This document summarizes a court case regarding tolls imposed on users of tunnels crossing the Elizabeth River in Virginia. The court held that the General Assembly did not unconstitutionally delegate its taxation power to the Virginia Department of Transportation and a private company under the Public-Private Transportation Act. The court also found that the comprehensive agreement between VDOT and the private company did not abridge the Commonwealth's police power.
Have you ever wondered how decisions are made about transportation projects that affect your life? How do government officials decide where to put a bus stop, road, or bridge? How are these and other transportation projects planned? And how can you make sure your opinions are heard and considered by the planners, road designers, elected officials, and other citizens?
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) wrote this guide to give you the answers to
these and other transportation-related questions.
Name of the Project: Conflict-Affected Area Rehabilitation Project (CAARP)
Scope of Work: Rehabilitation of 240km of national highways in North-East Province.
Objectives: Achieve sustainable maintenance and construction of economically justifiable roads to improve access and reduce transport costs, promote more sustainable road funding, adopt environmentally sustainable practices, and generate rural employment.
Rural Long Range Transportation Plan 2005 - 2030LSCOG
This document provides a summary of the Lower Savannah Council of Governments Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2005-2030. The plan was developed in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation and a Technical Advisory Committee to identify and prioritize rural transportation needs in the region in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements. Key aspects of the plan include maintaining and improving the region's highway, bridge, intersection and other infrastructure over the 25-year period through projects funded by rural system upgrade funds. Public involvement was an important part of developing and implementing the plan.
The document discusses fulfilling promises made to British Columbia when it joined Confederation in 1871, specifically regarding transportation infrastructure. It describes how the Canadian Pacific Railway was originally built between 1881-1885 to connect eastern Canada with British Columbia, fulfilling the promise of a transcontinental railway. While primarily a freight railway, the CPR was also instrumental in long-distance passenger transport and the settlement of Western Canada. Completion of the railway was marked by the driving of the Last Spike in 1885.
The document discusses feeder services as an important part of integrated public transport networks. It defines feeder services as buses that pick up passengers and transport them to transfer points to connect to trunk services like rail. Effective feeder services require consideration of origin-destination points, network connectivity, ease of transfers and fare pricing. Challenges include long wait times, inefficient routes and high costs that make conventional buses unsuitable as feeders. Solutions proposed include improving infrastructure at stations, optimizing route lengths and frequencies, and exploring new transport models like paratransit to enhance viability and connectivity of feeder services as part of the overall public transport system.
This document discusses increasing shuttle bus services to connect with the MTA's Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road. It summarizes population growth trends in the New York region, including increases in commuting trips. It also discusses rising ridership on Metro-North and LIRR that has exceeded projections. However, parking availability is constrained at many railroad stations. Expanding shuttle bus services can help reduce parking demand and traffic congestion by providing transportation connections to more stations. The report evaluates existing shuttle services and identifies factors that contribute to successful operations. It provides recommendations to improve shuttle services and station access.
This document presents in brief, the thesis work on Inland Water Transport in the city of Cochin, Kerala. It discusses inland navigation as an affordable public transport option here. It suggests an unifying agency named Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) to co-ordinate metropolitan transport needs and suggests using unified metro cards for effective public movement. Thesis received VN Prasad National Award, ITPI - 1999
Have you ever wondered how decisions are made about transportation projects that affect your life? How do government officials decide where to put a bus stop, road, or bridge? How are these and other transportation projects planned? And how can you make sure your opinions are heard and considered by the planners, road designers, elected officials, and other citizens?
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) wrote this guide to give you the answers to
these and other transportation-related questions.
Name of the Project: Conflict-Affected Area Rehabilitation Project (CAARP)
Scope of Work: Rehabilitation of 240km of national highways in North-East Province.
Objectives: Achieve sustainable maintenance and construction of economically justifiable roads to improve access and reduce transport costs, promote more sustainable road funding, adopt environmentally sustainable practices, and generate rural employment.
Rural Long Range Transportation Plan 2005 - 2030LSCOG
This document provides a summary of the Lower Savannah Council of Governments Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2005-2030. The plan was developed in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation and a Technical Advisory Committee to identify and prioritize rural transportation needs in the region in accordance with federal transportation planning requirements. Key aspects of the plan include maintaining and improving the region's highway, bridge, intersection and other infrastructure over the 25-year period through projects funded by rural system upgrade funds. Public involvement was an important part of developing and implementing the plan.
The document discusses fulfilling promises made to British Columbia when it joined Confederation in 1871, specifically regarding transportation infrastructure. It describes how the Canadian Pacific Railway was originally built between 1881-1885 to connect eastern Canada with British Columbia, fulfilling the promise of a transcontinental railway. While primarily a freight railway, the CPR was also instrumental in long-distance passenger transport and the settlement of Western Canada. Completion of the railway was marked by the driving of the Last Spike in 1885.
The document discusses feeder services as an important part of integrated public transport networks. It defines feeder services as buses that pick up passengers and transport them to transfer points to connect to trunk services like rail. Effective feeder services require consideration of origin-destination points, network connectivity, ease of transfers and fare pricing. Challenges include long wait times, inefficient routes and high costs that make conventional buses unsuitable as feeders. Solutions proposed include improving infrastructure at stations, optimizing route lengths and frequencies, and exploring new transport models like paratransit to enhance viability and connectivity of feeder services as part of the overall public transport system.
This document discusses increasing shuttle bus services to connect with the MTA's Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road. It summarizes population growth trends in the New York region, including increases in commuting trips. It also discusses rising ridership on Metro-North and LIRR that has exceeded projections. However, parking availability is constrained at many railroad stations. Expanding shuttle bus services can help reduce parking demand and traffic congestion by providing transportation connections to more stations. The report evaluates existing shuttle services and identifies factors that contribute to successful operations. It provides recommendations to improve shuttle services and station access.
This document presents in brief, the thesis work on Inland Water Transport in the city of Cochin, Kerala. It discusses inland navigation as an affordable public transport option here. It suggests an unifying agency named Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) to co-ordinate metropolitan transport needs and suggests using unified metro cards for effective public movement. Thesis received VN Prasad National Award, ITPI - 1999
The following research work conducted by Yogi Joseph of CEPT, Ahmedabad for Centre for Public Policy Research, aims to highlight the problems ailing the water transportation sector in Kochi. It relied upon extensive review of secondary data, people’s observations about the ferry system recorded through primary surveys, focus group discussions and perception studies to suggest feasible measures towards addressing those problems.
The document proposes updates to the transportation element of Fort Lauderdale's comprehensive plan to enhance equity, connectivity, and livability through transportation initiatives. It recommends expanding public transit options like the Wave streetcar, implementing a bus rapid transit network, and establishing an intracoastal ferry system. It also proposes designating urban growth areas to concentrate future development, adopting a modal hierarchy prioritizing pedestrians and transit, implementing complete streets design standards, and designating some streets as public spaces. The goals are to provide more equitable, sustainable, and multimodal transportation access for all citizens.
This document discusses first mile-last mile connectivity challenges and opportunities in Miami-Dade County. It notes that first and last mile connections are the most difficult parts of a transit trip. A variety of options exist for first and last mile connections including driving, shuttles, walking, biking, and ridesharing. The document outlines existing conditions and challenges like limited park-and-ride capacity and incomplete pedestrian networks. It identifies opportunities to improve bike and pedestrian access near stations and expand park-and-ride facilities. Future projects should emphasize multi-modal connectivity and prioritize improving access by all modes to transit facilities.
1) The document discusses the potential for implementing a water transportation system connecting the Hatirjheel, Gulshan, Banani, and Baridhara lakes in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2) It provides background on the Hatirjheel project which revived one of the lakes, and argues water transportation could provide a cheap public transit option while reducing environmental impacts.
3) However, challenges include coordinating different agencies, managing waste disposal, and potential negative effects on water quality and wildlife from increased usage. The document analyzes this proposal's costs and benefits.
A summary of the case against HS2 from HS2 Action Alliance. Analysis of the fatal flaws in the business case; why it won;t close the north south divide; the capacity lie; connectivity nonsense; service cuts; alternative and what the pubic think
The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time altogether. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give: The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.
~ Adam Smith
For more information, see http://reliefline.ca
Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.
The document discusses Malaysia's plans to shift reliance away from private vehicles and towards public transportation. It summarizes Malaysia's Vision 2020 goals of achieving developed nation status and unity through initiatives like the National Public Transport Framework. The Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) was formed in 2010 to lead this transformation by developing a National Land Public Transport Master Plan and several subsidiary plans focused on improving rail, bus, taxi and integration systems. Major infrastructure projects underway include the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit system, bus rapid transit lines, and the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail link. The overall aim is to increase public transportation's modal share to 40% by 2030 to reduce congestion, pollution and support economic growth
Passenger Rail vs. Multi-Modal Transportation Corridorbudcolligan
The document compares the goals and attributes of a passenger rail system versus using the transportation corridor as a multi-modal path without rail for Santa Cruz County. Some key points discussed are that a passenger rail system would have higher capital and operating costs, take longer to implement, and face more funding risks than a non-rail transportation corridor. A non-rail corridor could accommodate more daily trips as a bike/pedestrian path, have fewer environmental impacts, lower safety costs, and see greater economic benefits from eco-tourism.
HSH Dearborn County Indiana June 2019 fullbinder_v4-printversion-60pJustin Sutton
The document outlines plans for the Hydrogen Super Highway (HSH) project, which proposes building a solar-powered transportation and infrastructure system in Dearborn County, Indiana. The system would use hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water as an energy storage medium. It would include an elevated maglev transportation line running along the infrastructure corridor to distribute hydrogen as fuel. A $12 million demonstration project is proposed to build a half-mile test track segment to showcase the technology. Supporters argue it could establish the region as a leader in renewable energy and hydrogen solutions if fully implemented.
The South Central Planning and Development Commission (SCPDC) is a regional planning commission established in 1973 in Louisiana. It serves Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and Terrebonne Parishes. SCPDC is involved with comprehensive and land use planning for the parishes, including transportation elements. It also works to educate communities on policies like complete streets and supports coordination of human services transportation.
The RTA supports accelerating multimodal transportation solutions for the Western Triangle region. They have advocated for transit projects like bus rapid transit and light rail. Recently, the RTA endorsed a fully-electric, enhanced bus rapid transit (3eBRT) concept for the Durham-Orange corridor as a way to potentially accelerate transit improvements. 3eBRT could begin immediately and scale over time, offering enhanced regional connections at a lower capital cost than light rail. However, light rail remains the long term vision supported by county referendums, with environmental reviews completed. The landscape presents challenges from funding limits, but the RTA framework considers mobility and connectivity goals as well as risks and uncertainties.
Nick Ivanoff, president and CEO of Ammann & Whitney and senior vice chairman of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), testified before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment regarding EPA's expanded interpretation of its permit veto authority under the Clean Water Act. He expressed concerns that EPA's retroactive veto of an issued section 404 permit undermines predictability and fairness in the permitting process. This increased uncertainty could jeopardize transportation project planning, financing, and delivery. ARTBA supports legislation to curb EPA's ability to retroactively veto valid permits and restore certainty for transportation construction.
myRide: A Real-Time Information System for the Carnegie Mellon University Shu...Karen Mesko
http://myride.heinz.cmu.edu
myRide is a real-time transit information system for the Carnegie Mellon University Shuttle. It was built by Heinz College graduate students in the fall of 2009. The pilot will end in December 2009, but the website (http://myride.heinz.cmu.edu) will remain up as we work to make myRide a permanent system at Carnegie Mellon.
This document discusses the Northeast regional rail network, which consists of the Northeast Corridor spine from Boston to Washington D.C. and several connecting corridors. It notes the network serves over 50 million people and carries over 2,500 trains and 260 million riders annually. However, many segments are near or at capacity. The goals are to strategically expand passenger rail service, increase ridership, and improve service quality through higher speeds, reliability, and frequency. This will require infrastructure improvements, expanded state corridor services, and improved trip times through regional partnerships across states.
The document provides an overview and update of proposed changes to public transportation in Norfolk with the start of light rail. Key points include: light rail is on schedule to begin operations in May 2011; supplemental bus routes will be adjusted to connect to light rail stations; a new downtown transfer station and future multi-modal station are planned; and the existing NET bus route in downtown Norfolk may be modified or replaced to improve connectivity and reduce duplication with light rail. Fare structures and hours of operation for light rail and bus services are also outlined.
The document discusses advancing passenger rail service in Hampton Roads, Virginia. It outlines an incremental approach to expanding passenger rail by first implementing conventional speed service between Richmond and Hampton Roads before transitioning to high speed rail. Short term plans include using existing funding to complete infrastructure upgrades allowing for conventional speed service between Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk and Suffolk by early 2013. Long term plans require additional federal and state funding to advance high speed rail projects and further improve service reliability.
Mississippi Gulf Coast Rail Revival: NCITEC White Paper Background - CAITWaheed Uddin
This document proposes revitalizing passenger rail service on the Mississippi Gulf Coast to reduce traffic congestion and emissions. It analyzes establishing two rail lines: a "Casino Train" running east-west along existing CSX tracks, and a "Beach Train" running north-south along existing KCS tracks. A life-cycle cost-benefit analysis finds both lines would reach breakeven within 6-7 years considering direct revenues. Both lines would reduce annual CO2 emissions by over 1,000 tons each and create over 500 jobs. The document calls for implementing the rail lines to provide sustainable transportation, boost the regional economy, and aid coastal evacuation during hurricanes.
This brief was submitted by several industry groups in support of petitioners in a Supreme Court case. The brief argues that jurisdictional determinations issued through administrative compliance orders or approved jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. It further argues that the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review of such jurisdictional determinations. The brief aims to establish that petitioners can seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order at issue in the case.
02/27: IRS Guidance on Candidate Related Political Activityartba
The document is a letter from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) commenting on proposed IRS guidance regarding political activities of tax-exempt organizations. ARTBA argues that the proposed guidance would too broadly define advocacy as political activity, endangering the tax-exempt status of organizations. Specifically, the guidance would consider any communication mentioning a candidate and related legislation within 60 days of an election as political activity. This could negatively impact ARTBA's ability to inform its members about relevant transportation legislation. ARTBA urges the IRS to abandon the proposed guidance.
