Decision 2007: Joseph F. "Joe" Bouchard (D)

2007 General Assembly Election Interview Questionnaire
HearSay with Cathy Lewis ~ WHRV 89.5FM

83rd District
Joseph F. "Joe" Bouchard (D)
http://www.bouchardfordelegate.com

Why do you want to be a member of the Virginia General Assembly?
I am running on my merits, not a name or label or platitudes. The citizens of the 83rd District need a Delegate who will have the courage to protect their livelihoods and quality of life; who can find solutions for the challenges they face. I am a proven leader who was entrusted with the highest confidence the military can place in an officer: command of a combat unit and command of the world’s largest naval base. I am the only candidate with a proven record of fiscal responsibility, successfully cutting costs while improving the performance of a large government operation.

I have been living in Virginia since 1995 and in Hampton Roads since 2000. During that period I became increasing concerned by the inability of the Virginia General Assembly to take action on the a wide range of issues, ranging from simple, easy to resolve matters to urgent matters of tremendous importance to the Commonwealth, such as transportation. It became increasingly apparent to me that the far too many members of the General Assembly, especially in the House of Delegates, were giving their parochial ideological agenda priority over the well being and quality of life of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

I was inspired by the pragmatic, common sense approach of Governor Warner, who clearly and unequivocally put the interests of all the citizens of the Commonwealth ahead of any ideological agenda or his own political interests. Governor Kaine’s performance as Governor has been no less outstanding than Governor Warner’s. The exemplary record of accomplishment of Governors Warner and Kaine made it clear to me that the future of the Commonwealth and all its citizens depended on strong, forward looking Democratic leadership in the General Assembly.

Deciding to run for office was not easy for me. I have never run for office before. I am not motivated to run by visions of political grandeur or ideological zealotry. I want to serve the citizens of the 83rd District, Virginia Beach and the Commonwealth with the same selfless devotion to the common good that guided my service to the United States for 27 years on active duty in the Navy. This election is not about me, it is about the citizens of the 83rd District – their needs, which have been ignored for the past sixteen years, their health, prosperity and quality of life, and the futures of their children and grandchildren. My only goal is to make Virginia, Virginia Beach and the 83rd District a better place to live, work and raise a family.
What is the most pressing issue facing Virginians today? Facing the region?

Transportation. The transportation bill (HB 3202) passed by the General Assembly and signed by Governor Kaine with amendments is a useful starting point for addressing Virginia’s critical transportation problems, but is not a solution to those problems. The need for a sustainable, long-term solution is absolutely clear in Hampton Roads, as shown in Figure 1. These traffic projections also provide the basis for judging whether the 2007 plan is a success or failure: If it prevents congestion from reaching the levels shown in Figure 1, it will be a success. If it allows major arteries in Hampton Roads to reach the severe congestion level, it will be a failure.

Figure 1. Projected Hampton Roads Traffic Congestion in 2026

Unfortunately, the 2007 plan contains serious flaws that will cause it to fail within three years if not amended. A bipartisan effort will be required to take the next step: building on the plan’s good features to correct its flaws and achieve a sustainable, long-term solution to Virginia’s transportation problems.

H.B. 3202 derives significant new revenues for the state-wide portion of the plan from sources that can vary greatly with swings in Virginia’s economy. From the very first day that the House and Senate reached agreement on the plan, its backers acknowledged that projected revenue increases would only hold true when the state economy was strong. The revenue projections used to justify the bill were based on overly optimistic revenue forecasts that already have been invalidated. In short, the new revenue sources in H.B. 3202 are insufficient and reliable, which will prevent the 2007 plan from achieving its stated goal of solving Virginia’s transportation problems. At best, it will slow the rate at which Virginia’s transportation problems grow.

