Texas Supreme Court rules in favor of landowners' water rights

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

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


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..

Rendell calls to strike ban on tolling interstates

Rendell wants to strike ban on tolling interstates

By Terri Hall, San Antonio Transportation Policy Examiner
February 17, 2012

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell headlined the second day of the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) 7th Annual Texas Transportation Forum at the Grand Hyatt in downtown San Antonio. The theme of the conference was a TxDOT (hence taxpayer) sponsored plea for more money. Rendell didn’t disappoint. His geniality and humor didn’t make his attacks on the taxpayer any more palatable, however.

He blamed Congressional inaction on a new federal highway bill (that expired in 2009) on fear. He said, “They’re all scared of Grover Norquist,” and likened Norquist to the Wizard in Wizard of Oz,  who had a powerful hora until Dorothy and her friends discover who’s actually behind the curtain -- a whimpy little guy that’s all bark and no bite. He equated those afraid of raising taxes as "afraid of their own shadow."

Because of Norquists’s no tax pledge, “we basically have a Congress who has pledged never to raise taxes no matter what,” Rendell concludes. “If we don’t retry courage (the courage to raise transportation taxes), we’re cooked.”

 
Lobbying to remove ban on tolling existing freeways
But the most anti-taxpayer statement came when the former Governor called to lift the ban on tolling existing federal-aid highways from the federal highway bill -- a ban Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has put in place for Texans since 2007.

In the same speech, Rendell, a Democrat, said he agreed with the tea party sentiment that we can’t saddle our grandchildren with debt, yet he also said “there’s never been a better time to borrow.” The way toll roads are being done in Texas and around the country are not like traditional turnpikes where they were brand new roads and private bond investors took all the risk if the drivers didn’t show up.

Now states are slapping tolls on existing right of way, even on existing free lanes, a DOUBLE TAX, charging us again to use what we drive on today toll-free. It’s a giant tax grab (while they tell you they’re not raising taxes). Private bond investors now insist upon profit guarantees that ensure congestion on competing free routes through non-compete clauses that prohibit or penalize government agencies if they expand free roads surrounding the tollways. Most all “managed lane” toll projects, where they add toll lanes to existing corridors, use heaps of taxpayer money to subsidize them, so the risk gets shifted to taxpayers rather than the private bond investors.

Rendell remarked that Texas used to be the model for road privatization and that it can be again. There’s one BIG reason why Texas faded from the forefront of privatization  -- the PEOPLE of Texas DO NOT want to sell-off our Texas sovereign public road system to private corporations in government-sanctioned monopolies that essentially give corporations the power to tax.

Such deals, called public private partnerships (PPPs), include extremely high toll rates and represent eminent domain abuse as well-- taking someones’s private land (in the name of a ‘public use,’ a road), and handing it over to another private party for private gain. Texans hold property rights sacred, so this doesn’t sit well either.

When Rendell was Pennsylvania’s Governor, he tried to sell the Pennsylvania turnpike to private interests and his legislature voted it down. Where is such a spirit in the Texas Legislature that just voted to hand 15 more segments of Texas roadways to foreign companies using PPPs despite no popular support for it? Georgia Governor Nathan Deal recently called PPPs “ill-conceived sell-outs of state sovereignty.” He’s exactly right, Texans agree. However, Texas Governor Rick Perry and state leaders are really good at ‘states rights’ rhetoric, but their actions keep the special interest money coming.

Rendell went so far as to liken the fight to raise transportation taxes to our Founding Fathers‘ fight for liberty. What? He said America was built by risk takers (colonial shopkeepers who stood up to the mightiest nation on earth), and he encouraged the room full of road industry advocates and lobbyists to encourage lawmakers to take the risk to vote to ‘increase funding’ (ie - raise taxes). Why is it a risk? Because they are likely to be held accountable at the ballot box (but they’re counting on the voters’ short memory, as usual). Rendell said to “give them (lawmakers) a permission slip” to raise taxes.

How was American prosperity built?
Something’s wrong with this picture. America was not built on tax hikes, in fact, quite the opposite. The American War of Independence was sparked by a tax protest, the Boston Tea Party, and they fought for freedom from King George’s tax tyranny. Rendell equated raising taxes with making America great again, but there’s never been an economic model that shows any country can tax its way into prosperity.

Even worse, though Rendell had stirred up controversy with these words before, he chose to end his speech with it anyway. He invoked Todd Beamer’s American spirit during the 9-11 attacks by telling the road lobby to get moving on those tax hikes by repeating Beamer’s inspirational last words, “Let’s Roll” -- as if the fight AGAINST the taxpayer in raising road taxes is a noble cause equivalent to the cause of American liberty for which those who gave their lives on 9-11 were taken into eternity! OUTRAGEOUS! He didn’t even get Mr. Beamer’s name right.

Why would a Republican Governor’s highway department invite a Democrat ex-Governor to come down to ‘conservative,’ tax-averse Texas to advocate for the MOST expensive way to fund roads -- unbridled tax hikes in the hands of unelected toll road bureaucrats and even private corporations? Perhaps because Governor Perry and our state leaders are not so conservative after all. Special interests know no party lines.

The forum concluded with videotaped remarks from Senator John Cornyn. The plight of the federal highway bill currently being debated in the U.S. Senate loomed large over the two-day event. Cornyn could not make it back to Texas to deliver his address live due to the floor action on the highway bill. Like last year, Cornyn advocated for PPPs and tolling, but he added a new tax to those -- indexing the gas tax. Yesterday, State Representative Drew Darby advocated for a $50 hike in vehicle registration fees to raise revenue to end the $1 billion in annual gas tax diversions. Rather than exercise fiscal discipline, by ending gas tax diversions through prioritizing spending, Darby lobbied for yet more tax hikes.

Really? They want all of the above? We won’t have money left for food and a roof over our heads if this license to tax, tax, tax becomes law.

It begs the question -- where exactly are the conservative leaders in Texas? It sure wasn’t on display at this taxpayer-sponsored shin-dig. Our personal economic survival is on the line, and if our leaders have their way, you’ll soon be paying a premium to maintain your freedom to travel.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Rendell wants to strike ban on tolling interstates - San Antonio Transportation Policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/rendell-wants-to-strike-ban-on-tolling-interstates#ixzz1mr0JL5yT

TxDOT drops idea of PPP on Grand Pkwy


Link to article here.

Don't confuse dropping the idea of a controversial public private partnership idea for the Grand Parkway as a move to do the right thing at TxDOT. It's all about weak traffic and revenue projections for those segments. Note: ALL Texas taxpayers will be on the hook for up to $550 million in SUBSIDIES for this LOSER toll project. Once again, our highway dept and politicians push a fiscally irresponsible, ill-conceived toll project upon Texans. They don't care how much of a rip-off and tax increase they saddle multiple generations of Texans with, as long as they get a ribbon cutting ceremony photo-op.

TxDOT drops P3 concession on Grand Parkway TX99 for design-build

Posted on Sun, 2012-02-12 21:49
Toll Road News

 Texas DOT has announced it is dropping the toll concession approach for the next stage of the Grand Parkway (TX99) north of Houston in favor of taking the traffic and revenue risk itself and using a design-build (DB) contract. In the usual brisk Texan fashion the decision came about a week after TxDOT had listed groups qualified for both concessions and DB on around 38 miles, 61km (segments F1, F2, and G of an eventual 180 mile, 290km circumferential road. It varies between about 23 miles to 40 miles, 37km-65km out from central Houston.

The 38 mile 2x2 lane segments that are part of this project run from the US290 northwest of Houston generally east through the far northern part of Harris County crossing I-45 and passing into Montgomery County  to terminate at US59. There are three expressway-to-expressway interchanges with those long and expensive direct connectors  and some segments with free frontage roads but the right of way will allow point upgrades where traffic justifies it.

Project cost for the F1, F2, and G stretch is put at around $1,400m - for a cost of $38m/route mile and about $9.5m/lane-mile. (TxDOT has a lower project cost number in a presentation for stakeholders: $1,129m.)

In a presentation last year (link below) TxDOT said they expected to get a concession fee to be paid at close of $1,100m. Design-build they said then would require a subsidy of $550m over toll revenue bonds.

A spokesman said that the difficult financial climate and weak traffic and revenue forecasts for the Parkway meant they were so unlikely to get strong toll concession proposals it wasn't worth pursuing that track.

Earlier forecasting in a presentation showed 2021 revenue for F1/F2/G segments in the range $130m to $260m, 2026 $190m to $480m, 2031 $230m to $650m, 2041 $300m to $1,120m (based on read-off of a graph.)

But there's a E segment (nearly 16 miles,25km long) already under construction that TxDOT will toll along with the three new segments.

Toll configuration

The new project segments F1, F2, G involves six mainline toll points and ten pairs of ramp toll points. The existing E segment to the southwest of F1 involves two more mainline toll points and nine ramp pairs. So E:G has 8 mainline toll points and 19 pairs of ramp tolls.

All-electronic tolling by transponder or license plate camera image is proposed, as in all other new toll facilities in Texas.

Traffic and revenue projections

Wilbur Smith's latest traffic and revenue forecasts for the Grand Parkway are only released in the form of a spreadsheet, but they incorporate an interesting approach in which they express different forecasts with four different probabilities: P10 meaning there is only a 10% probability the forecast will not be met (90% probability of meeting them), P25 a 25% probability of failing…., P75, and P90 a 90% probability that the forecast won't be met. And they forecast each constrained (by limited lanes) and unconstrained (with more lanes).

The forecasts use a starting toll rate of 17.1c/mile, 11c/km the toll rates increasing with the escalation of risk.

The P25 forecasts are for traffic starting in 2016 at 47.74m/year or 131k/day.

Remember this is the toller's definition of traffic - number of toll transactions. Since point tolling is being used each trip often generate multiple toll transactions, between one and nine transactions as tolls are struck along the pike.

Traffic defined as toll transactions about doubles after the first five years (2021) to 248k/day - the 'ramped up' traffic.

Over the next five years to 2026 the increase is just under 30% on the ramped-up 2021 volume and 15 years later in 2041 it is up 2/3 on 2021 traffic.

Revenue rises more steeply of course because toll rates are assumed to rise, from $55m in the first full year to $119m ramped-up in 2021, then to $170 in 2026 and about $300m in 2041.

Five bid for concessions, seven for DB

Five well-known international groups based in Europe and Australia qualified to make toll concession proposals: Vinci Concessions SAS, Macquarie Ltd, Cintra Infraestructuras SA, ACS SL/Hochtieff PPP, and OHL SA. But no US group qualified, nor several overseas groups that often bid.

