|
|
Myth 7: The proposed road will create a substantial number of freight-related jobs at Dulles airport
Reality: Most air freight coming into Dulles is destined for the DC-area market, or to be re-loaded from international/domestic flights to reach final destinations.
The claim that the Bi-County Parkway will generate new freight-related jobs at Dulles is based on the assumption that faster ground connections will attract new cargo that will be loaded onto trucks for shipment to destinations west of the airport.
Left unstated is what markets would be served by such freight traffic, and the volume of that traffic.
Trucks going west o the I-81 corridor could carry time-sensitive goods to markets in the Shenandoah Valley, and to a wider region from Knoxville to perhaps Pittsburg. However, shippers of time-sensitive goods will fly their cargo to airports close to the final destination. Airports in Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Chicago will compete with Dulles to serve regions outside of Northern Virginia.
Congestion at New York airports might provide Dulles a competitive advantage. It is unclear how much of the New York air freight is headed west rather than to destinations on the New York metropolitan area.
Assuming airport operators in Philadelphia and New York never bother to improve their operations, lack of air freight congestion at Dulles might help it become competitive for shipping to locations in southern New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
What’s not clear, however, is how a Bi-County Parkway headed west to I-81 might improve time-sensitive access to destinations on I-95.
No matter how fast trucks might travel between Dulles-Gainesville, it is unlikely that a significant volume of air cargo will be shipped to Dulles so it can be send via ground transportation to Atlanta, St. Louis, or Chicago. Direct flights to those destinations, with local/regional delivery, would be more cost-effective than air freight to Dulles for long-distance trucking to final destinations.
Myth 8: The proposed road will affect only western Prince William County
Reality: In addition, converting the current road to a throughway would limit the ability of residents to make intra-county trips. Funds that might be spent to add left turn lanes at clogged intersections, synchronize stoplights, or make spot improvements to improve traffic flow within Prince William will be diverted to expand Route 234 into a major truck route. The beneficiaries will be trucking companies, not residents of Prince William.
That conflicts with the county’s Strategic Vision to convert Prince William from a bedroom community into a Live-Work-Play community, “where families and individuals choose to live and work and businesses choose to locate."1
How will congestion on existing Route 234 in mid-county be affected by the additional traffic coming from I-95? Traffic engineers determined that congestion would reduce the “level of service” on Route 234 so much, a relief valve was necessary.
The engineers proposed extending current Purcell Road to the Prince William Parkway, cutting a new path through mid-county residential communities to bring traffic but no economic benefits to the residents of the Coles District.
The extension of Purcell Road, though blocked for now by the county supervisors, will remain a threat to the low-density residential communities in the area. If the Bi-County Parkway generates the new traffic as predicted from I-95, then expect a new push for cut-through roads parallel to Hoadly Road.
Among the vehicles expected to use Route 234 and possibly any cut-through are trucks carrying flammable ethanol from the new CSX ethanol terminal at Dumfries to tanks farms that blend gasoline for Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley. Building a truckway through Prince William will have consequences beyond just traffic management and economic development.
Sources:
- “2013-2016 Strategic Plan,” Prince William County, p.7
Myth 9: The proposed road have no impact on expansion of VRE or other transit options in western Prince William County
Reality: Even with the additional taxes providing funding for new road construction, which were approved by the General Assembly in 2013, there will always be limited funding for all the proposed transportation projects across the state.
The 2008 Transportation Chapter of the Prince William Comprehensive Plan proposes:1
- 700 lane miles of new road construction
- 15 new grade-separated interchanges to replace intersections with stoplights
- a second Bi-County Parkway extending Godwin Road north across Bull Run to Route 29, as a transitway using undetermined technology
- extension of Metrorail’s Blue Line to Potomac Mills and Orange Line to Gainesville
- extension of Virginia Railway Express (VRE) service to Haymarket
- replacement of VRE services in eastern Prince William with high speed rail
- a new light rail line north of Manassas to Dulles airport along Route 28
- Bus Rapid Transit services on I-95/Route1 and from Woodbridge to Haymarket
- commuter ferry service on the Potomac River to DC
- expansion of OmniRide and OmniLink bus services
- development of various bike paths
Together, those proposed projects could cost $5-10 billion. There are no priorities or cost estimates identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The county produced a wish list and called it a 20-year long range plan - no effort was made to distinguish “must have” from “nice to have” projects.
Obviously, there is not adequate funding to complete all the proposed projects. Equally obvious, whatever funds are spent on the Bi-County Parkway will limit the capacity to implement other proposed projects, including transit improvements.
