Sidebar
Like TURF
Follow TURFBundy grazing battle more complex than first blush
Nevada Cattle Rancher Standoff Far More Complex than Simple Lawbreaking
Cliven Bundy claims that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights’ on federal land because his ancestors kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, before the Department of the Interior was created. However, by continuing to graze his livestock on federal land for over 20 years after he stopped paying fees in 1993, Bundy may have acquired “prescriptive rights;” the right to an easement over property after trespassing on it for several years.
By Rachel Alexander | April 23, 2014
Selous Foundation for Public Policy & Research
Some legalistic conservatives aren’t jumping to the defense of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his recent standoff with the federal government. They’d rather focus on the fact that he broke federal law by not paying taxes for permitting his cattle to graze on 150 square miles of scrub desert overseen by the federal government. Such a shallow analysis fails to take into account the facts during the years leading up to the showdown, as well as other laws that may likely exonerate him.
Bundy paid grazing taxes until 1993, when federal grazing rules were restricted in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville areas of Nevada for the dubious reason of protecting the desert tortoise. The desert tortoise is listed as vulnerable, not endangered, despite virtually every media article hysterically referring to it as “endangered.” It is not clear how grazing cattle threatens the desert tortoise. Even more bizarre, it has been revealed that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has shot many of the desert tortoises it claims to protect.
Infuriated by the federal government instituting these draconian environmental regulations in 1993, Bundy insisted on paying grazing fees to local government instead of the feds, so his money wouldn’t be used against him, but Clark County declined. After that, Bundy says the federal government overreach drove every other rancher in the area out of business except him.
He owns the last large cattle ranch remaining in Clark County. The feds now own 84 percent of the land in Nevada, and large portions of other Western states, including a massive 96 percent of the land in Alaska.
Bundy’s friction with the federal government is nothing new. In the 1970s, cattle ranchers in the Western states fought with the federal government over land in what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion.
It was widely believed that President Jimmy Carter instigated it, by purposely punishing ranchers in the states that didn’t vote for him by “halting work on vital water projects, hiking fees for grazing cattle on public land and attempting to break up large farms irrigated by federal water systems.” Former president Ronald Reagan ran for president backing the rebellion, saying in a campaign speech, “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.”
Bundy claims that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights” on federal land because his ancestors kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, before the Department of the Interior was created. “My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,” Bundy told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. Bundy has also argued that Nevada’s open range statute excuses his trespass.
So far, the federal courts have sided with BLM against him on both of these legal arguments, very likely due to a cozy relationship between the two branches of government under the liberal Obama administration.
However, by continuing to graze his livestock on federal land for over 20 years after he stopped paying fees in 1993, Bundy may have acquired “prescriptive rights;” the right to an easement over property after trespassing on it for several years. Columnist Ben Swann interviewed Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin about the possibility. Devlin asked the BLM if Bundy had acquired prescriptive rights, and was told that the agency is concerned he may have.
The BLM could have attached a lien to the cattle, instead of spending $3 million forcibly rounding them up. The reason the BLM didn’t try to remove the cattle peaceably this way through the court system may be because it wouldn’t have won due to Bundy’s prescriptive rights.
Instead, the BLM forcibly started seizing Bundy’s cattle, and destroyed several of them. Former judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News, “The draconian, authoritarian way that the government is going after Mr. Bundy is obviously to try and scare him, and scare ranchers, and send a message which is utterly un-American and not consistent with a free people.” Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) spoke out during the standoff, “I told him [BLM Director Neil Kornze] very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.”
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval also sided with Bundy, saying, “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
In recent years, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has attempted to seize land in Nevada and award it to his major political contributors. Since the head of the BLM is a former high-level staffer for Reid, it appears very likely that Reid masterminded the Bundy cattle siege, in a type of eminent domain. One anonymous source who has lived in the area for 35 years says the BLM is using the desert tortoise as a pretext to grab the land and seize its water rights.
There have been several cases similar to Bundy’s in recent years. Rancher Wayne Hage won his battle against the government by arguing that he had the right to graze his cattle within two miles of a water source he had developed. Bundy’s case may yet be resolved in a manner such as this.
