Sidebar

Important Information

2024 General Election Voter Guide

2024 Resolutions for Party Conventions


Lege Wrap-up

2023 Session Report Card


Slides from Public Talks


Why public-private partnerships are anti-taxpayer

Texans for Reform & Freedom Texans for Reform & Freedom
  • Home
  • Press
  • Contact Us
  • About TURF
    • About Us
    • Standing Meetings
  • Grassroots Action Center
    • Session Resources
    • Toll-Free Texas: Reforms
    • Party Platform Resolutions
    • Public Hearings
    • Transportation 101
    • Social Resources
  • Donate Today!
  • Eminent Domain
  • News & Blog
    • Latest News
      • Misc. News
      • Eminent domain
      • Trans Texas Corridor
      • Public Private Partnerships
      • Regional Mobility Authority
      • Metropolitan Planning Org.
    • Press Releases
      • San Antonio
      • Texas State Wide
    • SA Toll Party blog archives
  • Resources
    • Report Cards & Voter Guides
    • Non-toll Solutions
    • Glossary of Toll Terms
    • Funny But Sad
    • Public Talks
    • Transportation 101
  • Email Updates
facebook logo Like TURF   twitter logo Follow TURF
  • Home
  • Press
  • Contact Us

British Prime Minister wants to sell-off roads to China

Details
Public Private Partnerships
Link to article here.

David Cameron unveils plan to sell off the roads

Sovereign wealth funds to be allowed to lease motorways in England, says prime minister

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 18 March 2012


David Cameron: 'We need to look at innovative approaches to the funding of our roads – to increase investment to reduce congestion.' Photograph: Mike Segar/AP
David Cameron will clear the way for a multibillion-pound semi-privatisation of trunk roads and motorways as he announces plans to allow sovereign wealth funds from countries such as China to lease roads in England.

Just 48 hours before the budget, the prime minister will give a speech calling for radical action to improve Britain's infrastructure, which is falling behind those of key competitors in Europe.

In his most eye-catching proposal, Cameron will announce that the Treasury and Department for Transport are to carry out a feasibility study looking at using private-sector funds to improve and maintain trunk roads and motorways.

The prime minister's plan, modelled on the funding of the mains water and sewage network, would see sovereign wealth funds and pension funds given the right to lease roads over a long period. They would be set a series of targets to, for example, reduce congestion and carry out improvements. George Osborne recently travelled to China to persuade the world's largest fiscal-surplus country to invest in Britain's infrastructure.

 
If the road companies met the targets they would receive a proportion of the vehicle excise duty, which currently all goes to the Treasury. This would be seen as a particularly radical step because it would be a form of hypothecation – allowing a stream of revenue to be directed at a particular project. The Treasury normally resists this because it likes to keep control of prioritising spending across government.

But Cameron, who is fully supported by the chancellor, will make clear that the poor state of Britain's infrastructure and its public finances means that bold steps have to be taken.

There will be no tolls on the existing road network. But if the road companies create new capacity – by adding lanes to existing roads or building new roads altogether – then they would be entitled to charge for their use.

The prime minister will say: "We need to look at innovative approaches to the funding of our national roads – to increase investment to reduce congestion. Road tolling is one option, but we are only considering this for new, not existing, capacity. For example, we're looking at how improvements to the A14 could be part-funded through tolling.

"But we now need to be more ambitious. Why is it that other infrastructure – for example water – is funded by private-sector capital through privately owned, independently regulated utilities, but roads in Britain call on the public finances for funding?

"We need to look urgently at the options for getting large-scale private investment into the national roads network – from sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and other investors. That's why I have asked the Department for Transport and the Treasury to carry out a feasibility study of new ownership and financing models for the national roads system and to report progress to me in the autumn."

The bankers NM Rothschild suggested in a report in 2010 that privatising the road network could raise £100bn. Government sources said the scheme proposed by Cameron would raise far less because he plans to lease out trunk roads and motorways, rather than embarking on a full-scale sell-off, as NM Rothschild suggested.

The Cameron scheme would see a regulator for roads established along the lines of Ofwat, which oversees water and sewerage providers. Government sources were joking that they would have to think of a better name than Ofroad.

The water regulator carries out five-year reviews for companies that provide water and sewerage services.

This has allowed companies to carry out investments that have, according to government sources, vastly improved the water infrastructure. The announcement is designed to show that even in straitened economic times the government is committed to pressing ahead with radical plans to promote economic growth. Osborne has little room for manoeuvre in his budget, though it is expected that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility might signal a modest improvement in its growth targets.

Osborne confirmed on Sunday that the main points of the budget were agreed by the "quad" group of ministers – the chancellor, the prime minister, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander – last Monday. It is understood that the chancellor will announce the scrapping of the 50p top rate of tax for people earning above £150,000. But he will balance that by saying that he hopes to ease the burden of low-income earners by moving more rapidly to raise the tax allowance to £10,000. This target, which was a key Lib Dem pledge in its manifesto for the last general election, was meant to have been reached by April 2015. It is understood that the chancellor now hopes to achieve this a year early.

The prime minister will make clear that his focus remains in promoting growth as he sweeps aside objections from the National Trust and the Daily Telegraph to press ahead with major infrastructure projects that would require reforms to Britain's planning laws.

Cameron will say: "The truth is, we are falling behind … our competitors. And falling behind the great, world-beating, pioneering tradition set by those who came before us. There is now an urgent need to repair the decades-long degradation of our national infrastructure and to build for the future with as much confidence and ambition as the Victorians once did.

"Infrastructure matters because it is the magic ingredient in so much of modern life. It is not secondary to other, more high profile elements of economic strategy. It affects the competitiveness of every business in the country; it is the invisible thread that ties our prosperity together. It gets power to our lights, water to our taps, workers to their jobs, and food to our shops. It enables factories, offices, warehouses, workshops to function, to trade, to grow.

"But infrastructure isn't just about business. It's not just about big, high-profile projects. It is an all-pervasive force in society too. It's the network that powers smart phones, allows us to log on to Facebook, to travel, to live the lives we choose. It is the platform for active citizenship. And its value lie in its ability to make things possible tomorrow that we cannot even begin to imagine today. If our infrastructure is second-rate, then our country will be too. We used to understand this in Britain."

The shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle, said: "Motorists already suffering from record fuel prices now face a road charging free-for-all, adding to the cost of living crisis facing households up and down the country.

Instead of easing the burden on drivers and boosting our stalled economy through a temporary cut in VAT, ministers look set to let private companies take over the strategic road network and charge drivers for access.

"These proposals risk simply driving traffic on to local roads, increasing congestion and emissions while yet again setting back efforts to improve safety.

"Ministers seem to be intent on repeating the mistakes of rail privatisation, which was supposed to lead to cheaper fares and lower costs but has instead given powerful vested interests the chance to rip off passengers while increasing the cost to the taxpayer.

"Motorists now seem set to be in the firing line for the next phase of the Tories' ideologically driven rip off culture.

"This budget is increasingly looking like a series of desperate acts to divert attention from the government's failure to set out a coherent plan for jobs and growth."

 
© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

U.S. Senate passes two year, stop-gap highway bill

Details
Public Private Partnerships
Link to article here.

March 14, 2012

Senate Passes 2-Year Transportation Bill

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON — The Senate easily approved a two-year, $109 billion transportation and infrastructure bill on Wednesday, putting pressure on House Republicans to set aside their stalled version and pass the Senate’s before the federal highway trust fund expires at the end of the month.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, extolled the measure, passed on a bipartisan vote of 74 to 22, as “a jobs bill in the true sense of the word.”

“I hope the House will take this up and not listen to this shrill voice that makes up so much of the Republican caucus in the House,” he said.

But the nearly three million jobs expected to be “saved or created” by the measure largely come from construction jobs that stand to be lost if federally financed projects grind to a halt on April 1, when money from the highway trust fund could no longer be used.

That deadline appears to be weighing heavily on House Republicans, who initially had wanted to use their measure to change federal transportation policy fundamentally by linking infrastructure spending to the expansion of oil drilling from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to the outer continental shelf off the East Coast.

The five-year House proposal was stymied by a coalition of opponents in both parties, and Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, one of its initial backers, has all but abandoned it.

“As the speaker said, the plan as it stands right now is to let the Senate pass a bill and take up something that looks like it,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, “unless the House coalesces around a better alternative, which we are actively pursuing.”

The Senate bill, written by one of the chamber’s most liberal Democrats, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and one of its most conservative Republicans, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, consolidates 196 federal transportation programs to about a dozen, while giving more flexibility to the states to decide transportation priorities. But it largely keeps the scope of federal highway, transit and other surface transportation projects intact. Senators kept the duration of the bill short, to two years, because of the difficulty in paying for its programs as gasoline tax revenues slide.

President Obama, as well as highway and transit advocates, had pressed for a big, upfront increase in infrastructure spending to lift the economy and address the nation’s aging roads and bridges. But considering that House Republicans last year were considering a 35 percent cut to transportation spending, level funding may have been the best that advocates could hope for, said Rob Healy, vice president for government affairs at the American Public Transportation Association.

Rather than raising the gas tax, as many transportation advocates suggest, the Senate jury-rigged the bill with an array of revenue provisions, tapping a trust fund established to clean up leaking underground storage tanks and adjusting the way pension fund contributions and liabilities are calculated.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, criticized the use of 10 years of revenue from such provisions to pay for a two-year transportation bill.

“That’s kind of how Congress is approaching every problem,” cobbling together short-term fixes without addressing long-term problems, said Jeff Shoaf, head of Congressional relations for the Associated General Contractors of America, which nonetheless strongly supported the bill.

Mr. Shoaf said the legislation would spur hiring in the construction industry, where unemployment hit 17.1 percent in February. With infrastructure spending stable for two years, construction firms should begin buying equipment and hiring permanent workers, he said.

“It’s not as long as we would like, but in aggregate the fact that we’re talking about a transportation bill at all is positive,” said Sean McNally, spokesman for the American Trucking Associations.

Executive Order would allow govt takeover of all civil transportation

Details
News
As America slept: All resources officially taken over via Executive Order

By Lori Stacey, DC Conservative Examiner
March 18, 2012

While many of us had been sounding the alarm for years regarding previous federal laws and Presidential Directives that laid out the groundwork for complete federal control over all resources, industries, property and even human capital, most did not even look at the actual, official documentation available for the world to see.   The time for continuing to dismiss the facts by resorting to naive, childish and practically brainwashed charges of supposed false "conspiracy theories" is long overdue.

All Americans need to read and dissect the latest Executive Order signed and published by Obama on Friday evening March 16th, 2012.  It is stated to relate to the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Section 301 of  Title 3, USC.  

To add to your reading, there are 3 other Executive Orders that I highlighted in an article back in January of 2010.  The implementation of 1 of them was the focus of another article published in March of 2010 naming the newly appointed 10 "federal" Regional Governors of the United States.

This latest Executive Order called the "National Defense Resources Preparedness" is alarming when combined with a Presidential Directive signed by President George W. Bush during his presidency.   This new order seems to be an expansion of the 1950 Act which now appears to include "peacetime" application.   Its language implies an actual implementation or enactment giving more explicit detail.

To help understand what has been rapidly evolving via our executive branch, Dr. Jerome Corsi was in the national media trying to explain the dangers of Bush's directive PD51 previously and the video recording of one of those interviews can be found here.  

Basically, all industries and natural resources in our country will be directed for the purpose of national defense and under the direction of the executive branch via several federal agencies.  To grasp the implications of this, one must recognize the resemblance to communist regimes in which all activities and efforts exist for the purpose of the good of  "the state" and under its complete control and direction.   There is no more sugar-coating left.  Call it Communism, Socialism, Fascism, they are all basically just variations of the same exact quest for complete domination over "We The People" and our activities.

