Author: Terri Hall

Superstreet gets green light at MPO

Posted on by

Link to article here.

03/24/2009

Stimulus may bring some relief to U.S. 281

By Scott Huddleston – Express-News
Leaders with the Metropolitan Planning Organization agreed Monday to direct nearly $23 million in federal stimulus money to street projects aimed at reducing congestion on U.S. 281 North and creating new jobs on the Southwest Side.

The plan approved by the group’s policy board also includes nearly $2.5 million to upgrade low-water crossings and close funding gaps for three street and drainage projects.

The largest amount is $14.74 million to extend and realign 36th Street, from U.S. 90 to Billy Mitchell Boulevard, a project that Port San Antonio officials said could generate more than 4,500 jobs by enhancing airfield access and the flow of cargo at the 1,900-acre aerospace, industrial and international logistics complex.

“It’s really a great project that will open up a lot of opportunities for the port,” said Sid Martinez, director of the MPO.

The other major project on the list for stimulus funding is a $7.8 million upgrade to a roughly four-mile stretch of U.S. 281, extending north from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road. Under a “super street” concept that’s been used in other states, the road would be reconfigured to eliminate cross traffic, increasing flows by an estimated 30 percent, officials said.

“It should provide some temporary congestion relief until a permanent solution is found,” Martinez said.

The 281 project would be funded with $5.7 million in stimulus money, $1.6 million from the Advanced Transportation District and $500,000 from the city. Councilman Louis Rowe said residents in his North Side district have urged him to do anything he could to relieve the logjam there.

People could be driving on the improved stretch within a year, Rowe said.

Also approved is $750,000 to improve Eagleland Drive south of downtown; $500,000 to complete an upgrade to Jones Maltsberger Road on the North Side; $660,000 for two drainage projects on Salado Creek; and $550,000 for low-water crossings.

The Texas Transportation Commission earlier this month decided to allocate $60 million in stimulus money for part of the interchange at U.S. 281 North and Loop 1604. Combined with $60 million in state bond funds and $20 million in local funds, the money is to finance ramps on the south side of the loop.

In addition to a lawsuit filed last year by Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom that could delay the interchange, the other stimulus projects could face design, legal or right-of-way issues that could endanger San Antonio stimulus funds. Any money that isn’t obligated by March 2010 will have to be returned to the federal government, Martinez said.

For that reason, the MPO has a list of 62 backup projects totaling more than $148.5 million that could get stimulus money. The largest are $40 million to widen and improve Interstate 10 from Huebner Road to Loop 1604; $33 million to build Wurzbach Parkway from Jones Maltsberger Road to Wetmore Road; $32 million for Wurzbach Parkway from Blanco Road to West Avenue; and $28.8 million for bus rapid transit improvements on Fredericksburg Road.

"Local option" bill with menu of tax increases faces opposition

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Funding for North Texas roads, rail faces rising opposition
By Dave Montgomery
Star-Telegram
March 21, 2009

AUSTIN — A month after it was introduced with a burst of fanfare from North Texas officials, supporters of a major transportation funding bill are now confronting the challenges of trying to advance the measure in an economic downturn against emerging opposition on several fronts.The bill, which has undergone substantial revision since it was unveiled in a Feb. 16 press conference at Dallas-Forth Worth Airport, would allow countywide elections in which voters would decide on a menu of fees and taxes to finance road and rail improvements. It was originally intended for North Texas but has been broadened to include the San Antonio and Austin areas.

Potential hurdles

Gov. Rick Perry, who supported the original concept of locally-approved financing for North Texas rail projects, began taking a hard look at the measure because of the proposed fee increases and the inclusion of other areas. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said Perry is committed to working with the bill’s Senate sponsor on Metroplex transit issues, but “has concerns about the bill.”

Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, the House sponsor, was questioned about the measure at a recent meeting of the Tarrant County Republican Executive Committee. Of the more than 300 precinct chairs who compose the committee, “in excess of 50 percent” are opposed to the bill, said Tarrant County Republican Chairwoman Stephanie Klick, herself included.

“Our precinct chairmen are pretty skeptical,” said Klick. “Every day we’re hearing about a new proposal to raise taxes out of D.C. People feel kind of tapped out right now financially. This is not a time to be raising taxes.”

Truitt wasn’t discouraged by the views espressed at that meeting, though. “I didn’t perceive it to be a bad meeting at all,” she said in a phone interview Friday. “People recognize we have a serious problem (with transportation) and we need to do something about it. I invited them to be part of the process so we could incorporate their thoughts and concerns in the bill.”

Democrats concerned

Although the most visible opposition is coming from conservative circles, Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, said there is also concern among urban Democratic lawmakers worried about the impact of added fees on low- and middle-income constituents. Veasey is co-sponsoring an alternative that would base funding on sales taxes.

“I’d say the buzz among the members right now is that it’s not looking too good,” Veasey said of the bill’s chances for passage before the Legislature adjourns just over two months from now. “With the economy the way it is right now, it’s really driving a lot of members’ decision on it,” he said.

