Category: General

State employees fill-up on taxpayers' dime

Posted on by

Link to Texas Insider here.

More examples of government waste on the taxpayers’ dime! This time it’s state employees filling up their gas tanks at our expense. We’re supposed to trust these people? What happened to Reagan’s wise policy to ” trust but verify”?

A Few Gallons on the State’s Dime
by Drew Gaut, Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Published: 05-22-06

With gas prices so high, access to a company gas card can tempt employees to get a few gallons for themselves. Most companies would be careful to check gas mileage, fuel type, and dates cards are used. Our state’s Department of General Administration (GA), though, would apparently rather not.

The State Auditor’s Office found numerous examples of problems. Fuel mileage calculations showed several vehicles getting drastically different gas mileage than they were supposed to get. There was at least one example of a gas purchase exceeding the vehicle’s capacity. Premium gas was purchased, contrary to GA policy and there were a few examples of diesel being purchased for non-diesel vehicles.

The GA motor pool relies on credit limits to keep problems in check. If employees use the cards for personal use, the credit limit will keep them from going too far, according to Sam Schofield, an internal auditor for the department. Apparently, the GA believes a few gallons each month in each vehicle won’t add up too badly.

The department also claimed that, at most, their lack of controls cost $10,000. This number is supposed to look good because it is part of a much larger budget, but my wallet hurts no matter how that cost is framed.

Another claim by the department is that some of the problems were caused by gas station attendants manually entering the wrong information when charging the cards. In one example, the claim was that the total was right, but the per gallon cost and number of gallons were wrong. However, the Auditor’s Office investigated and discovered that the gas station in question cannot manually enter prices per gallon.

The agency’s response to the audit mentioned that employees should be granted a “great deal of trust.” Trust only goes so far.

Leon Valley battles tolls

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Note: The article states that TxDOT only plans to generate enough revenue from the toll roads to equal a 2 cent gas tax hike! So why are they building these behemoth corridors with more lanes than we need, and charging us nearly twice as much to build, maintain and operate toll roads than it costs to do them as free roads only to make as much money as a modest gas tax increase? And this is AFTER TxDOT has repeatedly claimed they’d need anywhere from 10 cents to $1.00 a gallon gas tax increase if we don’t do the tolls. Their own math doesn’t add up!

Leon Valley battles on tolls
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Staff Writer
05/22/2006

Now that toll road fever has shifted to proposed elevated toll lanes over Bandera Road, Leon Valley residents are getting their dose of the numbing data and shocking rhetoric that puff the debate.

A debate last week at the Leon Valley Community Center has left city officials scratching their heads as they try to untangle the mountain of information, collected over months and even years, that spewed for more than an hour and a half.

“Cognitive overload is what I call it,” Mayor Chris Riley said. “One person would say this, and then (another) would say no, so I’m like — get me those (studies) and let me read it for myself.”

Riley, along with state Rep. Joaquín Castro and San Antonio City Councilwoman Elena Guajardo, held the debate to inform and perhaps assuage concerned residents. More than 250 people showed up and clapped liberally for both sides, though a little louder for toll critics.

So far, the community is decidedly against both tolls and the elevated lanes.

Just over a week ago, Leon Valley City Council candidate Arthur Reyna Jr. trounced an incumbent by more than a 2-to-1 ratio after targeting a city resolution from September that asks the Texas Department of Transportation to study flyover lanes.

Most Leon Valley Area Chamber of Commerce members, polled twice in recent months, said businesses would do poorly in the shadow of flyover toll lanes. The organization would rather see Bandera widened to eight lanes, beautified and made easier for walking.

“Personally, I think it would be a horrible thing for the city,” Reyna said. “From the other side, I’ll do whatever the citizens want me to do, and right now what I hear them saying is, they do not want this toll road. So it’s my job to try and do whatever I can to stop it.”

That’s the crowd that David Casteel, TxDOT’s head engineer in San Antonio, and Terry Brechtel, Alamo Regional Mobility Authority director, faced Wednesday when they debated San Antonio Toll Party members.

TxDOT has laid out plans for 75 miles of toll roads on the North Side — along U.S. 281, Loop 1604, Interstate 35, Bandera Road and a Wurzbach Parkway interchange at U.S. 281 — and is studying additional toll lanes on I-10 outside Loop 1604.

The mobility authority recently took over the 28 miles of toll projects for I-35, Wurzbach and Bandera and is helping TxDOT pick a private consortium to operate 47 miles of planned toll lanes on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604.

