get a vote in the General Assembly this year, or even much debate. Lawmakers return to the Capitol this week for an abbreviated fall session, but the turnpike deal suffers from a seeming lack of solid support in the General Assembly. Even some of Rendell's fellow Democrats oppose the plan. The issue is a hot potato that few lawmakers want to consider in the midst of re-election campaigns. "It's a hard vote regardless. It's even a worse vote when you're running for re-election," said Rep. Steve Nickol, R -Hanover. He is among those who consider the lease option to be the least unattractive of the options for highway funding. "In the context of a political campaign, you're not really going to be able to sit down and have a full discussion with people about it," said Nickol, who is retiring after this term. The federal government rejected the state's plans to put tolls on I-80 for the first time. The Federal Highway Administration cited several weaknesses in the application, including insufficient studies of traffic and revenue. A transportation funding plan approved by the state Legislature last year relied on money from tolling I- 80. http://blog.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/2008/09/turnpike lease_plan_might_fizz/print.h... 9/22/2008 Turnpike lease plan might fizzle - Breaking Midstate News with The Patriot -News Page 2 of 3 With tolling I-80 on the shelf, Rendell said leasing the turnpike offers the best chance to generate badly needed money for road and bridge repairs and cash-strapped mass transit systems. A consortium led by a Spanish transportation company, Abertis Infraestructuras, has offered the state $12.8 billion for the right to operate the turnpike and claim its toll proceeds for 75 years. Rendell said Thursday that leasing the turnpike is "the most viable, most reasonable thing we can do." The governor has said leasing the turnpike would create a pool of money that could generate up to $1.1 billion a year for transportation needs. Critics in the Legislature say they are leery of turning over the turnpike because of the prospect of big increases in tolls, and some worry that many of the turnpike's 2,200 employees would lose their jobs. Some have said they aren't comfortable turning over the toll road to a foreign company. Rendell has said that any lease deal would include protections to limit the size of toll increases and to ensure that maintenance would be done. "There are good, sound checks and balances in there that will protect the interests of the people of Pennsylvania," Rendell said. "We have nothing to fear from leasing the turnpike." Public support appears to be lacking. An independent poll on the lease conducted this summer found respondents opposed by a 2-1 ratio. Senate Republican leaders, who control the calendar in that chamber, stopped short of rejecting a lease deal on Friday. But they also sent a clear message that they have little interest in taking up that issue this year. "The wiser course is to wait and address it next session," said Erik Arneson, the policy director for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R -Delaware County. "If that means we need to rebid [the lease deal], chances are pretty good we'll have more bidders next year." The Abertis bid was the best of three received this spring. A spokesman for the consortium, Jim Courtovich, confirmed Friday that the offer will remain on the table through the end of the current legislative session. If the economy improves, it's possible the state could receive more bidders offering better proposals, Arneson said. There is time to wait since the current transportation funding plan drives $850 million in turnpike - backed bond proceeds to the state Department of Transportation this fiscal year and $900 million in fiscal 2009-10, Arneson added. Those bonds do not depend on I-80 tolls but will be paid off through a 25 percent increase in turnpike fares taking effect in January. Leaders of the House Democrats, who have the majority in their chamber, are split on the plan. Appropriations Committee Chairman Dwight Evans, D -Philadelphia, agrees with Rendell that the Abertis proposal should be dealt with immediately and said he will work toward that end. http://blog.pennlive.comlmidstate impact/2008/09lturnpike_lease_plan might_fizzlprint.h... 9/22/2008 Turnpike lease plan might fizzle - Breaking Midstate News with The Patriot -News Page 3 of 3 I believe it is our best available option," Evans said in a statement. "This is about the safety and security of our roads, bridges and transit systems. We have a crisis here, and one way or another, we have to deal with it." But Majority Whip Keith McCall, D -Carbon, opposes leasing the turnpike. His office has dismissed it as a "fire sale to a foreign country," that imposes all the load for new transportation funding on turnpike drivers. McCall has supported higher real estate sales taxes, vehicle registration fees and driver's license fees to boost transportation funding. 