This dispute has sparked a debate over the federal government’s massive land grabs and intrusions into states’ rights. Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who helped Bundy get his livestock back, said, “It’s time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada.” At a town meeting, Bundy declared, “It’s about freedom and liberty and our Constitution … and above all it’s about our policing power. Who has policing power today?” It was local law enforcement that finally broke the standoff, not the BLM. Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts ended it by announcing that Bundy’s cattle would be returned within 30 minutes.
Bundy may not be a sympathetic person, in part due to his statements about not recognizing the federal government and holing up with his guns. But Americans are fed up with the federal government’s expansion and overreach, and so even though Bundy was technically breaking a law, patriots stood with him because this was a clear example of how government expansion had forced out hundreds of innocent ranchers over the years. Bundy broke the law, but only because the law had become so oppressive it was destroying the livelihood of ranchers in the name of radical environmentalism and crony capitalism.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation last year that would have given state governments more control over federal land and the Endangered Species Act. Considering this has been taking place since the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s, it is long overdue for local and state governments to take back control of land seized by the federal government.
Rachel Alexander is the founder of the Intellectual Conservative and an attorney. Ms. Alexander is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.
Aussie firm defends U.S. toll road failure
Australian Tolling Firm Defends US Toll Road Failure
Capital Beltway high occupancy toll lane project loses $51 million in its first year of operation.
February 20, 2014
TheNewspaper.com
An Australian toll road company is getting defensive about its investment in an underperforming toll road in Virginia. Located just outside Washington, DC, the state and federal authorities poured hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds on what was supposed to be a showcase for public-private partnership innovation. Transurban charges up to $10 for a short 13-mile trip high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on the Capital Beltway, a proposition that far fewer motorists than expected have found worthwhile. Though the firm collects an average of $64,000 per day from drivers, this amount is well below projections. Transurban CEO Scott Charlton defended the plan with investors in a conference call last week.
"Traffic and revenue has remained below our project case expectations," Charlton admitted. "We've now completed a full review and the result is a reduction in traffic and an extension of our ramp-up profile."
The executive blamed the poor performance on the brief government shutdown last October and the current bout of "extreme weather." To cover the losses, the firm is restructuring $430 million in debt for the Interstate 495 project and making an equity call to investors to put more money into the lanes.
"We think there is long term value here, recognizing that this is a 75-year concession period," Charlton said.
Transurban unsuccessfully attempted to draw extra traffic to the pay lanes by holding down the speed limit in the general purpose lanes with a non-compete clause in its contract with the Virginia Department of Transportation. The idea was to lure customers with the chance of legally driving 10 MPH faster by paying a toll. In total, the 495 project lost $51.6 million last year. It collected $11.6 million in tolls and issued $3.2 million in fines and fees. It cost $18.9 million to collect those tolls and operate the road, on top of the $36.4 million cost of financing the debt. The books also reflect $11.1 million in depreciation.
Still, Transurban profit was down just $200,000 in the first half of the fiscal year, thanks to a 13 percent increase in toll revenue from higher rates imposed on all other toll roads worldwide.
Instead of waiting to see how the 495 lanes performed, the state of Virginia raced ahead with a plan to give the Australian firm control of 29 miles of existing lanes on Interstate 95. Construction on adding the toll collecting equipment has advanced with a scheduled completion date set for the end of the year. Transurban controls the Interstate 495 lanes until December 2087.
In reference to other failing toll projects, including the Pocahontas Parkway in Richmond, Charlton pointed to faulty traffic and revenue forecasts, a known problem in the industry (read report).
"Small traffic modeling assumptions compound exponentially and create some outcomes that were not the best outcomes for some of the investors in some of these projects," Charlton said. "Again, we continue to apply our discipline and we think we differentiate ourselves from the rest of the market."
Road money swap allows San Antonio street car to advance
By Vianna Davila : November 7, 2012
Express-News
Local transportation officials might have found a way to avoid a legal battle over the hotly debated use of transportation sales tax revenue to build VIA Metropolitan Transit's downtown streetcar system.
And the help could come from the unlikeliest of places — the state highway department.
In a funding swap, $92 million in state money previously set aside to add nontoll lanes on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 would replace local money reserved for the streetcar project.
In turn, the local money assigned to streetcars would go to adding the nontoll lanes.
The local money comes from the Advanced Transportation District, funded by a 1/4-cent sales tax approved by voters. The state money is from the Texas Mobility Fund.
The Texas Transportation Commission, which governs the Department of Transportation, is expected to vote Nov. 15 on shifting the state money.