The only peaceful resolution left maybe very hard to achieve due to the apparent state of possible and easily manipulated election results.  We must not continue to be fooled by slick politicians.  The choice is clear that the next President must be someone that intends to return rightful power back to Congress, our States and We The People.  Any candidate whose voting record and promises are not in strict adherence to the US Constitution will only continue to bring us further down the same primrose path full of thorns.

To illustrate an example of the vast scope of control we are facing, in section (4) below the term "civil transportation" is defined in (a) below.  Also, for those fearing the possible return of the draft, there is a provision in this order that seems to relate to that becoming a real possibility as well.  

The timing of this executive order is very alarming, especially given the drumbeats calling for a war with Iran which could easily turn into a WWIII scenario.

(a)  "Civil transportation" includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities.  "Civil transportation" also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership.  "Civil transportation" shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.

 Here is another excerpt from this new executive order:

Sec. 201.  Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.


Continue reading on Examiner.com As America slept: All resources officially taken over via Executive Order - Washington DC Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/as-america-slept-all-resources-officially-taken-over-via-executive-order#ixzz1pbFX4VRK

Study commissioned to find cheap fix to I-35

Details
News

Link to article here.

Want to fix I-35 congestion? Make SH 130 tollway a free road and trucks will divert over that bypass and unclog I-35 traffic through Austin. Taxpayers spent over $1 billion to build SH 130 and were told it would be the silver bullet to fix I-35 congestion. Here we are years later, and SH 130 is nearly empty, trucks still clog I-35, and nothing's changed except they're spending MORE taxpayer money to study and find cheap fixes to I-35 (and that's just an interim fix until they add managed toll lanes to I-35). Meanwhile, an ordinary Texas citizen, David Smith who lives in DFW, told the Sunset Commission, many transportation officials, and legislators back in 2008 that this weave effect of on-ramps and exits is a huge cause of congestion and suggested ways to fix it. It shouldn't take $2.25 million dollars on yet another study to conclude the same thing!

A better drive on 35? City, consultant seeking public input to relieve famously gridlocked corridor

By Patrick Beach
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 11:09 p.m. Thursday, March 15, 2012

Published: 9:53 p.m. Thursday, March 15, 2012

Imagine the slow-moving used car lot that is Interstate 35 with enhancements such as express lanes from William Cannon Drive to Cesar Chavez Street, spiffed-up interchanges at Riverside Drive and safer crossings for cyclists and pedestrians in the area.

Those are some of the ideas the city's transportation department and consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff are mulling as the I-35 Corridor Development Program continues to harvest community input in a process that began in August and will continue until year's end. The multimillion-dollar budget for the program, approved by Austin voters in 2010's Proposition 1 ballot question, got a boost of $1.25 million more from the Texas Legislature.

Having $2.25 million, City of Austin Transportation Department spokeswoman Karla Villalon said, has allowed the city to expand the analysis beyond Travis County to Williamson and Hays counties. The original 10-mile scope of the project is now 27 miles.

Most of the ideas are comparatively short- and medium-term, and could be done "without requiring significant additional right of way," according to presentation materials prepared for the program. And most of those solutions would not call for billions of dollars to widen the interstate, Villalon said.

The documents say what anyone who drives I-35 well knows: It's no fun.

In fact, it's the state's fourth most-congested corridor. Taking I-35 from U.S. 183 to Ben White Boulevard takes an average of 22 minutes during the afternoon peak, making it the 17th worst highway traffic jam in the United States.

As of January, planners had held two public meetings and 23 other forums, generating some 300 ideas.

Any good ones?

"There's been many," said Chuck Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff's project manager. "And I've been doing this kind of thing for almost 40 years now in every other state."

One problem noted by some commuters, Fuhs said, is fellow motorists who use on- and offramps to "whipsaw around additional travelers."

That's right. Some of the interstate's design "actually encourages bad driver behavior," Fuhs said.

Eliminating some of the exits through the middle of town would make this harder to pull off, the consultant said.

The Federal Highway Administration offered the idea of re-striping the upper deck of 35 to gain an additional lane, a notion Fuhs likes. He said the Texas Department of Transportation is looking into whether its bridges could structurally accommodate that.

Whatever the final plan ends up looking like, what it won't be is something that gets Austin drivers down the road easier for the next 30 years. The fixes would last more like 10 years, Fuhs said. And before any modifications can begin, engineering and construction have to be funded.

"None of this is going to sound earthshaking, but little things make a great deal of difference," Fuhs said. "Intersection approach lanes make the intersection perform better. Reorienting some of the off- and on-ramps to remove some of the traffic weaves. We're also looking at widening intersections for better and safer pedestrian and bike traffic.

"If I walk the corridor, there's a whole series of little improvements that, taken together, neighborhoods and constituents would like to see," he said. "When you add it all up, you have a lot of mixing and matching to do."

Concern over gas prices could effect election

Details
News
Link to article here.

Poll: Concern over gas prices on the rise; could hurt Obama, Congress in fall

By Alicia M. Cohn    - 03/09/12 11:11 AM ET
Concern over the price of fuel has taken on an increasingly important role in the campaign cycle, and a new poll shows 65 percent of Americans hold President Obama and Congress responsible for rising gas prices.

A majority of both Republicans and Democrats said they believe Obama and Congress can "do things to keep price of gas from rising," according to a new poll by Gallup.

 

 
Republicans and GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich are banking on a level of discontent about gas prices by blaming Obama for, among other things, not approving the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that they say would help supply U.S. demand for fuel. Thirty-one percent surveyed said they believe the rising price of gas is "largely beyond their control." But 85 percent of those surveyed pushed for Obama and Congress to take some immediate action to control the rising price of gas, indicating a high level of concern.
“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that consumers aren’t hurt by [gas prices],” Obama said at a press conference on Tuesday. He scoffed at the idea that any president running for reelection would want gas prices to go up.

Gingrich, who is running his presidential campaign on a goal of $2.50-per-gallon gas, alleged Thursday night on Fox News that Obama wants gas prices to go down "only for the purposes of the election."

According to Gingrich, it is part of Obama's energy "model" to use "very high prices to force people into electric cars and into other methods of propulsion."

According to Gallup, Americans surveyed on average indicated that gas prices over $5.30 per gallon would force them to make "significant changes" in lifestyle.

The nationally conducted Gallup poll was taken by telephone on March 5 and 6. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Orlando airport to nix TSA screeners

Details
News
Link to article here.

Yet TSA and the Justice Department threatened to make Texas a no-fly zone when we attempted to opt-out of the invasive pat downs and scanners in the legislature last year...

Major US Airport To Evict TSA Screeners

Orlando Sanford International could prompt stampede of other opt-outs

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, March 14, 2012

One of America’s busiest airports, Orlando Sanford International, has announced it will opt out of using TSA workers to screen passengers, a move which threatens the highly unpopular federal agency’s role in other airports across the nation.


 
“The president of the airport said Tuesday that he would apply again to use private operators to screen passengers, using federal standards and oversight,” reports the Miami Herald.

With Sanford International having originally been prevented by the TSA from opting out back in November 2010 when the federal agency froze the ability for airports to use their own private screeners, a law passed by the Senate last month forces the TSA to reconsider applications.

Larry Dale hinted that the move was motivated by the innumerable horror stories passengers have told of their encounters with the TSA, noting that the change was designed to provide a more “customer friendly” operation.

The agency has been slow to reissue the guidelines on the the rule change, prompting Republican Representatives John Mica of Florida, Darrell Issa of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah to press TSA head John Pistole to implement the mandate.

Appearing at Orlando Sanford International yesterday, Mica said he had written to 200 airports advising them of the opportunity to op out of using TSA screeners.

Orlando Sanford is in the top 30 busiest airports in the world, with large numbers of takeoffs and landings.

The TSA has been keen to downplay the opportunity for airports to dispense with their screeners, fearing a mass exodus that could undermine the justification for the agency’s continued existence, especially given the fact that its reputation has been repeatedly savaged by a number of scandals.

The most recent controversy involved a viral You Tube video created by engineer Jon Corbett which demonstrated how the TSA’s body scanners were virtually useless because they are unable to detect objects carried on the side of the body carried in a pocket.

The TSA responded by threatening the media not to cover the issue while putting out a blog statement that completely failed to rebut the claims made by Corbett.

A November 2010 poll found that the TSA’s “enhanced pat downs,” some of which include touching genitalia, angered 57% of regular adult fliers.

West Yellowstone Airport in Montana has already replaced its TSA screeners with private security. Bert Mooney Airport, also in Montana, is attempting to do the same.

However, when Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a bill last year that would have outlawed invasive TSA pat downs, the feds threatened to implement a blockade that would have imposed a de facto “no fly zone” over the lone star state.

Kicking out the incompetent, criminally-inclined and abusive TSA across the nation will not only encourage millions of peeved Americans to start flying again, pumping much needed money into the travel industry, it will also create thousands of new private sector jobs.

The problem with public private partnerships

Details
Public Private Partnerships
Link to article here.

Though this article was originally published in 2009, the bulk of his points remain true today. May this be a warning to us...

The Problem with Public-Private Partnerships

Economic crisis exposes the high costs and risks of P3s

by Toby Sanger, Corina Crawley
National Office | The Monitor
April 1, 2009

If there is one thing that the current financial and economic crisis has shown, it is that the neoconservative economic model of deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, free trade and unequal growth is bankrupt. And yet, incredibly, Canadian governments and corporations are using the economic crisis to push more of the same policies: tax cuts, the sale of public assets, and, especially, more privatization through public-private partnerships (P3s).

The shifting rationales of P3s has always been highly dubious.

P3s had been used by politicians as a form of off-book accounting to make it appear as if public spending and deficits were lower than they actually were — but then public auditors forced governments to include these obligations on their books.

P3 proponents then claimed that their projects could be less expensive, more innovative, speedier, and more accountable than public service delivery — but a string of failures, delays, little transparency, and secretive deals proved these claims wrong.

Most recently, P3 advocates have acknowledged that they cost more, but they try to justify these deals by claiming that P3s transfer massive amounts of “risk” from the public sector to the private sector. By using highly questionable “value for money” accounting, they claim that the higher costs of P3s, particularly on the financing side, are offset by transferring colossal amounts of risk to the private sector.


While independent experts have criticized these deceptive rationales and faulty accounting for years, the details can be complicated. The misleading accounting practices remain, but the financial crisis has exposed the false economics of P3s in a number of different ways:

• The economic and financial crisis was caused by the same policies behind the push for public-private partnerships.
• Private financing is more costly and risky than public financing.
• The private sector is worse at managing risk than the public sector.
• Risks can never be completely transferred through P3s.
• Additional and complicated P3 requirements lengthen the process and add to delays.

This economic and financial crisis has a number of deep roots, but what propelled both the later stages of the boom and the consequent crisis was a systemic cover-up of losses, mispricing, and mismanagement of risk in the private sector.

Sub-prime mortgages were only a small part of this. On top of these and other debts, the financial industry built a web of speculation and highly leveraged securitized assets that were sold to unsuspecting buyers as solid investments. This helped to provide easy credit for a number of years, but it was only a matter of time before the financial house of cards came tumbling down.
Despite trillions of dollars provided by the taxpayers in public bailouts (and much more in accommodative actions by central banks), financial institutions around the world, including many of those behind P3 projects, continue to teeter on the brink of insolvency. It was only effective public nationalization of major banks and financial institutions in a number of countries that managed to save the world’s financial system from collapsing around the world.