Pitch for tolls

Casteel and Brechtel argue that there’s not enough tax money to solve traffic congestion — it’s not even close.
Over the past 25 years in Texas, the population grew 57 percent and the amount of driving almost doubled while miles of highway lanes increased just 8 percent. Much of the same is expected over the next quarter-century, except that driving is projected to triple.

Planners say $188 billion worth of traffic projects are needed by 2030, but the state is short by $86 billion, a tenth of it in San Antonio. Gas taxes — which are the same 38.4 cents a gallon that they were more than a decade ago — would have to be raised by $1.20 a gallon to cover the bill.

Inflation has whittled purchasing power of the state’s 20-cent gas tax — per road-mile driven — to early 1980s levels.

But the Legislature has refused to raise the tax in recent years, opting instead to go with tolls. As of late last year, planned toll roads in Texas cities were expected to rake in $5 billion in construction money over 25 years, which is equivalent to a 2-cent gas tax.

Together with gas taxes, tolls can fund projects decades sooner, officials say. And as toll roads are paid off, excess revenues could be used to help pay for other projects. Motorists would choose whether to drive on congested non-tolled lanes, such as existing Bandera Road, where traffic is projected to double in 25 years, or pay fees to save time.

Otherwise, San Antonio’s traffic will soon look like Houston’s today, torturing drivers even more, increasing costs to do business and scaring companies thinking about locating here.

“It doesn’t take too much in-depth analysis, it doesn’t take a Texas A&M engineering degree, to say that if you don’t like congestion today, you’re really not going to like it in the future,” Casteel said.

Ditch the tolls

Terri Hall, founder and director of San Antonio Toll Party, and locally based transportation consultant Bill Barker say something smells funny.

For one thing, tolls do not solve traffic congestion. And congestion is needed on competing roads to make tolls viable because motorists won’t pay a fee if they can get somewhere just as quickly on free roads.

Toll lanes will benefit only those who can afford them, while everybody else will still help pay, they said. Gas taxes are eyed for many toll projects because tolls can’t always do it all; rights of way bought with public money would also be used, and businesses using toll lanes would pass on the costs to customers.

Also, they said, the state’s $86 billion worth of road needs are probably more of a wish list when one considers that gas taxes would have to more than triple to get the money. A better idea is to tighten spending and prioritize better.

It’s even arguable that more highway lanes will just spread sprawling development faster and induce more driving, as in the past.

San Antonio already has more miles of freeway lanes per person than 45 of the 50 largest U.S. cities, and when mileage per capita here increased between 1990 to 2000, commute times still went up.

The strategy should focus on decreasing how much people drive, such as more carpooling and telecommuting, better public transit, and building neighborhoods where it’s easy to walk to bus stops and other places, they said.

Other solutions include developing a network of city streets that connect better, requiring developers to provide for those streets, using the latest technologies to coordinate traffic signals and using reversible lanes.

Smoke hasn’t cleared

Work on the first three miles of toll lanes in San Antonio was scheduled for U.S. 281 in January, but federal officials pulled the environmental clearances after a lawsuit was filed that says impacts hadn’t been studied enough. TxDOT is redoing the evaluations.
Meanwhile, the mobility authority is starting an environmental assessment for the seven miles of toll lanes that might be built over Bandera Road. The assessment could be completed within two years and the tollway opened in five.

Many residents in Leon Valley will be watching closely.

“If 50 percent of what San Antonio Toll Party presented is indeed true, TxDOT has some problems,” said Phillip Manea, president of the Leon Valley chamber.

Barron's Magazine: Foreigners are anteing up big bucks for U.S. toll roads

Posted on by

Barron’s Toll Article published May 8, 2006.

This cover story hits the nail on the head when it says: “America’s toll roads, better known for political patronage than for strong business and financial management, suddenly are HOT assets.” Yep, as we’ve contended all along, this is about a money grab and greedy politicians fleecing the taxpayers for BIG foreign payouts. Elected officials whose sworn duty is to represent and serve the public interest are selling off America’s infrastructure to make a buck.

Here’s some of the most telling statements:

“Gasoline taxes, the traditional method of funding highway repair and construction, are no longer sufficient for the job….if anything, lawmakers are looking to cut these taxes.”

Oh really, is that why ex-Transportation Commissioner David Laney told the highway lobby at the San Antonio Mobility Coalition’s Transpsortation Leadership Forum last Septmber that we need to increase the gas tax, tie it to inflation, IN ADDITION to tolling nearly every highway in Texas? Is that why State Rep. Carter Casteel introduced a bill to allow counties to increase gas taxes up to 10 cents per gallon while she also supported dozens of bills to toll existing freeways? Our lawmakers have shown us there’s no tax they’re not willing to raise or levy on behalf of the highway lobby. Our politicians’ campaign donations and perks courtesy of road builders are too well-liked to put the public good and our economy over the priorities of lobbyists.

