Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Route 1 Redux

Last night the Growler attended the Ad Hoc Transportation Task Force Meeting at City Hall, and the Cranky One must say that it's a good thing citizens are now sitting up and paying attention to their work.

Task force chairman Larry Robinson once again grumbled about "misinformation," and during a discussion of the Mayor's April 19 transportation forum emphasized again that the task force was not responsible for the reference to a special tax district in the draft Braddock Road plan. (Just a reminder, a visitor to this site late last week claimed it was T&ES Director Rich Baier who was the culprit.)

But minutes later while the task force was reviewing more draft chapters of the new master transportation plan, their own consultants discussed funding bus rapid transit (BRT) through special tax districts, including tax increment funding (TIF). Planning Commission Chairman Eric Wagner, who also serves on the task force, went a step further and recommended adding a business improvement district (BID) as another funding option in the chapter.

Hello, that's yet another form of special tax district, folks.

So it appears that task force members are annoyed not because it's untrue they are considering special tax districts to pay for BRT or other rapid transit, but because the information found its way into someone else's report (the Braddock Road small area plan) and thus let the cat out of the bag.

The money required for BRT in the proposed transit corridors won't be chump change. The consultants estimate $283 to $409 million in capital costs and $13.7 million in annual operating costs. They've been asked to tote up the numbers for light rail as well, but indications are it will be an even more expensive option.

What intrigued the Growler was learning that the revision of the transportation master plan is not simply an exercise in big picture thinking, to be filed away upon completion. The plan itself is the essential first step to getting big federal bucks to defray as much as half the capital costs.

Seems the City must approve a formal transportation plan in order to get its projects on the lists maintained by the federally-sanctioned metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this area. Here in Northern Virginia the MPO is the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and its Transportation Planning Board (TPB).
"The federally mandated metropolitan planning process requires all MPOs across the country to produce two basic documents—a long-range plan, which in the Washington region is called the Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which lists projects and programs that will be funded in the next six years. Since 2000, the CLRP has used a planning horizon of 25 years. In order to receive federal funding, transportation projects must be included in the CLRP and the TIP." [Emphasis added] (Source: TPB Website)
Now these reference to COG are intriguing. Long-time activist Julie Crenshaw Van Fleet has scheduled a presentation on COG for the April 17 meeting of the Federation of Civic Associations. Mrs. Van Fleet has attended COG meetings for years and she seems anxious that other Alexandrians know what is going on with regional transportation planning. Indeed, the timing suggests that her upcoming presentation (which was announced first) is what spurred the Mayor and Mr. Baier to schedule their own forum two days later.

Does Mrs. Van Fleet know something the rest of us don't? Does she see a slam dunk coming?

And why did Mr. Wagner last night propose bundling the Route 1 and Duke Street corridors as a "presumptive Phase One," although the consultants thought it would make a stronger case for federal funding to combine all corridors as one project? Is it because the price tag for Route 1 and Duke Street makes them eligible for the Federal Transit Administration's Small Starts program, which according to FTA's Web site features streamlined approvals and more simple alternatives analysis?

Whoooosh!!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

The City's decisions are based on what it can do to get federal, state or other money. Why Rt 1? Duh. Always, the first question to ask in determining City administration's motive is what money is available from where, and what must we do to become eligible? A talk on Metrowide Transit planning would be interesting indeed. As would a good reading of the state's transport legislation.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I am reading this correctly...they want to do a BRT tax and a BID tax.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What "businesses" do they plan to tax? The crack dealers that hang out in front of Bland? The pimps at the Travelodge? The 7-11 that is the unofficial capital of PG drunkenness?

Is this another one of Bill Euille's brilliant ideas? Earth to Mayor....we have few if any businesses in PG to tax.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have any news on the Madison? What the heck is going on with that site?

Anonymous said...

From Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks dated March 19, 2007. I vote we do not "draft new language" but rather omit any tax reference in the final Plan. The Deputy Manager's memo is noted below:

"Let me clarify what a special tax
district is and what the draft language of the Braddock Road plan was intended to convey.

1. I can understand the concern you have about the draft language (transportation section - page 19), and I think it should be
amended in any final plan language. The special tax district as it relates to the Braddock Plan is in the concept stage, so the language in the draft plan of "intends to establish" is ahead of where the City staff is at this time. We will draft new language.

2. The possibility of a special tax district to help fund expanded > transit services has been included in the Potomac Yard CDD since its adoption by Council in 2003. The intent of that language was to match the higher level of transit services that would be in Potomac Yard with an incremental additional add-on tax to real estate tax bills (purely for illustrative purposes: such as an extra 5 to 10 cents added to the real estate tax rate
of 81.5 cents) in Potomac Yard. It was contemplated that special tax
district revenues raised in Potomac Yard would be 100% used to fund > capital or operating expenses of transit services in Potomac Yard.