Additionally, Virginia must expect a significant decline in Federal funds for transportation beginning in 2009 and worsening in 2010 due to impending exhaustion of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which should have been known to the General Assembly as they drafted the 2007 legislation. In April 2006 testimony to Congress, Assistant Treasury Secretary Robert Carroll offered the following warning:

The balance and overall health of the Highway Trust Fund depends on both incoming receipts and outgoing disbursements. Treasury is responsible for collecting and reporting tax receipts and forecasting future tax receipts. The Department of Transportation is in the best position to respond to questions concerning disbursements from the Highway Trust Fund to meet the various obligations. Nevertheless, according to Administration estimates, the highway account will be exhausted by 2009 (i.e., the highway account will have a negative cash balance of $2.3 billion at the end of 2009).

In March 2007 the Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Donald Marron, offered projections worse than the 2006 projections:

• The revenues that finance the Highway Trust Fund have grown at a moderate pace in recent years, increasing by an average of about 2 percent per year since 1998. Before that, from 1997 to 1998, revenues rose sharply, when receipts from a portion of the gasoline tax were redirected from the Treasury’s general fund into the trust fund. Spending from the trust fund has increased steadily since 1998, by an average of about 4 percent per year. Spending began to outpace revenues in 2001 and since then has exceeded revenues by about $16 billion.

• If annual obligation limits are set at the levels authorized in 2005, CBO projects that the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund will become exhausted at some point during fiscal year 2009; the Administration also projects that the balances in the highway account will be exhausted that year. CBO expects that the mass transit account will have sufficient revenues to cover its expenditures until 2012; the Administration estimates that the mass transit account will become exhausted in 2011.

There is only one way that the Federal Highway Trust Fund can be restored to recent funding levels that all states – including Virginia – have been planning on: raise the Federal taxes that are the source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund. President Bush has threatened to veto any increase in the Federal gas tax and neither party is likely to touch it until after the 2008 election, which means that increased revenues would not flow into the fund until 2010 at the earliest.

The impact on Virginia will be much less Federal funds for highway construction and maintenance. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimated in July 2007 that Federal funding provided to states will decline by about 38% when the Highway Trust Fund falls to zero balance in 2009.

For Virginia, this shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund means that annual Federal highway funds will be slashed by about $400 million – a reduction not accounted for in the 2007 plan, which was based on the assumption that federal highway funds would remain constant at about $1 billion annually. That means Virginia must provide a larger match for each project and the shortfall in state transportation revenues can only mean that fewer projects will be accomplished.

Recommendations for strengthening H.B. 3202 include:

• Abolish the civil remedial fees (abusive driver fees) entirely. Increase the original (pre-2007 plan) revenue sources flowing into the Commonwealth Transportation Fund by about $67.5 million annually to compensate for this lost revenue. Increase the fines for the most egregious offenses, such as drunk driving and reckless driving, to enhance traffic safety and increase revenue for the Literary Fund to help local governments defray the cost of public school construction and renovation.

• Direct VDOT and the CTB to assess the impact of reduced Federal funding for transportation from 2010 onward and report their findings to the General assembly in the 2009 session. This assessment should include options for increasing revenue flows into the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to compensate for lost Federal Funding, as well as the impact on maintenance and construction of not fully compensating for the lost revenue.

• In 2009 begin increasing the original (pre-2007 plan) revenue sources flowing into the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to provide the amount determined to be necessary by VDOT and the CTB to compensate for the $400 million annual reduction in Federal highway funding. If the increase is less than $400 million, revise the Six-Year Improvement Plan to reduce the number of projects to stay within projected funding levels.

• Eliminate the use of State Recordation Tax funds for the Highway Maintenance Operating Fund and transit systems operations. Increase the original (pre-2007 plan) revenue sources flowing into the Commonwealth Transportation Fund by about $65.5 million annually to compensate for this lost revenue.

• Eliminate the designation of 2/3 of the General Fund undesignated surplus for the Commonwealth Transportation Fund. Given the unpredictability of General Fund surpluses, this is an unreliable solution to funding transportation that will result in sudden surges in spending – a prescription for inefficient project management and potentially wasteful spending. If the revenue sources for the Commonwealth Transportation Fund are adequate, there will be no pressing need to tap into any future General Fund surplus. This will give the General Assembly and the Governor the flexibility they need to apply future General Fund surpluses to highest priority requirements across all General Fund accounts, or to reduce the burden on tax payers when the entire amount of a windfall surplus is not needed to meet pressing unfunded requirements.

