MPO Presentation from June 25

On March 26, the MPO passed a resolution to expand segments of 281 & 1604 WITHOUT TOLLS. Yet TxDOT came back with a financing proposal that still included tolls. TxDOT presented various versions of a proposed hybrid financing plan for 281 & 1604 to the board on June 4 and again on June 15.

Changes were made to this proposal between the June 4 & June 15 MPO meetings and its June 25 meeting. In fact, changes were made to the proposal over the weekend prior to its Monday, June 25 meeting (which was less than the 72 hours notice required by law) without notifying the board until they walked into the meeting June 25. The final proposal adopted June 25 takes an existing main lane on 281 and converts it into a bus-toll lane ('transit priority lane'). The dedicated bus lanes were never discussed prior to the meeting.

Wolff flip flops & says: 'You can fry me for it later'

SAN ANTONIO DRAMA:

-- Bexar County Commissioner Kevin Wolff calls for a vote to include toll 'transit' lanes on 281, supports same plan Larson initially did


2012-07-03-MPO-flip-flop

This is why elections matter. After winning re-election for another 4 years in May (he had no opponent), Wolff feels insulated from the voters (as if we'll ever forget paying tolls in perpetuity). He needs to feel the heat NOW!

Congress passes new federal highway bill

Up against another short-term highway bill extension deadline, Friday Congress finally passed a two-year $105 billion highway bill called MAP-21, which stands for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. Except that Congress’ view of ‘progress’ usually means good news for special interests, and bad news for taxpayers -- Congress didn’t disappoint. The bill removed the Bingaman Amendment that would have added protection for taxpayers by removing a financial incentive for states to sell-off their highways to private entities in public private partnerships that charge Americans 75 cents or more per mile to access our public roads. It also removed the approval of the Keystone Pipeline from the bill.

Why government can't get us out of our cars

For most Americans—make that most of mankind—the car is an instrument of mobility, flexibility, and speed. Yet officials in Washington, transportation experts, state and local functionaries, planners, and transit officials are puzzled why their efforts to lure people from their cars continue to fail.

Bingaman: Taxpayers paying for roads - TWICE

In the coming weeks, Congress is likely to be scrambling to meet another deadline: once again deciding how long to extend a law that funds the maintenance of our nation’s highways. When Congress does take up that bill, I hope that we decide to correct a flaw in the law that allows states to fleece federal taxpayers.

Economic outlook bad for toll roads

Link to article here.

So let me get this straight, in the same breath as a litany of press reports about states turning to tolling en masse to fund roads, there's plenty of signs that the global economic outlook for tolling is poor at best and risky at worst. Pursuing such a reckless course of action is malfeasance of the highest order.

States plan to stick motorists with more tolls

“With Congress unwilling to contemplate an increase in the federal gas tax, motorists are likely to be paying ever more tolls as the government searches for ways to repair and expand the nation’s congested highways,” the Associated Press reports.

Indiana seeks more PPPs after blowing through first pay-out

Public private partnerships have become like crack cocaine for politicians. They're addicted to sticking it to commuters by selling-off our public roads to private toll operators who not only charge motorists outlandish toll rates, 75-80 cents a mile, they get control over surrounding free routes in a government-sanctioned monopoly. Unless voters hold these criminals, err politicians, accountable and fast, there won't be any 'public' infrastructure left to drive on.

El Paso to snag funds thanks to El Pasoan Chair

Link to article here.

In a reckless display of licentious anti-taxpayer gluttony, Perry-appointed Transportation Commission Chair Ted Houghton is proposing El Paso receive $750 million in money (that's supposedly laying around TxDOT, that's just recently "popped up') to fund a TOLL ROAD and make Texans pay a DOUBLE TAX toll to use this road that would already be paid for. If Texans need anymore evidence of just how out of control Perry's highway commission is, look no further than Ted Houghton's schemes.

Philippine government warns of PPPs bloating public debt

Link to article here.

At least the Philippines is smart enough to figure out these PPPs are risky and put the taxpayers on the hook for the losses in tenuous market conditions. What's wrong with the U.S? Lawmakers seem bent on collapsing our economy and leading us down the path of the financial ruin currently striking all over Europe.

PPPs seen as risky

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), an innovative method of roping in the private sector to engage in judicious government and infrastructural projects is currently seen as risky and dangerous, as more and more companies endanger themselves by borrowing recklessly to keep projects afloat. While potential returns can prove to be huge, there’s one catch. If private infrastructure players fail to finish the project on time, they will be penalised, usually at high rates, and this damages their prospects for bidding in future projects. Given the current market situation, infrastructure players are frantically trying to keep projects alive, albeit in a very unhealthy way—by loading up their balance sheets with debt.

DOTs join private sector to lobby for more tolls

Link to article here.

