Sign this Open Letter to Rick Perry and state leaders

Fellow Grassroots Texans -
 
If you are concerned about transportation policy in Texas, we encourage you to review the open letter below, and if you agree with the concerns expressed, please sign on.
_____
 
AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
 
(CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE OPEN LETTER)
May 2, 2011
 
Texas Governor Rick Perry
State Insurance Building
1100 San Jacinto
Austin, Texas 78701
 
Cc:     
Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus
Senate Transportation Chair Tommy Williams
House Transportation Chair Larry Phillips
Honorable Members of the Texas Senate
Honorable Members of the Texas House

Governor Perry:
 
Given its rapid growth and favorable business climate, there is no doubt that Texas will have a need for additional highway construction in the coming years.  In recent years, total state outlays for new highway construction projects in Texas have been averaging approximately 4.5 billion dollars per year.[1]  Economic projections indicate that significant road construction will be needed in coming years.
 
In its taxpayer-funded, public lobbying campaigns, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) argues[2] that there is only one real option available to Texas for addressing the disparity between our current funding levels and those required for future highway construction--namely, the building of "toll roads."[3]  By "toll roads," TxDOT apparently means, in practice, a network of corporate toll roads funded with "innovative financing schemes," largely secured, financed and underwritten by taxpayers, but controlled by--and for the benefit of--private, for-profit corporations.[4]  Based on your own public statements,[5] it appears that you agree with the TxDOT Commissioners.[6]
 
We acknowledge, of course...
 

TxDOT budget would get 23 percent bump in Senate budget

Link to article here.

When the State is already $31 BILLION in debt for roads, it's unfathomable how the Senate can think we can afford to plunge additional $3 billion into more debt. These lawmakers have got to address our long-term structural shortfall in road funding. It is true that the priorities of this legislature are crystal clear. It's a special interests lovefest in Austin!

Budget woes mostly miss transportation

TxDOT would see 23 percent budget increase, and continued construction blitz, under Senate version of 2012-13 state budget.

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Published: 8:38 p.m. Thursday, May 5, 2011

What budget problem?

In contrast to the steep cuts for most of the rest of state government, the Texas Department of Transportation would see a 23 percent increase in its 2012-13 spending under the budget bill approved Wednesday by the Texas Senate. Even the House version approved April 3 would give TxDOT a 2.2 percent increase for the two years beginning Sept. 1.

Senate leaders say they'll push for their $19.5 billion TxDOT budget, a $3.6 billion increase over 2010-11 and $3.3 billion more than the House version, as the two chambers negotiate a final budget in the legislative session's final weeks. And an interview with a key House member indicates senators may find a receptive audience.

"The $3 billion simply completes what the people of Texas recognized as a need to help their infrastructure, and I'm very supportive of that," said state Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, who chaired the subcommittee of the budget-writing Appropriations Committee that wrote the TxDOT section of the proposed budget, House Bill 1. Spending that added money on roads, Darby said, will spur economic development, save people time frittered away in traffic congestion, and take advantage of depressed construction prices.
TxDOT, under heavy political pressure for the past few years because of a sharp policy turn toward toll road building, may get added authority to give private companies long-term leases to build tollways. The TxDOT "sunset" bill approved by the House last week would authorize about 20 such projects.

While TxDOT's budget primarily comes from taxes and fees that state law dedicates to transportation, the bulk of the difference between the House and Senate budgets is $3 billion in bonds that TxDOT would sell to raise money for projects. And under an amendment to the Texas Constitution that voters approved in 2007, the debt payments for that borrowing — about $257 million over the next two years — would come primarily from the state's general fund. That's the same pot of money that fell an estimated $23 billion short this legislative session and is forcing spending cuts for social services, education and prisons, among other state needs.

Beyond that, the debt-service tab would rise to more than $600 million every two years once all $5 billion allowed under the Proposition 12 amendment four years ago is borrowed . The payments would last for three decades. Almost all of that money would come from the state's general fund.

"We're borrowing money for highways. We're not borrowing money for our kids," state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte , D-San Antonio, said during the debate this week over the budget. She and the rest of the Senate's Democrats voted against that budget plan, while every Senate Republican voted for it.

Scott McCown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, said he has no problem with giving TxDOT the money it needs to build highways. But he said the way it is being handled is a symptom of a larger policy failure.

"We have a Legislature that in good faith is trying to met our needs," McCown said, "but has to do it through this Rube Goldberg budget that relies on debt, deception and diversion."

The Proposition 12 program is the last of three borrowing regimes that the Legislature, with voter approval, created over the past decade, including the Texas Mobility Fund and the Proposition 14 program. The $6 billion borrowed under the mobility fund is paid back from several long-established transportation fees, and the $4.5 billion borrowed so far under Proposition 14 is repaid using gasoline tax revenue.

TxDOT has already borrowed $1 billion under the Proposition 12 program, and the House version of the budget would allow a second $800 million in debt, leaving the remaining $3.2 billion for sometime after the 2013 fiscal year. The Senate version would allow TxDOT to move ahead with the full $5 billion.

In all, the three programs authorize about $17 billion in borrowing. The debt incurred so far, along with $2.2 billion from the 2009 federal stimulus program and a handful of private toll road leases, has allowed TxDOT to spend heavily on roads in recent years.

Officials had indicated over the past year that the 2012-13 biennium could be the beginning of a transportation funding crisis for the state, that there would be no money to authorize transportation projects not already funded. However, approval of the Senate's version of the budget, and that extra $3 billion in borrowing, would forestall that scenario.

The added spending would include $500 million for large bridge projects, $1.4 billion for road rehabilitation and safety projects, $200 million for "statewide connectivity" work largely in rural areas, $300 million for engineering and design and $600 million for primarily urban projects meant to decrease traffic congestion.

Deirdre Delisi, chairwoman of the Texas Transportation Commission, said the agency had asked for the $800 million in additional Proposition 12 borrowing approved by the House.

"The Senate is giving us more," Delisi said. "Just like every other budget negotiation, somewhere in between we will land."

State Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, will push for a landing on or near the full $19.5 billion for TxDOT.

"We'll do our best to convince our House colleagues that we're correct," Ogden said. "I'm reasonably optimistic."

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; 445-3698

Transportation Department's growing budget

If the Senate's version of House Bill 1 passes, the Texas Department of Transportation's budget will have grown almost 90 percent in the past decade. The House version of TxDOT's 2012-13 budget would be 58 percent higher than what the agency was allotted for the 2002-03 biennium.

Budget years TxDOT two-year budget

2002-03 $10.3 billion

2004-05 $10.6 billion

2006-07 $15.2 billion

2008-09 $16.7 billion

2010-11 $15.9 billion

2012-13 Senate $19.5 billion

House $16.3 billion

Source: Legislative Budget Board

Taxpayers get shafted in bankrupt San Diego tollway

Link to article here.

Last year when we found out this PPP tollway went bankrupt, we predicted the taxpayers would NEVER get repaid for the federal TIFIA loan given to this private company, sadly, we were right. This is why we have got to STOP these public private partnerships....they socialize the losses and privatize the profits. The private banks got repaid, but taxpayers didn't. This is OUTRAGEOUS!

Trend in the Region

Tollway Exits Chapter 11

TIFIA Ends Up Taking a Haircut

Friday, May 6, 2011

By Randall Jensen
The Bond Buyer

Related Stories

California P3 Files Chapter 11 - March 30, 2010
New P3 Toll Road Opens - November 15, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO — At its inception the South Bay Expressway toll road was promoted as a model public-private partnership. It took ages to build, then quickly plunged into bankruptcy.

The 10-mile tollway in southern San Diego County exited from bankruptcy last week, leaving its ownership in the hands of senior creditors, one being the federal government, which took a 42% haircut.

South Bay Expressway LP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March of last year in the Southern District of California, citing construction delays and costs, litigation with its contractors, and economic fallout from the housing and credit markets that cut into traffic.

The expressway cost $635 million to build, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

The South Bay Expressway was billed as a way of using government funds to attract private investment in an effort to off-load some of the risk. It was one of two P3 projects built under legislation California approved in 1989, when George Deukmejian was governor.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger renewed the push for P3s after taking office in 2003. The project farthest along is a reconstruction of t he Presidio Parkway Project in San Francisco.
The company that operates the South Bay Expressway saw its bankruptcy exit plan confirmed in federal court after getting support from secured creditors on April 29.

“It feels good to have emerged now,” said South Bay Expressway chief executive officer Greg Hulsizer. “The court was very good to us during the year that we were working our way through Chapter 11, in that we were able to continue our regular operations.”

The main settlement provides a group of 10 banks, including Spanish Bank Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria and Irish bank Depfa, that held $363 million of the expressway’s debt prior to bankruptcy, with $210 millionofn new senior loans and a 68% stake in the toll road.

The road’s initial financing structure also included one of the first loans from the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998.

The DOT, the second largest creditor with $172 million in TIFIA loans including interest, will get $93 million in new senior debt and $6 million in equity, according to a fact sheet posted on the FHA website. Itwill own 32% of the company, and share any surpluses with the other new owners, as well as any equity distributions.

The expressway borrowed $140 ­million through TIFIA in 2003, a figure that grew to $32 million because of capitalized interest. Interest payments on the 4.46% TIFIA loan had been scheduled to start in 2012 and principal payments in 2021.

“The department’s primary goals in arriving at an agreement were to ensure the good stewardship of taxpayer dollars by maximizing the potential recovery of the TIFIA loan and to maintain the road open for the traveling public,” DOT spokeswoman Nancy Singer said in an e-mail. “TIFIA continues to fill a vital role in advancing critical surface transportation projects.”

Demand for TIFIA loans has risen over the last couple of years amid falling Treasury rates and more expensive private-sector financing.

The toll road received 62 claims totaling more than $1 billion during the bankruptcy, many of which it claimed were invalid, according to court filings.

The South Bay Expressway was also able to settle several lawsuits before the confirmation hearings, including litigation with its primary contractors.