Seven groups have qualified for the design-build project. Some of the companies partnering with toll concession proposers were also in groups making design-build bids, but most of them were separate. (see table nearby)

TX99 was one of eleven priority projects authorized by the legislature (SB1420) in 2011 for toll concessions.

The executive director Phil Wilson is quoted in a statement recently: "We review and manage each one of these priority projects based on their own merits and think the design-build option is the best way to go forward on the Grand Parkway."

They hope to award the contract before the end of 2012 and break ground on the project early 2013.

Probabilistic forecasts comment by T&R consultant

Robert Bain, the leading independent consultant on traffic and revenue forecasting (RBconsult Ltd www.robbain.com) says probabilistic numbers are a useful addition to forecast modeling. He says the uncertainty range as presented by WSA "does appear to be reasonable."

He advocates another approach as a supplement.

"On the chart I plot WSA’s base case and their ‘P10’ case.  P10 simply means that, by their reckoning, there’s only a 10% chance of traffic (or transactions, as it appears here) falling below these estimates.
 
"I also plot – in red – my own estimate of the lower boundary likely to apply to the prediction intervals associated with traffic forecasts."

He defines two ‘states’: dynamic and stable.  

"A stable environment is one in which traffic conditions are mature and the ‘drivers’ of growth (population, employment etc.) are likely to evolve in predictable ways.  As traffic forecasts are likely to be more accurate under these stable conditions, the predictive interval boundary lies closer to WSA’s base case.

He also models statistically what he calls a dynamic environment - "one experiencing on-going change, where traffic forecasting is likely to be less likely.  Both of my boundaries have been estimated through countless reviews of toll road traffic forecasting accuracy that I’ve undertaken over the past 10 years.  And they’ve been validated through a survey I conducted of traffic forecasters (and others) asking specifically about the forecasting accuracy associated with time horizons of different lengths."
 
Bain says WSA’s P10 sits pretty comfortably between his two (lower) boundaries – suggesting that their estimates of traffic forecasting uncertainty align with mine, and with a good deal of empirical evidence.  

"Well done WSA.  Traffic forecasters are generally inclined to overestimate the predictive capabilities of their models – but not here."

But Bain says he is commenting entirely on their statistical approach to drawing conclusions of probability from the base case forecast. He knows nothing about the project or the reasonableness of the base case.

And since everything rests on that the base case and what went into it the various probabilistic forecasts are just as dependent on the quality of the base data as the base forecast.

"The P95 means that there’s only a 5% change of the revenue being lower IN THE MODEL AND AS THE MODEL IS SPECIFIED."

SETTING: The Grand Parkway caters to the developing fringe of the Houston metro area, Texas second most populous after Dallas-Ft Worth. Houston and Texas growth has been heavily hit by the Great Recession and the Obama administration's tax and energy policies. But unlike much of the rest of the country some growth has continued and prospects for recovery should be better in Texas than most other parts of the US.

In Texas they generally build efficiently minimizing the capital cost to be carried and recovered.

Still future population and traffic in fringe areas like this is uncertain. And TxDOT's policy of providing free frontage roads alongside the tolled roadways in developed areas loses considerable traffic and revenue to the free lanes, and limits the tolls that can be asked.

http://www.gpprocurement.com/

http://www.txdot.gov/grandparkway.htm

http://www.txdot.gov/project_information/projects/houston/sh99_grand_par...

http://www.gpprocurement.com/resources/1/Home_Files/presentation_112911.pdf

http://www.gpprocurement.com/page50505155.aspx?cat=13

http://www.grandpky.com/home/

NOTE: Since these forecasts Wilbur Smith Associates has been acquired and is now part of CDMSmith.

DFW officials draw line the sand, insist on free lanes, not just toll lanes on I-35E in Denton

Link to article here.

DFW officials put their foot down over toll projects

Posted Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012

By Gordon Dickson

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

LEWISVILLE -- After years of enduring one toll project on top of another, North Texans are striking back and insisting that they get some new free lanes, too.

This latest twist in the state's effort to keep up with congestion is playing out on Interstate 35E, a 28-mile corridor from Interstate 635 in Dallas to U.S. 380 in Denton. The highway is overdue for a makeover that could cost more than $4 billion and is tentatively scheduled to begin in about a year.

Denton County officials have accepted that the project will include new toll lanes in the median, which will allow motorists to buy their way out of congestion on the main lanes. But they're also insisting that the project add at least one free lane in each direction.

The county has saved $600 million to contribute to the project, but officials have told the Texas Department of Transportation that they won't play ball unless free lanes are included in the first phase of road work.

"TxDOT for a while has said they want to be sensitive to local desires," said John Polster, Denton County transportation consultant. "We had to show that $600 million would not build enough of what people wanted. The intent was to show that, if we're going to build something we're going to have to have more partnerships."
The effort to pay for I-35E expansion is expected to be among the hot topics at the Texas Transportation Forum, an annual event hosted by the Transportation Department today and Friday in San Antonio.

The I-35E project is different from other recent road work in North Texas in that there's a concerted effort to include free lanes in the earliest construction phase.

By contrast, in Tarrant County, the $2.5 billion reconstruction of Northeast Loop 820 and Texas 121/183 -- a project known as North Tarrant Express -- includes the addition of four managed toll lanes but no new free lanes until possibly as late as December 2030, according to the state's contract with the developer.

The I-35E project would more closely resemble the $1 billion DFW Connector under way in Grapevine -- a project that does include new free lanes as well as managed toll lanes. A lack of funding delayed that project for years, until it was kick-started in 2009 by $250 million in federal stimulus funds.

On I-35E, Denton County has perhaps more leverage than other local entities because of the $600 million it is bringing to the table. The money comes from Denton County's share of the $3.2 billion paid to the region by the North Texas Tollway Authority in 2007 to take over the Texas 121 project, now the Sam Rayburn Tollway.

Residents revolt

When initial reports surfaced that Denton County's $600 million would be enough to build only managed toll lanes on I-35E, residents revolted. Even elected officials who hadn't been involved in transportation issues began to ask questions.

"I really think we need to expand I-35. However, we need to be zealous in how we do it," said Denton County Commissioner Hugh Coleman, who spoke during a recent stakeholders meeting. "We need to make sure we do it right, because it's one of the most valuable transportation properties in Texas."

The Transportation Department and North Central Texas Council of Governments are holding numerous private conversations to determine how much money can be added to the project. By some estimates, Denton County's $600 million could be combined with $300 million in unspecified state transportation funds and $600 million from the council of governments for a total of $1.5 billion.

That amount, officials say, should be more than enough to ensure that the initial phase of construction includes one new free lane in each direction, two managed toll lanes and a complicated array of ramps connecting I-35E to the President George Bush Turnpike and Sam Rayburn Tollway on a busy 1.5-mile stretch in Lewisville.

But for now, state officials are keeping mum about precisely where they'll get the money, although they hope to decide within 30 days.

"Absolutely understand this is a project of statewide priority," said Texas Transportation Commissioner Bill Meadows of Fort Worth. "But the project has become complicated just by the sheer magnitude of it."

Options for building

Once the funding picture is more clear, regional leaders must decide whether to seek a private developer to take over the project for 52 years in the form of a comprehensive development agreement. State law allows only a limited number of projects with that arrangement, which is often criticized because it tends to draw interest from foreign-based companies.

Another option would be a design-build arrangement, similar to what is being used on the DFW Connector. Design-build would allow an outside developer to oversee construction of toll and free lanes, while letting the state keep control of the corridor -- and the toll revenue.

Although the design-build arrangement might be more politically expedient, a comprehensive development agreement could give the region more bang for its bucks because an outside developer could invest its own money in the project in return for the right to collect tolls.

Once the Transportation Department and council of governments announce their funding levels, a state-formed committee will determine which type of developer to hire for the I-35E project.

The committee will weigh factors such as financial risk and tolling structure, said Polster, one of the committee's seven members.

Then, the state will publish a request for proposals -- a process similar to bidding -- and select a best value. Everyone involved hopes that such work can be done by December, making it possible to begin the road work by early next year.

Although negotiations between state agencies are often tense, North Texans have become quite good at delivering projects with alternative sources of revenue rather than relying on state and federal gas taxes, said Michael Morris, transportation director for the council of governments. Morris is confident that the public will be happy with the I-35E improvements.

"You'll see elements of gas tax lanes. You'll see elements of managed lanes," he said. "I think it will be an amazing combination of elements."

Senate Amendments could dampen market for road privatization

Link to article here.

Highway Bill Could Dampen Market For Long-Term Leases, Like Indiana Toll Road

By Matt Sledge
Huffington Post
February 10,2012
 
An amendment added to the Senate Finance Committee's portion of the highway bill on Tuesday would change the tax code to prohibit companies from depreciating the value of highways they lease from states. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), would apply only to so-called "brownfield" highways that have already been built.

Highway leases came under increasing scrutiny in the United States after the Indiana Toll Road and the Chicago Skyway were leased for 75- and 99-year terms to foreign companies in the 2000s.

Bingaman's proposal is strongly supported by the trucking industry, because privatizing highways generally results in higher tolls. But as the Senate transportation bill moves forward -- the Senate approved cloture on a motion to proceed in discussing it Thursday -- it could face increased opposition from Wall Street and law firms that stand to gain on fees from such deals.

“The tax code is encouraging the privatization of public highways by offering generous tax breaks to private entities, and U.S. taxpayers are footing the very expensive bill. This practice doesn’t make any sense and I’m glad we’re a step closer to changing it,” Bingaman said in a statement Wednesday.

Currently, when a private operator leases a toll road for a period of 75 or 99 years, its value can depreciate over 15 years, which translates into a quicker tax break. Bingaman's amendment would spread out the depreciation over 45 years, and also forbid states and municipalities from issuing private activity bonds with cheap interest rates on the behalf of private toll road operators. The bill would apply both to federal interstates and state highways.

Phineas Baxandall, a senior analyst at the US Public Interest Research Group, told HuffPost that if passed, Bingaman's legislation could translate into fewer of the long-term leases that so incensed toll road opponents. That would be a positive move, he said.

"The further out it is, the more the public can't adequately know how to handle its own risks in these deals," he said. "They won't know what kinds of contingencies they'll have to be paying extra side fees for."

The Senate bill faces a long slog through Congress, with a dueling House bill raising hackles on everything from mass transit funding to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, so Bingaman's amendment may never make it into law. But if it did, it could make highway leases less attractive to some toll road investors, according to the director of government affairs at the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association.

"It presumably would have the effect of reducing investment interest," said Neil Gray. Still, he added, other investors less interested in making a quick return through the tax system, like pension funds, might step up to the plate. "I don't think this is turning a switch and killing off anything, it would just alter what sort of deal you can generate."