The state borrowed $3 billion for road construction in 2011, and the General Assembly increased taxes in 2013 in order to pay for new construction.
Otherwise, VDOT claimed that by 2017, 100% of Virginia’s road funding would have been directed towards maintenance and operations of existing roads, rather than construction of new roads.2
Even with new funding, the state’s goal for road maintenance is far from “perfect.” The most ambitious goal is for “Bridge Condition,” where the target is to have 92% bridges in fair or better condition. The desired percentage of interstate and primary road pavement to be rated in fair or better condition is only 82%.
There is no goal for secondary roads (with road numbers greater than 600), but in 2011 just 64% of the pavement on secondary roads was rated in fair or better condition.3
Sources:
- “Transportation Chapter,” Prince William County 2008 Comprehensive Plan, pp. TRANS13-69
- “State highway construction funds could run out in 5 years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, October 6, 2011
- “System Maintenance and Preservation,” in 2011 Performance Report, Virginia Department of Transportation
Myth 10: The VTRANS2035 Plan and the designation of the North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance justifies construction of the Bi-County Parkway.
Reality: The Outer Beltway, Tri-County Parkway, and other road proposals extending 234 Bypass north have been gestating for decades. The designation of a North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance was an after-the-fact effort to provide a patina of justification to a decision that had already been reached before a public vote was held.
In the VTRANS 2035 Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan, VDOT proposed 11 corridors of statewide significance. These 11 corridors were based on an analytical process to define multi-modal transportation corridors that deserved to be high priorities for funding.1
There was no North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance included in the VTRANS 2035 Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan.2
The motion to create the North-South Corridor was made at a Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting on May 18, 2011. Until that meeting, VDOT’s designation process was rigorous enough to exclude even the $5 billion Coalfields Expressway from being included in a Corridor of Statewide Significance.
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors had passed a resolution opposing the North-South Corridor designation just a month before the Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting,3 so clearly local desires were not the justification for ignoring VDOT’s analytical process and adding a 12th corridor without debate.
VDOT has been struggling ever since the snap decision by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to craft a justification for including the North-South Corridor, outside of raw politics. At a February meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Secretary of Transportation had asked for a motion to create the corridor, even though the topic was not listed on the agenda. When the Northern Virginia members on the Commonwealth Transportation Board were not prepared with a motion, the Secretary of Transportation criticized them for not being prepared for “bushwhacking people.”4
Sources:
- David Tyeryar, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, “Corridors of Statewide Significance Prioritization Process” Powerpoint presentation, May 18, 2011,
- “VTrans2035 Final Report: Virginia’s Long-Range Multimodal Transportation Plan,” January 2010, pp.27-42,
- “Resolution Opposing the Designation of a Northern Virginia North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board,” Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, April 19, 2011, ; “CTB Initiates New Corridor Study: Business, Political Leaders Divided Over State Action,” Leesburg Today, May 25, 2011,
- “Virginia insiders pulling bait-and-switch for Outer Beltway,” Greater Greater Washington blog, February 25, 2011
Myth 11: The public will fund the Bi-County Parkway, and the public will get the benefits from the road.
Reality: VDOT claims the proposed road will speed up the economic engine at Dulles. If there are benefits, the private businesses at Dulles will reap most of them.
The public investment could be repaid, if increased economic activity generated increased taxes. No data has been released by VDOT or the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority on how much tax revenue will be generated by the Bi-County Parkway.
Some jobs may be created as a result of the new road, beyond the short-term construction employment. If so, then any new businesses not located on the airport property itself will pay local property taxes, and additional employees will pay more income taxes to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
However, it is possible that state/local economic incentives to spur jobs at Dulles will include grants and tax abatements, minimizing net public revenue. It is also possible that new businesses at Dulles would have developed there without the Bi-County Parkway, or those businesses would have started up/expanded elsewhere in Virginia if the road was never built.
If the Bi-County Parkway simply shifts businesses from one jurisdiction to another, with no net increase in taxes, then no positive public revenue should be assigned to the road in a benefit-cost analysis.
One way to do the math, and see if building the Bi-County Parkway is a good deal for taxpayers, is to assume:
- the road will be funded in part by tolls
- all maintenance will be covered by those tolls
- only $100 million in one-time state/local funding will be required to build the road
Then you can speculate on how many new businesses/employees created because of the road would be required to repay the $100 million initial investment.