3. What Rich Baier explained (and has asked me to address in this email since he knows that he knows transportation far better than tax and finance) at your meeting this past week was tax increment financing (TIF) which is different than a special tax district. A TIF takes some or all of the additional tax revenues generated by new development and uses those to fund capital (and sometimes operating) expenses of public services or
public infrastructure that is related to that new development. A TIF is most often used to incentivize new development that would otherwise not occur.

4. A special tax district in Potomac Yard has not been implemented, but has been in the planning stages concurrent with the planning of what the transit services would be. Since the Potomac Yard CDD was approved, there has been ongoing planning and community dialog about the nature and location of these transit services. As you are aware the direction is BRT which would serve not only Potomac Yard but also connect with the Braddock
Road Metrorail station.

5. The costs of the BRT are such, and the practical limits of how much a special tax district rate could be, that the special tax district would be one of many revenues which would fund the BRT service. BRT is not likely
going to be dependent on the creation of a special tax district. Special tax district revenues would likely help the BRT service get started earlier and have greater frequency of service than if there was not a special tax district.

6. With the BRT proposed connection to the Braddock Road Metro station,
internally staff has discussed the logic of also extending any special tax district to the Braddock Road Metro station. Such as connection was NEVER intended to cover all of the Braddock Road planning area (the draft plan language is not clear on this point), but only some of the to-be-developed properties (such as the Jaguar site) and existing commercial properties
(such as the Braddock Place offices) between the Monroe Ave bridge and the Braddock Road Metrorail station. The exact boundaries and properties have
not been defined at the staff level at this point in time.

7. Neither the adoption of the CDD for Potomac Yard nor the adoption of the Braddock Plan means that a special tax district would be adopted. The adoption by City Council of such a district is a separate decision process that would entail numerous public meetings and input - most likely later this spring, and then Council consideration of such an ordinance and public hearing - most likely next fall or early winter.

I hope that this explanation has been helpful. Feel free to share it. Let me know if you have any additional questions. I will
be at the Braddock area plan meeting next week and can also answer questions then.

Mark Jinks
Deputy City Manager

Anonymous said...

"but only some of the to-be-developed properties (such as the Jaguar site) and existing commercial properties
(such as the Braddock Place offices) between the Monroe Ave bridge and the Braddock Road Metrorail station."

Brilliant, lets tax a nearly empty Braddock Place commercial center...that ought to help them get new tenants.....

The Growler said...

Surely this illustrates that development has its costs. Whether it's in the form of an additional few cents added to the tax rate or is a tax on the appreciated value of a new development, that's the money that has to go toward mitigating traffic and density, not into City coffers for police, fire, education, and other broader purposes.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Chief Baker just sent half his police force into Adkins just now....I just saw about 6 cars pile into the Payne St Address at full speed.....

All in plain sight of about 20 startled metro commuters...who could plainly be seen walking away from the action

Anonymous said...

"Looks like Chief Baker just sent half his police force into Adkins just now....I just saw about 6 cars pile into the Payne St Address at full speed.....

All in plain sight of about 20 startled metro commuters...who could plainly be seen walking away from the action"

Typical, complaints about lack of police presence then complaints when police arrive. I'm sure the Chief of Police is a dispatcher that sends troops out as well. Grow up people.

Anonymous said...

"Typical, complaints about lack of police presence then complaints when police arrive. I'm sure the Chief of Police is a dispatcher that sends troops out as well. Grow up people."

Not complaining moron just wondering what was going on to cause such a massive response....you dont usually see such a heavy response at such high speed unless its something really bad....

Anonymous said...

I don't get the feeling the previous poster was criticizing the police.

A few months back, I encountered a similar incident. I was walking home from metro down Wythe when 3 unmarked police cars screeched to a halt in front of Adkins and the cops jumped out, guns drawn, and apprehended a couple of thugs. It was alarming to be in the middle of this.

My point being, is that it seems that the poster was simply noting that these situations are alarming. But the police aren't the problem. Adkins is. Let's keep that in mind.

This is an important consideration in having the neighborhood come together as the City attempts to develop the Braddock Road area. We need to keep reminding them that as long as Adkins is around (requiring regular jump outs by armed cops dodging commuters) their fantasy plan is going to be a miserable failure.

Anonymous said...

Monday April 2 I drove south on the 400 block of N. Payne Street and saw three police cars, lights on, uniformed officers out of their cars surrounding a guy and the car he was standing next to in a driveway, on the west side of the street. Anyone know what was going on?
Hmm, is SOMEONE WITHOLDING INFO from the daily crime reports?

Anonymous said...

"Not complaining moron just wondering what was going on to cause such a massive response"

What are we third graders? I said to grow up already. No need to name call and no need to list the Chief of Police's name. Your just looking for attention.

"My point being, is that it seems that the poster was simply noting that these situations are alarming. But the police aren't the problem. Adkins is. Let's keep that in mind."

This blogger is a grown up and stated the problem in a clear manner w/o the a sharply ironical taunt, that the Chief of the cities Police Department was responsible.