In a thoroughly perverse twist, these free market economic policies led to the largest public bailouts in history and what Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has described as a "new form of public-private partnership, one in which the public shoulders all the risk, and the private sector gets all the profit."

Public-private partnerships have fundamentally been about giving private investors and financiers high returns with low risks, at the long-term expense of taxpayers and the public. The financial backers of P3s were able to borrow capital at lower rates of interest, thanks in large part to unregulated and often fraudulent activities in financial markets. This narrowed the interest rate spread between private and public sector borrowing rates, allowing P3s to appear more financially attractive than otherwise. They were still a bad deal for taxpayers, but low private sector costs of borrowing meant that faulty accounting didn’t have to cover up as much.

These low borrowing rates for the private sector were not based on economic fundamentals or realistic calculations of risk in the private sector. Private financial institutions engaged in systemic cover-ups, miscalculations, and passing on of undisclosed risks to unsuspecting investors. The unregulated financial markets allowed financial speculation to flourish, siphoning funds away from productive investments in the real economy. As a result, the paper economy grew, but real economy stagnated. Then the whole house of cards came crashing down.

As a result, private financing costs for P3s have increased and will continue to stay relatively high, while costs of public borrowing have tumbled. This will continue to make P3s both more costly and more risky for the public.

The spread (difference between public and private sector interest rates) for short-term borrowing rates in Canada is now about 100 basis points higher than it was during the five years of easy credit. According to a recent industry report, the spreads for P3 financing have doubled, on average, compared to last year. On a typical project, this increased spread of 100 basis points would increase the cost of financing by about 10% to 15%, or by upwards of $20 million for $100 million over 30 years.

There is no foundation to the claim that the private sector is better at managing risk than the public sector. Virtually all P3s in Canada have been justified on the basis that they transfer large amounts of risk to the private sector. But a growing list shows that P3s are both more risky and more costly for the public:

• B.C. Bridges. The financing behind Partnerships B.C.'s flagship Golden Ears Bridge project came close to collapse when its financial backers almost went into default. The German government came to the rescue with a $77 billion bailout of the German-based parent of the Irish Depfa Bank. The other financial partner of this project, Dexia, also received a $9.6 billion injection from taxpayers.

• Alberta Schools. A key player behind Alberta's P3 schools project has also come close to collapse. Last year, Babcock and Brown Ltd. lost 97% of its stock value while its P3 arm, Babcock and Brown Partnerships Ltd, recently laid off 25% of its staff.

In every single project approved so far as a P3 in Ontario, the costs would have been lower through traditional procurement if they had not inflated by these calculations of the value of "risk." The calculations of risk could just as well have been pulled out of thin air – and they are not small amounts. For a number of projects, the estimates of risks transferred inflated the base project costs by over 50%. The total amount of risk supposedly transferred through projects in Ontario has now reached over $1 billion, all based on sketchy calculations. The total cost savings of traditional procurement compared to P3s for Ontario’s projects has now reached well over $500 million if these dubious calculations of risk are excluded.

Some examples of excessive costs include:

• Ontario hospitals: Ontario’s Auditor-General recently revealed that the province’s flagship P3 hospital, Brampton Civic, cost the public $200 million more than if it had been publicly financed and built directly by the province.

• East Coast Toll Roads: An estimated more than $300 million in tolls were produced on the Cobequid Pass for a deal in which private financiers put up $66 million. The Nova Scotia government is paying an effective interest rate of 10% for 30 years, twice its rate of borrowing. High fines for using adjacent roads force truckers to use the toll road.

• Universities: A P3 project at the Université de Québec à Montréal failed, doubling the cost to the public from $200 million to $400 million.

• West Coast Highways: B.C.'s Sea-to-Sky Highway will cost taxpayers $220 million more than if it had been financed and operated publicly.

Risks can never be completely transferred through P3s, because governments will always be ultimately accountable for delivering public services and infrastructure.

This responsibility is not changed by expensive and lengthy P3 agreements. If problems arise, it is the public that always has to pick up the bill at the end of the day.

If P3 operators run into problems or don't achieve expected returns, they can just walk away, leaving the public sector to pick up the tab.

• Recreation: The City of Ottawa was forced to bail out two of three of its flagship P3 recreation arena projects in 2007. Both of the parent companies were still very profitable, but wanted even higher returns.

• Water and wastewater: Hamilton's water and wastewater services had to be taken in-house after a string of owners, including an Enron subsidiary, created a financial mess of the P3, including a raw sewage spill that had to be cleaned up at public expense.

P3 programs in Canada are largely modeled on the U.K.'s "Private Finance Initiative" (PFI), which has its own spectacular failures.

Metronet, the private company that won a £30 billion, 30-year P3 deal to upgrade and maintain London's Tube network, failed and had to be taken over by the City of London's transport authority last year. The Metronet failure has already cost U.K. taxpayers an extra £2 billion (nearly $4 billion Canadian) and left Londoners with 500 subway stations in various states of disrepair for a P3 deal that was forced on their city by the central government under its PFI initiative. And this is just the beginning: costs for the City of London are already expected to grow by an additional £1 billion. Even the normally conservative Economist magazine now admits that these P3 deals now look like "complicated costly mistakes."

Other projects in the U.K., Australia,and New Zealand are in crisis or have been under call for greater oversight.

Governments are under increased pressure to speed up infrastructure investments as an important means of stimulating the economy.

The same factors that make P3s complicated and risky also mean that they usually involve significant delays and high legal and financial costs. This means they are particularly inappropriate for the type of accelerated infrastructure investments that are now required for the economy.

As the U.K. Treasury has advised: “A PFI transaction is one of the most complex commercial and financial arrangements that a procurer is likely to face. It involves negotiations with a range of commercial practitioners and financial institutions, all of whom are likely to have their own legal and financial advisors. Consequently, procurement timetables and transaction costs can be significantly in excess of those normally incurred with other procurement options."

In Vancouver, for instance, the publicly operated and financed Millennium Line rapid transit project started operation three years after the process got under way. In comparison, the P3-financed Canada Line transit project is not expected to be in service until 2009, eight years after B.C. Transit got its process started. Similarly, the Evergreen Line transit line has also been delayed until 2014, at least 10 years after approval.

The recent announcement by the British Columbia government that it has raised the threshold for projects to be considered as a public-private partnership to $50 million in order to accelerate capital investment is a clear acknowledgement that the P3 requirement delays investment, particularly for smaller projects.

* * *

Recent failures, bailouts, and excessive costs show that the risk analyses and value-for-money accounting used to justify P3s are clearly flawed and cover up the true costs and risks for the public. Governments in Canada will be forced to rescue or bail out a growing number of P3 projects in the coming years, particularly with harsh and turbulent economic conditions expecting to persist for a several years.

At the same time, private investors will put increasing pressure on governments to increase the number of P3s, since they provide them with long-run, secure, and relatively high returns. But taxpayers who subsidize these high returns should be very concerned.

The current financial and economic crisis didn't just occur because of a number of isolated failures in the financial industry. The unregulated financial markets allowed financial speculation to flourish, siphoning away funds from productive investments in the real economy. As a result, the paper economy grew, but the real economy stagnated with negative or zero rates of productivity growth during recent years.

Public-private partnerships are not just a highly questionable deal for the taxpayers; they also have a negative impact on the economy. The investment banks and funds that are now heavily promoting P3s would do more good for the economy if they returned to what should be their primary role: financing investments to boost productivity and growth in the languishing private sector economy. Smaller Canadian contractors are squeezed out of access to infrastructure contracts while international firms take public funds sunk into P3 projects out of the country.

Public services and infrastructure are best financed and delivered by the public sector. Private industry has a key part to play in its traditional role of designing and constructing public infrastructure under contract. But expanding these deals to include private financing and operations makes them much more complicated, expensive, and risky. Canadians need more public investment to rebuild our economy – but they can't afford more expensive, unaccountable, and risky public-private partnerships.

As Greg Malone puts it: “P3s ahould be called P12s — Public-Private Partnerships to Plunder the Public Purse to Pursue Policies of Peril to People and the Planet for all Posterity.”

-----

(Toby Sanger is Senior Economist and Corina Crawley is Senior Research Officer at the National Office of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.)


Sources and Resources

- A Matter of Time: Will the Credit Crisis Impact Canadian P3s? Daniel Roth, Managing Director Infrastructure Advisory Practice, Ernst and Young. Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. http://www.pppcouncil.ca/pdf/matteroftime.pdf

- "Reversal of Fortune," Joseph Stiglitz, Vanity Fair, November 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811

- Québec épongera la dette de l'UQAM, Le Devoir, Les Actualités, vendredi 10 octobre 2008, p.a1

- The Real Cost of the Sea-to-Sky P3: A Critical Review of Partnerships BC's Value for Money Assessment, Marvin Shaffer, CCPA-BC, September 2006.

- Infrastructure Ontario, Design, Build Finance, Maintain, Risk Analysis and Risk Matrix. November 2007. http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/en/projects/files/DBFM%20Risk%20Analysis%20for%20Publication%20(26NOV07).pdf

- Assessing Value for Money: A guide to infrastructure Ontario’s methodology. 2007. http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/en/projects/files/VFM%20GUIDE%20WEB.pdf

- Evaluating the operation of PFI in roads and hospitals, Pam Edwards, Jean Shaoul, Anne Stafford and Lorna Arblaster.The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Research Report # 84. London, 2004

- London’s transport mess: Holes underground, Sep 11th 2008, The Economist Print Edition http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1220949...

- Paul Gosling, Rise of the Public Services Industry, A report for Unison, September 2008.

- Coming to the crunch, by Paul Gosling. Public Finance Magazine.October 2008. http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/features_details.cfm?News_id=59033

- HM Treasury, Value for Money Assessment Guide, August 2004. p. 30

- Evergreen Line, Translink, Community Update, May 2007. http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/Evergreen_Line_Project_Update_May_2...

Eminent domain abuse Socialism for the rich

Details
Public Private Partnerships
Link to article here.

This is a terrific article on how eminent domain abuse is Socialism for the rich. It's happening all over the country every day. The latest incarnation being public private partnerships (where they sell-off public infrastructure to the highest bidder on Wall Street) and the Keystone pipeline where the Canadian company has gained the power of eminent domain.

Socialism for the rich

By Thomas Sowell

10/3/2006

Although socialism has long claimed to be for the poor, it has probably done more damage, on net balance, to the poor than to the rich. After all, the rich have enough money to leave the country if they think the socialists are going to do them any serious harm.

Some of our own rich have already had their money leave the country, to be sheltered from the higher taxes that limousine liberals say we should all pay. Meanwhile, the liberal media give them kudos for their selfless advocacy of higher taxes on higher income people, forgetting that these are not taxes on wealth.

Most of the people in the upper income brackets are not rich and do not have wealth sheltered offshore. They are typically working people who have finally reached their peak earning years after many years of far more modest incomes -- and now see much of what they have worked for siphoned off by politicians, to the accompaniment of lofty rhetoric.

The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an upscale shopping district.

What will the city of Riviera Beach get out of all this? More taxes from higher-income people, enabling local politicians to spend more money on programs to attract votes.

Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich.

Theoretically, those whose homes and businesses are demolished will get the "just compensation" to which the Constitution says they are entitled.

In reality, just announcing plans to demolish the homes in an area will immediately demolish part of their market value. Even if homeowners are compensated for whatever value remains when their homes are actually demolished -- which can be years later -- they have still been had.

For businesses, compensating them for the value of their physical assets -- which may or may not include ownership of the place where their businesses are located -- does nothing to compensate them for the often much larger value of the clientele they have built up over the years but who are now scattered to the winds by neighborhood demolition.