The following research work conducted by Yogi Joseph of CEPT, Ahmedabad for Centre for Public Policy Research, aims to highlight the problems ailing the water transportation sector in Kochi. It relied upon extensive review of secondary data, people’s observations about the ferry system recorded through primary surveys, focus group discussions and perception studies to suggest feasible measures towards addressing those problems.
The document proposes updates to the transportation element of Fort Lauderdale's comprehensive plan to enhance equity, connectivity, and livability through transportation initiatives. It recommends expanding public transit options like the Wave streetcar, implementing a bus rapid transit network, and establishing an intracoastal ferry system. It also proposes designating urban growth areas to concentrate future development, adopting a modal hierarchy prioritizing pedestrians and transit, implementing complete streets design standards, and designating some streets as public spaces. The goals are to provide more equitable, sustainable, and multimodal transportation access for all citizens.
This document discusses first mile-last mile connectivity challenges and opportunities in Miami-Dade County. It notes that first and last mile connections are the most difficult parts of a transit trip. A variety of options exist for first and last mile connections including driving, shuttles, walking, biking, and ridesharing. The document outlines existing conditions and challenges like limited park-and-ride capacity and incomplete pedestrian networks. It identifies opportunities to improve bike and pedestrian access near stations and expand park-and-ride facilities. Future projects should emphasize multi-modal connectivity and prioritize improving access by all modes to transit facilities.
1) The document discusses the potential for implementing a water transportation system connecting the Hatirjheel, Gulshan, Banani, and Baridhara lakes in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2) It provides background on the Hatirjheel project which revived one of the lakes, and argues water transportation could provide a cheap public transit option while reducing environmental impacts.
3) However, challenges include coordinating different agencies, managing waste disposal, and potential negative effects on water quality and wildlife from increased usage. The document analyzes this proposal's costs and benefits.
A summary of the case against HS2 from HS2 Action Alliance. Analysis of the fatal flaws in the business case; why it won;t close the north south divide; the capacity lie; connectivity nonsense; service cuts; alternative and what the pubic think
The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion indeed, but for any considerable time altogether. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give: The other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business.
~ Adam Smith
For more information, see http://reliefline.ca
Do not include any personal information as all posted material on this site is considered to be part of a public record as defined by section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
We reserve the right to remove inappropriate comments. Please see Terms of Use for City of Toronto Social Media Sites at http://www.toronto.ca/e-updates/termsofuse.htm.
The document discusses Malaysia's plans to shift reliance away from private vehicles and towards public transportation. It summarizes Malaysia's Vision 2020 goals of achieving developed nation status and unity through initiatives like the National Public Transport Framework. The Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) was formed in 2010 to lead this transformation by developing a National Land Public Transport Master Plan and several subsidiary plans focused on improving rail, bus, taxi and integration systems. Major infrastructure projects underway include the Klang Valley Mass Rapid Transit system, bus rapid transit lines, and the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore High Speed Rail link. The overall aim is to increase public transportation's modal share to 40% by 2030 to reduce congestion, pollution and support economic growth
Passenger Rail vs. Multi-Modal Transportation Corridorbudcolligan
The document compares the goals and attributes of a passenger rail system versus using the transportation corridor as a multi-modal path without rail for Santa Cruz County. Some key points discussed are that a passenger rail system would have higher capital and operating costs, take longer to implement, and face more funding risks than a non-rail transportation corridor. A non-rail corridor could accommodate more daily trips as a bike/pedestrian path, have fewer environmental impacts, lower safety costs, and see greater economic benefits from eco-tourism.
HSH Dearborn County Indiana June 2019 fullbinder_v4-printversion-60pJustin Sutton
The document outlines plans for the Hydrogen Super Highway (HSH) project, which proposes building a solar-powered transportation and infrastructure system in Dearborn County, Indiana. The system would use hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water as an energy storage medium. It would include an elevated maglev transportation line running along the infrastructure corridor to distribute hydrogen as fuel. A $12 million demonstration project is proposed to build a half-mile test track segment to showcase the technology. Supporters argue it could establish the region as a leader in renewable energy and hydrogen solutions if fully implemented.
The South Central Planning and Development Commission (SCPDC) is a regional planning commission established in 1973 in Louisiana. It serves Assumption, Lafourche, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and Terrebonne Parishes. SCPDC is involved with comprehensive and land use planning for the parishes, including transportation elements. It also works to educate communities on policies like complete streets and supports coordination of human services transportation.
The RTA supports accelerating multimodal transportation solutions for the Western Triangle region. They have advocated for transit projects like bus rapid transit and light rail. Recently, the RTA endorsed a fully-electric, enhanced bus rapid transit (3eBRT) concept for the Durham-Orange corridor as a way to potentially accelerate transit improvements. 3eBRT could begin immediately and scale over time, offering enhanced regional connections at a lower capital cost than light rail. However, light rail remains the long term vision supported by county referendums, with environmental reviews completed. The landscape presents challenges from funding limits, but the RTA framework considers mobility and connectivity goals as well as risks and uncertainties.
Nick Ivanoff, president and CEO of Ammann & Whitney and senior vice chairman of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), testified before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment regarding EPA's expanded interpretation of its permit veto authority under the Clean Water Act. He expressed concerns that EPA's retroactive veto of an issued section 404 permit undermines predictability and fairness in the permitting process. This increased uncertainty could jeopardize transportation project planning, financing, and delivery. ARTBA supports legislation to curb EPA's ability to retroactively veto valid permits and restore certainty for transportation construction.
myRide: A Real-Time Information System for the Carnegie Mellon University Shu...Karen Mesko
http://myride.heinz.cmu.edu
myRide is a real-time transit information system for the Carnegie Mellon University Shuttle. It was built by Heinz College graduate students in the fall of 2009. The pilot will end in December 2009, but the website (http://myride.heinz.cmu.edu) will remain up as we work to make myRide a permanent system at Carnegie Mellon.
This document discusses the Northeast regional rail network, which consists of the Northeast Corridor spine from Boston to Washington D.C. and several connecting corridors. It notes the network serves over 50 million people and carries over 2,500 trains and 260 million riders annually. However, many segments are near or at capacity. The goals are to strategically expand passenger rail service, increase ridership, and improve service quality through higher speeds, reliability, and frequency. This will require infrastructure improvements, expanded state corridor services, and improved trip times through regional partnerships across states.
The document provides an overview and update of proposed changes to public transportation in Norfolk with the start of light rail. Key points include: light rail is on schedule to begin operations in May 2011; supplemental bus routes will be adjusted to connect to light rail stations; a new downtown transfer station and future multi-modal station are planned; and the existing NET bus route in downtown Norfolk may be modified or replaced to improve connectivity and reduce duplication with light rail. Fare structures and hours of operation for light rail and bus services are also outlined.
The document discusses advancing passenger rail service in Hampton Roads, Virginia. It outlines an incremental approach to expanding passenger rail by first implementing conventional speed service between Richmond and Hampton Roads before transitioning to high speed rail. Short term plans include using existing funding to complete infrastructure upgrades allowing for conventional speed service between Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk and Suffolk by early 2013. Long term plans require additional federal and state funding to advance high speed rail projects and further improve service reliability.
Mississippi Gulf Coast Rail Revival: NCITEC White Paper Background - CAITWaheed Uddin
This document proposes revitalizing passenger rail service on the Mississippi Gulf Coast to reduce traffic congestion and emissions. It analyzes establishing two rail lines: a "Casino Train" running east-west along existing CSX tracks, and a "Beach Train" running north-south along existing KCS tracks. A life-cycle cost-benefit analysis finds both lines would reach breakeven within 6-7 years considering direct revenues. Both lines would reduce annual CO2 emissions by over 1,000 tons each and create over 500 jobs. The document calls for implementing the rail lines to provide sustainable transportation, boost the regional economy, and aid coastal evacuation during hurricanes.
This brief was submitted by several industry groups in support of petitioners in a Supreme Court case. The brief argues that jurisdictional determinations issued through administrative compliance orders or approved jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. It further argues that the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review of such jurisdictional determinations. The brief aims to establish that petitioners can seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order at issue in the case.
02/27: IRS Guidance on Candidate Related Political Activityartba
The document is a letter from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) commenting on proposed IRS guidance regarding political activities of tax-exempt organizations. ARTBA argues that the proposed guidance would too broadly define advocacy as political activity, endangering the tax-exempt status of organizations. Specifically, the guidance would consider any communication mentioning a candidate and related legislation within 60 days of an election as political activity. This could negatively impact ARTBA's ability to inform its members about relevant transportation legislation. ARTBA urges the IRS to abandon the proposed guidance.
Coalition Letter to House of Representatives on Failure to Advance S. 1140, t...artba
The document is a letter from various organizations to a representative regarding the "waters of the U.S." (WOTUS) rule. It argues that the rule is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed through agency guidance alone. It contends that the rule lacks clear definitions, creates confusion, and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. To remedy these issues, the letter advocates for passing legislation like S.1140 and H.R. 1732 that would require a new rulemaking process with public participation.
Industry Letter Supporting Passage of Keystone XL Pipeline Legislationartba
The construction industry organizations sent a letter to Congressional leaders urging support for legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline. They argued that the pipeline would create over 42,000 American jobs and contribute $2 billion in earnings and $3.4 billion to GDP during construction. After completion, the pipeline would continue to employ workers and generate economic activity and tax revenue for local communities. Approving the project would benefit American consumers, workers and energy security without significant environmental impacts.
Comments Opposing Tightening Federal Ozone Regulationsartba
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. ARTBA represents 6,000 transportation construction industry members. ARTBA is concerned that tightening ozone standards could result in penalties under the Clean Air Act, including withholding of federal highway funds, for areas not meeting standards. ARTBA urges the EPA to consider air quality improvements already made from existing regulations and initiatives before deciding whether to tighten ozone standards further.
02/11: OSHA Proposed Rule on Crystalline Silica Exposureartba
The document is a letter from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) commenting on OSHA's proposed rule to reduce exposure limits for respirable crystalline silica. The letter expresses concerns that the proposed new limits of 50 μg/m3 PEL and 25 μg/m3 AL would be exceeded naturally in many work environments and require monitoring of all workers. It also notes challenges with lack of qualified experts to read required chest x-rays and capabilities of labs to accurately measure the low limits. The letter raises safety issues from required use of respiratory protection in outdoor roadwork.
Coalition Letter to Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Ky) on Chemical Safet...artba
The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), an alliance representing over 100 trade associations across various industries, wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging him to bring the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S.697) to the Senate floor for a vote before the August recess. The AAI argues that S.697, which passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a bipartisan vote, would improve chemical safety regulation in a way that encourages innovation while maintaining competitiveness. As industries that would be profoundly impacted by chemical regulation changes, the AAI believes S.697 deserves consideration by the full Senate.
Coalition Letter to House Appropriators Supporting Increased Corps Fundingartba
The stakeholders request $2.755 billion in funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation program for fiscal year 2016. This level of funding would meet the targets set in recent legislation for funding harbor maintenance and inland waterways projects, fund congressionally authorized navigation improvements, and support efficient freight movement nationwide. The letter cites the economic importance of waterway infrastructure and requests support for including the requested funding in the FY2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Industry letter supporting S. 2006, “The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015.”artba
The 387 undersigned groups applaud the introduction of the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would reform the federal regulatory process to improve transparency and accountability. They believe current regulations are too burdensome and impose large costs while lacking strong evidence. The bill would make the regulatory process more open and ensure regulations are narrowly tailored to Congressional intent without unduly burdening the public.
ARTBA and Industry Allies Urge Funding Agreement for U.S./Canada Bridge Projectartba
The letter urges President Obama to swiftly resolve funding questions for the U.S. Federal Plaza associated with the New International Trade Crossing bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. It notes that the new six-lane bridge will enhance vital links with America's closest economic partner by addressing inadequate capacity of the existing 85-year old bridge. Resolving funding will allow the project to commence, providing thousands of construction jobs and boosting the economy in Michigan and the Midwest. The letter requests that the President make U.S. Customs and Border Protection funds available and name a senior White House official to coordinate progress on the project.
Comments Objecting to ESA protections for the Long-Eared Batartba
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) submitted comments in response to the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) listing of the northern long-eared bat as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. ARTBA represents 6,000 transportation construction companies and is concerned about the potential impacts of a critical habitat designation for the bat. A broad critical habitat designation could hinder hundreds of miles of planned transportation and economic development projects across 37 states. ARTBA urges FWS to rescind the bat listing until more research is done on white nose syndrome, the main threat to the bats, and until a more targeted critical habitat designation is crafted that adequately considers economic impacts.
The document is a letter submitted by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) in support of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) to delegate responsibilities for categorical exclusions (CEs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the state of Utah. The letter argues that allowing states like Utah to assume responsibility for CEs will reduce the time required for environmental reviews and approvals. ARTBA also calls for flexibility in determining which projects qualify for CEs and establishing a centralized database to promote consistent implementation of the delegation process across states.
ARTBA Comments on EPA “Exceptional Events” Ruleartba
This document provides comments from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) in response to the EPA's proposed revisions to regulations governing air quality data influenced by exceptional events. ARTBA recommends that states be given maximum flexibility when dealing with exceptional events, which are by definition unforeseen occurrences. Failure to provide flexibility could jeopardize needed transportation infrastructure projects and exacerbate public health challenges by denying federal transportation funds. ARTBA urges the EPA to allow states to delay submission of air quality data until after recovering from an exceptional event, and to consider each event on a case-by-case basis.
The document is a letter of support for the RAPID Act (H.R. 2641), which would streamline the environmental permitting process for development projects. It argues that lengthy permitting delays currently result in stalled projects and millions of jobs not being created each year. The RAPID Act would improve coordination among agencies, allow concurrent rather than serial reviews, recognize competent state-level reviews, impose reasonable deadlines, and reduce the statute of limitations for challenges. Supporters say this practical approach would speed up permitting and allow important projects and job creation to move forward.
ARTBA/AGC Contractor Survey on DOT Local Hiring Pilot Programartba
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Coalition Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Leaders on Chemical S...artba
The American Alliance for Innovation (AAI), representing various trade associations across many industries, writes to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone to thank and support their leadership on H.R. 2576 (TSCA Modernization Act of 2015). The AAI believes the bipartisan bill addresses key issues with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by reflecting stakeholder input and improving chemical regulation to ensure safety, encourage innovation, and protect jobs. Over 100 trade associations signed in support, committing to modernize TSCA.