It also settled litigation with the California Department of Transportation and the San Diego Association of Governments. Caltrans had leased the right-of-way to the expressway when it was completed in 2007 and helped with upkeep of the toll road.

Caltrans gave the company a 35-year franchise agreement to recover investment by setting toll rates.

“The state of California is gratified that this matter was resolved amicably,” Caltrans director Cindy McKim said in an e-mailed statement. “This project resulted in a key 11-mile freeway connector being built, a project that was only completed because private funding was available.”

The next step for South Bay Expressway appears to be a sale.

The toll road has been in talks with the San Diego Association of Governments about a sale after the agency that represents 18 cities and governments in the region expressed interest in the deal, according to Hulsizer.

Hulsizer said other private entities have also expressed interest but added that he could not elaborate.

California awarded the franchise for the toll road in January 1991. But construction of the road, which extended State Route 125 to the Mexican border at Otay Mesa, was stalled for years as builders sought environmental permits.

The permits came in 2003, shortly after Australia’s Macquarie Infrastructure Group acquired a controlling interest in the concessionaire in 2002.

Macquarie wrote its investment in 50% of the expressway’s equity in the toll road down to zero in June 2009. The equity investors were wiped out in the bankruptcy.

The project included a $20 million environmental program that involved the purchase of 1,000 acres of land to be used as an open-space preserve.

One of the most significant features of the expressway is the Otay River Bridge, one of only two precast segmental bridges in the state, stretching three quarters of a mile and towering 18 stories high.

The highway did not open until November 2007 — just in time for the subprime mortgage market to unravel, taking a major toll on the suburban communities the expressway was built to serve.

Things are starting took look up, ­according to Hulsizer, in the form of year-over-year growth and a strong customer base.

“Now that our capital base is restructured, we are looking pretty solid going forward,” he said.

However, Hulsizer said the region must see a significant drop in its unemployment rate and a big rise in new housing and development before the toll road experiences strong growth.

The South Bay Expressway recorded $21 million in revenues by the end of fiscal 2009, resulting in $3 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

By the time it went bankrupt, the tollroad had $640 million in assets and $570 million in liabilities, according to court documents.

TxDOT overhaul advances in TX legislature

Link to article here.

Texas transportation overhaul bill advances

By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor

May 4, 2011

A major transportation bill nearing passage in the Texas Legislature includes provisions to overhaul the Texas Department of Transportation, authorize private toll roads, transfer permitting for oversize and overweight vehicles, and restrict use of ticket cameras.

House lawmakers voted 121-24 on Monday, May 2, to approve the bill after discussing more than 100 amendments. SB1420 will now go before a conference committee made up of select members from the House and Senate to hash out differences in the bill.

If the chambers reach agreement on the provisions in the bill, it would advance to the governor’s desk.

The “sunset” legislation authorizes a review of TxDOT every four years.

The Texas Transportation Commission would also get a makeover. The five-member board has the final say on which roads to build, which companies to hire, and which policies to set for the agency.

Instead of the highway chiefs being appointed solely by the governor, one would be recommended by the House speaker, and one would be appointed by the lieutenant governor.

Most Texans credit those commissioners with starting the state down the path toward toll roads.
Other changes would include the following: having an inspector general appointed to offer independent scrutiny of operation; firing employees found to have lobbied the Legislature; and creating a 20-year transportation plan.

Changes have been sought for the past few years in retaliation for the board turning a deaf ear to public sentiment about the Trans-Texas Corridor, which was the controversial pet project of Gov. Rick Perry. At one time the corridor plan called for private contractors to build and operate billions of dollars of toll roads in the state.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has criticized the corridor plan since it was unveiled in 2002. The Association cited reasons that included the proposed toll rate of 50 cents per mile for large trucks.

Rep. Jodi Laubenberg, R-Rockwall, lauded the transparency created by the bill.

“Any tools we can give citizens to help hold government entities accountable is good policy,” Laubenberg said in a statement.

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said he welcomes the changes to TxDOT included in the bill; however, more still needs to be done.

“Additional state scrutiny of the agency is definitely warranted,” Anchia stated.

A separate provision in the bill would allow about 20 private toll roads to be built. The so-called comprehensive development agreements would include work on a 28-mile segment of Interstate 35 East between Interstate 635 and U.S. 380; a nine-mile portion of state Highway 183 between state Highway 161 and I-35 E; five segments of the North Tarrant Expressway project; and the Grand Parkway, state Highway 99, in Houston.

Opponents say the state should not give up control of its roads to corporate interests, which often are foreign-owned.

“I think it’s a fragmented approach to how we deal with what our needs are for the state,” Rep. Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, told lawmakers during floor consideration. “It just looks pretty shabby.”

Another provision calls for shifting from TxDOT to a new Texas Department of Motor Vehicles the permitting for oversize and overweight vehicles. The transfer would include all personnel and other functions associated with regulating oversize and overweight vehicles.

TxDOT would continue to be responsible for determining routes for affected loads.

Also included in the bill is a provision to prohibit ticket cameras on state roads, unless approved after a public hearing. Towns with fewer than 40,000 residents would be forbidden to use the technology to issue tickets.

To view other legislative activities of interest for Texas, click here.

– By Keith Goble, state legislative editor

Editor’s Note: Please share your thoughts with us about the legislation included in this story. Comments may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Copyright © OOIDA

TX Commission wants to charge you tax by the mile

Link to article here.

If the Transportation Commission appointed by Rick Perry has its way, here comes Big Daddy government surveillance society tracking your every move. These tolls aren't just about runaway taxation and road slush funds, they're about government control of your freedom to travel and tracking citizens' movements.

Texas Transportation Commission considers taxing drivers by the mile

Apr 30, 2011
By Gordon Dixon
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

With so many Americans worried about Apple tracking the movements of iPhone users, it's hard to imagine many people allowing government agencies to monitor their driving habits and levy a tax based on how many miles they travel.

But officials in Texas and many other states are studying different ways to track drivers' movements electronically. On Thursday, a group from Minnesota briefed the Texas Transportation Commission on a pilot program there that will track a few drivers and tax them per mile. On a larger scale, such a tax for Texans and most other Americans would likely be many years down the road -- if it were enacted at all.

Even so, the technology to perform the work is readily available today.

Why is this being discussed? Many transportation experts believe that a funding crisis is looming for highways and mass transit, which are paid for mostly with motor fuel taxes -- the Texas state tax is 20 cents a gallon, and the federal tax is 18.4 cents a gallon. As many cars become more fuel-efficient, and cars that run on electricity or other fuels become more popular, states must eventually find an alternative.

Supporters say the per-mile tax has its benefits. For example, motorists can be charged more for driving during peak periods, when space on highways is at a premium, and rewarded with discounts for driving after hours, when demand is lower.

Also, the Minnesota program, which begins in July, is voluntary, said Ben Pierce, an official with Batelle, the high-tech firm overseeing it.

Commission Chairwoman Deirdre Delisi of Austin noted the controversy that developed after it became known that Apple can track iPhone users. Delisi asked a question to the effect of, if the state promises the pilot project participants that they're not being tracked for ulterior reasons -- i.e. spying -- would they believe it? But Commissioner Ned Holmes of Houston thanked Pierce for his briefing. "We look forward to hearing from you again," Holmes said. "When are you coming back?" Pierce said he could tell the Texas panel how the Minnesota program is working as soon as October.

Obama wants to charge you by the mile

Link to article here.


Obama Administration Wants Per-Mile Tax and Freeway Tolls
White House draft transportation bill embraces tolling freeways and a per-mile tax.
The Newspaper.com

The White House last week began circulating its legislative proposal for transportation reauthorization that included provisions to add toll booths to existing freeways and impose a tax for every mile driven. The "Transportation Opportunities Act" for the first time gave the Obama administration's full approval to the concept of an added charge on drivers for the use of roads throughout the country, including on existing, untolled freeways in major metropolitan areas.

"This section [2217] amends existing law to include two new options that provide more flexibility to finance new construction or capacity, and manage congestion, through the imposition of tolls," states the proposal's official summary. "The first option focuses on metropolitan congestion reduction and permits state and local governments to impose tolls on existing interstate and non-interstate facilities for the purposes of improving or reducing congestion in metropolitan areas with populations over one million people. Under this option, tolls may be imposed on specific lanes, whole facilities, or a network of facilities within the metropolitan area." The plan would require that commuters be charged higher rates during peak morning and evening periods and that the revenue generated be used for capital improvement projects near the toll facility. A second "interstate system improvement" plan would allow tolling in smaller areas so long as the project included new capacity. Electronic transponders would be required for toll collection on the new lanes.

The changes are significant, as existing federal law limits tolling of interstates to a specific number of pilot projects. The proposal is also a reversal of sorts for an administration that early on backed away from the concept of a nationwide per-mile toll floated in February 2009 by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

"I can weigh in on it and say that it is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at the time.

That would change as the White House plan would set up a six-year project to address the technological challenges to establishing a system to track drivers for the purpose of imposing a tax for each mile driven.

"This section [2218] would establish a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office within the Federal Highway Administration," the section-by-section analysis states. "The office would analyze the feasibility of implementing a national mileage-based user fee system that would convey prices to users to reflect system use and other travel externalities and serve as a funding source for surface transportation programs."

The purported reason for including the per-mile taxing system is the potential for increased use of electric vehicles. The administration has poured billions in gas tax dollars to subsidize the companies that manufacture these electric vehicles as well as the end users who buy them. A "public awareness communications plan" would be implemented to sell the plan, which may be difficult. In the UK, an official petition against the idea of a per-mile tax gathered 1.8 million signatures on the prime minister's website.

Feeding Frenzy: Texas House makes a mockery of TxDOT Sunset Review


Friday, the Texas House passed the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Sunset Bill, substituting the House language for the Senate bill,  SB 1420. The biggest news is that this bill will revive parts of Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69/I-69 and that the House made virtually no change to the way TxDOT is governed -- a status quo five member appointed commission, after a long string of scathing reviews and audits. The only change was allowing the Lt. Governor to appoint one and the Governor to choose one from a list provided by the Speaker. Even the addition of the Inspector General was watered down from he/she ‘shall’ report suspected illegal activity to law enforcement to ‘may.’