Whether the new funding plan will crush any potential court challenge to streetcars remains to be seen.
Jeff Judson, a staunch opponent of rail and the use of ATD funds for streetcars, questioned the legality of spending TMF funds instead.
“I just don't think TxDOT should be accommodating the expenditure on transit, when it's just not their role, and transit will do nothing to reduce congestion,” said Judson, director of the Heartland Institute, a free-market advocacy group.
Read more here.
Heritage Foundation supports P3s, taxpayer subsidies
Can Public–Private Partnerships Fill the Transportation Funding Gap?
By William G. Reinhardt and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Heritage Foundation
January 13, 2012
Abstract: Given tight federal budget restraints and shrinking transportation trust fund revenues, states and the federal government need to find alternative financial resources to finance needed transportation infrastructure projects, especially maintaining and expanding the capacity of the Interstate Highway System. Increased use of public–private partnership contracts (P3s) promises to help finance some of the needed infrastructure projects, but the federal government needs to allow states more freedom to use P3s, and states need to adopt the policies and practices needed to use P3s effectively. P3s are not the solution to every transportation infrastructure challenge, but they can be used to address some of the challenges.
The House of Representatives and the Senate are working to complete the legislative language for their respective highway reauthorization plans. Proposals circulating in the House and Senate indicate that Congress could exercise some degree of restraint in federal transportation spending compared with earlier proposals and the President’s exceptionally generous plan of February 2011.[1]
As a consequence, federal, state, and local transportation programs may need to find alternative financial resources just to maintain current levels of inflation-adjusted spending. Under the right circumstances, public–private partnerships could play a targeted role.
Innovative Opportunities
To shrink the financial gap between wishes and reality, many have proposed that governments seek to negotiate public–private partnership contracts (P3s) with infrastructure investors and developers. These complex and carefully drafted agreements allow governments to leverage scarce public funds with private capital for major transportation projects. However, while P3s have demonstrated the ability to raise substantial sums of money for major infrastructure projects—especially those that add needed capacity in congested corridors—experience demonstrates that they can be complicated and time-consuming to create and that not every transportation project is amenable to the P3 approach.
For the most part, the quest for alternative financing sources is driven by public opposition to raising state and federal fuel taxes. The last time the federal fuel tax was increased was in 1993. The federal excise tax is currently 18.3 cents per gallon and is the major source of revenue for the highway trust fund. Much higher fuel efficiencies mean lower gas tax proceeds and a shrinking trust fund.
The disparity between transportation spending needs and wants as defined by congressional transportation committees, the Obama Administration, and the program’s stakeholders is growing as shrinking trust fund revenues limit future investment. Under the circumstances, a non-tax alternative procurement approach based on private-sector involvement using tolls and other types of user fees would fill part of the yawning gap.
Options Under Review
A number of states have expressed interest in placing tolls on their free interstate highways, which are state-owned assets. While such proposals arouse considerable controversy, governments clearly need to find some source of funding in the coming years to rebuild the aging road network that has fostered U.S. economic productivity for the past 50 years. The federal government is steadily backing away from this responsibility, but it still restricts states’ options for financing the modernization of their own roads. If Washington is not going to be part of the transportation solution, it should simply get out of the way and let states find their own ways forward.
Among the many non-tax options under review by many states is greater reliance on public–private partnerships, an arrangement in which private investors, construction companies, and developers join with state or federal government agencies to combine their experience, expertise, and funding sources to build and operate major transportation projects. These arrangements can come in many forms, and the examples that follow are indicative of the several transportation P3s already underway or completed.
P3 Successes in Virginia and Texas
In the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., a $2 billion project is adding 14 miles of four high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the median of the Capital Beltway from the Springfield Interchange of I-95, I-395, and I-495 to the Dulles Toll Road exit in Fairfax County. Single-occupant cars will be charged variable-rate tolls to pay for the improvements, while carpools and express buses will travel for free.
The partnership between the Virginia Department of Transportation and a private company formed by Transurban (Australia) and Fluor (U.S.) expects to complete the project by 2013. The project is financed by a $409 million grant from the state of Virginia; a $589 million Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT);[2] $589 million in private activity bonds (PABs);[3] and a $350 million equity investment by the joint venture partners. Net revenues after expenses for operations, maintenance, and reserves will be applied first to the PABs and then to the TIFIA loan. Any residual revenue will accrue as profit to the private joint venture partners.