Managing California's Incremental Intercity Passenger Rail HSIPR in Support of the CHSR project. A survey of Caltrain Intercity rail corridor HSIPR and their 2025 Electrification Plan for Supporting CHSR Connectivity.
CASCADES High-Speed Rail_Pacific NW Corridor Plan_Roger BazeleyRoger Bazeley, USA
The Pacific Northwest Corridor High-Speed Incremental Passenger Rail Service and Infrastructure Plan-Proposed in 2010 with Positive Train Control Slide-Presentation for a Mineta Transportation Incremental High-Speed Passenger Rail Research Survey Project
DEVELOPMENT OF FORMAL PLANNING PROCESS.pptxMMACvlogs
The document discusses the development of formal transportation planning processes in the United States from the 1960s onward. It outlines several key acts and developments that expanded the federal government's role in urban transportation and established requirements for comprehensive planning. These included the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1961, and the establishment of metropolitan planning organizations in 1975 to coordinate regional transportation planning.
Rails to Trails - Past, Present, and FutureBryan Townley
The document provides a history of legislation supporting the conversion of abandoned railroad corridors into trails, known as "rails to trails". It discusses the key acts that have advanced rails to trails conversions, including the National Trails System Act of 1968, the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, amendments to the National Trails System Act in 1983 that established the railbanking process, and subsequent transportation acts that further supported rails to trails conversions. The document also examines legal challenges to rails to trails conversions regarding property rights and the shifting of railroad corridors to trail use.
Legislative developments in rail transport in 2011 in polandMichal
Most amendments of the Polish rail transport law in 2011 concerned the
organisation of rail transport including: improvements in timetable changing
procedures; mechanisms to ensure the observance and early publication of
timetables; interoperability of the rail system and; certification of train drivers.
Introduced were also some changes meant to restructure the incumbent state
rail operator (in Polish: Polskie Koleje Państwowe; hereafter PKP).
Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2012 Budget HighlightsPorts-To-Plains Blog
The Department of Transportation's FY 2012 budget highlights include:
- A total budget request of $129 billion, including a $556 billion six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal.
- A $50 billion "Up-Front" economic boost to foster job creation by funding infrastructure projects.
- $5 billion requested to establish an Infrastructure Bank to leverage transportation funding through innovative financing.
- Major increases in funding for federal highway, transit, and passenger rail administration compared to FY 2010 levels.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of the Florida APA's AICP prep course. I deliver it each March to help new professionals prepare for the exam.
This is the transportation planning module I developed for the Suncoast Section of Florida APA. I deliver it each March at their AICP prep course. Hopefully these new professionals learn a little something about transportation and pass the exam too.
The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) supports the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) proposed guidance allowing for the acquisition of rights-of-way prior to completing environmental reviews for transit capital projects. ARTBA represents 6,000 transportation construction industry members undertaking federal projects subject to environmental reviews. Allowing early rights-of-way acquisition as the guidance proposes could reduce project delays by permitting multiple tasks to occur simultaneously. Further, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act authorized early acquisition of rights-of-way for transit projects, and ARTBA recommends FTA apply the new guidance broadly to maximize time savings from an earlier start to the acquisition process.
This speaker provided comments on the Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project at a public scoping meeting. The speaker expressed concern about the project alternatives being considered, citing their familiarity with the Vancouver SkyTrain system. Specifically, the speaker noted that the Vancouver SkyTrain's Millennium line extension was built from 1985 to 2000 for 12.6 miles at a cost of under $800 million, and recommended considering a similar rail technology for Honolulu's project.
Beyond Traffic: US DOT's 30 Year Framework for the FutureLudovic Privat
This document provides an introduction to a draft report titled "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It summarizes that the report analyzes current transportation trends and projects what the system will look like in 30 years if changes are not made. It finds that population growth, changing travel patterns, and increased freight volume will overwhelm the existing system by 2045 if no new strategies are implemented. The report is intended to spur national discussion on critical policy choices regarding how people and goods will move in the future, and how to best align decisions and funding to adapt the system. It does not prescribe specific solutions, but rather presents data to frame important issues that need addressing.
This document provides an introduction to the report "Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045". It notes that while the US once led the world in building transportation infrastructure like canals and railroads, its infrastructure is now aging and the country has outgrown it. Traffic congestion costs Americans and businesses billions of dollars per year in lost time and fuel. The report aims to analyze current transportation trends, identify challenges, and discuss potential solutions to address these issues through an open national dialogue. It is intended as the starting point for public feedback to inform a final version of the report.
Council Minutes 15 March 2010-Reports on freightWal Cichocki
This document summarizes the minutes from a council meeting regarding truck movements on local roads in Darebin and the implications of Victoria's freight strategy, Freight Futures. The council resolved to support Freight Futures and work with stakeholders to assess roads, address impacts on infrastructure, and develop a freight management strategy for Darebin. They also agreed to write letters of support to the Municipal Association of Victoria regarding transport reforms and road classification systems.
The Pros And Cons Of The American Civil WarMichelle Love
The US transportation system consists of various interconnected modes like aviation, rail, highways, transit, and pipelines that move billions of passengers and goods annually. It is made up of seven subsectors or modes including aviation, highways, maritime, rail, transit, pipelines, and postal. Ensuring the safety, security, and resilience of this critical infrastructure is important for the nation's economy and way of life.
Maintaining and Improving Rural Transit Supply in an Era of Cost-Cutting
Presented by: Matthew W. Daus, Esq., Distinguished Lecturer, City College, University of New York, University
Transportation Research Center, Region II
James Cooper, PhD, Head of the Taxi Studies Group, Edinburgh Napier University
In this session, Mr. Daus and Dr. Cooper will address research completed on the supply of transit services, including paratransit use in mainstream transport provision in rural communities. Evidence will be presented from US and European locations, including the application of a shared
transit scheme using a wide range of optimized supply including Demand Responsive Transportation (DRT) and taxi operations. The presentation will also address how the research has demonstrated that bringing bookings and trips together allows authorities and suppliers to reduce costs, effectively maintaining a service with reduced costs, and/or enhancing services.
Transportation Improvement Program 2014 - 2019LSCOG
This document provides an overview of the 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program for the Lower Savannah region of South Carolina. It discusses the planning process and goals for improving transportation in the region, which includes Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. The document outlines the projects and funding included in the improvement program, which must follow state and federal requirements regarding public input, civil rights compliance, and financial constraint. It also describes the process for amending projects in the program as needed.
HSR in the US 9-2009.pdf how it works in usarhyoju
This document from the Congressional Research Service provides an overview of high speed rail in the United States. It discusses definitions of high speed rail, describes options for developing HSR such as upgrading existing tracks or building new lines, and outlines the components of an HSR system including trains, tracks, and signaling infrastructure. The document also reviews HSR in other countries, previous HSR efforts in the US, and recent congressional initiatives to promote HSR. Potential benefits and costs of HSR are examined, as well as considerations around ridership, funding, and challenges implementing HSR in the US.
This document summarizes the history of infrastructure funding in the United States. It discusses how the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 established the foundation for infrastructure development and the Highway Trust Fund. It also describes more recent funding programs like TIGER grants and the proposed GROW AMERICA Act, which aims to increase funding by 45% over 6 years. The document examines challenges around maintaining adequate funding levels for road and bridge rehabilitation given the large funding needs estimated by organizations like ASCE.
National Council on Disability 2010 Working Paper on TransportationScott Rains
This document provides background information on transportation issues for people with disabilities. It summarizes key findings from surveys that found many people with disabilities need assistance to travel and that inadequate transportation is a significant problem. The document also outlines some significant policy accomplishments around improving public transportation accessibility, over-the-road bus compliance with ADA, transportation in rural areas, and accessibility on cruise ships.
The document summarizes the findings of the HAIL market analysis conducted by the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC). Key findings include:
- Demand for Boro Taxis remains strong as demonstrated by steady trip numbers despite more Boro Taxis providing service.
- Boro Taxis help fill gaps in public transit by providing "last mile" connections, with over half of trips starting or ending near subway stations.
- The growing Boro Taxi fleet is increasing wheelchair-accessible options but still more are needed to meet the goal of 50% accessibility.
- Most Boro Taxi permits are leased, providing income opportunities for permit owners.
Similar to 10/31/13 – Virginia Supreme Court Decision (20)
The document provides information about advertising opportunities with the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). It details the size and influence of the transportation construction market in the US. It also outlines ARTBA's print and digital publications that reach over 14,000 transportation industry professionals, and provides advertising rates and specifications. Key advertising options include placements in ARTBA's magazine, website, and weekly digital newsletter.
This document summarizes an issue of the publication "Transportation Builder" from September/October 2016. The cover story discusses the launch of the new "Safety Certification for Transportation Project Professionals" (SCTPP) certification program developed by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The program aims to make all transportation construction projects worldwide zero-incident zones. It is designed specifically for the transportation industry and was developed by industry safety experts. Thousands of transportation professionals will be eligible for the certification, which covers a wide range of safety topics. ARTBA chairman David Zachry expresses support for the new program and thanks those involved in its creation.
The document summarizes the July/August 2016 issue of the Transportation Builder magazine published by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The issue previews ARTBA's annual convention in Tucson, Arizona in October 2016 which will focus on transportation construction safety and feature speakers on business and aviation. It also advertises transportation construction equipment, products, and services.
The National Work Zone Management Conference Agenda 2016artba
The document outlines the schedule for the National Work Zone Management Conference taking place from September 20-22 in Springfield, Virginia. The conference consists of multiple tracks of sessions covering topics such as work zone safety certification, signage and lighting, crash characteristics and countermeasures, quality of work zone markings, accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists, and new technologies including autonomous and connected vehicles. There will also be presentations on coordinating multiple work zones, real-time monitoring using ITS, and preventing work zone intrusions from the contractor's perspective. An opening luncheon will feature a panel on autonomous and connected vehicles in work zones.
This document provides information about the 2016 ARTBA National Convention being held from October 4-6 at the JW Marriott Tucson Starr Pass Resort & Spa in Tucson, Arizona. The convention will focus on putting safety first and will feature presentations on new safety certification programs and discussions on transportation policy and business topics. The document outlines the schedule of events, list of sponsors, and information about the host hotel and exhibitors.
This document is the May/June 2016 issue of Transportation Builder, the official publication of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The issue focuses on transportation construction safety. It includes articles on ARTBA's new safety certificate training course, innovations in mobile barriers that provide positive separation for workers, and using technology to detect and repair potholes. The chairman's letter expresses ARTBA's continued commitment to transportation worker safety and previews a major new safety initiative to be announced at the upcoming ARTBA National Convention.
The summary is:
The 2016 Northeastern Regional Meeting will take place November 2-4 at the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City, NJ. The agenda includes registration, networking events, presentations on innovative transportation technologies, workshops, panels on the state of the transportation industry, and updates from regional transportation organizations. Presentation topics will cover drones, autonomous vehicles, transportation construction market trends, and policy issues. Representatives from the Port Authority of NY/NJ, New Jersey DOT, and state contractors associations will also provide information.
The 2016 Southern Regional Meeting will take place from October 26-28 at the Ritz Carlton in New Orleans, LA. The agenda includes presentations and panel discussions on topics such as the impact of artificial intelligence on the construction industry, the state of transportation design and construction in the South, and state and federal transportation policy and market updates. Events include a first-time attendee networking event, opening and networking receptions, breakfasts and luncheons, and presentations from transportation officials and industry leaders. The meeting will provide an opportunity for transportation construction professionals in the Southern region to network, learn, and discuss important issues facing the industry.
The 2016 Central Regional Meeting will take place from November 2-4 at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois. The meeting will include presentations and panel discussions on topics like the future transportation workforce and millennials, the state of the transportation industry in the central region, and transportation policy updates. There will also be opportunities for networking through various receptions and breakfast/lunch events. The meeting aims to bring together transportation construction professionals from the central United States to discuss current issues and opportunities in the industry.
The 2016 Western Regional Meeting will take place from October 26-28 at the Hilton in Austin, Texas. The agenda includes presentations and panel discussions on topics such as autonomous vehicles and their impact on infrastructure, the state of the transportation design and construction industry in the West, and transportation policy updates. There will also be opportunities for networking through various receptions and breaks during the three-day conference.
The 2016 Western Regional Meeting will take place from October 26-28 in Austin, Texas at the Hilton hotel. The agenda includes presentations and panel discussions on topics like autonomous vehicles and their impact on infrastructure, the state of the transportation design and construction industry in the West, and transportation policy updates. There will also be opportunities for networking through various receptions and meals. The meeting will conclude on Friday after presentations from the Texas Department of Transportation, an economic report, and state chapter affiliates.
The article discusses bridge infrastructure in the United States. It provides an overview of some recent bridge projects across the country, including projects in Chicago and Woodbridge Township, New Jersey that are repairing structurally deficient bridges. It also discusses Pennsylvania's efforts to address its large number of structurally deficient bridges. Additionally, it summarizes ARTBA's recent report that found over 61,000 structurally deficient bridges nationwide still need repair, though the number has decreased by over 2,000 from the previous year. The article encourages passage of a long-term transportation bill to provide increased and more stable funding for bridge repairs and replacements.
The document is the September-October 2015 issue of Transportation Builder, the official publication of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). It includes articles on ARTBA's advocacy efforts to pass a long-term surface transportation bill, safety initiatives, engaging young professionals, and the upcoming Dr. J. Don Brock TransOvation workshop. It also previews the 12th annual "Through the Lens" photo feature showcasing transportation construction projects.
The document discusses a new cutter bit called the GENERATION X from Wirtgen Rhino Parts. It reduces operating costs through longer life and downtime through greater reliability. Its carbide shape maximizes production and carbide utilization. The heavy-duty wear ring minimizes toolholder wear and improves protection while optimizing bit rotation. Wirtgen Rhino Parts produces consistent, high-quality products through precision manufacturing.
This document is the January-February 2016 issue of Transportation Builder, the official publication of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). It discusses several key issues and priorities for ARTBA in 2016, including:
1) Ensuring full funding of the surface transportation programs authorized in the FAST Act and obtaining long-term, increased funding for airport capital programs and the prevention of excessive regulatory actions.