Thursday's 85-11 cloture vote in the Senate on a motion to proceed with the transportation bill means that it is one step closer on coming to the floor for a debate.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a prime sponsor of the Senate legislation along with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), pleaded with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer as few amendments as possible to the bill, and to keep it bipartisan, in contrast to the House legislation.

"Please do not mess up this bill and load this bill down with extraneous matters," Boxer said on the Senate floor.

Study to explore privatization of Ohio turnpike raises questions about bias

Link to article here.

$2.85M study of turnpike on panel's agenda

Kasich administration proposes private operation

By DAVID PATCH
BLADE STAFF WRITER
FEBRUARY 13, 2012
TOLEDO BLADE

Gary Tiboni has no uncertainty about a $2.85 million Ohio Turnpike study that the Ohio Controlling Board will consider funding when it meets on Monday. To him, it's a sham.

"It's a foregone conclusion, as far as I'm concerned, as to what the results will be," Mr. Tiboni, business manager for Teamsters Local 436, said. "There will be a lease, or it will be turned over to ODOT."

Larry Davis, the Ohio Trucking Association's president, professes having shared Mr. Tiboni's belief until recently. But he said he changed his mind after another Kasich administration study, concerning prison privatization, came back recommending selling just one of five prisons identified for possible sale and contracting for operating two of the four others.

"They took the results of the study, and reacted to that," Mr. Davis said. Consequently, he said, "we are willing to wait and have our input with this group" that has been chosen to study ways the turnpike might be "leveraged" to generate revenue for Ohio.

"This group" is KPMG Corporate Finance LLC of Washington and Austin. It was selected from among 14 firms that submitted letters of interest, which officials narrowed to five that gave detailed proposals and presentations to an Ohio Department of Transportation committee.
Mr. Tiboni, whose union represents turnpike toll collectors and maintenance workers, cites KPMG's involvement when the Indiana Department of Transportation in 2006 leased the Indiana Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium as evidence that the Ohio Turnpike's days as an independent public agency are numbered.

Indiana got $3.8 billion in exchange for a 75-year lease, under which the concessionaires agreed to keep up with maintenance but also have the right to increase tolls annually by 2 percent or more, based on any of three formulas, and were allowed a one-time increase in 2008 of more than 50 percent on the Toll Road's main stem between the Ohio border and Portage, Ind.

Complaints

Since then, critics have complained not only about the higher fares but also declining maintenance -- both of the roadway and at service plazas -- and longer toll booth lines because of some lanes' conversion to electronic toll collection.

Ken Blackwell made turnpike privatization a platform plank in his unsuccessful 2006 Ohio gubernatorial campaign, while Ted Strickland, who won that election, ruled it out.

Within months of taking office last year after defeating Mr. Strickland's re-election bid, Gov. John Kasich revived the idea, initially predicting a 50-year lease could raise as much as $3 billion for Ohio but then retreating from such specifics.

At a Toledo news conference in July, the governor merely said Ohio should explore revenue-generating options from what he considers a "very underutilized asset" that, if properly exploited, could generate new income both for the state and a private operator.

Weeks later, ODOT and the state Office of Budget and Management began its search for a consultant team, following a procedure spelled out in the biennial state budget law that grants the Ohio General Assembly veto power over any request for proposals that might be issued to seek turnpike investors.

Controversy erupted in early October concerning federal grant funding for the study, then estimated to cost $1.5 million, when five Democratic party members of Ohio's congressional delegation persuaded the U.S. Department of Transportation to revoke the funds because a state request for proposals cited privatization as the only outcome to be evaluated in the turnpike study.

Study's reinstatement

A letter from the delegation's Republican side and revised language from the transportation department led to the study's reinstatement for federal-funds eligibility later that month, and in November the state chose KPMG as the lead consultant.

Since then, the study's price tag has swelled to as high as $2.85 million, which Steve Faulkner, a spokesman at department headquarters in Columbus, said occurred because of more detailed work the state will ask KPMG and its subcontractors to do.

"Since KPMG was selected … we've had detailed conversations about the thoroughness and level of detail it will take to conduct the type of independent, objective, third-party analysis the state will need in order to make the most informed decisions going forward," Mr. Faulkner said, adding that $2.85 million is a maximum, not a guarantee to the consultant.

Besides leasing the turnpike or other ODOT options, the possible study recommendations include contracting part of the turnpike operations or keeping it status quo.

Expanded scope

The study's scope has been expanded to include a look at options for privatizing non-Interstate rest areas in Ohio, such as by selling gas stations, convenience stores, or even fast-food restaurants that the state franchises to set up shop at those locations, the ODOT spokesman said. Federal law has forbidden the operation of commercial food or fuel businesses at Interstate highway rest areas built since 1960.

The grant's entire cost still will be funded from federal transportation planning funds assigned to Ohio, Mr. Faulkner said.

While cautious to note that the Ohio Controlling Board, which statutorily must approve adjustments to the state budget, still must act to release the federal funds, the ODOT spokesman said he knows of no reason why the seven-member board would not do so. The board's members include the director of the Office of Budget and Management or designee; the chairs of the House and Senate finance committees, and four members-at-large from the General Assembly, one each from the majority and minority party in each house.

Misinformation?

Rick Hodges, a former state representative from Delta who was appointed the turnpike's executive director, said debate about the turnpike "leveraging" issue has been rife with misinformation -- particularly concerning the study having a set outcome and, if privatization is chosen, a private operator's ability to raise tolls at will.

"The scope of work is very broad," Mr. Hodges said. "Leasing is not the only option. The people doing this study are very serious about exploring all options."

Tolls, he said, are constrained by the availability of parallel free highways like U.S. 20 and State Rt. 2, roads that in the past have received surges of truck traffic when turnpike fares went up.

Low rates

"We now have among the lowest, if not the lowest, commercial toll rates," Mr. Hodges said. "But we also have good parallel routes, and the only way you can make money on the turnpike is for people to drive on it."

Among KPMG subcontractors listed in its proposal is the University of Toledo's Intermodal Transportation Institute, which will provide the consultant with background knowledge and research on local transportation operations and issues.

"We're very pleased that KPMG selected us," said Rich Martinko, the institute's director and a past ODOT senior manager during the administration of Gov. Bob Taft. "We are a neutral asset for transportation stakeholders. … We have knowledge and insight on the specific issues in northern Ohio, and especially northwest Ohio. Understanding the asset is important to making a good decision."

Officials said they did not know how much the UT institute would be paid for its contribution.

Mr. Hodges says he views himself and turnpike staff also as sources of information for KPMG researchers.

"I'm not providing policy on this, and I shouldn't," he said.

McCaul's investment in TransCanada, reignites debate over insider trading

Link to article here.

McCaul Family's Pipeline Holdings Stir Controversy

by Jay Root
2/7/2012
Texas Tribune
 
Legislation cracking down on insider trading by members of Congress hasn’t landed on the floor of the U.S. House yet, but it’s already become a political football in Congressional District 10.

That’s because the Democrat who wants that seat, international affairs consultant Dan Grant, is alleging that incumbent Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, is benefiting from lax ethics rules for U.S. representatives and senators — rules the pending U.S. STOCK Act would help strengthen.

McCaul says his opponent is flat wrong.

At the heart of the dispute is the McCaul family’s private interest in the company pushing the Keystone XL Pipeline — and the congressman’s public advocacy for the project as a member of Congress. McCaul, believed to be the second-wealthiest member of Congress, reported that his family owned $115,000 to $300,000 in TransCanada Corporation stock as of 2010, the latest year available, according to ethics filings compiled online by the Center for Responsive Politics.

McCaul’s personal financial statement shows TransCanada stock purchases of up to $65,000 were made on Dec. 21, 2010, online disclosures show. A day later, on Dec. 22, McCaul joined 38 fellow House members in writing a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to grant “expeditious approval” of the pipeline.
Grant alleges that McCaul stood to personally benefit from his knowledge of the advocacy letter, and says he should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, on which McCaul serves.

“That is the definition of insider trading, and even if it’s not illegal for congressmen, it is flatly wrong to do something like this,” Grant said. “It’s no wonder that people are so upset with Congress right now because of behavior just like this.”

McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen said the complaint is off-base. He said McCaul has no involvement in the trading of the family's stock portfolio, which belongs to his wife, Linda, and their children. Linda McCaul is the daughter of Clear Channel Communications founder Lowry Mays.

“Congressman McCaul does not, and has not during his tenure in Congress, personally traded or instructed anyone to trade any security on his behalf, and he is legally precluded from having any involvement or knowledge of specific investment decisions made with regard to securities listed as his wife's separate property which are disclosed in his annual personal financial disclosure," Rosen said.

Rosen could not immediately provide any legal agreements that bar McCaul's participation in stock trading. Ethics disclosures require that holdings of spouses and dependent children be treated the same as those of the officeholder, experts say. Rosen said McCaul’s wife and their children sold all of their TransCanada stock in early 2011.

He said the family made money off the sale of the holdings, but he could not say how much.

Shares of TransCanada were trading at $37.46 on Dec. 21, 2010, and rose to as high as $44.83 on May 31, 2011, according to Yahoo Finance. The shares are hovering around $42 now. Grant acknowledged the shares did not spike considerably after the Dec. 22 letter but said it was wrong to get any profit off TransCanada stock after the letter was sent to Clinton.

The State Department rejected the pipeline last month, pleasing environmentalists but sparking vehement protests from Republicans, who want to fast-track it through Congress.

McCaul said his advocacy of TransCanada's $7 billion Keystone XL Pipeline project is based on what it would do for his constituents and Texas, not any assets owned by his family.

“The Keystone Pipeline would create thousands of jobs in several states — many of them in Texas,” McCaul said in a written statement. “When operational, it would represent nearly 10 percent of U.S. petroleum imports and decrease our reliance on oil from the Middle East and countries such as Venezuela that don't like us. I have consistently supported projects and policies that strengthen America's economic and national security, and I will continue to do so."

Insider trading by members of Congress has become a big flashpoint in the 2012 elections. Last week the U.S. Senate passed, on a lopsided 96-3 vote, the U.S. STOCK Act, which is pending in the U.S. House. McCaul signed up as a co-sponsor of the measure on Jan. 31, online records show.

The bill would make it clear that members of Congress are not exempt from rules that ban insider trading, or using nonpublic knowledge to profit off stock trades. It would also require more prompt disclosure of stock transactions, giving the public better information about whether any conflicts of interest exist between a lawmaker's official duties and the family stock portfolio.

The lack of specific laws against insider trading by members of Congress became a hot topic late last year after CBS's 60 Minutes aired a report outlining well-timed (and legal) stock market trades by powerful lawmakers who are privy to sensitive information on industries they regulate.