Despite the author’s insistence that in no way does the bill revive the Trans Texas Corridor, the House indeed adopted multiple amendments that would allow portions of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69/I-69 project, now referred to as the innocuous I-69, to be built as a foreign-owned toll road controlled by private developers.

Trans Texas Corridor sneaks by without the name

Of course, politicians claim it's not (the Trans Texas Corridor). They know how radioactive those words are. They think we are too stupid to connect the dots. The proposed Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69/I-69 route (see map) shows several of the projects the House adopted that would sell-off Texas roads to foreign toll operators are indeed Trans Texas Corridor projects.

One of the primary issues 28,000 Texans objected to on TTC-69 was the fact it would sell our public roads to a private, foreign corporation, which involves eminent domain for private gain, a loss control over public infrastructure, non-compete agreements, higher toll rates, profit guarantees, public subsidies, etc. So while the footprint may not be 1,200 feet wide and the authority not derived from Transportation Code Chapter 227 (but Chapters 370 and 223 instead), the authority for these Trans Texas Corridor projects have been granted in this bill.  It's being done segment by segment as TxDOT announced it would pursue.

"Major corridor projects will now be comprised of several small segments closer to 600 feet wide and will no longer be called the Trans-Texas Corridor. Instead, the department will use the highway numbers originally associated with each segment, such as I-69, SH 130 and Loop 9." (Source: http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/37149004.html).

A Spanish company, ACS (who partnered with Zachry), already bid on some of these same segments in the Valley under a prior proposed public private partnership (or PPP called CDAs in Texas) which expired in October of last year (see press release here). ACS/Dragados states the: “The I-69/TTC (Trans Texas Corridor) will connect the Mexican border with the Gulf of Mexico coastline, Houston and major industrial and logistics centres in Texas with the north of the country.” So many of the projects in the list of CDAs make these logistics and port connections.

Selling Texas to special interests

I knew they were going to sell-out Texas when they adopted Alonzo’s amendment right out the gate that allows TxDOT to hire an ‘emerging fund’ manager. So we’re firing teachers over our state’s fiscal crisis, but hiring ‘emerging fund managers’ that specialize in juggling multi-leveraged debt, high finance accounting tricks, and private equity deals that sell our Texas roads to foreign companies. Those are the priorities of the Texas House.

These fund managers are the very same people responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis and the financial meltdown in Greece. The GOP dominated Legislature has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of special interests, not the people’s representatives and guardians of the public interest.

Over 100 amendments got tacked onto what is supposed to be a TxDOT reform bill. Based on its actions Friday, the priority of this Legislature is not fixing an agency run amok, but rather handing Texas’ roads to private, foreign corporations using concession CDAs that will greatly increase taxes on driving. Even worse, it places the power to tax in the hands of private corporations that taxpayers cannot hold accountable. With toll rates of 75 cents a mile, it’s like adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy.

Rep. Larry Phillips’ HB 2255, was adopted in amendment form and became the primary amendment that lumped all the CDAs into one place to privatize and toll what began as 11 different Texas highways from DFW to the Valley, but then legislators engaged in a feeding frenzy and starting adding project after project once they saw Phillips had the votes.

House ‘made a mockery’ of TxDOT review

It was like watching kids in a candy store, giddy to sell-off Texas to the highest bidder and get to be the next one to do it. The Texas House made a mockery of TxDOT sunset review process. What they did was a disgrace and makes me ashamed to be a Texan.

Andy Hogue of the Lone Star Report reported: “...it became a free-for-all, as legislators lined up to add their own projects to the list of approved CDAs. Five were approved, before Rep. Lois Kolkhorst asked if her colleagues were ‘adding all the highways in Texas’ to the list.”

Rep. Yvonne Davis attempted to sober-up her colleagues at the end saying she was ‘embarrassed,’ and that the way they had conducted themselves was not ‘honorable.’ She chided them that they were misleading the public as to what they were really doing. Davis tacked on an amendment to ensure none of the CDAs could be done with authority from the Trans Texas Corridor chapter of the Transportation Code (Chapter 227), though any CDA authority will lead to essentially the same outcome.

Phillips’ Amendment #90 eventually lumped in George Lavender, Eddie Lucio III’s, and amendments that will revive segments of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69/I-69 in East Texas and down in the Valley, bringing the grand total to 20 projects before the pandemonium came to an end. The vote to adopt CDAs was 109-27 (1 present not voting, 13 absent). Authors of the other CDA amendments whether stand alone or under Phillips’ amendment #90 were: Allen Fletcher, Mike Hamilton, Linda Harper-Brown, Tan Parker, and Randy Weber.

“This is a tax bill,” said Kolkhorst in Friday’s Quorum Report. “When you put CDAs on there, it is a tax bill, there’s no doubt about it. All those people who voted against fees? This is a fee bill.”

Kolkhorst remained a stalwart against PPPs and led the fight against them on the floor. She won a round, 69 Nays to 65 Ayes, to shoot down design-build CDA authority for Regional Mobility Authorities (contracts that also eliminate competitive bidding like concession CDAs, but stop short of giving the private entities a leasehold and the right to collect tolls), only to have Phillips, author of HB 2574 that he made into Amendment #67 to the sunset bill, take it up for reconsideration and got it attached (by a vote of 109 to 36) the second try after significant lobbying of urban legislators on the floor.

This is what makes voters’ stomachs turn - when the bad guys don’t like the result of the vote, they just keep bringing it to a vote until they win.

House members embrace revolving DEBT BOMB

At least two other major pieces of controversial legislation were adopted in the sunset bill, one by Phillips which is his bill HB 3218 that involves the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) and multi-leveraging of taxpayer money being loaned to subsidize both public and private toll roads for which the taxpayer will pay back their own money with interest through tolls. It also allows the SIB to guarantee the toxic debt that private bond investors won’t touch -- in the same way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave home loans to those who didn’t have the ability to pay it back.

The other was HB 2802 by Rep. Joe Pickett that establishes a ‘revolving fund’ using Texas Mobility Fund, Prop 12 and Prop 14 revenues, most of which is borrowed money, and would involve using borrowed money to pay-off and secure more borrowed money. The bill analysis for the revolving fund said it seeks to “mitigate certain project financial risks” and loan money to toll entities who are having trouble securing financing at a reasonable rate. That’s code for private muni bond and toll revenue bond investors aren’t willing to risk their capital on loser toll projects so lawmakers want to risk the taxpayers money to subsidize the toxic debt for toll projects that have no business being built as toll projects.

Mark my words, this will come back to bite us. Politicians are playing games of high finance with other people’s money and we know from experience who loses in the deal...the taxpayers. They’ll be coming to us with draconian tax hikes or asking for an infrastructure bailout or both. It’s not a matter of if, but when.

Sends wrong signal to a rogue agency

The Sunset Committee Advisory Report said: “The Sunset review of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) occurred against a backdrop of distrust and frustration with the Department and the demand for more transparency, accountability, and responsiveness. Many expressed concerns that TxDOT was “out of control”...Sunset staff found that this atmosphere of distrust permeated most of TxDOT’s actions and determined that it could not be an effective state transportation agency if trust and confidence were not restored. Significant changes are needed to begin this restoration; tweaking the status quo is simply not enough.”

This coupled with a scathing 628 page management audit that revealed deep-seated, structural problems in every department division with TxDOT, it’s inexplicable that our legislators are essentially giving this agency a free pass to keep putting the screws to the taxpayers with their unpopular privatized toll road network that are rife with eminent domain abuse and a loss of sovereignty over Texas infrastructure that will cost Texans dearly to move about this state.

The abuse of property rights, the punitive level of taxation, the reckless disregard for the public interest just to get a road built, and the special interest giveaways are simply staggering.

God help Texas if this bill becomes law.

TURF is urging Texans to contact their state lawmakers at (512) 463-4630 to remove CDAs and these controversial debt/loan provisions from the bill and to focus on fixing the highway department.

Complete list of Texas roads eligible to be sold off to private corporations:

(1)  State Highway 99 (Grand Parkway) project (loop around Houston);

(2)  the Interstate Highway 35E managed lanes project in Dallas and Denton Counties from Interstate Highway 635 to U.S. Highway 380;

(3) North Tarrant Express project in Tarrant and Dallas Counties - State Highway 183 from State Highway 121 to State Highway 161 (Segment 2E);

(4, 5, 6) North Tarrant Express project in Tarrant and Dallas Counties  - Interstate Highway 35W from Interstate Highway 30 to State Highway 114 (Segments 3A, 3B, and 3C);

(7) North Tarrant Express project in Tarrant and Dallas Counties  - Interstate Highway 820 from State Highway 183 North to south of Randol Mill Road (Segment 4);

(8) State Highway 183 managed lanes project in Dallas County from State Highway 161 to Interstate Highway 35E;

(9) State Highway 249 project in Harris and Montgomery Counties from Spring Cypress Road to Farm-to-Market Road 1774

(10) Loop 1 (MoPac Improvement) project from Farm-to-Market Road 734 to Cesar Chavez Street;

These projects were added in the feeding frenzy

(11) Highway 288 project in Brazoria & Harris Counties (this coupled with TTC-69/I-69 projects means many connections to our ports and major logistics centers in the Valley and around Houston will be controlled by private, foreign companies, not Texans)

(12) Managed lane improvements to the Grayson County Tollway project, an extension of the Dallas North Tollway in Grayson County

(THIS ONE IS A DUPLICATION OF #10 above) Loop 1 (MoPac Improvement) project from Farm-to-Market Road 734 to Cesar Chavez Street

(13) the U.S. 183 (Bergstrom Expressway) project from Springdale Road to Patton Avenue.