This game doesn't work the same way in rich neighborhoods. Not only can the rich hire big-bucks lawyers to fight city hall, why would city hall want to get rid of upscale taxpayers, who are often also big donors to political campaigns?

A very different form of socialism for the rich protects their communities from even the dangers of a free market. A whole array of laws and policies prevents outsiders from buying up property near them, even when these outsiders are ready to pay prices determined by supply and demand, rather than by eminent domain.

For example, the "open space" laws that have spread across the country to protect upscale communities represent one of the biggest collectivizations of land since the days of Josef Stalin.

Upscale residents say that they have a right to protect "our community." But not even the rich own the whole community.

They own what they paid for -- their own individual property. But they get the government to collectivize the often vastly larger surrounding property, in order to keep the unwashed masses from settling near them and spoiling their views.

Moreover, they wrap themselves in the mantle of idealism while doing this and denounce the "selfishness" of those who would stoop to building homes or apartments to house others, just to make money.

"Developer" is a cuss word to those who wax indignant in their righteous zeal to keep other people out. Why can't these money-grubbing developers just inherit money, like so many of the upscale idealists?

Meanwhile, back in the working class neighborhood in Riviera Beach, it is being defended legally by the Institute for Justice, one of the few "public interest" organizations that deserve the name.

Taking sides: KSAT-TV in San Antonio advocating toll roads

Details
News
KSAT-TV Editorial: Toll roads a solution for traffic problems

Published On: Mar 07 2012 04:21:24 PM CST   

Watch Phil Lane's editorial telling taxpayers toll roads are inevitable. His basic reasoning is we can't count on the state to fund roads, so we have to do it ourselves. So the idea is to keep DUMPING hard-earned money on the steps of the Capitol in Austin and never fight to get our duly owed money back to our region. His answer is punitive, unaccountable taxation in the hands of un-elected boards to get out of congestion with gas prices at an all-time high.

We've requested equal time to rebut his editorial, we'll see if they grant it, unedited.

They ask for feedback, give it to 'em here.

Senate to debate Hutchison ban on tolling free lanes

Details
News
Link to article here.

Senate to debate Hutchison's ban on interstate tolls, but it won't stop spread of tolls on North Texas highways


By Michael Lindenberger/Reporter

Dallas Morning News
10:12 AM on Mon., Mar. 12, 2012 | Permalink

The Senate is expected to debate amendments to its version of the highway reauthorization bill later today, and one of the most watched scrums will be over two rival amendments that would deal with whether and how states can apply for permission to convert existing freeways to toll roads.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the program currently in use that allows such conversations to end. Her amendment would ban all tolls on lanes that are currently free.

A rival amendment by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., would make it much easier for states to win that federal permission to add tolls to existing lanes. (Politico lays out all 18 related amendments under consideration today here.)

The fight isn't expected to have immediate impact on Texas, however, despite its status as one of the country's most aggressive champions of tolls. That's because existing rules at TxDOT already prohibit converting federal highways that are now free to toll lanes.

Hutchison's amendment would simply enshrine that into law.

That's still a big step for toll road opponents, who have never trusted Gov. Rick Perry's appointees to the Texas Transportation Commission to not look for every loophole they can find to expand the toll roads in Texas.

But the reality is that the rest of the country is rushing to follow Texas' lead in expanding toll roads, not reigning them in. This amendment by Carper reflects just that.

And while some states do want to add tolls to current free lanes -- leaders in Louisville, Ky., are counting on just that to pay for a new bridge over the Ohio River, for instance -- most states have managed to add tolls to interstates without needing the kind of permission Carper wants to make easier to obtain.

They do what Texas has been doing, especially in North Texas.

LBJ Freeway, otherwise known as Interstate 635, is part of the federal system. When local and state leaders wanted to rebuild they decided they wanted to add tolls to the interstate to make it easier to pay for.

But they didn't have to ask permission under the program Hutchison wants to abolish. Instead, they simply worked out a multi-billion contracts with Cintra toll firm that requires the company to rebuild the existing lanes, with some modest improvements, and keep them free.

Nearly all of the new capacity will come from tolls on new lanes built underneath the rebuilt free lanes.

That's the approach local leaders hope will be used to reconstruct Interstate 35E to Denton, and State Highway 183 out of Irving.

The bottom line: No matter what happens to Hutchison's bill, interstates will increasingly offer a mix of toll and free lanes. And as those interstates in big cities get more and more crowded, the future is clear: Any hope drivers have of seeing a reduction in time spent stuck in traffic will be tied directly to how much spare change they have to spend.

Texas oil boom taking toll on roads

Details
News
Link to article here.

Eagle Ford Shale: Amid the oil boom, roads go bust

By Mark Collette- Corpus Christi Caller

Sunday, March 11, 2012

CORPUS CHRISTI — If the Eagle Ford boom is a shot in the arm to South Texas, then crumbling roads and highways are its nagging side effect.

Oil field trucks laden with water, chemicals and equipment inflict far more damage on South Texas roads than anyone expected, prompting the formation of a state-level task force faced with staggering repairs and few immediate solutions.

Texas Department of Transportation spokesman Mark Cross said the department has not calculated the potential long-term road maintenance costs associated with the shale drilling, but early accounts suggest it will be immense.

In the department's Corpus Christi district alone, where three of the 10 counties lie atop the Eagle Ford Shale formation, projected maintenance needs during the next five years reach $500 million, District Engineer John Casey said. That's triple the amount projected before the drilling boom, and it doesn't include millions more that counties will have to find to repair roads off the state highway system.

For both the state and the counties, there is no clear funding source to deal with the problem.
County judges and transportation officials said some oil field companies are paying their fair share and others aren't. State law doesn't give counties the authority to mandate additional road repair fees on companies that already have drilling permits from the state.

The counties in the Corpus Christi district represent only a fraction of the need. Combined with the Barnett Shale in North Texas, more than 50 counties have streets, farm roads and highways disintegrating under a perpetual caravan of overweight trucks. As the roads fall apart and narrow, farmers and rural residents compete for smaller lanes with hurried truckers working long shifts.

The large geography, dozens of local governments and hundreds of oil field companies involved present a need for a comprehensive approach, Casey said.

"This really needs to be a statewide effort," he said. "I'm a little amazed it hasn't happened already. It needs to be led by the oil companies."

The Texas Oil and Gas Association has formed a committee dedicated exclusively to road issues and is aiming efforts not only to address repairs but to improve future road construction to handle the heavier traffic, said Debbie Hastings, director of environmental affairs. Industry will work closely with government, she said through a spokeswoman. Discussions are ongoing, but Hastings couldn't provide details of any proposals under consideration.

STEADY POUNDING

It takes thousands of truckloads of materials to build and maintain a well using new technologies that unlock vast stores of oil and gas beyond reach until about 2009.

The process, hydraulic fracturing, involves injecting millions of gallons of fluid into a well. The liquid sometimes is piped in, but more often, it travels the same roads as ordinary cars and trucks. This sheer amount of heavy liquids — pure water weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon — is why the new boom brings more infrastructure damage than those that preceded it, Casey said.

Rick Collins, director of research and technology implementation for the transportation department, said the truckloads for a single well are equivalent to adding the weight of 8 million car trips on rural highways and county roads never expected to take that kind of a beating. There are more than 1,000 active wells in the Eagle Ford and more than 3,000 permits for new wells.

The most immediate effect: roads that fall apart from the edges, creating dangerous drop-offs and narrow stretches that lead to wrecks.

State transportation crews and county road departments are throwing resources at the most dangerous sections: roads narrowed to less than 22 feet. In some cases, transportation officials say, it's safest and most cost effective to grind up the road, flatten, widen and bind the rubble, and leave it this way until the boom ends.

The transportation department has $40 million in its maintenance budget that could be allocated to deal with these immediate trouble spots in Eagle Ford and Barnett shales, Collins said. But the agency has identified more than $100 million in immediate needs on 400 miles of highway — long enough to drive from Corpus Christi to Houston and back.

LACK OF MONEY

Long-term planning also is a huge challenge because the drilling activity is expected to last at least 20 to 40 years or longer.

To pay for road maintenance, counties are trying to leverage a combination of property tax revenues and voluntary fees paid by oil and gas companies. But state and county officials across the region said not all companies are paying their fair share.

"We have good neighbors paying a lot of money for our roadways and then we have bad neighbors who aren't paying a dime and who are enjoying what the good neighbors just did," Casey said.

Even in cases where drilling companies have agreed to fees, funds still fall short.

In DeWitt County, in the heart of the shale formation, two major drilling companies — Pioneer Natural Resources and Petrohawk Energy Corp. — agreed to pay a road repair fee of $8,000 for each well they drill. Since 2010, the county has made $1.6 million in fees.

The county also adopted the highest tax rate it could set without triggering a rollback election and devoted the revenue to road and bridge funds. That put another $531,000 in the pot for repairs.

The pot won't last long. An independent engineering study estimates the county's tab for drilling-related road damage at more than $100 million, County Judge Daryl Fowler said.

State highways, even more expensive to build and restore, present a major long-term funding problem.

"If a good state highway or federal highway is built with 20-year expectation of use at a certain level of traffic, when you quadruple the traffic and start doing double and triple the loads, roads are going to crumble that much sooner," Fowler said.

FINDING ANSWERS

Casey is part of a transportation department task force studying the situation and looking for funding options. Within 90 days, the task force plans to convene a meeting of local governments, law enforcement, oil and gas regulators and industry leaders to float ideas and develop recommendations for state lawmakers.

The government, already strapped for highway maintenance and construction funds, is likely to turn to industry to shoulder most of the burden. Leaders in the U.S. House and Senate are trying to pass highway bills that would keep construction and maintenance money flowing for the next few years, but long-term funding remains elusive. Fuel taxes no longer generate enough to pay for highways at current spending levels.

That means problems like those in Texas' shale drilling regions will need unique solutions.

"I think realistically it can't come from cities or counties or the state," Casey said. "It needs to come from industry as a win-win opportunity that makes the playing field even for everybody."

Fowler, the DeWitt county judge, said determining how much companies should pay for roads is difficult because of the complexity of drilling operations. The truckers directly damaging the roads, he notes, don't reap large profit margins like the oil companies that contract them.

Theoretically, haulers already should be paying for the damage they inflict on highways by purchasing permits for overweight trucks. But the state collected only about $113 million in permit fees in 2011, and only $82 million went to the highway fund — not even enough to cover repairs in one Eagle Ford county.

Just $52,000 in overweight permit fee money trickled back to DeWitt County in 2011, Fowler said. In the same year, the state earned $57.8 million in severance tax from oil and gas extracted from the county. The tax, which is split between the state's general fund and the Rainy Day Fund, could be part of the solution for road maintenance, Fowler said.

COST OF BUSINESS

In a December report on the impact of energy developments on highways, the Texas Transportation Institute suggested funding strategies may include donation agreements with energy companies and using energy-related fees, taxes and lease revenues for highway repairs.

Because of the complexity and scope of the problem, industry and transportation officials seem to agree that long-term solutions almost certainly will require new legislation.

Oil field companies are eager to find one, because the current patchwork approach, in which road repair arrangements may vary down to the county precinct level, can make it much harder to do business. So can unusable roads.

One oil field company is paying $100,000 to improve a bridge to a weight limit that will accommodate its loads, Fowler said. The larger drilling companies, which tend to dominate fracturing because the process is expensive, are generally cooperative, he said.

"They won't necessarily own up to it," Fowler said, "but it's easy enough to track them down and say, 'Your overweight load took this bridge out and we need some help, otherwise we'll shut it down and you'll be out of business.'"