Caught red handed AGAIN. The Texas Department of Transportation is a signatory to this letter lobbying for tolling and public private partnerships despite state law that prohibits state money form being used to lobby for the passage or failure of specific legislation. TURF sued them once to stop this illegal taxpayer-funded lobbying. Apparently, we need to again.

Nichols dubbed Mr. Trans Texas Corridor

Link to article here.


Senator Robert Nichols Dubbed Mr. Trans Texas Corridor

Red State.com

Authored by Mike Kinzie

Posted by irish067 (Diary)

Thursday, May 10th at 11:30PM

Under the influence of lobbyists for private companies, State Senator Robert Nichols sold out Texas citizens by actively supporting the massive give-away of Texas assets known as the Trans Texas Corridor. As you may recall, the TTC called for 4000 miles of infrastructure corridors crisscrossing Texas. These corridors were to be the width of four football fields and carry everything from cars and trucks to oil and gas pipelines, power grids and even broadband internet data. And guess what? Everything that traveled these corridors would pay a toll: your electricity, your gas, your internet data, everything you buy that is shipped by road and, of course, you personally when you drive across Texas. And who receives most of the tolls? You guessed that also – the private companies that lobbied State Senator Robert Nichols and contributed to his election in an amount that made him the top lawmaker recipient of their largess behind only Dewhurst and Perry. If that is not enough to make you sick then consider this – the private companies are primarily foreign and not even Texas companies creating Texas jobs.

The TTC was indeed a massive give-away of Texas assets to private foreign companies. As estimated by these companies, the project as was expected to collect $114B in tolls but create only $8B in infrastructure for Texas. Living in Texas, you would pay this toll one way or another either directly or through added prices for everything that traveled the TTC. If paid by Texans, the share of this toll for a family of 4 would be $18,240.

The TTC idea was so bad that citizens became enraged and demanded an end to the project. Lawmakers responded and appeared to kill it. State Senator Robert Nichols stated as much in a press release that claimed “Nichols votes to abolish the Trans Texas Corridor”. However, he then brokered a deal with a Spanish Company that keeps it alive for one of the major corridors proposed in the original plan. It is not popular now to appear to support the TTC so Mr. Nichols introduced a bill, SB 220, with wording that apparently outlaws the project. After passage, another press release stated “Nichols’ bill to prevent the conversion of existing roads to toll roads passes Senate”. The wording in the bill does outlaw this conversion UNLESS a few things are true; and those things, when true, create a loophole as wide as a Trans Texas Corridor.

This loophole could allow the publicly funded roads that you have used for years to drive to work or the grocery store to become toll roads. For example: to improve traffic flow, private companies under state contracts can build a new road with an overpass to skirt a traffic light. This new road, including the overpass, becomes a toll road and the old road becomes the access road. So the misleading claims by Mr. Nichols are strictly true – the existing road is not a toll road, it just becomes a congested low speed access road paralleled by a high speed toll road.

Mr. Robert Nichols has been an advocate for toll roads in Texas including the TTC since 2005 when he was transportation commissioner for the state. SB 2702 (which he supported then) has the same loophole as SB 220 (which he authored recently as State Senator) allowing existing roads to be replaced by toll roads.

But why stop at just giving away our roads to private companies? If you think this is a good idea why not give away the rest of public infrastructure like schools, hospitals, and libraries? Mr. Nichols apparently believes this is also a good idea because he voted for SB 1048 written and advocated by, yes, a foreign company that grants authority to sell off every kind of public infrastructure. Once sold off you pay user fees to these new property owners for entering the buildings.

Really, why are Mr. Nichols and other lawmakers actually thinking of selling Texas to foreigners? If we are in that bad of financial shape then we need to stop spending, not start selling. Lawmakers that don’t understand this simple conservative principle do not deserve our support. Re-electing Robert Nichols, who advocates selling Texas, will most certainly put your free access to public Texas highways – and who knows what other public building – in jeopardy. He does not deserve your vote. Travel the smart road and elect Tammy Blair.

Tolls coming to I-75

Tolls are coming to an interstate near you. This time, Interstate 75 in Georgia. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal just announced re-worked plans to add toll lanes to I-75 from I-285 to I-575 and single reversible lanes running north from the I-75/575 split along I-75 to Hickory Grove Road and along I-575 to Sixes Road. It’s an easy sell for special interests. States are broke, no one has the appetite for raising the gas tax to keep pace with infrastructure needs, so politicians turn to tolls as the way out, and depending on how the deal is structured, it's a way for states to make some quick cash.