Veasey, a member of the House Democratic leadership team, said that “all of us would like to support our mayors and county commissioners” who strongly support the bill. But opposition to increased fees, he said, was virtually unanimous among his East Fort Worth constituents at two town hall meetings before the session started. “There was not one person in the room,” he said, who thought “this was a good idea.”

From the outset, supporters have touted the measure as vital to help the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metroplex finance road projects and more than 200 miles of commuter rail to help the nation’s fourth most populous region escape from gridlock and pollution. They have repeatedly portrayed it as a work in progress, inviting critics to help them smooth out objectionable features.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a pro-business research institute, and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, a watchdog organization, have aggressively attacked the bill, saying it would impose an added tax burden on citizens trying to struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Supporters confident of eventual passage

Supporters have countered those concerns by pointing out that the bill leaves it up to local voters on whether or not to approve the fees or taxes. The “absolute earliest” elections wouldn’t be held until 2010 or 2011, said Truitt, adding that local leaders aren’t likely to call an election for tax and fees increases if the economy is still in the tank. “Pretending that the Metroplex is not going to grow and the infrastructure is just going to pop up by itself is a short-sided bad mistake,” she said. She dismisses speculation that the bill is trouble, saying it’s chances are “improving greatly” as sponsors continue to refine its contents. Of conservative think tanks opposed to the measure, she says: “I think they need to do more thinking and less tanking.”

Truitt and the bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, have both expressed frustration with those who they say are attacking the bill without offering to improve it. “People who stand back and throw rocks are not helping the process,” said Truitt.

What’s next

The bill underwent its first hearing before Carona’s committee last week, with a large delegation of municipal and county officials from North Texas testifying in its behalf. Carona said he is hopeful that the bill could come up for a vote in his committee on Wednesday but committee staff members said continuing refinements could delay the vote until the following week.

More than 30 cities and communities in the Metroplex, including Fort Worth and Arlington, have passed resolutions supporting the bill. Leaders in fast-growing Collin County are apparently divided: County Judge Keith Self testified against the bill at last week’s committee hearing while Commissioner Jerry Hoagland supported it and accused opponents of engaging in “scare tactics.”

Some lawmakers are taking a wait and see attitude. Rep. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, announced dissatisfaction with an early version of the bill but noted last week that the bill is continuing to change. He said he will wait to see the finished product before making his decision.

Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, says he hopes the bill will ultimately pass but acknowledged that it’s difficult to predict the outcome.

“I’m a big supporter of it and I think it’s imperative that we pass something this session,” he said. “I think it’s still in good shape but it’s never easy to pass something like that. There are some things you just can’t predict about the Texas Legislature and that’s one of them. I just cannot tell.”

Transportation bill background

A bill allowing local voters to fund billions of dollars in road and rail projects tops the legislative priority list for governmental leaders and chambers of commerce in North Texas and elsewhere in the Metroplex. Here’s a look at what it does and substantial changes chances since it was introduced.

HB9 by Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller. SB855 by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas.

Summary: Would allow designated counties to hold elections in which voters would decide on proposed fees and taxes to fund road and rail projects. It applies specifically to counties in North Texas and two Central Texas counties: Travis (Austin) and Bexar (San Antonio). El Paso and Houston are also interested in being included.

The proposed county ballot would ask voters to approve any combination of local-option funding from the following six fees:

■ A county tax on gasoline sales, not less than one-tenth of a cent per gallon or more than 10 cents per gallon.

■ A “mobililty improvement fee” on vehicle registrations ranging from $1 to $60.

■ An added parking fee of up $2 per day at municipal and county parking lots used by the public. Would not include parking meters.

■ A vehicle emissions fee between $1 and $15, based on the amount of pollutants released by the vehicle.

■ A drivers license renewal fee.

■ An “impact fee” on new residents moving into Texas from another state or country. Under a revised bill introduced by Carona last week, counties would not be able to use the fees for anything other than the designated projects. The fees would expire after the improvements are completed or the bonds are paid off.

Carona’s reworked bill, called a “committee substitute,” also:

■ Includes a “low-income relief” component which would allow county commissioners courts to exempt low- and moderate-income residents with “significant financial hardship” from several of the fees. The exemption would not apply to the fuel tax or parking fee.

■ Requires annual audit reports detailing use of the local-option revenue and progress on the transportation projects.

■ For North Texas counties, would create “project and ballot selection committees” composed of city, county and transit officials under guidelines based on population. County commissioners courts and the cities would form the committees to select the projects and prepare a ballot proposition for the local option election.

■ Includes a “city override” if a county commissioners court declines to participate in the election process. The governments of one or more cities encompassing at least 60 percent of the county’s population could pass a resolution establishing a joint project selection and ballot committee.