AT A GLANCE

The Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas studied impacts of new energy developments on the state highway system. These are the conclusions of their 2011 report.

The rate of road deterioration and the funding available for maintenance create an unsustainable situation.

Growth in the energy sector contributes to economic prosperity but impacts service life of pavements.

New funding sources are needed to maintain infrastructure and ensure the transportation system can serve the energy sector in the future.

TASK FORCE

State transportation officials are convening a task force to deal with road damage associated with oil and gas activities in the South Texas Eagle Ford Shale and North Texas Barnett Shale, regions that span more than 50 counties. Here are their plans:

Within 90 days, convene an executive-level meeting of local governments, law enforcement, transportation officials, Railroad Commission, energy industry leaders.

Continue research, data gathering and sharing.

Identify future energy developments.

Strategize use of new technology.

Discuss potential legislative issues.

Develop funding strategies.

Routinely monitor, evaluate and revise plans.

Source: Texas Department of Transportation

Local politicians ask county to rescind downtown streetcar

Details
News
Politicians ask county to rescind streetcar plan

By Viana Davila

Express-News

March 1, 2012

A group of local and state politicians asked Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff on Thursday to reconsider the use of advanced transportation district funds for a downtown streetcar system, arguing that voters who approved the tax district were led to believe the money would not be spent on rail.

Their letter to Wolff also said paying for streetcars with ATD money — a tax increase created in a 2004 election — “compromises our ability to leverage local funding to build much needed transportation projects throughout our community.”

The officials who signed the opposition letter were state Rep. Lyle Larson, who was a county commissioner when the ATD was created; state Sen. Jeff Wentworth; San Antonio District 8 Councilman Reed Williams and District 9 Councilwoman Elisa Chan; and County Commissioner Kevin Wolff, the county judge's son who twice voted against the use of ATD funds for streetcar.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Politicians-ask-county-to-rescind-streetcar-plan-3374642.php#ixzz1oyEZy3nZ

TxDOT looks for projects to spend new $2 billion

Details
News
TxDOT maps use for $2 billion

By Peggy Fikac and Viana Davila

San Antonio Express-News

March 10, 2012

AUSTIN — The Texas Department of Transportation is soliciting wish lists from local officials after identifying up to $2 billion in extra cost savings, borrowing ability and greater-than-forecast federal funds.

There are about $3 billion in projected unmet needs for Bexar County roadways over the next 25 years, said San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman Tommy Adkisson, who would like to see the money go toward traffic-clogged U.S. 281, a project he long has lobbied to remain toll-free.

“When you look for projects that cry out for justice and action, I don't think any of us can deny that should be at the top of the list,” Adkisson said.

It was unclear Friday how much of the $2 billion San Antonio will receive as TxDOT decides how to divide the money or if there will be any restrictions attached to the funds, said Sid Martinez, director of the MPO, which ultimately must vote on how to allocate funds locally.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/TxDOT-maps-use-for-2-billion-3396152.php#ixzz1oyDPPlDX

Texas Supreme Court Denbury decision favors landowners

Details
News
Link to article here.

Texas Supreme Court Reinforces Denbury Decision, Favors Landowners

March 2, 2012 | 1:28 PM

By Terrence Henry - State Impact

Pipeline companies are finding themselves with a new obstacle: defenders of private property rights.

Dave Fehling of StateImpact Texas contributed reporting to this article.

The Texas Supreme Court sure is busy as of late. Today they released an updated opinion in the Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas case that could have big implications for the oil and gas industry and private landowners in Texas. The bottom line is this: the court reinforced their original ruling today and denied a request to hear the case again, and that’s unwelcome news for the pipeline industry in Texas.

The decision was originally made last fall. At issue was who decides whether or not a pipeline is a “common carrier,” i.e. one that can be used by other companies and is therefore considered a public project. If a pipeline company can justify that it’s a public project, that allows it to use eminent domain to construct and operate pipelines on private property, regardless of how the landowner affected may feel about it. (Read more on the case in our earlier story, Pipeline Companies Fight for Right to Take Property.)

In the Denbury decision, as it’s come to be known, the Texas Supreme Court sided with landowners, stating that “private property is constitutionally protected, and a private enterprise cannot acquire condemnation power merely by checking boxes on a one-page form.” That one-page form is what pipeline companies send to the Railroad Commission of Texas in order to get “common carrier” status, which is what they use to justify their use of eminent domain.

Today’s opinion strengthens the court’s siding with landowners.

In a few additional footnotes to the original opinion, the court said today that a natural gas pipeline “cannot wield eminent domain to build a private pipeline, one limited in [its] use to the wells, stations, plants, and refineries of the owner. A common carrier transporting gas for hire implies a customer other than the pipeline owner itself,” they wrote. And that “to qualify as a common carrier with the power of eminent domain, the pipeline must serve the public; it cannot be built only for the builder’s exclusive use.”

“I can’t discern this changes anything of importance,” Amy Warr, an attorney for the Texas Riceland Partners, told StateImpact Texas. “We’re happy.”

Keith Strama, counsel for the Texas Oil & Gas Association, is less pleased. His group petitioned the court to re-hear the case.

“We’re concerned it will mean more case-by-case litigation” of pipeline eminent domain disputes,  he told StateImpact Texas, “imperiling the development of the state’s pipeline infrastructure to meet growing demands of oil and gas production. But we think it is limited to only CO2 and hydrogen” pipelines, he said.

Strama also told StateImpact Texas that he believes the ruling won’t affect the ongoing battle between a farmer and the Keystone XL pipeline in northeast Texas. In that case, a private landowner is questioning the company’s claim of eminent domain to route the pipeline through her farm. There should be “no impact from the ruling or the order on the Keystone pipeline, it is not relevant to [it],” he told StateImpact Texas. He said that the Denbury decision has to do with the issue of private vs. public use, and that Keystone XL “is clearly a pipeline that will have multiple users, making it public and qualifying it for eminent domain under Texas law.”

In an earlier comment to StateImpact Texas, TransCanada, who will own and operate the Keystone XL, said that the pipeline will be available “for hire” to any company that wishes to use it, “as long as the product meets specs.”

Warr, who represents the landowner side of the dispute, says it isn’t clear whether the ruling applies to pipelines other than those for natural gas. “It left the issue hanging,” she told StateImpact Texas, “to be decided another day, possibly by a court or by legislature.”

As for the farmer battling the pipeline, Julia Trigg Crawford, she intends to continue fighting her case. In late April she sees TransCanada in court, despite losing a restraining order against the company last week. “The burden of proof is now on the pipeline after Denbury,” she told StateImpact Texas recently. “That’s the one glimmering light in Texas law right now that gives any power to us.” Days after she lost her restraining order, TransCanada announced they intended to start construction this year on a section of the Keystone XL pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas.

Speculation fueling higher gas prices

Details
News

Link to article here.

It's a fact that as gas prices rise, demand falls. People have to drive less when they lack the discretionary money to keep paying more and more to drive. So Americans are being forced to cut back on driving -- there's only so many things they cut in the family budget in order to keep gas in their tanks to get to work. Now, by what kind of twisted logic do these politicians use to arrive at the conclusion that slapping tolls on all new capacity to our roads (even slapping tolls on EXISTING free lanes) is going to work as a solution for their lack of road revenue? There are simply not enough Americans that can afford to have their cost to drive explode to the equivalent of paying $15 a gallon for gas (costs 1-2 cents per mile for a gas tax funded road, and anywhere from .25 cents per mile to $1 per mile for toll roads) to keep all these toll roads solvent. Toll viability studies show toll roads are not viable once gas hit $3/gallon, yet onward our politicians march, ignoring facts and seeking instead to prop-up what they know are not viable toll projects with massive amounts of gas taxes and other public money to force this upon taxpayers anyway.

This infrastructure bubble will be deemed 'too big to fail,' and they'll come after taxpayers once again to bail out these underutilized failing toll projects that are awash in with red ink. Politicians are banking on the fact that people still have to get to work, so they'll pay whatever is necessary to get there. Well, not so -- if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. People will do whatever it takes to avoid paying the tolls -- move closer to work, or find a job closer to home, or worse, especially for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, stop working because it costs them more to get to work than they're actually compensated (switching to mass transit is not a practical option for everyone since there may not be a bus to get them where they need to go).

Once again, speculators behind sharply rising oil and gasoline prices

Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: February 21, 2012 06:24:17 PM

WASHINGTON — U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes.

Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging.

On Tuesday, oil rose past $106 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a gallon — thanks again in no small part to rampant financial speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions.

The ostensible reason for the climb of crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where contracts for future delivery of oil are traded, is growing fear of a military confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes.

 

Other factors driving up prices include last month's bankruptcy of Petroplus, a big European refiner, and a recent BP refinery fire in Washington state that's temporarily crimped gasoline supply along the West Coast; gas now costs an average of $4.04 a gallon in California.

 

While tension over Iran has ratcheted up over the last few months, the price of oil and gasoline has leaped far beyond conventional supply and demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.

"Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation," said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated."

Consider that light, sweet crude trading on the NYMEX changed hands at $79.20 a barrel just four months ago, but soared past $106 a barrel Tuesday afternoon, partly on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil to Britain and France. But those countries already had stopped buying Iranian oil. And Didier Houssin, the International Energy Agency's director for energy markets and security, said that "there are alternative supplies that can make up for any loss of Iranian exports," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Still, oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading.

Since oil prices are the biggest component in the price of gasoline, pump prices are soaring. AAA said Tuesday that the nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.57, compared with $3.38 a month ago and $3.17 a year ago. It takes about $6 more to fill up the tank than it did this time last year — and last year's gasoline-price surge helped take the steam out of the economic recovery.

Defining what percentage of today's high oil and gasoline prices is due to excessive speculation, driven by Iran fears, is something of a guessing game.

"I put the Iran security premium at about $8 to $10 (a barrel) at this point, which still puts crude at about $90 or $95," said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.

The fear premium is the froth above what prices would be absent fears of a supply disruption_ somewhere in the $80 to $85 range for a barrel of crude oil. It means that even with the extra cost put on oil from Iran fears, prices are at least another $10 higher than what demand fundamentals would dictate.

Why? Financial speculators.

What should the price of oil be if left to conventional supply and demand market fundamentals? Canada's the largest supplier of imported oil to the United States, which now actually produces more than half of the oil it consumes. Production and delivery costs for a barrel of oil from Canada are about $75 a barrel. The market-fundamentals cost for a barrel of oil is in that ballpark; above that, speculation sets the prices.

"It's as simple as that," said Gheit, who has testified before Congress and called for regulatory limits on speculation in commodities markets.

Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it's almost the reverse.

 

A McClatchy review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading, shows that producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.

That same week, open interest, or the total outstanding oil contracts for next-month delivery of 1,000 barrels of oil (about 42,000 gallons), stood near an all-time high above 1.486 million. Speculators who'll never take delivery of oil made up 64 percent of the market.

 

Not surprisingly, big Wall Street traders on Tuesday projected oil will rise above $112 a barrel; some such as Swiss giant Vitol even suggested $150-a-barrel oil is coming soon. When they dominate the market, as they do, speculators' bids can make their prophecies self-fulfilling.

"These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make money. It's our fault because we are allowing them to do that," said Gheit. "Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby. I've been in this business 30 years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors."

 

What's indisputable is that oil and gasoline are not in short supply, and that demand remains weak. That was crystal clear in the latest weekly energy market update by the U.S. Energy Information Administration_ published last week for the week ending Feb. 10.

"Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged 18.3 million barrels per day, down by 4.6 percent compared to the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline product supplied has averaged nearly 8.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.4 percent from the same period last year," said the EIA, the statistical arm of the Energy Department.