“The $1.8 billion purchase last year of the Chicago Skyway (by Cintra-Macquarie, bidders of SA toll system read about it here) and the $3.8 billion deal last month for the Indiana Toll Road have opened the eyes of politicans, who didn’t recognize that their toll roads could fetch such hefty sums.” ‘This is just the beginning,’ says Philip Villaluz, a municipal bond analyst at Merrill Lynch. ‘The shock value of these price tags is getting the attention of politicians across the country.'”

Well, it’s getting the attention of the public, too. Indiana politicians voted to sell the Indiana Toll Road to Cintra-Macquarie even though the voters didn’t want them to by a margin of more than 2 to 1 (read about it here)! These politicians even acknowledged there could be a BIG political backlash for stabbing the taxpayers in the back yet they did it ANYWAY! You bet there will be a backlash, see Pennsylvania’s political fallout for BIG SPENDERS here.

“The lure for investors is that, before maintenance costs are taken into account, the margins on toll roads can be 80% or more.”

No doubt there’s BIG money to be made or we wouldn’t see our government salivating at the selling of American infrastructure to the highest bidder! Cintra-Macquarie is already seeing increased revenue on the Chicago Skyway…guess why? A 50 cent toll hike to $2.50 for cars. That’s what we can count on when our government opts to privatize our public highways….the highest possible tolls…

“For motorists , privatization’s downside is higher tolls. Investors won’t buy roads without being assured that they can raise tolls over the years.”

Collin County officials up in Dallas feel the same way…privatizing our roads equals the highest possible tolls for our citizens. Read about it here.

“Wall Street investment bankers, led by Goldman Sachs, have descended on state capitals, trying to convince toll authorities and legislators of the benefits of privatization.”

Well, there ya have it. See why the public outcry gets largely ignored? We have a hard time competing with the army of lobbyists who exert more influence over our elected officials than the voters do (read about lobbyists corrupting politics here)! Well, that’s why we’re in the midst of a taxpayer revolt the size of Texas…to toss out these corrupt politicians who repeatedly ignore the will of the PEOPLE and ignore the pleas of their own constituents!

“Politics plays a key role in determining which roads are privatized. The easiest to sell are those used heavily by out of state drivers rather than local motorists.”

Oh really, how would US 281, Loop 1604, and Bandera Rd qualify as being heavily used by out of state motorists? Politics is being played for sure, but TxDOT clearly wants to stick local motorists with the tab for these toll projects, and they intend to get their cash by taking away existing FREEway lanes and replacing them with frontage roads to do it (see plans for 281 here)! Before long, drivers won’t be able to get anywhere on an expressway without paying a toll even though we all continue to pay gas taxes!

THE INSIDIOUS PLAN OF INCREMENTALISM
“…Electronic payment systems have made toll increases less painful for motorists because they no longer have to fumble for money and wait in long lines. The relatively modest charges appear monthly on credit card statements amid many other items.”

Just like income taxes are hidden since they’re taken out of paychecks BEFORE you get your money, politicians think they can get away with tolls not only because they can now make them more invisible, but also get away with raising tolls regularly by hiding it on your credit bill so you will never feel the full hit of this new tax!

“The good news for the Cintra-Macquarie group is that it didn’t have to guarantee the Chicago and Indiana debt; the lenders accepted the road lease as collateral.”

WOW! How much worse for the taxpayers can you get??? Now these BIG foreign investors don’t even have to back-up these loans with their own collateral? Former Executive Director of the Alamo RMA, Tom Greibel, as well as others at TxDOT said repeatedly that the justification for privatizing our public freeways on these toll projects is because the PRIVATE ENTITY is taking on all the risk (not our government) and they deserve a return on their investment through steady toll increases. So how is that true if the same companies bidding on San Antonio’s toll starter system didn’t have to put up ANY collateral of their own? What’s the collateral, OUR ROADS! So if they default, the road goes under the control of a private lending institution? What absolute thievery!

Even toll road insiders like Golman-Sachs/JB Were analyst Allison Booth have been critical of the deal.

“Increasing competition for new toll road projects is resulting in monpolistic returns being competed away.”

Investors may end up just as livid as the taxpayers…privatizing our PUBLIC infrastructure translates into the highest tolls for our citizens, a drain on the economy (like all increases in transportation), and risky investment for the public and private sector alike. Read more about the foolish plan to sell our public infrastructure to foreign investors here.

