Wally,

The criteria was derived from discussions with HDR (the consultant). Under Federal rules, the CAC's primary mission will be to mitigate any negative impacts on the immediate neighborhoods, thus the quarter-mile demarcation.

Given that the VBTA Transportation Chairman's paying gig is as a Federal contractor, it's disingenous at best for the VBTA to suggest that we can simply go off on our own tangent and do whatever we want. HDR is assuring that the Federal rules are complied with.

I think it is important for citizen input and hear their concerns. I live in Norfolk, and I was not afforded the opportunity to express my views on the LR development. The few attempts were scheduled at inopportune locations and times. I don't think the Norfolk City Council really cared what the citizens' opinions were anyway.

No Choice in Norfolk,
Tommy M.

Since the three part series produced by the VBTA's spokesman of Transportation, and published on the pages of VNS, make it unalterably clear that the VBTA is opposed to light rail, why would they have any interest in participating in any process that seeks to minimize the environmental impact of light rail?

We already know that they oppose it. For them, the case is closed. No matter what happens during the EIS, they will be opposed to light rail, so outside of the question of whether they should be included on the CAC is the question of why they would want to be included and to participate at all.

Has the organization actually ever convened a meeting to discuss light rail and to hear the opinions on both sides of the issue? Have they ever actually discussed the issue outside of the usual harangue from Reid Greenmun that makes it absolutely clear that the organization has already taken a position in strong opposition to light rail?

Have they ever actually discussed the fact that the increased value of commercial real estate in proximity to the rail stations could help to reduce the real estate tax rate?

It would be interesting if others had insight into the process that the VBTA has to develop their policy positions. In this case, they got out in front early and forcefully in opposition to light rail. Does this request to now participate indicate that they may actually have an open mind?

I doubt it. MJB sends!

Fighting tooth & nail against light rail still wouldn't mean you had no interest in mitigating damage caused by light rail were it to come to fruition anyway.

If the purpose is soley for sound mitigation etc., I'm sure VBTA members would be interested. It might be one of the few common interests both sides would have. Therefore, the move does seem biased and exclusionary. Either you want citizen input, or you don't.

Henry:

In all fairness, I believe you have understated the environmental factors by limiting them to noise (and I would assume vibration).

There are additional factors that need to be addressed; for instance, traffic, air quality, natural environment, visual quality, historic and archaeological, economic impacts.

This partial list includes use of additional electricity which will relocate hydrocarbon production increases to the generating source. pedestrian and bicycle safety at ground levels, changes in traffic volume, detours/lane closures during construction, visual effects of stations and overhead catenary system, visual effects of possible tree removal, access to businesses parking during construction, and potential right-of-way impacts.

Environmental is much more than noise and expand beyond a quarter of a mile.

Wally,

Do the FTA regs include all of that? If not, the CAC can't cover it.

Henry.

Thank you for query and input.

Being devil's advocate, the point of this thread is to ascertain whether or not the SEIS's adequacy, if challenged in the Federal adjudication process, will will be acceptable . If citizens' concerns have not been sufficiently sought through open, inclusive proceedings, could the project be blocked or delayed?

As long as HDR follows the Federal regs (and their VP used to run the FTA's New Starts Program), it will be perfectly legal...and the protaganists hit with a countersuit. :)

"citizens' concerns" are only germane if Federal rules grant the CAC the authority to cover them. In the case of some of the things the VBTA wanted on the CAC's agenda, it's a resounding "no".

I would like to comment on this blog but first please enlighten me. Mike are either you and Henry on the CAC or advisory committee? Has committee assignments been complete and how many members were selected if you know.
Thanks / Al

Al,

The CAC membership hasn't been finalized. However, I'm told there will be a representative from each of HRT's two service committees (TRAC and ADA), and I Chair TRAC. If TRAC is represented, it would have to be either Ngan Lam or I.

Editor's note: TRAC (Transit Rider Advisory Committee), ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act)(HANDI RIDE), CAC (Citizen's Advisory Committee)

Just some personal thoughts Wally.

I am under the impression that when an EIS is conducted where federal, state and local funds are typically involved ALL citizens have a standing to participate and serve on an advisory committee. Some committees have been as large as several hundred.