2) ARTBA's strategic plan to engage the next generation of industry leaders, including rebranding the Young Executive Development Program as the Industry Leader Development Program and the Young Executive Leadership Council as the Industry Leader Development Council.
3) A new study showing that the Highway Trust Fund faces an annual $18
This issue of Transportation Builder focuses on bridges and airports. It provides information on 10 bridge projects and 14 airport construction projects across the U.S., including both new construction and rehabilitation of bridges and major capital work like terminals and runways at airports. Some of the projects are complete while others are still under construction, and some airport work remains planned. The issue also introduces a new Q&A feature interviewing a woman leader in transportation and highlights innovations from ARTBA's Research and Education Division.
This document outlines the schedule for a transportation construction industry conference held over three days. It lists over 30 different meetings, presentations, and events taking place during sessions on topics such as public-private partnerships, contracting, research and education, and legislative affairs. Sponsorship levels for the conference are also identified, ranging from platinum to silver to exhibitor levels.
This document contains the schedule and agenda for the 2016 ARTBA Federal Issues Program & Transportation Construction Coalition Fly-In event taking place from May 9-11 at the Hyatt Regency Washington Hotel. The schedule details the times and locations for various meetings, presentations, and legislative sessions focused on federal transportation issues. Sponsorship levels and participating organizations are also listed.
This document outlines the agenda and schedule for the 2016 Industry Leader Development Program hosted by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. The program will provide an introduction to transportation infrastructure advocacy through presentations and discussions on topics such as transportation funding, the federal aid highway program, regulations, public-private partnerships, and meeting with congressional representatives. It will take place over two and a half days and include sessions, networking opportunities, and a reception on Capitol Hill.
The document is a program for the 2016 ARTBA P3s in Transportation Conference. It includes schedules, speakers, sessions and sponsors. The conference will feature discussions on public-private partnerships in transportation, international best practices, federal resources for P3s, and perspectives from Congress, state legislatures and the transportation industry. It will also include breakout sessions on emerging P3 markets, project protections, research developments, and impacts of the FAST Act.
The Steadfast and Reliable Bull: Taurus Zodiac Signmy Pandit
Explore the steadfast and reliable nature of the Taurus Zodiac Sign. Discover the personality traits, key dates, and horoscope insights that define the determined and practical Taurus, and learn how their grounded nature makes them the anchor of the zodiac.
Best Competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai - ☎ 9928909666Stone Art Hub
Stone Art Hub offers the best competitive Marble Pricing in Dubai, ensuring affordability without compromising quality. With a wide range of exquisite marble options to choose from, you can enhance your spaces with elegance and sophistication. For inquiries or orders, contact us at ☎ 9928909666. Experience luxury at unbeatable prices.
Discover the Beauty and Functionality of The Expert Remodeling Serviceobriengroupinc04
Unlock your kitchen's true potential with expert remodeling services from O'Brien Group Inc. Transform your space into a functional, modern, and luxurious haven with their experienced professionals. From layout reconfiguration to high-end upgrades, they deliver stunning results tailored to your style and needs. Visit obriengroupinc.com to elevate your kitchen's beauty and functionality today.
During the budget session of 2024-25, the finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, introduced the “solar Rooftop scheme,” also known as “PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana.” It is a subsidy offered to those who wish to put up solar panels in their homes using domestic power systems. Additionally, adopting photovoltaic technology at home allows you to lower your monthly electricity expenses. Today in this blog we will talk all about what is the PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana. How does it work? Who is eligible for this yojana and all the other things related to this scheme?
The Role of White Label Bookkeeping Services in Supporting the Growth and Sca...YourLegal Accounting
Effective financial management is important for expansion and scalability in the ever-changing US business environment. White Label Bookkeeping services is an innovative solution that is becoming more and more popular among businesses. These services provide a special method for managing financial duties effectively, freeing up companies to concentrate on their main operations and growth plans. We’ll look at how White Label Bookkeeping can help US firms expand and develop in this blog.
High-Quality IPTV Monthly Subscription for $15advik4387
Experience high-quality entertainment with our IPTV monthly subscription for just $15. Access a vast array of live TV channels, movies, and on-demand shows with crystal-clear streaming. Our reliable service ensures smooth, uninterrupted viewing at an unbeatable price. Perfect for those seeking premium content without breaking the bank. Start streaming today!
https://rb.gy/f409dk
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN CHART
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
SATTA MATKA DPBOSS KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART KALYAN MATKA MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA TIPS SATTA MATKA MATKA COM MATKA PANA JODI TODAY BATTA SATKA MATKA PATTI JODI NUMBER MATKA RESULTS MATKA CHART MATKA JODI SATTA COM INDIA SATTA MATKA MATKA TIPS MATKA WAPKA ALL MATKA RESULT LIVE ONLINE MATKA RESULT KALYAN MATKA RESULT DPBOSS MATKA 143 MAIN MATKA KALYAN MATKA RESULTS KALYAN CHART
Dpboss Matka Guessing Satta Matta Matka Kalyan Chart Indian Matka
10/31/13 – Virginia Supreme Court Decision
1. Present: Kinser, C.J., Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and Powell,
JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.
ELIZABETH RIVER CROSSINGS OPCO, LLC
v. Record No. 130954 OPINION BY
JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR.
DANNY MEEKS, ET AL. October 31, 2013
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
v. Record No. 130955
DANNY MEEKS, ET AL.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
James A. Cales, Jr., Judge Designate
In this appeal we hold that the General Assembly did not
unconstitutionally delegate its power of taxation to the
Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and Elizabeth
River Crossings OpCo, LLC ("ERC") under the terms of the
Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995, Code § 56-556 et
seq. ("PPTA"), and that the Comprehensive Agreement between
VDOT and ERC does not abridge the Commonwealth's police power.
I. Facts and Proceedings
A. History of Tunnels Crossing the Elizabeth River
A branch of the Elizabeth River separates the City of
Portsmouth from the City of Norfolk. The first tunnel crossing
the Elizabeth River between Portsmouth and Norfolk was the two-
lane Downtown Tunnel, which opened in 1952. The Downtown
Tunnel experienced "steadily increasing traffic . . . at levels
2. 2
substantially higher than those originally projected." In
response, the General Assembly authorized the construction of
an additional crossing in 1956. The Midtown Tunnel was
subsequently built a short distance northwest of the Downtown
Tunnel and was opened in 1962. By 1973, the General Assembly
was made aware that traffic through the Downtown Tunnel had
reached capacity, with substantial congestion being commonplace
and likely to get worse. Further, the Midtown Tunnel was
projected to reach capacity within a few years. The Downtown
Tunnel was therefore expanded so that a second, two-lane tube,
parallel to the original two-lane tube, was opened in 1987.
Despite these earlier projects, traffic crossing the
Elizabeth River remained a substantial problem. In 1996, a
Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the United
States Department of Transportation and VDOT noted that
transportation projects completed within the region have not
"lessen[ed] or alleviate[d] traffic congestion within the
project area." The Final Environmental Impact Statement went
on to recognize that a proposed project to "improve traffic
movement between Portsmouth and Norfolk at the Midtown Tunnel
crossing and to alleviate long traffic queues and delays which
currently exist" would "result in significant benefits to the
local and regional transportation network."
3. 3
By 2009, the General Assembly recognized the Midtown
Tunnel to be the "most heavily traveled two-lane road" in all
of Virginia, creating "both safety and congestion problems."
The General Assembly learned that during peak hours both the
Downtown Tunnel and the Midtown Tunnel experience the worst
possible levels of congestion, with traffic backups that extend
more than two miles.
Although other alternatives were initially explored, the
next project to address this continuing problem of traffic
crossing the Elizabeth River arose under the framework of the
PPTA.
B. The Public-Private Transportation Act
The General Assembly enacted the PPTA in 19951
to allow
"private entities to develop and/or operate one or more
transportation facilities . . . in a more timely, more
efficient, or less costly fashion, thereby serving the public
safety and welfare." Code § 56-558(A)(3). In enacting the
PPTA, the General Assembly was motivated by "a public need for
timely development and/or operation of transportation
facilities." Code § 56-558(A)(1). The General Assembly
indicated that the development and operation of transportation
facilities would meet the public's needs by "improving safety,
1
The PPTA was amended and re-enacted on July 1, 2005.
2005 Acts chs. 504, 562.
4. 4
reducing congestion, increasing capacity, and/or enhancing
economic efficiency." Id. The General Assembly recognized
that the PPTA was necessary because these public needs would
"not be wholly satisfied by existing methods of procurement in
which qualifying transportation facilities are developed and/or
operated[, or] by existing ways in which transportation
facilities are developed and/or operated." Code § 56-
558(A)(1)-(2).
Under the terms of the PPTA, a "public entity that is an
agency or institution of the Commonwealth" may accept proposals
from private entities "to develop and/or operate a
transportation facility." Code § 56-559(A)-(B). The public
entity may approve a private entity's proposal only after the
private entity provides statutorily-specified material and
information to the public entity. Code § 56-560(A). Once this
material and information is submitted, the public entity may
approve "the development and/or operation of the transportation
facility or facilities as a qualifying transportation
facility." Code § 56-560(C).
However, such approval is dependent upon the public entity
determining that such development and/or operation of the
transportation facility "serves the public purpose of [the
PPTA]." Id. The development and/or operation of the
transportation facility or facilities serves the public purpose
5. 5
of the PPTA if: "[t]here is a public need for the
transportation facility or facilities;" "the transportation
facility or facilities . . . are, in the opinion of the . . .
public entity, reasonable and will address the needs identified
in the . . . transportation plan by improving safety, reducing
congestion, increasing capacity, and/or enhancing economic
efficiency;" "[t]he estimated cost of developing and/or
operating the transportation facility or facilities is
reasonable in relation to similar facilities;" and "[t]he
private entity's plans will result in the timely development
and/or operation of the transportation facility or facilities
or their more efficient operation." Code § 56-560(C)(1)-(4).
The PPTA also requires the public entity to "develop
guidelines that establish the process for the acceptance and
review of a proposal from a private entity," Code § 56-560(D),
and adopt guidelines "that are consistent with procurement
through 'competitive sealed bidding,'" Code § 56-573.1(1).
Once the public entity selects a private entity's proposal
under the PPTA, but before development or operation of the
qualifying transportation facility begins, the public and
private entities must enter into a comprehensive agreement.
Code § 56-566(A). The comprehensive agreement shall provide
the basic terms of the cooperative agreement between the public
entity and private entity. Code § 56-566(A)(1)-(10). The
6. 6
comprehensive agreement shall also include a provision for user
fees, set forth the duties and obligations of the private
entity, and provide for the distribution of any earnings in
excess of the negotiated maximum rate of return as negotiated
in the agreement. Code § 56-566(B), (D), (E). Finally, upon
request by a member of the public, the private entity shall
make available a "schedule of the current user fees." Code
§ 56-566(B).
C. The Project: The Downtown Tunnel / Midtown Tunnel / MLK
Extension
In the 2007 Acts of Assembly, the General Assembly created
the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority "as a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth" and named it a "responsible
public entity as defined in the [PPTA]." 2007 Acts ch. 896.
The General Assembly gave the Transportation Authority the
authority to "impose and collect tolls in amounts established
by the [Transportation] Authority for the use of any new or
improved highway, bridge, tunnel, or transportation facility to
increase capacity on such facility." Id. Additionally, the
General Assembly allowed the "Midtown and Downtown tunnels
located within the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth" to be
"tolled if improvements are made to either tunnel." Id.
The General Assembly directed the Transportation Authority
to "phase construction of the transportation projects that are
7. 7
included in the federally mandated 2030 Regional Transportation
Plan." Id. The "Downtown Tunnel / Midtown Tunnel / MLK
Extension" project (the "Project") was one of the first phase
projects that the Transportation Authority was directed to
pursue. Id. The Project is the subject of the current
litigation before this Court.
In 2008, VDOT, an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and thus a "public entity," requested conceptual proposals from
private entities for financing, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Project under the PPTA. ERC,
a "private entity," responded to this request by submitting
such a proposal. ERC's proposal for the Project was accepted
for further consideration and was reviewed and approved by an
independent review panel in accordance with the PPTA. See Code
§ 56-560(C).
In 2009, the General Assembly dissolved the Transportation
Authority and transferred its "power to impose and collect
tolls for the use of highways, bridges, and tunnels [to] the
Commonwealth Transportation Board." Acts 2009 ch. 864, § 4.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, under a recommendation
by the independent review panel, adopted a resolution to
continue pursuing ERC's proposal.
On December 5, 2011, VDOT and ERC entered into a final
comprehensive agreement (the "Comprehensive Agreement"). The
8. 8
Commonwealth Transportation Board affirmed the Project and
specifically approved and ratified the imposition and
collection of tolls on the Project as contemplated by the
Comprehensive Agreement.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Agreement, the Project
provides for the design and construction of a new Midtown
Tunnel. This new Midtown Tunnel will pass under the Elizabeth
River between Portsmouth and Norfolk, and is located next to
the existing Midtown Tunnel. The Project also includes the
design and construction of the Martin Luther King Freeway
Extension (the "MLK Extension"), which would connect State
Route 164 to Interstate 264 and provide alternative access
routes to the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels. Finally, the
Project includes continual maintenance of the existing Midtown
and Downtown Tunnels for 58 years.
The Comprehensive Agreement grants ERC the authority to
construct, maintain, and operate the facilities for a 58-year
period. However, the Commonwealth retains ownership of all of
the facilities involved in the Project. The total cost for
completing the Project is estimated to exceed $2.04 billion
dollars. Funding for the Project comes from federal and state
loans, a large investment from ERC, direct payments from the
Commonwealth, and tolls from users of the facilities. Included
within the Comprehensive Agreement are VDOT's findings,
9. 9
concluding that "the estimated cost of developing, designing,
operating and maintaining the Project is reasonable in relation
to similar transportation facilities." Tolls are scheduled to
commence on February 1, 2014.