(14) Managed lane improvements to the U.S. Highway 290 Hempstead managed lanes project in Harris County from Interstate Highway 610 to State Highway 99

Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69/I-69 Projects

(15) Outer Parkway Project from U.S. Highway 77/83 to Farm-to-Market Road 1847;

(16) the South Padre Island Second Access Causeway Project from State Highway 100 to Park Road 100; or

(17) a project identified as part of the Hidalgo County Loop System or the La Joya Bypass project.

TTC-69/I-69 Projects added in feeding frenzy

(18) State Highway 550 from U.S. Highway 77/83 to State Highway 48.

(19) The Interstate Highway 69 project in Bowie County from the Sulphur River Bridge to Interstate Highway 30 (see the north-east end of the TTC-69/I-69 map - This uses very vague language, presumably because it will convert parts of the existing right of way of Hwy 59 into TTC-69/I-69 and make it a foreign-owned toll road without saying so. Hwy 59 is the new identified route for TTC-69/I-69 in northeast Texas)

(20) Managed lane improvements to the Interstate Highway 69 project from Interstate Highway 10 to the Tyler County line (northward logistics connection from SH 69 in Beaumont east of the Port of Houston to Tyler County which eventually connects up to Hwy 59 near Lukfin, which is slated to be upgraded to I-69)

Plea for long-term fix to structural road deficit in Texas

Though what it stated in this editorial is spot on, buyer beware, both of these gentlemen are wolves in sheep's clothing -- they're some of the biggest toll road lobbyists in the State. In fact, Jim Reed is a Board Member of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (the Bexar County toll authority and President of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, SAMCo, that represents more than 70 road builders and financiers -- a HUGE conflict of interest). Vic Suhm is the Executive Director of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition, the Tarrant County equivalent of SAMCo.

The public must demand better solutions to traffic

City, state can't afford the cost of doing nothing.

By Jim Reed and Vic Suhm / Special to the Express-News

Updated 07:49 p.m., Wednesday, April 27, 2011

If the Texas transportation system were a medical patient, the diagnosis would be failing health on the verge of critical condition. Our urban and suburban roadways are like clogged arteries, many of our rural roads and bridges are like brittle bones, and our funding sources are like lungs with little oxygen. Without leadership, neglect of our transportation system will put our economy on life support.

Bundle.com recently ranked Dallas/Fort Worth the most costly commute in the nation, and Houston and Austin are in the top 10. Absent new money in a legislative session with a historic budget shortfall, the Texas Department of Transportation could run out of funds for new projects as early as next year. More money already is dedicated to paying off old highway bonds than building new roads. And soon bonded indebtedness and maintenance will leave no state money for new projects.

In San Antonio, this means improvements to key regional corridors such as U.S. 281, Loop 1604 and I-35 will not be made, or will require toll financing.

A temporary stopgap measure is emerging in the Senate that will give life to new roads for a couple more years. Senate leaders are talking about authorizing another $3 billion in road bonds. The Transportation Advocates of Texas supports the proposal because any new money is beneficial to relieve gridlock and improve highway safety. But our organization's goal is to achieve a stable, sustainable revenue stream to fund transportation infrastructure. Borrowing provides short-term relief, but we need a long-term vision.

Read the rest of the story here.

Flap over speed limits in Trans Texas Corridor repeal

Link to article here.

85 mph flap much ado about Texas 130

Ben Wear: Getting There

 
Published: 7:19 p.m. Sunday, April 17, 2011

You may have heard or read that the Texas House this month passed a bill that would create an 85 mph speed limit on Texas highways. The widely misreported news sparked unsettling images of SUVs barreling down U.S. 183 or Interstate 35 at 90 or more, given the general assumption that people tend to drive a few miles per hour over the posted limit.

T'ain't so.

What the House did — and who knows if the Senate and Gov. Rick Perry will go along in the coming weeks? — was allow the possibility of an 85 mph speed limit on what amounts to one road. Which isn't open yet. And, oh, by the way, Texas law already allowed that speed on that road.

That highway, it's worth knowing, is here in Central Texas: the southern 40 miles of Texas 130, which has been under construction for a couple of years between Mustang Ridge and Seguin and should open in late 2012.

Actually, the real purpose of the legislation that started all this — House Bill 1201, by Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham — is to drive a final stake into the already inert heart of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The governor, the Texas Department of Transportation and the facts on the ground already have made it obvious that Perry's one-time plan for 4,000 miles of tollways, railroads and utility lines is deader than disco.

Multiple references to the corridor plan still exist in state law, though, and Kolkhorst, who represents an area that was a hotbed of opposition to Perry's corridor brainchild, wants that language gone. But those statutes also include authorization to slap an 85 mph speed limit on any Trans-Texas Corridor road, and officials assumed all along that the new portion of Texas 130 would be designated a part of the corridor.

This is no small financial matter to the state. Its contract with a consortium led by Cintra, a Spanish toll road company that is building and will operate (and, it hopes, profit from) that section of Texas 130 for the next half-century, specifies that TxDOT would get an extra $67 million if the speed limit is 80 mph. Set the limit at 85 mph, and that premium rises to $100 million. TxDOT would have six months from when the road opens to set those higher limits or lose the chance to get that extra money.

The logic is that a faster speed limit, which only the Texas Transportation Commission can authorize, will draw more toll-paying drivers to the road and thus increase Cintra's revenue. Ergo, the state should get some of that bonus cash.

Kolkhorst's bill would let TxDOT adopt that higher speed limit, but only on roads completed after May 31 this year that are specially designed to accommodate those extreme speeds. Which means the roads, among other elements, must be flatter, straighter and better banked in curves than a normal freeway.

The bill goes on to require TxDOT, in order to exceed the "normal" rural freeway speed limit of 70 mph, to conduct studies showing that the bulk of cars are already going faster than the existing limit. The logic is that people, absent the heavy-duty presence of state troopers handing out tickets, tend to drive at speeds appropriate to the road design and amount of traffic.

In other words, you could set a 70 mph speed limit on Lavaca Street downtown, and still the overwhelming number of people probably would never go faster than, say, 45. Or you could tell people the limit on empty and flat Interstate 10 near Ozona is 70, and people would still tend to go something close to 80. Actually, the limit in that section of I-10 is 80 mph already, thanks to legislation passed several years ago.

As for the idea that if you set the limit at 85, people 
will go a death-defying 90, TxDOT officials say that their studies, after I-10 from Kerr County west got that 80 mph limit, showed that 85 percent of drivers were going 81 mph or less. Yes, you could go 85 and probably not get a ticket. But most people had decided on their own that 80 was quite fast enough.

The kerfuffle over Kolkhorst's bill has obscured another bill that would make a much more meaningful change. HB 1353 by state Rep. Gary Elkins, a Houston Republican, would raise that general 70 mph highway limit to 75, and there would no longer be a 5 mph lower nighttime speed limit. That bill has motored through committee and is awaiting a final vote of the House as a whole.

People with safety and gas-guzzling concerns about high speeds should probably be fretting over this bill, not Kolkhorst's handiwork.

Lawmakers to sell TX highways to Spain?

Link to article here.

Though Vic Suhm of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition claims there's no public money in these privatized toll deals called public private partnerships (PPPs), there most certainly is -- they use BILLIONS in public money. See how the North Tarrant Express (I-820) and LBJ private toll deals are financed here (See page 2).

Texas likely to expand authority to lease highways to developers

Posted Friday, Apr. 22, 2011

By Gordon Dickson, Ft. Worth Star Telegram

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

AUSTIN -- Lawmakers expect to expand the state's authority to lease out highways to developers -- often foreign companies -- for up to 52 years, despite lingering opposition from some Texans.

A handful of bills on the subject could have huge implications for Dallas-Fort Worth, where some of the first such development deals in the U.S. were signed for projects like the $2.5 billion North Tarrant Express, which will overhaul Northeast Loop 820 and Texas 121/183 in Northeast Tarrant County. Now, Metroplex officials want to expand that project to include Interstate 35W in Fort Worth.

Developers have also been awarded the $2.7 billion project known as LBJ Express -- the construction of toll lanes under Interstate 635 in Dallas. It's a trend that worries residents who object to corporations controlling roads and keeping the tolls from them.

"Here in a session where we have a committee on state sovereignty talking about how we're going to throw off the federal government and exercise state rights, we're at the same time losing our sovereignty over public infrastructure, handing over highways to foreign contractors and handing Texas back to Spain," said Terri Hall, founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom.

Hall's group rose to prominence several years ago as Texans rejected Gov. Rick Perry's plan to build a $178 billion toll road network known as the Trans Texas Corridor.

But among lawmakers, the vitriolic opposition to privatization that dominated previous sessions seems to have calmed.

Immersed in attempts to fix the state's budget crisis, elected leaders say that they realize that where local support is broad, it's appropriate to allow the Texas Department of Transportation to turn over projects to outsiders in the form of comprehensive development agreements.

"We're going to get some authorization for CDAs," Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told the Star-Telegram this week. "Texas has done CDAs, and by and large these have been well-received."

Other candidates for development: Interstate 35E in Denton County and Texas 183 in Irving.

Reluctant support

Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, authored a bill that would expand North Tarrant Express to include I-35W, Texas 183 from Texas 121 in Bedford to Texas 161 in Irving, and East Loop 820 from North East Mall to Randol Mill Road.

"They [lawmakers] are resigned to the fact that at this point a funding mechanism for transportation has not been created, and in limited instances they're willing to accept comprehensive development agreements," Davis said.

Long-term, lawmakers are realizing that once they've solved the budget crisis and settled the redistricting issue, a conundrum is looming over how to pay for the next generation of Texas roads, Dewhurst said.

"For 2014 and 2015, I want to work to increase the different sources of funding so we can continue to build the roads we need to reduce congestion," he said. "No one wants to see free roads tolled, and we're not going to do that. They want to see us fund the essential services."

For 2012-13, he said, the plan is to allow a small number of development agreements and make available $8.1 billion for new road work, construction, maintenance and right of way -- including gas taxes, vehicle registration fees and the remaining $3 billion in Proposition 12 funding approved by voters in 2007. Proposition 12 allows the state to issue debt and repay it over the long term with general revenue.

