Norfolk City Council: Stop Pretending. The safety issue could have been fixed with a couple of flashing lights and a sign for under $1,000.

The city is buying this property to satisfy the claim of the owner that he lost value. Although, I am not sure that he has a claim. If he does, would that mean I could sue a neighbor for monetary damages because their house looks trashy? Regardless, if you want to buy it to satisfy his claim, then fine. Tell the truth though. If the city had said they wanted to buy it for a park, that would be fine. Don’t justify it because you think it would be safer.

Finally, our new councilman Mr. Protogyrou needs a lesson in regional administration. The Pilot stated:

“Let HRT pay for this,” Councilman Andy Protogyrou said. “This is their fault. It’s their mistake. I don’t see why Norfolk taxpayers have to pay for this.”

While I disagree that this is anybody’s fault and think that the city just wanted to pay back a property owner, I have to explain why it doesn’t matter who’s pocket this comes from. Since we have no tax stream dedicated to transit, HRT must get its money from four main sources: 1)Farebox revenue, 2)City Government, 3)State Government, and 4)Federal Government. Additionally, the current light rail project is structured to lay all extra costs on the city, so that Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, etc. are not paying money toward our project. That means, Mr. Protogyrou, that if the city made HRT pay for this, they would add their markup for management and then bill the city.

• $257,700,000 – Debt Service
• +$405,100,000 – Support to other agencies and administration
• +$306,700,000 – ‘Special financing’ and earmarks
• =$969,500,000 - Does NOT include Road Construction OR Maintenance.

• $656,800,000 – Construction
• +$1,698,000,000 – Maintenance
• =$2,354,800,000 - Maintenance and Construction

So your $900 million in gas tax pays for administrative costs. That means that VDOT needs a 70% subsidy over what gas tax covers. Sure that sounds a little bit better than the 80% subsidy that HRT pulls in, but think about this: HRT’s 80% subsidy equals roughly $60 million while VDOT’s 70% subsidy equals $3.3 billion. Also, VDOT is not the only maintainer of roadways. Each city in Hampton Roads pays for some of their roads and the feds kick in the rest. I would venture to guess that the subsidies’ true cost are nearly equal. Let’s move on. Once you get past the negative aspects of the Pilot’s article, you get to this:

Two scenarios could change the cost/benefit ratio: if gas prices rise enough to move commuters from their cars to light rail; and if the rail is expanded to reach more people.

So here is this economist, the same one who just said that the cost was not justifiable, saying that if the system were expanded or if more people used it, the cost would be easier to swallow.  OK. As an economist, I am sure that he would agree that the first part should include all commuter costs, not just fuel cost. Right? If the total cost of operating a motor vehicle increases, then people will start to move from cars to transit. As part of the State of the Region article, the Pilot wrote:

Long standing transportation problems also make the region less attractive to businesses and the military, Koch said. [...] Road improvements, he said, will demand higher gas tax and steep tolls.

As part of his predictions of the future, he acknowledges that the cost of commuting will be higher in the future if we want to fix our transportations shortcomings. Since our transportation problems are a direct result of our region’s lack of planning and cooperation, I would also assume that he would agree that we need to start today if we want to have any chance of improving our outlook. That would be where light rail comes in. We have to built a regional mass transit system because, in the long run, it will be more effective than building roads. If you had asked me 20 years ago (or asked someone else, since I was 3 year old twenty years ago) I would have agreed that roadways were more effective. Gas was cheap. Road construction was (relatively) cheap. Now, however, we can see that there is an end to that. There will be no more cheap gas. It is on an uphill trend. The second game-changing scenario was that the cost would be more acceptable if it were expanded to reach more people. Is that not in the works? We could never afford to build a multi-billion-dollar system all at once. It has to be built in stages. In the end, despite the Pilot’s attempt at more anti-light rail news, I think that, when read into, it is actually quite positive. The Pilot itself wrote that this economist said that if there were more people and higher commuter costs, than light rail would be more cost efficient. Since we should all be able to agree that those two scenarios are approaching, then we should also agree that, while expensive at first, light rial will be more cost-effective than roads as we enter the future.

The International City Managers Association (ICMA) has a Code of Ethics that it expects its members to follow. Number 3 on their COE list states:

Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.

The guideline for Public Confidence further expands on this:

Members should conduct themselves so as to maintain public confidence in their profession, their local government, and in their performance of the public trust.

I do not want to detract from Ms. Williams’s past contributions. She has been City Manager for eleven years because, at one time, she had something to offer to the City of Norfolk. Until recent years, I would have agreed that she was doing a fine job. Unfortunately, times have changed. I firmly believe that in almost any situation, a person should not hold a position of authority for longer than ten years. What was good for an organization ten years ago may no longer be in its best interest. This is one such case. As such, Ms. Williams is operating the City of Norfolk in a way that is eroding the public’s trust in her and her office as well as the trust in City Council and government in general.

View

Hampton Roads Third Crossing in a larger map

The biggest question here should not be which road to widen, but how to fund the Third Crossing.  The estimated cost of the Third Crossing is nearly $6 billion (adjusted for inflation since 1997). That is obviously not going to be funded by Hampton Roads alone. $6 billion is approximately the same as the all of the Seven Cities’ budgets combined. This is the part where we need to get creative. The only way to get this built is to explore a combination of funding streams. Here is my plan:

First, we need to identify all stakeholders and get contributions. For example, the military will benefit from a Third Crossing, so they should chip in around half a billion dollars. The ports will benefit enormously, so the VA Port Authority should chip in around a billion dollars. The state should definitely chip in close to a billion dollars. The federal government is going to have to supply most of the money, perhaps 2.5 or three billion. The rest is going to have to be made up for with tolls. Of course, a Public-Private partnership could be reached that would allow the state, federal, and port subsidies to be reduced (but not eliminated). A one- or two-cent region-wide sales tax could also help reduce the subsidy from the state.