• Review the balance of revenue versus requirements for transportation funding in every even year General Assembly session in order to avoid a repeat of the decades of neglect that are just now being corrected. The only way to manage Virginia’s transportation requirements effectively is to take a steady strain on keeping revenue matched with requirements.

• Eliminate the Priority Transportation Fund, leaving the single, unified Commonwealth Transportation Fund, and amend the transportation appropriations process to ensure that funding priorities are driven by the state-wide strategic plan and an objective assessment of the return on investment from each proposed project. The General Assembly should vote to approve or disapprove an overall state-wide transportation plan, rather than its current practice of earmarking individual projects for funding in the Priority Transportation Fund.

The recently enacted Abusive Driver Fees have generated intense criticism from citizens and lawmakers alike. Where do you stand on the fees and, if you oppose them, how would you replace the transportation funds they were designed to generate?

I believe we should abolish the abusive driver fees. They failed to make roads safer in other states that tried them. Extending the fees to out-of-state drivers will fail because there is no way to collect them other than filing civil lawsuits – other states are not going to spend their tax dollars collecting fees for Virginia’s roads. To crack down on the worst drivers, increase the existing fines they pay. Under Virginia’s Constitution, traffic fines go into the Literary Fund, which helps fund school construction and renovation in Virginia’s neediest cities and counties. The literary Fund currently has a backlog of 36 projects costing $179 million. Increasing fines on the worst drivers will help fund school renovation and construction, getting Virginia’s students out of dilapidated buildings and trailers. The best solution for all Virginians is to revisit the original (pre-2007) revenue sources in the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, which are the most fair because they are true user fees.
The recently enacted Abusive Driver Fees have generated intense criticism from citizens and lawmakers alike. Where do you stand on the laws and, if you oppose them, how would you replace the transportation funds they were designed to generate?

I believe we should abolish the abusive driver fees. They failed to make roads safer in other states that tried them. Extending the fees to out-of-state drivers will fail because there is no way to collect them other than filing civil lawsuits – other states are not going to spend their tax dollars collecting fees for Virginia’s roads. To crack down on the worst drivers, increase the existing fines they pay. Under Virginia’s Constitution, traffic fines go into the Literary Fund, which helps fund school construction and renovation in Virginia’s neediest cities and counties. The literary Fund currently has a backlog of 36 projects costing $179 million. Increasing fines on the worst drivers will help fund school renovation and construction, getting Virginia’s students out of dilapidated buildings and trailers. The best solution for all Virginians is to revisit the original (pre-2007) revenue sources in the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, which are the most fair because they are true user fees.

What is your view on The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority formed earlier this year?

The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRTA) is a valuable step toward solving the region’s transportation woes, but faces serious, potentially debilitating, issues in two areas: funding and the powers given to it by H.B. 3202.

The most important funding issue is that the taxes and fees HRTA is authorized to collect are estimated to provide only about 2/3 of the annual revenue that HRPDC calculated would be needed ($170 million vice $275 million), in addition to tolls and Federal funds, in order to complete the six major projects in the Regional Transportation Plan before traffic congestion reaches the severe level on major arteries across the region. Table 1 summarizes the funding plan for The Hampton Roads 2030 Regional Transportation Plan as approved by the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in June 2005.

HRTA taxes and fees ($275 million annually) $5,509 million
Federal funds for construction $491 million
Federal funds to repay HRTA bonds $350 million
Toll revenue for construction $191 million
Toll revenue to repay HRTA bonds $2,381 million

Table 1. Funding Plan Approved by the Hampton Roads MPO

If HRTA can only raise $170 million a year in taxes and fees, the total amount will only be $3,400 million, leaving a shortfall of $2,109 million. As discussed previously, Federal funds will not be available to make up that deficit, leaving tolls as the only revenue source that can be increased to keep the plan on track and prevent Hampton Roads from becoming grid locked by severe congestion. The total revenue raised from tolls would have to increase a whopping 83%, from $2,527 million to $4,681 million, to keep the plan on track. That means the toll rates approved by the Hampton Roads MPO would have to be nearly doubled. The General Assembly did not make this consequence of H.B. 3202 clear to the public. HRTA thus may be faced with the prospect that increasing tolls to compensate for the inadequate revenue from taxes and fees may not be feasible or desirable, leaving severe congestion on key arteries the inevitable outcome.