Several other senators have filed separate bills for each project they wish to build with a development agreement, with most of the projects in North Texas and Houston. Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, the House Transportation Committee chairman, has filed a single bill with multiple projects -- setting the stage for a debate in the next few weeks.

Some lawmakers are expressing concerns about a lack of competitive bidding for privatized projects. Once a developer is selected as the "best value," the developer has the latitude to hire and make purchases beyond what's normally allowed in bidding laws.

Foreign roots

The team of companies building the North Tarrant Express project is known as NTE Mobility Partners. It includes: Cintra U.S., a huge toll road development corporation from Spain; Meridiam Infrastructure, an investment firm from France; and the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, which represents 8,500 public safety employees.

The Transportation Department contributed $573 million in public dollars to the project. Cintra is putting in $427 million of its own equity, $400 million in federally backed private activity bonds and $650 million from a federal transportation infrastructure loan.

The four-year job began late last year. Construction should be in full swing by summer in Bedford, Haltom City and other cities along the 13-mile corridor.

In return for its investment, NTE Mobility Partners keeps tolls collected on the new lanes through 2061.

The project will rebuild existing lanes and add toll lanes so motorists can choose to stay on the main lanes for free or pay to go faster on toll lanes. Tolls will range from $1.20 to $6.50 for the length of the project, fluctuating depending upon traffic conditions.

While most of the companies in NTE Mobility Partners are behind the scenes, the on-site construction leader is Bluebonnet Contractors. Although it has a nice, Texas-sounding name, Bluebonnet is actually made up of Spaniards, including Cintra's parent company, Ferrovial; a U.S. subsidiary known as Ferrovial-Agroman; and Webber Llc.

Webber has four decades of engineering and construction roots in Houston, but it's now a foreign company, too, having been bought by Ferrovial Group in 2005.

That arrangement bothers critics such as Hall, who got involved in transportation issues while fighting a toll project in San Antonio.

"I don't think our legislators have a clue that all these companies are front companies for Cintra," she said.

Supporters of North Tarrant Express say they're comfortable with the arrangement. Many critics don't live near the project and don't fully realize how sorely traffic relief is needed, they say.

"They view it as a situation in which public money is subsidizing private interests, when in fact it's the exact opposite," said Vic Suhm, executive director of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition. "These private investors are walking in with money to finance a project, and they get paid back through toll revenue. In fact, the private people are subsidizing us."

Toll workers pocketed fraudulent refunds

Link to article here.

NTTA: Some workers apparently created fraudulent refunds; total amount missing could be $300,000

By Michael Lindenberger/Reporter  

Dallas Morning News

4:59 PM on Wed., Apr. 13, 2011 | Permalink
 
NTTA believes some of its IT employees may have created fraudulent refunds and pocketed the money. How many were involved, and when the conduct took place has not yet been revealed.

In a release Wednesday afternoon, NTTA said the authority contacted Plano police when officials learned of the suspicious conduct. NTTA believes that the fraudulent refunds amounted to no more than $300,000, an amount that can be covered by its insurance.

Allen Clemson, the NTTA executive director, said he's outraged by the apparent dishonesty.

"We take our obligation to safeguard our financial systems and customer information very seriously, and NTTA is disturbed that this situation occurred," Clemson said. "We are angry and appalled to learn that a few employees may have ignored their responsibilities to the NTTA and the citizens it serves. The NTTA is assisting law enforcement with its investigation and intends to prosecute all responsible individuals to the fullest extent of the law."

The release said an initial investigation has indicated no customer data has been made vulnerable by the apparent fraud.

Customers with questions can call NTTA at 972-818-6882 or email the authority at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The full press release is on the jump.
NTTA press release follows:

NTTA REPORTS POSSIBLE FRAUD INCIDENT

Initial Investigation Confirms Customer Data Remains Secure
PLANO, Texas - April 13, 2011 - The North Texas Tollway Authority recently discovered that a limited number of employees in its information technology group may have misappropriated NTTA funds by creating fraudulent refunds. Upon the discovery of the possible misappropriation, the Plano Police Department was promptly notified and the Authority immediately engaged an external forensic investigation firm. The Authority took additional action, launching an internal investigation and taking measures to maintain the integrity of NTTA customer data.

At this time, there is no indication that any customer information was compromised. The NTTA is working closely with investigators to ensure the matter is resolved expeditiously. If the investigation reveals that any information was compromised or customer account was impacted, any affected parties will be notified immediately. Appropriate personnel action has been taken pending the results of the investigation.

"We take our obligation to safeguard our financial systems and customer information very seriously, and NTTA is disturbed that this situation occurred," said Allen Clemson, NTTA executive director. "We are angry and appalled to learn that a few employees may have ignored their responsibilities to the NTTA and the citizens it serves. The NTTA is assisting law enforcement with its investigation and intends to prosecute all responsible individuals to the fullest extent of the law."

The NTTA and its forensic investigation firm are reviewing all security systems to confirm the extent of the losses. The financial impact is estimated at less than $300,000. NTTA is insured for this type of crime.

Customers with questions can contact the NTTA Customer Service Center at 972-818-NTTA (6882) or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

House passes eminent domain bill, makes marginal improvements

Yesterday, the Texas House passed an eminent domain "reform" bill, SB 18, making some marginal improvements, but falling short of fixing the loopholes and broad language that open up landowners to abuses. The Kolkhorst Amendment to fix some loopholes in the language allowing a landowner to buy back his/her land if the condemning entity does NOT use that land for the original intended public use was adopted. So was the Phil King Amendment that changed the language from the broader and weaker term "public purpose" to the more strict "public use."

However, the most shocking development was the failure to strip out the blight and economic development loopholes or to clarify the broad language in the bill that gives wide latitude to both public and private entities to condemn private property without defining terms like bona fide offer. The Senate author of the bill, Sen. Craig Estes, even called this a special interests bill and acknowledged the broad language would lead to more litigation. Who has the ability to litigate? The governmental or private condemning entities and well-connected or wealthy landowners, but certainly not the average Texas landowner who is vulnerable to eminent domain abuses and forced to settle because he/she lacks the resources to fight it.

The bill still fails to protect landowners from Kelo abuses (ie -  blight, economic development, foreign-owned toll roads), and continues the authority of private entities to benefit from eminent domain in the name of a laundry list of various "public uses," including a library, museum, or related facility and ANY infrastructure related to the facility. What's a "related facility"? Condos? A movie theater?

Also shocking was the fact that the Sheffield Amendment to insist that any taking was "necessary" for that public use was voted down by an overwhelmingly "conservative" House by 99 members. Sheffield had 39 co-authors to his amendment. Apparently that's how many House members truly believe in property rights. NO taking should ever occur unless it's absolutely NECESSARY for that public use!

Rep. Rene Oliveira, Chair of the House Land and Resource Committee, actually argued AGAINST the Sheffield Amendment saying there's a "presumption" that the condemnation is "necessary." He's an attorney and ought to know better that Texas case law and the Supreme Court Kelo case have eroded property rights and granted governmental entities more and more power to take private property under the auspices of economic development and blight that many would question whether that taking was "necessary." Redeveloping a poor neighborhood and taking peoples' land for a shopping mall or retail strip center isn't seen as "necessary."

Oliveira hear all the testimony in favor of public necessity in Committee and asked witnesses to tell lawmakers which should they fight for, public use (easier to get) or public necessity (much harder to get past the Governor and the cities and counties against such language) and the answer the public gave, was no doubt "public necessity." To turn around and argue against what the public and landowners have persistently asked for is stunning.

For more information on the eminent domain bill and the abuses taking place in Texas today, go here.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

House passes eminent domain bill

By Tim Eaton | Austin American Statesman - Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 03:53 PM

The Texas House unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday a bill that seeks to strengthen private property owners’ rights.

Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, sponsored the eminent domain bill, Senate Bill 18, which limits the state’s power to take or condemn private property for public use.

The measure would change eminent domain laws by including provisions that would allow property owners to repurchase taken property and require the governmental body acquiring the land to make a bona fide offer to purchase property.

The bill also would prohibit a government or private entity from taking land that was not for a public use. The acquiring governmental entities would have to pay relocation expenses for displaced property owners and provide a relocation advisory service.

The bill originated in the Senate and was originally authored by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls. A slightly different version of the bill passed the upper chamber in February.

A final vote in the House is still to come.

Get more Legislative coverage inside the Virtual Capitol

Sell out: House Committee passes bill to hand TX roads to private for-profit corporations

Yesterday evening, the Texas House Transportation Committee passed HB 2255 that would sell-off seven Texas highways to private, for-profit companies in 50 year sweetheart toll road deals, WITHOUT competitive bidding.

Sadly, eight other members of the Committee voted with Phillips against stiff public opposition to HB 2255. They were: Drew Darby, Allen Fletcher, Linda Harper-Brown, George Lavender, Armando Martinez, Joe Pickett, Eddie Rodriguez. Representatives Yvonne Davis voted against, Ruth Jones McClendon was present not voting, and Dennis Bonnen was absent.

Phillips had to withdraw his bill Monday due to objections and concerns by Committee members. He brought it up in Committee again Wednesday morning and several members reluctantly voted for it and several voted against -- it was a picture of chaos as Phillips tried to shore-up his Committee to vote against the taxpayer. At that time, the Committee had not even been furnished with a copy of the substitute bill (he had changed the bill) when Phillips called it up for a vote.

By evening when the Committee reconvened, they were handed the substitute bill moments prior to being asked to vote and Rep. Davis brought up significant issues with the authority granted to TxDOT to remove the requirement of competitive bidding. The North Tarrant Express project involves four highways in Tarrant County and the bill would grant TxDOT the authority to enter into a controversial Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA also known as a public private partnership) without competitive bidding and allow the initial winning team to get the development rights with a right of first refusal on ALL future projects WITHOUT competitive bidding.

One of the concerns with CDAs is it replaces traditional low-bid, competitive procurement contracts with "best value" bidding rather than requiring the lowest price for the taxpayer, a process open to favoritism and cronyism. Despite Davis' concerns, the Committee passed the bill, casting doubt on the so-called "conservative" credentials of many of its members.