The benefits to Virginia are obvious. For an investment of $409 million, Virginia gets $2 billion worth of new road capacity in one of the nation’s most congested regions. Area motorists will have quicker commutes. Thousands of new construction and engineering jobs will have been created between 2008 and 2013, and more than $280 million of aging infrastructure, including more than 50 bridges and overpasses, will be replaced in the process.
A second Virginia P3 project will reduce congestion choking the Hampton Roads area by expanding highway and tunnel capacity between Portsmouth and Norfolk. The state recently agreed to contribute $395 million to fund the $1.9 billion project. In exchange, the private developers agreed to put in $318 million in equity and carry $495 million in debt that will be repaid by toll revenues alone.
The Texas Transportation Commission started its P3 program in 2001. During the next seven years, it negotiated three concessions worth $8.15 billion—State Highway 130 between San Antonio and Austin and two HOT lane projects in the Dallas–Fort Worth region. The state leveraged its contribution of $990 million in public funds to eight times that much by attracting investment from the private sector.
Growing Support in Congress
To date, all of these projects have been developed and initiated by states, private investors, or a combination of the two, often with federal support, such as TIFIA grants and permission to build on the interstate right-of-way. With federal transportation funding limited by macroeconomic budget concerns, many in Congress are looking to be more proactive. Both the House and Senate reauthorization draft proposals welcome and encourage greater private-sector involvement in transportation investment.
In June 2011, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Jon Mica (R–FL) released a 22-page summary of his highway reauthorization proposal,[4] which included several provisions that would encourage states to utilize P3s and access other sources of funds to meet their transportation needs. While Chairman Mica has since announced that his committee will issue a new reauthorization plan in early 2012, it is likely that his P3 proposals will be included.
Chairman Mica’s earlier P3 proposals included:
• Allowing states to toll new capacity on the Interstate Highway System;
• Increasing funding for the TIFIA loan program from $122 million per year to $1 billion per year;
• Increasing the maximum percentage of a project’s total cost that can be funded through TIFIA from 33 percent to 49 percent;
• Requiring that TIFIA applications be approved or disapproved within 75 days of when the application is filed;
• Allowing states to pay their own credit subsidy cost to obtain a TIFIA loan if the appropriation of $1 billion per year runs out in any particular year;
• Requiring the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to compile and make available the best practices of how states can work with the private sector in developing, financing, constructing, and operating transportation facilities; and
• Requiring the Secretary of Transportation to develop standard model contracts for public–private transactions for the most popular types of P3s. States could then use these contracts as templates when developing contracts for specific projects.
While Chairman Mica’s proposal for greater use of P3s is a great start, Congress should consider other ideas and changes, such as:
• Removing political considerations from the project selection process so that user fee–funded highway projects that involve “innovation” receive equal consideration with transit projects supported by the Obama Administration and
• Revisiting the provision to allow states to subsidize TIFIA loans that exceed the $1 billion dollar limit because this provision could open the door to a run on banks.
As for the proposal that the federal government should offer guidance on and standardization of P3s, whenever the federal government begins to promulgate policies and manuals, it often ends up managing projects, especially if it has a $1 billion program (i.e., TIFIA) for leverage. Opening the door to federal manuals and standard contracts for these very local, innovative, and evolving deals could kill P3s.
Other Proposals
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21, or S. 1813), the Senate’s version of the reauthorization, is silent on P3s, but it proposes boosting TIFIA funding to $1 billion per year.
In addition to the House reauthorization proposal that supports P3s, individual Members of Congress have introduced bills to enhance the private sector’s role in transportation infrastructure. Notable in this regard is the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act (S. 1300), a bill introduced by Senator Mark Kirk (R–IL) that would provide P3 Challenge Grants, allow for privatizing interstate rest stops, add more interstate tolling pilot projects, increase TIFIA funding, remove the cap on PABs, and reform the airport privatization pilot project program.
