Virginia To Weigh Impact Of Projects

"Twenty-eight thousand houses in Loudoun -- if the roads can't support it, then they shouldn't build it," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax). "That seems very dramatic, but this is a huge development. It's big. The governor is doing his job, and I congratulate him."

More remarkable, perhaps, is the fact that all 140 members of General Assembly voted for the legislation authorizing VDOT to conduct studies such as the one in Loudoun. The bill had a Republican sponsor in the House of Delegates, and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) was a key supporter.

"What we're trying to say is that there ought to be some sort of idea of what the impact is going to be," Howell said. "People like to talk about unfunded mandates. But the biggest unfunded mandate that's going on in Virginia right now is the unfunded mandate that localities are imposing on the state."

Many of the lobbyists who helped the initiative sail through -- notably the state's powerful home-building industry -- might not have known what Kaine intended. They expected the studies, but they didn't expect the publicity or the involvement of Kaine's closest advisers.

"I'm just very disappointed in the governor," said Michael L. Toalson, chief lobbyist for the Home Builders Association of Virginia. The builders "did not oppose" the legislation but are unhappy with the way the governor is using it, he said.

"The Kaine administration, without any guidance from the General Assembly, has injected itself and VDOT into a local land-use decision," Toalson said.

When the bill passed, many local officials said it would have little effect because VDOT already conducted limited traffic impact studies on proposed development. Advocates for slowing growth said this was a consolation prize over more coveted measures opposed by the building industry -- including bills that would have given local governments the power to reject development if the infrastructure was not in place to support it.

In fact, Kaine was criticized for failing to push harder on that and other slow-growth initiatives.

"The development industry thought: 'We get to have our growth-control ticky mark for all the people who are shouting for growth controls, and we get off not harmed,' " said state Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R-Prince William), the bill's chief patron in the House.

"But what they didn't realize, and it's not written in the legislation, of course, is that people were going to talk about this stuff. They didn't think that VDOT might send this stuff to the press and that the press might write a story about it."

Proponents of the project said Kaine was using Dulles South to build support for raising taxes to build new roads.

On the contrary, Kaine said. If anything, he was using Dulles South to build support for more studies just like it.

Kaine wants local elected officials to face up to the effects of development on state roads -- for which the state is responsible for paying. He said he wants developers held accountable for the infrastructure the new homes demand. And he wants the public to know more about the local decisions that sometimes create traffic and sprawl.

The goal, Kaine said, is "better and more thoughtful developments."

Since the release of the Dulles South study last month, Loudoun residents have sent their supervisors hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls opposing the proposal.

That's exactly the kind of public input the study was designed to provoke, Kaine said.

The Dulles South study was a pilot for a measure that doesn't take effect until July 2007. Toalson, of the home builders group, said he plans to have a say when VDOT returns to the General Assembly for approval on how to implement the bill.

But it will face a growing bloc of lawmakers who are steadfast in their desire to deliver growth control.

Said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William): "They don't like the message, so they shoot the messenger. Are the facts wrong? No. All it is is information. Good information."