Inventories of stored oil are also unusually high, the EIA said.

"At 339.1 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the upper limit of the average range for this time of year," the agency said. "Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.4 million barrels last week and are in the upper limit of the average range."

Hence, no shortage to explain soaring prices.

 

In fact, U.S. demand and consumption patterns are so abnormal compared to recent decades that oil and gasoline are both now being exported to Europe, Asia and Latin America.

Exports of U.S. refined product averaged 2.928 million barrels per day over the four weeks ending on Feb. 10, compared to 2.190 million bpd for the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, the EIA said. This category is primarily gasoline, but it includes unfinished oils, fuel additives, ethanol and other blending components.

Similarly, the United States did not export any oil in the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, but in the four-week period ending this Feb. 10, we exported 37,000 barrels.

The export picture suggests that when domestic demand rises, American motorists might be competing with drivers elsewhere for U.S.-made gasoline, which fetches a higher price as an export.

"To the extent that there is this export market that wasn't there before, it is certainly ... keeping prices higher than they otherwise would be," said Kilduff. "Exports were not material. Now they are becoming material."

 

 

The White House sought to deflect criticism about rising oil and gasoline prices. Spokesman Jay Carney blamed the prices on "a variety of factors on the global price of oil. They include unrest in certain regions of the world, they include growth in areas like China and India."

Another popular explanation for rising oil prices Tuesday was trader relief that Greece received another bailout payment from Europe. That heightened hopes of a boost in oil demand in Europe as its economy recovers, given that a crisis has been avoided for now.

That explanation doesn't add up.

Last year, when oil and gasoline prices rose and slowed the U.S. economy, the surging prices were explained away by traders who said that oil and other commodities moved inverse to slumping stock prices. Today, oil prices and stock prices seem to be moving in tandem — upward — contradicting last year's justification.

 

East Coast refiners have seen their profit margins squeezed because they import Brent crude oil from Europe, which has traded at least $10 above crude coming out of the U.S. Gulf region.

Consolidation in the refining sector is another new wrinkle weighing on the oil and gasoline markets. The EIA, in a separate publication called This Week in Petroleum, warned last week that refinery closures in the U.S. Northeast and in some Caribbean countries could crimp supplies along the U.S. East Coast. Refinery closures and strained distribution could drive up gasoline prices on the East Coast until industry players make necessary infrastructure adjustments.

"On paper, refining capacity in the more competitive Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs appears more than adequate to make up for lost East Coast refining capacity. But the Colonial pipeline, which connects Gulf Coast refineries to the Central Atlantic, is already running near capacity levels, so bringing incremental Gulf Coast product volumes to East Coast markets could be a challenge," the EIA said.

(Lesley Clark of the Washington Bureau contributed.)

Express-News goes postal over defense of roads & freedom

Details
News
Irrational fear of truth

By Terri Hall, San Antonio Transportation Policy Examiner
February 23, 2012

Apparently, I hit a nerve. Express-News columnist Brian Chasnoff  went postal over some columns I penned opposing the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the City of San Antonio’s ‘complete streets’ policy. Chasnoff’s tirade tried to link local concerns over the improper raiding of road funds and road scarcity to Rick Santorum’s surge in Texas.

In reality, it was a hit piece trying to link me to some of Santorum’s comments about radical environmentalism that he made on a Sunday show in an attempt to paint me with the same broad brush: “Santorum is channeling a bizarre, paranoid form of anti-environmental rhetoric emanating from tea party-tied activists across the country. In our region, the movement has an adherent in Terri Hall, founder of the anti-toll road group Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom.”

Nice try, but that won’t fly.

Apparently concerned citizens are forbidden from leveling criticism about controversial issues in this town without the establishment coming unhinged. The pure contempt for the taxpayers who dare to challenge the wisdom of heisting already scarce road funds for nice-to-haves like hike & bike trails came through loud and clear in every line of Chasnoff’s column. Seems obvious that some disgruntled members of the MPO board gave Chasnoff a call to gripe over the influence of ordinary citizens in transportation policy. Shudder the thought!

Chasnoff was all too happy to pounce. I was asked to address the board on two agenda items at a workshop and spoke a total of 15 minutes, if that. A few board members complained I rattled on for an hour. Absolute hogwash. We have witnesses to attest to the truth, but Chasnoff isn’t interested in the truth. In fact, nothing that we discussed ever made it into his article.
It’s sad we can’t have an adult conversation about public policy without the establishment resorting to ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with debating the issues at hand. What are the real issues at play here? For me it started with the raiding of our already scarce road funds for things that ultimately elevate non-auto modes of transportation over auto transportation.

Complete streets policies mandate a certain percentage of our road funds be siphoned off for hike & bike trails or dedicated bike lanes that ultimately shrink auto capacity. They can also involve cyclovias where streets are closed to autos so bicyclists and pedestrians can roam free. What starts as a temporary closure can turn into permanent road closures. Wikipedia says a cyclovia is a “term which translates from Spanish into English as ‘bike path’ and now used worldwide to describe either a permanently designated bicycle route or a temporary event, the closing of the street to automobiles for use by others.”

We don’t need to be closing our streets for recreational purposes or to “encourage physical activity” as Chasnoff suggests.  I thought that’s why we have public parks -- a place for physical activity and to enable pedestrians and cyclists to roam free from cars? Other countries and communities have had healthy debates over whether the benefits of cyclovias outweigh the traffic jams. But in San Antonio, debate is eclipsed by below the belt personal attacks on those with views contrary to the establishment media.

What is the Agenda?
Complete streets policies are indeed part of Agenda 21. For anyone who takes the time to read this behemoth document, they’d know that Agenda 21 is a blueprint for global governance, well beyond the claim its merely “sustainable environmental policies.”

Two of Agenda 21’s stated goals are to restrict mobility and abolish private property. Chasnoff calls it non-binding, but George H.W. Bush signed the U.S. government onto Agenda 21 at the Rio Summit in 1992 making it binding. Clinton furthered implemented Agenda 21 through creating the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1993. George W. Bush continued the push through the Security and Prosperity Partnership and public private partnerships. On June 9, 2011, President Barrack Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Rural Council that establishes Agenda 21 sustainable development policies over America’s rural heartland -- and food basket.

The Agenda 21 web site says it best: “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” It goes on to say: “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels.” Sounds like global governance via the United Nations to me. Doesn’t sound optional either.

Just two of the governing principles of Agenda 21:
“Principle 4 - In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. Principle 5 - All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world” (emphasis mine).

The section on “human settlements” (Chapter 7) goes way beyond environmental policy and seeks to exert governmental control over virtually every aspect of our lives -- where we live, what we eat, what kind of car we drive, how we travel, how many children we can have, and where we can live, work, and play. It seeks to supplant individual rights and replace it with the collective.

Chasnoff calls that revelation “ramblings” and dubs citizen concern over this government power grab “troubling.” Read it for yourself. Agenda 21 does all of the above, and it’s actively being implemented in over 600 cities nationwide through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

Though Chasnoff would like his readers to believe this is conspiracy theory, Agenda 21 and its goals are well-documented. Rather than debate the facts, he’d rather lob personal attacks and call critics “irrational,” saying the MPO “should ignore any irrational voices that fail to see the Earth and its inhabitants — ‘man’ and everyone else — as intertwined.” It’s agree with Chasnoff and his version of earth worship or you’re irrational, should be ignored, and should have no say over transportation policy. Never mind that the MPO’s governing documents actually state people should have a say over the transportation decisions that effect their lives.

So apparently, the irrational ones in this discussion are those who fear the truth.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Irrational fear of truth - San Antonio Transportation Policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/irrational-fear-of-truth#ixzz1ni803CY3

TransCanada to re-apply for Keystone permit, to proceed in Texas without delay

Details
News
TransCanada signaled it would go this route, and it's moving at freight train speed. It does not need a Presidential Permit to build the extension of the pipeline from Cushing, OK to Port Arthur, TX, never mind that TransCanada's common carrier status and authority to exercise eminent domain in Texas is a legal question that has NOT been settled (yet its condemned nearly 90 properties in Texas already). This railroad job is what our Texas politicians (both federal and state) have allowed to happen to landowners while claiming to be for private rights. Not one state agency has any oversight to enforce laws under the Texas Constitution to prevent private companies from perpetrating eminent domain abuse in our state. Call your state legislators at (512) 463-4630 and Gov. Rick Perry (800) 252-9600 to tell them to protect these property owners from having a PRIVATE, foreign corporation use eminent domain to forcibly take their land for this pipeline NOW!
________________________________________

February 27, 2012

TRANSCANADA: BUILDING OKLAHOMA TO GULF COAST PIPELINE FIRST

First segment of Keystone XL won’t need presidential permit
By Polly Ross Hughes - Texas Energy Report

TransCanada said Monday it will begin construction of the section of the Keystone XL pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to Gulf Coast Texas refineries, drawing praise from oil producers and refiners.

“That’s wonderful. Their commitment was if they built the Keystone pipeline, they would build the Cushing to Gulf Coast segment first,” said Bill Stevens, executive vice president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers.

Stevens has cited the Cushing bottleneck as contributing to a recent $17-per-barrel discount for West Texas Intermediate crude versus North Sea Brent crude. Analysts have also tied the price differential to an overall glut of domestic petroleum production that is contributing to the bottleneck.

TransCanada said Monday that the Cushing-to-Gulf Coast segment of the Keystone pipeline has its “own independent value to the marketplace” and will be constructed as a stand-alone Gulf Coast Project that does not require a presidential permit. The project, in other words, is not dependent on the larger oil sands pipeline being built.

President Barack Obama has twice rejected permits for the larger pipeline, saying Congress has forced its hand before environmental issues in Nebraska could be resolved first. The Administration said that its past rejections of the pipeline are separate from its future decisions on whether to eventually grant a presidential permit.

“The Gulf Coast Project will transport growing supplies of U.S. crude oil to meet refinery demand in Texas,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “Gulf Coast refineries can then access lower cost domestic production and avoid paying a premium to foreign oil producers. This would reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign crude and allow Americans to use more of the crude oil produced in their own country.”

The White House said it supports construction of the TransCanada pipeline between Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast.

“The President welcomes today’s news that TransCanada plans to build a pipeline to bring crude oil from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf of Mexico,” said a statement issued by the White House. “As the President made clear in January, we support the company’s interest in proceeding with this project, which will help address the bottleneck of oil in Cushing that has resulted in large part from increased domestic oil production, currently at an eight-year high.”

Separately, TransCanada told the State Department that it plans to submit a new application for Keystone XL’s international segment to transport oil sands (also known as tar sands) from Canada to Steel City, Neb., once a new Nebraskan route is determined. The original route raised concerns in that state because of fears that potential leaks would contaminate the critical Ogallala Aquifer.

“We are encouraged to see that TransCanada remains dedicated to finding a way to bring more crude oil to Texas refineries, where demand continues to grow,” said Debra Hastings, vice president of environmental affairs for the Texas Oil & Gas Association.

TransCanada’s announcement follows questions raised by pipeline opponents recently over whether TransCanada has eminent domain authority to gain easements from private landowners in Texas. Opponents argue, in part, that tar sand ingredients are not covered under the Texas Natural Resources Code and therefore are not eligible for common carrier status. Pipelines transporting domestic crude oil, however, are covered under the code.

“I think that part of their (TransCanada’s) motivation here is they’ve had a bad couple of weeks in the press. These companies like to come in and play a momentum game,” said Trevor Lovell, environmental program coordinator in the Texas office of Public Citizen. “An interesting legal question I think this will raise is can you apply to build a pipeline and build a pipeline as a common carrier and then switch to piping a substance that is not covered in common carrier status?”