Amazingly, elected officials and so-called 'conservative' think tanks claim tolls aren’t a tax. But even the slightest examination of how these toll roads are being financed blows that claim out right of the water. For example, on the 30 mile I-75 toll project in Georgia, Deal is forcing all American taxpayers to subsidize this project, not just Georgians, since it will use a $270 million federal taxpayer-backed TIFIA loan, along with $500 million in gas taxes to pay $770 million of the $950 million pricetag to build the project. Yet, Deal still plans to charge travelers a DOUBLE TAX -- tolls -- to drive on a road built mostly with gas taxes. Therefore, the tolls the Deal administration will be charging aren’t ‘user fees,’ they’re taxes.

The private toll operator would only bring a measly $95 -$190 million to the table in this deal. Though it stops short of being a full blown P3 where the private operator gains the right to set and collect tolls (Georgia is using a P3 called a design-build-finance model), there are still significant costs to the taxpayer when doing a toll road with any version of a P3.

Other P3 projects, like the two in the Dallas Ft-Worth area, are a full blown concession model where the private operator offers a state some up-front cash and in return gets the right to extract tolls for our lifetimes from every American who drives on them. How is this a good deal for the taxpayer or for property rights?

That’s the dirty little secret with P3s. We all understand the need for eminent domain for a road that’s truly a public necessity, but when that public use morphs into a private one, it’s eminent domain abuse of the worst kind. P3s represent government picking the winners and losers -- if the government can forcibly take your land and hand it over to private developer, then we don’t have property rights left in this country.

Aside from property rights concerns, P3s are chock full of special interest giveaways. First of all, it grants a private corporation a government-sanctioned monopoly over PUBLIC infrastructure, as well as control over the tax rate. Just imagine how sky high your property taxes would be if a private corporation got a hold of the tax rate? Well, that’s precisely what happens when a private corporation, whom the public cannot hold accountable, gets a hold of the toll tax rate. Toll rates on such P3 toll roads can be 75-80 cents PER MILE, the equivalent of adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy.

These contracts also contain non-compete agreements that penalize or even prohibit the expansion of free routes surrounding the toll lanes, guaranteeing congestion on ‘competing’ free alternatives. P3s are not competitively bid. They use ‘best value’ bidding and/or something called design-build, which nearly always translates into higher costs to the taxpayer than using traditional design-bid-build procurements.

P3s have profit guarantees at taxpayer expense, often eliminate due process when it comes to alleged toll violations and collections issues, and use taxpayer money to subsidize the privatized toll project -- socializing the losses and privatizing profits. What does this resemble to you? Can you say TARP, the massive trillion dollar taxpayer bailout of the toxic debt of fiscally reckless banks in 2008?

If the private sector isn’t willing to bring all the money to the table and put its own capital at risk if the traffic doesn’t show up to take the toll road, why should the taxpayers? They shouldn’t. It makes no financial sense!

Heading the wrong direction
Deal initially canceled Georgia’s P3 program just months after the taxpayer blow back he experienced after the I-85 HOT lane disaster. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) turned a successful carpool lane (HOV lane) into a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane where single occupancy vehicles can access the lane if they pay a toll, $5.40 one way. GDOT also increased the number of people needed in order to use the HOV lane from two to three. The toll rates vary based on the level of congestion on the toll lanes. So commuters pay a premium to get to work in peak hours. The same variable toll rates will apply to the HOT lanes on I-75. Needless to say, the opening week of the HOT lane experiment was a commuter disaster -- with so few able to afford the toll and next to no carpoolers now able to access the lane that the HOV/HOT lane was nearly empty and the free lanes were hopelessly gridlocked. So much for government-managed congestion!

After just the first week in operation, Deal lowered the toll rate from 34 cents a mile down to 11 cents and later asked the feds for permission to return the carpool requirement back to two occupants from the current three, but the feds denied his request and Atlanta commuters remain stuck in traffic. Shortly thereafter, Deal announced the state was not going to move forward with another HOT lane toll project, this time a P3 on I-75, citing concerns with compromising state sovereignty over public infrastructure.

Though in the case of I-75 the state would set the toll rates and collect the tolls, it’s still beholden to those private interests which costs the taxpayers more through the higher cost of borrowing from a private entity (and usually involves paying back the private entity first, and taxpayers' federal TIFIA loan last). The design-build-finance P3 also includes compromising the expansion of free routes based on the non-competes agreements it signs with the private developer, therefore it still compromises state decisions over public infrastructure and places the profits of private interests over the needs of the traveling public.

Trade corridors at risk?
Another concern with tolls on  I-75 is its strategic importance as a trade corridor linking to ports in Ft. Lauderdale and Tampa, Florida up to the international border crossing in Canada, currently serviced by the nearby Ambassador Bridge. It’s no coincidence that the Ambassador Bridge is a private bridge that’s gained a monopoly at the crossing. The Michigan government is considering building a competing bridge of its own, called the Detroit River International Crossing, but since it plans to use a P3 to do it, it’d be exchanging one private monopoly for another.