Gov. Rick Perry also made a ban on congressional insider trading a prominent feature of his presidential campaign stump speeches, and President Obama called for passage of the U.S. STOCK Act in his recent State of the Union speech.

Researcher and author Peter Schweizer, who helped 60 Minutes compile its report on insider trading, said the legislation is a “good first step” toward curbing the kind of conflicts of interest and abuses he laid out in his most recent book, Throw Them All Out.

Schweizer said he remembered looking at McCaul’s vast portfolio while researching his book and at the time saw "no discernible pattern” connecting his congressional service with any profitable stock deals.

He said disclosure requirements, as far as Congress is concerned, make no distinction between a spouse’s holdings and those of the member. The McCauls' assets make the family worth between $259 million and $502 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Schweizer said McCaul’s advocacy of the Keystone XL Pipeline, in light of the profitable stock trades in TransCanada, might be closer to what he calls “priming the pump,” a practice whereby politicians’ personal holdings “overlap with their legislative activities.”

“It just creates an inherent problem of a conflict of interest,” Schweizer said.

Apart from passage of the U.S. STOCK Act, Grant said McCaul should put his holdings in a blind trust to shield against any conflicts of interest and release his recent tax returns. Grant vowed to cough up his own tax records and said he would get rid of any stocks, or put them in a blind trust, if they posed a conflict of interest to him as a member of Congress.

Landowners fight Keystone company's use of eminent domain

Link to article here.

Keystone Pipeline Sparks Property Rights Backlash

by Jay Root
Texas Tribune
2/17/2012
 
As the White House and Congress battle it out over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian company that wants to build it is still using its land-seizure powers to get property easements for the ambitious project.

And it’s ruffling some feathers in a politically conservative patch of Texas.

Several landowners along the proposed pipeline route say TransCanada has bullied them into selling their property by asserting “eminent domain” authority, the same power that governments use to seize land for highways and other public infrastructure projects. A property rights coalition tracking the condemnation proceedings has uncovered at least 89 land condemnation lawsuits involving TransCanada in 17 counties from the Red River to the Gulf Coast — cases that could test the limits of a private company's power to condemn property.

One of the landowners, Lamar County farmer Julia Trigg Crawford, will face off with the pipeline giant on Friday morning at a court hearing in Paris, Texas. Crawford got a rare restraining order halting any further encroachment on her land until questions surrounding TransCanada's right to condemn her property for the pipeline can be resolved.

“I’m just an angry steward of the land,” Crawford said. “A foreign-owned, for-profit, nonpermitted pipeline has taken a Texan’s land. Doesn’t sound right, does it?”

Crawford is opposed to the pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada, and has concerns about potential contamination of a creek she uses for crop irrigation. Her 600-acre farm, which straddles the Red River on the Oklahoma border, also contains numerous archaeological remnants of a Caddo Indian village.

The land seizure proceedings are continuing even though the White House rejected TransCanada’s application for an international pipeline permit, which included the proposed Gulf Coast segment that would run from Cushing, Okla., to Houston and Port Arthur. The company is exploring options to build the southern piece of the pipeline without a presidential permit, but either way it says it won't stop seeking land for the project.

“We don’t need a presidential permit in order for us to obtain the easements that we need for the right of way for this project,” said TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha. He said the company already had 99 percent of the easements it needed for the Texas segment and was working on snapping up the remaining holdouts.

TransCanada has a major financial interest in completing the 435-mile Gulf Coast segment because of a major glut of oil sitting in storage tanks in Cushing. TransCanada's customers would like to move the oil down to North America's largest collections of refineries, where a premium is being paid for the crude. Once the segment was complete, it could carry as much as 830,000 barrels of oil a day to refinery row.

TransCanada has an existing international network of pipelines that connects Alberta in Canada to Nebraska, Illinois and Oklahoma. The Keystone XL pipeline would expand the company's capacity to transport oil from Canada, and add a route to the coast.

Politically, the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline has generally fallen into the familiar partisan pattern: Environmentalists and Democrats are trying to either kill it or reroute it, while the oil and gas industry and Republican lawmakers are promoting it as a job creator.

Gov. Rick Perry, both as a presidential candidate and a pro-business conservative, has slammed the Obama administration for trying to "appease environmental radicals," and hails the pipeline as a way to help the United States gain energy security and independence.

But the controversy generated by TransCanada’s use of land condemnation power has pushed the debate into a new realm, and it is prompting calls in Texas — including from conservatives — for more oversight and increased landowner protections.

“We need to make sure the property owners are properly treated and their property rights aren’t completely trampled,” said Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler, whose conservative East Texas district contains several of the counties TransCanada wants to cross with its pipeline. “You can’t just come in and roll over people."

Eltife says legislative hearings, and possibly legal reforms, are needed to clarify how pipeline companies use eminent domain to acquire pipeline right-of-way on private land.

The issue has even sparked some comparisons to Perry's ill-fated Trans-Texas Corridor, a massive transportation project that rural landowners viewed as an unprecedented land grab.

“This is everything we fought against with the Trans-Texas Corridor. It’s an eminent domain nightmare, a clear-cut violation of property rights," said T.J. Fabby, a Waxahachie Republican trying to unseat incumbent state Rep. Jim Pitts in the GOP primary.

"Eminent domain was never meant to be used to confiscate somebody’s property for private use."

Former Perry gubernatorial rival Debra Medina, a Republican from the Ron Paul wing of the GOP, is another critic. She said the pipeline flight shows how "crony capitalism" has stacked the deck in favor of big business interests while running roughshod over small business owners and average Texans.

Medina and other critics are hoping that legal challenges to TransCanada's eminent domain authority will lead to limitations on a private company's power to condemn land.

Under Texas law, only pipelines that are deemed “common carriers” — the pipeline world's equivalent of a public road — can condemn property for easements. The state Natural Resources Code says that to gain common carrier status, oil pipeline companies must agree to transport oil “for hire” from any company, without discrimination, based on published fees that are regulated by the state.

The Texas Constitution also gives protections to landowners in property seizure cases by requiring that eminent domain only be exercised for “public use.”

According to TransCanada, the pipeline meets the common carrier status because it transports oil owned by other companies, with whom it has delivery contracts. Cunha, the spokesman, says it’s in the public’s interest because the oil will help the United States meet its demand for energy.

“We’re delivering something in the public need,” he said. “We’re delivering petroleum that is much needed in the U.S., to address the consumption needs of the U.S.”

Critics say the pipeline is designed to meet the profit needs of a single company and doubt whether its claim of eminent domain authority meets the "common carrier" and "public use" tests.

"The primary purposes of this project is to get Canadian crude to the refineries. There is no public use aspect to this project," said carpenter David Daniel, who reluctantly signed over an easement to TransCanada after he said the company convinced him he would lose his property under eminent domain. "It’s an international commodity that will be sold on the world market.”

But property owners face daunting odds against pipeline companies, because the court system is the only avenue for fighting their condemnation cases, and until recently the state courts routinely dismissed challenges to a pipeline's status as a common carrier — a status companies have claimed they get from the Texas Railroad Commission.

That changed last year, when the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Plano-based Denbury Resources was a private carrier that wanted to build a CO2 pipeline for its own use, and couldn't use eminent domain to get an easement on a Houston-area rice farm.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Don Willett wrote that "even when the Legislature grants certain private entities 'the right and power of eminent domain,' the overarching constitutional rule controls: no taking of property for private use."

The ruling sent shockwaves through the oil and gas lobby, which is now urging the Supreme Court to rehear the case.

One problem made clear in the ruling is that there is no agency that is specifically charged with determining whether or not a company is acting in the broader interest of the public or meets the standard of being a “common carrier.”

For years, pipeline companies have claimed common carrier status by checking off a box on a “T-4” pipeline permit form at the Texas Railroad Commission and promising to submit itself to rate regulation, should that ever come to pass.

But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that checking a box on a form isn't good enough, and the Railroad Commission says the pipeline permit is mostly just a registration document and doesn't involve fact-finding about common carrier status or bestow any land condemnation rights on any person or company.

"That ultimate determination would have to be made by the courts,” said commission spokeswoman Ramona Nye. "We have no authority over eminent domain."

Eltife, the senator from Tyler, said the lack of administrative authority over such fundamental property rights disputes has left Texas property owners in a precarious situation.

"It’s kind of a no man’s land," Eltife said. "At this point I don’t know who is speaking up for the property owners."

____________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Nearly 100 taking part in morning Texas-style protest of Keystone Pipeline in Paris

From staff reports | Posted: Friday, February 17, 2012  

Bowie County Citizen

Approximately 100 showed up this morning for a pre-hearing protest rally on the steps of the Lamar County Courthouse in what organizers call a blatant disregard by a Canadian company of the rights of a Northeast Texas landowner.

Media have been barred from entering the courthouse during the hearing that will take place at 10 a.m.

Protestors were scheduled to gather at 8:30 a.m. at the courthouse located at 119 North Main in Paris to voice their support for landowner Julia Trigg Crawford of Paris in support of her right to protect private property as the company, TransCanada, tries to take her land by use of eminent domain and begin trenching it for their Keystone Pipeline.

Upon asking for a standstill order while in negotiation on her eminent domain case, TransCanada's representatives balked against Crawford’s request saying they wanted the right to start trenching on her property as early as March 1st.

On Monday, Feb. 13th, Ms. Crawford obtained a restraining order against TransCanada to protect her property. Within 24 hours, TransCanada in turn filed for the restraining order to be dissolved. The hearing is set for Friday, Feb. 17 at 10 a.m. before Judge Bill Harris in Paris.

Local organizer Rita Beving expects there to be a huge turnout for the rally in Paris as she and other organizers call for landowners in the path of the pipeline and Texans who are concerned about the stealing of their land and the stripping of their rights as Americans turnout to voice their concern.

A separate protest on the issue will begin at 10 a.m. in Austin while the proceedings before Judge Harris are underway. That rally will be held at the Texas Railroad Commission office.

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry tar sands crude close to 2,000 miles zig-zagging North to South through six states including Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. In Texas, the pipeline crosses eighteen counties, including Lamar and Fannin on its way to the refineries along the Texas coast in Port Arthur. A major concern, besides the eminent domain abuses, for people of Red River and Bowie County citizens would be the pipelines crossing of the Sulphur River basin, the area’s top source of water supply now and in the future.

Experts on crude composition have scientific evidence declaring that oil sands crude is more carbon-intensive than oil from other sources and their use would make a far more negative impact on the environment, prompting measures from the U.S. and the European Union to have them label as a more polluting source of energy for the future.