0 Categories: Breaking News Comments Footer http://blog.pennlive.comlmidstate_impact/2008/09lturnpike_lease—Plan might fizzlprint.h... 9/22/2008 Associated Press States worry over bonds backed by federal money By TOM B R E E N 09.11.08, 12:56 PM ET CHARLESTON, W.VA. The bankruptcy of the federal highway trust fund halted road work around the country and sparked fears that state governments would be on the hook for billions of dollars in bonds they had planned to pay off with money from Washington. While Congress works on a quick injection of $8 billion to the fund, highway planners say that's only a temporary fix and that the whole system of funding road projects is structurally flawed. "It's just a big mess," summed up Jack Basso, chief operating officer of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. One of the things that has states worried is a type of bond called a Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle, universally known as a GARVEE. These bonds became popular at the end of the last decade because they allowed states to start highway projects without having cash on hand and usually without having to raise gas taxes or put the bond question to the voters in a referendum. But the bonds were issued with the idea that federal highway trust funds would always be there to cover the debt - and the federal highway trust depends on gas tax revenues that have fallen dramatically as prices spike at the pump. GARVEE bonds are issued by states and pledged against anticipated future federal transportation grants - in other words, states promise to pay back debt on the bonds with federal money they expect to receive. During the past decade, the amount of money tied to GARVEE bond issues has grown from about $1 billion to roughly $18 billion, according to Basso. Today, 21 states and the Virgin Islands are using GARVEE bonds to finance projects, according to the Federal Highway Administration. The federalgovernment, though, has never guaranteed the bonds. Instead, bondholders have purchased them with the assumption that states can rely on annual grants from Washington. "The whole promise of those bonds is the debt will be paid with federal dollars," said John Horsley, executive director of AASHTO. "When you lose the federal dollars, it puts states that have issued bonds in a terrible bind." Last week's announcement that the trust fund was broke made some states pull back immediately from planned projects. Arkansas, Oklahoma and Arizona delayed plans to build a combined $265 million worth of projects. The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department announced Monday it will postpone a $24 million highway project in West Memphis. The state has issued about $575 million in GARVEE bonds, agency spokesman Randy Ort said, and its two annual payments on the bonds amount to roughly $73.5 million a year. State officials do not relish having to find that money elsewhere in the budget. "In Arkansas, like everywhere else, we are a cash flow agency," Ort said. "We don't sit on huge balances of cash." Oklahoma officials delayed highway projects worth about $83 million, and in Arizona six projects worth at least $158 million have been put on hold. GARVEE bonds are not the immediate spur to those decisions, which come from concerns about the federal government switching its highway payments from daily to weekly increments, and possibly reducing its share of projects from 80 percent of the cost to 70 percent. State officials whose next GARVEE payments are months away are also counting on Congress to step in with an infusion of cash before the situation gets worse. "It's not on the immediate horizon, so there's not a sense of panic," said Doug Nintzel, spokesman for the Department of Transportation in Arizona, where the next GARVEE payment of $7.2 million isn't due until January. In West Virginia, where GARVEE bonds are paying for a $74 million project on U.S. Rte. 35, the next payment isn't due until March. "If Congress doesn't take action, the potential is there to delay projects," state DOT spokesman Brent Walker said. On Wednesday, the Senate approved a bailout of the fund, with the House of Representatives expected to follow suit as early as Thursday. Even with enough cash to ride out the current storm, though, GARVEE bonds may be a leading reason why the current transportation funding system - which relies on the federal gas tax to replenish the trust fund - needs to be rethought. "The system isn't just broke, it's broken," said Robert Puentes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program and the co-author of a 2005 study on GARVEE bonds. As high gas prices drive down the amount of gasoline taxes collected - Americans drove 50 billion fewer miles between November 2007 and June 2008 than during the same period a year before - relying on those taxes to lard the trust fund, and on that trust fund as the revenue source for state bonds, may be untenable. "The bank is busted and we're going to be living hand to mouth," said Joe Deneault, chairman of West Virginians for Better Transportation, which is advocating long-term solutions to road funding. "That's no way to plan highway projects." Item 5: Other