The Detroit River International Crossing bridge would directly connect I-75 with border traffic into Windsor, Canada. There have been several legislative battles over the new bridge as well as P3s in the Michigan Legislature -- important battles since the control of America’s trade corridors is at risk of falling into the hands of private interests whom the public cannot control nor hold accountable. Toll rates in the hands of private corporations threatens affordable travel for both autos and trucks, which ultimately threatens affordable goods. Since P3s grant monopolies, the cost of goods will shoot sky high, with no way to rectify it for 50-100 years. Even publicly-controlled HOT lanes are runaway taxation since the toll rates go up in real time based on the level of traffic, not actual project costs. Under all these toll scenarios, affordable travel and the free flow of people and goods is at risk.

When contemplating the big picture, it’s easy to connect the dots and see how Americans’ sovereignty and control over our critical public infrastructure and trade corridors will be shredded if this concerted push for privatization and P3s is successful. Thankfully, Deal has maintained state sovereignty over I-75, but there are a lot of other states whose leaders may not draw such a line in the sand over I-75 or America's freeways. It’s incumbent upon every American to hold their politicians’ feet to the fire to ensure affordable travel and that our public infrastructure stays in the peoples’ hands.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.


I-75/I-575 toll project close to bidding, again

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

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

 6:39 p.m. Friday, May 11, 2012

Once again, the state is preparing to put the I-75/I-575 toll project out to bid, in June.

The project would build optional toll lanes along I-75 and I-575 in Cobb and Cherokee counties, from the Perimeter to Hickory Grove Road and to Sixes Road. The cost approaches $1 billion, to be funded largely by gas taxes paid by all Georgia drivers -- whether or not they drive the toll lanes -- and by tolls.

As reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in March, the revised project will no longer be a public-private partnership as envisioned by the state Legislature. Companies will not finance the road to lease it from the state and be paid back by toll revenue over the years. Instead, much like any state road project, the state will hire private companies to create it and pay them back for their work afterward.

Then the state must pay to maintain and operate the road. That means once the road is operating, the state will control the road. If the toll fee is too high, the state can lower it. But if toll revenue isn’t enough, that’s the state’s problem, too.

There is a difference with this project, though, which is the most expensive transportation project in state history. First, the designers and builders will work as a team, hoping to save time and money. Second, the team also will help arrange or provide initial financing. Such "design-build-finance" models are generally used to fill a short-term gap in financing projects, and give states more flexibility, Sia Kusha, vice president of the engineering firm HNTB, said in an interview this spring. According to a statement, the state expects the bidders to loan the state 10 to 20 percent of the project cost.

With design-build-finance, the contractors don't generally provide upfront the big bucks required to finance the project over the long term. In Georgia's case, the state is ready to do that with $500 million in gas taxes. The rest of the $950 million or so could come from loans paid back by toll money.

On the flip side, Kusha said, no matter where the state borrows its project money, the state has to pay for that service. With design-build-finance, when the state pays for the work the contractors have completed, "the state, in terms of their payback, will have to pay back the money the contractor brings to the table and then some," he said.

Similar arrangements have helped finance projects in Florida.

This is at least the third time the state has put the I-75/I-575 project out to bid. In 2005, it signed a contract for initial work, but eventually broke off that arrangement. It revised the project and put it out to bid as a public-private project last year, but canceled that bidding.

The state now expects to start design work next year and open it to traffic by 2018.

_______________________________________________________

Link to article here.


I-75 Toll Project Revs Up Again

The new lanes will open in early 2018 under a revamped public-private partnership, the state says.

May 15, 2012

Northeast Cobb Patch

The Georgia Department of Transportation is moving forward with the addition of toll lanes alongside Interstates 75 and 575 under the Northwest Corridor project.

GDOT announced the schedule and new approach for the project Friday.

Gov. Nathan Deal pulled the plug on the $950 million, 29.7-mile project late last year because he did not agree with giving the contractor control of the road and the tolls in return for paying upfront costs.

The revised project will still involve two reversible toll lanes running from along I-75 from I-285 to I-575 and single reversible lanes running north from the I-75/575 split along I-75 to Hickory Grove Road and along I-575 to Sixes Road.

The tolls still will vary, rising as the interstate becomes more congested, like the HOT lanes on I-85 in Gwinnett County but without the high-occupancy requirement for the cars using the lanes. Drivers will have to decide whether the price of the toll at any time is worth the relief from the congestion.

The project will remain a public-private partnership in which the contractor will be expected to bear some of the upfront costs.

But the state will retain ownership and control of the lanes and will repay the contractor out of the tolls.

“This is a vital commuting and logistics corridor,” Deal said. “Adding new lanes—and the new capacity they will provide—is critical to a continued high quality of life in metropolitan Atlanta and to sustaining further economic growth for the region and for all of Georgia.”

GDOT will look for a company or group of companies prepared to design and build the project at the same time while financing $95 million to $190 million of the cost.