That includes stakeholders who seek alternative actions because the primary initiative of this EIS is to mitigate or relieve congestion. For example, unsuspecting congestion can take place as a result of the action that impacts those living near the beach and not near the corridor. Although I agree that an aesthetic looking sleek shaped transit would indeed look novel, this project is not an amusement initiative or a Disney express.

Under the restriction scenario you mention HDR disclosed, will local funding be "confined" to those stakeholders who reside within 1/4 mile of the proposed transit corridor? Perhaps that should be the threshold.

The reason that federal initiatives are opened for all stakeholders is to comply with the so called heart of an EIS. A comprehensive review of "alternative actions" including the option of a "no build recommendation. Clearly that includes an exhaustive study of environmental and economic impacts. However, I believe a review of alternative actions serves as the fundamental foundation of the action according to CEQ

Henry, you mentioned that HDR sanctioned or supported the 1/4 mile exclusion. Do you know if the contractor provided an opinion letter to support a restrictive initiative or was this hearsay. I believe under NEPA policies they would have to publicly confirm this in a letter to HRT

Incidentally, an EIS action is not a vote. It is not unusual to have an alternative action selected.

Wally, my thoughts at 11:26
I am under the impression that when an EIS is conducted where federal, state and local funds are typically involved ALL citizens have a standing to participate and serve on an advisory committee.

That includes those who would seek alternative actions because the primary initiative of this action is to mitigate or relieve congestion. Although a sleek looking transit would be novel, It is not an amusement initiative or a Disney express. Under the restriction scenario you mention HDR disclosed, will local funding be "confined" to those stakeholders who reside within 1/4 mile of the proposed transit corridor?

The reason federal initiatives should be opened for all stakeholders is to comply with the so called heart of an EIS. A comprehensive review of "alternative actions" including the option of "no build recommendation and clearly an exhaustive study of environmental and economic impacts. A review of alternative actions serves as the fundamental foundation of the action because impacts can also occur for those who live or work outside of the corridor

Henry, you mentioned that HDR sanctioned or supported the 1/4 mile exclusion. Did the contractor provide an opinion letter to support a restrictive initiative. I believe under NEPA policies they would have to do write a letter to HRT and the content would be public.

Incidentally, an EIS action is not a vote. It is not unusual to have an alternative action selected.

Al,

For all your attempts to spin, it's not an "exclusion". Since the TOD line is one-quarter of a mile, that's where the figure comes from.

Please cite a Federal regulation that provides that "all" (read: VBTA) are entitled to a CAC seat.

If you actually knew a thing about EIS processes, you would know the No Build Alternative is the very first thing looked at. That's to show the need to actually do something.

Henry,
Let me respond to your posted comments which I inserted in quotes

"For all your attempts to spin, it's not an "exclusion". Since the TOD line is one-quarter of a mile, that's where the figure comes from".

Henry, In my opinion, you should not offer a reply so that you could arbitrarily & falsely accuse someone of spinning and than proceed to promote a convoluted response that was not germane & totally moot to the intent of the discussion .

Why would it not be considered an exclusion if an organization, individual, or civic league is declined membership to an advisory committee because he or she resides beyond the 1/4 mile corridor of a proposed action?

Economic and environmental Impacts can be generated well outside the proposed corridor such as the project can precipitate congestion that had not existed before the project occurred.

Stakeholders who reside in Pungo are not exempt from paying taxes when local funding takes place to support a federal project. Standing simply means they are eligible to participate in what is supposed to be an open process that simply does not seek consensus to support a particular action. NEPA has always strived to achieve an open public forum because alternative selections requires input from all affected & diverse stakeholders.

"Please cite a Federal regulation that provides that "all" (read: VBTA) are entitled to a CAC seat."

Henry, I stated that all stakeholders have "standing" to participate and serve on an advisory committee. What did you not understand about "standing"?

Conversely, do you know of a federal regulation that stipulates that only those who reside within a particular area of a federal action can be invited to serve as a member of an advisory committee?


"If you actually knew a thing about EIS processes, you would know the No Build Alternative is the very first thing looked at. That's to show the need to actually do something".

How did the fact that its the first to be looked at get into your discussion? What was the relevance of that statement. I simply stated that alternatives were a vital part of the EIS process and that might include a "no-build" alternative. Sounds like your trying to edit my comments.