TransCanada's Keystone XL permit was denied by the president, so the groups and landowners question by what permit or authority does TransCanada take property or start any kind of tar sand pipeline construction? TransCanada, despite the denial of a permit, continues to bully landowners and execute eminent domain condemnation proceedings. Groups are questioning this company's right to take land via eminent domain. The Railroad Commission has stated that it does not have the authority to grant the power of eminent domain to TransCanada. Ms. Crawford has also challenged the company’s common carrier status.

The groups plan to show their Texas pride at the events with their boots on, and their Texas and American flags held high telling this private, foreign company "Don't Mess with Texas", "Don't bully Texans, putting our land and our water at risk," while this foreign company continues to masquerade as a common carrier.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Keystone XL Pipeline: Texas Farmer Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against TransCanada

Posted: 2/14/12  |  Updated: 2/15/12

 
By Matt Sledge
Huffington Post

A coalition of environmentalists, conservative property rights activists and landowners are mounting a full court press against TransCanada in an attempt to derail the oil company's attempts to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. On Monday, they won a small victory when a Lamar County judge issued a temporary restraining order against the company's plans to do construction work on a farm near Paris, Texas.

The coalition's efforts are reminiscent of another battle during the last decade over eminent domain in Texas, concerning a massive "superhighway," known as the Trans-Texas Corridor, that Republican Gov. Rick Perry had sought to build with the help of a Spanish company. Perry lost that fight to a coalition of conservative ranchers and environmentalists, dealing him a serious political blow.

"We are involved because it's starting to look a whole lot like the Trans-Texas Corridor battle," said Terri Hall, founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom. "When push comes to shove, it's clear to me that my party is more interested in oil and gas interests than property rights," added Hall, a Republican.

Debra Medina, a property rights activist and Republican, has counted 89 cases so far in Texas where TransCanada had exercised eminent domain, she said. The company cites the pipeline's status as a "common carrier" under Texas law as the reason for its ability to use governmental power to take land. Eminent domain battles have periodically erupted as TransCanada has bought easements on property for the pipeline that would cross six U.S. states if built.

The company has generally tried to settle with landowners, or route the pipeline around those who refuse compensation terms. But in Lamar County, the pipeline company took Julia Trigg Crawford's farm by eminent domain. Crawford's lawyer asked for a temporary restraining order, disputing the notion that the pipeline is a "common carrier" as Texas law requires for eminent domain and questioning whether the company adequately considered the Caddo tribe artifacts on Crawford's land.

On Monday, County Court at Law Judge Bill Harris said the company couldn't go forward with construction on the land at least until a Feb. 24 court hearing. TransCanada had refused to consent to a "standstill" agreement that would have prevented work on the pipeline until March 1.

"I would never categorize myself as an environmentalist," Crawford told HuffPost. "I'm just a steward of my family's land." She lives with her 78-year-old father on a 600-acre farm near Paris that her grandfather bought in 1948. "I have no political affiliation," she said. "I'm just a girl that wants to protect a thing my grandfather bought."

The farm owner also alleges that TransCanada behaved in a "duplicitous" manner when it claimed it had already secured all the necessary permits for the pipeline.

"The eminent domain process is well established, and we follow the process that is set out by law in each state," TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said in a statement. "In Texas, we already have easement agreements in place with over 99 per cent of the landowners along the in-state portion of Keystone XL."

Despite the Obama administration's recent decision denying an environmental permit for the pipeline, which would carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to Texas refineries, TransCanada is pressing forward with its plans to apply for another permit. The company announced in an earnings report on Tuesday that it expected the pipeline to start operating in 2015.

TURF disagrees with Wolff, TxDOT who insist no way to fix roads except tolls

The leopard showed his spots. Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff (along with John Barton of TxDOT) got all over the airwaves February 16 & 17 trying to jam toll roads down San Antonians throats, AGAIN. Wolff said there is no "road fairy" that will drop enough money into our region to pay for the fix to these roads. BALONEY! We've had hundreds of millions in gas taxes, registration fees, ATD taxes, Prop 12, Prop 14, & stimulus money for roads "drop" into our region just since 2009.

Wolff is the architect who STOLE $96 million in ATD road taxes to build a street car downtown where there NO congestion (exclusively to benefit some well-connected downtown developers). Meanwhile, he tries the same ol' tired rhetoric that we taxpayers are just too stingy -- we're not giving them enough of our money to go around so they starve us by looting the gas tax, ATD tax, vehicle sales tax, etc. so they can continue to promote toll roads as the ONLY solution. Don't buy it. Your freedom to travel depends on it.



Anti Toll Activist Hall: Wolff Has "No Credibility" on Toll Roads
Says officials had no trouble finding millions 'for a streetcar system that nobody wants.'    
WOAI Radio
Friday, February 17, 2012

Anti toll road activist Terri Hall says Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff has 'no credibility' when he says the 'only way' to build new lanes on Loop 16-4 across the north side is to add tolled lanes, 1200 WOAI news reports.

  Wolff told 1200 WOAI's Michael Board that 'only if somebody has a tooth fairy' could the county find enough funds to expand the highway, which is packed with congestion and badly in need of expansion.

  "He just snatched $96 million in Advanced Transportation District funding to use on a downtown streetcar system that nobody wants and where there is no congestion," Hall said.  "96 million would go a long way toward fixing 281, in fact it would fix at least half of the area where all of those lights are backing up all of the traffic out there."

  Hall says all of the 'love for toll roads' at the Texas Transportation Forum underway downtown is out of bounds, considering that the state does little to protect the funding which is already available for roads.
 
"We're now at a billion dollars a year in our gas taxes that the Legislature is raiding for other purposes," she said.  "And yet these same officials are telling us there is no money, no money, no money for the roads we need and we have to submit to those toll tax increases."

  She says the state could also do more to get a better return on the gas tax money Texas sends to Washington.  Texas is one of the biggest net losers in federal gas tax money which is returned for road construction.

  "This Legislature has absolutely no credibility on raising any taxes for roads, until we spend the money we give them properly."

  Hall says studies done by toll road builders themselves show that use of toll roads starts falling sharply after gas goes above $3 a gallon.  She says if Loop 1604 lanes are tolled, she is convinced that existing free roads will have to be tolled to repay for the losses of the toll road companies building the Loop 1604 lanes.

  "Very few toll roads in this state are in the black," she said.  "That's one thing they're not talking about at the Forum."


Read more: http://radio.woai.com/pages/localnews.html?feed=119078&article=9776845#ixzz1mr31sn00

Nearly 70 Transportation Associations deliver letter to Congress opposing tolls

Link to article here.

Nearly 70 Transportation Associations Sign Letter Opposing Tolls
Trucking Info.com
2/15/2012

Sixty-eight transportation associations signed a letter to the Senate opposing the use of tolls on the U.S. Interstate Highway System in the Senate's version of the Surface Transportation Bill (S. 1813).

In addition to associations from all 50 states, organizations that signed include the Truckload Carriers Association, American Trucking Associations, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, National Private Truck Council, the truckstop group Natso and National Tank Truck Carriers.

Shippers, broker, automotive and enforcement interests also signed the letter, which urges the Senate to vote against the bill.

"Tolling existing Interstates is extremely inefficient," reads the letter. "Even using the most advanced technology, toll collection costs are at least five times higher than the cost of collecting a state fuel tax and in many cases, more than 20 cents out of each dollar of a toll collected is used simply to administer the toll."

The letter also states that tolls could either drive motor carriers to use less-safe secondary roads or put them out of business entirely.

"Keep in mind," the letter says, "that tolls distort the cost of moving freight generally, which has an adverse effect on all Americans, whether or not the toll was paid in their state.

Read read the full letter and list of signatures here.

Paul introduces bill to protect property rights

PRESS STATEMENT FROM SENATOR RAND PAUL

Senator Paul Introduces Defense of Environment and Property Act

Published on 16 February 2012 by admin in Press Releases


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 to bring common sense back to federal water policy.

Thousands of property owners across America face aggressive action from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, with no legal means to fight back. Together, the EPA and the Army Corps have become rogue agencies, threatening the Constitutional rights of landowners to do what they please with their own property.

“Environmental protection must be balanced with the fundamental American right to private property. I have spoken with a number of victims of the government’s assault on private property, and it is time to rein in the out-of-control government agencies that infringe on these Americans’ rights,” Sen. Paul said. “It is time to bring common sense to federal water policy, and I do so on behalf of the thousands of property owners across the country who have been met with aggression from the EPA and Army Corps for wetlands issues.”

Background:

The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 will do the following:

Redefine “navigable waters” to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable in fact, or “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact.”

Excludes ephemeral or intermittent streams – the streams that sometimes form when rain falls – from federal jurisdiction.

Restrains the EPA and the Army Corps from regulating or “interpreting” the definition of a navigable water without Congressional authorization.

Protects the rights of states to have primary authority over the land and water within their borders.

Prohibits federal agents from entering private property without the express consent of the landowner.

Requires the government to pay double the value of the land to any landowner whose property value is diminished by a wetlands designation.

TxDOT lobbying in plain sight

Lobbying in plain sight
TxDOT uses Transportation Forum as lobby-fest for more money
By Terri Hall
February 16, 2012
Examiner.com

Today, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) completed the first full day of the 7th Annual Texas Transportation Forum. Over 1,200 members of the transportation industry gathered in San Antonio at the Grand Hyatt to talk about “Going Places” -- except the places TxDOT directed them to go included a full-throttle “How-to” session on how to lobby for higher taxes. TxDOT trotted out two lobbyists -- one from the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, Robert Latham, and the other, Douglas Whitley, from Illinois that represents a lobby group of road builders and transportation advocates.
The speakers laid out a step-by-step playbook of how these two groups successfully lobbied elected officials for tax hikes and how Texas lobbyists could do it, too. Whitley gave a history that explained lobbyists only came together every 5-6 years initially when major pieces of legislation were being deliberated, but then decided they needed to become full-time “third party advocates” and formed his group to ensure they had ongoing relationships with elected officials so they could call in their favors when needed. He gloated: “If we hadn’t of been there, we wouldn’t have gotten a toll hike.” Wow, thanks.

Whitley suggested lobbyists raise money for candidates, host fundraisers, and give them awards. All of which the Texas road lobby does routinely already. In fact, TxDOT gets in on the action. It doles out  “Road Hand” Awards to all their good little soldiers, handing out 5 more today -- including a lobbyist and an elected official that both lobbied for the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69. So much for TxDOT learning from its failures.

Jealous of the success of the public education lobby, Latham described how his group conducted “research” (in reality it was polling) designed to copy their messaging. He taught attendees how to “brand” and “sell” tax hikes to the public by tapping the same emotions as public education lobbyists -- where you frame the tax hike with “it’s for the children” (ie - pay a toll to get home to your family quicker).
One huge problem with that propaganda -- it doesn’t hold water for most families. Hiking transportation costs actually takes people away from their families MORE since they would now have to work longer and harder to make the same money.