The state will issue a request for qualifications from interested companies in June with the goal of creating a short list of potential bidders in August, putting out a request for proposals in December and naming choosing a contractor in 2013.

Construction would start in 2014, and the road would open in early 2018.

The project is not part of TSPLOST, the special regional, 10-year transportation sales tax on the ballot July 31.

Instead, the state will spend $300 million in leftover fuel taxes from past years, $200 million from the GDOT construction budget and $270 million from a low-interest loan guaranteed by the federal government under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.

Should Toll Roads Become Free Once Paid For?

Look no further than Houston for examples of a 'bait and switch'... Wayne Dolcefino with ABC Channel 13 Undercover reports on how decades ago, voters were promised tollways would become free after they've been paid off. Voters are becoming more outraged and you will, too.

Another bait & switch on non-toll plans for San Antonio freeways

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that in a recent closed door meeting of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) subcommittee, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (the tolling authority - aka, RMA) unraveled the policy board’s decision to do segments of US 281 (north of Loop 1604) and Loop 1604 West non-toll, advancing a financing plan (see p. 17-21) that would NOT add any new capacity to 281 and that could put the future tolled lanes in both corridors in the hands of a foreign toll operator.

Sadly, time and again, TxDOT is living-up to its reputation as snakeoil salesmen by repeatedly reneging on its promises.

Transportation union lobbies against restraint of toll taxes by feds

Link to article here.

The special interests are out....what amounts to a transportation workers union, AASHTO, lobbied against the taxpayer (surprise, surprise!) by working against the Commuter Protection Act. They claim passing Senator Frank Lautenburg's bill would put financing for controversial, extremely punitive toll projects in doubt. I say, 'Here, here!' Pass it! Pull the plug on all these taxpayer subsidized DOUBLE TAX schemes that will put commuters out of work by putting the cost to get to work out of reach for most Americans. Anytime a group puts the interests of private investors over those of the taxpayer when it comes to financing PUBLIC roads, it completely lacks any credibility.

AASHTO opposes federal power grab on tolls

By Peter Samuel
Toll Roads News
May 1, 2012

In testimony this week on Capitol Hill the states' highway lobby AASHTO (Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials)  argued against Senator Frank Lautenburg's so-called Commuter Protection Act, S2006. Speaking for AASHTO North Carolina DOT head Eugene A Conti said enactment of the bill would add great uncertainty to financing of toll projects and discourage states and local authorities from advancing projects that would have to gain federal clearance for toll rates.

"(T)he loss of tolling agencies’ ability to set their own rates would have a deeply unfavorable effect on their credit ratings, increasing the cost of capital and making it harder for such agencies to borrow money through issuances of bonds for much needed capital improvements, maintenance and other essential services."

In addition S2006 would discourage use of toll-financed public-private partnerships (PPPs):

"Instead of granting maximum access and flexibility to a mix of funding and financing tools most appropriate for each state including toll-based PPPs, Congress would create new impediments to private investment through this legislation."

Conti said the states agree that "federal limitations should be removed" that hamper use of tolls for reconstruction within the tolled corridor. At present only three states of 50 are able to use tolls in this way under the very limited "pilot program" outside of bridges and tunnels.

The AASHTO submission says the traditional highway trust fund financing is "at a crossroads" with flat or declining revenues and increasing difficulties obtaining other funding. The deficit relative to existing inadequate federal grants of $90b/year is put at $13b/year by the Congressional Budget Office.  National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission had projected future federal investment needs at $225b/year, almost three times the yield of current gas tax revenues.

Conti: "In recent years, with the growing gap between highway investment needs and available revenues as well as the development of easy-to-use automated toll collection technology, toll roads and toll lanes have once again become an important means for financing investment in new highway capacity—in the last decade about one-third of all new limited-access lane miles built in the United States were tolled; in states such as Texas and Florida, the share is even higher."

The AASHTO submission said currently, there are more than 270 state and local toll roads, bridges, and tunnels in 32 states, totaling 5,541 miles of roadway.

Toll revenues nationally are around $11b/year.

In the hearing the Republican ranking member Roger Wicker (Mississippi) also expressed opposition to federal involvement in tolls. It should remain the "prerogative" of states and local authorities, he said.

COMMENT: Federal involvement in toll 'oversight' - a euphemism for control - will expand the opportunity for political mischief, increase uncertainty, add to costs, diffuse responsibility, and slow everything down. It is a sure formula for worse roads. Far from "protecting" commuters and other travelers it would do great damage to them.

TOLLROADSnews 2012-04-19

Texas #1 in the country in road debt

Link to article here.