Henry, the exercise to gather diverse input on seeking alternatives can occur with any stakeholder. I am afraid the policy of confining participation to the corridor as stated will not reach out to gather input on viable alternatives from all interested parties.

I also believe its a given that the contractors are upstanding and have integrity as an organization that is heavily involved with conducting each aspect of the NEPA process. I also suppose that no letter exists from the contractor to encourage the 1/4 mile corridor standard for membership.

Wally, as you can ascertain from reading the posts herein, one really has to question whether there really is a VBTA any longer.

Individual members write in conflicting opinions and comments, yet we are told they want a seat at the table to express their opposition to light rail.

Perhaps before undertaking a task for which they are clearly not ready, they ought to have a meeting of the mamnbership to discuss the issue. That is different than the normal means of establishing policy for the VBTA; that is, to have the maddest and most angry member of the board write their opinion, uninformed by fact or research, and then have John and Robert bless it as the organizations's position.

No wonder they got less that 16% of the vote. MJB sends!

Mike are you saying that organizations should be of one zombie like mind? Robert does get called a cult leader by people that don't otherwise have a real arguement. Clearly, that must not be true since you point to a diversity of opinion within the VBTA. Either way,there would be name calling though, right?

I did learn something I didn't before regarding a possible motive of VBTA wanting a seat at the table. That being the possible "not to build" choice that Al got Henry to admit existed. I don't know anything about the EIS process, but what I've gathered here. Perhaps, the wanting of the seat is the wanting of an opportunity to kill light rail. If that's the case, I still don't know that their voice of opposition shouldn't be heard. It kinda portrays the VBTA as eternal light rail nay-sayers and Henry as deceptive with the facts. Simply noise mitigation, huh?Agendas on both sides are becoming clearer.

At this point, I think that VB just isn't ready for light rail. I also feel it would be dangerous to the local economy given the current risk and trends that show people leaving the area.

You could in fact soften my position on light rail if you (or the Chamber of Commerce, city council/management)could at least demonstrate some likelyhood that the density needed to sustain all this building and light rail construction would actually show up.

Although, I am currently opposed to light rail and rapid expansion of Towne Center, I am not necessarily opposed to the buying of the Circuit City property or preferably the purchase of an option to buy. It depends on what all the available options are and whether that offsets taking valuable land off of the tax rolls(eliminating part of a revenue stream. It could rest with expansion of Towne Center, light rail-should it come, or some other purpose. We have Towne Center already. There's no going back. Since we have that now and the property is in close proximity, and available, an open mind would at least hear out some worthwhile arguements.

Unfortunately, all I see is arguement pointing to a risky economy, population, credit, and real estate trends that bode ill for such a venture at this time. Well......that and name calling. From your side I see the point that density development skyward and immediately around light rail/Towne Center could possibly pay for all this urbanization, but I have not seen credible evidence that the needed "density" might actually show up. Construction for the sake of the pocket books Realtors, Bankers, and Developers is just not enough to sell me on these proundly aggressive ideas. Name calling from you and Henry don't convince me either.

Is there anything more from a business stand point, that would point to a positive and likely reason to support either Towne Center expansion and/or light rail?

Yes, of course. First of course is the fact that the City is close to being out of large lots in suburban locations. Second is the fact that large lots in semi rural locations are simply the definition of sprawl, which is much too costly to support the services they require.

Third of course are the mandates created by the General Assembly in regard to the aforementioned development patterns. Increasingly, the state, which bears the cost of road maintenance in most counties, has acknowledged that they simply can't raise enough money to maintain, much less build, roads to connect rural large lot sibdivisions with town centers.

So Britt, if you truly have an open mind, and if you can see the deplorable state of our current roads, which approximate the conditions found in many third world countries, you must acknowledge that public transit is becoming more of a necessity than ever.

Will this pattern transform the Beach? Well over the same period of time it took us to become the definition of suburbia, so does light rail and the denser develoment incident to it, have the potential to change our environment to make our land use pattern more sustainable. MJB sends!

Uh...Britt...the CAC won't make the call on which alternative to pursue.

Henry:
No, but it makes a recommendation though, right? One that weighs heavily? There does seem to be an active effort to exclude VBTA? If it is so meaningless, where's the harm in humoring them by giving them a seat? There does seem to be an active effort by the VBTA to get in. I'm going by the evidence and people on both sides seem to act like this is a big deal.

