1.      “Report of the Partnership for Regional Excellence,” COG, 1993

2.      Code of Virginia, §15.2-2320-2327, Impact fees

3.      “Vision Plan,” Transportation Planning Board (TPB), October 1998

4.      “A System in Crisis,” TPB, February 2001

5.      “The Alternative Transportation and Land Use Activity Strategies (ATLAS) Study,” Transportation Coordinating Council of Northern Virginia (TCC) Technical Committee, March 28, 2001

6.      2001 Area Plan Review (APR) Process

7.      “Tysons Land Use Change Reviews Postponed,” Fairfax Journal, August 7, 2001

8.      Dulles Corridor Land Use Task Force Report, April 2001

9.      Comprehensive Plan amendment for Dulles Corridor, approved May 21, 2001

10.  Code of Virginia, Chapter 48.1, Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, 2001

1.      PLANNING - AND COORDINATION WITH LAND USE

1. The “Report of the Partnership for Regional Excellence” (Reference 1) recommended a regional approach to integrate and coordinate land use and transportation planning. Maryland and its Washington subregion have addressed this goal by utilizing transferable development rights (TDRs), an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), impact fees, as well as a statewide approach to “smart growth” for land use and transportation efficiency. Northern Virginia has not adopted any of these provisions to better integrate land use and transportation.

2. The “Vision Plan” (Reference 3) recommended a “web” transportation system throughout the Washington region to connect all activity centers. The illustrated web reaches far beyond the current Beltway and crosses the Potomac River. On the western side of the region, a VDOT contractor is studying a proposed Western Transportation Corridor (formerly the Western Bypass) north to Route 7 or the Greenway but not across the Potomac River to connect with Maryland. Also, Congressman Wolf recently withdrew sponsorship of the study of a suggested Techway across the Potomac River. VDOT is also currently proceeding with plans to construct a Tri-County Connector from Prince William County through Fairfax County into Loudoun County.

3. In “A System in Crisis” (Reference 4), the Transportation Planning Board (TPB) has identified the Washington metropolitan regional transportation shortfall as $35 billion over 20 years and has proposed the following potential funding sources:

(a)     increased fuel tax of 5 cents per gallon ($100 million per year);

(b)    $1.00 toll per trip on new highway facilities ($20-$40 million per year per facility);

(c)     increased sales tax of 1.0 percent ($400 million per year);

(d)    income tax of 1.0 percent ($900 million per year);

(e)     payroll tax of $6.00 per employee per month ($100 million per year).

The TPB did not include transportation impact fees or transportation tax districts, which are currently used in certain jurisdictions.

Fairfax County is short a significant portion of the $15 billion shortfall in Northern Virginia but is considering only a one-half cent increase in the sales tax, which would fall far short of needed funding.

4. The ATLAS report (Reference 5) notes that local governments in Northern Virginia, through interviews, reported three consistent needs: funding general, inter-jurisdictional coordination, and congestion reduction. TCC also is soliciting comments from local jurisdictions on recommended strategies to link land use and transportation (see paragraphs e. and f., below).

5. To require or encourage interjurisdictional coordination, the ATLAS report suggests:

(1)   Regional compact

(2)   Congestion pricing

(3)   Guaranteed ride home programs

(4)   Transportation Management Associations (TMAs)

(5)   Regional land use plan

(6)   Urban growth boundary

(7)   Distance-based fees

(8)   Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs

(9)   Regional funding authority

6. The ATLAS report also addresses coordinated planning as well as potential funding sources. It states the following principles as being helpful in the subsequent implementation of the Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan (the NOVA 2020 Plan):

·        Improving and maintaining our transportation;

·        Providing increased rail-transit capacity to the core area;

·        Operating our system more efficiently by implementing technological advances; and

·        Improving the link between transportation and land use.

Further, and in addition to item e, above, when compared to the NOVA 2020 Plan criteria, the following ATLAS land use and transportation strategies had the highest rankings:

·        Bonus/incentive zoning

·        Transit oriented development

·        Split-rate tax districts

·        Impact fees

·        Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinance

·        Bike-transit integration

·        Jobs-housing balance requirement

·        Transferable development rights (TDRs)

·        Suburban-scale transit

7. Fairfax County does not normally review the cumulative transportation impacts when considering individual land use planning decisions. Evaluation of such impacts has been specifically excluded in the current Annual Plan Review (APR) process (Reference 6) guidance by stating that each recommendation should be considered only on a “site specific” basis.