Arguments

Supporters: The improvements are urgently needed to keep the North Texas economy – one of the most robust in the nation – from strangling under the weight of traffic congestion and pollution. The legislation is not a tax bill and the proposed fees and tax increases would not go into effect unless they are approved by voters at the local level. It gives local voters the right to decide on transportation options and would enable them to bypass the need for toll roads and reliance on overburdened state and federal transportation funds.

Opponents: With Texas beginning to feel the impact of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this is the worst time to ask voters to consider more fees and taxes. The state could provide billions of dollars to help pay for local projects by ending diversion of gas tax revenue for non-transportation uses. The proposal has grown from a North Texas-only measure to include Bexar and Travis counties and could become statewide in scope as other areas want in, submerging the local option concept.

Bait & switch interchange…red herring to NOT fix 281 north

Posted on by

Link to article here. Read our complete press release here.

03/21/2009
Toll road debate heats up — again
By Craig Kapitan – Express-News

Two factions that have harbored a running argument in recent years over the fate of a congested stretch of U.S. 281 just beyond North Loop 1604 are at it again.

Each side has held news conferences over the past two weeks — the most recent one on Friday — accusing the other of pulling a bait-and-switch on San Antonio residents.

Representatives for Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom and Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas, both of which oppose a “mega toll road” in the area, stood near U.S. 281 and Stone Oak Parkway on Friday to take aim at the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority.

“The public is sick and tired of the misleading information, broken promises and outright lies,” TURF founder Terri Hall said.

The mobility authority, she added, “will say and do anything … to gain access to our wallets and build a $1.4 billion boondoggle of a toll road.”

The dispute now hinges on a five-story, $140 million interchange project that would link 281 and 1604 on the south side of the intersection. Ramps on the north side of the loop would be built at a later time.

The mobility authority, which would oversee the project, announced recently that construction on the southern ramps could begin within the year thanks to $80 million in federal stimulus money.

The only catch, agency representatives have said, is the threat of a lawsuit from the opposition groups. With projects required to be “shovel ready” to receive stimulus money, a delay caused by a lawsuit could sink the whole endeavor, officials said.

In his own news conference last week, mobility authority chairman Bill Thornton railed against the groups. The ramps built with federal money would be nontoll, he said, adding that it would be disingenuous for the anti-toll groups to now say they’re opposed because of environmental concerns.

But the problem, Hall said Friday, is that building a large-scale interchange lays the groundwork for a large-scale tollway in the future.

Instead, she said, the stimulus money should be used to relieve traffic by building smaller-scale, less environmentally destructive overpasses at U.S. 281 intersections that currently have stoplights.

The mobility authority is overreacting about the possibility of a lawsuit, she said, explaining that her group and AGUA haven’t yet decided whether to file one.

“We are not interested in endless litigation,” Hall said, adding that it is their only weapon for negotiation.

Another problem, she and others said Friday, is that the mobility authority is trying to get around developing an environmental impact statement on the interchange by using an exemption intended only for minor projects with little impact. A set of five-story ramps is not a minor project, they said.

But what the groups neglect to mention, mobility authority spokesman Leroy Alloway responded, is that three of the stories for the ramps already are in existence at the intersection.

Further, the Federal Highway Administration has sent signals that it would be impossible to build overpasses with the stimulus money, Alloway said. That would require the building of on- and off-ramps and access roads, which would have a major impact and necessitate a lengthy environmental study, he said.

“It’s badly needed,” he said of the proposed interchange. “We recognize their concern, but we question its validity. It starts looking like a straw argument.”

During last week’s news conference, the mobility authority announced the launching of 411on281.com — part of a new public relations campaign to promote the road projects. TURF and AGUA responded Friday with Operation: Meltdown the Phones — a new campaign urging residents to call local politicians while stuck in traffic. The project is outlined at FixGridlock.com.

The anti-toll groups also are expected to show up at City Hall today for a public hearing on stimulus funds. It begins at 10 a.m.

Local government supports litany of transportation taxes

Posted on by

Link to article here. Well, of course, proponents outnumbered opponents because the proponents were government officials testifying in favor of tax hikes on their constituents! There were either paid to be there or traveled there on the taxpayers’ dime.

Those against are in the tens of thousands but don’t have the luxury of taking time off work and traveling to Austin at THEIR OWN EXPENSE to oppose this bill in person (which is required by our messed-up anti-taxpayer system of government!). All the emails sent in opposition DO NOT count for the official record! Read our assessment of this feeding frenzy by BIG GOVERNMENT advocates here.

Saturday, Mar 21, 2009
North Texas leaders voice their support for transit bill
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram

AUSTIN — North Texas municipal and county officials presented an almost unified front Wednesday in favor of legislation designed to raise money for billions of dollars in road and rail improvements.A three-hour hearing before the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee was the first legislative test of public opinion on the measure. Supporters outnumbered opponents by about 7-to-1.Opponents said proposed taxes and fees in the bill would impose added hardship at a time of economic uncertainty.

State Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the committee chairman and the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is still being refined and will come up for a committee vote next week.

Leaders of Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington and four other North Texas cities repeated their central message: The bill is urgently needed to finance road improvements and commuter rail lines to help the nation’s fourth-most-populous region reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

“The No. 1 issue is transportation,” Fort Worth Councilman Jungus Jordan told the committee, citing the findings of survey after survey in North Texas.

Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck said his city is “the largest city in the nation without public transportation, and I’m not proud of that.”

“We’re pleading with you to allow us to move ahead with transportation in our state.”

Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley testified that the current transportation funding system is “broke,” citing a $100 billion deficit in the amount of transportation assistance that the region gets from the state and federal governments balanced against its transportation needs.

“We need your help to give us a local ability to solve this problem,” Whitley said.

A heated moment

The most contentious moment came after Collin County Judge Keith Self testified against the measure, saying that it would force a family of four in the Collin County suburb of Plano to pay an additional $250 a year in transportation taxes.

“Make no mistake about it,” he said. “This is a tax increase.”

“You’re wrong about that,” responded Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, saying that the bill gives local voters an option of whether to assess themselves fees and taxes.

Watson cautioned Self against “throwing around words that are not entirely accurate.”

Carona also confronted Self, who has been one of the more visible opponents of the legislation, telling the county judge that “you do a disservice to the community” by criticizing the measure “without knowing what the bill says.”

“We would welcome your help,” Carona told Self. “Thus far, we haven’t seen any of it.”

Collin County Commissioner Jerry Hoagland told the committee that he supports the bill, pointedly disagreeing with those who use “scare tactics” to argue that “taxes will go through the roof” if it passes.

What the bill would do

Carona’s bill would allow counties to ask voters to choose taxes and fees to finance transportation improvements. The options include increased gasoline taxes, parking fees, driver’s license fees, vehicle emissions fees and an “impact fee” charged to new Texas residents.

State Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, is sponsoring the companion measure in the House of Representatives.

An alternative bill by Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, and Robert Miklos, D-Mesquite, calls for city-by-city elections — instead of county-by-county — and proposes sales taxes as the funding source for transportation improvements.

The local-option legislation, deemed North Texas’ top legislative priority, was originally tailored for Metroplex counties but has been broadened to include Bexar and Travis counties. Carona said El Paso and Houston have also expressed an interest in being included.

Gov. Rick Perry originally signaled support for the bill, but his office has since raised questions about the fee and tax increases and the inclusion of areas other than North Texas.

Tax concerns

In written testimony presented to the committee, Justin Keener of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative pro-business research institution, said the bill would create “excessive tax burdens that do further harm to our economy.”

“I certainly hope this does not pass,” Keener said outside the hearing. “It would be devastating.”

Terri Hall of San Antonio, founder and director of TexasTURF, a transportation advocacy group, also registered concern about the proposed fees and taxes during hard times.

“From the citizen’s perspective, just your average housewife here, I don’t see how we can do it,” she said.

Seventy-two witnesses registered in favor of the bill, and 10 signed up in opposition, though not everyone testified.

Other supporters included representatives from the Tarrant County Mobility Coalition, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, the Fort Worth and Dallas chambers of commerce, the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, Denton County, and Plano, McKinney, Denton and Frisco. Officials from Travis and Bexar counties also testified in behalf of the bill.

Opponents included the Texas Eagle Forum, Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity.

What the bill provides The local-option transportation act would provide ways for counties to raise money to build their portions of a regionwide commuter rail system.The idea is to build 215 miles of commuter rail across Dallas-Fort Worth — a system that could cost $3.5 billion to build and $333 million a year to operate through 2030 — and let voters in each county decide how to pay their share.Counties with less emphasis on rail — or, in the case of Dallas, with a rail system already in place — could instead use the funds to supplement and speed up road work.

In Tarrant County, priorities include building commuter rail lines from southwest Fort Worth to Grapevine, downtown Fort Worth to Arlington via the Union Pacific main line, Arlington’s entertainment district to the Trinity Railway Express, downtown Fort Worth to Texas Motor Speedway and downtown Fort Worth to Mansfield.

— Gordon Dickson

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

RMA launches web site in repsonse to www.281Overpasses.com

Posted on by

Link to news report here. Here is the TURF response to the RMA’s propaganda. Read about Operation: Meltdown the Phones here.

Alamo RMA Opens Web Site Touting Toll Roads
Opposition Groups Planning Friday Response
Thursday, March 19, 2009

SAN ANTONIO — The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority is taking their case for various Highway 281 improvements to the Internet.”The conversation with the community needs to get started again with what can be done and what can’t be done,” said Terry Brechtel of the ARMA.

“A lot of folks believe you can build overpasses. Read the letter from the highway administration, read the prior environmental studies, overpasses do not meet the long-term solution.”

Brechtel said the authority believes toll toads are only one option, but that it must be considered along with other financing options.

Opposition forces are expected to voice their opinions at a press conference tomorrow, said Terri Hall of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, a nonprofit group opposed to toll roads.

The Metropolitan Planning Commission is recommending $22.9 million of funds from the economic stimulus package be used to widen 36th Street as well as the so-called super street project along Highway 281 north of Loop 1604, according to sources.

Copyright 2009 by KSAT.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Feeding frenzy…taxpayer funded lobbying in FULL view

Posted on by

If ever there was a display of the ugly realities of politics today, it was at Senator John Carona’s Transportation Committee hearing on his “local option” menu of new taxes. Virtually EVERY county judge, mayor, and local transportation official traveled to Austin to lobby for more of YOUR money on the taxpayer’s dime! The stack of witness cards was 3 inches thick, and not from ordinary citizens wishing to testify AGAINST this litany of taxes (we were too busy working to pay the government), but from our own government working full-time to get access to what’s left of our money.Add to that, the parade of Chamber of Commerce types and taxpayer-funded “Mobility Coalitions” along with “ousted” former House Transportation Committee Chair Mike Krusee slithering about, it was a taxation free-for-all with everyone but the taxpayers themselves as invited guests to the aristocracy’s ball.
It’s such fun for them to spend other people’s money, but at the end of the day, there’s only so much of OUR money to go around and it’s plum run out! Rather than heed the warning signs of the collapse of the credit market, the implosion of toll roads, these public-private toll roads in particular, they bury their heads in the sand and proceed unabated headlong into MASSIVE leveraged debt that will put us, our children, and great grandchildren in a deep hole for generations.

This latest feeding frenzy will only come back to haunt us, but it never seems to haunt them since they will have already moved on to higher office by the time it all hits the fan! We’ll be the ones left holdiing the bag. Knowing their policies are TOTALLY unsustainable, we’re witnessing a wreckless neglect of their fiduciary duty to build and maintain a STATE highway system and to be guardian’s of the public interest.
SB 855 & SB 882
Senator John Carona’s menu of tax hikes

His bill could increase your gas tax every year, charge new residents an impact fee but not developers, a vehicle registration tax hike, driver’s license tax, an emissions tax, and even a tax on a parking space. Then, Carona tried to sneak in an increase in payments to LOSING BIDDERS on road projects into a bill on toll collection in SB 882! He raises the current cap of $250,000 to a payment solely at the discretion of the tolling authority. They say there’s no money for roads, and yet they’ve got money to pay road contractors even when they DON’T build the road! Only in transportation does it pay to be a “loser.”
SB 17
Private toll road nightmare!

Senator Robert Nichols claims this bill protects the public from privatized  toll roads (called CDAs, pure profit centers), when TxDOT has the option to waive the restrictions! It also allows non-compete agreements (which guarantees congestion on the free roads), payments for “future” loss of toll revenues to the private toll operator if the state buys back the road, removes the State Auditor’s review of these contracts, and the private operator would be paid “fair market value” if the state buys back the road (without stating how that value is calculated or who decides the final pricetag).

It’s supposed to “protect” the taxpayers from private roads and keep them in public hands, but if the local toll entity doesn’t have the bonding capacity to make it work and declines the project, TxDOT can then also “decline” the project giving it to the private operators by default (which we can rest assured, they’ll do). CDAs cost at least 50% more and they charge extremely high tolls (like the deal Cintra just got on 820 in Tarrant County; commuters will pay 75 cents a MILE to get to work). It’s unsustainable!

Even after hearing an example of how the State Auditor caught the Alamo RMA not properly factoring in gas prices in their projections for toll traffic on 281, Nichols actually insulted the intelligence of our State Auditor by saying they “didn’t understand” toll viability studies so he arbitrarily removed the Auditor from oversight on these deals, stripping the process of a needed layer of accountability, and transparency. Don’t we owe it to the taxpayers to subject these deals to every level of scrutiny possible before handing our highway system over to foreign companies for a half century?

It was only two years ago when Nichols championed this very clarion call. Where has that taxpayer warrior gone?

Then, the grandaddies of them all…
SB 404
Carona’s bill to extend PPPs rather than let them die their rightful death this fall

These Public-Private Partnership Toll contracts called PPPs or CDAs in Texas, are scheduled to sunset in September. They’re rife with problems, trample on the public interest, amount to government-sanctioned monopolies, and utilize massive risky leveraged debt that threatens the very solvency of this country. Please read our CDA Fact Sheet for the details here.

SB 942
Bill to charge a congestion tax, commuter tax, tax on every mile you drive!

Senator Jeff Wentworth’s, SB 942, would allow a county to impose any or all of these taxes WITHOUT A VOTE. The vote is optional. Taxes could also be hiked for “services” (not just transportation projects) without naming the services they can tax.

The bill calls for a menu of tax increases like:
– an impact fee for new residents BUT NOT an impact fee on developers
– a gas tax
– a tax on passenger vehicles but NOT commercial vehicles
– a commuter tax on those commuting into a county (with no limit whatsoever)
– a real estate transaction tax
– a vehicle registration tax
– a vehicle sales tax
– a sales tax
– a tax on every mile driven (with no limit)
– a congestion tax for “high congestion areas during peak hours” (in addition to their plan to toll those areas!)

The county could impose one or ALL of these all at once without a vote! Glaring problem number 1,561 is the “optional” vote is only on the table if the citizens gather signatures (with a very high bar to meet, 10% of the last gubernatorial general election!). All this while Wentworth is also advancing his bill, SB 690, to increase the number of signatures needed for local referendums!

None of these taxes should EVER be imposed without an automatic public vote, period. Lastly, the bill doesn’t mandate the tax be tied to a specific project or that it sunsets when the projects are paid for (this, too, is optional), and the county can increase the tax rate without a vote. It’s a taxation free-for-all!

Your emails and phone calls did help because he offered an amended version of the bill that would at least REQUIRE a public vote. Gee, thanks. Now we can look forward to them choosing the most ackward day on the calendar to call for an election, hold every road project hostage until we agree to the new taxes, and hold our breath that more of us turnout than all the road contractors and their employees.

Apparently us working stiffs and mere taxpayers don’t have the clout the real estate lobby does, because he stripped out their real estate transaction tax in the new version.

Needless to say, we oppose this bill outright. We think, after ending the diversions to the gas tax (and curbing tolling), that a fixed increase in the gas tax is a far better, more accountable, and transparent long-term solution.

******************************************

TURF testified against these bills. Here are some of the formal comments…

TURF’s Testimony on SB 17

We commend Senator Nichols’ efforts for working on this evaluation process that has been in the works for nearly a year. Protecting the public interest is PARAMOUNT! How we do that is the open question here today.

Here are some of our concerns with SB 17 as drafted. We overall support the idea of CDAs being the last resort (we’d prefer they go away completely). But knowing how TxDOT operates and how it has become an extension of private industry instead of the guardian of the public interest, we think there are some gaping holes through which TxDOT will gladly leap through using the language of this bill.

Concerns with SB 17:

– Allows compensation to the private developer for the future loss of toll revenue (Sec. 301.103) in the form of a non-compete agreement for up to 30 years. Though you could argue the Dept. can still build anything in an MPO plan and for safety and maintenance, we’ve seen TxDOT strip out projects from the MPO plans in anticipation of selling bonds where the bond investor required a non-compete. So this will be manipulated in favor of the private investors placing the public interest at risk (by guaranteeing congestion on surrounding free roads for 30 years).
– We feel strongly that the State Auditor should still review these contracts. Even on a public toll project, US 281 in San Antonio, the Auditor reviewed the terms of the CDA and found the RMA had not properly factored the price of gas into their toll viability studies and recommended they re-do the study. The public deserves this extra protection.
– Allows the private developer to receive “fair market value” for a PUBLIC road without saying how this is to be calculated. It’s likely the private operator who will ultimately determine the price, so we’d like to see the bill require transparency on the debt owed (to avoid a self-reported figure) and have the calculation of “fair market value” scrutinized for soundness by the State Auditor or the public will, once again, be left holding the bag.
– TxDOT will naturally decline the project as a public project in favor of a private concession as they’ve already demonstrated when asking Harris County to sell their toll system to a private entity. The way this is structured, if the public toll entity like an NTTA cannot get the financing together (or the bonding capacity), they’d have to pass this to TxDOT and then TxDOT could hand it to the private developer, especially to use private funds to subsidize a toll project that can’t stand on its own feet (that isn’t 100% toll viable) (Sec 373.054). So this section ultimately doesn’t give the public protection, but shows TxDOT they can just wait it out, not provide any public subsidies (like TMF funds, other discretionary funds, etc) until they get possession of the project and then they can hand it to the private companies.
– Allows TxDOT & toll entity to waive these steps, which defeats the purpose of the bill (Sec 373.057) and allows them to jump precipitously into a CDA.

Ultimately, we’d like to see an honest, legitimate process to evaluate ALL road projects with a process that helps us determine FIRST between tolled and non-tolled, then go to a public or private toll road evaluation scenario. This assumes most projects will tolled. All these pots of public money being used to subsidize toll projects that can’t stand on their own two feet simply should NOT be built as toll projects if they’re not 100% toll sustainable. To do less is a DOUBLE and TRIPLE tax scenario unduly burdening our citizens for generations to come.

What it comes down to is, the citizens do not trust any process where the status quo Transportation Commission is still in place. As we described, TxDOT can quite easily hand over a massive portion of our highway system to private operators through CDAs (even using this process) that would cost 40% more than publicly owned projects and are faltering or failing all over the country. Not one PPP could even be held up as a model during the CDA Study Committee hearings, not even by the FHWA Administration who has been pushing this stuff.

We need fundamental, sweeping change by abolishing the Commission and replacing it with ELECTED leadership, whether it’s a single elected, or regionally elected commissioners, status quo is not an option for trust to be restored and to halt the legal and political wrangling that’s been keeping many projects from moving forward.

Instead of investing so much time and effort on how to cage the beast of CDAs unleashed by HB 3588 in the Williamson era, allow them to ride off into the sunset as scheduled and chart a new course. Modestly raise the statewide gas tax and get back to the business of building and maintaining a STATE highway system, instead of a slice and dice, hodge-podge separating rich from poor, urban and rural, and the city-state system you’re creating versus ONE unified and uniform system we can all easily access and be proud of again.

Editorial: Texans at transportation crossroads

Posted on by

Link to editorial here.

Dixon: Don’t let the Legislature take a wrong turn when it comes to transportation
Don P. Dixon, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
Austin American Statesman
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A secret hides in the midst of Texas Road Policy, and it doesn’t just stop at money siphoning, conversion of public roads to toll roads or toll taxes. The 2009 Texas Legislature now lingers at a crucial transportation crossroad, as a select few determine the future of Texans’ rights to public roadways.

Under former Texas Gov. Pat Neff, the Legislature implemented an efficient, affordable and uniform statewide public road system. Today our public road system is being converted into toll roads for the rich while the Texas Legislature diverts more than $10-12 billion from the building of public roads.

As jobs continue to become scarce and layoffs abound, Americans are cutting back on spending, which includes paying several dollars a day additional toll tax. The toll tax, which amounts to $4-6 per gallon, is actually a double tax and simply not affordable or acceptable for the vast majority of Texans. Toll roads destroy Gov. Pat Neff’s ideal program for a uniform highway system that is freely accessible to all citizens regardless of income, status or location.

It is the duty of the state to fund and furnish a freely accessible public road system for all Texas cities. The state has failed. Current public policy is burdening our citizens with the cost of tolls, forcing many Texans to drive through neighborhood streets in an effort to avoid tolls. You may say: who cares? You should. High toll costs and toll avoidance doesn’t only affect some, it affects everyone due to pollution, street damage and neighborhood safety is compromised.

The Transportation Commission recently issued a list of 87 proposed new toll roads with a base cost of $59 billion, resulting in an accrued $177 billion toll tax on Texas citizens over the next 23 years. Not only will this unduly burden Texans, but it will also cost more to build these toll roads, due to toll collection installation, than it would to build public roads. What’s worse is that Texas continues to convert existing public right-of-ways into toll roads. Even worse is the fact that money that should be going to build and maintain public roads has actually been siphoned off to design and build toll roads. Several reports show that more than $93 million has been diverted from public roads to toll roads thus far.

At one time Texas had the best public roads in the nation using the proven best way to provide uniform, efficient roads: a properly applied gas tax along with vehicle registration. On average, Texans pay a gas tax of 1.6 cents per mile for public roads, compared to 20 cents a mile for toll tax. For a state with as large of a geographic area as Texas, the U. S. Government should return 100 percent of fuel taxes back to Texas for use on public roads; Texas is only receiving 88-92 percent. All gas taxes and financial assistance should exclusively be applied to public roads.

Engineering, construction and bond companies make huge profits from toll roads. Their political contributions promote toll roads.

The Texas Legislature needs to regain public trust by correcting errant road policies:

• BUILD the needed public roads, which are freely accessible to all citizens.

• QUIT diverting money from public road funds ($10-12 billion to date).

• STOP converting public right-of-ways into toll roads.

• SCRAP the fringe policies of toll roads, corporation-run toll roads on public right-of-ways, regional mobility authorities, Trans Texas Corridors and non-traditional funding.

This transportation crossroads will set the course of Texans’ indebtedness or freedom as it either denies Texans’ rights or empowers our growth and worth. Texas, it’s your roadways; your ill-used money; and your right to drive on freely accessible public roads. Stand up and make your voice heard before our Legislature makes the wrong turn at this crucial crossroad.

Dixon lives in San Antonio.

Zaffirini Opposes Risking State Pension Funds to Finance Toll Roads

Posted on by

(AUSTIN) — State Senator Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) today (Wednesday) expressed anew her opposition to risking state pension funds to finance toll roads.

“It’s bad enough that some Texans’ land is being taken to build roads that those same Texans later would be charged to utilize. It would be even worse for the state to risk the retirement funds of retired state employees and teachers to pay for them,” she said.

The Texas Transportation Commission reportedly is looking into the possibility of using the state’s pension funds to finance road projects.

“The focus of those who invest our pension funds should be solely on maximizing our return on the investments, not in funding risky and unproven toll road schemes which most Texans do not support,” Senator Zaffirini said.

She added that recent weakness in the U.S. economy and tremendous volatility in investment markets affected the state’s pension funds negatively and that requiring those funds to finance toll road projects would make a challenging situation more difficult for fund managers.

“Retired teachers and state employees need to know that the state’s pension funds are solvent. Placing those funds in jeopardy by funding toll road projects sends a signal to our teachers and state employees that their retirement funds are at risk, at the whim of political pressures,” Senator Zaffirini said.

During the most recent legislative session, Senator Zaffirini voted in favor of legislation that would have placed a two-year moratorium on Trans-Texas Corridor projects. Following a veto by Governor Rick Perry, the legislature then passed compromise legislation that sharply curtailed plans to build these toll roads.

281/1604 interchange an excuse NOT to fix 281 north

Posted on by

You may have heard the ad hominem personal attacks against Terri Hall by the UN-elected Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Chairman Bill Thornton on KTSA radio (550 AM) Thursday, March 12, when Thornton insulted stay-at-home moms, commuters who live in Bulverde, and citizens who oppose toll taxes. He came unhinged and has totally lost ANY regard for the citizens due to our questioning the legality of the supposed environmental clearance they claim to have for the interchange. To clear-up the confusion…

In the project list submitted to the Transportation Commission for stimulus funds under Bexar County/San Antonio it lists 281 as a toll road after Thornton promised it would remain a freeway if they got stimulus money for it (read it here). Clearly, they’re not honest brokers and REFUSE to negotiate or work with the community on a consensus, non-toll solution. As far as the interchange, TxDOT/RMA is using a “categorical exclusion” (or CE) exemption as a way to claim it has the clearance to get away with building a 5 STORY interchange. This category is used for minor changes to intersections, etc. Yet they used it to build an overpass for the Dominion (off I-10), and then say they cannot use this same exemption (CE) to build overpasses on 281 with stimulus or other funds. It’s total hypocrisy! Our 281 lawsuit is still pending with the court and our attorneys sent a letter to the feds questioning this “clearance.”

Also, how can they build an interchange without knowing what it will connect to (a toll road, 6 lanes, 8 lanes, some tolled, some not what)? By locking-in the configuration of the interchange, they lock in the long-term plan for both those freeways. What we’ve been asking for and insisting on since day one is a non-toll solution to both. They’ve said for years if a new pot of money came out of nowhere, they’d keep them freeways. Now they’ve got it (stimulus money), and they’re still going to toll our freeways. This is taxation without representation and a TRIPLE TAX rip-off. At the end of the day, they can work with the community to get a non-toll solution on 281, for the interchange, and parts of 1604 using stimulus money and other existing available funds RIGHT NOW!

RMA comes unhinged at concerned citizens over interchange

Posted on by

Link to article here. There is NO new lawsuit or a threat of one. All that AGUA/TURF did was send a letter to the Federal Highway Administration questioning the “clearance” the RMA claims to have for this 5 level interchange. The interchange is a red herring and an excuse NOT to fix 281 north. Read more here.

Suit might block use of stimulus money
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
03/13/2009

The $140 million in federal and state funds allocated for the building of long-awaited ramps linking North Loop 1604 and U.S. 281 could end up being sent back if two sides in a lawsuit can’t find common ground.The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority hopes to use $80 million in federal stimulus funds and $60 million from state bonds — dubbed “money from heaven” by one local official — to start construction on the four ramps within a year. The ramps on the loop’s south side wouldn’t be tolled, according to plans.

But lawyers for Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom are poised to challenge federal environmental clearance for the five-level interchange, saying there likely would be significant changes in traffic, suburban growth and Edwards Aquifer water quality.

The groups filed a lawsuit last year to demand a detailed environmental study of planned toll lanes on 47 miles of U.S. 281 and Loop 1604, and the Alamo RMA later decided to do so. The interchange should be part of that study, plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Bunch said Thursday.

“We certainly don’t think you should sacrifice San Antonio’s sole source of drinking water to do that,” he said. “We still have a lawsuit pending. It would probably be raised in that context.”

If the Alamo RMA were forced to probe the interchange’s impacts, work could be held up three or more years, and that means the federal stimulus funds could go unused.

“It’s not a lawsuit yet, but there’s a general concern,” RMA spokesman Leroy Alloway said. “What’s going to happen next, that’s the big question.”

Bunch said he asked the Alamo RMA to discuss less invasive improvements to the two roads but hasn’t heard back.

“We want to avoid the litigation as much as anybody,” he said. “But there’s been no response to that.”

Alloway said he hasn’t heard of such a request, but negotiations aren’t likely anyway.

“We’re not willing to negotiate out the environmental protections necessary for our community,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Alamo RMA on Wednesday launched an effort — called 4-1-1 on 281 — to engage residents along U.S. 281 in dialogue. Officials also mentioned AGUA and TURF skepticism as a potential bogeyman to the non-toll interchange.

“We knew we needed a fresh approach,” Chairman Bill Thornton said in a statement. “The public is frustrated by the delay in construction and they want answers.”

Go to www.411on281.com for more about 4-1-1 on 281.