D. The Litigation
On July 12, 2012, Danny Meeks, along with other residents
of the City of Portsmouth and longtime users of the Downtown
Tunnel ("Meeks"), filed a complaint against ERC and VDOT in the
Circuit Court for the City of Portsmouth. ERC removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia with VDOT's consent, but the case was subsequently
remanded after Meeks filed an amended complaint that omitted
the only federal claim. The amended complaint contains six
counts:
(1) [T]hat the General Assembly has
unlawfully delegated its legislative power
in violation of Article IV, § 1 of the
Constitution of Virginia;
(2) that the General Assembly has violated
Article IV, § 14, cl. 7 of the Constitution
of Virginia by authorizing a state agency
to grant a special tax exemption to a
private party;
(3) that the General Assembly has violated
Article IV, § 14, cl. 8 of the Constitution
of Virginia by authorizing a state agency
to agree to diminish a private party's
obligation to the Commonwealth and its
local governments;
10. 10
(4) that the General Assembly has violated
Article IV, § 14, cl. 9 of the Constitution
of Virginia by authorizing a state agency
to grant a special refund of state and
local taxes to a private party;
(5) that [VDOT] lacked authority to execute
the [Comprehensive Agreement] with [ERC];
and
(6) that tolls, penalties, and surcharges
authorized by the [Comprehensive Agreement]
between [VDOT and ERC] violate the Due
Process Clause of Article I, § 11 of the
Constitution of Virginia.
The parties agreed that the case should be decided on cross-
motions for summary judgment on a stipulated record. In its
final order, the circuit court dismissed Counts 3 through 5
without prejudice. Count 6 was dismissed with prejudice.
The circuit court found in favor of Meeks on Counts 1 and
2. It granted Meeks' motion for summary judgment on Counts 1
and 2, ruling that the General Assembly "exceeded its
authority" by: (1) "ceding the setting of toll rates and taxes
in the circumstances of this case for the use of facilities
that have been bundled solely for revenue-producing purposes in
violation of Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia,"
and (2) giving "unfettered power to [VDOT] to set toll rates
without any real or meaningful parameters in violation of
Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia." Final
judgment was entered on May 21, 2013. The circuit court also
denied VDOT and ERC's motion for a stay pending appeal, holding
11. 11
that VDOT and ERC would suffer no irreparable harm absent an
appeal, and that "damage to [Meeks] and the public interest
. . . . far outweighs any damage to the [Commonwealth]."
VDOT and ERC filed petitions for appeal, and the Court
granted review of the following issues: (1) whether the toll
fees imposed on users of the Midtown Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel,
and MLK Extension are taxes; (2) whether the General Assembly
has, through its enactment of the PPTA, unconstitutionally
delegated its power of taxation to VDOT and ERC in violation of
Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia; and (3)
whether the circuit court erred in denying VDOT and ERC's
request for a stay pending appeal. The Court also granted
review of Meeks' assignments of cross-error, which include the
following issues: (1) whether the PPTA unconstitutionally
delegates the authority to set toll rates, an exclusively
legislative function, to VDOT, and (2) whether the
Comprehensive Agreement unconstitutionally abridges the General
Assembly's police power and the sovereignty of the
Commonwealth.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
In an appeal "aris[ing] from the grant of a motion for
summary judgment . . . , we will review the application of law
to undisputed fact de novo." Transportation Insurance Co. v.
12. 12
Womack, 284 Va. 563, 567, 733 S.E.2d 656, 658 (2012) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In reviewing the constitutionality of a statute "our
determination of legislative intent is guided by the recognition
that all actions of the General Assembly are presumed to be
constitutional." Montgomery Cnty. v. Virginia Dep't of Rail &
Pub. Transp., 282 Va. 422, 435, 719 S.E.2d 294, 300 (2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted). "There is . . . no stronger
presumption known to the law." Id. Accordingly, "only where
the statute in issue is 'plainly repugnant' to a constitutional
provision will we declare it null and void." Jamerson v.
Womack, 244 Va. 506, 510, 423 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
B. Whether the Circuit Court Erred in Holding that Tolls are
Taxes Rather than Valid User Fees
VDOT and ERC assign error to the circuit court's finding
that tolls on the Midtown Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel, and MLK
Extension are taxes, rather than valid user fees. They claim
that the tolls are user fees because they constitute a
contractual payment by users of the Midtown Tunnel, Downtown
Tunnel, and MLK Extension in exchange for use of the integrated
transportation network that the facilities create. VDOT and
ERC argue further that the tolls do not constitute taxes
because all revenue from the tolls goes to the integrated
13. 13
transportation network and does not fund unrelated projects or
purposes.
Meeks contends that the Project tolls are a tax because
their primary purpose is to raise revenue. Meeks challenges
VDOT and ERC's argument that the Project tolls are voluntary
contractual payments in exchange for a particularized benefit,
arguing that the payments cannot be voluntary because there are
no reasonable travel alternatives for users of the Midtown and
Downtown Tunnels. Meeks also contends that the Midtown Tunnel,
Downtown Tunnel, and MLK Extension do not constitute an
integrated transportation network because each facility is
located at least two miles from the others, and because the
Downtown Tunnel was added to the Project solely as a means of
increasing toll revenue.
We disagree with Meeks and find that the circuit court
erred in holding that the tolls at issue are taxes. We have
previously held that a tax is "an enforced contribution imposed
by the government for governmental purposes or public needs."
Westbrook, Inc. v. Town of Falls Church, 185 Va. 577, 582, 39
S.E.2d 277, 280 (1946). "Taxes are levied for the support of
government, and their amount is regulated by its necessities."
Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U.S. 288, 294
(1887).
14. 14
In contrast, tolls are user fees when they are "nothing
more than an authorized charge for the use of a special
facility." Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. Comm. v. Smith, 193
Va. 371, 378, 68 S.E.2d 497, 501 (1952); see also Sands, 123
U.S. at 294 ("Tolls are the compensation for the use of
another's property, or of improvements made by him.").
In the present case, the tolls paid by users of the
Project facilities are user fees because: (1) the toll road
users pay the tolls in exchange for a particularized benefit
not shared by the general public, (2) drivers are not compelled
by government to pay the tolls or accept the benefits of the
Project facilities, and (3) the tolls are collected solely to
fund the Project, not to raise general revenues. See Murphy v.
Massachusetts Turnpike Auth., 971 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Mass. 2012)
(applying a similar test to determine whether tolls are taxes
or user fees).
1. The Tolls Provide a Particularized Benefit to Users of the
Project Facilities
Project facility users pay tolls in exchange for a
particularized benefit. As detailed in VDOT's Project
Management Plan, VDOT and ERC will use toll revenues to make
improvements to each individual Project facility. Tolls will
fund significant improvements to the Midtown Tunnel, including
"new roadways, drainage, communications/intelligent
15. 15
transportation systems, lighting, flood protection, fire
detection and suppression, ventilation, and power control
systems." The improvements will reduce congestion on, and
provide greater emergency access to, the Midtown Tunnel. The
toll revenues will also help fund construction of the MLK
Extension, which will "provide improved access to and from West
Norfolk and [will] serve as an alternate route for I-264
traffic when the Downtown Tunnel is congested." Users of the
Downtown Tunnel will benefit from "modifications to the
existing northbound and southbound tunnels necessary for the
existing facility to conform to the National Fire Protection
Standard 502." These modifications include "upgrades to: the
existing water supply, ventilation, electrical, and emergency
response systems."
Improvements to the individual facilities will also
benefit the integrated transportation network as a whole. The
General Assembly has recognized vehicular connections between
Portsmouth and Norfolk by bridge or tunnel as an integrated
network since 1942 when it enacted the Elizabeth River Tunnel
Revenue Bond Act ("Elizabeth River Act"). 1942 Acts ch. 130.
The Elizabeth River Act granted the Elizabeth River Tunnel
Commission the authority to "establish, construct, operate, and
maintain the project." Id. (emphasis added). The project was
defined as "a tunnel or tunnels under the Elizabeth River or a
16. 16
bridge over and a tunnel under the South Branch of the
Elizabeth River and a tunnel under or a bridge over the East
Branch of the Elizabeth River, forming a vehicular connection
between the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia." Id.
(emphasis added).
In 1952, the Downtown Tunnel was constructed as part of
the "project." Several years later, in 1956, the General
Assembly approved the construction of another tunnel, the
Midtown Tunnel, which the General Assembly explicitly added to
the Elizabeth River Act's definition of "project." Acts 1956
ch. 285. In 1971, the General Assembly recognized the need for
a third vehicular connection between Portsmouth and Norfolk.
It authorized the Elizabeth River Tunnel Commission to
construct "a tunnel or tunnels or a bridge or bridges under or
over the Elizabeth River and any tributaries thereof and
approaches and approach roads . . . thereto." Acts 1971 ch.
237. The General Assembly again expanded the Elizabeth River
Act's definition of "project" to include any of the
aforementioned additional vehicular connections. Id. Thus,
the General Assembly has historically recognized vehicular
connections between Portsmouth and Norfolk and approaches to
the connections as an integrated network and unified project.
The Project at issue, although created under the later-
enacted PPTA, is merely a new adaption of the historically
17. 17
recognized unified project. A 1996 Final Environmental Impact
Statement indicates that new improvements to the Project
facilities will provide benefits to the Project as a whole,
including "improved overall traffic flow, an increase in
traffic capacity, and a decrease in travel time." The Official
Offering Statement of the Virginia Small Business Financing
Authority specifies that these improvements will also
"accommodate growing regional traffic volumes, reduce
congestion and provide improved links between employment
centers, airports, freight, marine terminals, rail lines and
other existing transit facilities by providing increased
capacity for crossing the Elizabeth River and also by improving
linkage to the regional highway system." The users of each of
the Project facilities will, by paying the toll, gain a
particularized benefit from improvements to the particular
facility to which the toll payment provides access, as well as
from improvements to the Project as a whole.
2. Drivers Are Not Compelled by Government to Pay the Tolls
or Accept the Benefits of the Project Facilities
The government does not compel those who cross the
Elizabeth River to pay a toll or accept the benefits provided
by the Project facilities. Project facility users' toll
payments are therefore voluntary. There are two aspects of
voluntariness in the case at bar. First, there are reasonable
18. 18
alternative routes of passage between Portsmouth and Norfolk
available to users of the Downtown Tunnel and Midtown Tunnel.
Reasonable alternatives include the Gilmerton Bridge and the
High Rise Bridge, neither of which impose a toll on users.
Second, because drivers who choose not to use the toll
roads do not receive the aforementioned benefits of the
Project, they are not compelled to accept the benefit of a fee
that they are not paying. This is in contrast to a tax, such
as a sales tax, in which the individual purchaser's decision
regarding whether to purchase the item has no effect on whether
the purchaser will receive a benefit from sales taxes through
government services supported by the sales taxes. Even though
the purchaser's payment of the sales tax may be voluntary,
receipt of the benefit is not.
The user of a toll road, on the other hand, pays a user
fee in exchange for a direct benefit that the user would give
up if he did not pay the fee. National Cable Television Ass'n
v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 340-41 (1974) ("A fee . . . is
incident to a voluntary act [which] bestows a benefit on the
applicant, not shared by other members of society"). The
government does not compel either the payment or the benefit,
and thus the fee is voluntary and contractual.
19. 19
3. The Tolls Are Collected Solely to Fund the Project
Finally, the tolls are collected solely to fund the
Project. We have previously held that an ordinance "is not an
invalid revenue-generating device solely because the fee set by
the ordinance generates a surplus." 2
Mountain View Ltd. P'ship
v. City of Clifton Forge, 256 Va. 304, 312, 504 S.E.2d 371, 376
(1998). Rather, the ordinance constitutes an invalid revenue-
generating device if there is no "reasonable correlation
between the benefit conferred and the cost exacted by the
ordinance." Id. In the present case, the costs of the Project
exceed the fees imposed on users of the Project facilities and,
consequently, the tolls are not an invalid revenue-generating
device.
Moreover, the Comprehensive Agreement restricts the use of
toll revenues to funding of the Project. Section 5.06 of the
Comprehensive Agreement provides that "[ERC] will have no right
to use Gross Revenues to pay any debt, obligation or liability
unrelated to this Agreement, the Project, or [ERC's] services
pursuant to this Agreement." If ERC were to attempt to use
revenues from the Project for separate, unrelated purposes by
"imposing tolls in excess of that permitted pursuant to [the
2
Tolls for the funding of a project are user fees when
they fund not only the project's cost, but also "the return
which such values or expenditures should yield." Sands, 123
U.S. at 294.
20. 20
Comprehensive] Agreement," the Comprehensive Agreement provides
that:
such . . . Default will be curable only by
(i) reinstating the tolls in effect
immediately prior to the impermissible raise
in tolls, unless waived by [VDOT] and (ii)
disgorging to [VDOT] any and all increases
in Toll Revenues that would not have been
realized in the absence of such [ERC]
Default, together with interest thereon at
the Bank Rate from the date of collection
until the date disgorged.
Section 19.02(d) (emphasis added).
Any disgorgement to VDOT under Section 19.02 of the
Comprehensive Agreement does not remain with VDOT, nor is it
dispersed to unrelated projects. Rather, the Code provides that
any excess would be diverted to the Transportation Trust Fund.
Code § 33.1-23.03:1(9). Funds provided to the Transportation
Trust Fund from facilities developed under the PPTA are "held in
a separate subaccount" in the Transportation Trust Fund and are
to be used only to:
1. Pay or finance all or part of the costs of
programs or projects . . . that are
reasonably related to or benefit the users
of the qualifying transportation facility
that was the subject of a concession
pursuant to the [PPTA].
. . . .
2. Repay funds from the Toll Facilities
Revolving Account or the Transportation
Partnership Opportunity Fund[, or]
21. 21
3. Pay the Board's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the administration and
management of the account.
Code § 33.1-23.03:9(A)-(B) (emphasis added). The record is
therefore sufficient to establish that all revenue derived from
Project tolls would fund the Project.
Accordingly, we hold that tolls on the Midtown Tunnel,
Downtown Tunnel, and MLK Extension, which are (1) paid in
exchange for a particularized benefit, (2) not compelled by
government, and (3) collected solely to fund the Project are
user fees, not taxes.
C. Whether the General Assembly Unconstitutionally Delegated
the Authority to Set Toll Rates to Public and Private
Entities in the PPTA
Meeks assigns cross-error to the circuit court's refusal
to enter summary judgment in his favor on Counts 1 and 2 of the
Complaint for the alternative reason that the PPTA
unconstitutionally delegates to public and private entities the
General Assembly's authority to set toll rates. Meeks argues
that the PPTA violates Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of
Virginia because it authorizes public and private entities to
set toll rates on the same project from which the private
entity will derive a return on its investment. Article IV, § 1
provides, "[t]he legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be
vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Delegates." Meeks contends that the ratemaking at
22. 22
issue is a wholly legislative function within the jurisdiction
of the State Corporation Commission ("SCC"). Meeks argues that
the PPTA impermissibly delegates ratemaking authority to VDOT,
a state agency that lacks true legislative power.
