I attended the luncheon hosted by a number of local groups earlier today where, separately, gubernatorial candidates Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds spoke. (Those of you who follow me on Twitter got the blow-by-blow comments as I could thumb-type them.) I will have video of both appearances up later. Just as McDonnell was finishing up, I saw the tweets about former governor Doug Wilder’s “non-endorsement,” including the link to the actual remarks, as posted here.
Reading through them quickly, I was able to get the gist of Wilder’s comments, none of which were surprising. (I may or may not have more on that later.) As soon as McDonnell finished, I headed over to ask him about them.
Obviously, since they had just been posted, McDonnell was not aware of them. He seemed stunned when I said Wilder had issued no endorsement. I showed him the remarks linked above. He put his glasses on to read them, and very quickly composed himself. I asked him if he was disappointed. He said no, Wilder had never endorsed a Republican. He told me that he and Wilder had worked together on a number of issues over the years.
I left him to deal with other reporters.
Shortly afterwards, once McDonnell had left, Deeds came into the room. (They actually served lunch between speakers.) As he made his way to the front table, I spoke briefly to him about the Wilder non-endorsement. I can only assume that he had already been informed. His answer more closely met the official response from the campaign. He said he has tremendous respect for Wilder and looked forward to working with him when he is governor.
I hope to have a chance to chat with Creigh again later this evening.
And I apologize for the crappy pictures. I took them on my cell and the lighting in the room was horrible.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
From Gov. Wilder’s comments, it is easy to see why he was named the most fiscally conservative governor in the union during his term. I am proud to have voted for him.
How are we going to fix congestion if we don’t raise revenue?
Who has a plan to “fix congestion?” Even the HRPDC says if 6 major projects were built in Hampton Roads, congestion would only slightly improve.
What are voters concerned about? I can tell you up here in the Washington Metro the constant talk is about traffic congestion. It is a morning topic where I work every week, at least. I can’t say that I spend a lot of time in Virginia Beach, but it is bound to be getting worse for you too. And I have to think that is the single most important metric when people are evaluating the quality of the transportation system. That’s why transportation is such a big deal. People want a solution to alleviate congestion. And if we don’t at least slow it, what’s the point?
The HRPDC statement matches what I have read in the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 study. Basically, if you just match capacity additions with a region’s growth, you just slow the rate of increase in congestion. Capacity additions have to exceed growth to reduce it. But I imagine for a lot of areas that is to play catch up on years of neglect or just lack of foresight on growth.
And to answer your question, right now, I don’t know. McDonnell’s plan as written most certainly won’t do anything. It may not even get us to matching federal revenue. Unless the ultimate goal of McDonnell is to really privatize the infrastructure through the PPTA, I don’t see his plan doing anything.
It’s actually a step beyond matching a region’s growth. Some roads simply stretch out the growth. Some highways just make living farther away from key employment areas more possible.
Yes, people complain about traffic, but they don’t hate it enough to move closer to where they work. In fact, they often move farther away from where they work.
And they don’t hate it enough to clamor for tax increases, as even Northern Virginia opposed taxing itself in 2002. Statewide tax increases just send their money everywhere else, so that doesn’t help NOVA either.
I heard far more outrage when gas hit 4 bucks a gallon than I ever have about traffic congestion. That tells me exactly where people really are on the issue.
Brian, I have to agree with you there. I would say though on the moving further out deal some of that is just a factor of what you can get for your money.
So, no solution then?
vjp-with all due respect, your slogan should read All Politics ARE Local (when one uses words that are singular, one needs to use the word IS; when one uses plural words one needs to use ARE)
Take it up with Tip O’Neill – it’s his quote and the title of his book 😉
Possibly the last of the great statesmen.
tx2vadem, I wouldn’t say “no solution.” I think ways to tie revenue generated by regional economic engines are prudent. I think the funding formula calculated simply by lane miles is deeply flawed.
I don’t think the answer is tax increases and massive building where the end result is the same congestion we had before we spent the billions of dollars.