There can be no doubt about the intentions of our corrupt UN-elected transportation officials. They will lie, cheat, and steal to convert our freeways into tollways, even when they’re paid for. Chair of the tolling authority, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (ARMA), Bill Thornton promised motorists if it got stimulus funds for 281, it WOULD NOT BE TOLLED. Then, when you look at the project list submitted to TxDOT, it clearly lists 281 as a toll project, in spite of stimulus funding. The deception and lies are breathtaking!

January 14, 2009 –

Bill Thornton states: “If the project is paid for through federal funds, you don’t need that option of tolling.”

February 23, 2009 –

Project list submitted to House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding: “281 north of Loop 1604 – Construct new toll road” (which is in itself misleading since it’s NOT new, they’ll convert every lane we drive on today to a toll lane and the NEW lanes they build will be the frontage roads to the outside)

Link to proposed draft legislation here.

The RMA’s involvement in lobbying for this change in legislation is obvious to any casual observer, especially in trying to persuade the Transportation Task Force to modify their initial plan to simply dissolve the RMA and turn it into a merger instead. This constitutes illegal lobbying for the passage of specific legislation (violation of Texas Government Code Chapter 556.005), particularly in the RMA’s attempts to lobby to keep their jobs. We are bringing this to the attention of law enforcement officials.

The fundamental question is, why a merger instead of just dissolving the RMA? The ATD can do toll projects as well as most every other type of transportation project. We do not need to continue $1 million in salaries and benefits for employees who perform the same function of an existing board.

The language of this proposed legislation is so broad and liberal (it even states to construe it as liberally as possible in the text) that its powers could be construed to mean just about anything!

Here’s just the start of our list of concerns:
It allows the authority to toll a road without a vote if they use local funds instead of state money! The bill allows CDAs, including concession fees, which the people of Bexar County are adamantly opposed to, and even Judge Nelson Wolff himself stated publicly that he’s against a CDA with concession fees that take the money and control of our highways away from the people of Texas.

This bill throws fiscal responsibility and accountability to the wind. The authority could impose ANY kind of tax allowing total runaway taxation and bureaucracy run amok. The bill likewise allows the authority to steal money from one project to pay for another known as “system financing,” which results in one part of the community being overtaxed to subsidize projects elsewhere.

This lacks transparency and makes following the money trail near impossible. It allows un-elected bureaucrats to use taxes for purposes the taxpayers never intended. A tax should be tied to a specific project and sunset when the project is paid for, period. If more money is needed down the road, then you come to the voters and ask for it. Taxation in perpetuity in the hands of a band of unelected bureaucrats is legalized thievery.

If a road is tolled, it should be paying for the pavement those motorists are driving on, not used as a targeted tax to subsidize projects elsewhere. This bill creates the ability to co-mingle funds and pots of money to deceive voters and hide the fact that certain projects are not self-sustaining or truly viable projects. This authority would be more of the same elitist attitude we’ve seen from this Board….just give us your money because we know how to spend it better than you do.

The bill would allow the authority to form its own government-owned corporation to finance its own projects, which was defeated by the last Legislature. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, the level of self-interest and incentive to make poor investment decisions (knowing the taxpayers will bail you out) is staggering!!

Lastly, it’s clear the intent of this authority is to engulf the Hill County and outlying counties into its boundaries by hook or by crook. The people and their elected representatives in the outlying areas have clearly spoken at past MPO meetings that they DO NOT WANT THIS!

A more detailed analysis of our concerns are attached. When will the public comment on the specific proposed legislation begin since last week’s hearing failed to produce the bill?
________________________________________________________________

Specific areas of concern by section:
1) Sec 451.901 6) (c) allows for monitoring of citizens

2) Sec 451.901 6) (f) allows for concession fees (presumably through CDAs and private sheisters)

3) Sec 451.901 7) can lump virtually any transportation project into their “system,” which allows for “system financing” (code for stealing from Peter to pay Paul; targeted tax on one set of folks to give it to another, or subsidize another)

4) Sec 451.901 13) creates the ability to co-mingle funds and pots of money to subsidize ANYTHING without coming to the voters or doing so in a transparent way. It also allows an un-elected Board to levy taxes of all sorts without direct representation. It creates the ability to deceive voters and hide the fact that certain projects are not self-sustaining or truly viable projects.

5) Sec 451.902 – allows them to “liberally construe” the law to do anything they want. [again in Sec  Sec 451.905 (d)]

6) Sec 451.903 (b) (1) mentions multiple counties. It was clear at the MPO meeting last October that the people nor their elected representatives in the Hill Country want to have anything to do with Bexar County toll roads and MPO agenda. The language of this bill makes it clear in multiple places that this new entity could perform a hostile takeover of the Hill Country through designating a project outside the county lines as a “system.”