We disagree. The SCC does not hold regulatory authority
over toll rate setting in projects authorized by the PPTA. It
is well established that the SCC "has no inherent power simply
because it was created by the Virginia Constitution; and
therefore its jurisdiction must be found either in
constitutional grants or in statutes which do not contravene
that document." VYVX of Va., Inc. v. Cassell, 258 Va. 276,
290, 519 S.E.2d 124, 131 (1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the Code provides the
SCC with jurisdiction over toll rate setting for the Project.
Section 156(b) of Article XII of the Constitution of
Virginia of 19023
clearly and unambiguously delegated regulatory
3
Section 156(b) provided, in relevant part:
The [SCC] shall have the power, and be
charged with the duty, of supervising,
regulating and controlling all
transportation and transmission companies
doing business in this State, in all matters
relating to the performance of their public
duties and their charges therefor, and of
correcting abuses therein by such companies;
and to that end the [SCC] shall, from time
to time, prescribe, and enforce against such
companies, in the manner hereinafter
authorized, such rates, charges,
23. 23
authority over "transportation . . . companies doing business"
in the Commonwealth to the SCC. Thus, if it were still in
effect, Section 156(b) of the Constitution of Virginia of 1902
would have placed ERC, a transportation company doing business
in the Commonwealth, within the jurisdiction of the SCC's
constitutionally delegated authority.
However, in 1971, the General Assembly enacted the present
Constitution of Virginia through a complete revision of its
predecessor, the Constitution of Virginia of 1902. With this
change, Section 156(b) of the Constitution of Virginia of 1902
became Article IX, § 2 of the present Constitution of Virginia
of 1971, which currently provides, in relevant part:
Subject to such criteria and other
requirements as may be prescribed by law,
the [SCC] shall have the power and be
charged with the duty of regulating the
rates, charges, and services and, except as
may be otherwise authorized by this
Constitution or by general law, the
facilities of railroad, telephone, gas, and
electric companies.
classifications of traffic, and rules and
regulations, and shall require them to
establish and maintain all such public
service, facilities and conveniences, as may
be reasonable and just, which said rates,
charges, classifications, rules, regulations
and requirements, the [SCC] may, from time
to time, alter or amend.
(Emphasis added.)
24. 24
(Emphasis added.) When the "words [and] terms" of a provision
of the Constitution are not "doubtful or ambiguous," "we are
limited to the language of the section itself and are not at
liberty to search for meaning, intent or purpose beyond the
instrument." Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 448, 106 S.E.2d 636,
644 (1959). Article IX, § 2 delegates jurisdiction over rates,
charges, and services of railroad, telephone, gas, and electric
facilities to the SCC. This list of facilities is exclusive.
Thus, with the enactment of the present Constitution of Virginia
in 1971, the facilities within the SCC's regulatory authority no
longer include "transportation . . . companies doing business in
this State."
Just as the Constitution of Virginia does not delegate
jurisdiction over transportation companies to the SCC, neither
has the General Assembly delegated such jurisdiction over the
Project to the SCC. The authority to authorize and regulate
toll roads throughout the Commonwealth is addressed in the
Virginia Highway Corporation Act of 1988, Code § 56-535 et seq.
("VHCA") and in the PPTA.
The VHCA provides that "[n]o person may construct,
operate[,] or enlarge any [privately owned or operated highway
for which a toll is imposed] without first having obtained a
certificate of authority from the [SCC] authorizing such
construction, operation[,] or enlargement." Code § 56-538; see
25. 25
also Code §§ 56-536, 56-542. Thus, the VHCA granted the SCC the
authority to authorize and regulate toll roads throughout the
Commonwealth.
However, the PPTA, enacted by the General Assembly in 1995,
provides that "[n]othing in the [VHCA] shall apply to qualifying
transportation facilities undertaken pursuant to the authority
of this chapter." Code § 56-574. Although the VHCA authorized
the SCC to have regulatory jurisdiction generally over
transportation facilities, the PPTA carved out an exception for
qualifying transportation facilities undertaken pursuant to the
PPTA. Id.; see also Code § 56-560.
We hold that neither the Constitution of Virginia nor the
Code supplies the SCC with jurisdiction over toll rate setting
in projects authorized by the PPTA. The General Assembly was
therefore not required to delegate any legislative power
employed in the execution of the Project exclusively to the SCC.
D. Whether Extending the Legislative Power to Impose and Set
the Rates of User Fees to VDOT and ERC Was Constitutional
We now turn to the constitutionality of the legislative
power to impose and set the rates of user fees being extended
to VDOT and ERC.4
At all times in the discussion below, unless
4
The issue of the legislative power to impose and set the
rates of user fees being extended to VDOT and ERC is one of
Virginia constitutional law, and one resolved by state-law
principles. This Court has, over time, looked to federal law
to help provide guiding principles or to exemplify a point.
26. 26
otherwise indicated, the "legislative power" specifically being
addressed is the power to impose user fees in the form of tolls
and the power to set the rates of those tolls.
In addressing this issue, we are not evaluating—and indeed
cannot speak to—the merits of the various policy decisions
underlying this case. Our role is simply to ascertain whether
the political entities have acted within the constitutional
boundaries that limit the exercise of their governmental power.
If so, then their policy decisions are subject to, and properly
evaluated by, the political will of the people, and we have no
authority to override such political decisions. See Williamson
v. Old Brogue, Inc., 232 Va. 350, 354, 350 S.E.2d 621, 624
(1986) ("Where, as here, the issue involves many competing
economic, societal, and policy considerations, legislative
procedures and safeguards are particularly appropriate to the
task of fashioning an appropriate change."); Commonwealth v.
County Board, 217 Va. 558, 581, 232 S.E.2d 30, 44 (1977)
("Conscious of the respective roles of the General Assembly and
See, e.g., DuVal v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 216 Va. 226,
228-29, 217 S.E.2d 844, 846-47 (1975) (discussing American
Power & Light Co. v. Securities & Exch. Comm'n, 329 U.S. 90
(1946)). Resolving the constitutional propriety of extending
state legislative power to both public and private entities,
however, is a state-law issue not compelled by, or necessarily
coextensive with, federal jurisprudence. See Michigan v. Long,
463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1983).
27. 27
the judiciary, we decline to intrude upon . . . a singularly
political question." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Evaluating the extension of legislative power to VDOT and
ERC requires resolving two issues. First, whether extending
the legislative power to VDOT and ERC is constitutionally
permissible. Second, if such an extension of the legislative
power is constitutional, whether that extension was done
correctly. We address these points in turn.
1. The Legislative Power to Impose and Set the Rates of User
Fees May Be Constitutionally Extended to VDOT and ERC
The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches are
"separate and distinct" under the Constitution of Virginia.
Va. Const. art. I, § 5; Va. Const. art. III, § 1. This
directive "prevents one branch from engaging in the functions
of another." Taylor v. Worrell Enterprises, Inc., 242 Va. 219,
221, 409 S.E.2d 136, 138 (1991); see, e.g., Board of
Supervisors v. Allman, 215 Va. 434, 445, 211 S.E.2d 48, 55
(1975) (courts cannot rezone property because the
"classification of lands under zoning ordinances involves the
exercise of the legislative power" of the Commonwealth); Fugate
v. Weston, 156 Va. 107, 116-17, 157 S.E. 736, 739 (1931) (the
General Assembly cannot vest the Governor with the power to
suspend or remove an officer without subsequent judicial
adjudication because "the requisite jurisdictional facts
28. 28
necessary to sustain [such an action] is always essentially a
judicial function"). Therefore, because "[t]he legislative
power of the Commonwealth" is "vested in a General Assembly,"
Va. Const. art. IV, § 1, the General Assembly is the branch of
government that wields legislative power.
However, we have long recognized that the separation of
powers between the branches of government is not absolute.
See, e.g., Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 381, 154 S.E. 579,
584 (1930). Practical considerations of modern governance
require some degree of intermixing governmental powers between
branches. See Baliles v. Mazur, 224 Va. 462, 472, 297 S.E.2d
695, 700 (1982) ("[T]here is not a single constitution of any
state in the [U]nion which does not practically embrace some
acknowledgement of the [separation of powers] maxim and at the
same time some admixture of powers constituting an exception to
it." (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly
true in the area of the Executive Branch's administration and
enforcement of law enacted by the General Assembly. As we have
acknowledged, "[g]overnment could not be efficiently carried on
if something could not be left to the judgment and discretion
of administrative officers to accomplish in detail what is
authorized or required by law in general terms." Thompson, 155
Va. at 379, 154 S.E. at 584.
29. 29
a. The General Assembly Can Delegate to VDOT the Legislative
Power to Impose and Set the Rates of User Fees
We first evaluate the General Assembly's extension of the
legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees to
VDOT under the PPTA. This extension of legislative power is
that most commonly encountered in modern governance, and is
easily categorized as a delegation of legislative power to
VDOT. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that this
delegation of legislative power to VDOT is constitutionally
permissible.
The General Assembly's legislative powers are "without
limit," restricted only by express or necessarily implied
prohibitions arising from the Constitution of Virginia or the
United States Constitution. Marshall v. Northern Virginia
Transp. Auth., 275 Va. 419, 432, 657 S.E.2d 71, 78 (2008);
Harrison, 201 Va. at 396, 111 S.E.2d at 511. In the exercise
of its broad, plenary power, the General Assembly can generally
delegate its legislative powers to Executive Branch
administrative agencies such as VDOT. Taylor, 242 Va. at 221,
409 S.E.2d at 137-38. Some types of legislative powers,
however, are removed from this broad authority and cannot be
freely delegated. When determining whether a particular
legislative power can be delegated to an administrative agency,
this Court "consider[s] the explicit language of the
30. 30
Constitution [of Virginia]." Marshall, 275 Va. at 432, 657
S.E.2d at 78. Meeks makes two arguments as to why the General
Assembly's delegation of the legislative power to impose and
set the rates of user fees to VDOT is constitutionally infirm.
First, Meeks argues that the Project tolls are taxes. If
the Project tolls were taxes, then the General Assembly's
delegation of the power to impose and set the rates of such
taxes to VDOT would be a constitutionally impermissible
delegation of legislative power. Id. at 435, 657 S.E.2d at 79-
80. But as discussed extensively above in Part II.B., the
Project tolls are not taxes. The Project tolls are user fees.
The constitutional prohibition against delegating the
legislative power to impose and set the rates of taxes does not
apply to the legislative power to impose and set the rates of
user fees.
Second, Meeks argues that the power to impose and set the
rates of the Project tolls is a wholly legislative function
that can only be delegated to the SCC and not to an Executive
Branch administrative agency like VDOT. But as discussed
extensively above in Part II.C., the SCC is not the only entity
to which the legislative power to impose and set the rates of
user fees can be delegated. The mere existence of the SCC does
not create a constitutional barrier prohibiting the General
31. 31
Assembly from delegating the legislative power to impose and
set the rates of user fees to an administrative agency.
Thus considered, the General Assembly is not prohibited by
either the Constitution or the Code from delegating the
legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees to
the administrative agency VDOT.
b. The General Assembly Can Empower ERC to Assist VDOT in
Exercising the Legislative Power to Impose and Set the Rates of
User Fees
We now evaluate the General Assembly's extension of the
legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees to
ERC. This extension of legislative power is different than a
typical delegation of legislative power to an administrative
agency, but is implicated here by the PPTA. For the reasons
set forth below, this extension of the legislative power to ERC
(an "empowerment") is of a different kind than the extension of
the legislative power to VDOT (a "delegation").
When the General Assembly delegates a legislative power
directly to a private entity, "[t]his is legislative delegation
in its most obnoxious form." Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298
U.S. 238, 311 (1936). The Supreme Court of the United States
has held that when Congress delegates its legislative power to
regulate an aspect of a specific industry to a private entity
engaged in that very industry, that delegation offends the
United States Constitution. Id. at 310-12 (Congress cannot
32. 32
delegate power to "fix maximum hours of labor" in the coal-
mining industry to specified coal producers). But a private
entity's mere involvement with making regulatory decisions,
falling below actual delegation of legislative power, is not
itself unconstitutional. For example, if Congress empowers a
private entity to help regulate an aspect of a specific
industry, but that private entity's authority is subordinate to
a public entity's decision-making power, then the empowerment
is constitutionally permissible. Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co.
v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 388, 399 (1940) (Congress can empower
private entities to "propose minimum prices pursuant to
prescribed statutory standards" because those proposals were
subject to the National Bituminous Coal Commission's approval).
Our previous decisions align with these principles. See,
e.g., County of Fairfax v. Fleet Indus. Park Ltd. P'ship, 242
Va. 426, 432-33, 410 S.E.2d 669, 672-73 (1991) (holding that a
legislative enactment, allowing private landowners to
unilaterally veto zoning classifications as well as ordinances
and regulations affecting property, was an impermissible
delegation of legislative power because it gave the private
parties "total discretion"); Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of
Virginia v. Arlington Cnty., 213 Va. 339, 341, 192 S.E.2d 772,
774 (1972) (holding that a private telephone company's
increased rates, when never properly authorized by the SCC,
33. 33
"were company-made rates and increases" that violated both
Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions). We
therefore make explicit that, under the Constitution of
Virginia, the General Assembly may empower private entities to
assist public entities in the exercise of constitutionally-
delegated legislative powers, but the General Assembly cannot
delegate such legislative powers directly to private entities.5
With these governing principles in mind, the PPTA is
reviewed to determine whether ERC's involvement "in the
administrative process" has become so prominent and without
sufficient VDOT oversight that ERC's "role [has] trespass[ed]
into an unconstitutional delegation." Association of Am. R.R.
v. United States Dep't. of Transp., 721 F.3d 666, 671 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). In the PPTA, the General Assembly extended
5
This divide between delegation and empowerment is
encapsulated in our previous decisions regarding when a
legislative power has been impermissibly delegated to the
private sector. However, we borrow the term "empower" as a
means of contrasting a "delegation" from a related delegation
context.