By Polly Ross Hughes

 Copyright February 27, 2012, Harvey Kronberg, www.texasenergyreport.com, All rights are reserved

__________________________________________________________
Link to press release here.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TransCanada Set to Re-Apply for Keystone XL Permit, Proceeding with Gulf Coast Project

Calgary, Alberta - February 27, 2012 - TransCanada Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it has sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) informing the Department the company plans to file a Presidential Permit application (cross border permit) in the near future for the Keystone XL Project from the U.S./Canada border in Montana to Steele City, Nebraska.  TransCanada would supplement that application with an alternative route in Nebraska as soon as that route is selected.

The company also informed the DOS that what had been the Cushing to U.S. Gulf Coast portion of the Keystone XL Project has its own independent value to the marketplace and will be constructed as a stand-alone Gulf Coast Project, not part of the Presidential Permit process.  The approximate cost is US$2.3 billion and subject to regulatory approvals, we anticipate the Gulf Coast Project to be in service in mid to late 2013.

"Our application will include the already reviewed route in Montana and South Dakota," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer.  "The over three year environmental review for Keystone XL completed last summer was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross border pipeline.  Based on that work, we would expect our cross border permit should be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined."

TransCanada will continue to work collaboratively with the State of Nebraska on determining an alternative route for Keystone XL that avoids the Sandhills.  TransCanada has been working on assessing the routing in Nebraska since November 2011, following the State Department's notice to delay a decision on a Presidential Permit until an adjusted route that avoids the Sandhills was developed.

U.S. crude oil production has been growing significantly in States such as Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota and Montana.  Producers do not have access to enough pipeline capacity to move this production to the large refining market at the U.S. Gulf Coast.  The Gulf Coast Project will address this constraint.

"The Gulf Coast Project will transport growing supplies of U.S. crude oil to meet refinery demand in Texas," added Girling.  "Gulf Coast refineries can then access lower cost domestic production and avoid paying a premium to foreign oil producers.  This would reduce the United States' dependence on foreign crude and allow Americans to use more of the crude oil produced in their own country."

Reapplying for the Keystone XL permit is supported by words used in President Obama's statement January 18, 2012 when he said the denial of the permit was not based on the merits of the pipeline but rather on an imposed 60-day legislative timeline to make a decision on the project.

With respect to moving forward on an initiative like the Gulf Coast Project, President Obama stated:  "In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security - including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico."

TransCanada's commitment is to treat landowners with honesty, fairness and respect.  The company has negotiated over 99 per cent of voluntarily easements in Texas and close to 100 per cent in Oklahoma.  Easements make up the route of a pipeline and are similar to an easement for water, sewer and utility lines.  Residents maintain ownership of the land and landowners receive a payment equal to or greater than the land's market value.

Keystone XL remains in the national interest of the United States as it would allow Americans to move closer toward achieving energy security and create thousands of much needed jobs.  Building the Gulf Coast Project would be a positive step in creating approximately 4,000 jobs.  From an energy security standpoint, the U.S. consumes 15 million barrels of oil each day and imports 10 to 11 million - forecasts suggest this will not change for decades.  The Keystone XL project offers Americans a choice of receiving Canadian and U.S. oil through this pipeline system or continuing to import crude oil from unstable places such as the Middle East and Venezuela that do not share American values.

The U.S. manufacturing sector would continue to experience the economic benefits of the project, as TransCanada has contracts with over 50 suppliers across in the U.S.  Manufacturing locations for our equipment include: Texas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Ohio, Arkansas, Kansas and California.  There are hundreds of additional suppliers sub-contracted through our suppliers for our material and equipment.

With more than 60 years experience, TransCanada is a leader in the responsible development and reliable operation of North American energy infrastructure including natural gas and oil pipelines, power generation and gas storage facilities. TransCanada's network of wholly owned natural gas pipelines extends more than 57,000 kilometres (35,500 miles), tapping into virtually all major gas supply basins in North America. TransCanada is one of the continent's largest providers of gas storage and related services with approximately 380 billion cubic feet of storage capacity. A growing independent power producer, TransCanada owns or has interests in over 10,800 megawatts of power generation in Canada and the United States. TransCanada is developing one of North America's largest oil delivery systems. TransCanada's common shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under the symbol TRP. For more information visit: http://www.transcanada.com and follow us on Twitter @TransCanada.

FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION This publication contains certain information that is forward-looking and is subject to important risks and uncertainties (such statements are usually accompanied by words such as "anticipate", "expect", "would" or other similar words). Forward-looking statements in this document are intended to provide TransCanada security holders and potential investors with information regarding TransCanada and its subsidiaries, including management's assessment of TransCanada's and its subsidiaries' future financial and operation plans and outlook.  All forward-looking statements reflect TransCanada's beliefs and assumptions based on information available at the time the statements were made. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on this forward-looking information. TransCanada undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information except as required by law. For additional information on the assumptions made, and the risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ from the anticipated results, refer to TransCanada's Management's Discussion and Analysis dated February 15, 2012 under TransCanada's profile on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com and other reports filed by TransCanada with Canadian securities regulators and with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Texas Supreme Court rules in favor of landowners' water rights

Details
News
Link to article here.

Another property rights victory for Texas landowners, this time int he arena of water rights. This is the biggest decision since the Texas Rice Farmers v. Denbury Green Pipeline Company case where the Texas Supreme Court ruled a private pipeline could not exercise eminent domain authority under the auspices of being a 'common carrier' pipeline if the company did not, in fact, meet the legal requirements as a 'common carrier' for public use. Due to the Court decision in August of 2011, for the first time, landowners can challenge a pipeline company's common carrier status and hence its ability to use eminent domain.

The Texas Tribune

Texas Supreme Court Rules For Landowners in Water Case

by Kate Galbraith
2/24/2012
 
In a case with potentially vast implications for groundwater rules in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of two farmers in the San Antonio area who challenged the local aquifer authority's sharp restrictions on their use of a water well on their land.

The much-anticipated ruling is "going to make life much more complicated for groundwater districts," said Gregory Ellis, an attorney and the former general manager of the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA).

Texans wanting to put a well on their land generally must go to their local groundwater conservation district for permission to withdraw a certain amount of water, as part of an effort to keep aquifers healthy.

The case involved a challenge to the Edwards Aquifer Authority by two farmers, Burrell Day (who has since passed away) and Joel McDaniel, who had sought a permit to pump from the Edwards Aquifer in 1996 to grow crops on their 350-acre ranch in Van Ormy, just south of San Antonio. They figured they had rights to the water because their ranch sits right on top of it, within the boundaries of the aquifer.

But because they were unable to prove “historical use” — the method by which the EAA allocates water — of the full 700 acre-feet of water they wanted, the authority granted them a permit for only 14 acre-feet. Their subsequent "takings claim" alleged the EAA had violated their constitutional rights by depriving them of their property without compensation.
The Supreme Court, which took the case after an appellate court ruling, sent the case back to district court to determine the details of whether or not the farmers have a "takings" claim and whether the Edwards Aquifer Authority must pay a penalty.

"The aquifer authority’s permitting based on historical use is a policy departure from the Texas Water Code’s permitting factors without justification," a summary of Friday's opinion, which was written by Justice Nathan Hecht, stated.

The ruling added, "The Court reasons that groundwater in place is owned by the landowner on the basis of oil and gas law."

Landowner groups were happy with the ruling, which they said balances private property rights with reasonable regulation. "We're pretty pleased," said Billy Howe, a representative of the Texas Farm Bureau.

But environmental groups are concerned. The ruling "injects huge uncertainty" into a recovery program in the Edwards Aquifer Area, aimed at maintaining certain levels of spring flows and helping endangered species, said Myron Hess of the National Wildlife Federation.

Tom Mason, of the Austin law firm Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, said the ruling was likely to lead to more litigation.

"Landowners with wells may be encouraged by this and want to challenge groundwater district regulations, particularly in the Edwards Aquifer Authority," he said. Meanwhile, as the courts consider the implications of the ruling, groundwater districts "may be a little less inclined to regulate as vigorously as before," Mason said.

Russell Johnson, a water law attorney in Austin with McGinnis, Lochridge, & Kilgore, said that the decision is a victory for landowners.

"It's kind of like zoning ordinances, and what the court is saying is — you can zone people's property, but it has to be reasonable," he said.

Johnson, who is currently attending a water law conference in San Antonio, said the news was groundbreaking.

"Talk about a bomb being dropped at a water law conference," he said.

Morgan Smith contributed reporting.

Texas battlefield in Keystone pipeline fight

Details
News
Posted on Wed, Feb. 22, 2012

Texas becomes battlefield in Keystone XL pipeline fight

Dave Montgomery
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

AUSTIN — The politically volatile Keystone XL pipeline is becoming embroiled in a widening controversy in Texas as supporters tout the promise of jobs and other economic benefits while increasingly vocal opponents say the project would trample property rights and endanger water supplies in East Texas.

Although President Barack Obama rejected the application by TransCanada, the pipeline company says it plans to resubmit its proposal to transport heavy crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. The project holds $2 billion of economic potential for Texas, more than for any other state, according to a survey commissioned by TransCanada.

Its high-profile supporters include Gov. Rick Perry and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, all Republicans. Perry made the pipeline an element of his failed presidential bid by blasting Obama's rejection of the application, accusing the president of squandering the chance to create jobs.

"There is not a politician in Texas in their right mind -- I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican -- that doesn't know the importance of this to all of Texas," said Bill McCoy, president of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce. At least two Port Arthur refineries, Motiva Enterprises and Valero, would be on the receiving end of the 1,661-mile pipeline.


Opposition campaign

But landowners, environmentalists and property rights advocates have begun stepping forward in an impassioned campaign against the 376 miles of pipeline that would stretch through 18 counties in East Texas.

Opponents accuse TransCanada of using bullying tactics to seize land rights for the project and say a spill could pollute vital water resources in drought-ridden Texas.

Sign-wielding protesters gathered outside a court hearing in Paris on Friday to support Julia Trigg Crawford in her efforts to block TransCanada from digging on a 600-acre farm that has been in her family since 1948.

Crawford, who manages the farm, says the pipeline threatens Bois d'Arc Creek, which flows through the Northeast Texas property, as well as Native American archaeological remains.

"My hope is that our state leaders will see that their landowners are being bullied," Crawford told the Star-Telegram earlier in the week.

The opposition campaign has also re-energized a property rights coalition that flexed its muscle during the last decade to upend one of Perry's most ambitious projects, the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The project was originally envisioned as a $145 billion-plus supernetwork of tollways, rails and utility lines. It dissolved after it was attacked as a land grab that would encroach on thousands of private acres. The involvement of a foreign contractor, Spain-based Cintra, further angered opponents.

"We certainly have shades of the corridor fight resurrecting themselves," said Wharton businesswoman Debra Medina, who ran against Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial race and is a leading opponent of the Keystone project.

"You've got a foreign company. You've got a private property battle. If I know Texans like I think I do, I think the landowners will win," Medina said.

The project would complement an existing TransCanada pipeline in the United States, doubling the system's total capacity to 1.1 million barrels of crude a day into U.S. markets, the company said. The 1,661-mile, 36-inch, $7 billion pipeline would start in Alberta, Canada, and stretch through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Obama turned down the application over concerns about the route's potential impact on the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sandhills, but he left the door open for a new application. Republicans accused the president of turning his back on a project that supporters say would create more than 100,000 jobs.

Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company plans to resubmit the application to reroute the pipeline away from the sand hills, but the rest of the route, including the Texas portion, would remain the same.