Bandera Toll Project: Brechtel misleads Mayor of Leon Valley

Posted on by

Chris Riley, Mayor of Leon Valley, sent a letter to Executive Director of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, Terry Brechtel, asking a series of very valid questions of the RMA about the planned elevated tollway on Bandera Road. Brechtel seems to deliberately mislead the Mayor in her response. Note the date of the letter from Brechtel to Riley, March 17, 2006. The toll feasibility study for Bandera Rd (PDF file) was completed February 28, 2006. Brechtel tries to claim ignorance or that information was not yet known when she knew full well the answers to many of the Mayor’s questions almost a month prior to the letter she drafted:

View letters here… (PDF file)

1) “It is important to note there is not a definitive plan at this time, and until we have received public input and finalized the environmental assessment….we are unable to provide further detail…” (p. 2 of Brechtel reply to Mayor Riley)

The Alamo RMA voted to allocate $6.5 million for preliminary engineering for an elevated tollway on Bandera and I-35 as well as the Wurzbach Pkwy. toll interchange (read about it here and on the RMA’s meeting minutes where the motion was approved here). So if there’s no definitive plan, why are they allocating millions to begin engineering it? Also, the toll feasibility study examined two specific routes, the predominant one being an elevated tollway from 410 to Loop 1604 and another alignment from 151 over Leon Creek joining Bandera Rd. and up to Loop 1604. The study also states, “In accordance with TxDOT’s policy, the new capacity improvements are to be evaluated for (toll) feasibility.” There is a definitive plan to toll the elevated roadway over Bandera Rd. per TxDOT’s OWN POLICY! It was IN WRITING before Brechtel replied to the Mayor.

2) “The impact to the local community from traffic flow on adjacent streets within the community has not been determined at this time.” (p. 2 of Brechtel letter)

Here’s what the feasbility study claims: “Preliminary evaluation revealed that the construction of the proposed alternatives would have no adverse impact on social groups, neighborhoods, communities, or public facilities.” (p. 4 of Bandera Rd. Toll Feasibility Study). Brechtel obviously couldn’t repeat such callous, disingenous claim, so she said “it hasn’t been determined yet.” Again, if it hasn’t been determined, why have they allocated money to start engineering it if they don’t even know the impact to the community? Doesn’t this seem to be a vital factor that needs to be settled long before commiting funds to begin engineering the tollway?

3) “…alternatives for Bandera Rd. will be considered, including a no build option. Any other option besides no build, will require identification of funds to construct any recommended improvements.” (p. 2 of Brechtel letter)

The only alternatives being considered are both tollways, one 7 miles, one 10 miles. So in their view the options are: it’s toll it or no build, period. Follow the money…if the no build is truly an option, why did the RMA allocate money to engineer the tollway (see evidence above)?

4) “The Alamo RMA will also work closely with all our partner communities to ensure public safety vehicles and first responders will have access to the added capacity tolled lane system without impeding repsonse time.” (p. 2 of Brechtel letter)

How is that possible when there is only one entrance and exit on either end? It’s a 7 or 10 mile tollway, so if the scene of an accident is at the 3.5 mile mark, how is it possible for EMS to get from the surface street up onto the tollway and to the scene without impeding response time compared to current Bandera Rd. which has many access points? See this article on how tollways are more dangerous than freeways (http://satollparty.com/post/?p=216).

5) “Please note that only those who elect to use the tolled lane system will pay for the use of the system.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

This one is the biggest misstatement of all. Brechtel knows that NONE of these proposed tollways are 100% toll viable. That means NONE of them completely pay for themselves 100% with tolls. The toll feasibility study for Bandera was already published at this time, and it clearly states that the best case scenario shows only 47% viability. That means they will have to sell bonds for the remaining 53%…backed by and paid by taxpayer money…in order to erect this monstrosity. So everyone will help pay for it, but only the few can afford to drive on it. Also, the MPO has allocated $500 million in your GAS TAXES to build toll roads in San Antonio. Therefore, this oft repeated claim by the tollers that only those who use the tollway pay for the tollway are LYING! (See quote from Commissioner Lyle Larson affirming TxDOT is not being honest about how the toll projects are being financed here)

6) “At this time, there is not a projected cost per mile for this corridor.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

Another blatant falsehood. The toll feasibility study for Bandera Rd published before this letter to Mayor Riley specifically states on page 15 that they assume a toll rate of 13 cents a mile for autos and 31.8 cents a mile for trucks. And the road doesn’t start to make any positive cashflow until year 21 of the bond period. So those rates will only increase rapidly once they hand it over to a private company who will likely drive up the rates to speed up the time it takes to make a profit. (See this report, page 6, from a bond rating company that states one of the advantages to governments in privatizing public highways is to shield them from the wrath of voters upon steady toll rate increases here. ) Also, 13 cents a mile is well above the national average for a turnpike to begin with. The Comptroller’s investigation of the RMAs (see report here) found the national average is 9 cents a mile. Gas tax averages 1-3 cents a mile. No matter how you slice it, the gas tax system is the most affordable system.

7) “The proposed project does not have a timeline for construction.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

Total misstatement of fact. On page 2 of the Bandera Rd toll feasibility states: “The alternatives studied are feasible for achieving TxDOT’s goal of completing construction in the year 2013.” Figure L-1 of the toll feasibility study for Bandera states the construction would begin in 2009 and be completed in 2013. That’s a 4 year construction timeline. Brechtel knew this, but failed to disclose this to the Mayor.

8) “We are unable to provide a specific answer to this (cost) question.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

The toll feasibility study gives specifics of cost on page 19 and elsewhere. The primary route cited by TxDOT in public would be $319 or $330 million depending on design type. Page 19 also states they pad the costs by 40%, 20% for “contingency” and 20% for “soft costs” like engineering & inspection!

9) “The Alamo RMA is charged with setting the toll rates.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

Impossible given they plan to use a CDA (see definition here) which allows the toll rates to be set by a private company with NO CAP on how high the toll rates will go. That’s the problem with the CDAs, they allow our government, an unelected tolling authority no less, to delegate taxing authority (and hence accountability to the taxpayers) to a private company. Also, see Bill Thornton’s (Chair of the Alamo RMA) comments during a debate (which we have on tape) where he says “I have no idea who will set the toll rates” (here)!

10) “You ask details regarding the Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA). At this time, the State of Texas has not received an unsolicited proposal for any portion of State Highway 16, and as such the corridor is being evaluated exclusively by the Alamo RMA.” (p. 3 of Brechtel letter)

Again, not true. On page 20 and in Figure L-1 of the toll feasibility study published before Brechtel’s letter to Mayor Riley, it states: “Based upon prior experience, and in conjunction with discussions with TxDOT district staff, it was assumed that the project would most likely be built through a CDA with the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority.” TxDOT and the RMA fully intends to use a CDA for this project, signing over our public infrastructure to private, likely foreign, management against the will of 83% of Americans (http://satollparty.com/post/?p=142). Most all companies with the billions it requires for these CDAs are foreign, few if any American companies have emerged.

Then, Brechtel closes with this:
“I look forward to continuing our open dialogue.” (p.4 of Brechtel letter)

Open dialogue? Seems there wasn’t much truth and openness in this letter. What a joke!

'Taxpayers lose' in sweetheart toll deal

Posted on by

Link to article here.

‘Taxpayers lose’ in sweetheart toll deal
By Rick Wallace and Imre Salusinszky
The Australian
May 19, 2006

The financial watchdog has been asked to investigate an unorthodox deal between the Bracks Government and a toll road operator that will help bankroll the state’s multi-billion-dollar transport overhaul.

The Auditor-General was urged to step in after claims the “sweetheart deal” deprived Victorian taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The controversy over the funding has taken the gloss off the state Government’s $10.5 billion transport package, which includes $2.9 billion for rail, $1.4billion for buses and $2 billion for arterial roads.

In a move criticised as “fabulously generous” to toll road operator Transurban, the Bracks Labor Government has given up the right to $2.9 billion of payments over 30 years for $775million up front.

Transurban was to have paid the money in yearly instalments over 30 years, but negotiated a deal to cash it in at a discount rate provided it assisted the Government with upgrading 75km of roads.

The company’s shares shot up more than 2 per cent when the package was announced on Wednesday. They climbed another 1.6per cent yesterday to $6.81 – increasing its stock market value by more than $225 million over two days.

The move allows the Government to fund the West Gate and Monash freeway upgrades in its package without depleting the budget surplus. But experts said the deal compared unfavourably with borrowing the money and retaining the annual payments.

The payments are comparable to rent on the roadways and, when paid out up-front, the total is discounted to reflect the declining value of money over time.

Infrastructure specialist Peter Fitzgerald, who has worked as a consultant to the Bracks Government, said the move meant the Government had cashed in the payments at a discount rate of 9.7per cent, almost three percentage points above market value.

“The discount rate is very generous in favour of Transurban,” he said. “It also reflects the desire to get the deal done and get the cash earlier.

“On that basis there may well be hundreds of millions left on the table to the detriment of the taxpayers. The alternative is government borrowing on which the pricing is closer to 6.8 per cent than 9.7 per cent.”

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu, who asked Victoria’s Auditor-General to investigate the deal, said the arrangement was a bonus for Transurban and a blow to taxpayers.

“We find that the Government has taken $2.9 billion and converted that into some $600million. This is not a good deal for taxpayers,” he said. But Treasurer John Brumby defended the deal and predicted it would meet with the Auditor-General’s approval. “The deal has been independently assessed and market tested to ensure we achieved best value for money,” he said.

The debate came as a NSW parliamentary committee concluded the state had plenty to learn from Victoria about the delivery of infrastructure through public-private partnerships, even though the southern state has had a chequered history with such projects.

The second report of the inquiry into Sydney’s Cross City Tunnel fiasco details evidence that PPPs in Victoria are subject to more centralised control than in NSW, with fuller public disclosure of contract details.

The committee recommends NSW Treasury continue to collaborate with Victoria, as well as with other jurisdictions.

GOP conservatives topple incumbents…BIG SPENDERS TOSSED OUT!

Posted on by

See New York Times article here.

G.O.P. Conservatives Topple Veteran State Lawmakers in Pennsylvania
By JASON DePARLE
NEW YORK TIMES
May 18, 2006

WASHINGTON, May 17 — A revolt among Pennsylvania conservatives gained national attention on Wednesday after challengers toppled at least 12 state lawmakers they deemed insufficiently committed to small government and fiscal restraint.

Among those losing their positions in a Republican primary on Tuesday were the two State Senate leaders, Robert C. Jubelirer and David J. Brightbill, who had 56 years of incumbency between them and vastly outspent their upstart rivals.

Facing a tire salesman with little political experience, Mr. Brightbill, the majority leader, outspent his opponent nearly 20 to 1 and still captured just 37 percent of the vote.

“My campaign has always been about making Republicans Republican again,” the winner, Mike Folmer of Lebanon, said. “Republicans have controlled the Legislature here since 1995, but the size, the scope and even the ineffectiveness of our government has continued to grow.”

The results drew cheers from conservatives nationally, many of whom voice similar criticisms of Republican incumbents in Washington and have threatened their own revolts.

The Fiscal Restraint Coalition, a network of organizations calling for smaller government, sent out an e-mail message saying the election showed “that the fiscal restraint message is a winner.”

Captain’s Quarters, a conservative blog, said the election would “serve notice on the G.O.P. that it cannot take conservative votes for granted.”

But others, while celebrating the results, saw danger for the party.

“It shows a very worrisome, elevated level of anger and frustration on the part of Republicans,” said Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, which supports low taxes and small government. “In a primary, they can vent that by voting for challengers. The problem is, in a general election they stay home. It’s a very worrisome sign for Republicans in Washington.”

In Pennsylvania, the incumbents’ fall was extraordinary. No Senate leader had lost a primary challenge since 1964.

“And we took out two last night,” said Matthew J. Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative group in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania conservatives had long accused the Republican leaders of the Legislature of being too quick to go along with Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat. In two of the last three state budgets, Mr. Brouillette said, the Legislature approved more spending than Mr. Rendell had requested.

The smoldering anger among Pennsylvania conservatives caught fire last summer when the Republican-controlled Legislature approved pay increases of up to 54 percent for elected officials in all three branches of government.

“That was the Alamo,” Mr. Folmer said. After an outpouring of criticism, the lawmakers rescinded the increase, but they could not rescind the anger.

In some races, the groundwork for a primary challenge had been laid. John Eichelberger, who defeated Mr. Jubelirer, the Senate president pro tempore, had been contemplating the race even before the increase in pay.

In doing so, Mr. Eichelberger said, he had the support of several wealthy Pennsylvanians, including Bob Guzzardi, a member of the Club for Growth who commissioned a poll of the district in the Altoona region by Kellyanne Conway, a pollster here.

After entering the race, Mr. Eichelberger received an endorsement from Mr. Toomey, who also helped him raise money. Mr. Toomey, a former congressman, is prominent among Pennsylvania conservatives for having nearly beat a moderate Republican, Arlen Specter, in a United States Senate primary in 2004.

Mr. Eichelberger, along with three other conservative challengers, created a campaign document, “Promise to Pennsylvania,” modeled after the “Contract With America” that the Republicans used in 1994 to capture Congress.

It called for stricter regulation of lobbyists, term limits, tort reform and the vote of three-fifths of the Legislature before raising taxes. Three of the four signers won. The fourth is clinging to a narrow lead.

“People are just tired of Republicans who don’t represent the bedrock conservative values of the party,” Mr. Eichelberger said. “They’re Republican in name only. If you’re going to be a Republican, be a Republican.”

Mr. Eichelberger noted that Mr. Jubelirer raised $1.3 million and had the support of the state’s Republican Party.

Neither Mr. Jubelirer nor Mr. Brightbill returned telephone calls on Wednesday. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review quoted Mr. Jubelirer as saying the election was “a dramatic earthquake.”

At least 11 other Republican incumbents lost, and several elections were too close to call.

In a House contest, State Representative Thomas L. Stevenson of Pittsburgh was defeated by Mark Harris, a 21-year-old student.

While conservatives were cheering, G. Terry Madonna, an election analyst at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said the results could cheer Democrats, as well.

Dr. Madonna pointed to a special election in Chester County, outside Philadelphia, where a Democrat, Andrew Dinniman, won a Senate seat in a district dominated by Republicans. As the party moves right, Dr. Madonna said, “the moderate Republicans may vote for Democrats now.”

On blogs and talk radio shows, conservatives have been engaged in an intramural debate about whether to work hard in the November Congressional elections or sit them out to punish Republican Party leaders.

“The message here is get engaged,” said Bridgett Wagner of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group here. “This will give encouragement to those who might have been tempted to sit on the sideline.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Leon Valley & Bandera Rd. residents clearly in no mood for elevated tollway

Posted on by

The Toll Road Forum hosted by State Representative Joaquin Castro, Councilwoman Elena Guajardo, and the City of Leon Valley last night, gave residents a chance to hear both sides of the story on TxDOT’s planned toll roads. The forum drew over 250 concerned citizens who let us know through applause, their questions, and the volume of signed petitions that they are clearly against an elevated tollway through their community. Myself and Bill Barker, Transportation Consultant who volunteers selflessly to our cause, debated David Casteel, District Engineer for TxDOT, and Terry Brechtel, Executive Director of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority.

The crowd actually gasped and began to hurl shouts of distaste when I read this statement from the Bandera Rd. toll feasibility study that claims this about the construction of an elevated tollway:

“There is no apparent adverse impact on social groups, neighborhoods, communities, or public facilities.” (SH 16 Feasibility Study Final Report, p. 4)

WHAT???? How can erecting a gigantic elevated tollway WITH NO EXITS over existing neighborhoods, schools, and businesses have no adverse impact!? The World Bank explicitly states there are negative social impacts to an elevated urban tollway: “toll roads can have significant social impacts… These can be both positive (providing improved access for some regions of a country) and negative (degrading the environment around the road, for example underneath an elevated urban expressway).” See source here.

The study also assumes:

“No additional competing or feeder routes” would be built. (p. 15)

See history of non-competes in these deals with private companies here.

AND

“As the alternative free routes reach capacity, the tollway becomes more attractive resulting in higher estimated traffic volumes.” (p. 17)

This means they intend to CLOG our free routes to force more traffic to use the tollway. It’s a stated strategy in several places (see post here and here), for them to deny it is to LIE! More users of the toll road, means MORE REVENUE for these private companies and the State!

AND

The toll feasibility study for Bandera Rd. also assumes:

“The project would most likely be built through a CDA with the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority.” (p. 20)

CDAs are these contracts that privatize our public freeways in 50 year sweetheart deals (see Toll Glossary here). They’re being negotiated in secret and even elected officials cannot see the details without signing a non-disclosure agreement (see story here, note some of the councilmembers have since done an aboutface and are pro-toll, apparently having no problem with this attack on open government). So ELECTED officials cannot share the details of a PUBLIC contract with their own constituents! Terry Brechtel of the Alamo RMA told the Mayor of Leon Valley, Chris Riley, that using a CDA has not been decided, but it’s clearly stated that they fully intend to use a CDA in their own documents! So Brechtel lied to an elected official!

The feasibility study for Bandera Rd. affirms what we’ve been saying for nearly a year…

TxDOT not only plans to make it a tollway, they plan to have some sort of non-compete agreement or understanding where the free routes will not be improved, and, in fact, they plan for the new growth in that area to clog the free alternatives beyond their capacity so that MORE people will be forced onto the tollway and increase their revenues!

This arrogant revenue building scheme of our out of control government needs to be stopped! It’s not just TxDOT, but our politicians starting with Governor Perry who are responsible for this. Governor Perry appoints the Transportation Commission that oversees TxDOT and he’s heard from tens of thousands of Texans against tolls, but on they march without accountability. In fact, Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta came out with a statement affirming the federal government’s role in this shift to privatize our freeways. Read more here.

Read the SA Toll Party closing statement

Bush Administration officially endorses privatizing, tolling existing "busy"roads

Posted on by

Link to story here.

Bush Administration: Time to Face Traffic
By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer
May 16, 2006

WASHINGTON — Moving people or freight around America just can’t be done anymore without encountering one bottleneck or another, and the Bush administration said Tuesday that it’s time to do something about the congestion.

“Congestion is not a fact of life. We need a new approach and we need it now,” said Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta.

Five years ago, Mineta complained that “congestion and delay not only waste our time as individuals, they also burden our businesses and our entire economy.”

The transportation secretary unveiled a strategy to reduce congestion that included privatizing roads, putting tolls on busy roads and designating corridors for development to speed movement of truck and rail freight.

Mineta outlined the plan to a meeting of the National Retail Federation.

Traffic jams have only gotten worse in most places in the five years since Mineta declared congestion was a national problem.

Commuters and truckers aren’t the only ones complaining. Shippers face congestion at crowded ports and along jammed railroads, and airline delays are on the upswing.

When a reporter asked why it took so long to come up with a congestion strategy, Mineta said the Transportation Department first had to win passage of the six-year, $286.4 billion highway and mass transit bill. The bill was signed into law nine months ago.

“Who are they kidding?” said Rep. Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey Democrat who sits on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “This is part of a Hail Mary pass.”

Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, said he’s glad transportation officials are finally focusing on traffic jams.

“It is actually groundbreaking to see the Transportation Department say, ‘Congestion is not necessary and we can make it a thing of the past,'” Cohen said.

But, he said, “I don’t see a whole lot here in terms of actually paying for this stuff.”

Democrats criticized the plan’s reliance on privatizing roads and charging tolls to use them.

“They’re recognizing a real and growing problem, but I think they come up short on their solutions,” said Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, a senior Democrat on the transportation committee.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., blasted the plan for ignoring passenger rail.

“This country cannot have a serious discussion about reducing traffic congestion when the Bush administration refuses to include rail service as part of its plan,” Lautenberg said.

The national strategy is long on expediting, promoting and encouraging, but short on new funding.

It calls for transportation officials to seek “Urban Partnership Agreements” for a few communities “willing to demonstrate new congestion relief strategies.”

It encourages states to pass laws that let private companies invest in transportation and it promotes such technological improvements as “better real-time traffic information.”

There’ll even be a competition to select up to five “interstate corridors of the future” for long-term investment.

The Highway Users’ Cohen said the publicity surrounding earmarks to the highway bill — epitomized by the “bridge to nowhere,” a $223 million span in Alaska to an island with a population of about 50 — made it clear that the highway program isn’t doing what it’s supposed to.

“Folks want to get out of traffic,” Cohen said.

Houston Chronicle: Feds endorse privatizing infrastructure, highways, airports

Posted on by

Link to Houston Chronicle article here.

U.S. to battle bottlenecks
New techniques to be used against traffic snarls
By DIRK VANDERHART
Houston Chronicle
May 16, 2006

WASHINGTON – Citing the adverse effects of traffic congestion on the economy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta on Tuesday unveiled a plan to reduce backups in major metropolitan areas like Houston (yes, I’m sure this is a plan to deal with traffic and has nothing to do with big business).

The plan, which also is aimed at limiting delays in rail and air transport, will assure that the United States has the most efficient transportation system in the world, the secretary said.

“President Bush and I recognize the challenge that congestion poses,” Mineta said in an address to the National Retail Federation. “We need a new approach and we need it now.”

The Transportation Department estimates that roughly $200 billion is lost every year because of delays in road, rail and air transport.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, an average Houston commuter spent 63 hours caught in traffic in 2003, the fifth-longest per-person delay in the country. That wasted time and fuel resulted in a net loss of almost $2.3 billion, the institute reported.

If congestion continues to increase — as it has in recent decades — traffic problems will begin to affect more than just America’s largest cities. The department said small and medium-size cities could see significant backups in coming years.

Mineta said the Transportation Department will select a handful of large metropolitan areas to showcase technologies and procedures designed to ease highway congestion. These include express bus lines, electronic toll collection systems and methods of increasing tolls as roadways become more congested.

Once these techniques prove their effectiveness, Mineta said, urban areas around the country can adopt the ones that best suit local conditions.

States also should allow private companies to invest in toll roads and other infrastructure, Mineta said, noting that such public-private partnerships are vital if states hope to have the money to make crucial improvements. Similar arrangements, such as the leasing of a toll road in Indiana to a private company, have led to fierce debates in state legislatures.

“Some of what we are about to do will be indeed labeled controversial,” Mineta acknowledged.

Although he gave no details, the secretary also proposed partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to create a “border congestion team” to ease backups at border checkpoints. In addition, the Department of Transportation will look into expanding capacity and efficiency at airports. New York City’s La Guardia Airport was specifically identified as needing improvement.

No cost estimate was given, but Mineta acknowledged that “this will be expensive work.”