Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, July 19, 1993 TAG: 9307190051
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAY TAYLOR CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The makeup of the committee, formed after a 1991 study showed that Virginia could fall far short of funding all its transportation needs within 20 years, is a clue that trouble is on the way, some politicians say.
"When you look at the composition of the committee and the fact that there is nobody south of Harrisonburg or west of Danville, that gives you some foresight into what's going to happen," said Del. Steven Agee, R-Salem.
"The lion's share from any change, whether or not this is new revenue, is clearly shifted toward the urban corridor," said Del. Whitt Clement, D-Danville, one of four rural lawmakers on the committee considering changes.
But urban lawmakers seem firm in their resolve to shift the money: "What you're looking at is shifting the money to those who generate the traffic," said state Sen. Bob Calhoun, R-Alexandria, who serves on the committee.
"A lot of the fuel taxes have been generated in this area. There is a feeling that a lot of it is getting shipped down and has disappeared somewhere else," he said.
Already, a coalition of businesses and governmental associations is undertaking a statewide campaign to "educate" Virginians about transportation needs. Virginians for Better Transportation begins its campaign today with a news conference in Roanoke. The group cites a Virginia Department of Transportation study that points to a serious financial shortfall in fulfilling the state's $50 billion in transportation needs by 2010.
Though legislation is far off, the impact of the recommendations the committee is considering could set back scheduled road projects in Southwest Virginia and end hope for paving hundreds of miles of dirt roads. Money allocated for mass transit would double, and more than $55 million in new federal funds will go to urban areas to relieve congestion and improve air quality.
The legislative committee, made up of 13 urban- or suburban-based members and four from rural regions, will consider tax increases and rewriting the formula used to distribute transportation funds to state localities.
The core of the proposal is to embrace a statewide standard of efficiency in the distribution of transportation money. Generally, efficiency would mean moving the most people per dollar spent. Thus, it would be more efficient to build a road that would support 5,000 cars a day in Fairfax County than it would be to build a road in Botetourt County that would carry 500 cars a day.
The efficiency formula consistently would shift money to areas with the most vehicles and greatest populations. In the short term, it would have mixed results in Southwest Virginia.
Nearly every city in Southwest Virginia would lose money for all but the largest roads. Some counties might pick up a little extra road money, but in the long run, since population growth is predicted to stay flat or drop in most of rural Virginia, money would be siphoned off to pay for projects in the state's eastern and northern sections.
"This is going to be a critical issue in the next session of the General Assembly," said Del. Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton, the House majority leader.
"I think there's a bloc of Northern Virginia, Tidewater and Richmond legislators that is geared to seriously addressing transportation in a large transportation package. I don't think there are many in Southwest Virginia that are aware that is where they are headed," said state Sen. Brandon Bell, R-Roanoke.
The damage to economic development could be severe, warned state Sen. Malfourd "Bo" Trumbo, R-Fincastle: "We're trying all sorts of things to emphasize our strengths here as far as job creation and maintenance. If you make something and can't get it to market, then why make it here?"
But a leading urban lawmaker, state Sen. Joe Gartlan, D-Fairfax, said the makeup of the state dictates the need. "We will recognize for the first time since the 1990 census . . . changes that reflect in a more accurate way what the real transportation needs are of the urban and suburban areas of the state," he said.
"This state as a viable entity depends in a very large degree on the free flow of commerce to the major bottlenecks, and they exist for the most part in the urban crescent."
A few committee members will hear public input on the state's transportation allocations Wednesday at 10 a.m. in the Roanoke County Administration Center.
Gartlan says any future transportation tax increases and formula changes need to be tightly linked. With an increase in the gas tax, he said, localities that lose money in the redistribution would have their funding restored.
But Cranwell, chairman of the House Finance Committee, is in a position to block tax increases, and he said he would fight any tax increase proposal if the formula redirects money to urban areas.
"I'm not interested in a gasoline tax that would create more money for a formula that ultimately is going to make Southside and Southwest Virginia losers," he said. The politics of a tax increase will be difficult anyway, particularly in the wake of probable increases in a national fuel tax and possible national health-care taxes, he said.
The Transportation Department's 1991 report would remove many dirt roads from the paving eligibility list by raising the traffic threshold from 50 to 100 cars a day and reducing the dirt-road fund from $27 million to $7 million.
"The people who live on those roads, some of them have been waiting 50, 60, 70 years," said Fred Altizer, who runs the Transportation Department's district office in Salem. "A lot of people who don't live in rural areas don't realize how many dirt roads we have. Floyd [County] has 600 miles of road, and more than 50 percent of those roads are non-hard surface and gravel-type roads."
Under the Transportation Department's study, Roanoke's funds for fiscal 1994 would drop from $6 million to less than $5.5 million; Vinton, from $476,000 to less than $423,000; Salem, from $1.5 million to $1.3 million; Blacksburg,from $2.1 million to $1.9 million; Christiansburg, from $932,000 to $834,000. The figures have changed slightly since the study was made, but the relationships have stayed the same.
"Roanoke can't afford to lose any funding from the commonwealth," said Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. "We need more money from the commonwealth, not less."
Projects that could be slowed by the proposal including widening of Virginia 100 in Pulaski, the extension of Peters Creek Road in Roanoke, improvements to U.S. 220, widening U.S. 221 in Bedford, widening Brambleton Avenue in Roanoke County and widening East Main Street in downtown Salem.
by CNB