The General Assembly should be receptive to proposals from HRTA to correct this funding shortfall, whether in the next session in 2008 or future sessions. In particular, the General Assembly should consider contributing state-wide transportation revenue to HRTA projects that clearly benefit the entire Commonwealth, such as Route 460, I-64 upgrades on the Peninsula and the Third Crossing. This will help ensure that critical projects are completed in the time frame they are needed. Additionally, the General assembly should grant HRTA the power to partner with surrounding jurisdictions to share the cost of projects extending outside HRTA and benefiting those jurisdictions as well as HRTA members.

The second funding issue faced by HRTA is public opposition to certain of the fees and taxes contained in the 2007 plan and concern among some elected officials that those fees could be a drag on economic growth in the region. The 40 cent increase in the Grantor’s Tax is particularly irksome to homeowners because it is paid by the seller and has no direct relationship to how much an individual uses or benefits from the transportation system. For those reasons, HRTA voted to defer imposition of the new fees and taxes until April 2008, after the next General Assembly session, even though doing so would mean a delay in starting construction on the projects. HRTA is now developing amendment to H.B. 3202 that would scale back or eliminate certain taxes and fees, and increase others to compensate for the lost revenue. The General assembly should support HRTA and approve the amended regional transportation funding plan.

The powers given to HRTA by H.B. 3202 appear to be too narrow to permit the Authority to carry out its responsibilities effectively. Specific recommendations include:

• Amend H.B. 3202 to specifically state that HRTA, not CTB, is the final approval authority for projects being funded by HRTA, including approval of the design for the project and selecting the bid for construction of the project.

• Amend Section 33.1-391.10, subsection 14 of H.B. 3202 by removing the second, third and fourth paragraphs, eliminating all mention of phasing and giving HRTA the flexibility it needs to phase the projects based on their importance to the region and the availability of funding.

• Amend Section 33.1-391.10 of H.B. 3202 to give HRTA greater ability to control project costs, such as by reducing the scope of individual projects or re-phasing projects to better meet near term transportation requirements.

• Amend Section 33.1-391.10 of H.B. 3202 to clearly define the relationship between HRTA, HRPDC and the MPO. Enhance the structure and process of the MPO to better meet Federal requirements as well as the transportation planning needs of Hampton roads.

• Contribute state-wide transportation revenue to HRTA projects that clearly benefit the entire Commonwealth, such as Route 460, I-64 upgrades on the Peninsula and the Third Crossing to ensure they are completed in the time frame they are needed.

• Give HRTA the power to partner with surrounding jurisdictions to share the cost of projects extending outside HRTA and benefiting those jurisdictions as well as HRTA members.

• If H.B. 3202 does not give HRTA the flexibility it needs to revise the Regional Transportation Plan, amend Section 33.1-391.10 to make it clear that “any successive plan” approved by the MPO includes revisions to the 2030 plan, such as design refinements to existing projects in the current Regional Transportation Plan and additional projects HRTA may want to add to the plan.

• If H.B. 3202 does not give HRTA the flexibility it needs to fund projects other than the six regional projects listed in the bill, amend Section 33.1-391.10 to make it clear that the term Regional Transportation Plan as used in the bill includes all the projects listed in the plan, including transit, rail and intelligent transportation system projects. This amendment would give HRTA and CTB flexibility to shift projects between state-wide funding (projects in the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program) and HRTA funding (projects in the Hampton Roads Regional Transportation Plan) to accomplish high priority projects in a timely manner and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.