I know everyone hates tolls and taxes. I do to. However, nothing is free. Like I said, the cost of this project is the total of the budgets for all of the Seven cities. If we rely solely on the state or federal government, it will never get built. As for the HRBT, why waste $2-3 billion to build something that we may not need if we build the Third Crossing

Image Property of http://www.ourfuturevb.com/

Check out OurFutureVB.com and will will find a very useful website that VB has developed for its residents to educate themselves. I have to say, compared to Norfolk’s effort, this is spectacular. Norfolk’s last Comprehensive Plan was created in 1992. Norfolk apparently is working on a new one, however, the last new info posted on the website was at the end of 2008. Considering that the public review period is supposed to have been completed in June, I’m going out on a limb and saying that they might not be close to finishing. I have sent an email to the planning department to get more info.

Despite the negative comments on PilotOnline, light rail will be a benefit to Virginia Beach. However, it will not reduce the number of cars currently on the road. That is not the point of the light rail. The congestion reduction aspect comes into play when Virginia Beach’s “Strategic Growth Areas” begin to expand. Six of VB’s eight SGAs center around the proposed light rail stops. The most important one so far is the Pembroke SGA, which includes Town Center. The residents of Town Center did not move there because they wanted to continue a highway-oriented, suburbanite lifestyle. They moved there for the urban feel. With light rail, that urban feel will grow around each station. Urban residents don’t mind public transit. That is why they are urban residents. Even reformed suburbanites re-evaluate their position on public transit once it becomes convenient for them. People, regardless of where they live, chose what their mode of transportation based on what is cheapest and most convenient. In a mostly suburban area like HR, cars fit this description. While public transportation is definitely cheaper than car use, the convenience of the car far out weighs the cost-effectiveness of the transit. As transit in HR gets more reliable, efficient, and convenient, ridership will increase.

Tide LRT Vehicles Being Delivered

HRT has released their final “cost-to-completion” for the Tide light rail system currently under construction in Norfolk. The new final cost is $338,284,251. This is, of course, much higher than the $232 million that was originally promised. Despite claims that HRT’s new President and CEO Philip Shucet is responsible for the firming up of the new number, the consultant was actually hired for the job by Townes, who knew about the cost overruns but failed to live up to City Council’s standards. It actually would make sense to me that the numbers Townes was feeding council were the preliminary numbers from his consultant. The difference between Townes’s and Shucet’s communication is that Townes should have done what Shucet did: tell council to hold on for a couple weeks while the consultant finishes the estimate.

Regardless, I hope that the project can stick to these numbers until completion. Personally, if Shucet does a good job with costs, I think we should demote him to a position to simply control LRT construction. That way we can hire a President and CEO that actually knows how to operate a transit system.

The Waterside

Norfolk has finally announced that it will start a 10-month-long public input period for the future of Waterside. According to the Virginian-Pilot, Mayor Fraim wants to keep the facility open to the public. This could be a step in the right direction. First, Norfolk has finally decided to listen to its own residents instead of some consultant that lives in another state. I really think that the current structure of Waterside can be utilized with the proper renovations. Before I expand on my vision for Waterside, I want to quote the prayer that was said for Waterside’s opening. The prayer was delivered by then-Vice Mayor and Reverend for Grace Episcopal Church, Rev. Joseph N. Green Jr.

Almighty God, You have given us this good land for our heritage. Make us a people mindful of Your favor and glad to do Your will. Continue to bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Bless those whom You have given the authority of government. And bless this place, Waterside. Father, in the beginning you moved over the waters in creation to cause the whole world to come into being. You led the children of Israel out of their bondage and slavery to the land of promise through water. And just as You have created us and we went away from You, You welcomed us back, and called us whenever we went astray to come and return. We began at the water but went away from You, and You called us to return to this place, to this Waterside, to build our future. May it be a place of joy, a place where men and women, boys and girls, old and young, black and white, Jews and gentiles, will gather as one people and one city. Set it aside for our use and all our people we pray in your name. Amen.

We need to look back on this prayer as more of a prayer. This is a vision statement. Waterside was built as a place that all residents and visitors could come and have a good time, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, or economic standing. This is what we need to strive towards again. Waterside seems to have turned into a place where only young drunks can enjoy themselves. The city has shut down some of that, however, and with sporadic renovations, it has turned into a place where the homeless can enjoy a comfortable nap.

Waterside cannot and should not be turned into a shopping destination. It would only compete with (and most likely lose to) MacArthur Center. It has to become a mix of local places with the aim of having something for everybody. Small shops, a locally owned convenience store or newsstand, a locally owned seafood/fresh food restaurant, a couple of clothing stores, a bag/purse store, etc. Originally, Waterside had stores like gift shops, clothing stores, a kite store, a collectible store, an other hard-to-find places. It could be returned to that. Despite popular belief, our area is full of small entrepreneurs who would love to be in a renovated Waterside. The most important thing, in my opinion, is the view. Waterside was created to give the everyday resident access to the waterfront view that was too often too expensive to see in other cities. Waterside still has a good view… from the outside. The original Waterside had an open interior similar to MacArthur Center, allowing the second floor patrons to look down onto the floor below. The second floor, instead of being closed of and made up of one or two large businesses that are only open at night, was made up of small shops. Each of these shops had large glass windows on the inside and the outside, allowing visitors to see the river from any place inside Waterside.

View of Harbor from Waterside

Waterside can once again be a major attraction. If you add in the proper pedestrian connections between Waterside and MacArthur Center (and the LRT station), Waterside could once again spur an influx in investment. This time, however, in the street level spaces around the financial district.