Topic #1 – Economic Development/Vitality

“Transportation choices must enhance economic development, i.e. more and higher paying jobs and a broader tax base.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Income/wealth of individuals is what matters
    Good transportation attracts relocating businesses
    Economic vitality is the only way to get the money to keep up the roads
    Transportation nodes attract entrepreneurs
    Some jobs require employees to respond (get to site) quickly, e.g. Navy
may leave if roads get worse  

Opponents of this statement would say:

    The building code and building industry are problems
    Getting built is disruptive – construction slows traffic
    Local government workers don’t understand need for entrepreneurs (effect of    
military)
    Transportation projects often destroy affordable housing, disproportionally
affecting disadvantaged people

Trade-offs

    Chicken & egg – which comes first, good transport/good economy?
    Depends on mode of transportation
    Do government workers grasp that business drives economy?
    It’s a regional issue, e.g. HRBT

Group Suggested Experts

Len Ruchelman (article passed around)
Burrell Saunders
Dr. James Koch
Cato Institute
Warren Harris
Someone from military


Topic #2 – Lifestyle

“Lifestyle and quality of life, which includes public and personal health and access to recreation, should be the most important considerations in transportation planning.”  

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Wellness vs. obesity epidemic
    Current infrastructure is making us sick
    Time spent commuting is lost to more valuable activities
    Must plan for bikes
    Make it easier to do the right thing for one’s health, a bike path of least resistance

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Distance one must travel affects quality of life and is also a consideration
    Existing cul-de-sac development is already in place
    This approach lacks a business model
    School buses add to problem, plus cost money
    Takes too long for government to respond, and too many developer waivers
    Need a critical mass of people for walk-ability

Trade-offs

    Safety of walking/biking, need to integrate with cars
    A neighborhood-level issue
    Equity of access across economic levels

Group Suggested Experts

VDOT/DRPT
Urban land Institute
Greenways Inc. (Chuck somebody)
Rodney Jordan

Topic #3 – Special Needs

“It is the responsibility of government to provide for (design and fund) transportation for all special needs and demographic groups.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Federal requirements to do this
    They are taxpayers too
    Many people age into special needs, or have a life crisis

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Society’s responsibility, not government’s
    Very capital-intensive
    All transportation is subject to resource constraints
    Medicaid does not cover all needs

Trade-offs

    Personal responsibility to relocate nearer needs v can they afford to do this?
    Can we use resources more efficiently?
    Category includes young people, veterans, even people who’ve lost their driver’s
license.

Group Suggested Experts

John Skirven
Governor’s expert (ask Carolyn Lincoln who)
Expert on demographic data



Topic #4 – Environment

“Impact on the environment is the most important factor in transportation planning.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Save the Bay
    Alternative fuels, e.g. electric jitneys => new business startups
    Look beyond auto-centric lifestyle

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Time needed to complete a building project, also the regulations are problems
    Congestion/idling make more pollution
    Government has a monopoly on transportation solutions

Trade-offs
    What gives biggest ROI to benefit environment?
    Sacrifice some wetlands to reduce congestion (e.g. build southern expressway despite environmental problems)

Group Suggested Experts

Dr. Koch – dikes & levees
TRAFFIX
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Philip Shucet, HRT
Person from VB Permits/Zoning/ Planning



Topic #5 – Funding Sources/Who Pays?

“Transportation should be fully funded directly by the users.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Happens inevitably – this is why food costs what it does.
    Everyone uses/benefits from public roads
    And everyone pays sales tax (even if no other tax)

Opponents of this statement would say:

    How to allocate costs?
    Public private partnerships  

Trade-offs

    Define what is a subsidy.  Does mass transit subsidize the drivers that remain?
    We can view transportation as infrastructure or as service.

Topic #6 – Land Use / Development Patterns

“A variety of transportation options shall always be provided for in future land use planning and decisions.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    More sustainable is more efficient
    More environmentally friendly
    Less disruptive
    Promotes interconnectivity between communities and destinations
    This could maintain growth
    More cost effective over long run

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Transportation follows land use
    Build more roads, public wants suburban lifestyle
    Anti-American to force land use with transportation planning
    Could slow down development or discourage progress
    Development should pay for impact of this

Trade-offs
    Options may be under-used.
Topic #7 – Community Safety

“The community shall pay to protect persons from actions of others.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Transportation safety is a priority to obtain federal funding
    Health, safety and welfare are the #1 role of government

Opponents of this statement would say:

    People need to be responsible for their actions
    Most don’t want to pay for safety that doesn’t impact them

Trade-offs
    Limited resources may be better deployed


Topic #8 – Military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, DOE, Dept. of Homeland Security)

“The transportation needs of the military should be the primary goal for transportation planning and priority setting.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Military is a main driver of the Hampton Roads economy
    Readiness issue – need to move fast
    Logistics ability
    National emergencies must be provided for (STRAT NET legal, since the 50’s)
    Lots of federal presence should make it easy to coordinate on decisions
    Must do this to not lose bases, tipping point might arrive

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Only one of many goals that should be considered
    Emergency evacuation of broad population needs to be addressed
    Military base operations don’t match 9-5 businesses
    If military is a priority, then federal government should fund 100% of projects.  Fort Belvoir funded 89% of its needed transportation projects.

Trade-offs
    Could plan for unique needs that go away

Topic #9 – Traffic Congestion Management

“Transportation projects must result in reduction of traffic congestion.”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    General good, impacts most people
    Biggest return on investment (ROI), more users
    Saves time

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Incomplete planning.  Premise, only one consideration.  Feds require broader view.
    Safety might be more important
    Other considerations might be far more important to decision makers

Trade offs
    Traffic congestion may encourage alternatives of value


Topic #10 – Local Politics

“The transportation decision making process should be led by the regional business community (Chamber of Commerce, et al.).”

Supporters of this statement would say:

    Businesses would see transportation as a system and less myopic
    Businesses have a bigger stake
    Elected officials are too influenced by voters who don’t understand issues
    Businesses should be central; they are more able to lead
    Businesses pay larger share of taxes
    Businesses bring experience and knowledge

Opponents of this statement would say:

    Should be led by elected officials
    Federal law requires certain bodies (elected and others) to do this work
    Regular business lobby pushes wrong projects – defeated in past
    Customer ultimately pays the taxes, not businesses
    Business views are too narrow, too much about commerce

Trade offs
    Lose the views of average citizens
    Lose voter suppor