 

Why we must keep the current BAN on public private partnerships (PPPs), known as CDAs in Texas, in place:

- Grants private, even foreign, entities MONOPOLIES for 50 years
- Means the loss of control over Texas infrastructure & toll tax rates, Texans can’t go to a corporation’s Board of Directors to request relief from high toll rates as they can with elected officials. It’s taxation without representation and the marriage corporations with the State.
- Eminent domain for private gain -- to take private property in the name of a public use then hand it to a private interest, for a private benefit for a HALF CENTURY
- Terms of contract kept secret from the public until AFTER the deal is signed.
- Ends competitive bidding and even grants the initial winning team right of first refusal on all future segments without competitive bidding.
- Limits the expansion of free roads (to guarantee congestion on the free routes)
- Manipulates the speed limits to drive more traffic to the toll road
- Charges toll rates as high as 75 cents PER MILE (these are PUBLISHED rates for both the LBJ & North Tarrant Express CDAs in DFW) or 80 cents per mile (for I-35 according to Denton Record Chronicle, Feb. 13, 2011)
- Puts the taxpayer on the hook for the losses while the private investors are GUARANTEED PROFITS in the contracts
- Allows private corporations the power to tax
- Use massive amounts of public money & debt to subsidize/prop-up toll projects that can't pay for themselves. This model doesn’t remotely resemble the claim that the ‘user’ pays for the road. On two PPPs in DFW, $500 million dollars in gas taxes, and another $1.5 BILLION in PABS and TIFIA loans are subsidizing the LBJ project and $500 million in gas taxes and $1 BILLION in PABS and TIFIA loans are subsidizing the North Tarrant Express.
- Eliminates due process in contesting fees, interest, and penalties, with the possibility of losing your car’s registration for failure to pay what they say you owe

Rep. Larry Phillips' signature issue this session has been to expand TxDOT and un-elected toll authorities' ability to enter into controversial highway contracts and their ability to use risky financing schemes (like using borrowed money to secure more borrowed money, like building roads with credit cards) to toll Texas roadways, even existing roads. The sheer volume of anti-taxpayer legislation coming out of Phillips' Committee is staggering. The public has been undaunted in its opposition to these anti-taxpayer, anti-sovereignty, anti-property rights policies. Now these bills (HB 1112, HB 2255, HB 2475) go before the full House where the grassroots will work to ensure this legislation ends up on the ash heap. The Senate has already railroaded every CDA bill through its Committee.

Koch Industries behind TransCanada Keystone Pipeline

Link to article here.

Dirty energy's dirty needs

April 8, 2011
CBS News - OPINION by Ellen Cantarow
 
One family's tale of trying to stop a pipeline filled with toxic tar sands oil from being rammed through its property
 
For years, "not in my backyard" has been the battle cry of residents in Cape Cod who stand opposed to an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound.  The giant turbines will forever mar the beauty of the landscape, they say.

Energy is ugly. Some forms more so than others, as nuclear near-meltdowns in Japan, the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and deaths in a West Virginia Coal Mine explosion have driven home in the last year.  Energy kills plants, plankton, and people.  It imperils the environment, poisons the oceans, and is threatening to turn part of Japan, one of the most advanced nations on the planet, into a contaminated zone for decades to come.

David Daniel knows this all too well.  He built his dream home on 20 acres of lush wilderness, alive with panthers, wild boar, and deer, in Winnsboro, East Texas.  Then a nightmare called tar sands appeared on his doorstep.

Tar sands are sandy soils laden with a tar-like substance called bitumen. Getting oil out of them is a dirty, dangerous, and deadly process. Daniel knew none of this when a neighbor phoned in the fall of 2008 to say that he'd seen trespassers on the property. "I went back [from work] and I found survey stakes that cut my property in half," he recalls. Several months later, an eminent domain letter arrived, telling him that a pipeline carrying oil from Canada's "oil sands" would cut through his pristine property. When he complained to TransCanada, the company in charge, its lawyer responded with a veiled threat: "Should I put the letter in the 'cooperative' or the 'uncooperative pile?'"

So began the Daniel family's struggles with TransCanada, whose powerful US backers include Koch Industries (best known for its stealth attacks on the federal government, and big spending on climate-change-denial campaigns). By the time TransCanada's surveyors entered the Daniels' lives, the corporation was already hard at work pushing a pipeline that would run from the Canadian border to Texas's Gulf Coast, along the way slicing through the Daniels' land and the properties of countless other Americans.

At no time did TransCanada's representatives volunteer information about tar sands, leaving Daniel to do his own research. When he asked how tar sands oil would affect the pipeline, TransCanada responded only that the effects would be determined after the pipeline was put in place. "They made us feel like lab rats on our own property," he says.

Behind his painful schooling in corporate arrogance lies a startling fact: Canada is the leading oil-supplier of the United States. Let me repeat that: the U.S. imports more oil from Canada than (yes) Mexico, which ranks second, and (believe it or not) Saudi Arabia, which ranks only third. Tar sands are largely responsible for Canada's new petro-status. Nearly a million barrels of tar sands oil arrive in the U.S. every day. By 2025, Canada is expected to be producing 3.5 million barrels of tar sands oil daily. Most of that, says Ryan Salmon of the National Wildlife Federation, will be imported to the U.S. And believe me, when it comes to energy ugly, tar sands could take the cake.

Not tar, not oil

In fact, "tar sands" is a colloquialism for 54,000 square miles of bitumen that veins sand and clay beneath the boreal forests of Alberta, one of Canada's western provinces. Black as it is, bitumen isn't actually tar, though it looks and smells like tar, and has its consistency on a very cold day -- hence, that term "tar sands." (The corporations that produce the stuff prefer "oil sands.")

Unlike oil, bitumen does not flow. Gouged and steamed out from under the forest, it is wrenched from the soil, barreled, and then refined into synthetic crude oil -- at shattering environmental costs. The tar sands industry has ravaged Alberta's forests, poisoned its air and water, and wrecked the livelihoods of its indigenous peoples. Moreover, producing synthetic crude from a barrel of bitumen generates at least twice as much greenhouse gas as producing a barrel of normal crude oil. At 1.5 million barrels of tar sands oil a day, that's a lot of global warming.

But for corporations intent on profits in a world rocked by Middle East and North African uprisings that might threaten global oil supplies, and by declining reserves of normal crude, environmental catastrophe is trivial collateral damage. The tar sands' great selling point in the U.S. is that it comes from a friendly neighbor. Russ Girling, president and CEO of TransCanada, typically touts tar sands as improving "U.S. energy security and reduc[ing] dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela," At a White House meeting in early February, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper assured President Obama that "Canada is the largest, the most secure, the most stable, and the friendliest supplier of that most vital of all America's purchases: energy."

A complex alchemy turns bitumen into synthetic crude.  Canadian journalist and tar sands expert Andrew Nikiforuk calls this final product "the world's dirtiest hydrocarbon oil." Canada used to transform bitumen from its rawest into its ultimate form, sending synthetic crude through pipelines to the U.S. Now, however, with Canada's refineries maxing out, U.S. refineries are increasingly taking up the task of turning bitumen into the mock crude that makes even my Prius environmentally unfriendly. That means what's coming to Americans in ever increasing quantities is a very raw form of diluted bitumen called DilBit, whose transport will make lab rats of us all.

Under jaunty names like "Lakehead," "Alberta Clipper," and "Keystone," a vast pipeline network is already pumping this diluted bitumen to the Midwest and into the American heartland. The 1,900-mile-long Lakehead pipeline, owned by Canada's Enbridge Inc., skirts one of the world's largest stretches of fresh water, the Great Lakes.

Last June, Enbridge's main competitor, TransCanada, opened a $5 billion, 2,147-mile pipeline it dubbed Keystone I, which plunges from Canada straight through the eastern parts of the Dakotas and Kansas to the Gulf Coast. Now, TransCanada is pushing hard for an extension, the Keystone XL, the one that will run through David Daniel's land on its way to the Gulf coast.

In February, a landmark report by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that diluted bitumen is "the primary product" carried by the Keystone I. The proposed Keystone XL, write the report's authors, will be dedicated only to DilBit whose "combination of chemical corrosion and physical abrasion can dramatically increase the rate of pipeline deterioration." So imagine this recipe for pipelines from hell: take thick, raw, corrosive, acid-ridden bitumen and add volatile natural gas to propel it since the bitumen doesn't flow by itself; next, crank up the temperatures and pressures far higher than those needed to move ordinary crude oil (again, to help the stuff on its way). It doesn¼t take a rocket scientist to understand some of the possible dangers of moving tar sands oil in this state through our communities.

The tar sands come to Kellogg's

Last July, as BP's catastrophe in the Gulf was making news around the clock, the U.S. experienced its first big DilBit moment. Part of Enbridge's Lakehead line broke, oozing black gunk into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River near Battle Creek, Michigan, iconic home to cereal-maker Kellogg's. Twelve hours passed before workers responded to the surge of sludge, which by then had passed from the tributary into the river itself. The dark slop could be seen from bank to bank in the Kalamazoo, making its way to Lake Michigan.

High levels of benzene filled the air and local residents had to be evacuated from their homes. When the sludge passed through Battle Creek, the Kellogg's factory even stopped making cornflakes. The spill was arrested before it could reach Lake Michigan, but not before a million gallons of DilBit had fouled a 30-mile-long stretch of the Kalamazoo, one of the biggest spills in Midwest history.

This was, however, no "ordinary" oil spill, as DilBit spills are much harder to clean up. Once DilBit hits water, the bitumen in it doesn't float; it quickly sinks into river sediment. Exposed to sunlight, it forms a dense, sticky substance hard to remove from rock and soil.

