Citizen Lobby Day

Monday, March 23, 2015
9:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Location: Texas State Capitol
Address: 1100 Congress Avenue
              Austin, TX 78701
(meet on the South Capitol steps)

Go to the TURF Registration Page to Register…

Your freedom to travel is at risk!

Concerned citizens from across the state will gather in Austin to interact with lawmakers on transportation-related issues. We’ve seen a massive increase in our cost to drive through tolls, handing control of our public roads to private foreign corporations, and  unsustainable debt sweep the state, with more to come unless we make our voices heard.

This is a day when CITIZEN lobbyists come to the Capitol to advocate on what matters to grassroots Texans — like getting an affordable, pro-taxpayer transportation policy in place.

Lots of activities planned:

• a press conference,
• have our group recognized from the House and Senate floor,
• visit offices and speak to legislators,
• lawmakers address TURF group in special Q&A,
• and a special visit from Governor Greg Abbott!

Go to the TURF Registration Page to Register…

Be prepared…

• The public parking garage east of the Capitol is at 12th Street and San Jacinto. If that garage is full another is located north of the Capitol at 18th Street and Congress at the Texas History Museum. Both cost $8/day.
• Bring money for lunch. We plan to eat together in the Members Lounge where we’ll hear from some special guests. For a box lunch from Jason’s Deli, the cost is $10. You MUST RSVP by Monday, March 16 to reserve your lunch, otherwise plan on getting lunch in the Capitol Grill (wait times in the food lines can exceed 20 minutes).
• Bring a notebook to take notes (optional). Fliers, maps and materials supplied by TURF.
• T-shirts with our message will be available. Suggested donation $15. Please reserve your t-shirt ASAP.

We need you!

We need a HUGE crowd to show up to talk to legislators about transportation. There are already some very bad proposals being pushed by special interests (more tolls in the hands of private corporations), and without a grassroots revolt, it’ll sail through without a whimper of opposition. Plan to come and have others join you.

If you’re interested in coordinating a carpool,
contact Terri Hall or call (210) 275-0640.

Go to the TURF Registration Page to Register…

Reaffirm tolls on US 281, I-10 despite more road money coming to fix non-toll

Bexar County Commissioner Kevin Wolff is bringing a resolution to a vote on Tuesday, February 17 (see Item #69, on page 13 of the Commissioners Court Agenda) to reaffirm that he wants to impose toll taxes to drive US 281 (from Loop 1604 to the county line) and I-10 (from Loop 1604 to Boerne), and Loop 1604 (from Bandera Rd. to I-35 at the Forum).

Call Kevin Wolff‘s office NOW at (210) 335-2613 to urge him to pull down his resolution and use the new road money from Prop 1 (avg. $1 billion/yr) and the money coming shortly in the next budget to be adopted by the Texas Legislature (at least $1.2 billion) to fix these freeways without TOLLS!  View the plan here.

What will it cost me?
The published toll rates range from 17 cents a mile – 50 cents a mile. Wolff and his fellow commissioners along with his Dad, County Judge Nelson Wolff, will impose ‘congestion tolling,’ to ensure you pay the maximum to use the toll lanes during peak hours (when everyone actually has to get to work).

So these new toll taxes will average $8-10 day or over $2,000 a year in new taxes just to get to work. The more congestion on the roadway, the more you pay. In fact, the toll rate rises in real time to purposely knock cars out of the toll lanes if the speed drops below 50 MPH in the toll lanes, which is almost guaranteed behind a bus (these will be HOV-toll transit lanes, also called ‘managed lanes’)!

What’s the plan?
View the plan here.

On US 281, today there are 5-6 freeway lanes from Loop 1604 to Stone Oak Pkwy. When they’re done, there will still be just 6 lanes of highway, BUT, one existing freeway lane in the center will be converted into a HOV-toll transit lane (think bus lane, you’ll be paying a toll to drive slow behind buses, also called ‘managed lanes’ to hide the word ’toll’). No new highway lanes will be added at all, yet the toll authority (Alamo RMA) is conducting a half a million dollar ad campaign that tells commuters the toll road will DOUBLE existing capacity. All they’re adding are access roads, not highway lanes. So they’re counting the new frontage roads as ‘doubling your capacity.’

These HOV-toll lanes have NO ACCESS to Loop 1604 (on either proposed toll project) so if you need to get on 1604, you’ll be stuck in the congested general purpose lanes. On US 281, there’s also no exit for any local traffic until Stone Oak Pkwy, so commuters cannot access all those neighborhoods from the toll lanes, leaving more cars on the congested freeway.

North of Stone Oak Pkwy on US 281 there are 4 existing freeway lanes today. When they’re done with the freeway-tollway conversion, every single free lane will be converted into a toll lane. Commuters will have NO free highway option on the northern stretch of US 281 (from Stone Oak Pkwy. to the Bexar County line).

On I-10 and Loop 1604, the plan is to add two new HOV-toll transit lane each direction (although some documents only show one new lane on I-10). At Loop 1604 & I-10, the new direct connect interchange ramps will NOT be accessible to anyone other than those paying tolls. In both the I-10 & US 281 corridors, buses will have very expensive, exclusive direct connect ramps into/out of the toll lanes to Via’s park-n-ride transit centers in the Hill Country (where few will ever carpool or get on a bus). On US 281, the toll lanes do not connect to Loop 1604, and you’ll be paying a toll to get stuck behind a bus. If I-10 is one lane and not two, you’ll be paying a toll to get stuck behind a bus there, too.

Why now?
While both Wolffs have consistently voted to toll our area freeways, why are they voting to ‘reaffirm’ something they already did? Because former Gov. Rick Perry’s Transportation Commission Chairman Ted Houghton is being replaced in just a few short weeks by incoming Governor Greg Abbott who campaigned against toll roads. Houghton and Perry have made it their mission to impose tolls all over Bexar County, and they’ve been  unsuccessful due to citizen resistance. If the Commissioners pass this resolution, they’re attempting to thwart the efforts by Governor Abbott and the Texas legislature to fix the road funding shortfall without more tolls and hence get Bexar County freeways fixed toll-free as promised.

Bait & Switch – Broken promises
Sadly, when Nelson Wolff was running for re-election he sent a letter to the Transportation Commission to ask for Prop 1 money to be used to fix US 281 without tolls, now that he won re-election, he’s reneged on his promise and is voting to keep tolls on US 281.

TAKE ACTION
Call Kevin Wolff’s office NOW at (210) 335-2613 to tell him to pull down his resolution and use the new road money from Prop 1 (avg. $1 billion/yr) and the money coming shortly in the next budget to be adopted by the Texas Legislature (at least $1.2 billion) to fix these freeways without TOLLS!

For more history, go here:
– SA officials unveil $825 million toll plan
– Board reneges on promise to fix 281, 1604 without tolls
– Wolff flip-flops: ‘You can fry me for it later’

The people have spoken and their will is clear – they do not want the proposed private Blacklands Tollway-Northeast Gateway corridor through Rockwall to Greenville in east Dallas. Nearly 1,500 people packed the theater to put their opposition on the record.

Private Northeast Gateway tollway near Dallas draws angry crowd (public meeting in Rockwall on Monday, September 22, 2014)

Is the NE Gateway a truly private road? See the Dangers of the Northeast Gateway Tollway (PDF) flyer.

Submit public comments

Public comments due by October 2, 2014 to jstout@nctcog.org

Be sure to include your full name and address with your comments.

Since this is being submitted electronically, be sure to ask for confirmation of receipt of your comments by NCTCOG.

State that you want the ‘no build’ option.

Feel free to give reasons whether it’s the use of eminent domain by a private company, the traffic counts don’t justify it, you’d rather see expansion of I-30, or other vital points, the main thing is to get the ’no build’ option on the official record. It comes into play later for potential legal challenges.

Schedule of meetings

Texas Turnpike Corporation (TTC) has scheduled 10 informal public information meetings starting September 25th and going through October 7th. Warning: Whatever they say does NOT count on the official record. This is designed to promote their own propaganda and possibly make concessions that could change later.
See details on the TTC web site…

Please remember according to the NCTCOG, RTC and TXDOT presentations, discussions, and paperwork this project is called the Blacklands Corridor Toll Road. The TTC/Public Werks is using the name “Northeast Gateway” (maybe trying to cause confusion with another project called “South Gateway”).

Action Item

One of the best ways to stop this tollway dead in its tracks is to get local cities and counties to pass resolutions opposing it. The City of Rockwall already passed one and put it in the official record September 22 at the Rockwall public meeting.

Ask your city/county to pass one immediately. You can use the resolution passed by City of Rockwall (PDF) as an example.

Related Documents

• Articles of Incorporation (PDF) that prove Texas Turnpike Corporation cannot legally build or operate a toll road in Hunt County.
• Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) that shows future segments are planned. This toll road is not isolated, and will be extended in the future to mow over more Texas private property.
• Evidence of conflicting traffic data:
  – Blacklands Corridor Feasibility Study (PDF)
  – Screenshot of TxDot 2007 Traffic Flow (JPG)
•  Visit NoTollRoad.com for more background information.

Link to article here.

Read Randy Salzman’s entire expose on P3s in the June/July 2014 Issue of Thinking Highways here.

Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.

A “Model” Scheme?
Thursday, 14 August 2014 00:00 By Randy Salzman, Thinking Highways | News Analysis

With about two-thirds of America’s new transportation construction “public-private-partnerships,” design-build P3s have been highly praised over the last decade. Contractors, politicians and financiers have been claiming that tiny slivers of private money bring efficiency to the formerly public process of highway building, spurring innovation and freeing taxpayer dollars for other key needs. But as Randy Salzman discovers, it’s not without its problems

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

“That may include work outside our present contract,” Fluor’s VP replied.

Design-build is in effect “cost plus,” tailor-made for expensive change orders once construction is underway when no politician can dare pull the plug on runaway spending. P3s are even more geared for lining the pockets of financiers; hence foreign money is flooding into US highway projects today. The costs and risks, it is consistently claimed, are dumped on the privates but the reality is much more complex and, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at best delays taxpayer pain. There is little, if any, long-term savings for citizens, the CBO notes, and the tiny amounts of private equity serve primarily to get construction underway quicker.

“There’s a set of financial interests who have really learned how to mine the tax code,” P3 supporter Doug Koelemay, Virginia’s new director of Public-Private Partnerships, frowns.

The Very Model of a Modern Major PPP?
Virginia’s 1995 Public-Private Transportation Act is held up as the “model” by contractors and financiers, especially as it was implemented at break-neck speed during Governor Bob McDonnell’s administration. In four years, the number of Virginia P3s skyrocketed to 22 and with the Commonwealth signing over US$6 billion in P3s during 2012 alone, Infrastructure Investor magazine named McDonnell “man of the year” and called the state’s legal consultant, Allen and Overy, the world’s best law firm twice. Does any magazine for investors venerate hard bargainers for taxpayers?

“A great deal of the media praising public private partnerships in transportation projects comes from sources that have a self-interest in promoting them,” says Jack Trammell, now a candidate for Virginia’ 7th Congressional District. “A major factor motivating me to run for office is what I think should be a national concern about this trend away from transparency and toward greater taxpayer risk in such projects.”

In the past, even Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) never saw P3 contracts, only being allowed up-down votes on the total taxpayer bill, which consistently put 95+ per cent of all costs on state and federal taxpayers. The privates put up tiny bits of equity, though they imply more because they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likely will not pay back and they sell bonds that Uncle Sam guarantees and which will cost taxpayers when the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.

It is a “win-win-win” for private money and contractors but for unaware taxpayers it could be the biggest scheme ever in Virginia – and potentially US – history. Is getting a highway or other transportation infrastructure, which may or may not be needed, returned to we taxpayers just when it’s beginning to need maintenance worth the fact that we’ve left virtually all construction costs, all risk, all financing costs and 10-15 years of tolls to the next generation of taxpayers?

A Clean Slate?
Secretary Layne has been shaken by what he’s found in a hard look at a couple of former transportation secretary Sean Connaughton’s P3 contracts. For example, although neither the Virginia Department of Transportation nor the Corp of Engineers ever indicated they could mitigate 480 acres of wetlands – and hence issue a construction permit – Virginia has paid 460 Mobility Partners almost US$300m and is on the hook for another US$900m for a highway that will likely never be built.

With that sort of issue possible in 21 other projects, Layne has ordered a “scrub” of all past P3s to find, for example, non-competitive clauses which prevent Virginia from improving nearby roads without having to pay toll operators for potential lost income. Whether the Commonwealth can get out of some of these disturbing contract stipulations is still up in the air.
We asked Secretary Layne if there was “anything criminal” in what he’s learned.

His hesitant reply, “I don’t think so,” was echoed by Koelemay but, still, the new administration has asked two CTB members to lead an inquiry and highlight better contracting methods. Regardless, “even if some of these ‘improvements’ (P3 projects) are desperately needed,” as Trammell puts it, “we shouldn’t get them at the cost of transparency and accountability to taxpayers.”

Trammell believes financiers can hide in plain sight because the terms of these contracts – often over 700 pages – are so complicated that even after studying the issue for more than a year, he can’t put all of the pieces together. How, he asks, could the general public, reporters without finance degrees or part-time bureaucrats like the Commonwealth Transportation Board understand this complexity? Especially when they don’t hear it.

“You did get a ‘high level briefing’ on the benefits of the [460] project,” Layne explained to CTB members in March, “but you were not privy to the [460] contract, the contract terms, the payments schedule, the risk being taken or any terms.”

CTB members were subdued with one thanking Layne for promising greater openness: “I have been very uncomfortable on a couple of projects we had (under Connaughton). I didn’t have the data I needed to make a decision at the same time I was asked to vote. Don’t ask me to do something without giving me the information I needed.” Another was shocked that “we allocated money yet we had no authority in approving the project?”

Only Jim Rich, later fired by McDonnell and Connaughton over his staunch opposition to fiscal irrationality, stood up and questioned financing and risk management when Connaughton brought rapid-fire P3s before the CTB over the past four years.

Layne, who served as head bond salesman for the 460 “Commonwealth Connector” and still supports the project, assures there will be “competition and transparency” in future P3 contracts. As secretary of transportation today, he said his prime “fiduciary responsibility” is to taxpayers, not bond holders, as it was when he ran the bond operation for the now-suspended 55-mile “Connector.”

Layne and Koelemay indicate the Commonwealth’s representatives in past P3, Connaughton and Tony Kinn, the original Virginia public-private-partnership office director, were outclassed and, due to ideological considerations and trapped by promises to do “something” about congestion, couldn’t just walk away from the table. They may not have realized their legal consultants were conflicted by work for private infrastructure bond sellers.

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

“We need to remember the potential downfalls before we go too far down the road too quickly and want to be conscious of not opening up the barn door,” he cautioned.

Washington, DC shadow congresswoman Eleanor Norton was more specific: “I wonder if it’s (P3) an equitable or fair deal for the public? There’s a very high level of public funding and a low level of private risk. The rundown of figures amaze me and I’m trying to find out what the real advantage here is of the public-private-partnership.”

Read the rest of the article here.