For example, assume 50 new businesses are created due to the new road (as opposed to new businesses emerging from normal growth in the area, or occurring elsewhere in Virginia without the road). Assume1,000 new employees, an average of 20 employees/business.
Assume each of those 50 road-stimulated new businesses pays an additional $10,000/year in local property taxes, while each of the 1,000 new employees pays $2,500/year in additional state taxes. The local/state governments would then earn $3 million/year in new taxes.
At that rate, a Bi-County Parkway finished in 2020 would pay back the $100 million investment in about 35 years. If the public cost for building the road is $200 million, then the payback period in this hypothetical example would be about 70 years.
You can run the calculations many different ways, using many different assumptions Until VDOT provides data on how the public will benefit as well as pay for the road, however, it is not obvious that the “investment” in this economic stimulus project is any wiser than the failed $535 million Federal loan guarantee under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.
While the benefits for the public are unclear, the benefits for some well-connected companies in the private sector are clear. Land developers in the Transition Zone of Loudoun County are already requesting increased density for their parcels, citing the Bi-County Parkway as the solution to the transportation burden generated by additional housing.
The Greens South at Willowsford is a proposed rezoning that would more than triple density, from 245 to 802 homes, in the Transition Zone, justified in part because “Northstar Boulevard” would be extended south to the Prince William County line.1
Sources:
-
Myth 12: Prince William County needs to authorize more land for development, as well as build the Bi-County Parkway.
Reality: Right now, there is capacity to absorb at least 20 years of projected residential growth within the county, and perhaps 50-100 years of anticipated commercial growth within the Development Area.
The 2011 build-out analysis1 identifies where 20 years of new residential development is authorized (almost 40,000 new dwelling units), and where 157 million square feet of commercial development.
To put that last figure into context – in 2007, Tyson’s Corner had 27 million square feet of office space, and maximum growth in 20 years after completion of the Silver Line extension is 45 million square feet.2
Appropriate flexibility is provided to landowners within the Development Area on how they can choose to develop their property, as demonstrated by creation of Centers of Community and Centers of Development and subsequent annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Within the Development Area, Prince William already has over-planned and over-zoned parcels in hopes of competing with Fairfax and Loudoun counties for commercial development.
There is no need to “bust” the Rural Area to provide more land for development.
Private investment to build the Dulles Greenway and Pocahontas Parkway was based on the assumption that the roads would see increased traffic as residential growth increased nearby.
Prince William and Loudoun have low-density zoning in place from Gainesville north across Bull Run, so one local concern is that rezoning requests will be associated with raising funds for the Bi-County Parkway.
Rezoning for additional suburban-level density might be accompanied by a proposal for a tax district on the rezoned properties, comparable to the special tax district used to fund Route 28 improvements in Fairfax County.
However, the Route 28 corridor was already planned to intense development. Increasing housing density near the Bi-County Parkway route would “bust” the Rural Area in Prince William and transform the Transitional Area in Loudoun.
Each county has already zoned/planned enough land to accommodate development over the next 20 years, and plans for the area near the Bi-County Parkway route to stay rural in character.
Sources:
- “Build-Out Analysis Prince William County as of December 31, 2011,” September 20, 2012, p.5
- “Tysons Corner Market Analysis,” Bay Area Economics, June 2007, p.19
“TransformingTysons - Tysons Corner Urban Center Comprehensive Plan,” Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning, June 22, 2010, p.24
Myth 13: Opponents of the Bi-County Parkway want to restrict housing options, and force everyone to live in a high-rise tower in an urban setting.
Reality: A wide variety of options remain for building single-family residences throughout Prince William County.
There are 140,000 dwelling units in Prince William, and 40,000 more are authorized. More housing, just like the existing housing, is in the pipeline: 22,000 of those potential new homes – enough to meet roughly 10 years of demand – are located in subdivisions already approved.1
Building the Bi-County Parkway will block development of some housing on 10-acre lots in the Rural Area, on the right-of-way of the new road. Opponents of the road also oppose rezoning the Rural Area near the road for higher-intensity development, thus “busting” the Rural Area and increasing sprawl.
The 2011 Build-Out Analysis determined that only 3,470 more residential units could be built in the Rural Area, so over 90% of the potential new residential units would be located on smaller lots.
If anything, road opponents are seeking to preserve options for large-lot rural housing, rather than restrict the housing choices of new residents.
Sources:
- “Build-Out Analysis Prince William County as of December 31, 2011,” September 20, 2012, p.5, p.C-8
|
|