Waco economist Ray Perryman, in a TransCanada-sponsored study that critics dispute, says the pipeline would create at least 50,000 jobs in Texas, by far the most of any pipeline state. Perryman also predicts $41 million in state government revenue and $7.6 million for local governments during construction.

Water worries

But many of those in or near the proposed route say the uncertainties and potential hazards outweigh the positives. In Reklaw, population 266, Mayor Harlan Crawford says fighting the pipeline has become his principal mission in a job otherwise filled with the predictable litany of small-town complaints, such as stray dogs and water problems.

The community, which Crawford, 77, describes as "just a blink in the road," was founded in 1890. Settlers wanted the name Walker but, learning that it was taken, opted for the backward spelling. Many current inhabitants are aging retirees.

After learning that the pipeline would run near the town, residents joined forces with Gallatin, another small farming community, to form the equivalent of a regional compact that would give them more power to challenge the pipeline. One big concern for the alliance is the potential contamination of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, which lies underneath 60 counties.

"This is some nasty stuff, and we look to get it stopped," Crawford said.

Others say TransCanada representatives also applied not-so-subtle pressure when they began acquiring access to property to build the pipeline.

"They were pushy and would intimidate you and said you had to sign this thing," said Eleanor Fairchild, who lives near Winnsboro in Wood County. Like others, she said, she "got into the fight" out of concern over possible water contamination.

"We can live without oil," she said, "but we cannot live without water."

Michael Bishop, a retired Marine who owns 20 acres in Nacogdoches County, hired an attorney to fight the project after learning that the route would cut through his orchard and garden.

"It's going to totally disrupt my life as I know it," he said. "Is it fair for a foreign-owned company to come over here and take land for their private use and their personal gain?"

Eminent domain

As with the Trans-Texas Corridor, the pipeline dispute seems certain to reopen a legislative debate over eminent domain powers, which governmental entities and so-called common carriers such as utilities and pipelines use to acquire land for public projects after compensating the owner.

TransCanada has used eminent domain to acquire a number of tracts, but critics of the company are challenging that authority, citing a 2011 Texas Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for pipelines to meet the definition of a common carrier.

Entities with eminent domain powers typically first seek to negotiate with a landowner. If they can't agree, the entity sues to take the land. The courts also appoint a three-member commission to set a price.

Howard, the TransCanada spokesman, called eminent domain proceedings "an absolute last resort" for the company and said "we do everything we can" to reach a voluntary agreement instead of going to court. He also said the company uses the property as a right of way for the pipeline and does not take ownership.

The company has obtained 99 percent of the easements needed to build the pipeline in Texas, with only 19 tracts outstanding, he said.

Medina, who now heads We Texans, a conservative advocacy group, says she has documented at least 89 lawsuits in which property owners were taken to court. She also said others have been forced to negotiate because they couldn't afford a legal battle.

To read more, visit www.star-telegram.com.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.


Texas farmer's battle a cause celebre for U.S. opponents of Keystone pipeline

By Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia News Washington Correspondent -- February 23, 2012
Canada.com
 
WASHINGTON - When Julia Trigg Crawford starred as a forward for Texas A&M University's basketball team in the 1970s, the games she relished most were the ones in which her Aggies squad was outmatched by a bigger, more powerful opponent.

``Even if you think you are going to get trounced, you still take the court,'' she said. ``Even if you are up against a Top 10 opponent, you still play to win.''

That's how Crawford, a 53-year-old farm manager in east Texas, feels about the battle she's now engaged in against Calgary-based TransCanada Corp.

As early as Friday, Crawford could learn whether a Texas court will extend a temporary restraining order blocking TransCanada from future construction of the Keystone XL pipeline across her 243-hectare farm.

The case has become the latest cause celebre for U.S. environmentalists opposed to the pipeline - and the latest headache for TransCanada as it continues to pursue approval of the $7 billion oilsands project.

President Barack Obama last month denied a permit to allow TransCanada to proceed with construction of the pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels per day from Hardisty, Alta. to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas.

Notwithstanding Obama's ruling, TransCanada is proceeding with efforts to establish its control over a 12-hectare section of Crawford's farm in northeast Texas's Lamar County.

The company claims it legally condemned the property under Texas eminent domain law in October 2011. Lamar County Judge Bill Harris may decide at a Friday court hearing if he will lift a Feb. 13 injunction that halts any potential construction on the land.

Crawford's only legal recourse in the case, TransCanada lawyers argue, is to accept $20,790 to cover damage to the property.

``We are not going to have one landowner hold up a multi-billion dollar project that is going to be for the benefit of the public. That is my whole argument,'' TransCanada's lawyer, James Freeman, told an earlier court hearing on Feb. 17.

``They're entitled to their day in court, but they're not going to be able to stop the pipeline project under (Texas law).''

TransCanada has some powerful allies in the fight. At last week's hearing, the company submitted letters in support of Keystone XL from Texas governor Rick Perry, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

The fight between Crawford and TransCanada dates to 2008, when the company first applied to build the 2,700 kilometre Keystone XL pipeline.

A section of the proposed line crosses a hay meadow on Crawford's farm, which is located along the banks of the Red River on the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Crawford and other members of her family - including her father, brother and sister - are worried about potential pollution to a creek they use to irrigate crops of soybeans, corn and wheat.

The pipeline also would run near archeological ruins from a centuries-old settlement of the Caddo Indian tribe. TransCanada and Crawford dispute whether the planned Keystone XL route would disturb historically significant artifacts.

``When they told us they found an area that was completely barren of any artifacts, frankly we figured that was a statistical improbability,'' said Crawford, whose family has owned the farm since 1948.

``We have been walking on this land for 60 years. We know on a daily basis you will look down and find things.''

The legal fight centres around TransCanada's claim it has the power to condemn private land under eminent domain laws because the pipeline is a ``common carrier'' of crude oil that would benefit the public.

A 2011 case in the Texas Supreme Court, however, brought into doubt whether it is constitutional for a private company to undertake eminent domain proceedings against landowners as a common carrier.

Terry Cunha, a TransCanada spokesman, said the eminent domain law is ``well established'' and the company follows ``the process that is set out by law in each state.''

Although TransCanada originally sought to begin work on Keystone XL across Crawford's farm as early as March 2012, Cunha said Obama's rejection of the pipeline permit has halted those plans.

``The March date was arbitrary,'' Cunha said. ``As you can appreciate, we had hoped to have the permit before the end of 2011. Without the permit, we cannot proceed with construction.''

The company's focus, he said, is on ``re-filing'' an application for Keystone XL with an alternate route that avoids the ecologically-sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska.

TransCanada now projects an in-service date of 2015 for Keystone XL, pending regulatory approval.

Crawford acknowledges the irony of waging a court fight with TransCanada over a pipeline that may or may not ever be built.

When Obama denied the Keystone XL pipeline permit in January, ``I got all these calls from people saying congratulations, you guys are off the hook,'' said Crawford.

``I'm like, `No we're not.' ''

Emotions around the Texas case are running high. The Feb. 17 court hearing in Paris, Texas was the site of a spirited protest that included activists from the Occupy movement as well as opponents concerned about private property rights.

As for Crawford, she was among more than 1,000 people arrested last summer during a two-week anti-pipeline sit-in outside the White House.

First and foremost, Crawford considers herself a farmer trying to protect her land.

``I'm just someone who decided to stand up and push back. We are a very proud Texas family,'' Crawford said. ``Even though I know it is just the Crawford family farm against TransCanada, it is worth taking a stand.''

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Virginians protest tolls & PPP on Hampton Roads

Details
Public Private Partnerships

http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-street-smart-0212-20120211,0,4506916.column
 

dailypress.com

More than 3,500 sign anti-toll petition

Street Smart

By Jon Cawley

9:25 PM EST, February 11, 2012

 
Do you hate the idea of paying a toll to travel between Norfolk and Portsmouth in the Midtown or Downtown tunnels?

Perhaps what really gets you steamed is the likelihood that even more tolls will pop up around Hampton Roads as part of a growing trend toward mega-project public/private partnerships.

A Suffolk resident has started an online petition to express that very dismay. And as of Friday evening, more than 3,500 people have signed Todd Cairns' petition on http://www.change.org. The petition is "Tell Virginia State and Local Officials: Block Tolls in Hampton Roads."

In part, the petition reads: "In an attempt to make up for a road-funding model that becomes increasingly insufficient with each passing day, Hampton Roads is on the precipice of heavy tolls and public-private partnerships. While there is much concern from our citizens and representatives, the response is divided. This petition has been created to unify our concerns and hopefully to reverse course on public-private partnerships and tolls.

"The most worrisome aspect is what tolls will do to the local economy and citizens. In Hampton Roads, it will heavily affect small businesses, students at ODU, NSU, TCC, the military who depend on our roadways," the petition states.
A second online petition at the same website has garnered 89 supporters.

The petitions are an example of the growing public discord in Hampton Roads regarding Gov. Bob McDonnell's plan to finance state transportation needs — such as a new Midtown Tunnel tube and upgrades to the Downtown Tunnel and Martin Luther King Expressway — in large part through public/private partnerships and tolling.

The governor's plan to start a statewide tolling authority suffered a setback last week when it was stripped from General Assembly legislation before the Senate finance committee.

DMV grants

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety Office is accepting transportation safety grant applications from programs statewide that "strive to reduce traffic deaths and injuries."

The deadline for filing a submission is March 15.

The cost-reimbursement funding phase, for selected programs, will run Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013, according to a DMV statement.

Instructions say applicants should contact their regional manager to get access to an online application that must be filled out at http://www.dmvnow.com. The Portsmouth regional manager is Dwight Jenkins. He can be reached at 804-699-0364 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Trans Texas Corridor

Public Private Partnerships

Regional Mobility Authority

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Climate Policy

Video

Page 47 of 103
  • Start
  • Prev
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • Next
  • End

Latest News

  • Costly and Glitchy: A Taxpayer-Funded Electric Vehicle Odyssey
  • Paxton sues more companies for illegally harvesting, selling driver data
  • NYC imposes congestion tolls on cars to pay for transit upgrades
  • NYC congestion tolling unleashes congestion nightmare
  • Still waiting: Families, victims await justice for I-35 pileup in 2021
  • Broken promise: Leaders promised to remove tolls in Harris County once roads paid for
  • Watch Fox-TV Houston panelists sound off on SH 288 double taxation
  • Incoming House members ask Abbott's Commission to declare end date on SH 288 tolls

Latest Press Releases

  • TxDOT awash in cash, $15 billion richer
  • TURF bill to prevent remote kill switches in cars gets filed
  • Grassroots groups sue state of Texas over Prop 2 illegal ballot
  • 'No on Prop 2' campaign steps up opposition to property tax increases
  • Grassroots groups hail Abbott's non-toll plan for I-35 expansion through Austin
  • Stop tolls, criminal penalties during coronavirus
  • BIG Fat 'F': Majority of state lawmakers earn failing grade
  • Krause bill undermines Governor's 'No toll' pledge, renews private toll contracts
Truth Be Tolled :: Voices will be heard
Texans for Toll-Free Highways
TURF - Defending Our Property Rights and Freedom to Travel

© 2006-2023 All Rights Reserved.  Texans United for Reform & Freedom

FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. TexasTURF.org is making this article available for academic research purposes in our non-commercial, non-profit, effort to advance the understanding of government accountability, civil liberties, citizen rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.TexasTURF.org  does not express or imply that TexasTURF.org holds any claim of copyright on such material as may appear on this page.
Bootstrap is a front-end framework of Twitter, Inc. Code licensed under MIT License. Font Awesome font licensed under SIL OFL 1.1.