Noteworthy is the fact that Texas is NUMBER ONE in the NATION in road debt! When our GOP-dominated state claims it's fiscally responsible and castigates the other party for plunging Americans into unsustainable debt, they're HYPOCRITES of the highest order. They've orchestrated the largest tax increase in Texas history by levying toll taxes on top of gas taxes, on top of over $35 billion in road debt (accumulated in less than a decade), while claiming they've cut taxes and balanced the budget.

NJ transportation borrowing reaches a roadblock

By ANDREW DUFFELMEYER

Associated Press

April 24, 2012
TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey has become so hooked on borrowing to pay for transportation projects that this year, for the first time, money from gas, sales and other taxes earmarked for transportation spending didn't cover debt payments.

The state is not alone in struggling to find money to improve its roads and bridges, among the nation's worst.

But federal data show New Jersey stands out as one of the nation's biggest transportation borrowers, second in total debt only to Texas.

A report released this month by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services concluded that the Transportation Trust Fund, meant to finance transportation projects, is locked in an "unsustainable pattern" of borrowing. In a first, it noted, the $895 million in fuels, sales and other taxes earmarked for the fund didn't cover the debt payments, forcing money previously used in the state's general fund to go toward debt.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer, the Democrat who serves as vice chairman of the Budget Committee, likened the predicament to a Ponzi scheme during a recent budget hearing.

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, chairman of the Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee, said in an interview that the state will need more revenue to break out of the debt cycle but he doesn't see that happening anytime soon.
"It's a political time bomb," he said. "Nobody wants to touch it. The minute anybody talks about a solution that involves an increase in revenue, they're immediately branded as wanting to increase taxes and not caring about ordinary people, and the discussion runs off the rails."

New Jersey has the nation's third-lowest gas tax and sixth lowest diesel tax but the tax burden is otherwise high. Homeowners are saddled with the nation's highest property tax rates.

Borrowing money to pay for transportation projects is an expensive practice for taxpayers, data from the state Treasury Department show. The Transportation Trust Fund has paid out $2.8 billion in interest on borrowed money since 2000, and the fund's debt is projected to be $13.4 billion by mid-year.

Gov. Chris Christie is seeking to reduce borrowing, but trust fund debt is still expected to grow to nearly $16 billion by the end of his five-year plan.

The governor's five-year plan calls for about $8 billion in spending, with $4.3 billion coming from bonds and $1.8 billion in pay-go funds. An additional $1.8 billion would come from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where money was freed up by the governor's cancellation of the New Jersey-to-New York rail tunnel. The pay-as-you-go share would nearly match borrowing by the final year.

Treasury spokesman Andy Pratt said that would be a big improvement over past practice. The state's five-year plan under former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, was financed almost entirely through bonding.

"Even after coming off the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," he said, the governor "has expanded the level of pay-as-you go transportation spending to levels far exceeding his predecessor's plan."

At the transportation hearing, Schaer said Christie, who made "pay-as-you-go" a theme of his campaign in 2009, should have come up with a way to pay for current infrastructure improvements without relying on borrowing.

At this point, though, Wisniewski said lawmakers will have little choice but to authorize additional borrowing as part of Christie's five-year plan.

"There are a lot of people who from a purely issues-oriented view would say we can't be issuing more debt," Wisniewski said. "Where's the money coming from to pay it? But then you look at if we don't issue this debt. Our roads and bridges are in bad shape now. If we reduce that to zero, you can only imagine how bad things will get."

According to a report from the Council of State Governments, New Jersey ranks fourth-worst behind Washington, D.C., Hawaii and Rhode Island in the condition of its highways, with 82 percent of roads rated as "less than good."

Robert Noland, director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University, said the low gas tax and climbing bond payments have meant less money available for the state's deteriorating infrastructure.

"The money is going to projects in the past because of a lack of political leadership," he said. "And we're paying the price for it now."

Motorists pay vast majority of transportation taxes

Link to article here.


Study: Motorists Are Primary Contributors to Federal and State Tax Revenue
Automotive industry study finds that cars contribute $134.5 billion in state and federal tax revenue.
The Newspaper.com
May 2, 2012

CAR report coverMotorists are pulling more than their own weight when it comes to paying for the nation's roads. Public transit advocates frequently claim that various user fees do not capture the amount of money invested into the highway system and that taxpayers subsidize roads. A report released last month by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) shows that the opposite is true, that the automobile contributes more than any other manufacturing sector to the US economy.

"The automotive industry accounts for 13 percent of all state government tax revenues," Kim Hill, the study's lead author said in a statement. "This analysis furthers our understanding of how the automotive sector has a substantial impact on the US economy by contributing to the fiscal stability of state and federal governments. As economic conditions continue to improve, auto companies could see an increase in sales and employment that would generate additional state and federal tax revenues."