7) Sec 451.903 (b) (2) transfers the RMA’s toxic debts and its $1 million dollar salaries, benefits, and pensions to VIA/ATD with no assurances in writing that TxDOT will continue to fund this failed agency (and why should they?).

8) Sec 451.904 references planning and development of “mobility” (code for toll) projects in the authority’s county(ies) AND region thereby allowing toll projects in areas outside Bexar County where residents may be adamantly opposed to them. Allows the authority to make transportation decisions for other counties!

9) Sec 451.904 (d) transfers RMA salaries, pensions, employees and obligations to ATD…this doesn’t shrink government for maximum efficiency, it bloats the agency with guaranteed work and wages for RMA employees who have yet to produce ANYTHING in 5 years!

10) Sec 451.905 (a) grants virtually unlimited powers to itself by this nebulous statement “has the power necessary or convenient to carry out this subchapter or to effect a purpose of this subchapter” (“to effect purpose” has staggering legal implications)

11) Sec 451.905 (f) can impose ANY kind of tax (except property tax)…total runaway taxation and bureaucracy run amok

12) Sec 451.905 (i) – this section is governed by Sec. 451.705.  “SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS.  (a)  If the initial election under Section 451.702 is held only in the principal municipality, or if the voters of another municipality or the unincorporated area of a county do not vote to join the district at the initial election under Section 451.702, the governing body of the other municipality or the commissioners court of the county may order an election in the municipality or the county at a later date on the question of joining the district…”

People would only be able to vote for or against the proposed tax hike, and aren’t given a real choice of between methods of financing and the specific projects that a tax hike would fund. A tax should be tied to specific projects, not placed in a pot of money that can be used on things the voters didn’t directly approve. That would be the only fair way to do an election on transportation issues…you are given choices, not yes or no roads!

13) Sec 451.905 (i) could form its own government-owned corporation to finance its own projects! Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, the level of self-interest and incentive to make poor investment decisions (knowing the taxpayers will bail you out) is staggering!!

14) Sec 451.907 (4) (b) allows two RMA board members to be holdovers (not to mention Henry Munoz is already running the board).

15) Sec 451.907 (f) (2) prohibits elected official to serve as director of this taxing entity. That’s precisely who should be serving on this Board, it’s called taxation WITH representation, not the other way around!

16) Sec 451.907 (D) allows board member to receive financial compensation for real property acquired by the authority if he/she can claim it wasn’t known at the time of his/her initial appointment. The Board member ought to resign from the Board in such an instance and, at a minimum, recuse himself by abstaining from voting on the item. (Basic conflict of interest and bad ethics to not force recusal!)

17) Sec 451.909 (b) allows them to still issue debt without it being its report to the county/city in its strategic plan, so what’s the point of the reporting to them and having a plan if it can be ignored? This isn’t accountability; it’s just checking a box!

18) Sec 451.910 potentially allows the authority to overtake/govern outlying areas by designating a project a “system” without that territory’s permission. This section allows them to steal from one project or area to subsidize another. Bad public policy and co-mingles the money making transparency difficult.

19) Sec 451.911 (d) allows debt to be sold to private entities for private gain and allows debt for up to 50 years versus the traditional 30 yr municipal bond terms.

20) Sec 451.912 vague wording, “all powers are cumulative” and can be exercised either independently or in combination (with who? or what?) What does this mean? Could it mean in concert with a private toll operator like a Cintra?

21) Sec 451.913 this section should tie ANY sales and use tax to specific projects. By allowing a big pot of money to be used at the board’s sole discretion without notifying voters of what projects types it could fund, they could finance a toll road WITHOUT A PUBLIC VOTE, which was promised when the ATD was formed. So this is a loophole, even Tuggey admitted they could toll without a vote if they didn’t use state money and used local money instead! You can be sure they’ll exploit it!

22) Sec 451.918 E. would allow CDAs, which the people of Bexar County have consistently rejected (hence the moratorium and the kabosh on the 281/12604 CDA in the 2007 legislative session (SB 792).

Subchapter M of Sec 451 in the Transportation Code allows for the withdrawl from an authority, so surely there’s a away to dissolve the RMA, too. However, when you look at the procedure to withdrawl, in some cases, up to 20% of registered voters must sign a petition for a withdrawl election, which is a near impossible threshold to meet! After withdrawl, the region withdrawing has to pay back all the funds it ever received from the authority (again making it near impossible to withdraw)!

By contrast, the existing law on the public hearings to create a Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority takes just 500 signatures and the City can call for election to create one, but it takes 20% of ALL voters to dissolve it. That’s NUTS! The RMA and Via gave less than a week’s notice for its public hearing February 5, this law says it should be at least 2 weeks and published in the paper for those 2 weeks. Without a bill to scrutinize or comment on, Sec 451.653 could not be fulfilled. See below…

Sec. 451.652.  NOTICE OF HEARING.  (a)  Notice of the time and place of the hearing on the creation of an authority, including a description of the area proposed to be included in the authority, shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the alternate municipality. The first publication of the notice must be published not later than 15 days before the date scheduled for the hearing.

(b)  The governing body of the alternate municipality shall furnish a copy of the notice under Subsection (a) to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Sec. 451.653.  CONDUCT OF HEARING.  (a)  The governing body of the alternate municipality shall conduct the hearing on the creation of the authority at the place and time specified in the notice of the hearing. The hearing may be continued during the periods necessary to complete the hearing.

(b)  Any interested person may appear at the hearing and offer:

(1)  evidence on the issues described by Section 451.654(a); or

(2)  other facts bearing on the creation, construction, or operation of the proposed transit authority system.

Link to Editorial here.

Since the tolling authority, Alamo RMA, and the transit authority, Via, are proposing to merge the agencies and use toll revenues to subsidize mass transit and light rail, this editorial is crucial to the debate.

As America’s largest city without rail transit, some people want San Antonio to “keep up” by building light rail. You need to know only one thing: Light rail is really expensive.

I mean, really, really expensive. The average mile of light-rail line costs two to five times as much as an urban freeway lane-mile. Yet in 2007 the average light-rail line carried less than one-seventh as many people as the average freeway lane-mile in cities with light rail.

Do the math: Light rail costs 14 to 35 times as much to move people as highways.

The Government Accountability Office found that bus-rapid transit—frequent buses with limited stops—provided faster, better service at 2 percent of the capital cost and lower operating costs than light rail.

If light rail is so expensive, why are cities building it? Starting in the 1970s, Congress offered cities hundreds of millions of dollars for transit capital improvements. If they bought buses, they wouldn’t have enough money to operate those buses.

So cities like Portland and Sacramento decided to build light rail—because it was expensive. Only light rail would use up all the millions of federal dollars. Other cities that wanted their share of federal pork soon began planning light rail, too.

How successful is light rail? In 1980, before Portland began building light rail, 9.8 percent of the region’s commuters took transit to work. Today, it is 7.6 percent.

Since 1980, Portland has spent more than $2.3 billion, half the region’s transportation capital funds, building light rail. Yet light rail carries less than 1 percent of Portland-area travel. That’s a success?

In 2002, Dallas opened a new light-rail line, doubling the number of miles in the city’s light-rail system. The new line attracted some rail riders, but the region lost more bus riders than it gained rail riders.

This often happens because rail’s high cost forces transit agencies to cut bus service. When Los Angeles started building rail transit to white, middle-class neighborhoods, it cut bus service to black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The city lost more bus riders than it ever gained in rail riders, and an NAACP lawsuit forced the city to restore buses and curtail its rail plans.

Is light rail good for the environment? Hardly. Dallas and Denver light-rail lines consume about as much energy and emit about as much greenhouse gases per passenger mile as the average SUV.

Engineering, construction, and rail car companies make huge profits from light rail. Their political contributions promote new rail lines. Siemens Transportation donated $100,000 to Denver’s light-rail campaign and was rewarded with a $184 million railcar contract.

Some people say San Antonio should build light rail because Dallas and Houston have light rail. To paraphrase American mothers, if Dallas and Houston jumped off a cliff, should San Antonio jump as well?

Taxpayers lose because their money is wasted on rail when buses could do the same thing for less. Transit riders lose when transit agencies cut bus service to pay for rail. Commuters lose when money spent on rail, which does nothing to relieve congestion, delays projects that actually can reduce congestion.

Light rail is a giant hoax that makes rail contractors rich and taxpayers poor. San Antonio should be proud to be America’s largest city that hasn’t fallen for this hoax.

Link to article here.

Link to article here.

Non Toll Alternative for 281 Proposed
Local officials to submit wish list for federal economic stimulus funds
By Jim Forsyth
WOAI Newsradio
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

For the first time ever, officials are floating a proposal to build the long planned new main lanes of US 281 outside of Loop 1604, without making them toll lanes, 1200 WOAI news reports.

The Regional Mobility Authority today proposed submitting $2.7 billion in local highway construction projects for approval under the proposed Federal Infrastructure Economic Stimulus Act, which President Elect Barack Obama says will allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to ‘shovel worthy’ projects nationwide as a way to create jobs. One of the proposals submitted by the RMA is the $585 million US 281 construction project.

“If those dollars are going to be pushed through to communities across the nation, we’re saying, we have the projects, we’re ready to go, and this will solve real needs in our community today,” said Dr. William Thornton, former San Antonio Mayor and RMA Chairman.

Other projects on the RMA’s wish list include the long awaited interchange between US 281 and Loop 1604, which Thornton says has already obtained environmental clearance and could begin construction immediately, and expansion of Loop 1604 from Military to Braun Road into a six lane expressway. Also, construction of an interchange at Loop 1604 and State Highway 151 near Sea World is on the list, along with completion of the Wurzbach Parkway.

Thornton says any of the projects approved would be designated as ’free’ roadways and tolls would not be collected.

“Tolling is simply a way to pay for the project,” he said. “If the project is paid for through federal funds, you don’t need that option of tolling.”

Thornton held open the possibility that the feds will approve construction of a portion of 281, leaving local officials to find a way to pick up the tab for the rest.

He says competition will be stiff for the money, but he says the San Antonio projects

Have additional advantages that projects in other communities may not have.
>
“These projects are not just for convenience,” he said. “The congestion which exists in that area is not only terribly inconvenient for motorists, but it is also an environmental issue when it comes to clean air due to the idling traffic. None of us like cars driving over the Aquifer, and what we like even less is cars sitting over the Aquifer with their motors running. So this is more than just building a road, it solves congestion, clean air issues, and has many benefits that other projects around the country may not have.”

The economic stimulus plan has not been approved by Congress, so it is unclear when a decision may be mad eon which projects to fund. The RMA’s proposals still have to be approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move Thornton says he hopes will happen next week.

Link to article here.

Voters may get say on toll roads
By Pat Driscoll
Express-News
December 20, 2008

Talks are gaining steam to abolish San Antonio’s fledging toll-road agency and give voters a long-demanded say-so on toll roads.Shuttering the five-year-old Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, which still is several years away from opening a toll road, would be a byproduct of a still-sketchy idea to merge the agency and VIA Metropolitan Transit into the existing Advanced Transportation District.

Voters approved the ATD and its quarter-cent sales tax in 2004 to expand bus service, upgrade city streets and build highway lanes. The district, which follows the city’s boundary, also can construct and operate toll roads and light rail.

Amid the bureaucratic wrangling lies a catch. Promises made during the ATD referendum forbid spending on tolls or rail without additional public votes.

“That was a valid pledge,” insists attorney Tim Tuggey, a former VIA and ATD chairman now advising the toll agency.

Giving the public a vote on toll roads is the right thing to do anyway, say a bevy of toll supporters now advocating the consolidation of the agencies.

“After all these years, I’ve just come to the point, if they want it, fine, if they don’t, fine,” County Judge Nelson Wolff said. “I believe people ought to get what they ask for.”

Toll critics aren’t sure whether to smile or frown.

The result could be ugly if funding isn’t tied to specific projects and limited to a time frame, said Terri Hall of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom.

“Yes, we want the public vote,” she said. “But I don’t want a public vote to be a sweetener to a really bad deal before opening the door to a big Pandora’s box.”

Sales tax revenues traditionally used for transit could end up subsidizing toll roads, Hall said. Or tollway profits could shift to another side of town to help pay for a light-rail line.

Tuggey, who’s writing possible legislation to create the superagency, maintains voters would have to sign off on mixing different piles of money.

“This is not an end run to get toll roads,” he said.

The merger idea bubbled into the public spotlight this week after germinating a month ago in behind-the-scene talks among members of a city-county task force. The group is drawing up regional transportation goals.

Piecemeal authority of too many agencies has hobbled planning and financing the city’s roads and transit, officials argue. Also, speaking with one voice could help tap transportation funds that soon could flow more freely from Washington.

“If we’re going to be in the hunt for what we think is going to come down the line, we have to get organized sooner than later,” VIA board member Mary Briseño told the task force, which she sits on. “We don’t have time to just kick this around. We need to be bold.”

Many hoops remain — enough to foster concerns on how the agencies should be meshed.

“I want to see it in black and white before I make a decision,” VIA board and task force member Linda Chavez-Thompson said. “The devil is in the details. Where exactly does the power and authority lie?”

Other task force members say the challenges can and must be met.

“I think there’s a real good chance of it,” Terrell McCombs said of the possibility. “We need to do this if we’re going to take the next step to the future.”

Tuggey, working pro bono to craft an enabling bill, laid out key issues to work out:

•The jurisdictions to collect and allocate ATD and VIA sales tax revenues — VIA levies a half-cent — would have to remain independent unless voters later say differently.

•The ATD board — with five members appointed by the city, three by the county and two by suburban cities — might expand to give the county two more seats and the governor a pick. On the tollway panel to be phased out, the county fills four seats and the governor selects the chairman.

•The tollway agency’s agreements with the state, including a $12.4 million loan and $18.7 million left from a grant, would have to be transferred.

Bill Thornton, who chairs both the task force and the toll agency, urged officials to press on with the enormous chore.

“This isn’t baby steps, it’s huge,” he told the task force Wednesday. “Let’s aim toward getting something on paper.”