In Ex Parte Bassitt, 90 Va. 679, 680 (1894), we evaluated
the General Assembly's extension of the legislative power to
appoint additional judicial officers between elections, if "the
public service" so required, to county courts. We held that
this extension of power was not a delegation of legislative
power. Id. at 681. Instead, we recognized that "the county
courts [were] merely empowered to declare the event . . . upon
which the act is to take effect within their respective
counties." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, we recognized that the
General Assembly can empower other entities to be involved in
the exercise of legislative power, but such empowerment falls
short of a delegation of legislative power.
34. 34
directly to ERC some degree of authority to be involved with
the legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees.
See, e.g., Code § 56-565(D) (allowing a private entity to make
different "classifications" for assessing user fees); Code
§ 56-566(A) (directing VDOT and ERC to "enter into a
comprehensive agreement"); Code § 56-566(B) (requiring a
comprehensive agreement to "provide for such user fees" that
the parties establish "from time to time by agreement," and for
the parties to "negotiat[e] user fees"). The PPTA, then, does
allow ERC to have a role regarding the legislative power. But
that role is subordinate to VDOT's ultimate decision-making
authority.
Indeed, the comprehensive agreement which dictates the
exercise of the legislative power to impose and set the rates
of user fees is subject to VDOT's approval. Nothing in the
PPTA compels VDOT to enter into a comprehensive agreement
containing terms to which VDOT does not assent. This means
that VDOT has the option of ultimately rejecting the
comprehensive agreement and looking for another proposal
submitted by a different private entity. Such a rejection
could be, amongst other reasons, because of the private
entity's unwillingness to submit to VDOT's determination
regarding user fees.
35. 35
Meeks is correct in asserting that the Comprehensive
Agreement, being a contract, must be made while VDOT and ERC
stand on relatively equal footing as a matter of contract
principles. See Envirotech Corp. v. Halco Eng'g, Inc., 234 Va.
583, 593, 364 S.E.2d 215, 220 (1988) (holding that "grossly
unequal bargaining power at the time the contract is formed"
can render a contract unconscionable). But VDOT retains the
ultimate authority governing the progress of any given project
by deciding which particular comprehensive agreement will be
controlling. This power to reject a comprehensive agreement
carries with it the power to shape the terms of the
comprehensive agreement, including those terms relating to the
legislative power to impose and set the rates of user fees.
It is clear, then, that VDOT holds the ultimate power to
establish the terms of a comprehensive agreement under the
PPTA. This includes those terms regarding the exercise of the
legislative power. The General Assembly does allow private
entities such as ERC to contract and negotiate with VDOT in
deciding what those terms are. But ERC has no ability to force
VDOT to actually enter into such a comprehensive agreement.
The General Assembly has therefore only empowered ERC, and has
not delegated the legislative power to impose and set the rates
of user fees to ERC. Thus considered, the General Assembly can
constitutionally extend the legislative power to ERC, as a
36. 36
private entity, to assist VDOT in imposing and setting the
rates of user fees, because here it is a mere empowerment and
not a delegation of legislative power.
c. VDOT Can Authorize ERC to Be Involved in the Exercise of
the Legislative Power to Impose and Set the Rates of User Fees
We finally evaluate VDOT's extension of the legislative
power to impose and set the rates of user fees to ERC. This
extension of legislative power is unique to the public
entity/private entity collaboration context, and is implicated
here by VDOT having authorized, through contract, ERC to
exercise some degree of the legislative power in the
Comprehensive Agreement. For the reasons set forth below, this
extension of the legislative power to impose and set the rates
of user fees is only a mere empowerment and not a delegation.
The principles pertaining to the delegation/empowerment
dichotomy are equally applicable here. This is true even
though the schemes in the cases setting forth those principles
are not directly on point. In contrast to the aforementioned
cases, the current issue is not whether the General Assembly,
through the PPTA, has directly delegated to or empowered ERC to
engage in the exercise of legislative power. The issue is
whether VDOT, having been delegated the legislative power to
impose and set the rates of user fees by the General Assembly,
37. 37
may subsequently authorize ERC, through contract, to exercise a
degree of that legislative power.
Despite these factual differences, the two schemes
parallel one another. That is, VDOT's authorizing ERC to
exercise the legislative power is substantially similar to the
scenario of the General Assembly's directly delegating to a
private entity, or empowering a private entity with, a
legislative power. In fact, because the General Assembly
delegated the legislative power to VDOT, VDOT's authorizing ERC
to exercise that legislative power can be fairly described as
being done on the General Assembly's behalf. It would be a
poor check on impermissible delegation if administrative
agencies could extend legislative powers in a manner in which
the General Assembly could not. See Marshall, 275 Va. at 435,
637 S.E.2d at 80 ("The General Assembly also may not accomplish
. . . indirectly[] that which it is not empowered to do
directly.").
The issue here is therefore sufficiently comparable to a
scenario in which the General Assembly directly delegates a
legislative power to a private entity or empowers a private
entity with a legislative power. We therefore make explicit
that, under the Constitution of Virginia, an administrative
agency may empower private entities (through contractual
arrangements) to assist it in the exercise of constitutionally-
38. 38
delegated legislative powers, but an administrative agency
cannot delegate such legislative powers to private entities.
As with the PPTA, then, the Comprehensive Agreement is
reviewed to determine whether ERC's involvement "in the
administrative process" has become so prominent and without
sufficient VDOT oversight that ERC's "role [has] trespass[ed]
into an unconstitutional delegation." American R.R., 721 F.3d
at 671. The Comprehensive Agreement makes clear that ERC does
not exercise unilateral discretion in imposing and setting the
rates of the user fees. True, ERC has the "exclusive right"
and "obligation" to impose and establish the Project tolls.
But that power must conform to the other terms of the
Comprehensive Agreement.
The Comprehensive Agreement requires the Project tolls to
be set and raised in accordance with the Toll Rate Schedule.
The Toll Rate Schedule—a document which VDOT negotiated with
ERC, and which VDOT could have rejected—sets maximum
transponder and non-transponder rates. So ERC's ability to
exercise the legislative power to impose and set the rates of
user fees is confined by limits which VDOT has expressly
created by setting maximum toll rates. Moreover, ERC must give
VDOT notice 60 days before any planned Project toll rate
adjustment. VDOT therefore retains constant oversight of ERC's
exercise of the legislative power to impose and set the rates
39. 39
of user fees. In addition, VDOT retains the right, "in its
sole discretion," to immediately stop the imposition of Project
tolls in certain emergencies.
ERC's ability to impose and set the rates of the Project
tolls is more than merely advisory. But VDOT retains a
pervasive role in setting the limits on, and constantly
reviewing, ERC's use of the legislative power. This makes
ERC's ability to exercise the legislative power sufficiently
subordinate to VDOT's decision-making authority for purposes of
determining whether VDOT can authorize ERC to exercise some
degree of that legislative power. See American R.R., 721 F.3d
at 671 n.5 (reviewing multiple federal circuit court decisions
that evaluated regulatory schemes involving private entities
and holding that the defining characteristic making such
schemes constitutionally permissible was that "a private party
[did not] stand on equal footing with a government agency").
This determination is confirmed by Harrison, where we were
presented with the General Assembly's creation of the Virginia
State Ports Authority and delegation to the Ports Authority the
legislative power "to fix and revise charges for the use of the
port facilities under its control." 202 Va. at 977, 121 S.E.2d
622. The Ports Authority subsequently entered into a contract
which, in part, leased a facility to a private railroad
company. Id. at 970, 977, 121 S.E.2d at 617, 622. A provision
40. 40
of this lease contracted away to the private railroad company
the power to fix and enforce "the rates and regulations" for
use of the leased facility, a legislative power originally
delegated to the Ports Authority. Id. at 977, 121 S.E.2d at
622. Under that lease contract, the railroad company's rates
and regulations were presumptively valid unless an unspecified
"governmental body" determined those rates and regulations "to
be unfair or unlawful." Id. In reviewing a challenge of this
contractual situation as being "an unlawful delegation of the
[Ports] Authority's responsibility" to a private entity, we
observed that "[t]he General Assembly obviously did not think
so," and simply held that "there is no substance to the point."
Id. at 978, 121 S.E.2d at 622.
Such a summary dismissal of an identical challenge
confirms the constitutionality of VDOT's authorizing ERC,
through contract, to exercise the legislative power to impose
and set the rates of user fees. The Harrison situation is
analogous to the Comprehensive Agreement between VDOT and ERC.
If anything, VDOT's confining the universe of ERC's potential
actions with hard limits and continuing supervision of ERC's
ability to adjust the Project tolls provides a greater degree
of public entity oversight than that which existed in Harrison.
Thus considered, in the Comprehensive Agreement VDOT can
authorize ERC to exercise the legislative power to impose and
41. 41
set the rates of user fees—a legislative power originally
delegated from the General Assembly to VDOT—because here it is
a mere empowerment and not a delegation of legislative power.
2. The Extension of the Legislative Power to Set User Fees
Was Appropriately Accomplished
a. The General Assembly Delegated the Legislative Power to
VDOT with Constitutionally Sufficient Policies and Standards
The General Assembly's ability to delegate its legislative
power is not absolute. A delegation of legislative power
allowing for discretionary exercise of that power is not, in
and of itself, constitutionally impermissible. See DuVal, 216
Va. at 228, 217 S.E.2d at 846. However, "delegations of
legislative power are valid only if they establish specific
policies and fix definite standards to guide the official,
agency, or board in the exercise of the power." Bell v. Dorey
Elec. Co., 248 Va. 378, 380, 448 S.E.2d 622, 623 (1994).
Absent such policies and standards, a delegation of legislative
power is unconstitutional. Id.
Constitutionally sufficient policies and standards are
those "where the terms or phrases employed have a well
understood meaning, and prescribe sufficient standards to guide
the administrator." Id. at 382, 448 S.E.2d at 624 (citation
omitted). The standards "must be as reasonably precise as the
subject matter requires or permits." Ours Props., Inc. v. Ley,
198 Va. 848, 851, 96 S.E. 754, 757 (1957). But, general terms
42. 42
are permissible if those terms "get precision from the
technical knowledge or sense and experience of men and thereby
become reasonably certain." Id. at 852, 96 S.E.2d at 757.6
The legislative power at issue is the ability to impose
and set the rates of user fees. VDOT is correct in declaring
that this is a "matter[] of detail [that] may properly be left
to administrative discretion." Thompson, 155 Va. at 381, 154
S.E. at 584. But this could not excuse a lack of
constitutionally sufficient policies and standards, as VDOT
argues. It is because VDOT can exercise administrative
discretion in the exercise of a delegated legislative power
that constitutionally sufficient policies and standards
governing that discretion are required. Id.
6
Meeks asserts that a delegation of legislative power,
when the General Assembly contemplates that power to be shared
to some degree with a private entity, must be accompanied by
policies and standards that are even more precise than
generally required. No authority supports this proposition.
This proposition does not align with the purposes of requiring
specific policies and standards. See Yakus v. United States,
321 U.S. 414, 426 (1944) ("[S]tandards [must be] sufficiently
definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts[,] and the
public to ascertain whether the [administrative agency] has
conformed to those standards."); Chapel v. Commonwealth, 197
Va. 406, 410, 89 S.E.2d 337, 340 (1955) (holding that standards
to guide administrative discretion ensure that the General
Assembly does not "divest itself of [the] function" to
"determine and declare what the law shall be"). Such a
proposition would further confuse an already murky
jurisprudential area to the point of removing any real
standards for a reviewing court to apply. We therefore reject
this proposition.
43. 43
Therefore, we must evaluate those sources that might
establish such policies and standards. For this inquiry, VDOT
invokes both federal law and judicially imposed limitations on
the exercise of the legislative power to impose and set the
rates of user fees. But we look no further than the operative
legislation: the PPTA itself. See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v.
Smit, 279 Va. 327, 340, 689 S.E.2d 679, 687 (2010) ("[T]he
legislature may delegate discretion to an administrative
officer to determine the specifics of how a statute is to be
enforced, but the legislature must declare the policy of the
law and fix the legal principles which are to control in given
cases." (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted)).
In fact, our review begins and ends with Code § 56-566(B).
Code § 56-566(B) directs the comprehensive agreement to set
forth the terms of imposing and setting the rates of user fees.
In particular, specific guidance is provided for when parties
are "negotiating user fees under this section." Code § 56-
566(B). That guidance commands that "the parties shall
establish [user] fees that are the same for persons using the
facility under like conditions except as required by agreement
between the parties to preserve capacity and prevent congestion
on the qualifying transportation facility." This consideration
governs any exercise of the legislative power to impose or set
44. 44
the rates of user fees.7
Further, this consideration requires
VDOT to consider whether the imposition and rates of the user
fees will preserve capacity and prevent congestion. By the
terms of Code § 56-566(B), then, VDOT's exercise of the
legislative power is guided by the directive to preserve
capacity and prevent congestion.
Moreover, terms such as "capacity" and "congestion" are
industry-specific goalposts. We have long held such standards
to be constitutionally sufficient. See Reynolds v. Milk Comm'n
of Virginia, 163 Va. 957, 965, 975, 179 S.E. 507, 509-10, 514
(1935) (upholding a statute allowing the Milk Commission to fix
reasonable prices, whereby reasonableness is informed by
industry-specific costs, charges, and prices).
Thus considered, we hold that Code § 56-566(B) provides
constitutionally sufficient policies and standards to govern
the exercise of the legislative power: both the power to impose
7
This clause appears to be conditioned on the "agreement
between the parties." Code § 56-566(B). However, we read "to
preserve capacity and prevent congestion on the qualifying
transportation facility" as being a constant consideration that
must be addressed by VDOT in the exercise of the legislative
power to impose and set the rates of user fees. See Copeland
v. Todd, 282 Va. 183, 193, 715 S.E.2d 11, 16 (2011) ("[W]e have
a duty to construe statutes subject to a constitutional
challenge in a manner that avoid[s] any conflict with the
Constitution." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The agreement of the parties—that is, the Comprehensive
Agreement which sets forth all aspects of exercising the
legislative power—merely serves as the vehicle through which
that consideration is addressed.
