Friday, March 17, 2006
House transportation plan is bad for the region
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Brandon Bell
Bell, a Republican, represents Roanoke in the Virginia Senate.
As you may know, the General Assembly adjourned on March 11 without a budget or a plan for transportation. Gov. Tim Kaine has now called a special session of the legislature to begin on March 27. At issue is how Virginia will address its transportation needs.
Despite what you might have heard, this issue is not really about taxes. It's about the safety of our citizens. It's about our ability as a state to maintain and attract new jobs. It's about our quality of life.
Nearly everyone would agree that Virginia has some serious transportation problems that affect all of our citizens in many different ways. The General Assembly is tasked with finding the best way in which to deal with this problem and deciding how we are going to pay for it.
Transportation is an important issue in Southwest Virginia, both in terms of job creation and safety.
There is simply no greater a connection between government investment and economic development than with transportation. Having a sound transportation system is essential to keeping and attracting good jobs.
The safety of our roads is also of concern to me. Whether it's Interstate 81 or a back country road, we have safety issues that need to be addressed. All across my district, what used to be rural winding roads and narrow bridges are now serving growing suburban populations and creating safety hazards for the families who travel them every day.
The cost of materials and land acquisition is skyrocketing. On the other hand, our gas tax rate has been fixed for nearly two decades. Inflation, coupled with more fuel-efficient vehicles, has greatly eroded our purchasing power. Maintenance costs alone will soon eat up our entire budget, leaving nothing for new construction. It's projected that we need $1 billion dollars per year in additional funding to meet our long-term needs.
The Senate has advanced a long-term, statewide transportation plan that is built upon sustainable funding sources. The Senate plan does not pull money away from education or health care. The plan passed by the House of Delegates does just that.
One need only look at Virginia Western Community College to see what impact the House plan will have on our region in terms of education. Virginia Western is currently renovating Webber Hall.
The Senate plan provides $1.7 million needed to fully equip this building. The House plan does not. Under the House plan, Virginia Western will have a fully renovated building standing empty and unusable.
The House plan also takes millions of transportation dollars earmarked for Southwest Virginia in the introduced budget and redirects them to Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.
Simply put, the House plan is not good for Southwest Virginia.
The Senate and House also differ greatly on how best to pay for their respective plans. While both plans utilize some of the surplus, the Senate plan relies on sustainable revenue sources that are directly tied to transportation.
In other words, those who use the roads should pay for the roads, including the millions of out-of-state drivers who pass through Virginia every year.
One of the more controversial pieces of the Senate plan calls for a rollback of the exemption currently in place on the wholesale price of gas.
While some in the House have expressed displeasure with this aspect of the Senate plan, this is not the first time a rollback of an exemption has been proposed to generate new revenue. In 2004, the House of Delegates passed a plan that would have generated $600 million by rolling back sales tax exemptions enjoyed by dozens of industries across the state.
The Senate plan continues the Virginia tradition of pay as you go. On the other hand, the House plan relies on deficit spending, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Washington way should not be the Virginia way. This borrow-and-spend approach is nothing more than a tax on our children and grandchildren. We must decide which approach is better: pay as we go or deficit spending.
The debate over transportation should be focused on defining the problems, selecting a plan that best addresses our needs and determining the best way to pay for it.
I believe the Senate has put forth a plan that recognizes both the seriousness of our transportation problems and the consequences of inaction, provides a long-term solution and utilizes the most fair and responsible ways to pay for it.