Mike, thanks for that. I did already get the argument about expansion eventually will only come through urbanization. We are way far from being in Norfolk's shoes, but the amount of VB developmental land is ever shrinking. Even though there are still some growth opportunities, I don't blame one for looking towards some sort of urban development. I get that part of the argument.

I don't agree with you on the traffic issue. Light Rail won't fix that. I am convinced that light rail is NOT a general traffic solution. You don't have any hope of convincing me otherwise. I've seen enough evidence of what light rail will and won't do for traffic congestion. That doesn't mean that I'm not still open to other arguments.

Light rail will only serve as an expensive yet, possibly vital part of a long term urbanization strategy of developing skyward. Short term, light rail will be a drain and mostly serve the "have nots" that will make up the cheap labor at the ocean front or......hang out there and party. Once the development is sufficiently matured, you will have more people living in an urban setting without cars. That of course means they can afford more rent/mortgage payments since they no longer have a car payment. That means more revenue for the city. See, I really am trying to find the truth, even if it means looking for arguments for your side.

Here's where things get murky. For light rail not to be just a giant waste of funds, density development MUST occur. Convince me that the development will happen and the people will come. The trend is leaving the area not coming to it. Recently Virginia Beach has gotten a bad reputation as being "Unfriendly to Families" according to Forbes http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/02/cities-ten-budget-forbeslife-cx_fl_1202realestate.html
thing I knew for a long time. I grew up here. We have transformed from a lower than average salaried area balanced by a lower than average cost of living, to being higher than average on cost of living but, still below average in pay. Now Sessoms seems ready to add to the pain by raising taxes for a tribute to Vice Mayor Jones and a few other projects. I hope he really is looking to measure public response on that.

So, convince me these new people will come just because buildings are built and the light rail is put in place. I fear what the current economy will do with that. Commercial property sitting empty and even more residential properties(skyward in this case) unsold. In that case, it benefits nobody but the builders that get paid regardless of failure or success.

As a real estate developer, you have more experience and knowledge on that. Garcia seems to think building at Stumpy Lake will be profitable. I don't see why......but, there must be something to it.

Other than construction cost being down a little, which I also get, convince me that density will come and aggressive Town Center expansion/light rail is feasible at this point in time.

Well Britt, our road situation has been in a state of deplorable deterioration for over a decade, so one light rail project certainly will not solve a decade of neglect the republicans in the House of Delegates. However, by changing development patterns by allowing commercial and residential growth it will not make the road situation worse.

Will multi use development pattens occur with light rail? Yes, absolutely they will, within the context of course of macro economic forces, and of course, the city's effective and intelligent use of the zoning ordinance to shape this development.

Look at the new growth in downtown Norfolk along the line. Go to San Jose, or Houston, or Portland, or any of the many communities that have already installed light rail. Quality growth occurs in proximity if local land use regulations allow it to occur.

If I were you, I would stop worrying about the economy; it is already starting back up, and since we did not fall as far back, we will recover quickly. More new growth will occur in cities as counties can no lonager count of road funding. We developers will be ready. MJB sends!

Good points Mike. Norfolk has a vested interest in getting the Beach to go light rail. We've heard about all the cost over runs and accusations of deception, but if good "before and after" photos/arguements can be made, it will be an easier sell in VB.

Both sides should be looking at Norfolk in preparing their case. Will there be enough development? Will crime become an issue? Will it be worth it? Time will tell. Norfolk needs to get it done right or it might not happen in the Beach to their likeing.

There are small signals of possible improvement in my area of work. You may be right. One thing you did mention that I haven't thought of was the possible lack of county funding contributing to increases in urban and suburban demand. Interesting.

Still, the challenge will be to lure workers that make up that density. That financial "unfriendliness" has contributed to making it hard to lure labor to this area and after some of the cuts have been re-hired, that will be a problem again. Getting current companies with higher paying jobs to expand will be key short term I would think. Definitely there has to be the introduction of new labor that gets higher end pay. The cost of living really is an issue.

If labor will be an issue, companies will hesitate to come. Incentives will probably be needed that could possibly enable a company to pay more. How about that BPOL? Hehe.

Yes, economic development is key to the continued success of our region whether we have light rail or not. A trained and available work force is the most important element that firms look for, and so far, they have found that.