Last year, the Federal Highway Administration spent $41.8 billion on federal-aid highways, an amount that includes more than $4 billion on "livable communities" transit programs, $2.5 billion subsidizing speed traps and other expenditures that do not benefit drivers. The CAR report calculated the automotive industry contributed more than that amount, $43 billion, to the federal coffers in 2010. This figure included $29 billion in motor fuel taxes and $14 billion in direct income tax on auto manufacturers, parts suppliers and dealerships. CAR estimates the federal total would balloon to $69 billion if non-manufacturing jobs at suppliers such as marketing, finance and management were included in the tally.

State governments collected another $91.5 billion from the industry. This includes $60 billion in fuel taxes, registration fees and licensing charges. Another $30 billion in taxes were imposed on the sales and service of new and used vehicles. Those working for manufacturers and suppliers paid $860 million in income taxes. Auto companies paid $750 million in business taxes and license fees.

The study left out the significant revenue generated on taxing industry suppliers, imposing vehicle title fees, collecting personal property taxes and dishing out parking and speeding tickets. It also does not include property taxes paid by manufacturers.

The results are not surprising considering the Census Bureau's statistics on commuting suggest 90 percent of Americans get to work with an automobile. Nine out of ten taxpayers who work outside the home are motorists. CAR is a non-profit group that creates reports on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo.

A copy of the report is available in a 1.1mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Assessment of Tax Revenue Generated by the Automotive Sector (Center for Automotive Research, 4/11/2012)

Toll factions fight over Trinity Toll Road

Link to blog here.

Toll road partisan keep shouting past one another, sidestepping the real questions

By Michael Lindenbarger
Dallas Morning News blog
May 1, 2012

The Mayor's Facebook page has invited Dallas residents and others to weigh in on what he ought to do regarding the Trinity Parkway toll road. And boy have they. At last count, 191 folks weighed in with comments.

Mayor Mike Rawlings is asking because he has said he wants to make a decision about where he'll stand on the issue, now that the FHWA is poised to decide later this year where and if the toll road can be built. The NTTA will hold a public hearing Tuesday to get public input, and Mike Rawlings will say tomorrow at a press conference what his input will be.

One of the few folks on the facebook page who stuck up for building the toll road was the former Trinity River Project Manager, Rebecca Razor. Here's here argument, and I am highlighting it because the arguments obscure some of the important questions that have been the reason why this project has remained controversial.

I may be the lone voice here, but here's a few facts. In the ballot language in the 1998 Bond Program, it specifically says "the Trinity Parkway". So people knew what they were voting on, and that is a portion of what the voters approved. If you do away with the Parkway, you are going against what the voters voted on. Also, in the bond booklet published by the City, it stated that the Parkway was under consideration as a tollroad. It was also mentioned numerous times in the newspapers and ads (both for and against) that it was being considered as a tollroad. Another point - in our interlocal agreement with the NTTA, the City is prohibited from taking any action that would go against having the Parkway. Only the NTTA can shelve the project. Finally - we need traffic congestion relief in order to get rid of our ozone problem. DART has not stepped up to provide a solution, and ridership has not made a dent in the congestion to date.
Let's break that down a bit.

In the ballot language in the 1998 Bond Program, it specifically says "the Trinity Parkway." So people knew what they were voting on, and that is a portion of what the voters approved.

This is a bit disingenuous, or at least misses the point. The question should be what did voters understand the word 'parkway' to be? Was it always going to be a six-lane highway with 55 MPH speeds? My colleague Rodger Jones points out that as early as 1999 or 2000 there were public documents attesting to the idea of building the road as a highway. But that's after the 1998 bond election and -- just as importantly in the context of the 2007 election and today -- before former mayor, and once staunch toll road opponent, Laura Miller changed her tune after embracing a compromise known as the Balanced Vision Plan.

The question after that plan was did the public who was asked to support the Balanced Vision Plan envision the Trinity Parkway to be the mostly stripped-down toll road it's expected to be now? I haven't seen much to suggest so, but the City's long-standing statement that the voters knew what they were getting fails to address either of these questions, and therefore is not persuasive.

If you do away with the Parkway, you are going against what the voters voted on.

She is referring to the 1998 vote, and as explained before, that's hardly a logically required conclusion as she suggests here.

Also, in the bond booklet published by the City, it stated that the Parkway was under consideration as a tollroad. It was also mentioned numerous times in the newspapers and ads (both for and against) that it was being considered as a toll road.

I think the record is clear that proponents of the road have long seen the road as a toll road. But it's not clear that such understanding was communicated at all -- or certainly with adequate volume -- to the public prior to 1998.

It's also important to note that after the 1998 vote, opposition to the road grew so strong that one of its chief opponents was elected mayor. That the road continued after her election is a result of a compromise that was reached, as I noted above. After the compromise, voters' perceptions of the road were reset.

Did they know, much less demand as Razor suggests, that the road under consideration would be a toll road like the $1.8 billion one planned now? The city's talking points, as with Razor's points here, don't address that nuance and it's a critical factor.