Limited P3 Use to Date
While some P3s have succeeded in adding significant road capacity in a number of metropolitan areas in recent years, they remain a minor contributor to overall transportation infrastructure investment. According to a comprehensive 2011 review of P3s prepared for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association:[5]
• Just eight states accounted for almost 75 percent of the total contract value ($54.3 billion) of P3 projects over the past 22 years;
• Only 11 of the P3 projects—totaling $12.4 billion—included a financing component;
• The P3 market share of all highway investment since 2008 is about 2 percent; and
• P3 projects, most of which are tolled express lanes next to existing freeways in heavily congested urban corridors, accounted for 11 percent of capital for new highway capacity under construction in 2011.
Thus, despite the successes beginning with Denver’s E-470 tollway in 1989, P3s are still a minor part of the surface transportation landscape. Opposition to tolling, opposition to private profits from operating public infrastructure, and concern over foreign investment in government assets in the U.S. have generated political opposition in some states. These challenges need to be overcome before the P3 concept can become a significant supplement to taxpayer funding.
As a consequence, policymakers should recognize that P3s are not the solution to the transportation infrastructure investment gap that threatens to undermine commerce in the United States. There are too few financially viable P3 projects to meet the national need for new highway capacity and to modernize existing roads. No amount of enabling legislation will bring private investors into projects that are not financeable, and very few highways could support themselves on tolls alone. Thus, some combination of gas taxes, sales taxes, fees, and appropriations of state funds is necessary to make a creditworthy public–private partnership.
Nonetheless, P3s offer valuable improvements and opportunities for U.S transportation. P3s are coming to America and will become a growing component of U.S. infrastructure investment.
• The simple fact that contracts are enforceable in the U.S. has created wide interest among international investors in participating in P3s in the U.S.
• P3s can bring substantial expertise in financing, project delivery, and long-term asset management to the delivery of publicly owned infrastructure.
• P3s can accelerate the delivery of critical infrastructure services that are needed to solve worsening mobility problems.
• P3s guarantee the construction price and project completion schedule of large, complex urban infrastructure projects that often befuddle state and local governments.
• P3s provide a contractual guarantee that the public assets being developed by private P3 developers will be well maintained for the life of the concession agreements.
• P3s are a way to optimize the delivery of public works infrastructure in America. They provide a new delivery model that governments would be wise to emulate on their own.
Creating Opportunities for P3s
In contrast to past skepticism in the House and Senate about the P3 concept, renewed congressional interest in and endorsement of new policies and additional resources to facilitate P3 use are welcome changes. Nonetheless, supporting states in developing P3 programs will require significant challenges.
Given these difficulties—more thoroughly discussed in the 2011 review[6]— federal and state governments should take several steps in addition to the proposed increase in TIFIA funding:
• Congress should remove or raise the limit on private activity bond volume for all qualified P3 projects.
• The states should enact the necessary legislation to accommodate P3s. Such legislation should protect taxpayers, encourage private initiative and investment, and provide a common framework for all stages of the process. Recent efforts to enact such laws in New Jersey and New York failed as a result of union opposition.
• State departments of transportation should ensure that the responsible managers and staff are qualified to conclude these complicated deals successfully.
• State governments should adopt policies and practices to ensure that the P3 option is considered at the outset of any planning process for projects over a certain cost rather than perpetuating the current practice of using it as a fallback position if everything else fails. For example, Congress could require—as Canada does—that all projects over a certain size that seek federal assistance undergo a formal analysis of the P3 option.
• Congress should carefully review current tolling restrictions on interstate highways, which are owned by the states. No state has yet been willing to toll existing free capacity, despite a federal pilot program that would allow it if the tolls are used to increase capacity. At least three states are considering tolling interstate highways, and many more probably will if other sources of funding are not available to rebuild the system.
Creating an Innovative Future
The leaders of the House and Senate transportation committees should be commended for proposing reauthorization plans that include a greater role for the private sector in surface transportation. The relevant provisions included in the final reauthorization bill need to reflect the lessons learned from projects that have been completed, are underway, or have failed to move forward.
P3s have demonstrated the ability to raise substantial sums of money for major infrastructure projects, especially to add needed capacity in congested corridors. Experience has also demonstrated that P3 projects can be complicated and time-consuming to create and that not every transportation project is amenable to this approach. As a consequence, other innovative and traditional finance solutions will be needed to meet current and future infrastructure spending plans.