Latham described how his Chamber of Commerce enjoyed great support from his newspaper’s editorial board when they sought “funding” (ie - tax hikes -- just like the Express-News editorial board cow-tows to the industry instead of considering the tax burden on we the people).

When a Dallas toll authority member asked how Whitley kept all the competing agendas of road versus transit lobbyists working in unison, he answered: “They know everyone’s got a chance to be in the barrel and get their shot at the funding. We come to the defense of one another and protect each other’s pots of money.” In other words, everyone gets their bite at the proverbial taxpayer ‘apple.’

To top it all off, this lobby free-for-all was moderated by none other than Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (ARMA -  Bexar County toll authority) Board Member Jim Reed.

__________________________________

What's that song?

Money, money, money, money....M-O-N-E-Y

The theme of the day was how to manipulate the public into parting with more of their money. Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff opened up the forum highlighting the county's many transportation-related expenditures, including the downtown street car plan that raids $96 million in road funds.

He went on say that we're getting ready for a little 'controversy' in 2013 when we add tolls to Loop 1604. He notably left out any mention of tolls on US 281 -- a hotbed of controversy and litigation over TxDOT and the Alamo RMA's attempt to slap tolls on existing FREE lanes. Hmmm, was that an oversight, a sign that they're backing off, or a well-placed dodge. I asked Judge Wolff what he meant by it, and he just said "I'm not touching that one (US 281)." (Still not much clarity, does he mean not touching it with tolls or is he evading the issue?)

House Transportation Committee member State Representative Drew Darby wants a $50 hike in vehicle registration fees. What for? To use the tax hike to end gas tax diversions. You read that correctly, they wish to raise a tax in order to plug the hole the legislature created in the gas tax fund (which is supposed to be Constitutionally dedicated to roads, but lawmakers habitually raid it for non-road uses).

TxDOT Assistant Executive Director of Engineering John Barton followed Darby's remarks and quipped: "I'm not allowed to advocate, but I'm in for $50." So let me translate: "I'm not allowed to lobby, but I'm going to anyway by lobbying for a $50 registration fee hike on the taxpayer dime"?

With such taxpayer-funded lobbying in plain sight, imagine what these people do behind closed doors in their smoke-filled rooms! And there’s still one day left...imagine the possibilities.


Continue reading on Examiner.com Lobbying in plain sight - San Antonio Transportation Policy | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/lobbying-plain-sight#print#ixzz1mqxv95LP

Toll industry puts out a call to attack anti-toll amendments for highway bill


Link to article here.

The toll lobby gets to work to defeat "populist amendments" to limit tolling. They frame it as a states rights issue, but conservatives don't buy it. Slapping tolls on existing free lanes is a DOUBLE TAX -- TAX GRAB and should NEVER be allowed by either states or the feds. Call your members of Congress NOW at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to support the Hutchison-Canseco Amendment to the federal highway bill.

Tolls subject of conflicting amendments in US Congress - state rights tolling coalition calls for political action

Posted on Wed, 2012-02-15 00:01
Toll Road News
 

Both the US House and Senate will start dealing with conflicting toll amendments to transport reauthorization bills Wednesday through Friday. The US Tolling Coalition campaigning for state freedom to toll has issued an 'Action Alert' calling for supporters to get active in contacting US Representatives and Senators to oppose populist amendments which would further restrict state toll rights. IBTTA has also been active, moving to mobilize its membership.

Neil Gray says: "we’re working in concert with the Tolling Coalition and I also have put out a 'call' to the IBTTA membership."

"Both the House of Representatives and the Senate anticipate bringing their respective versions of a highway bill up for debate this week –this has led to an explosion of amendments which will be offered – some of which will impact the toll industry if adopted.

"We strongly urge you to contact your congressional delegations and ask them to REJECT the following anti-tolling amendments as soon as possible because floor debate is imminent."

One bright spot is that Tom Carper senator from Delaware is expected to offer a State User Fee and Revenue Flexibility amendment which would liberalize restrictions on the state governments' rights to use toll financing.
IBTTA's Gray says: "a group of us have been working with Carper’s staff trying to get some support for his proposed effort to “uncap” the tolling conversion pilots."

But several Republicans are sponsoring populist amendments which would further limit states rights on tolling.

An amendment numbered 224 sponsored by Rep Francisco Canseco (R-TX23) amends 23 USC129 to prevent any federal funds being used for new tolls on existing federal-aid highways except for HOV lanes. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) is offering the same amendment (1568) in the Senate.

Plus her amendment would reduce the number of state slots in the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program to two.

Virginia (I-95) and Missouri (I-70) have these slots, so Hutchinson's amendment would effective close the door on more tolls on interstates. It would close off the opportunity, for example, for North Carolina, South Carolina and Connecticut to pursue tolls on I-95.

A very grimm amendment

In the House of Representatives there is also an amendment 224 by Rep Michael Grimm (R-NY13) that would give the US Department of Transportation the power to decide if tolls on federal-aid bridges and tunnels are "just and reasonable." And it would give them power to order tolls reduced.

"Just and reasonable" are such subjective notions this would open up a whole new area of political mischief.

Such arbitrary power in the hands of US officials would make toll revenue bonds impossible to sell, and effectively kill toll financing.

Anti-privatization amendment

Also making mischief in the US Senate is Senator Bingaman (NM) #1514 to amend section 1105 of the bill (“Apportionment”) to take highways that have been privatized out of the lane-miles and VMT calculations for formula apportionment.

IBTTA notes this amendment would deduct the mileage of any privatized highway from the allocation formulas used to determine how much funding the state receives. Introduces a disincentive for constructing new tolled roads or converting existing roads. A Bingaman amendment already accepted to S1813 would extend the amortization and depreciation of such projects from 15 to 45 years.


The US Tolling Coalition says:

"Several amendments have been filed which, if enacted, could discourage any state from considering tolls as a means to pay for highway construction or rehabilitation. Please contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to oppose the following amendments."

They say:

"You can call your Senators through the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121. Email and direct phone numbers can be found at www.senate.gov

"You can call your Representatives by calling the House switchboard at 202-225-3121. Email and direct phone numbers can be found at www.house.gov

IBTTA's Neil Gray is contactable This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. tel 202 270 8655.

COMMENT: our thoughts on arguments that should be made:

- tolls are the fairest way of financing roads since users pay according to the amount they use each road and the value they get out of it

- tolls enable roads to be self-supporting whether they are investor or government owned

- the alternative to tolls is higher taxes or crumbling roads and rusting bridges

- the public, your constituents, favor toll financing over taxes by a three to one margin

- tolls are cleaner than taxes since they are levied to provide a revenue stream for the capital raised for each road, bypassing 'pork barrel' politics

- the federal government cannot raise the money needed for roads, so the least it can do is respect state governments rights to chose their financing method

- tolls varied by time of day or density of traffic are a powerful management tool to prevent congestion by encouraging an increment of motorists to shift their time of travel for the benefit of those for whom peak travel is essential

- with all-electronic highway speed toll technology major past objections to tolling (that it is expensive and delays motorists) are now invalid

- toll financing provides opportunities for state, local, regional, and investor initiatives

- tolls and the revenue stream they'll generate relative to cost provides a test of which projects will generate value for motorists

- tolls can provide a market test

- tolls reduce the boondoggles and the waste and scandals of politically directed grants for roads

- stop pandering to noisy stupids

Rep Canesco's amendment 224:

http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/Canseco023213121015591559.pdf

The Grimm amendment:

http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/GRIMM_071_xml21412084903493.pdf

see

http://ustollingcoalition.com/

pro toll letter:

http://tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/T2tollLetter.pdf

anti toll letter

http://tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/AntiTollLtr.pdf

TOLLROADSnews 2012-02-14



Attachment    Size
T2tollLetter.pdf    80.61 KB
AntiTollLtr.pdf    33.58 KB

Big differences in Senate - House versions of highway bill

Link to article here.

Big rifts on transportation bills

By: Adam Snider and Burgess Everett - Politico
January 30, 2012 05:42 PM EST

With two months remaining to get a long-term surface transportation bill done, the House and Senate are racing this week to mark up several portions of their dueling legislation. And though the process is just beginning, there are already major rifts between the chambers.

Lawmakers are playing up the similarities in public — the annual funding levels are close enough, they say — and transportation leaders continue to express cautious optimism. But when pressed, senators and representatives are unhappy with a number of major differences, including how the bills are paid for and how long they last.

The differences mean that while everyone POLITICO spoke with — whether in Congress, the administration, lobbyists or transportation advocates — thinks the opportunity to get a surface transportation bill signed by the president is a real one after more than 850 days of stopgaps, there’s still plenty of opportunity for things to go awry.

A number of markups start this week on Capitol Hill, with the Senate pushing a two-year, $109 billion effort and the House bill expected to clock in at five years and $260 billion. And that’s before you get to the policy differences, like the GOP effort to use oil-drilling revenue to pay for part of it.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who’s leading the Senate effort at the Environment and Public Works Committee, has called the House’s pay-for — expanded energy exploration, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — a “nonstarter.”
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) has said the Senate’s two-year bill is merely an “extension” that spends down the already low Highway Trust Fund balance. In fact, if Mica had it his way, it would be a six-year bill, because he emphasizes large local projects can take significantly longer than two years to complete. He’s not the only Republican opposed to the Senate tack.

“A two-year bill … what are we doing?” said senior T&I member (and former chairman) Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).

Mica wanted a longer-term bill at current funding levels — which means he needs more money. “He has a problem of funding, and that’s going to be an issue,” Young said of Mica. “There’s a group of congressmen that think there’s going to be a magic wand to create funds.”

The opposing sentiments provoked a theatrical couple of days for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who on Wednesday told a transportation conference, “We’ll probably have to wait until next year to get to a surface transportation bill because of the huge differences,” causing a minor uproar on Capitol Hill and eliciting a telephone call from Boxer on Thursday.

After the California senator spoke to the secretary, LaHood clarified his earlier remarks, telling Washington Auto Show reporters, “I want to make sure everybody understands the Senate has worked hard on a transportation bill, and they’re bringing their bill to the floor.” He was largely silent on the House bill.

“We’ve got the president, we’ve got the chairman in the House, we’ve got the chairman in the Senate all talking about a surface transport bill. Hallelujah!” added LaHood.

It’s not simply a House-Senate dispute — there’s also some good old-fashioned Democrat-Republican head-butting. A number of House Democrats have said they’d prefer Boxer’s bill over the House’s version, especially when it comes to overall funding levels.