Special dredging and other equipment is needed for any effective cleanup. The booms you saw skimming the Gulf last summer are inadequate, and the U.S. doesn't yet have DilBit cleanup technology. So while cleanup crews worked on the Kalamazoo and its banks after the spill was discovered, they left a whole lot of DilBit behind. Adequate cleanup isn't expected until at least late 2011, according to the NRDC's Susan Casey-Lefkowitz.

At the time of the Kalamazoo spill, Enbridge's CEO, Patrick Daniels, claimed that there had never been a leak "of this consequence" in the company's history. According to Enbridge's own reports, however, between 2000 and 2009 the company was responsible for 610 pipeline spills in Canada, totaling 5.5 million gallons. (Not all were DilBit, which makes the picture worse, not better, since ordinary crude is less corrosive and volatile than DilBit.) In Michigan, 12 spills from Enbridge's pipelines preceded the larger one in the Kalamazoo. Two months after that spill, another part of Enbridge's Lakehead pipeline leaked 256,000 gallons of DilBit into Romeoville, a suburb of Chicago.

Keystone's underground pipeline to the Gulf Coast, which opened only nine months ago, has already leaked seven times. They have been small leaks, but significant nonetheless as they point to larger, more distressing problems.  "It seems odd to us that a brand-new pipeline would have these little spills throughout," says Casey-Lefkowitz. "It raises questions about the quality of construction."

"TransCanada is building its pipelines according to strength regulations designed for conventional pipelines decades ago," adds Anthony Swift, co-author of the NRDC report. Swift says the company "has not yet provided a meaningful strategy for dealing with some of the characteristics of diluted bitumen."

The proposed Keystone XL, also underground, would carry up to 900,000 barrels of DilBit (37,800,000 gallons) south every day, passing through some of the most sensitive ecosystems in the U.S., including rivers, wildlife preserves, and wide expanses of prairie. In addition, it would run through the Ogallala aquifer, a 174,000-square-mile expanse of water that lies under eight states from the Dakotas to Texas and provides 30% of the nation's irrigation for agriculture, as well as drinking water for 82% of the people within its vast boundaries.

The pipeline would pass through areas where landslides and earthquakes are known threats. Part of Keystone I already traverses an area of seismic activity in Nebraska, where a recent tremor -- 3.5 on the Richter scale -- shook the ground throughout the southeast part of the state. It also runs through the easternmost part of the Ogallala. Before Keystone I was built, a National Wildlife Federation report warned, "Some portions of the aquifer are so close to the surface that any pipeline leak would almost immediately contaminate a large portion of the water."

TransCanada cannot begin constructing Keystone XL without both presidential permission and a State Department environmental impact statement (EIS), made necessary because the project crosses international borders.  The State Department issued that EIS in April 2010 in the wake of public hearings in towns along the pipeline route. Environmental organizations, landowners, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were sharply critical of the EIS. Among other things, says the NRDC's Anthony Swift, the statement failed to demonstrate "the need for the pipeline, its safety, and its greenhouse gas impacts." Especially troubling, according to Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, was the failure to consider an alternate pipeline route that would not slash through the Ogallala aquifer.

Last month, under pressure from mounting opposition to the pipeline by a coalition of grassroots groups, the State Department held further meetings in Washington to hear their grievances. (The EPA also met with coalition leaders.) Ben Gotschall, a fifth generation Nebraska organic rancher, called the State Department's environmental statement "insulting." It suggested, he said, neither that stronger than normal pipeline materials should be used, nor that there might be alternative routes to the one currently proposed. TransCanada's only concern, he insisted, was cost, while at stake was the "life and livelihood of millions of people."

"My family has been producing grass-fed beef for five generations," said Gotschall.  "We do this organically, without chemicals and with minimum fossil fuel inputs... Nebraska farmers and ranchers were producing food long before we had the benefit of fossil fuels and we can and will find a way to produce food long after fossil fuels are gone.  But we will never be able to produce food without clean water.  To me, this pipeline is an issue of national security that threatens our domestic food and water supply."

If the pipeline goes through, a handful of giant corporations will profit, among them Koch Industries which handles about 25% of tar sands imports to the U.S., and is among the biggest of U.S. tar sands refiners. Meanwhile, the grassroots opposition uniting farmers and ranchers, environmentalists and scientists is growing in the heartland states.

Last month, the coalition demanded that the State Department issue a supplemental environmental impact statement. On March 16th, Ben Gotschall e-mailed: "If you haven't heard already, the State Department has called for a supplemental draft EIS... This is a victory for all of us who have been fighting this from the beginning."  On March 24th, 25 mayors sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "We are concerned," they wrote, "that expansion of high carbon projects such as the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will undermine the good work being done in local communities across the country to fight climate change and reduce our dependence on oil."

Yet in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, domestic fears over nuclear energy are spiking, while months of turmoil in the Muslim world have highlighted a growing U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.  As a result, it will surely become harder to derail the efforts of TransCanada and Koch Industries to ram a pipeline filled with toxic tar sands oil right through David Daniel's property.

Will a pipeline leak one day kill off his old growth hardwood trees, foul his three natural springs, and poison the deer now roaming his land? If TransCanada's checkered history is any guide, it's a real possibility.  Energy kills.  In Japan.  In the Gulf.  In Appalachian mines.  And in the Corn Flake capital of the world.  If Winnsboro, East Texas, is added to the list, it won't be a surprise, not to David Daniel anyway.  He knows what we all know now: in the hands of corporations whose only concern is profit, energy is ugly.

Bio: Ellen Cantarow is a journalist whose work on Israel/Palestine has been widely published for 30 years, including at TomDispatch. This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Refreshing: Shutdown toll roads that don't pay for themselves

Link to article here.

Amendment targets tolls on I-405

By LARRY LANGE, SPECIAL TO SEATTLEPI.COM

Published 06:08 p.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2011

A controversial measure to toll part of Interstate 405 faces amendments in the state Senate aimed at satisfying skeptics – including a proposal that toll lanes be abandoned if they didn't help traffic or pay expenses.

The Senate Transportation Committee has proposed amending House Bill 1382 to require closing the lanes if they don't maintain speeds of at least 45 mph 90 percent of the time.

The amendment, approved in a 14-2 committee vote, also would require closure of the lanes "as soon as practicable" after two years if they don't generate "sufficient revenue to pay for all...toll-lane related operating expense," according to the amendment.

The changes reflects Senate committee members' desire to "make sure it's viable...that it actually will generate the amount of money they say it will," said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, who chairs the committee.



The state has estimated that it would cost $388 million to add the lanes between Lynnwood and Bellevue. Equipping them would cost $67 million, while annual operating costs have been estimated at $8.75 million annually.
The state Office of Fiscal Management has estimated that the lanes, located on one of the region's most crowded and congested freeways, would be profitable for at least the first six years of its  operation.

But critics have noted that similar, experimental high-occupancy toll or "HOT" lanes on Highway 167 have not paid their way financially, though state transportation officials have said they've improved traffic flow and speeds between Auburn and Renton.

The proposal in the House measure is to set up similar lanes on I-405, but the idea met substantial opposition from House Republicans, who tried to gut the bill before it passed on a largely party-line vote.

Haugen said that, with the Senate amendment, she expects the bill to pass with bipartisan support in that chamber. "We worked really hard to reach a compromise," she said, but . Senators added the shutdown provisions because of the financial experience on 167.

"We were told one thing with 167, and another thing occurred," Haugen said.

In addition to the closure provisions the amendment would require yearly reports from the state Department of Transportation on the effects of the lanes: whether they change transit ridership or average traffic speeds, whether they receive the predicted amount of use by drivers and whether travel times increase or decrease on adjacent local streets and highways. Reports are also to say whether toll receipts are consistent with  estimates.

The amended bill is in the Senate Rules Committee. It must be approved by the full Senate and sent back to the House for agreement before it becomes  law.

Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island and chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, said she'll accept the amendments "because it moves the project forward and authorizes tolling" and will add the lanes and needed  equipment.

She said the amendments reflect "the angst that we have with all the moving parts on tolling right now rather than a dislike of tolling,. In a year we will have (tolls on) 520, 167 and more info on 405 and everyone will feel better."

She said a more controversial point could be the amended bill's provision directing toll receipts for deposit in the state Motor Vehicle Fund, which commits them solely to highway projects. This will require another change in order to use some of the money for transit; that won't kill the measure now "but it will cause some heartburn," she said.

State officials have imposed to pay for new bridges for several decades. They're now moving toward charging them on highway lanes to help improve traffic flow and pay for and maintain new projects as declining gas tax revenues have been committed to paying off earlier highway  projects.

HOT lanes charge solo drivers for the privilege of driving in carpool lanes, using an electronic system of varying tolls like the one on Highway 167. If lawmakers approve, a similar system could be in place on I-405 by 2014.

Road lobby arrogance: Chide NTTA for wanting to save money with in-house contractors

Link to article here.

If this doesn't demonstrate the grip the highway lobby has on toll roads and road policy, I don't know what does. The North Texas Tollway Authority knows its under a microscope as complaints about the lack of financial transparency have poured in. A bill by Rep. Rafael Anchia would subject the NTTA to Sunset Review and another bill by Rep. Ken Paxton would subject it to placing its checkbook register online and require an annual financial audit (which the NTTA testified against). So as it makes efforts to rein in the super-expensive outsourced contracting to help lower costs to taxpayers, the road lobby has the audacity to chide the NTTA for doing so.

As NTTA eyes bringing some work in-house, two former leaders urge caution, tout contractors

 
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER --  07 April 2011

The North Texas Tollway Authority should not abandon its long history of relying on talented but costly specialty firms to do its most complex engineering, financial and other work, two former top leaders of the agency told its board of directors Thursday.

Former board chairmen Jere Thompson and David Blair each argued that NTTA’s long history of hiring the very best lawyers, engineers and other professionals available — in some cases, regardless of cost — has been critical to its success.

“Organizations are collections of people. And over the past 50 years this agency has assembled a remarkable collection of loyal people, firms and advisers,” said Thompson, who led NTTA’s board during its creation in 1997 to replace the Texas Turnpike Authority. “Discarding that wealth of institutional knowledge is about the same as undergoing an unnecessary lobotomy.”