—William G. Reinhardt is editor and publisher of Public Works Financing. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Texas House to end 80-yr raid of gas taxes
Texas House to end 80-yr raid of gas taxes
By Terri Hall
May 14, 2014
It’s about time. Speaker Joe Straus announced today that the Texas House will finally introduce a budget next session that will put an end to gas tax diversions. The practice has been a sore spot for taxpayers as the state has increasingly relied on tolling and debt to bail out lawmakers from having to discipline the use of gas tax. Collecting taxes for one purpose then spending it on another defies truth in taxation and transparency.
While this announcement is a welcome step in the right direction, it leaves the impression that all of the gas taxes collected would now go to roads. However, the press release is carefully worded to say all the money in the ‘State Highway Fund’ would go to roads. Twenty-five percent of the gas tax gets diverted to public schools before it hits the State Highway Fund per the Texas Constitution. So one-quarter of the gas tax would still be diverted elsewhere. To change that requires two-thirds of the Texas Legislature to pass a Constitutional Amendment that voters would then have to approve. As long as Democrats draw breath, that would never happen. As long as Republicans draw breath, they'll never raise the gas tax.
Texas couple under siege by government land grab for developer
Texas couple under siege by government land grab for developer
By Terri Hall
Examiner.com
May 12, 2014
The battle between a big developer and private property rights continues to rage on in Bulverde, Texas. With a grand bait and switch, the government has expanded its tactics from using the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (or TCEQ’s) ‘waters of the state’ argument to now invoking Municipal Utility District (or MUD) authority to use eminent domain to seize the land instead. Initially, the developer sought only a wastewater permit to discharge treated sewage onto its neighbor’s land, but now they’re seeking a storm water easement using eminent domain through a little known MUD.
Why? Because the Lux family had the audacity to fight back and the developer wants the land now. Eminent domain is the means to get it fast, and landowners are generally helpless to stop the confiscation of land once they receive notice that the government will seize it through eminent domain.
Chisholm Trail tollway set to open
This editorial paints a pretty picture of excitement for this toll road to open, but what's the point if people can't afford it and hence can't use it? Who is this helping? Not the average working family. Those who don't buy the government tracking devices known as Toll Tags will pay 50% more, forcing drivers onto the toll 'grid.'
Chisholm Trail Parkway almost here
Saturday, May. 03, 2014
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
Fort Worth and Cleburne are about to get a little closer together — not in terms of miles, but certainly in minutes.
The North Texas Tollway Authority plans to open its 28-mile Chisholm Trail Parkway in one week, weather permitting. The toll road will run from Interstate 30 near downtown Fort Worth to U.S. 67 in Cleburne.
DMN Editorial: Obama's call to toll existing roads 'a stick of dynamite' in Texas
Put tolls on free interstates? That’s what Obama wants to do
By Rodger Jones/Editorial Writer
Dallas Morning News
May 2, 2014 |
The Obama White House is showing its ignorance on how the public boils over about slapping tolls on roads that are free now. We have experience with that in Texas that policy people apparently don’t have inside the Beltway.
I say that because the Obama administration advanced a transportation proposal to Congress this week that would eliminate the ban on putting tolls on interstates that are free today.
Obama wants to slap tolls on every highway
Obama Administration Opens Prospect For Tolls On Every Highway
US Transportation Department proposes spending $302 billion with emphasis on bicycle trails, buses and toll booths
The Newspaper.com
May 2, 2014
The US Department of Transportation on Tuesday unveiled its "Grow America" proposal reauthorizing federal transportation funding over the next four years. The $302 billion spending blueprint reflects a major shift in White House priorities, particularly on the issue of tolling.
The president's first pick for transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, spoke enthusiastically in favor of tolls within a few months of being sworn in to office. The administration wasted no time in taking LaHood to the woodshed for getting ahead of the White House on the policy. He was forced to dial back and pursue the policy, but quietly. Now the administration feels it has the flexibility to call openly for toll booths on existing freeways.
Supertoll plan approved by Alamo MPO
Supertolls Plan Advances at MPO
By Jim Forsyth
WOAI Radio
April 29, 2014
The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has approved a long-term 'Transportation Improvement Program' which includes proposals for toll lanes and so called 'managed lanes' on Loop 1604, as well as on Highway 281 and Interstate 10 outside 1604, 1200 WOAI news reports.
The $1.7 billion provides funding for bicycles, pedestrians, establishes bus and carpool lanes, and encourages alternatives to the single person in a vehicle model of commuting in metro San Antonio.
