Link to article here.

Looks like Rick Perry’s Trans Texas Corridor is still alive and well to me…(see end of article). Also, looks like TxDOT can get FREEWAY improvements paid for when they set their minds to it. Note the many pots of money…

I-35 Strike Force Formation Discussed
August 31, 2009
Hillsboro Reporter

Staying on top of Interstate 35 construction projects through Central Texas is expected to be the major goal of a strike force that is being proposed by state-elected officials.

Representatives Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, and Charles (Doc) Anderson, R-Waco, were in Hillsboro recently to meet with local business leaders and elected officials at the Hillsboro Area Chamber of Commerce.

While other transportation corridors have been discussed, the interstate was identified as the “absolute common corridor” for commerce across Texas.

Those in attendance learned the significance of Prop. 12, Prop. 14 and TIGER grants, when it comes to highway funding.
Among the Texas Department of Transportation officials on hand were John A. Barton, assistant executive director in charge of engineering operations; Coby Chase, director of the government and public-affairs division; Richard Skopik, Waco District engineer; and Tony Moran, area engineer.

According to Barton, an ongoing cooperative effort should accelerate the development of the Interstate 35 corridor.
The immediate goal is to have the interstate at least six lanes from San Antonio to the east-west split north of Hillsboro, and then to Dallas and Fort Worth.

That has been accomplished with the exception of TxDOT’s Waco District, which stretches from the Williamson County line in the south to the northern boundaries of Hill County.
But, Barton explained that could change in the coming years with the recent commitment of the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC).

The widening project from farm roads 310 to 1304 south of Hillsboro has now been funded and is scheduled to be let for bids in March of next year.

Money for the project was allocated from Proposition 14 or Prop. 14 bonds that were funded during the July special session of the Legislature.

The proposed safety rest areas south of Hillsboro are not expected to be bid until toward the end of the widening project to assure service roads and ramps are in place, Barton said.

Where the exit ramps at Farm Road 1304 will be located has yet to be settled.

A rider that left the ramps unchanged was attached to the transportation bill, but it failed to be passed during the regular session.

The configuration approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would move the southbound exit back to the north near the proposed rest area.

Skopik said that his staff is looking at plans that would move the ramp about 1,000 feet rather than the proposed 2,000 to 3,000 feet to the north.

“We have to educate the FHWA and get them to agree to the decision since it was approved in a public setting,” the district engineer said.

Voters approved $5 billion in general-revenue transportation bonds in 2007, but due to the economic downturn, only $2 billion were funded during the special session.

According to Representative Pitts, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, the state couldn’t afford the payments on the full $5 billion.

Of the $2 billion, half was placed in TxDOT’s Infrastructure Bank, which provides funds for local entities to borrow against for transportation-related projects.

The other $1 billion was made available to the TTC for projects of their choice.

Federal stimulus money has been allocated to reconstruct I-35 from just south of Salado into Temple. That work will be let in May.

The other state-funding source for projects includes Prop 12, which is known as the Texas Mobility Fund, which was created by voters in 2003.

According to Skopik, those bonds must be repaid with gas-tax or vehicle-registration revenue rather than general-fund revenue.

“But we’re about to use up the authorized spending from Prop 12,” the district engineer added. “It is projected by 2011 or 2012 TxDOT will have fully used that funding.”

TIGER is the latest funding acronym to surface in transportation circles.

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants are the last subset of the federal-stimulus money, Skopik explained.

It makes $1.5 billion in competitive grants available nationwide for highway, rail and ports.
The amount each state can receive is $300 million, according to Chase.

“Interstate 35 is main street Texas, and there will be agonizing decisions on where the money will be spent.

“We will be working with our friends (Texas delegation) in Washington to make sure we get a fair shake,” Chase added.

The competitive grant process has a September 15 deadline, and the Waco District is seeking money to reconstruct the interstate from Bellmead to just south of West.

If that project is funded, it would just leave a stretch from south of West to north of Abbott and between Waco and Temple to be widened to six lanes.

A second commitment of Prop. 14 funds from the TTC in January puts the engineering of those remaining sections on the front burner.

According to Barton, the commission has provided the funds to have all sections in the Waco District and up I-35E ready when right-of-way and construction funds become available.
Skopik and his staff have until the end of 2011 to complete the engineering work.

A similar deadline has been given to the Dallas District office for I-35E from the Hill County line north to Dallas.
The roadway is currently six lanes from Dallas south to near Waxahachie.

The money has yet to be allocated for engineering on Interstate 35W to Fort Worth because “the demand is not quite there,” Barton said.

Hillsboro Mayor John Erwin, who serves on TxDOT’s I-35 segment committee, questioned what happens after the interstate is expanded to six lanes.

Barton said that he was “optimistic” that the end is near on getting the funding to widen the interstate to six lanes.

“We don’t need to wait, we need to talk today about what we will do after I-35 is expanded as much as possible,” the assistant executive director pointed out.

Chase pointed out, from a statewide perspective, widening I-35 to six lanes only keeps up with the congestion, it doesn’t relieve it.

Mayor Erwin said that he thought high-speed rail needed to be a major part of the solution.

Hillsboro has remained active in the Texas High-Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation, which has the Texas T-Bone plan to run high-speed rail from Dallas-Fort Worth to San Antonio and “T” off at Killeen to go to Houston.

The results of an environmental impact study on the old Trans-Texas Corridor that passed through eastern Hill County remains in the pipeline.

A ruling on the study by the FHWA is expected by the end of the year.

Barton said that TxDOT had to follow through with the process, but there has been no decision on what to do with the study if it is approved.

The corridor system proposed by Governor Rick Perry fell by the wayside following political pressure from rural Texas residents.

Link to article here.

You may remember we’ve been working with American Stewards of Liberty (formerly Stewards of the Range) on forming these subregional planning commissions all over the state, called 391 commissions. We refer to them as 391 commissions because that’s where the authority to form them comes from in the local government code. It forces federal, state, and local agencies to meet their legal requirement to “coordinate” with local governments. For instance, if one of these cities or counties says in its regional plan that no toll road can come through its jurisdiction (or in an area that impacts its residents), then these agencies (RMA/TxDOT) basically can’t do it.

Up until now, they’ve all been in rural cities and counties in the path of the Trans Texas Corridor (using it as a means to stop the TTC). Well, weeks ago, after two long years of work, the cities of Hollywood Park and Hill Country Village formed one. It is the first one formed in an urban area. Hollywood Park is right at 281/1604 (ideal to stop the tolling of both highways) and Hill Country Village is just south of Hollywood Park (on the west side of 281), still in the project area.

Government to government challenges are FAR stronger than citizens to their government. We see what the government thinks about citizens…we’re just a loud “minority” or some other dismissive attitude. But they cannot ignore these two cities. Since they wouldn’t listen to us or two lawsuits, we changed our government so we could challenge them from within…

Cities partner to address 281/1604 together
By Christine Stanley
August 27, 2009
North Central News

Hill Country Village is joining forces with Hollywood Park to form a sub-regional planning commission that would tackle the U.S. 281/Loop 1604 interchange revamp — and any other state or federal project that may affect the two cities.Hollywood Park City Councilman Bob Sartor got the green light from his colleagues to start work on the commission last month. Hill Country Village council members approved the move Aug. 20.

State and federal law allows for at least two governing agencies — at the city or county level, or both — to form a sub-regional planning commission to promote the coordinated development of a particular region.

Such a commission can do that in a number of ways, including recommendations to higher governmental authorities on how to proceed with a particular project.

In this case, the sub-regional planning commission would focus on Alamo Regional Mobility Authority’s proposed $140 million plan for the 281/1604 interchange.

ARMA plans to build four elevated “direct connectors” between the two highways that would connect travelers on 281 north to the east and west sides of 1604, and two more connectors would take travelers from both sides of the loop to 281 south.

Construction could begin as early as next year.

ARMA is reaching out to Hollywood Park, Hill Country Village and surrounding cities through its own citizen advisory groups and public meetings, but Sartor reminded Hollywood Park residents last month that the agency has no legal obligation to meet with any community.

By law, ARMA would have to meet with the sub-regional planning commission and take any of its recommendations into consideration before making a final decision on the connector project.

Hollywood Park council members have expressed concern about negative impacts to their constituents during and after construction.

Hill Country Village Mayor Kirk Francis said he is worried about ARMA’s true intentions. He reminded his colleagues that ARMA was originally created by the state Legislature as a tolling authority.

“So I’m kind of curious why ARMA is hosting all these meetings that have to do with what’s supposed to be a TxDOT project,” Francis said Aug. 20.

ARMA has stressed on its Web site and in recent public meetings that the 281/1604 interchange will not be tolled.

Francis said the two cities will work out bylaws for the sub-regional planning commission during the next few weeks. It appears the commission will include Francis and Hollywood Park Mayor Richard McIlveen, a council member from each city and a resident designee appointed by each mayor.

“Right now, (ARMA) can tell us after the fact, they can invite us to meetings — that’s their form of communication,” Francis said.

He said the panel would also bring both cities closer in addressing health and safety issues of mutual interest.

Hill Country Village council members also approved a contract with Acadian Ambulance Service Aug. 20.

Francis was the tiebreaker in a vote to sever ties with San Antonio EMS last month. He broke a tie between council members Gabriel Durand-Hollis and Margaret Mayberry, who were in favor of sticking with San Antonio EMS, and Register and Elizabeth Worley, who wanted to switch to Acadian.

The ambulance provider would incorporate Hill Country Village into its coverage area for free, saving the city about $35,000 each year.

Link to article here.

Hank has served on the Board of TURF for several years and has fought alongside us to STOP Rick Perry’s Trans Texas Corridor, the sale of TX roads to Spain (CDAs), and the proliferation of toll roads. He is President of the Piney Woods Subregional Planning Commission formed to stop the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 project, and Hank was instrumental in KILLING CDAs and protecting pension funds during the special session in July.

Gilbert announces Democratic bid for governor
By R.G. RATCLIFFE AUSTIN BUREAU
Aug. 26, 2009, 9:53PM

AUSTIN — The second highest vote-getting Democrat from the 2006 elections, agriculture commissioner nominee Hank Gilbert, said Wednesday he plans to join the fight for his party’s gubernatorial nomination.

Gilbert, 49, a Tyler-area rancher, received 42 percent of the vote in his race against Republican Todd Staples for agriculture commissioner.

In the current governor’s race, Gilbert said he can bridge the gap between Democrats and moderate Republicans who are “disgusted” with incumbent Rick Perry’s service. Gilbert said he does not believe U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison can defeat Perry in the GOP primary.

Gilbert’s entry into the race became another potential stumbling block for Fort Worth businessman Tom Schieffer, who received endorsements Wednesday from some of the top state House Democratic leaders.

They included Reps. Garnet Coleman and Jessica Farrar of Houston, Jim Dunnam of Waco, and Pete Gallego of Alpine. The group said Schieffer will be able to govern the state by bringing Democrats and Republicans together.

Schieffer has been struggling to win over hard-core Democrats because he was business partners with former President George W. Bush and served in his administration as ambassador to Japan and Australia, where he had to defend the policy of indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Former party railroad commission nominee Mark Thompson also is in the race, and humorist Kinky Friedman is expected to join the fray.

Schieffer said he had hoped that Gilbert would run for agriculture commissioner again on a ticket with him.

“Ten days ago, Hank Gilbert talked to me about being part of the team and running the ag race. His exact words to me were: ‘You need to cover me in the urban areas, and I’ll cover your back in the rural areas,’ ” Schieffer said.

Gilbert said he had told Schieffer that at a Democratic summit in Tyler, but he said he changed his mind and decided to run for governor after listening to Schieffer speak.

“The man is very intelligent,” Gilbert said. “But he just didn’t inspire me. I was looking for that spark.”

Okay, if you thought selling our public highways to Spain using PPPs was bad, along comes a report that the FHWA, FTA, and EPA were a part of, that is advocating the government impose a 5 cent per mile minimum toll to use our EXISTING federal interstates and that it impose a 65 cent per mile toll to access ALL 125 metro areas in the country (their definition of metro includes Modesto, CA) in an effort to reduce carbon emissions! It also advocates a steep parking tax in downtown areas and a $400 biennial residential on-street parking permit. Innovation Briefs newsletter dated August 18, 2009 outlines the proposals in the report below. Link to pdf of a presentation about the report here. (To get a copy of the report done in part with tax-funded federal agencies, you have to pay $24.95!)

If we think for ONE MINUTE that tolling isn’t about stealing our freedom to travel (using behavior modification), this report is proof-positive it most definitely is. INCONCEIVABLE!

From the Innovation Briefs Newsletter –

August 18, 2009

A Tendentious Report Has the Transportation Community Up in Arms

While the nation at large and the political community are consumed by the current debate about health care, another controversy is being played out on a smaller stage but with no less intensity. The object of the controversy is a recently released report entitled “Moving Cooler”. The report, unveiled with great fanfare on July 28 before a large gathering of  the Washington environmental community, purports to estimate the potential reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that can be achieved from surface transportation. The report’s authors conclude that a combination of strategies and policy actions involving changes in vehicle and transportation system operations, travel behavior, land use patterns and level of transit service could reduce annual GHG emissions by up to 24 percent from the expected baseline levels in 2050. The authors further maintain that with “strong economy-wide pricing measures” (read, VMT fees and PAYD insurance), annual GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 47 percent.

The report was commissioned by a group of sponsors and written by a well-known transportation consulting firm, Cambridge Systematics. Sponsors included two environmental advocacy groups (Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council), several foundations, the American Public Transportation Association, the Urban Land Institute, ITS America, Shell Oil Company and three government agencies – Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), one of the original sponsors, withdrew its support after concluding that the study “did not produce results upon which decision-makers can rely.” Specifically, AASHTO expressed concern that decision-makers could be led to rely on the study’s conclusions “without understanding the drastic steps that would have to be taken” to achieve the promised reductions.

At an August 13 meeting convened by AASHTO to discuss the report, many of the study assumptions were described as “extreme, unrealistic and in some cases downright impossible.” A list of 37 specific issues challenging the report’s methodology and requiring clarification was presented by a team of researchers that analyzed the study. Transportation professionals reached after the meeting were equally blunt. “This is an advocacy document pure and simple, couched in the form of a pseudo scientific analysis,” one state DOT official told us. Other transportation professionals, speaking on background, criticized the study as “not meeting scientific standards,” “using implausible assumptions,” “failing to adequately disclose key analytical assumptions,” “lacking in objectivity,” ” a deeply flawed analysis,” and “following a questionable peer review process.”

Precisely what kind of assumptions did the report use to warrant such a severe condemnation? Here is a partial list of measures assumed by the report’s authors that would be needed to achieve the estimated reductions:

– Institute tolling of all interstate intercity highways throughout the U.S. by next year (2010). Minimum toll would be 5 cents/mile. As the presentation to AASHTO pointed out, this would require immediate Federal legislation to authorize tolls and a massive crash effort to install toll equipment on these highways within the next year. The tolls would likely shift some traffic to other roads and hit rural areas hardest. According to the analysis, a 5 cent/mile toll would be equivalent to increasing the gas tax for interstate trips by $1.10/gallon for vehicles that get 22 MPG and $1.75/gallon for high-efficiency vehicles.

– Impose congestion pricing in 125 metropolitan areas, at 65 cents per mile. The presentation to AASHTO pointed out that a 20-mile round-trip commute trip would cost an additional $26 each day . Service workers and delivery vehicles could face much higher increased costs. The top 125 metro areas where congestion pricing would be imposed include such small urban areas as Canton, OH; Jackson, MS; Flint, MI; Modesto, CA; Greenville, SC; and Lancaster, PA.

– Impose or significantly increase parking fees in the CBD and require $400 biennial residential on-street parking permits

– Reimpose a national 55 mph speed limit

– Invest $1.2 trillion over 40 years in expanding urban transportation. Increase transit operating subsidies by next year to allow transit fares to be cut by 50% in all regions.

– Increase highway capacity above the baseline by either $640 billion (“aggressive deployment”) or $1.2 trillion (“Maximum deployment”) over 40 years.

– Add bike lanes and paths at 1/4 mile intervals in high density areas (more than 2,000 persons/square mile.)

– Require at least 90% of new development to be in compact, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods with high quality transit. The report notes that the land use measures “may require strong regional land use planning and oversight agencies,… may result in higher housing prices and…some people might need to live in smaller homes or on smaller lots than they would prefer.”

While the report’s authors acknowledge in the body of the report that implementing the strategies at their “maximum deployment level” would require a major shift in national attitudes and political will, the presentation and press releases distributed at the July 28 report rollout ignored this caveat. They also ignored the report’s conclusion that lower emission reductions would be achieved at less intensive — and more realistic– levels of deployment. Thus, an impression may have been created, says Allen Biehler, Director of PennDOT and AASHTO’s President, that emission reduction targets in the range of 24 to 52 percent are reasonably achievable. This, in turn, could lead to their adoption in EPA rulemaking and legislation pending in Congress.

Environmental sources contacted for this story allege that the threat of climate change is no less urgent  than the threat of air pollution was 30 years ago, and the means  to combat it happen to be largely the same: reduce reliance on  and volume of automobile travel, greatly expand public transit, support nonmotorized travel (biking and walking), and change development patterns to achieve more compact “walkable” communities.  They had to be reminded that improvements in air quality over the last 30 years have been almost entirely achieved  through changes in vehicle and fuel technology and not through changes in travel behavior and land use patterns. Indeed, urban air pollution has been substantially reduced from its 1970s levels despite rising vehicle-miles of travel (VMTs) and continued dispersal of homes and jobs.

Be that as it may, the present controversy is not about  challenging the legitimacy of the emission reduction strategies advocated in the “Moving Cooler” report. It is, rather, about using allegedly flawed analysis and unrealistic assumptions that could mislead policymakers and the public and raise unreasonable expectations about how much progress can be achieved using these strategies. Evidence from  the last 30 years shows that “travel demand management” and “smart growth” have been largely ineffective as a means of reducing auto dependency and automobile trips. There is thus good reason to question whether these two strategies, applied in a reasonable manner,  would be any more effective in reducing future vehicular-based GHG emissions.

Lance Neumann, President of Cambridge Systematics, the consulting firm that authored the report, responds:

Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation circulated regarding the Moving Cooler study.  Contrary to some reports, Moving Cooler does not advocate for any particular approach to reducing GHGs, nor does it assess the political feasibility or the overall merit of the strategies examined.  Rather, it presents estimates of how much GHGs might be reduced for a very large number of measures and under a very wide range of assumptions about how aggressively they are implemented.  For Moving Cooler, organizations with varying perspectives were invited to join the steering committee, and members collaborated in selecting the specific measures and the range of implementation assumptions for each measure to estimate strategy effectiveness in reducing GHGs.  It is intentional that the implementation aggressiveness of each measure reflected a wide range of assumptions.

Given the range of measures and implementation scenarios examined, it is not surprising that AASHTO disagrees with some of the assumptions used.  Many members of the Steering Committee  also disagreed with some of the implementation assumptions that were evaluated.  However, there was consensus among Steering Committee members that exploration of the strategies under the range of assumptions defined was a worthwhile exercise to inform public debate.  We believe that Moving Cooler provides additional objective information to inform the debate, whether you agree with all of the assumptions or not.

It should also be noted that, although the study did not explicitly analyze fuel efficiency, it did use for its baseline forecasts more aggressive estimates of future fuel efficiency improvements than were used by the Department of Energy in its forecasts of future fuel efficiency.  So,  Moving Cooler analyses clearly acknowledge the absolutely critical role of fuel efficiency improvements in reducing GHG emissions.

Ed. Note: The Steering Committee that Mr. Neumann refers to included representatives of the American Public Transportation Association, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, ITS America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Shell Oil Company, the Urban Land Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional sponsors (but not members of the Steering Committee) included the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Surdna Foundation and The Kresge Foundation.

Link to “Moving Cooler” web site here.
C. Kenneth Orski is the author of Innovation NewsBriefs
A reminder of who Orski is: He was one of 4 who were members of President Bush’s Transportation Policy Team & later transition team (Federal Surface Transportation Program input with recommendations in 1999 which were largely followed & later shaped Mary Peters’ policies at US DOT).  The 4 cheerleaders for transportation infrastructure privatization are: C. Kenneth Orski, Stephen Lockwood, Alan E. Pisarski, and Robert W. Poole Jr. (Reason Foundation Libertarian think tank founder & public member of the Sunset Advisory Commission).
Normally we’re on opposite side of Orski’s thinking, but we agree that these proposing are an OUTRAGEOUS threat to our freedom to travel.