The comments came as NTTA executive director Allen Clemson presented for the first time publicly his proposal for how the authority will in the future evaluate whether to hire temporary, and expensive, contractors to do NTTA’s work or to employ staff to do it.


Clemson’s proposal was only the beginning of a conversation that could last months as NTTA’s board grapples with the hypersensitive issue of whether its most valued contractors — some of which have worked for NTTA and its predecessor since the 1950s — could be replaced in part by cheaper permanent staff.

Still ahead are budgeting decisions that could cut into the tens of millions of dollars in fees those firms have earned and will otherwise expect to earn in the future. NTTA chairman Victor Vandergriff also has vowed to have the board reconsider a vote last year that essentially keeps those legacy firms in place at the authority without competition until 2013.

Instead, what Clemson told the nine-member board Thursday was simply that his staff will be asked to examine each decision to augment its temporary workforce with new contractors and to weigh each time whether it would be wiser to bring that work in-house.

“I think our business model is sound,” Clemson said, attempting to reassure the board and the audience that he plans no wholesale jettisoning of existing contractors. “This is about making better business decisions.”

NTTA director Bob Day, a former Garland mayor, said Clemson’s proposed approach to future staffing decisions makes sense. “I must have missed something,” Day said. “I don’t see what the controversy has been over.”

But that’s probably because most of the controversial elements of any effort to reduce the role of the legacy contractors had been scrubbed out of Clemson’s initial proposal. Clemson said he met repeatedly with HNTB Corp. and other major contractors in recent weeks to resolve some of their concerns about the proposal.

Vandergriff said he and several other board members were aware of those discussions, too, and said they were appropriate given the firms’ long involvement with NTTA.

“HNTB has been with us since our inception, since the inception of toll roads in this area,” Vandergriff said. “They have been seen as a partner.”

Clemson said, simply, “we are walking through a mine field.”

He said the sharp criticism by some contractors — what he called the “knives and daggers” — had been hurtful.

“It’s been difficult to do this,” he said. “And some of what has been said has slowed this process down.”

Vandergriff said Thursday’s debate was only the beginning, and he vowed that all sides will be heard as the process unwinds.

The knives aren’t likely to be put away, he suggested.

“NTTA is big business now,” he said. “Aside from all the other issues, the most important issue here is money. That’s why there is such interest in what we are doing.”

Trucker group: Kill any attempts to resurrect TTC and PPPs

Texas House OKs 85 mph speeds, wipeout of Trans-Texas Corridor

By Keith Goble, Land Line state legislative editor, April 8, 2011

A bill halfway through the Texas Legislature would authorize the fastest speeds in the nation and put to rest any lingering uncertainty about a proposed superhighway.

Other bills being considered at the statehouse address public-private partnerships to complete road work.

The House voted unanimously Thursday, April 7, to advance a bill to the Senate that would permit the speed limit on certain new roadways to be set at 85 mph. Such authorization would allow drivers to travel faster than anywhere else in the nation.

Speeds of 85 mph could be authorized on highways built after June 1, 2011. The Texas Department of Transportation would be required to perform engineering and traffic studies to determine whether the speed is appropriate.

Texas has more than 520 miles of Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 in west Texas posted at 80 mph during the day for motorists while trucks are limited to 70 mph. Speeds for all vehicles are lowered to 65 mph at night.

Todd Spencer, executive vice president for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said the uniformity of speeds is truckers’ primary concern.

“The only speed limit policy that makes sense is to have all vehicles traveling at the same speed,” Spencer said.

A separate provision in the bill – HB1201 – would write the Trans-Texas Corridor out of the books.

The corridor was the pet project of Gov. Rick Perry. Approved in 2003, the proposed 4,000-mile network of toll roads was billed as setting the path for a NAFTA superhighway stretching from the Mexican border to Canada.

After years of debate in Austin, the multibillion-dollar TTC was declared dead in 2009, but concern about language still on the books has spurred additional action.

The bill would remove any reference to the failed highway project from statute, which would bring the state in line with the cancellation of the project.

OOIDA has criticized the corridor plan since it was unveiled. The Association cited reasons that included the proposed toll rate of 50 cents per mile for large trucks.

Another toll bill drawing consideration in the Texas House would authorize the use of public-private partnerships to get road work done. Intended to boost projects at the local level, HB3789 would authorize the state or regional tolling authorities to work with private groups to complete projects “identified in the statewide transportation plan.”

Still other bills pursue partnerships with private groups on road work. The Senate voted Thursday to advance three bills that would allow TxDOT to make deals for work on a 28-mile segment of Interstate 35 East between I-635 and U.S. 380, a nine-mile portion of state Highway 183 between state Highway 161 and I-35 E, and five segments of the North Tarrant Expressway project. Senators already approved a separate bill that would authorize a partnership for the Grand Parkway, state Highway 99, in Houston.

SB1007, SB1017, SB1144 and SB1145, respectively, have been forwarded to the House for further consideration.

OOIDA encourages Texas truckers to contact their state lawmakers about these bills.

To view other legislative activities of interest for Texas, click here.

Editor’s Note: Please share your thoughts with us about the legislation included in this story. Comments may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Private toll road shocker: Raise tolls to pay for transit

Link to blog here.

A shocking revelation

By Dan Malouff, Washington Post

A number of Virginia politicians are shocked and appalled that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is considering raising tolls on the Dulles toll road in order to pay the extra $330 million needed to put the Silver Line airport Metro station underground.

This is a good learning opportunity for those who think public/private partnerships equate to free money. When you turn over public infrastructure to private groups, you lose your authority to dictate policy, and the new private owners may not have the same priorities as the previous public ones. Virginia’s leaders should have realized when they turned the roll road over to the MWAA that MWAA would henceforth make policy for the road with its own interests in mind.

Apparently the idea that there’s no such thing as a free lunch is a shocking revelation.

Dan Malouff is an Arlington County transportation planner who blogs independently at BeyondDC.com. The Local Blog Network is a group of bloggers from around the D.C. region who have agreed to make regular contributions to All Opinions Are Local.

Texas House votes to finally repeal the Trans Texas Corridor

Finally a story that actually reports what happened Wednesday! The Texas House voted unanimously to REPEAL the despised Trans Texas Corridor statute from the books and the only thing the press reported on was the amendment to that bill, HB 1201, that would allow TxDOT to increase the speed limits on Texas highways to 85 MPH.

Our problem with that amendment is that it was originally structured as a pay-off to Spain-based Cintra for its Trans Texas Corridor contract for SH 130 segments 5 & 6 where it pays TxDOT the maximum payment if it raises speed limits up to 85 MPH on its tollway (to incentivize more drivers to use their high speed toll road, hence Cintra gets higher toll revenues for which its willing to pay TxDOT for the enrichment to its coffers). See Ex 7 of the contract here. TxDOT would also receive a greater share of the toll revenues if it raises the speed limit to 85 MPH on Cintra's tollway. So just when you thought speed limits were about "public safety," private toll road interests come in and hijack the citizens' bill to REPEAL the Trans Texas Corridor to get the last laugh! The amendment, however, was apparently changed to only affect projects built AFTER the law takes effect in June.

Our hats off to Rep. Lois Kolkhorst who has worked with the people of Texas tirelessly since 2005 to KILL this beast that would have left a scar over Texas for generations.

House moves to kill the dead Trans Texas Corridor

Posted on 04/06/2011 by Gary Scharrer
 
  The controversial Texas Trans Corridor has been dead for a few years, but it still lives on in the state statutes.


Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham

All references, however, will be removed under legislation tentatively approved Wednesday by the Texas House. HB 1201 would repeal the chapter providing its statutory authority.

The Texas Trans Corridor remains a controversial legacy of Gov. Rick Perry. Widespread opposition by landowners and others upset about foreign ownership of state highways doomed the massive project that was authorized in 2003. Perry pushed the plan, which included a large network of tolled highways, dedicated lanes for trucks, railways, and rights of way for utilities.

  HB 1201 – approved without discussion – would allow the Texas Transportation Commission to establish speed limits up to 85 miles per hour on a part of the state highway system that was designed to accommodate travel at that speed, following engineering studies.

Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, a fierce opponent of the Trans Texas Corridor, authored HB 1201.

“As our state grows in population, we are facing a pressing need for a more modern, more efficient network of roads and highways to move people and goods.  We do not, however, need the Trans-Texas Corridor, and I thank Speaker (Joe) Straus and my colleagues in the Texas House for working with me to repeal the Trans-Texas Corridor from state law,” Kolkhorst said.

She has been fighting the Trans-Texas Corridor since 2005.



Read the rest of the story here.

Budget crisis: Texas spends more on road debt than on road building

Link to article here.

This is Rick Perry's legacy, a toll road t-i-c-k-i-n-g DEBT BOMB for generations of Texans to pay back with interest. Before Perry, we were pay as you go with CASH, with NO debt for roads. On his watch, he's demanded they STARVE the gas tax and push toll roads that borrow and spend money we don't have. The State's debt for roads tops $30 BILLION! On top of that, he's selling our roads to foreign companies in sweetheart deals that will cost 75 cents a mile to drive. It's crony capitalism at its worst!

A note for the record from the House's roads scholars ...

By Robert T. Garrett - Reporter
Dallas Morning News
Sun., Apr. 3, 2011

Texas would spend more on road debt than on road building -- for the first time in history -- under the budget that neared passage in the House late Sunday.

Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, who was Transportation Committee chairman last session, said it was important that Texans realize they're sort of in hock for asphalt and concrete.

Debt service payments for the next two years would cost $1.65 billion, he said, while the budget would spend only $1.15 billion for new road construction.

"This is new and this is big for Texas," Pickett said.

Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, the House's chief transportation budget writer, agreed.

"This Legislature either this session or next session is going to have to deal with how we fund our roads and infrastructure," Darby said. "We have a severe shortage of capital we're devoting in our budget towards our congestion needs ... and our transportation needs. ... This is an issue that's not going to go away."

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 59 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases