What transportation crisis? Voters would cut road funding first

Link to article here.

First, not one of the major newspaper outlets who commissioned the poll will release it: the questions, how many Republicans versus Democrats were polled, or the methodology used.

While we have many road projects that lack funding right now, when given a choice between all the potential cuts to implement to balance the State’ budget next year, voters chose cuts to road funding over other priorities. We’ve contended for along time that a host of taxes already collected aren’t getting to transportation, and those must be redirected to roads before ANY increase in gas tax is considered.

But are they listening? No, Hillco lobbying firm is re-doubling its efforts to ram a local option gas tax through without first fixing the diversion problems or reforming TxDOT. Also, they try to make toll roads look like the option of choice to fund roads, but this analyst rightly proclaims that when only 20% say they want toll roads, that means 80% don’t want them! Our take is that people view that option as the one they can avoid paying. However, under Rick Perry’s policies, no road in urban areas (and some suburban and rural areas) will be left untouched by tolls. Even Senator John Carona admitted in a hearing February 1 that it’s disingenuous to say people have a choice whether to pay toll taxes or not when tolls will be everywhere.

Poll: Texas voters would cut highway funding first

02/15/2010

Associated Press

Forty-one percent of Texas voters chose highway funding in a poll asking what they would cut to deal with a projected state budget shortfall as high as $16 billion next year.

About one in five surveyed in the poll said they would raise taxes or fees, and fewer said they would cut spending on education or health care for the poor.

The Feb. 2-10 telephone survey of 1,508 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Blum & Weprin Associates Inc. conducted the poll for the Austin-American Statesman, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News.

Asked where to get money for roads, voters were even more ambivalent. Given five widely debated options, toll roads ranked the highest. Twenty-one percent of respondents chose that option.

“It tells me that 20 percent like toll roads, but 80 percent don’t like them,” said Dale Craymer, president of the Texas Taxpayer and Research Association, a nonpartisan research group.

The results come amid the high-profile Republican gubernatorial primary between Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Debra Medina is also in the race.

Perry has made transportation a high priority in his campaign leading to the March 2 vote, while Hutchison has been critical of toll roads, including a Perry-backed plan called the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Craymer said the poll shows that in times of budgetary duress, concrete-and-steel projects that are costly and take years to complete are the first to go in the minds of voters.

“It’s not so much an indicator that people are willing to tolerate the traffic as much as it is recognition about the cost of fixing it,” Craymer said. “You can throw billions at the problem and not make a dent.”

While 38 percent of Texas voters said illegal immigrants should be deported, a combined majority picked two options that would allow them to stay. A path to citizenship was favored by 29 percent of voters, and 23 percent said they support giving immigrants work visas.

“There is a plurality for deporting them and the path to citizenship is not wildly popular in the state except among a few groups — minorities and the young,” said the pollster, Mickey Blum.

The economy and jobs was a prevalent worry for many of those interviewed, especially coupled with the looming state deficit.

Most said they believed offering incentives for businesses to move to Texas was the best way to create jobs. Only 16 percent said the state should spend money on public projects as a way to put Texans back to work.

Officials raise concerns about 161/Southwest Pkwy deal

Link to article here.

Area officials raise concerns about Southwest Parkway/Texas 161 deal

Posted Friday, Feb. 12, 2010

ARLINGTON — Negotiations to turn over construction of Southwest Parkway and Texas 161 to the North Texas Tollway Authority are on course to meet a Feb. 28 deadline, but some Dallas-Fort Worth officials say they are uncomfortable with what they say is a financial shell game that’s taking place to seal the deal.

A $300 million funding gap remains, and to help fix that problem, $91 million in Regional Transportation Council funds meant for other Metroplex road projects would be diverted to the Southwest Parkway/Texas 161 deal.

But some area elected leaders, particularly those from the Dallas area, say they’re worried that the deal is potentially a roadblock to the region’s ability to perform other work for years to come.

Dallas County Commissioner Maurine Dickey said those concerns are being glossed over in a furious attempt to get the deal completed by the deadline.

“I feel we’re being held hostage,” Dickey told members of the Regional Transportation Council, Dallas-Fort Worth’s official planning body, during a monthly meeting Thursday in Arlington. “I’ve never been on a board where I’ve been so absolutely pressed to make a decision on an issue without being able to discuss it.”

Despite those concerns, the 43-member RTC agreed on a voice vote Thursday to allow funds to be used as a bargaining chip.

Progress

Southwest Parkway, a proposed 28-mile toll road from downtown Fort Worth to Cleburne, and Texas 161, which is under construction in Grand Prairie and Irving, are being developed as toll roads because for decades the state has been short of the cash needed to build them as freeways.

In Cleburne, the Southwest Parkway project is known as the Chisholm Trail.

Texas 161 runs parallel to Texas 360 in Arlington and is considered a main route to Cowboys Stadium.

The Texas Transportation Commission agreed last month to use the state’s gas taxes as collateral for debt issued to build the roads, though a rival agency, the North Texas Tollway Authority, would control the project. The two roads will share toll revenue — as if they were a single project — until both are fully paid for.

That agreement all but assured that Southwest Parkway, which has been on the planning books for four decades, would be under construction by year’s end and open by 2013.

All that remains is negotiating the final details of the deal.

Tricky proposition

But that’s proving to be a tricky proposition because, even with the state co-signing debt for the road, there is still a $300 million gap between the cost of building the roads and the amount of revenue the roads can raise.

One of the key negotiators is Michael Morris, transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

Morris’ latest proposal involves taking $91 million in funds that the RTC expects to receive beginning in 2014 and using tollway authority debt to convert the funds to cash so it can be used immediately for construction.

That would mean $91 million less for the RTC to spend on other Dallas-area projects in 2014. Morris said, however, that funds from state-issued Proposition 14 bonds could make up the difference. The Legislature has authorized the sale of Proposition 14 bonds to build roads today and repay the debt with future gas tax revenues.

The deal would also include language requiring the tollway authority to raise tolls on Southwest Parkway if necessary to satisfy debts, which means motorists could be asked to pay more for using the road if the project hits any fiscal snags down the road.

Several RTC members said it’s important to take the painful step of including their $91 million to ensure that the tollway authority — and not the state Transportation Department — takes the project.

If the tollway authority determined that the project wasn’t feasible, the alternatives would be to have the state build the project as a state-run toll road or to find a private partner to enter into a comprehensive development agreement — or CDA. Otherwise, construction could be postponed again.

But state lawmakers have repeatedly said they want the Transportation Department out of the toll business.

Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley worries that if the tollway authority deal falls apart, Southwest Parkway would not get built.

“You’re running the risk of being at the mercy of the Legislature,” he said, “and whatever their feelings are about CDAs and toll roads.”

TURF releases Voter Guide on transportation issues today

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TURF releases primary election Voter Guide

(Tuesday, February 16, 2010) Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom released its primary election Voter Guide today. The Guide reflects the candidatesʼ positions on transportation issues like the best way to fund roads as well as positions on toll roads, public private partnerships (where private corporations gain control of public infrastructure, called CDAs in Texas), and the Trans Texas Corridor. Candidates are still returning surveys, so TURF expects to update its guide prior to election day, March 2. Itʼs also posted on its web site under “Important Info.”

Is the Trans Texas Corridor still alive?

Confusion persists about whether or not the Trans Texas Corridor is truly “dead” as Rick Perryʼs transportation department announced last year. On February 1, 2010, in a Joint Senate and House Transportation Committee hearing, Senator John Carona directly asked TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz if TxDOT decided tomorrow that it wants to build the Trans Texas Corridor after all, does it still have the statutory authority to do so? Saenz answered: “Yes.” Watch it here.

At a Transportation Commission work session on August 26, 2009 (scroll down to the end of the transcript), Commissioner Ned Holmes essentially asked that the master development plan CDA for TTC-69 be expedited. For TTC-35, they’re planning to advance a “no build” alternative at this time. Such a move is UNPRECEDENTED. If a project is killed, all they have to do is send a letter to the Federal Highway Administration to notify them they’re withdrawing the project. End of story.

Instead, they’re seeking a Record of Decision on the “no action” alternative. Once they get a Record of Decision from the Federal Highway Administration, the law allows them to change their preferred “alternative” at any time. So if Perry is re-elected, he could easily change back to a “build” alternative and they’re in business. In addition, Ports to Plains and La Entrada de Pacifico are two TTC corridors moving forward unabated.

Tolling existing freeways legal or not?

Thereʼs also questions about whether or not it is legal to convert free highway lanes into toll lanes in the state of Texas, despite Governor Rick Perryʼs claim that it is illegal during the January 29 Republican gubernatorial debate. In an article in the Dallas Morning News February 1, TxDOT spokesman Chris Lippincott stated:

“ʼThe department has made it clear that we have no interest in tolling existing lanes,ʼ Texas Department of Transportation spokesman Chris Lippincott said this afternoon, when told of the Obama budget provision. ʻWhether we are prohibited from doing so in federal law is irrelevant,ʼ he said.

The article goes on to say…

“And it wouldn’t be easy, even if the state’s Transportation Commission didn’t have a policy in place that effectively abides by the moratorium. To turn a freeway (or even a single lane of existing roadway) into a toll road, TEXDOT would need a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration. These are granted only rarely. Then, state law requires approval from the county commissioners and then from a county’s voters.”

Terri Hall, Founder of Texas TURF counters, “Not only is TxDOT planning to toll existing lanes, they’re lying about it. The feds are not only aware of the plans for US 281 in San Antonio in particular, it had already granted clearance until we sued to stop them. So rare or not, the feds granted it.”

Perry’s greatest fib of the January 29 debate was his insistence that the Texas legislature passed a bill in 2005 prohibiting the conversion of free lanes to toll lanes. However, the bill, HB 2702, tells precisely how TxDOT can LEGALLY convert existing highway lanes into toll lanes through 6 exceptions, one that allows a conversion of free lanes by simply downgrading the free lanes to access roads adjacent to the tollway.

Though the language doesnʼt specifically use the term “access roads” to refer to the relocating of free lanes adjacent to the tollway, TxDOT has consistently interpreted the law to mean it has the authority to downgrade freeway lanes to access roads without triggering a public vote based on HB 2702. See the two-part discussion of this law before the Sunset Commission in 2008 here and here. Part-two shows TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz stating TxDOTʼs interpretation of HB 2702 allows highway lanes to be downgraded to access roads.

The bill also contains a gaping grandfather clause that exempts virtually all the toll projects currently on the table (because they were designated as toll roads in MPO plans prior to September of 2005), so no public vote would be triggered for the dozens of grandfathered toll projects.

“Perry’s elitist ʻyou can eat cakeʼ attitude is this: if you can’t afford the toll lanes, you can sit in congestion on the stop-light ridden access roads. He thinks replacing free highway lanes with access roads is acceptable and his highway department is doing it all over Texas,” says Hall.

The citizensʼ fight to stop the conversion of existing FREEway lanes into toll lanes on US 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio, 290 West in Austin, and Hwy 59 in East Texas (part of Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 thatʼs still alive and well), has languished precisely because of the loopholes in HB 2702.

TURF worked 24/7 in the last session to fix these loopholes. Rep. David Leibowitz of San Antonio introduced a bill to do so and got it attached to the TxDOT sunset bill (but it was stripped in the Senate).

“Texans deserve protection from the DOUBLE TAXATION of converting freeways into tollways. Perry was dead wrong to imply Texans are protected in state law. Theyʼre not, especially for the exempted Trans Texas Corridors, like TTC-69, that will ʻupgradeʼ existing freeways (like Hwy 59) into tollways at the hands of foreign companies,” Hall emphasized.

See detailed proof of the freeway to tollway conversion plans for US 281 on this web site: http://www.281overpassesnow.com.

Portion of HB 2702 that addresses converting existing highways into toll roads –

SECTION 2.36. Chapter 228, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subchapter E to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER E. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DETERMINATION; CONVERSION OF NONTOLLED STATE HIGHWAY Sec. 228.201. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DESIGNATION. Except as provided by Section 228.2015, the department may not operate a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project, and may not transfer a highway or segment to another entity for operation as a toll project, unless: (1) the commission by order designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the contract to construct the highway or segment was awarded; (2) the highway or segment was open to traffic as a turnpike project on or before September 1, 2005; (3) the project was designated as a toll project in a plan or program of a metropolitan planning organization on or before September 1, 2005; (4) the highway or segment is reconstructed so that the number of nontolled lanes on the highway or segment is greater than or equal to the number in existence before the reconstruction; (5) a facility is constructed adjacent to the highway or segment so that the number of nontolled lanes on the converted highway or segment and the adjacent facility together is greater than or equal to the number in existence on the converted highway or segment before the conversion; or (6) the commission converts the highway or segment to a toll facility by: (A) making the determination required by Section 228.202; (B) conducting the hearing required by Section 228.203; and (C) obtaining county and voter approval as required by Sections 228.207 and 228.208.

Sec. 228.2015. LIMITATION TRANSITION. (a) Notwithstanding Section 228.201, the department may operate a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project if: (1) a construction contract was awarded for the highway or segment before September 1, 2005; (2) the highway or segment had not at any time before September 1, 2005, been open to traffic; and (3) the commission designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the earlier of: (A) the date the highway or segment is opened to traffic; or (B) September 1, 2005. (b) This section expires September 1, 2006.

SECTION 2.37. Section 362.0041, Transportation Code, is transferred to Subchapter E, Chapter 228, Transportation Code, redesignated as Sections 228.202-228.208, and amended to read as follows: Sec. 228.202 [362.0041 ]. COMMISSION DETERMINATION [CONVERSION OF PROJECTS ]. The [(a) Except as provided in Subsections (d) and (g), the ] commission may by order convert a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway [the free state highway system ] to a toll project [facility ] if it determines that the conversion will improve overall mobility in the region or is the most feasible and economic means to accomplish necessary expansion, improvements, or extensions to that segment of the state highway system.

Sec. 228.203. PUBLIC HEARING. [(b) ] Prior to converting a state highway or a segment of a[the ] state highway [ system ] under this subchapter [section ], the commission shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments from interested

persons concerning the proposed conversion [transfer ]. Notice of the hearing shall be published in the Texas Register, one or more newspapers of general circulation, and a newspaper, if any, published in the county or counties in which the involved highway is located. Sec. 228.204. RULES. [(c) ] The commission shall adopt rules implementing this subchapter [section ], including criteria and guidelines for the approval of a conversion of a highway. Sec. 228.205. QUEEN ISABELLA CAUSEWAY. [(d) ] The commission may not convert the Queen Isabella Causeway in Cameron County to a toll project [facility ].

Sec. 228.206. TOLL REVENUE. [(e) Subchapter G, Chapter 361, applies to a highway converted to a toll facility under this section. [(f) ] Toll revenue collected under this section: (1) shall be deposited in the state highway fund;

(2) may be used by the department to finance the improvement, extension, expansion, or operation of the converted segment of highway and may not be collected except for those purposes; and (3) is exempt from the application of Section 403.095, Government Code.

Sec. 228.207. COUNTY AND VOTER APPROVAL. [(g) ] The commission may only convert a state highway or a segment of a[the ] state highway [ system ] under this subchapter [section ] if the conversion is approved by : (1) the commissioners court of each county within which the highway or segment is located ; and (2) the qualified voters who vote in an election under Section 228.208 and who reside in the limits of: (A) a county if any part of the highway or segment to be converted is located in an unincorporated area of the county; or (B) a municipality in which the highway or segment to be converted is wholly located .

Sec. 228.208. ELECTION TO APPROVE CONVERSION. (a) If notified by the department of the proposed conversion of a highway or segment under this subchapter, and after approval of the conversion by the appropriate commissioners courts as required by Section 228.207(1), the commissioners court of each county described by Section 228.207(2)(A) or the governing body of a municipality described by Section 228.207(2)(B), as applicable, shall call an election for the approval or disapproval of the conversion. (b) If a county or municipality orders an election, the county or municipality shall publish notice of the election in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county or municipality at least once each week for three consecutive weeks, with the first publication occurring at least 21 days before the date of the election. (c) An order or resolution ordering an election and the election notice required by Subsection (b) must show, in addition to the requirements of the Election Code, the location of each polling place and the hours that the polls will be open. (d) The proposition submitted in the election must distinctly state the highway or segment proposed to be converted and the limits of that highway or segment. (e) At an election ordered under this section, the ballots shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The conversion of (highway) from (beginning location) to (ending location) to a toll project.” (f) A proposed conversion is approved only if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast. (g) A notice of the election and a certified copy of the order canvassing the election results shall be sent to the commission.

-30-

Nichols: Redirect state vehicle sales tax back to funding roads

Link to article here.

Now on this idea, we can agree with Senator Robert Nichols. End ALL diversions NOW!

This TxDOT idea might make too much sense to happen
Ben Wear, Austin American Statesman
Sunday, Feb. 14, 2010

Scan the Texas State Directory and you won’t see very many engineers among the 181 members of the Legislature. There are five, to be exact.

State Sen. Robert Nichols, 65, a Republican now in his fourth year representing Jacksonville , is on that short list. And that helps explain why his legislative style sometimes comes off as quirky in the insular world of the Capitol. Nichols seems to have this crazy idea that if there’s a problem and you find a rational solution to it, well, then maybe that ought to become the law.

Take the looming fiscal train wreck for transportation.

The Texas Department of Transportation last year set a record when it awarded $9.4 billion in contracts, and it has about $4.5 million available annually this year and next, still a healthy amount historically. But then comes trouble, with the department pretty much borrowed out (facing close to a billion dollars in annual debt payments) and the federal stimulus largesse gone.

The rhetorical response to that from most legislators (and gubernatorial candidates, both incumbent and challengers) has been along these lines: Don’t raise the gas tax, don’t build too many toll roads and don’t let the private sector get involved much (Gov. Rick Perry’s views on those last two are a conspicuous exception). Instead, most Texas politicians say, let’s cut waste at TxDOT (always a handy and safely vague suggestion) and end the “diversion” of gas taxes and vehicle registration fees from transportation to the state’s general spending.

Problem is, no one can really put a dollar figure on that presumed TxDOT waste. And even throwing into the transportation kitty the remaining $1.2 billion of diversions every two years would make only a tiny dent in what’s needed to stem urban traffic congestion, maintain existing roads and fulfill ambitious high-speed and urban rail plans.

Enter Nichols.

At a recent joint hearing of the House and Senate transportation committees, Nichols had a suggestion. The state’s 6.25 percent sales tax on vehicle sales generates almost $3 billion a year , money that now goes to general state spending. You could call it a diversion as well. Why don’t we put that money into transportation, Nichols asked.

“I’d be willing to run with it, if you think it’s a good idea,” Nichols said.

Metaphorically speaking, you could hear the crickets chirping at that point.

The problem is that the rest of state government has its own money problems, too. That $6 billion every two years would blow a big hole in the overall budget, one that might have to be filled with higher taxes or fees. Yet, can anyone really argue that selling a F-150 pickup has anything to do with education, or prisons, or social services?

But what does Nichols know? He’s only an engineer.

Grassroots hail Adkisson's anti-toll leadership

Link to article slamming Adkisson here.

Op/Ed on Express-News attack of Good Guy Tommy Adkisson
By Terri Hall

Your editorial attacking the leadership of Commissioner Tommy Adkisson couldn’t be more off-base. Adkisson has jumped-in to defend the disenfranchised in our community by LEADING the way in keeping our freeways toll-free. When thousands of San Antonians have spoken out against toll roads and the appointed and elected officials on the local planning board (MPO) continue to ignore the outcry, Commissioner Adkisson risked his own political hide by standing with the people against the big money in town. One of the politicians who ignored the public outcry against toll roads is one of Adkisson’s opponents, former councilwoman and MPO Chair Sheila McNeil.

Your editorial also got the facts wrong. Adkisson took the helm at the MPO with a major focus on fixing 281 and 1604 without tolls and on improving mass transit. He introduced an amendment to re-instate the EXACT same non-toll plan for 281 that had already been vetted, adopted, and in the MPO plans for 5 years (before Governor Perry’s shift to tolling everything). TxDOT wrongfully claimed this non-toll plan wasn’t properly studied. It is TxDOT’s toll agenda that suddenly made the original overpass and expansion plan for 281 “insufficient.”

It’s also inaccurate to claim Adkisson put the stimulus money and interchange project at risk with his proposals. Adkisson merely proposed doing an equal swap from two pots of money to fulfill TxDOT’s arcane matching fund policies, which are discretionary and optional. Transportation Commission approval of the swap was entirely possible if the board had gotten behind it and spoken with one voice, but instead they chose to cower in the corner at TxDOT’s threats to yank the funds if the MPO dared to return 281 to a non-toll project.

Adkisson then withdrew that part of the proposal well before the board was set to vote on it, and testimony from Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Executive Director Terry Brechtel on the day of the final vote affirmed, on the record, that Adkisson’s non-toll amendments DID NOT jeopardize the stimulus funds or the interchange project in ANY WAY.

So what the Editorial Board calls “ill-considered” was, in reality, a power play by an out of control agency bent on double taxing congestion-weary motorists to use a freeway they’ve already built and paid for. The grassroots of this community hail Commissioner Adkisson’s heroic leadership on transportation issues, and urge the voters of Precinct 4 to re-elect this outstanding visionary.

Terri Hall is the Founder/Director of the non-partisan, grassroots San Antonio Toll Party and an Express-News City Brights blogger.

Toll agency lawyer disbarred

Link to article here.

Nielson is a prime example of the revolving door syndrome that dominates transportation/toll issues. He’s not unlike former State Rep. Mike Krusee who nows lobbies his ex-colleagues for big bucks. These guys just get recycled from one job to the next, using their connections from elected office to exploit taxpayers…

Toll road agency lawyer resigns after bar suspension
Tom Nielson served on Round Rock City Council for six years before joining Central Texas Mobility Authority as general counsel in 2006
By Ben Wear AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Monday, Feb. 8, 2010

Tom Nielson, a former Round Rock City Council member and general counsel of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority since 2006, quietly left the toll road agency several weeks ago after the State Bar of Texas suspended his law license.

The five-year suspension of Nielson’s right to practice law, for “professional misconduct,” grows out of a 2000 land deal that went awry several years before he became the toll authority’s lawyer, according to a six-page suspension judgment by the bar. Nielson, according to the judgment, falsely claimed to have put $25,000 in a trust account and gave a “false document” to a partner in the deal purporting to show that the money had been deposited with a title company.

Nielson, 49, who officially left his $164,388-a-year position at the toll authority Jan. 15 after his license was suspended Jan. 1, said that although there was a “discrepancy” involving a document, “I still contend there was no issue with it.” The charges confirmed in the Dec. 28 judgment were of the “he-said-she-said” variety, Nielson said.

“Hey, I’ve lost my career,” Nielson said. “But I’m not a bad guy. It’s not like I made off with millions.”

Instead, Nielson said that he and Byron “Dick” Wilson, of Hutto, were “squeezed out” of the sale of land on U.S. 183 near Anderson Mill Road, well south of where the mobility authority would later build the 183-A toll road. Then Wilson sued in 2006, and Nielson said he paid about $50,000 in a settlement in which he didn’t admit guilt.

He also must pay the State Bar almost $6,000 in attorney fees.

Wilson, who in August 2008 filed the grievance with the State Bar that led to the license suspension, could not be reached for comment.

Mobility authority Executive Director Mike Heiligenstein, whose friendship with Nielson goes back two decades to when their children played youth sports together, said he knew nothing about the disputed land deal between Nielson and Wilson.

“It was never brought up during his employment, or before that during the interview process,” Heiligenstein said. “He obviously thought it had been worked out.”

Nielson told Heiligenstein in mid-December about the bar complaint and that he was resigning, Heiligenstein said. Nielson’s picture and his position with the agency were still posted on the agency’s Web site Monday afternoon. Agency spokesman Steve Pustelnyk , alerted to this, had the post removed later in the day.

Nielson, who graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1986, according to the bar, served on the Round Rock City Council from 1999 to 2005. He became general counsel for the mobility authority several months later, in effect replacing private attorney Brian Cassidy, who had been doing legal work for the agency on a contract basis almost since its creation in 2002.

Cassidy, who had continued to provide some services for the authority, including lobbying at the Capitol, was back in the counsel’s chair when the mobility authority board of directors met Jan. 27.

The bar decision said that Nielson, representing a landowner, in late 2000 had approached another person, identified in the original grievance as Wilson. Nielson and Wilson, anticipating a $100,000 profit on what Nielson described Monday as a “land flip,” agreed that Wilson would put up $25,000 “earnest money.” Two years later, according to the judgment, the partner questioned Nielson about when they would see the profits. Only at that point, the document says, did Nielson reveal that the deal had soured and returned the $25,000.

It was unclear Monday whether that $25,000 was a part of the $50,000 settlement of the lawsuit.

Heiligenstein is interviewing candidates for general counsel, he said Monday.

Shami in debate: "Forget about toll roads"

Link to article here.

White, Shami spar on death penalty, gas tax in Texas Democratic governor debate

11:37 PM CST on Monday, February 8, 2010

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
FORT WORTH – The two main Democratic candidates for governor clashed on the death penalty, increasing the gasoline tax and halting Barnett Shale energy production Monday night in their only statewide televised debate.

Former Houston Mayor Bill White, who covets a November showdown with GOP incumbent Rick Perry, staked out more conservative positions on taxes, crime and the environment than his opponent, Houston businessman Farouk Shami.

Shami, a political newcomer, concentrated on surviving the March 2 primary. Sounding populist themes, he wooed key Democratic constituencies and cast himself as the change agent in the race.

“They want somebody with a clean record,” Shami said of disgruntled voters.

The hourlong debate was calm, with few direct exchanges and plenty of agreement between the two candidates. But it laid bare a number of disagreements between the two that hadn’t been seen before in a campaign that has seen most of the energy on the GOP side.

White opposed placing a moratorium on executions and on natural-gas drilling in urban North Texas’ shale belt, while Shami said justice and public health require both.

Shami said he supports capital punishment, “if we are 110 percent certain” of guilt. But he said recent exonerations, many based on DNA testing, require a pause so that cases can be reviewed.

“We have killed lots of innocent people in the state of Texas,” Shami said – a claim that hasn’t been definitively proven.

White, though, said a moratorium on executions would be too broad. “That would disrespect the juries and the victims,” he said.

White acknowledged the system has problems, but said it generally works pretty well. He said he rejects “one-size-fits-all” solutions in this and other parts of government.

White also managed to get in a dig at Perry on the question, criticizing the governor for reshuffling a state forensic science panel that was scheduled to hear experts on flawed arson science used to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham for the fire that killed his three daughters.

White is considered the front-runner in the race, and many Democrats hope he can avoid a runoff and prepare for a battle against Perry or perhaps U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison while the two go to a protracted runoff. But Shami is spending millions of his own dollars on the race, and with five little-known candidates on the Democratic ballot and low turnout expected, it’s unclear whether White can top 50 percent to avoid an extra round of his own.

Barnett Shale

On the Barnett Shale, which has sparked concern in recent weeks over emissions of benzene, a cancer-causing gas, Shami called for a halt to production.

“Human life is more precious than digging for gas or oil,” he said afterward.

Shami, criticizing air quality in Houston during White’s tenure as mayor, brought up the Barnett Shale, using the one question he was allowed to ask White.

It effectively highlighted how White won’t join him in endorsing a moratorium on the gas drilling, though it’s unclear how widespread voter concern over the issue is statewide.

White stood his ground, saying it would be “unfair to shut down operations of all operators based on what some operators do.”

On transportation, White said he would be reluctant to raise the state’s 20-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, while Shami endorsed an 8-cent increase.

“Yes, I believe in raising the gas a little bit,” Shami said, promising one big benefit to commuters: “Forget about toll roads.”

White said he first wants to quit siphoning off gasoline tax money for nonhighway programs.

He criticized Perry’s appointees to the Texas Transportation Commission for wanting to issue more bonds, eating into road maintenance money.

Economic issues

Shami, who has courted Hispanic voters, criticized existing border policies as inhumane.

“Without Mexicans, you know, it’d be like a day without sunshine in our state,” Shami said.

He promised to create 100,000 new jobs within two years as governor, or he’d personally donate $10 million of his money to the state.

“As a governor, everybody will have a job,” Shami said. Training fire on White, he added: “We lost 43,000 jobs in Houston since he took over.”

White, though, suggested that Shami had overpromised.

“I do not think the governor of Texas has control over the global economy,” White said. “I do think that the governor of Texas can do what we can to prepare our workforce to take advantage of the future.”

Several people in the 40-person studio audience joined a panel of journalists in asking the candidates questions, including Elgie Clayton of Emory, who asked about Texas’ deregulation of electricity in many sections of the state.

That allowed Shami to discuss his vision of eliminating electric bills, by having homeowners install solar panels and sell their unused power to the electricity grid.

White stressed weatherization programs he championed in Houston, and decades of experience in energy that include a high federal post and running businesses.

The debate was sponsored by the same coalition of groups that organized the first of the GOP debates: KERA, in partnership with KTVT-TV (Channel 11) and KTXA-TV (Channel 21), the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, KUVN-TV (Channel 23), the Texas Association of Broadcasters, Texas State Networks and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

__________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

White, Shami try to win votes in only scheduled debate
By Corrie MacLaggan and Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Published: 11:17 p.m. Monday, Feb. 8, 2010

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White largely bypassed opponent Farouk Shami in a televised debate Monday night, instead attacking Gov. Rick Perry and seeking to appeal beyond his party to independents and Republicans.

Shami, meanwhile, criticized White and distanced himself from “career politicians” while making some big promises to Texans: If he’s elected, they won’t have an electric bill in 10 years, and if he doesn’t succeed in creating 100,000 jobs in two years, he’ll give the state $10 million.

“I will be the one to make the American dream a reality to all our citizens,” said Shami, 67, who was born in what was then Palestine and arrived in the United States in 1965. Shami pointed to his participation in the debate as “proof that the American dream is still alive” and likened his candidacy to that of President Barack Obama — whom he referred to as “President Barack Hussein Obama.”

“The state is ready for a brown governor called Farouk Shami,” he said.

The event was the first — and only scheduled — Democratic gubernatorial debate, giving many Texas viewers their first good look at White, a former Houston mayor, and Shami, founder of a Houston-based hair care products company. Though White was a popular mayor, he is not widely known outside of that city, and Shami has never before run for political office. Shami, who is spending millions of his own money on his campaign, has been advertising on TV for months; White recently started airing his TV ads.

White, 55, is the clear choice of Texas’ Democratic establishment, and he seemed to succeed in avoiding major blunders to derail his front-runner status. The former U.S. deputy secretary of energy and former chairman of the Texas Democratic Party said he wants to ensure that legislative sessions “are not hijacked by wedge issues” and said Perry “has brought the partisan politics of Washington to the statehouse.”

White sought to paint himself as a pragmatist who would put consensus over ideology, and in that process he made an appeal to the political center. He said there should never be injustice in the criminal justice system, but he said he supports the death penalty. He did not name any abortion restrictions that he would overturn. He did not embrace a higher gas tax, and he broadly said education and job training would be his top priorities.

At the same time, he did what he needed to do to keep Democratic voters happy, saying he opposes school vouchers and legislation requiring voters to present more identification at the polls.

He stressed that he had sought consensus as mayor of Houston, which appeared to be his way of telling Republican voters that GOP lawmakers would have plenty of seats at the table in his administration.

“I don’t think leadership means getting diverted into the so-called hot button issues that divide Texans,” White said.

Shami attacked White’s work as mayor and characterized himself as better prepared to create jobs.

“You talk about it — I do something about it,” Shami said to White. Shami also said, “People want a change — a major change.”

Shami cited job creation as the solution to a number of the state’s problems, but he did little to spell out how government could create those jobs. Shami also avoided giving direct answers to some questions, including on whether he would mandate the E-Verify system to check whether employees are eligible to work in the United States.

White said that the system is useful but that he wouldn’t create mandates on private employers.

Shami was specific on other issues, saying he supports a moratorium on the death penalty, opposes school vouchers and thinks abortion should be legal for the first two to three months of a woman’s pregnancy.

White gently pointed out some “good faith” differences between himself and Shami, saying that when it comes to finding money to pay for new roads, he wouldn’t start with raising the gas tax, though Shami has said he would raise the tax.

Shami got a question about gay marriage and said he “would not take freedom from any individual.” But though most questions were asked of both candidates, White got a pass on that one.

Both White and Shami called education a priority, with Shami saying he wants to increase teacher salaries and White saying that Texas children deserve a good education “regardless of whether there’s a refinery next door or a mansion” or a modest house.

The debate was held at the CBS 11/TXA 21 studios with a studio audience of about 40 people, some of whom asked questions of the candidates. Other candidates in the Democratic gubernatorial primary — Alma Aguado, Felix Alvarado, William Dear, Clement Glenn and Star Locke — were not invited because they did not meet debate organizers’ criteria.

The winner of the primary will face the winner of the Republican primary — involving Gov. Rick Perry, businesswoman Debra Medina and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison — in November.

At the end of the event, White asked the audience to compare Monday’s debate — which he characterized as civil — with the two previous GOP debates, which he characterized as people shouting over each other.

More pork with gas taxes, this time for "Office of livable communities"

Link to article here. This publication is geared for truckers, but it reveals $500 million in further diversions of our gas taxes that have nothing to do with transportation.

Highway tax dollars for ‘livable communities’
Landline Magazine
February 2, 2010

What exactly are “livable communities,” and how much do they cost? If you’re a highway user, you could begin paying soon for livable communities even if it’s not clear where the money would go.

The Obama administration is proposing to create a new Office of Livable Communities and fund it with $500 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The administration included the concept as part of a $3.8 trillion federal budget request issued Monday, Feb. 1. The budget request includes $78.8 billion for the U.S. Department of Transportation of which $500 million would be used to fund and staff the new office.

Truckers who operate just 4 percent of the registered vehicles on the roadways – but who pay a 36 percent share of the bill for highways and transportation through taxes and fees – deserve to know where the money for “livable communities” will go, OOIDA leadership says.

“We certainly have some concern with it because we believe there could be a serious diversion of highway user dollars to these so-called livable communities and this Office of Livable Communities,” OOIDA Director of Legislative Affairs Mike Joyce told Land Line Now on Sirius XM.

“We’re not sure what the benefits truly will be for America’s highway users and America’s truckers.”

Without a clear intention for the money, the government is leaving no choice but for the highway user to be skeptical, Joyce says.

“I don’t think anybody at DOT or from the Congress has clearly defined what livable communities are,” Joyce said.

“The fear is that there is no definition, that there are no true parameters to what livable communities are and how money can be spent on livable communities. … And so it ends up at the discretion of the secretary of transportation and the folks that are running that office as to how they want to spend that money. That’s a very serious concern.”

BREAKING: TxDOT admits Trans Texas Corridor ALIVE, despite claim it's DEAD

On February 1, 2010, in a Joint Senate and House Transportation Committee hearing, Senator John Carona directly asked TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz if TxDOT decided tomorrow that it wants to build the Trans Texas Corridor after all, does it still have the statutory authority to do so? Saenz answered: “Yes.”

See for yourself below…

Perry & TxDOT continue to lie about tolling existing freeways

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Perry’s debate fib about state law prohibiting tolling existing freeways repeated in news report

(Wednesday, February 3, 2010) Confusion persists about whether or not it is legal to convert free highway lanes into toll lanes in the state of Texas, despite Governor Rick Perry’s claim that it is illegal during the January 29 Republican gubernatorial debate. In an article in the Dallas Morning News February 1, TxDOT spokesman Chris Lippincott stated:

“’The department has made it clear that we have no interest in tolling existing lanes,’ Texas Department of Transportation spokesman Chris Lippincott said this afternoon, when told of the Obama budget provision. ‘Whether we are prohibited from doing so in federal law is irrelevant,’ he said.

The article goes on to say…
“And it wouldn’t be easy, even if the state’s Transportation Commission didn’t have a policy in place that effectively abides by the moratorium. To turn a freeway (or even a single lane of existing roadway) into a toll road, TEXDOT would need a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration. These are granted only rarely. Then, state law requires approval from the county commissioners and then from a county’s voters.”

Terri Hall, Founder of Texas TURF counters, “Not only is TxDOT planning to toll existing lanes, they’re lying about it. The feds are not only aware of the plans for US 281 in San Antonio in particular, it had already granted clearance until we sued to stop them. So rare or not, the feds granted it.”

Perry’s greatest fib of the January 29 debate was his insistence that the Texas legislature passed a bill in 2005 prohibiting the conversion of free lanes to toll lanes. However, the bill, HB 2702, tells precisely how TxDOT can LEGALLY convert existing highway lanes into toll lanes through 6 exceptions, one that allows a conversion of free lanes by simply downgrading the free lanes to access roads adjacent to the tollway.

Though the language doesn’t specifically use the term “access roads” to refer to the relocating of free lanes adjacent to the tollway, TxDOT has consistently interpreted the law to mean it has the authority to downgrade freeway lanes to access roads without triggering a public vote based on HB 2702. See the two-part discussion of this law before the Sunset Commission in 2008 here and here. Part-two shows TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz stating TxDOT’s interpretation of HB 2702 allows highway lanes to be downgraded to access roads.

The bill also contains a gaping grandfather clause that exempts virtually all the toll projects currently on the table (because they were designated as toll roads in MPO plans prior to September of 2005), so no public vote would be triggered for the dozens of grandfathered toll projects.

“Perry’s elitist ‘you can eat cake’ attitude is this: if you can’t afford the toll lanes, you can sit in congestion on the stop-light ridden access roads. He thinks replacing free highway lanes with access roads is acceptable and his highway department is doing it all over Texas,” says Hall.

The citizens’ fight to stop the conversion of existing FREEway lanes into toll lanes on US 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio, 290 West in Austin, and Hwy 59 in East Texas (part of Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 that’s still alive and well) has languished precisely because of the loopholes in HB 2702.

TURF worked 24/7 in the last session to fix these loopholes. Rep. David Leibowitz of San Antonio introduced a bill to do so and got it attached to the TxDOT sunset bill (but it was stripped in the Senate).

“Texans deserve protection from the DOUBLE TAXATION of converting freeways into tollways. Perry was dead wrong to imply Texans are protected in state law. They’re not, especially for the exempted Trans Texas Corridors, like TTC-69, that will ‘upgrade’ existing freeways (like Hwy 59) into tollways at the hands of foreign companies,” Hall emphasized.

See detailed proof of the freeway to tollway conversion plans for US 281 on this web site: http://www.281overpassesnow.com.

Portion of HB 2702 that addresses converting existing highways into toll roads –

SECTION 2.36. Chapter 228, Transportation Code, is amended
by adding Subchapter E to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER E. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DETERMINATION; CONVERSION OF NONTOLLED STATE HIGHWAY Sec. 228.201. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DESIGNATION.
Except as provided by Section 228.2015, the department may not operate a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project, and may not transfer a highway or segment to another entity for operation as a toll project, unless: (1) the commission by order designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the contract to construct the highway or segment was awarded; (2) the highway or segment was open to traffic as a turnpike project on or before September 1, 2005; (3) the project was designated as a toll project in a plan or program of a metropolitan planning organization on or before September 1, 2005; (4) the highway or segment is reconstructed so that the number of nontolled lanes on the highway or segment is greater than or equal to the number in existence before the reconstruction; (5) a facility is constructed adjacent to the highway or segment so that the number of nontolled lanes on the converted highway or segment and the adjacent facility together is greater than or equal to the number in existence on the converted highway or segment before the conversion; or (6) the commission converts the highway or segment to a toll facility by: (A) making the determination required by Section 228.202; (B) conducting the hearing required by Section 228.203; and (C) obtaining county and voter approval as required by Sections 228.207 and 228.208.

Sec. 228.2015. LIMITATION TRANSITION. (a) Notwithstanding
Section 228.201, the department may operate a nontolled state
highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project
if: (1) a construction contract was awarded for the highway or segment before September 1, 2005; (2) the highway or segment had not at any time before September 1, 2005, been open to traffic; and (3) the commission designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the earlier of: (A) the date the highway or segment is opened to traffic; or (B) September 1, 2005. (b) This section expires September 1, 2006.

SECTION 2.37. Section 362.0041, Transportation Code, is
transferred to Subchapter E, Chapter 228, Transportation Code,
redesignated as Sections 228.202-228.208, and amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 228.202 [362.0041 ]. COMMISSION DETERMINATION [CONVERSION OF PROJECTS ]. The [(a) Except as provided in Subsections (d) and (g), the ] commission may by order convert a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway [the free state highway system ] to a toll project [facility ] if it determines that the conversion will improve overall mobility in the region or is the most feasible and economic means to accomplish necessary expansion, improvements, or extensions to that segment of the state highway system.

Sec. 228.203. PUBLIC HEARING. [(b) ] Prior to converting a state highway or a segment of a[the ] state highway [ system ] under
this subchapter [section ], the commission shall conduct a public
hearing for the purpose of receiving comments from interested
persons concerning the proposed conversion [transfer ]. Notice of
the hearing shall be published in the Texas Register, one or more
newspapers of general circulation, and a newspaper, if any,
published in the county or counties in which the involved highway is
located. Sec. 228.204. RULES. [(c) ] The commission shall adopt
rules implementing this subchapter [section ], including criteria and guidelines for the approval of a conversion of a highway. Sec. 228.205. QUEEN ISABELLA CAUSEWAY. [(d) ] The commission may not convert the Queen Isabella Causeway in Cameron
County to a toll project [facility ].

Sec. 228.206. TOLL REVENUE. [(e) Subchapter G, Chapter
361, applies to a highway converted to a toll facility under this
section. [(f) ] Toll revenue collected under this section:
(1) shall be deposited in the state highway fund;
(2) may be used by the department to finance the
improvement, extension, expansion, or operation of the converted
segment of highway and may not be collected except for those
purposes; and (3) is exempt from the application of Section 403.095,
Government Code.

Sec. 228.207. COUNTY AND VOTER APPROVAL. [(g) ] The
commission may only convert a state highway or a segment of a[the ]
state highway [ system ] under this subchapter [section ] if the
conversion is approved by : (1) the commissioners court of each county within
which the highway or segment is located ; and (2) the qualified voters who vote in an election under Section 228.208 and who reside in the limits of: (A) a county if any part of the highway or segment to be converted is located in an unincorporated area of the county; or (B) a municipality in which the highway or segment to be converted is wholly located .

Sec. 228.208. ELECTION TO APPROVE CONVERSION. (a) If
notified by the department of the proposed conversion of a highway
or segment under this subchapter, and after approval of the
conversion by the appropriate commissioners courts as required by
Section 228.207(1), the commissioners court of each county
described by Section 228.207(2)(A) or the governing body of a
municipality described by Section 228.207(2)(B), as applicable,
shall call an election for the approval or disapproval of the
conversion. (b) If a county or municipality orders an election, the
county or municipality shall publish notice of the election in a
newspaper of general circulation published in the county or
municipality at least once each week for three consecutive weeks,
with the first publication occurring at least 21 days before the
date of the election. (c) An order or resolution ordering an election and the
election notice required by Subsection (b) must show, in addition
to the requirements of the Election Code, the location of each
polling place and the hours that the polls will be open. (d) The proposition submitted in the election must distinctly state the highway or segment proposed to be converted
and the limits of that highway or segment. (e) At an election ordered under this section, the ballots shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition:
“The conversion of (highway) from (beginning location) to (ending
location) to a toll project.” (f) A proposed conversion is approved only if it is approved
by a majority of the votes cast. (g) A notice of the election and a certified copy of the
order canvassing the election results shall be sent to the
commission.

-30-