I think light rail is more important to us than it is to Norfolk. Downtown is already developed, and while new multi use development is now occuring there, it is simply replacing existing commercial uses.

In our case, most of the land along the former freight rail line is comprised of very marginal, light industrial uses that would better be accommodated in the new industrial sites near Oceana.

So in our case, the increase in real estate value in proximity to the line could be extraordinary rather than just good. MJB sends!

Mike, my biggest disagreement is with your statement here:

"A trained and available work force is the most important element that firms look for, and so far, they have found that."

Available being the key word. Traditionally, yes, VB has been rich in trained available labor. Retired military still of working age staying in the area have been a gold mine. Technical training, existing benefits, and military retirement pay, all enable a company to get more for less when hiring former military. Unfortunately, some are leaving the area for greener pastures and military assets are on constant threat to relocate to Mayport Fla. etc.

Just prior to the economic downturn, my company continually spent money to go outside VB for talent. Whether it was in state or from far away like Michigan. It is my impression that we spent a lot of money trying to recruit talent. One of the reasons I have heard jobs were turned down was specifically, the cost of housing here. Now of course, initially, some of that might be easily regained by tapping the still unemployed. Healthy companies that recover fastest will be best able to compete for cherry picking those still looking for employment. When we make a full recovery, I would anticipate that those issues of availabe talent might return. The area has lost population. That always hurts.

If... density does make its way here, I don't dispute possible explosive development is possible in that corridor with careful zoning and actually paying attention to some of the problems that do exist, for real, and right now, in the rest of the city. The health of the city as a whole really does matter, even if you want to develop Town Center etc. So far, in my opinon, Jim Spore is losing in his game of SIM City where the lives in this instance, are real and not simulated.

Britt, I think you have been mis-informed. The area is not losing population.

Perhaps a few firms have sought talent outside this area. Certainly in the mid West, hihgly experienced personnel are available at very low rates. That is what business people do.; find talent at the lowest possible rate.

Lastly, while you may reference some anecdotal evidence, I have recently attended a number of announcements and ground breakings, and one thing is clear, whether it was Canon, or Arreva, or Northrup Grumman, or Sparta. That is, each company said that the availability of a trained and disciplined work force was the single most important factor in their decision to expand or in the case of new companies, to locate here.

Now I know that at the VBVTA meetings, the members are all looking up to see if the sky is falling down. That is why you miss all the good news right here on the ground in Hampton Roads.

Mike, I hate to say this, but I suspect deception on your part. The population is something that I would assume a guy like you involved with your various activities should know. At least you qualified your statement with "I think".

I don't just blow smoke without evidence. I'll cite the Pilot which cites the 2008 census. There are plenty of other googles that will give you similar info. This all correlates with the closing of elementary schools as young couples get priced out of the area. Lots of "tax efficient" homes for sale that young families can't afford.

Here you will see that Virginia Beach population went from 435,257 DOWN to 433,746. As a region, I believe we lost population as well. I would have to check other sources I've seen previously. State wide, Virginia did GAIN population. Again, VB has been on a negative trend.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/database-2008-county-population-estimates?appSession=031031741761084

I can also point to articles of the elementary school closings if you wish to dispute that as well.

Sky is falling? Like when Warner insisted his tax increase was absolutely needed to balance the budget when we ended with a surplus before his lovely taxes even went into effect? There's "chicken little" for ya.

Will the world end if we don't get light rail and aggressive expansion of Town Center? .........



Military contractors will likely always be able to say that this area is talent rich & ship yard trades as well ("Areva and Northrop Grumman have broken ground on a 300000-square-foot facility in Newport News that will manufacture large components used" Canon, similar story?), but that won't be the case for all industries. Good for NorVa in the Sparta thing. Then again Michigan will likely be talent rich due to what is left of the auto industry. Still,......Michigan has its issues as well.

I'm not here to say that nothing works. I'm just saying that there are real issues that get ignored, especially locally in VB.

Hey, if those issues get fixed and VBTA keeps saying the same thing, maybe you have more of a point. Kinda hard to distance myself from them......they're right about too many things too often. Perhaps fixing those issues is the best way to make them disappear.

I'm not above hearing good news about the area I love. I'm also just a bit protective and get rightfully concerned when things threaten our local economy and way of life. Poor management in certain areas (not all) regarding our fiscal health.