281 design flaw: Can't get on the toll road even if you wanted to
281 design flaw: Can't get on the toll road even if you wanted to
By Terri Hall
Examiner.com
April 15, 2014
The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (or RMA) and its army of consultants recently unveiled its new design to purportedly ‘fix’ congestion on Highway 281 outside Loop 1604. The plan morphed from a completed, streamlined expressway design (upgrading the corridor adding two new lanes, needed overpasses, and access roads) to a hybrid toll-transit-HOV mix with fewer non-toll highway lanes than we have today — non-toll lanes that cease at Stone Oak Parkway.
Let’s breakdown what they’re planning to build and then tackle the flaws in the design. The improvements to Hwy 281 begin at Loop 1604 heading north to the Bexar County line (approximately 7.8 miles). Today there are six non-toll highway lanes (three in each direction) to Evans Road, where it goes down to five lanes. Then the existing freeway shrinks to four lanes (two lanes each direction) at Stone Oak Parkway where it continues to the county line and beyond. Today, Hwy 281 does not have access or frontage roads. It’s a divided highway with stop lights at the crossovers. The posted speed limit is 60 MPH.
Colorado connection to Trans Texas Corridor project approved
BLM eyes 90,000 acres of Texas land near Red River
BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land
By Bob Price
Breitbart.com
April 21, 2014
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
EPA rule biggest land grab in world history
This is already happening in Texas under 'waters of the state' claims. Read about it here. Not to be outdone, the EPA is now trying a land grab of its own by doing the same thing on a federal level. Any place where water collects or channels will become property of the federal government - that could mean a rain puddle. Than means all private property ownership will disappear overnight.
'Biggest land grab in the history of the world'
Requested EPA authority over streams would 'freeze' economy
By Alana Cook
World Net Daily
April 15, 2014
WASHINGTON – In a move lawmakers and farmers are calling “the biggest land grab in the history of the world,” the Environmental Protection Agency is requesting jurisdiction over all public and private streams in the United States that are “intermittent, seasonal and rain-dependent.”
The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late March jointly released a proposed rule, Waters of the United States, in an effort to clarify which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act.
Council briefed on risks of Trinity Toll Road project
This ill-conceived toll project has no business being built. Any thinking person can see the risk of building a tollway in the middle of a flood zone! Seriously, if the developers want this, they can build their own private road and take on the risks to the traveling public and be personally liable for it.
Dallas council briefed on risk of Trinity toll road floods
By ROBERT WILONSKY
Staff Writer
Dallas Morning News
April 14, 2014
A 9-mile toll road proposed inside the Trinity River levees would extend about 535 feet into the floodway for much of its length and run right next to the river in some spots.
Dallas City Council members also learned during a presentation Monday that the road would include a “flood separation wall” that’s not even as high as the existing levees and would necessitate an evacuation plan in the event of a 100-year flood.
Tolls coming to I-73 in South Carolina?
What Chamber of Commerce doesn't support a new toll road anywhere in the U.S.? Toll roads today represent the very latest fad in big government teaming up with big business to steal your money. After the bankrupt toll road on the Greenville Southern Connector, it's hard to imagine why any public official would recommend continuing a failed policy -- other than graft and cronyism.
SCDOT approves study into whether I-73 should be a toll road
By Courtney Griffin
Carolina Livecom
April 17, 2014
The South Carolina Department of Transportation Commissioners agreed unanimously Thursday afternoon to move ahead with a study to see if Interstate 73 should be a toll road to help pay for the interstate.
The tolls would be collected where the new interstate would intersect with I-95, so supporters say it would be mostly tourists who pay the tolls.
I-73 has been in the works for the past 24 years. It would run from Michigan to Myrtle Beach.
Cindy Osborn is a native of Myrtle Beach. She says the roads are inadequate for the area.
"I had to sit in traffic just to get her (daughter) out to the tech for two hours worth of classes, and it took forever. It should have been done 20 years ago," said Osborn.
Brad Dean with the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce says I-73 has been a top priority.
"We've had over $100 million secured for I-73 up to this date, both in Federal Highway Bill, federal Tiger Grants, and also state funding," said Dean.
However, much more money is needed to build the interstate.
"Still the question remains though how do you pay for I-73 and whether or not tolls are a part of that. We don't know, but the study will tell us," said Dean.
One criteria of the approved study will show how much the tolls should be.
