The Rutland Regional Planning Commission (RRPC), along with
the Two Rivers Ottauqueechee Regional Commission (TRORC), and the South Windsor
County Regional Planning Commission (SWCRPC) are planning to submit a revised
letter on permit conditions they would
like to see on SP Land Company’s (SPLC) Act 250 permit .
Among those conditions is a requirement to share in the cost
of traffic infrastructure improvements determined to be caused by SPLC
activities (or apparently by any other entity) in the Rte 4, Rte 100, and Rte
103 corridors (3 County Corridor) spanning 133.4 miles and 17 intersections.
The three RPC’s are not taking into consideration the
historical context of SPLC’s development. Given that 1987 was the height of
skier traffic to Killington with 1.4 million skier visits and the current total
is 700k one could logically conclude traffic volume is half of what is was at
that time. Given that the roads at that time handled that load and those roads
have been substantially improved and in great part rebuilt due to tropical
storm Irene, one would then conclude there is substantial overcapacity in the 3
County Corridor.
If one takes into account the “baby boom” bubble in the
population demographic will not recur in our lifetimes, and likely not for
decades if not centuries to come, the corresponding traffic flow will likely not
recur. Even with the 2,300 hundred units proposed in the full build out of SP
Land’s project its strains credulity that 700k additional skier visits would
result from this development. That calculation is 304 skier visits per unit per
year.
This brings up another point. If the Resort generated 1.4
million skier visits in 1987 without the ski village (and even the Grand Hotel)
how could responsibility be assigned solely to SP land or any other entity for the
increased traffic. The whole
“Killington” region absorbed those skiers in the heyday. That includes Rutland,
Plymouth, Bridgewater, Pittsfield, Woodstock, Stockbridge and so on. Is every new motel, hotel, apartment building or
land developer in these towns going to be assessed what amounts to a tax when
building additional capacity that might house a skier (or any other visitor for
that matter)? And not only that, the letter’s language also makes the
municipalities liable for traffic infrastructure costs for anything impacting
traffic they or the developers might do.
Based on the wording, “how costs for the transportation
infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth shall be allocated between land
developers, municipalities and the state”, the 3 RPC permit condition letter is
trying to legislate a new funding source for the state. The state already has
the gas tax in place to fund highway infrastructure improvement and upkeep. If the assumption is that SPLC’s development
will increase traffic wouldn’t there be a corresponding increase in gasoline
tax revenues to cover this demand for infrastructure overhaul. Never mind the
increases in consumption and real estate taxes which would pour into the state’s
coffers. Or the economic boost in construction, property maintenance and
hospitality jobs and the taxes that would generate.
Our region has suffered a calamitous loss of population and
economic activity. To replace this loss, a viable entity, SPLC has come in with
private investment which will enliven our economy by creating needed jobs and
increasing state and local tax revenue. Do we really need to be making ill-considered
and unreasonable demands of investors willing to bet on our region?
No comments:
Post a Comment