Another point - in our interlocal agreement with the NTTA, the City is prohibited from taking any action that would go against having the Parkway. Only the NTTA can shelve the project.

I am not sure that's legally so. (Lawyers reading feel free to jump in here.) Contracts are made to be broken, and usually damages for such breaches are contemplated in the original agreement. To say the city can't change its mind would be a very powerful statement indeed. I wouldn't bet on it. The question, not addressed here, would instead be what are the consequences if it did change its mind?

Beyond the legalities, who would believe the NTTA would insist it be built? Yes, for all its denials in 2007 and beyond, I did find a letter proving that NTTA wrote a strongly worded letter to the city urging it to keep the toll road. I don;t have that letter in front of me, but it was in 2006 or before.

But despite that, NTTA has no money for the road. None. Even if it insists that the road go forward, it would only be doing so with its fingers crossed behind its back -- or, to be more polite, with the understanding that it wants to build the road, but only if someone else contributes hundreds of millions, if not $1 billion or more, to make it affordable.

Finally - we need traffic congestion relief in order to get rid of our ozone problem.

Here's an argument that is harder to dispense with. The new toll road would get traffic moving again. No kidding. No denying this, though opponents often do. It's also true that fast-moving traffic pollutes less than stalled traffic.

But we also know that more capacity will lead to more traffic. It will take some time for the new traffic to overwhelm the capacity, and return to gridlock. When it does, and if the toll road is at a stop too, there will be six new lanes of stalled traffic producing pollution. Will the temporary reduction in pollution have been worth it? Or will be worse off as a result of the new lanes of traffic?

Another wrinkle: Defenders of the road will rightly point out that toll roads won't back up quite as quickly as free lanes, since many drivers won't want to pay, or because toll rates could be raised in the future to keep traffic thin. That's true, but if drivers avoid tolls then the traffic on the free lanes will remain gridlocked. So where's the pollution benefits there? And eventually, even the toll lanes will be jammed at times -- as the DNT is.

DART has not stepped up to provide a solution, and ridership has not made a dent in the congestion to date.

She may have a point here, but doesn't seem to be one that would control the decision about the parkway. It is true that ridership hasn't made a dent yet, but the Orange Line will take folks from Dallas to Irving. That's directly providing relief that the toll road will provide, though no doubt only a portion of it. That's not really not stepping up. But beyond that, when I asked Michael Morris of NCTCOG earlier this month about the need for other solutions to your traffic problems beyond more toll roads, he insisted -- just like the city has for years -- that other solutions are being used. They just aren't sufficient to render the toll road superfluous.

I am spending this time and space on Razor's comments not to demonize her. She's among the most dedicated and open city officials I've worked with, in any of the cities touched by transportation decisions I've written about.

But her arguments help crystallize why this interminable debate about the toll road persists. Its supporters offer answers that are close, but not quite, on target to the questions they are attempting to avoid.

There really shouldn't be much mystery here. Here's what folks need to know about the road:

* In 1998, did they expect it to be the kind of road that it became?

* If so, did opposition to that vision lead to a compromise under Mayor Miller?

* Is the road of 2007 a fair reflection of what voters thought the compromise had produced?

In 2007, the voters answered that question. They supported the road in its current, more or less, incarnation.

* Did the city play straight with the voters in describing the process, and consequences of the road in 2007?

* Have problems with the levees been serious enough to require officials or, ultimately, voters to reconsider the question?

And finally, based on the most recent report:

* Does the admission that the road will raise flood waters during a 100-year event put Dallas at risk? Or, as NTTA says, is that small elevation manageable.

* Does that admission mean the Corps will not approve the project? Has the corps changed its standards to make that approval more likely?

* If the road is built, what delays or reductions or intrusions will that mean for the parks? Are they as the city described them in 2007? If so, opponents probably don't have a leg to stand on.

Finally, the biggest question is this: What happens if we don't build the road? Will the short term traffic problems be able to be addressed by other, less traditional methods?

Will the fact that those other methods, whatever they are, do not involve new highways and more cars in downtown Dallas pay dividends over the years that will make the temporary traffic problems that follow a decision to not build the road look like reasonable price to pay for a better Dallas 20 or 40 years from now?

I think an honest discussion of all those questions would do more toward putting this issue to rest, one way or another, than asserting answers to questions that actually beg the questions.

If Rawlings and others in charge want to push the toll road forward, they would all be better off -- as would the rest of us -- if they stopped sidestepping the questions. If they answered them, if they can, opponents would be left with the choice of accepting defeat or bringing another referendum.

The latter isn't easy and the former tastes bad. But anything is better than having the two sides continue to shout past one other as this project lingers (seemingly) forever like an unpleasant aroma in a car whose windows don't roll down.

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 44 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases