Tolls in Austin as high as $1.50 a mile! So much for 15 cents as TxDOT claims

Posted on February 12, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

Toll roads: Paying a lot to drive a little
$1.50-per-mile spot near Lakeline Mall illustrates fee discrepancies.
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, February 12, 2007

So, what does it cost you to drive on Central Texas’ emerging toll road system?

Well, about 12 cents a mile. Unless it’s 18 cents, or 40 cents, or 64 cents. Or, in one notable spot near Lakeline Mall, a cool $1.50 a mile.

State and local toll officials chose to install a system that is based on paying every so often, rather than a more old-fashioned “closed road” system in which drivers pass toll plazas on the way in and out and pay a set per-mile amount for their exact mileage. Inevitably, the “open road” approach introduces sizable inconsistencies, with longer trips on the tollway typically more economical than a short jaunt.

Other decisions by toll authorities, particularly choosing to have almost all ramps cost 50 cents for cash customers, have only exacerbated the situation. For some drivers in an area unfamiliar with toll roads in any form, the system has been a source of puzzlement and consternation. Why are there some exits and entrances that are free, drivers wonder, while others nearby have booths and electronic gantries? How can it possibly be fair, they ask, to pay 45 cents to gain just 500 yards?

That will be the situation at the southern end of the 183-A tollway, just north of RM 620, after the road opens in early March and begins charging drivers in late spring.

Northbound motorists will be able to get off at Lakeline Mall Drive, ominously posted as the “last free exit.” If they do, they’ll have to get through a stoplight on the frontage road before proceeding north.

Or they can go to the next exit, Lakeline Boulevard. In that brief interval, however, they’ll pass an electronic toll gantry and be hit with that 45-cent toll. To make it even more confusing, drivers without electronic toll tags are not even supposed to be on the road at that point and will get a violation notice in the mail if they are.

Total distance traveled between the two exits: about three-tenths of a mile. That equates to $1.50 a mile.

“It’s just not right,” said Cedar Park resident Tom Nehmzow, who would dearly love to exit for free at that second ramp because he takes Lakeline Boulevard home. The Lakeline Mall exit, he said, will be inundated with people looking to avoid paying.

“What they’re going to create there is a tremendous traffic jam at Lakeline Mall Drive,” he said. “You’ve got a stoplight at the very bottom of the ramp, so it’s going to back up onto the tollway. It’s got to.”

The irony is that Nehmzow, a manufacturer’s representative who drives a lot around the area, has a toll tag and supports toll roads in general.

“Overall, I would say the toll road system is pretty cool. I really enjoy it,” he said. “I just think this particular situation is a rip-off.”

Officials with the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, which is building and will operate 183-A, have been bracing for this sort of reaction.

They have an even broader problem, however.

The startup agency originally was going to build 11.6 miles of tollway, all the way from RM 620 to U.S. 183 north of Leander. But a traffic and revenue study done about three years ago indicated that, in the road’s first decade, traffic north of RM 1431 would not justify the additional $100 million or so necessary to build express lanes all the way.

So the agency decided instead to build about 4.5 miles of tollway on the south end and then free two-lane frontage roads for the seven northernmost miles. But to pay back money borrowed to build all this, the agency will charge $1.80 for that 4.5-mile tollway trip. That’s 40 cents a mile.

Of course, if you happen to live in Leander or points north, or have other business up that way, you’ll be able to drive the whole 11.6 miles for that $1.80, stopping at a few stoplights in the free part. Cost: 15.5 cents a mile.

“Admittedly, it does get confusing,” said Mike Heiligenstein, executive director of the mobility authority since shortly after it was created in 2002. He compared the situation to a water system, in which early users of the system might have to pay for more of the startup costs of water mains but people in more outlying areas developed later get lower costs.

“We tried to hit the middle ground and give everyone a little something,” he said. “Not everything’s always fair.”

As for that Lakeline Boulevard anomaly, Heiligenstein points out that originally the Lakeline Mall Drive exit was going to carry a 50-cent charge (45 cents for people with toll tags). But that would have put the last free exit on northbound U.S. 183 well south of RM 620.

“We added that as a sort of convenience, as a courtesy,” he said.

And Heiligenstein pointed out, as did others, that if people stay on 183-A for those extra 500 yards and pay that 45 cents, they’re actually purchasing time rather than distance: the time saved by avoiding a stoplight.

That same logic applies on the Loop 1 tollway just north of Parmer Lane, one of three new toll roads built in Central Texas by the Texas Department of Transportation, where going through a toll point south of Wells Branch Parkway for 45 cents gains just seven-tenths of a mile. That equates to 64 cents a mile. But those drivers won’t have to stop at the Scofield Ridge Parkway traffic light on the frontage road.

The state and mobility authority could reduce these disparities, of course, by lowering the toll rate at particular ramps. But to satisfy the bond holders looking to get paid back, they then would have to raise the toll rates somewhere else.

And then there’s the matter of quarters, dimes and nickels.

When the state was designing the Loop 1, Texas 45 North and Texas 130 toll roads more than five years ago, electronic toll technology was a generation behind where it is now. The bond community, recognizing that a sizable portion of the customer base would never get an electronic toll tag, demanded that the three roads have facilities at every tolling point to collect cash.

Toll authorities increasingly have been setting rates in multiples of 25 cents, because automatic coin collection machines operate better with a single coin size and because it simplifies the coin scramble for drivers. That shortens time at booths and thus reduces toll plaza traffic congestion.

So, to diminish the per-mile disparities, couldn’t the toll on some ramps have been just 25 cents? The state Transportation Department decided against that, said Bob Daigh, the Austin district engineer. Daigh was in the agency’s turnpike division when the Austin roads were in the final planning stages.

“It’s driver expectation,” Daigh said. “They need to know, ‘This is a ramp plaza, and it’s 50 cents.’ If you make that one 25 cents, you’ve introduced a question in the driver’s mind as he goes to the next one. He has his quarter out, and it’s really 50 cents, so you stack up traffic while he’s searching for a second quarter.”

Joseph Giglio, a professor of corporate strategy at Boston’s Northeastern University and an expert on toll systems, said drivers will sort all this out soon enough.

“We’re not talking about introducing the metric system,” Giglio said. And if people don’t want to pay for a few hundred yards and an avoided stoplight, they won’t.

“That’s a discretionary choice. There’s a willing buyer and seller. Nobody is insisting you pay that 45 cents.”

Inconsistent toll rates

The approach taken by the Austin area’s two tollway operators means that the cost per mile varies widely, depending on the length and specifics of any given turnpike trip.

Trip Length Toll cost* Cost per mile
183-A

Lakeline Mall Drive to Lakeline Blvd. 0.3 $0.45 $1.50

RM 620 to RM 1431 4.5 $1.80 $0.40

RM 620 to South San Gabriel River 11.6 $1.80 $0.16

Loop 1

Wells Branch Pkwy. to Parmer Lane 0.7 $0.45 $0.64

Loop 1/45 North

Parmer to I-35 in Round Rock 4.5 $0.68 $0.15

Loop 1/45 North/130

Parmer to U.S. 79 15.5 $1.80 $0.12

130/45 North

I-35 to U.S. 79 9.8 $1.13 $0.12

130

I-35 in Georgetown to U.S. 290 25.6 $2.70 $0.11

I-35 in Georgetown to U.S. 183** 49 $5.40 $0.11

* Cost for passenger vehicle with 10 percent toll tag discount. Vehicles with more than two axles are charged an additional toll amount for each additional axle.

** Full length of Texas 130 when final two segments are completed later this year.

Source: Published toll rates, staff research

Express-News blog on National Coalition to stop the privatizing of our public roadways

Posted on February 12, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to blog here.

Someone needs to tell “Hugh” in the comment section of Driscoll’s blog that the “senseless muck” he says toll opponents have spewed here locally is the same exact arguments these guys made in their press conference. Hugh needs to tune-in a bit closer…what he calls well reasoned arguments of this national coalition are all over our web site and SO ARE THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES!

Profits over motorists?
By Pat Driscoll
Express-News blog
February 12, 2007

A national push to privatize roads will help ensure profits for private companies and quick cash for governments, but motorists will be the losers, says a new coalition of highway user groups.

Americans for a Strong National Highway Network sent a letter dated Feb. 8 to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, raising concerns about a recent federal blueprint to make it easier for state legislatures to jump into privatization.

As long as making money is the top priority, safety and mobility could get worse, it states. Non-compete clauses — which are often required in public-private toll deals — skew market forces, and it’s likely that some of the funds gained would be diverted to non-transportation uses.

“The administration appears to be promoting unlimited growth in public-private partnerships without fully considering the impact,” the letter says. “We have serious reservations about whether these deals are being structured in the public’s long-term best interest.”

The letter is signed by officials with …

AAA
American Highway Users Alliance
American Motorcyclist Association
American Trucking Associations
NATSO Inc.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

The coalition held a press conference Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, Land Line Magazine reported.

“The companies investing in our roads want to induce congestion on the roads they profit from, not reduce it. Their profits are derived from high traffic volumes and high tolls,” Todd Spencer of the Independent Drivers Association is quoted as saying. “We recognize elected officials are confronted with difficult funding decisions, but these deals are akin to a pawn-shop mentality of hocking your assets for cash now.”

“Under the worst of these deals, highway users and the public are ignored or purposely locked out from negotiations while politicians salivate over filling state-coffers with billions in fast cash,” Greg Cohen of the American Highway Users Alliance said in a statement. “As part of these deals, brokerage firms charge massive transaction fees and private road operators earn massive profits over time by scheduling increasing tolls and opposing competition.”

Meanwhile …

The U.S. House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has scheduled a Tuesday hearing on public-private partnerships.

“For the Bush Administration, the rush to promote public-private partnerships is based in ideology, not a critical evaluation of how public-private partnerships might help meet the goal of an improved, integrated national transportation system,” subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., is quoted as saying in a NATSCO statement.

And from ranking member John J. Duncan, Jr., R-Tenn., in the same statement: I share this coalition’s concerns about the recent waive of long-term leases of existing toll roads by private entities. I believe we need to understand the impacts that tolling can have on the traveling public, private industry and the economy before we enter into any more of these agreements.

Daniels' and Perry's push to privatize highways & state lotteries more than coincidence

Posted on February 11, 2007 by Terri Hall

Apparently, these two governors (Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas) are like two peas in a pod in a number of arenas that benefit private corporations rather than the taxpaying public. Seems the establishment Republican Party is all about corporate cronyism and selling off our country to the highest bidder rather than leading, governing, and serving the public!

Rick Perry’s idea of selling the lottery rather than calling it quits or making it better is said to be connected to ex-Senator Phil Gramm’s company who stands to make millions on the sale. Is Daniels taking Indiana down the same special interest road to benefit Gramm as well? The good ol’ boy network us alive and well…and for these guys, everything is for sale, even the public good.

Link to Indiana Star editorial here.

We’re not ready to buy into lottery proposal
Plan sounds sensible, but questions remain
Editorial
Indianapolis Star
February 11, 2007

As far as Budget Director Chuck Schalliol is concerned, there are plenty of reasons why the state should franchise the Hoosier Lottery to a private operator. The biggest reason? Says Schalliol: “We have no evidence that we’ve ever been good at this.”

Signs of the state’s poor stewardship abound: Nine executive directors in 17 years. A woeful annual surplus growth rate of only 1 percent in the past decade. The lottery’s rank of 25th in the nation in generating surpluses. Its rank of 27th in the nation in per-capita revenue.

So franchising the lottery seems, at least on the surface, like a sensible idea. So does the plan to use proceeds to finance new programs to keep talented Hoosiers from leaving the state.

But many questions remain as to whether leasing the lottery is really the best course to take, especially if it leads to an expansion of gambling. The Daniels administration must do a better job of addressing Hoosiers’ concerns if it hopes to persuade the General Assembly to pursue the lease.

Couldn’t state government improve lottery performance on its own?
Schalliol’s main argument for franchising the lottery — that the state can’t properly manage it — is undercut by operations in New Jersey and Florida.

New Jersey’s lottery is one of the most profitable in the nation. It earned 36 cents out of every dollar gambled by lottery players in fiscal year 2005 versus the 26 cents per dollar earned by the Hoosier Lottery.

Florida’s operation has succeeded in reducing its costs. It shaved operating expenses (other than payments to vendors and stores) by half between the 1998-99 and 2005-06 fiscal years. For the past four years, it’s filled state coffers with more than $1 billion in annual profits.

Will the Daniels administration handle the auction in an open manner?
Daniels needs to show Hoosiers that his administration will provide relevant information about the lease in a timely manner. The administration’s record in this regard isn’t strong. Last year, it wouldn’t reveal the list of firms bidding for the Indiana Toll Road lease until after selecting Macquarie-Cintra’s offer of $3.8 billion.

The administration hasn’t been any more forthcoming this time around. Although Schalliol says the state has received “more than 10” formal responses to the proposed deal, he won’t reveal names or even the exact number of bids. An executive for investment bank Morgan Stanley, which is handling the bid on the state’s behalf, didn’t return a call from The Star Editorial Board.

Such lack of candor is typical of companies in the private sector. But government is obligated to fully disclose its activities to the public. That’s especially true given the conflicts that come with the possibility of bids from two of the state’s existing vendors, Italy’s Lottomatica and Scientific Games. Or the possibility of casino firms, some of which own riverboat operations in the state, expanding their reach.

How can a private buyer make the lottery more profitable — and give the state its cut — without expanding gambling?

A franchisee will have to figure out how to eke out more profit from the lottery while still handing over $200 million in annual profit to the state. Tripling annual profit growth, as Schalliol suggests, wouldn’t be enough because the franchisee likely would finance at least part of the deal with debt. Interest payments would cut into the extra income generated.

Running the lottery more efficiently could be a key; simply eliminating the state’s costly procurement rules could yield savings. But given that low investment in marketing and developing new games is a reason behind the lottery’s stagnant growth, an operator would have to spend more on that part of the operation.

Expanding games to include keno and video lottery terminals is precluded by Senate Bill 577, which carries the privatization plan. Those restrictions, although warranted, shut off opportunities for a private operator to grow revenues.

The goals behind lottery franchising — attracting highly sought after university professors and providing merit scholarships for top students — are laudable. But the Daniels administration must do more to persuade Hoosiers that spinning off the lottery is the best course for achieving those initiatives.

National coalition (AAA, truckers, and others) formed to combat privatizing our highways!

Posted on February 10, 2007 by Terri Hall

This coalition was announced at the National Press Club Friday. For a bit of irony, Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana who is responsible for the sale of the Indiana Toll Road to 2 foreign companies, Cintra-Macquarie (the same two bidding for the San Antonio toll network), also addressed the National Press Club Friday pushing for MORE public-private partnerships and the sale our nation’s PUBLIC infrastructure to PRIVATE interests for PRIVATE gain, not the public good. If these guys have their way, they’ll sell our whole country to the highest bidder! If only our enemies knew how easy it is to conquer America, they’d get on board with this push to privatize and they’d bring their checkbooks instead of bombs in an effortless takeover of America.

But too bad, Mitch, Rick, and Ed (Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania who is also pushing this garbage on us), you’re in for a FIGHT!

View the Press Conference

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Tiffany Wlazlowski

Feb. 9, 2007 (703) 838-1717

Highway Users Form Coalition to Oppose Privatization of Toll Roads
Group Says Government Must Be Held Accountable for Financing

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Trucking Associations, in conjunction with the American Automobile Association, the American Highway Users Alliance, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association today announced the formation of a coalition of highway user groups to combat the growing trend toward the privatization or leasing of existing toll facilities to private investors.

Known as “Americans for a Strong National Highway Network,” the coalition is designed to advance the rights of American motorists to travel on safe, reliable public roads; maintain a robust national highway network for the efficient transport of goods and the military; and to hold government accountable for ensuring financing is transparent, motivated by public good and dedicated to transportation purposes.

The announcement was made at a press conference held at the National Press Club.

“The sale or lease of existing toll facilities generates revenue at great expense to taxpayers and the trucking industry and carries potential negative impacts on highway safety, security and the motoring public,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “We must consider the long-term impact privatization will have on our nation’s transportation system and explore all available financing options to ensure that the government is motivated by public good and transportation purposes.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, stated: “For the Bush Administration, the rush to promote public-private partnerships is based in ideology, not a critical evaluation of how public-private partnerships might help meet the goal of an improved, integrated national transportation system and further the public interest.”

ATA strongly opposes the lease or sale of existing toll roads, bridges or tunnels to private parties and has called upon the government to abandon these financing techniques.

The trucking industry supports the objective of a toll-free national highway system where funds to finance highway improvements primarily come from highway user fees, such as the fuel tax.

The American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of other trucking groups, industry-related conferences, and its 50 affiliated state trucking associations, ATA represents more than 37,000 members covering every type of motor carrier in the United States.

Perry's ties to UBS, Phil Gramm, lobbyists

Posted on February 9, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

Perry’s lobbyist contacts cloud lottery-sale plan
Houston Chronicle
By LISA SANDBERG and GARY SCHARRER
Feb. 9, 2007

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry’s ties to lobbyists have drawn scrutiny in the days since he proposed selling the Texas Lottery to a private company.
Former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend of Perry’s, is handling discussions for the proposed lottery sale, a spokesman for Gramm’s company acknowledged.

Gramm is vice chairman of UBS Investment Bank, which has been advising the governor on the proposed privatization of the state lottery. Gramm was a federally registered lobbyist for UBS last year.

Ray Sullivan, a lobbyist registered with the investment firm in Texas, worked as a spokesman for Perry several years ago. Sullivan is now in business with Michael Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff.

Toomey said he does not represent clients with lottery-related interests, and he added that Sullivan does not work on lottery-related issues for UBS.

A spokesman for the governor dismissed suggestions that Perry’s personal friends might profit from a future sale.

“There have not been any agreements signed. Just conversations,” spokesman Ted Royer said.

The denials have done little to temper the skepticism.

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, an Austin group that tracks money in politics, urged Texans not to allow “a high powered team (to) convince the government that this is in the public interest when it may be in the interest of (the team’s) clients.”

He called the state lottery “a public asset that we have to be very careful with.”

Perry, a conservative Republican, used his State of the State address Tuesday to propose selling the state lottery as a way to fund cancer research and health insurance for as many as 600,000 low-income Texans.

Initially, he said he thought the state could get $14 billion from the sale, but he later raised that estimate to $20 billion. At $14 billion, he said the state could raise $300 million more each year through interest generated by a sale than by keeping the monopoly. That’s assuming a 9 percent return on the state’s investment.

The proposal has been given a cool reception, even among fellow Republicans.

Rep. Warren Chisum, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said he didn’t know “anyone who’s supporting it.”

Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, who heads the Senate State Affairs Committee, where the proposal would likely land, raised questions about the numbers.

Michael Granof, a professor of accounting at the University of Texas at Austin, said it would be risky for the state to bank on a 9 percent yearly return.

1000 day loan pay dollar loan 10000 personal credit bad loan 123 officer loan 125 il equity value home dollars 1500 person loans guarantee 184 program loan mortgage adjustable and 2 loans arm student rate 2003 loan federal interest 2005 mt loan december car loan 21 payday 30 cash quick

More than 600 turnout to oppose 281 tolls! TxDOT cut off mics midway through the mtg!

Posted on February 7, 2007 by Terri Hall

Both Commissioner Lyle Larson and Commissioner Tommy Adkisson spoke to raucous applause from a very frustrated and motivated crowd last night. Both encouraged attendees to contact their legislators IMMEDIATELY to demand our raided highway funds get returned and that they STOP THE WIDESPREAD TOLLING OF TEXAS! Larson emphasized that though he’s been with us since the beginning, he has no direct oversight over TxDOT, only the Governor and Legislature do. So it’s imperative that we contact the Legislature immediately and follow-up frequently during this legislative session that ends in May.

Freshmen State Representatives Nathan Macias and Joe Farias also spoke and received hearty applause for their strong stand against the tolling of existing highways and they, too, encouraged us to contact our representatives about this issue. Macias welcomed constituent feedback as “refreshing.”

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO SAY NO TO TOLLS!

To find out who your representatives are, go here.

Contact State Senator Jeff Wentworth (210-826-7800) and State Representative Frank Corte (210- 349-0320) and respectfully but firmly demand they return the STOLEN highway funds and STOP THE TOLLING OF 281 IN THEIR OWN DISTRICT!

TxDOT tries to silence citizens AGAIN!

TxDOT REFUSED to allow citizens to put out a table with petitions and information saying it was private property. We called a County Commissioner and Attorney both of which said this was a PUBLIC MEETING and PUBLIC FORUM and the facility was rented with TAXPAYER MONEY and the citizens have a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to FREE SPEECH! So we handed out our information at the end, but lost precious opportunities to inform attendees about the TRUTH for a good portion of the meeting.

Then, TxDOT cut the microphones about three-quarters of the way through the meeting claiming they suddenly had “sound problems.” This agency is shameless and behaving as dictators who are trying to SILENCE THE CITIZENS!

GET YOUR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD BY FEB 16!

EMAIL comments to get on the LEGAL RECORD here or fax comments to (210) 349-2101.

TOLL PARTY COMMENTS AT 281 PUBLIC HEARING

Here’s 3 things that everyone needs to know:

1) The needed overpasses for 281 are already paid for! A plan for overpasses and expansion of HWY 281 has been presented to and PROMISED to the public in prior public meetings since the late 90s. I hold in my hands that ORIGINAL improvement plan that should have begun in 2004 as scheduled and would have been completed last year. The cost was $100 million all the way to the county line. TxDOT’s own documents show they have $100 million RIGHT NOW to install these improvements. Now to build this as a tollway, it’s more than DOUBLE the pricetag to the taxpaying public.

2) This toll plan has two bidders. Both are foreign companies. TxDOT is planning to give one of these foreign companies control of our PUBLIC infrastructure for the next 50 years…that will outlive most of us in this room. This isn’t just some ordinary highway project. We’re talking about something that will impact our children and grandchildren and change San Antonio forever!

These contracts include something called non-compete agreements where TxDOT would give control of the free routes around the tollway to this private company, which not only means they’d control the signal lights and speed limits on the non-toll access roads, but they may also control Stone Oak Parkway and Bulverde Rd. We won’t know for sure until the contract is already signed since this is being negotiated in SECRET, and even our elected officials cannot see the terms of this contract UNTIL AFTER IT’S SIGNED. So TxDOT’s version of tolls won’t solve congestion; it’ll manipulate it for profit. Over the next 50 years, this foreign company stands to make $1.6 billion just on this one 8 mile stretch for a project that costs about $200 million to build. This is truly highway robbery!

3) The Legislature has stolen our highway funds to the tune of nearly $10 billion and spent it on political pet projects for things like tourism, TX Commission on the arts, enhancing benefits for public employees, and WE THE TAXPAYERS need to demand they give it back. If that money had not been stolen from us, we would not be discussing tolls across Texas! We don’t lack funds; our politicians lack fiscal accountability. Call Wentworth and Corte and demand we get this money back and that they STOP the tolling of 281!

The taxpayers have a right to vote on matters of such grave public interest. We are the owners of government, not an unelected bureaucracy behaving as dictators of public policy.

We’re tired of the manipulation of the timing of the stop lights on 281 and bringing this corridor to needless gridlock by stealing our time since last January when a lawsuit shed light on these fraudulent plans. They’ve hijacked the PUBLIC’S highway to push a political agenda by misleading the public into thinking the ONLY solution is a tollway while NOT telling us they already have the plan and money to fix it, but they’d rather hand it over to a foreign company and collect tolls without limit than install the simple, sensible, less expensive solution they promised the public would be done last year.

This Governor and his Transportation Department are guilty of colluding to defraud the public and of purposely increasing our cost of transportation from pennies a day under gas tax to dollars per day under an unaccountable toll system in the hands of a foreign company for private gain WITHOUT THE PUBLIC’S CONSENT! TxDOT’s own studies show toll rates of up to $1 a mile! We’re talking about $2,000-4,000 more per year to use our PUBLIC highways. The community will not let you dictate this to us and target 281 users while those in other parts of town enjoy FREE routes. You’re taking away our freedom of mobility to line the pockets of private corporations. The taxpayers not TxDOT have the final say on the public’s roads.

Get informed and get involved. SAY NO to this money grab because they’re selling Texas to the highest bidder unless we stop them!

Ontario govt sour on privatizing roads after Cintra hikes toll rates & they can do nothing to stop them

Posted on February 6, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here. PPPs or P3 stands for Public-Private Partnerships where the government partners with private industry on a public project. In Texas, they refer to these as Comprehensive Development Agreements or CDAs for toll projects granting the private entity almost limitless control over toll rates, control of surrounding free roads, the power to choose what businesses locate on the tollway, and control over our infrastructure for the life of the contract (usually 50 years); thereby leaving the taxpaying public little or no recourse though its a public asset.

Ontario behind times in P3/AFP money for roads
Roadbuilders are posed to use financing model for roads
BY PETER KENTER
Correspondent
Daily Commercial News
February 2, 2007

TORONTO
Whether you call it Public Private Partnership (P3) or Alternative Financing and Procurement (AFP) — the term favoured by Infrastructure Ontario — the province’s roadbuilders are ready to embrace the model in hopes that it will spur major projects.

However, unless the provincial government changes the responsibilities of either Infrastructure Ontario or the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), that can’t happen.

“Infrastructure Ontario has not been assigned any roadbuilding projects, so we aren’t working on any,” says Paulette den Elzen, manager of project communications with Infrastructure Ontario.

“At the same time, only Infrastructure Ontario is authorized to employ the AFP model. Different provinces are doing different things.”

Indeed they are — and roadbuilding appears to be one of them. From British Columbia’s Sea-to-Sky Highway and Alberta’s Edmonton Ring Road to New Brunswick’s Confederation Bridge, large scale P3 transportation projects dominate in provinces outside of Ontario.

“Other provinces appear to embrace this roadbuilding model and it doesn’t appear to be ideological,” says Dave Garner, manager of business development for Miller Paving. “There are provincial Liberals, Conservatives and NDP governments using the model. I’ve asked the same question — why no major transportation projects in this province? The province’s answer seems to be that they haven’t found a project that could fit the model.”

Garner says the biggest issue standing in the way of new AFP roadbuilding projects appears to be the province’s unhappy relationship with the 407 toll road. While the construction of the highway could be considered a successful P3, ideological disagreements with the 99-year lease won by the Cintra-Macquarie partners and its relative autonomy in setting toll rates have left a bad taste in the collective mouths of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals, who have repeatedly taken the operators to court in failed efforts to re-establish control.

“The province even adopted another name for it — AFP — so it wouldn’t appear to be changing its policies in mid-stream,” says Garner.

Jeff Morrison, executive director of the Road and Infrastructure Program, Canada says the federal government has encouraged the use of P3s by provinces and municipalities which receive federal funds for roadbuilding projects. “But that’s not to suggest that they have to use P3s,” he says.

Still, there are rumblings of plans to use AFPs for Ontario roads.

“The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, David Caplan, has told us that he wants to introduce AFPs to the roadbuilding sector,” says Rob Bradford, executive director of the Ontario Road Builders Association.

“The mechanism is there, but we’ve seen nothing so far in terms of putting the systems into place to make things happen.”

“There doesn’t appear to be any thrust to put these projects on the priority list,” agrees Garner. “The 407 project got off the ground because Bob Rae saw it as a priority and instructed the Ministry of Transportation to approach it that way. We’ve been discussing an extension of the 407 for two decades now. It won’t move up anyone’s agenda unless somebody champions it.”

John Beck, CEO and chair of Aecon Group, says he’s optimistic the province can take advantage of the P3 roadbuilding model.

“The concept of P3s is widely accepted by the construction community and the province is using AFPs to build hospitals and courthouses,” says Beck. “With respect to the 407 toll road issues, these were resolved about a year ago. I’m confident the government will soon be looking at an AFP roadbuilding model even if that means private sector financing, construction and design without a privately-operated toll system.”

U.S. Dept. of Transportation pushes aggressive federal support for TTC & road privatization

Posted on February 6, 2007 by Terri Hall

For those who have heard consistently from our U.S. congressmen and senators that this push to privatize our freeways turning them into cash cow tollways along with the push to build a network of NAFTA superhighways IS A STATE ISSUE….here’s the proof it’s not. There has been and continues to be a NATIONAL PUSH at the FEDERAL LEVEL by key members of the Bush Administration to turn our infrastructure over to private, foreign companies for the benefit of a select few multi-national companies in the name of “free trade” (primarily to import cheap Chinese goods).

Editorial: Perry needs to be impeached

Posted on February 4, 2007 by Terri Hall

Many citizens have repeatedly asked if Texans can recall this Governor (especially in light of the fact he was re-elected with only 39% of the vote)…now there’s calls for what our representatives CAN DO and that is….IMPEACH him!

Link to editorial here.

The governor must be impeached
By Paul Perry
Waxahachie Daily Light
February 4, 2007

The governor’s mandate of the HPV vaccine is indicative of a man who has lost touch with the citizens of our state.

As reported in DallasBlog.com, Merck’s Gardasil (HPV) vaccine already has been under fire nationally from the National Vaccine Information Center, which claims that “Merck’s clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.” NVIC cites the trial studies as showing there were serious problems with adverse reaction to the shots: “Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients … followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil” recipients. A majority of the young women who received Gardasil complained about “serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis,” according to NVIC.

This vaccine is very questionable and has not been in use long enough for there to be a comfort factor with many parents. What will it do to growing bodies long term? I am not opposed to vaccines in general, but the governor can count me as a one dissatisfied constituent on this one.

At best this move is irresponsible, at worst, it reeks of the odor of quid pro quo like some of the governor’s other moves. Why was the legislature circumvented by the executive in this case? The legislature had just now convened and had not had time to even visit the vaccine issue in full. A rational person should ask the question, just what was promised to the governor here?

Will big pharma dollars now back the governor’s future aspirations? A vice presidential nomination seems to be being talked about in Austin. The taxpayer- and property owner-hostile, foreign profiteer-backed Trans-Texas Corridor also comes to mind; Cintra-Zachary would no doubt love to keep the governor on the friends list. Why is it necessary to legislate away normal state and federal constitutional protections to build a road, Guv? It appears large interests can have all the friends they can afford, especially in Texas.

While the governor’s picked committee on appraisal reform came forward with a few decent suggestions concerning spending limitation, the overall report was at best anemic. They did not address the imbalances in the appeal process, for instance. In meetings all over the state I hear taxpayers suggest moving lesser dollar appeals to the JP courts. The governor’s committee proposal suggesting the appointment of Central Appraisal District representatives by the district judges and calling them “taxpayer representatives” would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. All over the state, Texans called for at least some members of both Appraisal and Appeals Boards to be popularly elected. I know that some members of the committee were people of good will, but a reasonable person could wonder how stacked the committee was with the governor’s own cronies. The arrogance over the vaccine issue seals it. The governor must be impeached.

I wish we didn’t share a last name.

Paul D. Perry is a resident of Ellis County and former Ellis County Justice of the Peace for Pct. 4.

Judicial Watch jumps aboard to thwart North American Union/NAFTA Corridors

Posted on February 2, 2007 by Terri Hall

Link to article here.

Watchdog Worried About U.S. Meetings With Canada, Mexico
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com
February 02, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – A government watchdog is calling for more transparency in talks between U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials who are discussing a “vision of North America” that some critics worry Judicial Watch this week released documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request that include U.S. officials’ notes from the North American Forum, a September 2006 meeting with Canadian and Mexican officials that explored ways to create “genuine partnerships.”

That meeting followed the March 2005 creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which the U.S. government calls a “trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.”

Several points of discussion at the September meeting worried Judicial Watch, most notably a note in one set of documents referring to “evolution by stealth.” The discussions also touched on integration of energy supply, easing immigration among the three countries and closing the “income gap” between Mexico and the U.S. and Canada.

“I don’t know that there’s an appreciation or an understanding that this is what the American government is busy spending its time doing,” Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch’s director of research and investigation, told Cybercast News Service.

“I think it’s curious … when they advocate in their own documents that a position of stealth should be adopted in trying to integrate the three countries,” Farrell said. “That’s rather extraordinary.”

The group released documents from the meeting, including some handwritten notes taken by participant Deborah Bolton, a political advisor for U.S. Northern Command. Also included in the notes is a paper by Robert Pastor, the director of American University’s Center for North American Studies.

“Our purpose is to build a greater sense of being a part of North America,” Pastor wrote. “We do not want to displace the pride each of us feels in our countries, but rather to supplement that with a feeling of being North American.”

Pastor recommended some questions for discussion including, “Should a new transportation corridor be designed and built between Canada and Mexico?” and “Should there be a North American Passport to facilitate travel within the three countries?”

Those kinds of proposals worry some conservatives, who fear that increased cooperation with its North American neighbors will harm United States sovereignty and lead to the creation of a North American version of the European Union.

According to Pastor, those critics have “nothing to fear,” because he said none of the countries are taking the discussions seriously.

“There’s a conspiratorial mood among certain groups out there that are trying to make it sound like as if this conference was more than just a conference, that somehow or other it set the agenda for the three governments,” he told Cybercast News Service.

“I wish that were the case, frankly, that the three governments would take seriously some of the issues that were being discussed, but none of them are.”

Pastor said that “those who are fearful that somehow this conference is creating a vast new agenda have nothing to fear. Those who are hopeful that we may approach our neighbors in more constructive ways have more reason to be frustrated.”

He said the secrecy surrounding the meetings was a “mistake” and that he favored issuing a statement and report on the discussions, “but the three leaders who organized it thought that it would be a more productive discussion if the participants were not quoted and could express their views without fear of being distorted.”

Pastor is also an author of the Council of Foreign Relations’ May 2005 report called “Building a North American Community.” The report is at the center of critics’ fears that the goal of the SPP and North American Forum is a political union.

“The global challenges faced by North America cannot be met solely through unilateral or bilateral efforts or existing patterns of cooperation,” the report states. “They require deepened cooperation based on the principle … that ‘our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.”

Supporters of the report’s recommendations point to the fact that it says a North American community “should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe.”