"Presumably this would be tolls paid for people coming down I-95 who would connect with I -73," said Dean.
Osborn says she's all for tolls, if that's what it takes.
"People want to come here and visit, I think they need to help pay for the roads. They're putting all the weight on the roads and they're putting all the extra traffic on the roads."
Dean wanted to be sure to point out, the tolls would only be on I-73 and would not affect traffic on I-95.
The DOT commissioners also decided Thursday to request a $30 million Tiger Grant from the federal government to help pay for the interstate.
Vonlane the new luxury version of MegaBus
A quicker way for ordinary citizens to head to Austin to advocate on behalf taxpayers? I think not. Why do I sense lobbyists will use this more than ordinary citizens? Somehow I visualize attendants handing out those moist, heated linens to wipe your delicate fingers after a meal like flying first class. Us ordinary Joes take MegaBus...Vonlane offers an alternative so the elites don't have to mix with lowlife taxpayers.
Vonlane will start Dallas to Austin runs in premium buses
By TERRY BOX
Automotive Writer
Dallas Morning News
April 21, 2014
A premium bus service will start in Dallas next month with routes to Austin in vehicles configured like corporate jets.
The service is aimed mainly at business travelers.
Vonlane, a new company based in Dallas, will offer full-size buses equipped with 16 leather seats.
It will offer complimentary food, drinks and Internet service, as well as a conference room, shoe-shining service and even toothbrush kits.
Each bus will have an attendant onboard to serve passengers, closets for hanging coats and no baggage fees for up to three bags weighing 50 pounds or less.
Tickets will cost $100 each way, and Vonlane will compete primarily with Southwest Airlines, founder and president Alex Danza said.
“Our whole focus is to give productive time back to business travelers,” said Danza, who owns 70 percent of the company along with another main investor. “This is a radically different level of service than you get at Megabus or Greyhound.”
Most full-size buses seat 56 people. Vonlane buses will put a premium on space, offering only 16 seats — and no middle seating.
“For half the cost of air fare, we will give people first-class service,” Danza said.
The business will cater primarily to professionals such as lawyers, accountants, lobbyists and others who bill their time and expertise.
Vonlane intends to make the Dallas-Austin trip, which is about 200 miles, in three hours, and Danza says all of that can be productive time.
“When you take into account the drive to the airport, looking for someplace to park, standing in line at security and all the other hassles, you might have 30 minutes of productive time on a flight to Austin, and the whole process takes three hours or more,” he said.
The first bus will depart at 6 a.m. May 5 from the Wyndham Hotel at 3300 Mockingbird Lane near Love Field, and should arrive at around 9 a.m. at the Hyatt Regency on Barton Springs Road in Austin.
Return service to Dallas starts at 10 a.m. with four departure times from each city per day.
Danza, 40, who has a background in the chauffeured-services business, said he has worked on the Vonlane concept for nine months.
He described himself as a “million-plus-mile business traveler who is really tired of flying.”
Vonlane will begin service with two buses, five drivers and five attendants, and it intends to buy two more of the $700,000 vehicles in September, Danza said.
It plans to expand in the months ahead with routes to Houston and San Antonio.
More information on the service is available at vonlane .com.
Davis probed in FBI investigation of NTTA
Editorial: Public privateering — Wendy Davis said she wouldn’t, but did it anyway
Dallas Morning News
April 14, 2014
Wendy Davis isn’t the first Texas politician suspected of confusing public duties with private income. Elected and appointed officials from both parties have dipped their beaks, and, sadly, Davis won’t be the last as long as Texas legislators write their own laws.
Except Davis insisted she would be different, that “Texans deserve better than failed leaders who dole out favors to friends and cronies behind closed doors … [a governor] who knows that quid pro quo shouldn’t be the status quo.”
Macquarie charges excessive fees, shareholders revolt
This shows the gluttony of the private toll operators. They waste money and charge excessive fees that are all ultimately baked into the toll.
Macquarie Atlas refuses to part ways with external manager
By Jenny Wiggins
The Age,com April 16, 2014
Macquarie Atlas Roads' chairman has knocked back calls to dump Macquarie as the toll road company's manager after investors claimed the financial group was being paid too much.
''We have looked at internalisation and our view is: not now,'' Macquarie Atlas chairman David Walsh told investors at the company's annual meeting in Sydney.