Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.
HB3202: Transportation funding; authority to certain localities to impose additional fees therefor, report.
Chief Patron
Del.
Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg)
Bill Howell
(R-Fredericksburg)
Served: 1988–
Progress
☑ |
Introduced |
☐ |
Passed Committee |
☑ |
Passed House |
☑ |
Passed Senate |
☑ |
Signed by Governor |
☑ |
Became Law |
Status
04/04/2007: enacted
View Entire History
Summary
Transportation funding and reform. Provides (i) statewide funding of transportation projects through current funds and additional funds, (ii) authority to localities in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to impose additional fees for transportation, and (iii) several administrative and efficiency reforms impacting transportation. The bill also authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board to issue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $2 billion for statewide transportation funding.
View Full Text »Poll Results
98 votes
Tags
Bill Text
Related Bills
Introduced: January 10, 2007
Status: Introduced
: Zoning ordinance; denying, etc. application for rezoning when transportation network is inadequate.Status: Introduced
Introduced: January 10, 2007
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Recordation tax; dedication of certain to Transportation Trust Fund.Status: assigned to subcommittee
Introduced: September 28, 2006
Status: signed by governor
: Coal and gas road improvement tax, local; extends sunset provision.Status: signed by governor
Introduced: January 08, 2007
Status: Introduced
: Highway user fees; joint sub. to study feasibility of creating equitable system for charging fees.Status: Introduced
Introduced: January 03, 2007
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Income tax, state; bicyclists' tax credits for businesses and individuals.Status: assigned to subcommittee

Comments
Is there a record for longest bill introduced?
As far as (iii) in the summary, how is that local governments will be more efficient than the state in maintaining certain roads? I would think economies of scale would greatly favor the state doing this at a lower costs, especially as only cities and a few counties maintain their roads now.
Perhaps the idea is to pass this burden along to localities, so no additional revenue is needed at the state level, recognizing that higher local taxes to pay for this inefficiency will be localities' problems. Fiscal conservatism, anyone?