45. 45
user fees and the power to set the rates of user fees. These
policies and standards are sourced in the mandatory requirement
that VDOT exercise the legislative power in order "to preserve
capacity and prevent congestion." Code § 56-566(B). We need
not evaluate whether other considerations within Code § 56-
566(B) supply constitutionally sufficient policies and
standards. The General Assembly's mandatory guidance that
VDOT's exercise of the legislative power to impose and set the
rates of user fees shall preserve capacity and prevent
congestion, standing alone, provides sufficient policies and
standards to satisfy the constitutional requirement discussed
here. On this point, the circuit court erred.
b. ERC Being Empowered, and Not Delegated To, Does Not
Require Accompanying Policies and Standards
The requirement of constitutionally sufficient policies
and standards is one that accompanies the delegation of
legislative power. See Volkswagen of America, 279 Va. at 339-
40, 689 S.E.2d at 686. Such a requirement does not extend to
the empowerment of a private entity to be involved in the
exercise of a legislative power.
As discussed above in Part II.D.1.b., the General Assembly
did not delegate the legislative power to impose and set the
rates of user fees to ERC, but only empowered ERC to assist
VDOT through the PPTA. And as discussed above in Part
46. 46
II.D.1.c., VDOT did not delegate that legislative power to ERC,
but merely empowered ERC to assist VDOT in the Comprehensive
Agreement. As such, because ERC has not been delegated a
legislative power, no requirement exists that constitutionally
sufficient policies and standards must accompany ERC's
empowerment.
E. Whether the Comprehensive Agreement Unconstitutionally
Abridges the Commonwealth's Police Power
We now address Meeks' final argument assailing the
constitutionality of the Project: that the Project has abridged
the Commonwealth's police power.
The Constitution of Virginia declares that the "police
power of the Commonwealth . . . shall never be abridged." Va.
Const. art. IX, § 6. The "police power," has "no exact
definition." Blue Cross of Va. v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 349,
358, 269 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1980). However, the police power is
best described as the Commonwealth's inherent power, as a
sovereign, to enact laws "to promote the health, peace, morals,
education[,] and good order of the people, and to legislate so
as to increase the industries of the State, develop its
resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity." Mumpower v.
Housing Auth. of Bristol, 176 Va. 426, 440, 11 S.E.2d 732, 737
(1940) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). The
Commonwealth's police power is abridged when the government can
47. 47
no longer use its discretion in exercising this governmental
power. See, e.g., Nusbaum v. Norfolk, 151 Va. 801, 807-08, 145
S.E. 257, 259 (1928) (holding that if an ordinance, embodying
the discretionary exercise of governmental power, could not be
repealed, it would abridge the Commonwealth's police power).
Meeks asserts that certain terms in the Comprehensive
Agreement have the effect of abridging the Commonwealth's
police power. These terms include: that the Project shall
continue for 58 years; that ERC can assert claims for damages
if certain specified events occur, including the construction
or expansion of a facility that would have an impact on the
Project and the imposition of certain state and local taxes;
that VDOT must "stand behind" the $422,000,000 federal TIFIA
loan to ERC; and that ERC can impose and collect the Project's
tolls in accordance with the toll rate formula. In short,
Meeks contends that these terms prevent the Commonwealth from
responding to changing circumstances throughout the duration of
the Comprehensive Agreement.
We start with the understanding that the grant of
authority to public entities in Code § 56-566 to enter into a
comprehensive agreement is necessarily limited by the
prohibition against any abridgment of the police power of the
Commonwealth, as set forth in Article IX, § 6 of the
Constitution of Virginia. See Copeland v. Todd, 282 Va. 183,
48. 48
193, 715 S.E.2d 11, 16 (2011). Thus, Code § 56-566 cannot be
construed to empower public entities to abridge the
Commonwealth's police power. Compare Victoria v. Victoria Ice,
Light & Power Co., 134 Va. 134, 144-46, 155, 114 S.E. 92, 95-
96, 98 (1922) (holding that a statutory grant of power to
municipalities to enter into contracts to fix the rates of
public service corporations was necessarily limited by the
constitutional prohibition of abridging the Commonwealth's
police powers). However, that limitation on Code § 56-566 does
not limit VDOT's basic ability to enter into contracts with
private entities. Indeed, it is a longstanding rule that the
Commonwealth and certain of its agencies, boards, and
commissions, that is the "arms" of the Commonwealth, can enter
contracts with private entities.8
See South Hampton Apartments,
Inc. v. Elizabeth City Cnty., 185 Va. 67, 79, 37 S.E.2d 841,
8
An "arm" of the Commonwealth is a description that has
been used in referring to certain of its agencies and
commissions. See Jean Moreau & Assocs. v. Health Ctr. Comm'n,
283 Va. 128, 141, 720 S.E.2d 105, 112 (2012) (explaining that
"whether an entity is an arm or agency of the State . . .
depends on the nature of the entity"); County of York v.
Peninsula Airport Comm'n, 235 Va. 477, 481 n.1, 369 S.E.2d 665,
667 n.1 (1988) (observing that an entity that is "not an arm of
the Commonwealth, still may be a municipal corporation (and,
thus, a political subdivision)"); Prendergrast v. Northern Va.
Reg. Park Auth., 227 Va. 190, 194, 313 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1984)
(explaining that "the attributes of the particular entity . . .
must be examined to determine whether it is an 'arm' of the
Commonwealth").
49. 49
847 (1946) (counties); Tait v. Central Lunatic Asylum, 84 Va.
271, 277, 4 S.E. 697, 700 (1888) (the Commonwealth).
So the mere fact that VDOT agrees to abide by the terms of
the Comprehensive Agreement does not abridge the Commonwealth's
police power. Moreover, these particular terms do not "bind
[VDOT or the Commonwealth] by contract not to exercise [its
police powers] from time to time as the public good may
require." Roanoke Gas Co. v. City of Roanoke, 88 Va. 810, 830,
14 S.E. 665, 672 (1892). The Comprehensive Agreement must be
read as a whole as the embodiment of VDOT's determination of
how to exercise the Commonwealth's police powers. This
determination includes when not to exercise those police
powers, as outlined by certain terms of the Comprehensive
Agreement. VDOT, by merely entering into the Comprehensive
Agreement, has not abridged the Commonwealth's police power.
Compare Concerned Residents of Gloucester Cnty. v. Board of
Supervisors, 248 Va. 488, 499-500, 449 S.E.2d 787, 793-94
(1994) (holding that Gloucester County could permissibly enter
into a 20-year lease, which had the potential to impact the
"future prerogatives" of the county, because the General
Assembly explicitly authorized Gloucester County to do so
without prescribing the precise terms of such a contract).
Meeks' argument evolves to challenge that it is not the
substantive obligations of the Comprehensive Agreement that
50. 50
abridge the Commonwealth's police power, but the mere threat of
the resulting breach of contract damages. In a related
context, we held that neither monetary costs of contractual
performance, nor monetary liability from breaching a contract,
constituted a "bartering away of [a county's] legislative
powers." Id. at 494-95, 500, 449 S.E.2d at 791, 794.
Similarly, the fact that the Comprehensive Agreement requires
VDOT to pay costs or holds VDOT liable for monetary damages in
light of a breach does not abridge the Commonwealth's police
power.9
The Comprehensive Agreement contains an additional term
which further underscores how any monetary obligation arising
from the Comprehensive Agreement does not abridge the
Commonwealth's police power. The Comprehensive Agreement
provides that the payment of any "damages, losses[,] or any
other amounts due and owing by [VDOT]" shall be "subject to
appropriation by the General Assembly." The specter of
monetary liability is one conditioned on the General Assembly's
consent. The General Assembly can therefore decide not to
9
Meeks argues that the Comprehensive Agreement contains
terms that amount to an impermissible penalty. See Boots, Inc.
v. Singh, 274 Va. 513, 517, 649 S.E.2d 695, 697 (2007). We
will not address this point. Neither a breach nor a particular
monetary obligation has been alleged for us to evaluate. At
any rate, penalties are unenforceable. See id.
51. 51
appropriate the required funds if such a monetary obligation
were ever to actually abridge the Commonwealth's police power.10
We therefore hold that the Commonwealth's police power has
not been abridged by VDOT's entering into the Comprehensive
Agreement with ERC, by the substantive terms of the
Comprehensive Agreement, or by the monetary obligations arising
from performance or breach of the Comprehensive Agreement.
III. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the Project
tolls are user fees and not taxes. Therefore, the General
Assembly did not delegate its power of taxation to agencies such
as VDOT in violation of Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of
Virginia. We also hold that General Assembly properly delegated
to VDOT the legislative power to impose and set the rates of
user fees in the form of tolls, and that this legislative power
was not impermissibly delegated to ERC. Finally, we hold that
the Comprehensive Agreement does not abridge the Commonwealth's
police power. We will not reach VDOT's and ERC's argument that
the circuit court erred in refusing to grant a stay because the
10
We decline to consider the pure speculation that the
General Assembly would pay a monetary obligation arising from
the Comprehensive Agreement at the expense of abridging the
Commonwealth's police power. Also, the fact that the General
Assembly must weigh the practical consequences of a decision
not to appropriate funds, such as any impact on the
Commonwealth's credit rating, does not counsel us to entertain
the supposition that the General Assembly will abridge the
Commonwealth's police power.
52. 52
publication of this opinion renders the issue moot. We will
therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and enter
final judgment in favor of VDOT and ERC.
Reversed and final judgment.
JUSTICE McCLANAHAN, concurring.
I write separately for two reasons. First, while I concur with
the Court’s disposition in Part B, I would apply this Court's
"determinative" test, not Massachusetts law. Second, I do not join
Parts II.D.1.b., II.D.1.c., and II.D.2.b. because they offend the
Rules of this Court by reviewing an issue that was not decided by
the circuit court and that is outside the scope of any party's
assignments of error.
I agree with the majority's conclusion in Part II.B. that
the toll is a user fee, but I believe the conclusion derives
solely from the Court's existing precedent distinguishing taxes
and user fees. Mountain View Ltd. P'ship v. City of Clifton
Forge, 256 Va. 304, 312, 504 S.E.2d 371, 376 (1998); Tidewater
Ass'n of Homebuilders, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 241 Va.
114, 121, 400 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1991); McMahon v. City of
Virginia Beach, 221 Va. 102, 107-08, 267 S.E.2d 130, 134
(1980); see also Eagle Harbor, L.L.C. v. Isle of Wight Cty.,
271 Va. 603, 612-15, 628 S.E.2d 298, 303-04 (2006). An
exaction is a tax if it was adopted "solely as a revenue
measure," and an exaction was not adopted "solely as a revenue
53. 53
measure" if "'there [existed] a reasonable correlation between
the benefit conferred and the cost exacted.'" Eagle Harbor,
271 Va. at 613, 615, 628 S.E.2d at 303-04 (quoting McMahon, 221
Va. at 107–08, 267 S.E.2d at 133-34, and Mountain View, 256 Va.
at 312, 504 S.E.2d at 376). As the Court has made clear,
"[t]he reasonable correlation test . . . . is determinative of
whether a fee enacted . . . is a permissible exercise of [a
governing body's] police power as opposed to an impermissible
revenue-producing device in the form of a [tax]." Id. at 615,
628 S.E.2d at 304 (emphasis added). Because our precedent
provides a test "determinative" of the issue in Part II.B., I
do not agree with the majority's reliance on Massachusetts law
to adjudicate a case arising under the Constitution of
Virginia. Instead, because the evidence shows a reasonable
correlation between the tolls imposed on motorists at each
transportation facility and the resulting benefit of improved
traffic conditions realized by motorists at each transportation
facility, I would hold that under Virginia law the toll is not
a tax.
In Part II.D., the majority creates a dichotomy between
delegation of legislative power to a private entity and mere
"empowerment" of such an entity, in support of the view that
the General Assembly did not delegate toll-setting authority to
ERC either directly (Part II.D.1.b.) or indirectly through VDOT
54. 54
(Part II.D.1.c.). The circuit court, however, held only that
there was an unconstitutional delegation of power to VDOT, not
to ERC:
[T]he General Assembly has given unfettered power to
the Virginia Department of Transportation to set toll
rates without any real or meaningful parameters in
violation of Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution of
Virginia.
Under Rule 5:17(c)(1), this Court does not review decisions the
lower court did not render. See, e.g., Paugh v. Henrico Area
Mental Health & Developmental Servs., 286 Va. 85, 87 n.1, 743
S.E.2d 277, 278 n.1 (2013) (refusing to entertain appeal of a
decision the circuit court did not make).
Given that the circuit court's holding was specific to
VDOT, the parties naturally assigned error to the holding that
the General Assembly unconstitutionally delegated authority to
VDOT, not ERC.1
Notwithstanding the absence of an assignment of
1
For example, ERC's relevant assignment of error clearly
concerned delegation of power only to VDOT:
The trial court erred in holding that the General
Assembly unconstitutionally delegated toll-setting
authority to VDOT.
And even the appellees' assignment of cross-error, in which
they proposed an alternative basis for the circuit court to
have granted summary judgment in their favor, did not contend
that the General Assembly delegated power to ERC:
The Circuit Court erred by not granting summary
judgment to Appellees . . . on the alternative ground
that exacting a rate of return on private investment
. . . through tolls . . . is an exclusively
55. 55
error implicating delegation of authority to ERC, the majority
discusses the issue at length. See Rule 5:17(c)(1)(i) ("Only
assignments of error assigned in the petition for appeal will
be noticed by this Court.")
Because the majority's discussion of whether the General
Assembly delegated toll-setting authority to ERC violates the
Rules of Court by reviewing an issue that the circuit court did
not decide and that is outside the scope of any party's
assignment of error, I do not join Parts II.D.1.b., II.D.1.c.,
and II.D.2.b.2
legislative function that was unconstitutionally
exercised by, or unconstitutionally delegated to,
VDOT.
2
Moreover, even if it were not a violation of our Rules of
Court to engage in the discussion set out in Part II.D. of the
majority opinion, I note that the delegation and "empowerment"
dichotomy finds no legal basis in this Court's precedent,
misinterprets as support the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S.
381 (1940), and unnecessarily complicates the Court's
jurisprudence by stamping a new legal label of "empowerment" on
any private entity's mere proposal of contract terms to the
Commonwealth, which the Commonwealth is free to accept or
reject. I would adhere to the traditional, straightforward
dichotomy: Legislative power has either been delegated or it
has not.