“I will not be supportive of a five- or six-year bill at current levels. That just won’t get the job done unless there is a mandatory re-opener after two years,” said Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the transportation committee’s top Democrat, echoing groups such as Building America’s Future, and President Barack Obama, who pushed a six-year, $556 billion proposal last year.

“In two years, who knows, we may find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow,” Rahall added.

Rahall also said the expected House call for a 25 percent reduction in Amtrak subsidies would make the bill a tough sell to the Senate, “to put it mildly.”

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a huge rail proponent from urban New Jersey, said, “We’d fight anything like that, because Amtrak funding now is the alternative to the continuous stream of polluted air that comes out of tailpipes, that has us so dependent on foreign oil as opposed to the efficiency of rail systems.”

Boxer and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) maintain that squabbling about the differences in the bill now is not productive.

“Our goal has always been don’t worry so much about the details of the bill, let’s try to get it passed and go into conference and come up with a reauthorization bill,” Inhofe said.

“There’s something called a conference committee,” Boxer said last week, emphasizing she has a good relationship with Mica and the two have spoken about a readiness to work together.

And as one of the most important weeks regarding transportation descends on Washington, infrastructure stakeholders are mostly sitting back and waiting. Just like the lawmakers focused on getting bills through each chamber, stakeholders are taking things one step at a time.

“The Chamber is taking what we call separate but equal strategy,” said Janet Kavinoky, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s top transportation lobbyist. “We’ll worry about the overall length once there’s a conference.”

“Congress doesn’t work the way it used to,” Kavinoky added. “Now you know something is real when something is going to be marked up.”

“At this point, the length of the bill seems less important than just getting something done,” said Jill Ingrassia, AAA’s managing director of government relations. “Getting the bills to conference would be a huge step and will be the only way to sort out whether any of the options are viable with the majority of members in Congress.”

But there is concern about staying away from “poison pills” that could torpedo the bill. These include the Amtrak subsidy cut or several energy measures that could help offset the cost: ANWR drilling and approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which Speaker John Boehner hinted Sunday could be attached to the House legislation.

“We are very concerned that attaching contentious provisions to a bill that has traditionally earned broad support could short-circuit discussion on what the spending actually should accomplish, and make it all the more difficult to pass a bipartisan measure that makes the best use of taxpayers’ money,” said Transportation for America Communications Director David Goldberg.

It’s something on Boxer’s mind as well. She championed the give-and-take that resulted in a unanimous November EPW markup of the Senate’s highway portion of the bill and is encouraging the House to follow that lead.

“Reach out to the Democrats, have a bipartisan bill,” Boxer said. “If you load this bill with very controversial items, it takes us right back to the debate and the arguments rather than progress the American people expect of us.”

If the drilling used to pay for the bill was in already approved areas, “that’s fine; if they start saying we want to start drilling in states that don’t want it … that’s very controversial,” she said.

Inhofe, though a supporter of domestic energy production, said the House shouldn’t be using it to pay for highways. “You can’t very well use revenues you don’t have,” he said last week. And there have been rumblings among conservatives that by using energy production for funding, the gas tax will be unhitched from infrastructure funding and later require aid from the general fund. Taxpayers have already bailed out the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of $35 billion over the past few years.

Toll authority head guilty of thievery at Maine turnpike

Paul Violette agrees to 5 years jail for his thievery at Maine Turnpike

Posted on Fri, 2012-01-20 10:17
Toll Road News

 Paul Violette's lawyer says the longtime head of the Maine Turnpike is prepared to plead guilty to charges by the state attorney-general of thievery amounting to some $10,000 so long as the state doesn't ask for more than five years in jail - an eight year sentence with five years to be served. The charges carry a maximum of ten years served in jail.

His lawyer says he wants to "get this behind him."

From the time the scandal broke Violette never denied the wrongdoing, saying simply he didn't know. That may be accurate because misusing Turnpike money had become so habitual he never thought about it, and genuinely didn't remember much of it.

Investigators only went back through about a third of his term as executive director - back to 2003 - and say they probably missed stuff, so the total he took was probably much larger than their $500,000 estimate.

Late last year Violette agreed to a settlement of a civil suit by the Turnpike alleging he had misappropriated about half a million dollars in various kinds of living off the Turnpike with charges for non-business related travel, entertainment, hotels, meals and unaccounted for gift cards. He was also accused of making false claims for unused sick and holiday pay.

The thievery was mostly small amounts, but occasionally large. On days close to one another he bought $35k and $10k of gift cards of Hyatt Hotels, then a few days later $15k of gift cards of Fairmont Hotels.

In settlement of the civil suit he agreed to personally repay the Turnpike $155,000.  

He said that was about his total current net worth.

Two Turnpike bonding companies will pay the Turnpike $275,000 in the agreed settlement of $430k.

Violette was executive director of the Turnpike from 1988 to March 7, 2011 when he resigned after the scandal had been broken by the state Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability.

Background

He was a prominent personality in the toll industry having a one year term as president of IBTTA in 2001.

56 years old Violette is a graduate of Maine University law school and has been in politics or lobbying most of his adult life. A Democrat he served two terms in the Maine House of Representatives and three terms in the Maine senate, the final term being Senate Majority leader.

He was chief lobbyist for the St Paul Insurance company, then for Sprint, the telephone company.

No accountants charged

The Maine Turnpike Authority has never explained how its accounts and auditing so totally failed to pick up any of Violette's many years of thievery. Some accountants and auditors would have to have turned a blind eye for it to go on so long - perhaps because he was regarded internally as untouchable.

In addition some of his associates on the Turnpike board of directors must have picked up indications of his larcenous ways with Turnpike money.

It took an outside state investigatory office to out the abuses.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5186

STOP Congress from imposing tolls on FREEways in ALL 50 states!

Call your U.S. Senators & members of Congress NOW!

UPDATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2012

Thank you for your help in rallying the grassroots to STOP Congress from imposing tolls on existing freeways in ALL 50 states, selling our roads to private corporations in sweetheart deals, and making the taxpayer subsidize loser toll projects with more borrowed money from the Fed. IT WORKED! Congressman Quico Canseco filed an amendment to BAN tolls on existing FREEways (read more here) in the House, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison again filed her amendment (that's been in place for Texas since 2007) in the Senate.

In fact, our efforts were so effective and we were gaining so much momentum, that the toll industry put out an alert to STOP the ban on tolling freeways. Within hours, the House leaders pulled the transportation portion of the bill until at least the last week of February.

CALLS STILL NEEDED!
Congress won't go back into session until the last week of February.

ALSO NOTEWORTHY...
Sen. John Cornyn addressed the Texas Transportation Forum February 17, 2012, and he lobbied for the sale of our sovereign Texas public roads to private corporations in PPPs (that result in toll rates as high as 75 cents PER MILE, the equivalent of adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy!). He needs to hear from us on that.

_____________________________________

URGENT ACTION ITEM

STEP 1 -
Call your U.S. Senators & ask them to support the Hutchison ban tolls on existing STATE and FEDERAL freeways and to STRIP PPPs & TIFIA loans OUT of the transportation bill.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or find your U.S. Senators here.

STEP 2 -
Call your member of Congress and ask him/her to ADD the Hutchison "Freedom from Tolls" Amendment to ban tolls on existing freeways - BOTH state and federal - to HR 7 and STRIP PPPs & TIFIA loans OUT of the transportation bill.

Find out who your member of Congress is here or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND

STOP them from selling off our infrastructure to foreign entities, from borrowing more money from the Federal Reserve to lend to states to prop-up toll roads that can't pay for themselves, and from IMPOSING TOLLS ON FREEways in ALL 50 states! (Details below)

If you have contacts outside Texas, we need their help in spreading the word to the grassroots across America about this horrible highway bill dubbed the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.

It's been 7 years since Congress passed the last federal highway bill. Now its racing through Congress at the speed of light -- why? Because they want to sell-off our public roads to private corporations, raise your taxes through tolls, and lift the ban on imposing tolls on existing highways. There are 500 toll projects being contemplated in Texas alone!

An amendment to allow tolls on ALL existing interstates in all 50 states is expected to be presented on the floor by Senator Carper of Delaware. Imposing tolls on existing freeways is a massive DOUBLE TAX -- charging motorists an additional tax, a toll, to use what they've already built and paid for!

The current House Bill, HR 7, only bans tolls on existing FEDERAL interstates. It GUTS the ban on imposing tolls on existing STATE highways -- a ban that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison put in place for Texas since 2007.  The fate our public freeway system is under attack!

Sneaky new tax

Government has figured out that instead of solving congestion, they can manipulate it for a profit (by keeping your free lanes congested and forcing people to pay a premium to get mobility). They're terrified to raise the gas tax, but have no problem imposing tolls on all new capacity to our roads, even on EXISTING lanes that we travel today without tolls.

It costs 1-2 cents per mile to travel a gas tax funded freeway, but anywhere from 20 cents a mile up to 75 cents per mile to use a toll lane. It's an explosion in our cost to travel. A gas tax funded road costs PENNIES a day, a toll road costs DOLLARS a day and THOUSANDS more in new taxes per year.

The way toll roads are being financed today, ALL Americans are paying to build them through subsidies of taxpayer money like gas tax, but you won't be able to use them without paying a toll, too (a DOUBLE TAX)! So whether you can afford to take these toll lanes or not, you're paying for them. This notion that tolls are user fees is a myth when you look at how heavily they're subsidized by ALL taxpayers. You're also paying for them through a higher cost of goods that gets passed onto consumers.

Selling us out

Both the House and Senate versions of the federal highway bill, dubbed the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act, include public private partnerships (or PPPs) that sell-off our public roads to private corporations in 50-99 year government-sanctioned toll road monopolies. PPPs use heaps of public money to socialize the losses,  while they privatize and GUARANTEE profits for the private operators.

Columnist Michelle Malkin calls PPPs 'corporate welfare.' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were some of the first PPPs and eventually caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis and subsequent $1 trillion dollar taxpayer BAILOUT!

The TIFIA loan program is a HUGE source of funds used to subsidize ill-conceived toll roads that can't pay for themselves. It's the primary pot of taxpayer money given to these private, foreign corporations seeking to takeover our U.S. highways using public private partnership toll road contracts.

NOTE: The first TIFIA loan was awarded to a private consortium in a PPP deal on the South Bay Expressway in San Diego. It went bankrupt less than three years later due to traffic projections that were off by over 40,000 cars per day! Taxpayers had to accept a write-down of nearly $80 million of a $172 million federal TIFIA loan in yet another taxpayer bailout for private corporations.