(1)   Supervisor Connolly has recognized this problem (Reference 7) by asking that no Comprehensive Plan amendments affecting Tysons Corner be considered until rail station sites have been identified. Development continues apace in Tysons Corner, but the location of the proposed rail stations has not yet been determined.

(2)   Another recent example is the Plan amendment associated with the proposed rail line along the Dulles Corridor. There was no transportation assessment of the vehicular impact of the recommended and adopted increase of 5 million square feet of commercial and a 50% increase in residential development. The Dulles Corridor Land Use Task Force Report (Reference 8) included the following recommendation: “Of major importance (is) performing comprehensive public infrastructure impact studies prior to zoning changes” since such a impact study was not accomplished during task force deliberations.

8. A Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority (Reference 10) was established by the 2001 General Assembly but was given no funding or funding power. The state legislative “Barry Commission,” chaired by Senator Warren Barry, continues to address how the Authority might operate and implement transportation plans. This could be a major improvement in transportation planning but is being held up by concerns regarding the relationship with local jurisdictional authority and funding.

9. The Commonwealth of Virginia is legally responsible for planning, funding, constructing and maintaining the interstate, primary and usually the secondary road system, except in cities and two counties. It also assists in planning and funding transit systems. Land use planning and implementation is the responsibility of local governments. This division of responsibility is a major impediment to adequate coordination and could be better addressed if the state legislative “Barry Commission” is able to resolve issues such as “jurisdictional autonomy” where a local jurisdiction could override a regional plan.

2.      FUNDING

1. Need

(1)   The funding needed to implement the Washington MPO regional 2020 Transportation Plan is approximately $35 billion. Funding of about $3.0 billion per year has been identified to implement the Constrained Long Range Plan. The funding shortfall is an estimated $1.74 billion per year.

(2)   The shortfall in funding needed to implement the Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan is approximately $15 billion.

2. Sources – Existing and Potential

(1)   Federal

(a)    Existing - fuel tax

(b)   Federal funds may be sacrificed if the Washington region does not meet federal air quality standards. The region currently needs to improve its air quality to meet these standards.

(c)    Virginia has drawn some of its federal transportation funding early so future federal funding will be reduced.

(2)   State

(a)    Existing - fuel tax

(3)   Regional/local – The ATLAS study suggests potential funding strategies, e.g.,

(a)    Split-rate tax districts

(b)   Tax increment financing

(c)    Distance-based fees

(d)   Regional funding authority

(e)    Priority funding areas

(f)     Congestion pricing

(g)    Parking pricing

(h)    Proffers

(i)      Community development authorities

(4)   Local

(a)    Existing – proffers site-related improvements; generally do not contribute to added impact on area and regional systems.

(b) Existing – local government bonds and General Fund

(c) Potential:

·        Impact fee authorization expires 7/1/03

·        See item (3) immediately above

3.      IMPLEMENTATION

See paragraph 1.g. under PLANNING.

1.      PLANNING

1. Support a regional approach, both in Northern Virginia and the Washington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
2. Resolve the funding issues for the new Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.
3. Support adding significant citizen representation to the new Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, with members from each participating jurisdiction.
4. Ensure complementary land use and transportation planning, as well as coordinated implementation.
5. Support higher density development near transit facilities, prevent further sprawl development, and preserve environmentally sensitive areas.
6. Support enabling legislation to use transferable development rights (TDRs) and an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO).

2.      FUNDING

1. Support increased state funding for implementation of the Northern Virginia 2020 Transportation Plan.

2. Support finding additional regional and local sources of revenue to fund the needed transportation improvements in the 2020 Transportation Plan. Examples of potential sources of revenue include the following:

(1)   impact fees—apply to all new construction to address broader impacts than addressed by proffers;

(2)   transportation tax districts;

(3)   distance based fees;

(4)   congestion pricing;

(5)   increased sales, fuel, meals and/or hotel taxes; and

(6)   taxing power for the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.

3.      IMPLEMENTATION

1. See item 1.d., above.

2. Transportation impact analyses should be accomplished and considered during review of all Comprehensive Plan amendment nominations.

3. Since a transportation impact analysis was not conducted during consideration of the recent Dulles Corridor Comprehensive Plan amendments, ensure that such analyses are accomplished before any rezonings are granted in the Dulles Corridor, as recommended by the Dulles Corridor Task Force.

4.      GENERAL

Support serious consideration by the Northern Virginia Transportation Coordinating Council and local governments of the possible land use and transportation strategies contained in the Alternative Transportation and Land Use Activity Strategies (ATLAS) Study report to improve the linkage between land use and transportation.