The TIFIA loan program is all BORROWED money from the Federal Reserve, so who will have to bailout these toll roads when the cars don't show up as they didn't in San Diego along with other projects across the country? YOU and me, the taxpayer.

Think about it - PPPs give private corporations the power to TAX! They are granted the power to levy unlimited toll taxes on the traveling public - and we can't hold corporations accountable like we can politicians at the ballot box. This is why politicians LOVE PPPs. They get to OUTSOURCE the taxation to their special interest buddies and makes us pay back our own money with interest through tolls!

Rather than get rid of the failed TIFIA loan program, the federal highway bill INCREASES TIFIA funding by nearly TEN times from $100/yr to $1 BILLION/yr! Current law requires the taxpayers to be   paid back first, now in the bill as written, private interests would get paid back first and taxpayers would be paid back last.
 
PPPs also contain non-compete clauses that prohibit or penalize the expansion of free roads surrounding the privatized toll roads, guaranteeing congestion on the free routes.

Also, PPP toll contracts allow private entities to benefit from the use of eminent domain, and they result in toll rates as high as 75 cents a mile. That's like adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy!

CBO: Toll roads not free money

Link to article here.

One way this CBO report is errant, is its claims the cost to taxpayers when a toll road is private is roughly the same as when it's a public toll road. Not so. Data shows toll rates in the hands of private corporations (who do not answer to the taxpayers) that grant a government-sanctioned monopoly to the private sector, are substantially higher than publicly-run toll projects, and both are substantially more costly than gas tax funded roads. Private companies bake-in profit and their cost to borrow money is higher than the government. The report also claims private toll projects are done more efficiently and cost effective, which is also untrue since public private partnerships are not low-bid contracts (its called 'best value' bidding) and since they're granted a monopoly, there are no normal competitive pressures to keep cost down.


Congressional Budget Office: Toll Roads Are Not Free Money
Government report shows that tolling relies on complicated financing models to hide the costs and risks that are passed along to the public.
The Newspaper.com

CBO report coverToll roads are all the rage with politicians across the country. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers see "public-private partnerships" as the solution to their transportation funding difficulties by turning to the private sector to pay for infrastructure improvements through tolling. A report released last month by the non-partisan government analysts at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found the purported benefits of this financing mechanism were mostly illusory, as taxpayers end up paying roughly the same amount either way.

"The case is sometimes made that using funds from private capital markets to finance roads can increase the resources available to build, operate, and maintain roads," the CBO report stated. "But the sources of revenues available to pay for the cost of a highway project -- whether it uses the traditional financing approach or a public-private partnership -- are the same: specifically, tolls paid by users or taxes collected by either the federal government or by state and local governments. Therefore, absent restrictions on governments' ability to borrow, there is no difference between the amount those governments could raise themselves and the sums that public-private partnerships could raise because the same resources are available to remunerate investors in either case."

CBO found that private projects do hold an advantage in finishing projects on time and in the most cost-effective manner since the private firm's profits depend on the road opening as soon as possible so that the tolling revenue can begin flowing. Cost overruns generally come out of the pockets of the private companies, whereas traditional public transportation bureaucracies tend to be less cautious in monitoring and controlling how tax dollars are spent. Labor costs are generally 25 to 40 percent lower for private projects not bound by pricey labor union contracts. Only a superficial and incomplete analyses, however, conclude that the private financing model has a distinct cost advantage when all factors are considered, CBO found.

"In order to properly assess the difference in costs between securing financing through the traditional approach (generally as public debt) and obtaining it by private means, it is necessary to account not only for the interest paid on money borrowed for the project but also for the costs associated with the risks borne by taxpayers and the costs of financial transfers -- in the form of subsidized interest rates and advantageous tax treatment -- from the federal government to states and localities," the report explained. "If such a comprehensive measure is used, the costs of private and public financing are roughly comparable."

CBO analyzed the 21 toll road projects that have been completed in the US over the past twenty years at a cost of $16 billion. Though this is a small amount compared to the $1 trillion spent on roads over the same period, it accounts for 30 to 40 percent of new highway capacity. The rush to tolling began in 2008, and the real-world effect has then most tolled highways were built upon faulty models that overestimated traffic levels and tolling receipts. As a result, many of the projects went bankrupt, including the Camino Colombia Bypass in Texas, the Southern Connector in South Carolina and the South Bay Expressway in California. The public was frequently left paying for the mistake.

"The South Bay Expressway, which had received some financing from the federal TIFIA program, illustrates what can happen to taxpayers as the ultimate equity holders," the report explained. "The project filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 2010, finally emerging in May 2011. The new financing and ownership structure required by the bankruptcy court imposed a loss of 42 percent on federal taxpayers, replacing the original TIFIA investment with a package of debt and equity worth only 58 percent of the original investment."

The costs are also passed along to the motorist. On the Chicago Skyway in Illinois, tolls fell in real terms by 25 percent from 1989 to 2004 while under public control. Under private control since 2005, they have increased 60 percent.

A copy of the report is available in a 4.5mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Using Public-Private Partnerships to Carry Out Highway Projects (Congressional Budget Office, 1/6/2012)

President mum about his tax increase; Federal Highway bill underway

President mum about his tax increase

By Terri Hall, San Antonio Transportation Policy Examiner
February 2, 2012

When President Barack Obama referred to his infrastructure plan in the State of the Union speech, he conveniently left out his plans to dramatically increase Americans' taxes on driving through toll roads and public private partnerships (P3s).

Here’s what he said:

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure.  So much of America needs to be rebuilt.  We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.


During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.  After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways.  Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.


In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects.  But you need to fund these projects.  Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

The speech went on for more than an hour, and three paragraphs is all the President had to say about infrastructure, and yet the U.S. House of Representatives is taking up its version of the Federal Highway bill this week. So there is much ado in Congress about our nation’s highways, and little acknowledgment or solutions posed to address the chronic underfunding by Congress other than levying toll taxes. Obama and his Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood have made tolling and P3s the centerpiece of the President’s transportation agenda since taking office.

So there is much ado about our nation’s highways, and little acknowledgment or solutions posed to address the chronic underfunding by Congress other than higher taxes (whether through levying toll taxes or as we see in the House version -- taxes on energy production). Obama and his Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood have made tolling and P3s the centerpiece of the President’s transportation agenda since taking office.

The House wants a bill that’s funded with existing gas taxes collected, but also relies on a new tax on oil drilling to bridge the gap between needed road funds and the shortfalls in the gas tax. Due to Congress’ failure to address issues with the gas tax or end the practice of wasteful earmarks (ie - diversions and overspending), there is a major shortage of funds to properly address our nation’s infrastructure needs. Further starving the gas tax also translates into unrestrained reliance on tolling to make-up the shortfalls. Congress has been content not to prioritize funding for roads (the arteries of daily living), and all too happy to bloat spending in just about every other arena.

However, both the House and Senate wish to increase debt and borrowing by increasing the TIFIA loan program by nearly a factor of ten up to $1 BILLION a year. TIFIA loans have provided the lifeblood for P3s that sell off our public roads to private equity sharks. The first such loan went to subsidize a private corporation on a deal in San Diego on its South Bay Expressway that summarily went bankrupt 3 years later. The taxpayers lost nearly $80 million on the deal and the Council of Governments (ie - taxpayers) had to bail it out and take it over.

So a continuation of the TIFIA program is fiscally reckless and tantamount to a special interest giveaway that’s rife with abuses. P3s are government-sanctioned monopolies that charge taxpayers a premium to access their own public highways -- 75 cents a mile, like adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy -- much higher than publicly-run tollways. P3s also include sweetheart provisions that guarantee congestion on the free lanes through non-compete agreements.

The President devoted much of his speech to jobs and the economy and clearly wanted to show his sympathy for those in difficult economic situations. But to ask Americans to pay the equivalent of $15 for a gallon a gas in order to get to work or get their highways fixed, and to act as if the Administration is not interested in raising taxes, is disingenuous at best.

Americans must voice their concerns about this oppressive tax increase on driving before Congress passes and the President signs such a punitive, irresponsible federal highway bill.

_____________________________________________

Link to article here.

Group aims to thwart transport bill
By Adam Snider and Burgess Everett - Politico
February 1, 2012

The Club for Growth is trying to ensure that conservative Republicans revolt against a massive surface transportation bill.

The group sent a “key vote alert” Wednesday urging members to oppose the bill. It also said their votes would be part of the organization’s 2012 scorecard — meaning conservatives would be docked if they voted for the five-year, $260 billion measure.

Even procedural votes might be on the scorecard, the Club for Growth warned.

“Simply put, this is a massive 846-page bill that doesn't cut any spending at all. Indeed, it spends at least $30 billion more by supplementing fuel taxes with additional revenue from other sources,” the group said in a statement ahead of a Thursday markup at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) said the alert has moved him into the undecided camp.

"I was going to be for it," Campbell said, explaining that he now wants to find out more about why the group opposes the bill. "The scorecard is less of an influence than the fact that there's something they don't like."

Large Republican defections would be devastating to the bill’s chances of clearing the House. Leadership doesn’t expect to win over any Democrats.

“The whip stood up in our conference today and said the bill, as currently written, we’re going to have to pass it with 218 Republican votes,” Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) said. He listed problems he has with the bill that include “divisive” truck weight issues, anti-labor provisions and ending the Transportation Enhancement program, so “now you’re pissing off all the people that ride bicycles and like to walk.”

LaTourette hopes the bill can be changed to attract wider support.

“This has to be a bill that everybody signs off on that actually puts people back to work. It can’t be an ideological punching bag, or else it’s dead,” he said.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of T&I’s railroads subcommittee, doesn’t see why the Club for Growth would oppose the bill.

“They called it another bloated bill; there’s tremendous reform in this bill,” he told POLITICO between House votes Wednesday. “If they want to go from A to Z overnight, it can’t be done. This is a significant step in the direction I think they want ultimately, and that’s to have less government.”

Club for Growth President and former Rep. Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) voted for the much-criticized 2005 transportation bill that spent billions of dollars more than the gas tax took in and included about 6,300 earmarks.

Interviews with multiple freshmen generally showed a wait-and-see approach. Freshman Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a Transportation and Infrastructure Committee member, said it was “way too early” to declare a Republican uprising.

The swift process, with the bill’s introduction on Tuesday and markup two days later, may also unite Democrats with Republicans in opposition.

“There are some on the right that are looking at this the same way I am,” said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking member on the transportation committee. “And that is in regard to transparency, and the right to know what’s in a bill. They were not consulted in drafting this bill.”

Rahall said he will try to postpone Thursday’s markup until next week.

Jonathan Allen contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 8:27 p.m. on February 1, 2012.

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 48 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases