It never ceases to amaze me that the U.S. has seen fit to outsource its own security, to foreign companies at that! Note the bungling by this Bristish firm, Wackenhut, like falling asleep on the job and accidentally discharging weapons, and these people supposedly secure 30 nuclear power plants in the U.S.! We need to make our government shift away from the privatization not only of our infrastructure but of our own security.

Link to Fox News article here.

DHS Dumps British-Owned Security Firm
Sunday , April 16, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Fox News

WASHINGTON — Not long after national debate raged on the use of foreign entities to operate critical U.S. infrastructures, the Department of Homeland Security has made an about face, dumping a British-based security firm that was contracted to protect the buildings where U.S. security policy is formed.

DHS had received a variety of complaints about Wackenhut Services, Inc., and was supposed to sign a new security contract on April 1. Instead, Paragon Systems of Chantilly, Va., announced last week it was getting the five-year, $29 million contract.

“I welcome the news that the Department of Homeland Security is finally starting to get serious about its own security,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., praised the department’s switch. “We will keep a close eye on the new contractor and make sure that higher standards equal better security at the department tasked with keeping our nation secure.”

Wackenhut, however, isn’t gone from the U.S. grid. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Wackenhut Corporation, which in 2002 merged with a Danish security conglomerate, now known as Group 4 Securicor and based in London, England, Wackenhut Services Inc., has had security contracts throughout federal, state and local governments for decades.

Among the U.S. sites where Wackenhut provides security are no fewer than 30 nuclear power plants, a number of Army bases and some nuclear weapons facilities. The deal with DHS was reportedly worth $9 million a year.

Foreign Ownership to Blame?

Earlier in the year, a contract for Dubai Ports World to run terminals in six U.S. ports was scuttled after outcries that security was being turned over to one of the monarchs in the United Arab Emirates. Criticism was rampant of a U.S. government that would allow sensitive U.S. facilities and other sites vulnerable to attacks to be operated by foreign-owned firms. The terminals DP World wanted to run had been previously operated by British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., without complaint

But the increased scrutiny helped bring notice to other relationships, and Wackenhut’s recent troubles were highlighted by the fact that it is foreign-owned.

In February, Dorgan and Wyden wrote to DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner about the security problems with Wackenhut. The request for review came at nearly the same time the two, and a long list of other lawmakers, urged President Bush to block the DP World deal.

“It is still a mystery why the department charged with keeping the homeland secure finds it necessary to contract out its own headquarters building security,” Dorgan said after DHS announced it was dropping Wackenhut. “It is, however, a step in the right direction that they are dumping the firm that demonstrated so vividly its inability to do the job.”

Wackenhut has a staff of 8,000 employees in the United States and has provided security across the government spectrum since the corporation was founded in Florida in 1960, according to its Web site. John Pike, head of GlobalSecurity.org, a clearinghouse for national security information and intelligence, said Wackenhut has done a solid job in providing private security to the government for many years and cannot be judged by the recent uproar. He discounted its foreign ownership as cause for concern.

“They had the space shuttle contract 25 years ago,” said Pike, whose background is with NASA. “It’s a well-respected company, it’s been around for a long time and they know what they are doing.”

But watchdog Peter Stockton, a former security adviser to the secretary of Energy during the Clinton administration and an expert with the Project on Government Oversight, a nuclear energy watchdog, said the sensitive nature of protecting the country’s critical infrastructure should lead the government to think twice about handing security contracts over to any foreign entity — even those from friendly London, England.

“Wackenhut knows the capabilities of all our nuclear power plants and weapons facilities and you really don’t want that info to go any farther than it has to go,” he said.

A Wackenhut spokesman was unavailable for comment for this article, company officials said, but the corporation’s Web site stresses that when Wackenhut merged with the foreign conglomerate in 2002, it was subjected to U.S. law that requires the subsidiary to remain separate from its parent company.

“There is absolutely no foreign control or influence over any part of WSI,” the Web site states. “Additionally, any contact including communication — no matter how casual — that WSI’s employees have with the parent company or other affiliates/subsidiaries must be fully reported and is reviewed by the United States government.”

More Than Just Questionable Parentage

The soured deal with DHS isn’t the only Wackenhut contract that has fallen under scrutiny. In February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear power plants, announced an inspection into the Turkey Point facility in Florida, where Wackenhut guards are employed. The NRC would not comment beyond a press release that cited “significant issues” at Turkey Point.

According to The Patriot-News in Pennsylvania, the NRC also plans to investigate the Wackenhut security forces at Three Mile Island nuclear plant, focusing on fitness-for-duty issues like fatigue and sleeping on the job.

Dan Dorman, director of the security operations division of the NRC, said he could not talk about specific investigations into Wackenhut.

“There are sites that have Wackenhut security that have had good [security] programs and others that have had not so good programs,” Dorman said. “It varies from site to site. [Wackenhut] has not stood out either way.”

Dorman said Wackenhut’s foreign parentage is not the cause for concern. “The individuals who are running the security undergo rigorous background checks and are subject to ongoing fitness for duty programs,” he said.

If not its ownership, Wackenhut’s employees have been subject of considerable concern.

In February, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Wackenhut security guards at the Nevada test site flunked a drill in which mock terrorists attacked the site. In Tennessee last September, during confusion over whether it was a real attack, a guard accidentally discharged live ammunition in what was supposed to be a drill at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, wrote The New York Times.

Also in February, two rifles were stolen from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant in Florida, reported The Associated Press. Two years before, six Wackenhut guards were removed from duty there after an audit found they were skipping part of their rounds.

Guards who came forward about DHS lapses said security there has failed periodic drills, too. In March, several current and former guards went to members of Congress with charges ranging from lax gate and building security, fatigued guards, lack of training, and in one case, the inappropriate handling of mail containing a possible toxic substance that later turned out to be a false alarm.

“Wackenhut has not been a good steward,” watchdog Stockton said

Prior to the new contract announcement, DHS spokesman Brian Doyle said he could not speak to Wackenhut’s other government contracts, but the company has “been a good partner” in its work at DHS. He added that Wackenhut had been working from protocols that hadn’t been updated by the government since DHS took over the Navy Yard facilities two years ago.

“There is more than enough evidence that we have good security … these issues were addressed quickly and efficiently,” Doyle said of the complaints.

Pike said a lot of security companies have “had growing pains” as they’ve been expected to expand, adjust and become more cost-effective following the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. “I think generally, it is well respected in the field and the question of where the corporation is currently headquartered is not a significant factor one way or another,” he said of Wackenhut.

As for other facilities, Lawrence Brede, senior vice president for Department of Energy Operations at Wackenhut, testified before Congress in July about the training and competency of Wackenhut guards at the nation’s nuclear weapons plants. He said he was assured they had the most professional, ready force available, and as a former U.S military man, he would vouch for it.

“Our protective forces are well trained … as capable as any of the military forces with which I have served,” Brede testified. “In fact, the majority of protective force officers with whom I am familiar come from a military or law enforcement background, and bring with them the skills that are necessary for the protections of our national security.”

Critics continue to argue that Wackenhut’s less-than-sterling record in a post Sept. 11 environment means the government should not be taking chances.

“People are really shocked to find out that our government has contracted homeland security to a company with such a troubling record,” said Gina Bowers, spokeswoman for the SEIU, the nation’s largest security officers’ union, which tracks Wackenhut on its Web site.

“Why are they the U.S government’s number one supplier of homeland security? There has got to be someone out there that can do this better,” Bowers added.

Wackenhut’s Web site counters that SEIU is running a smear campaign because it wants to unionize Wackenhut’s guards. Bowers has rejected the idea that the SEIU is actively trying to organize at Wackenhut, however, an SEIU Web site takes aim at Group 4 Securicor, Wackenhut’s international parent, for what it calls efforts by the company to prevent unionizing at its global shops.

Read Driscoll’s blog.

Cintra is known as the most expensive toll operator in the world. The lawsuit by the Province of Ontario affirms this. The lawsuit has recently been dropped as Cintra has agreed to mitigate some of its AGGRESSIVE toll collections tactics. This is who YOUR government is inviting in to control our publucly owned infrastructure in 50 year deals. Read on….

Toll giant gets a break
By Pat Driscoll
Express-News
April 06, 2006

Things are looking better for Cintra — a Spanish company eyeing a 47-mile toll project in San Antonio — now that it has settled legal disputes plaguing its cash cow in Ontario.

The Province of Ontario recently agreed to drop its lawsuits over Cintra’s toll increases and aggressive collections for 407 ETR, according to TOLLROADSnews.

In return, Cintra will offer toll discounts for frequent users and truckers, hold off on collection agents and credit reporting while dispute resolution processes are under way, give customers better information on appeal options and add new lanes 10 years ahead of schedule.

For more details, see this statement from the Ministry of Transportation and this statement from Cintra.

Within days, Cintra stock began climbing, Bloomberg reported.

“We view this as very positive for Cintra,” an analyst is quoted as saying. “In our view 407 ETR is one of the world’s premier toll roads due to its freedom in setting prices.”

It’s certainly the premier toll road for Cintra, which has more than a dozen highway concessions in six countries. The firm owns 53 percent of the 407 ETR operation and last year reaped 40 percent of its total revenues from the highway, the Bloomberg story said.

Sydney-based Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin Group own the rest. Macquarie and Cintra have also teamed up to run the Indiana Toll Road and the Chicago Skyway, but are competing in San Antonio to take over proposed toll lanes on Loop 1604 and U.S. 281.

Meanwhile, tolls on 407 ETR aren’t expected to be raised again until next year, Ontario officials say.

Star-Telegram link here.

Click on the maps to view where the corridor will go. That’s where you can see where the corridor joins I-35 from San Antonio to Laredo.

There are better ways to relieve I-35 truck traffic without taking 2,400 square miles of private Texans’ land and handing it over to a foreign toll operator! For instance, TxDOT could double deck I-35 for much less money and take no new right of way. Read on to see our current Governor’s vision, which is to take our land and grant foreign companies monopolies over our publicly-owned infrastructure displacing nearly 1 million people, and pave over parks, historic sites, landfills, and aquifers.

NOTE: They are planning to toll EXISTING portions of I-35 from San Antonio to Laredo! Does TxDOT have any credibility left? They along with Mr. Krier and others continue to state NO EXISTING lanes will be tolled, and yet here it is in black and white! These corridor plans are clearly a conversion of a free road to a toll road and it puts one of the key trade routes in Texas and America under the control of a foreign company! That means, what you drive on today for FREE will require a 50+ year toll tax to Cintra-Zachry to drive to Laredo if VOTERS DO NOT STOP GOVERNOR PERRY’S plan to pave and toll Texas!

Path of Trans-Texas Corridor toll road becoming clear
Tue, Apr. 04, 2006
By GORDON DICKSON
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

More than 2,400 square miles of prime farm land, 13 square miles of parks and 63 landfills are potentially in the path of a proposed toll road from North Texas to Laredo, according to an environmental study released Tuesday.

Nearly 1 million Texans live within the proposed route. At least 46 threatened or endangered plant and animal species call it home, too.

Those are among the details in a draft environmental impact study released by the Federal Highway Administration.

The document brings Texas Department of Transportation officials closer to their goal of opening the futuristic, tolled highway by 2015. A private team, Cintra Zachry, has been hired to plan the $6 billion road. The mission is to relieve congestion and move much of the heavy truck traffic from the Interstate 35 corridor across the state.

Many bureaucratic steps remain, including about 50 public hearings that are tentatively scheduled across the state this summer to give residents a closer look at the road’s projected path. Meetings in the Fort Worth area likely will be in June, a TxDot official says.

Texans who want to read the environmental study can access it online at www.dot.state.tx.us — but be warned, including appendices it’s about 4,000 pages long. But residents can click on maps and see how close their property is to the route, which has now been narrowed to a width of about 10 miles.

It closely follows Interstate 35 and Interstate 35E east of Dallas.

Other facts:

• The toll road would be 521 miles long. Most of it would be new road, but the project also would incorporate a portion of existing I-35 from San Antonio to Laredo.

• Of the 980,667 people who live in the path, 48 percent are minorities and 24 percent are below the poverty level.

• The route includes five federally recognized historic sites of 23 acres or greater.

• The route would traverse three major and six minor aquifers.

NOTE: The Trans Texas Corridor will receive funds from the blank check Prop 1 corporate rail slush fund just like we said it would before the voters of Texas got duped into passing it!

Authorities eye high-speed cross border train from Dallas – Mexico
Robin Brundell
BNamericas.com
Business News Americas (Latin America’s Business Leader)
Friday, March 31, 2006

The Texas Transportation Commission (TTC), part of the US state’s Department of Transportation (TxDOT), has received a proposal from two construction firms to build a high-speed rail route from Dallas into Mexico, said deputy executive director of the TxDOT, Steve Simmons, confirming local news reports.

The railroad, nearly 1,000km long, would be part of the Trans Texas Corridor project, an ambitious plan to combine roads, rail transport, utilities and energy pipelines in a single corridor.

The plan, being worked on by the US construction firm Zachry and its Spanish partner Cintra, would use less land than traditional expansion methods, improving transport efficiency and taking hazardous cargo away from heavily populated areas.

Nearly half of Texas’ population lives within 50 miles (80km) of the I-35 interstate highway, which runs for a total 2,518km, passing through Texas from Duluth in Minnesota, eventually reaching Laredo on the Mexican border.

Because of the high levels of congestion on this highway, Texas authorities have been forced to act and that response has been the basis of the Trans Texas Corridor scheme, which in principle would run parallel to I-35 and would be called the TTC-35.

“We solicited proposals on that and selected [the consortium] Cintra-Zachry… and they teamed together and came up with a proposal,” Simmons told BNamericas.

The contract with the firms is to look the best ways of executing and financing the corridor, said the US official, adding: “We’re looking at this as a public-private venture.”

This corridor, which would cost an estimated total of US$5bn, would be developed over the next 50 years using a market-based toll system to make developments as and when they are needed.

“The Trans Texas Corridor is not just a toll highway as we look at it today. The long range is separate car and truck lanes, plus six rail lines, which would carry high-speed freight and commuter rail services, and a corridor for utilities,” the TxDOT official said.

This cross-border rail line could become attractive to companies moving cargo to and from Mexico, as well as those handling Asian goods arriving through Mexican ports. It may also stimulate the development of dry ports and multi-modal transport terminals along its route.

The rail line would be financed by Cintra and Zachry through quotas paid by rail companies, but it could also be eligible to receive funding from the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund.

Read the story.

Corridor may be on track for fast freight trains
Web Posted: 03/30/2006 12:00 AM CST
Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Staff Writer

AUSTIN — The Cintra-Zachry consortium has upped its ante on the Trans Texas Corridor, offering Wednesday to develop high-speed freight rail tracks in addition to its standing proposal to build toll lanes for the massive project envisioned by Gov. Rick Perry.

The 600-mile line from Mexico to Oklahoma would be the most miles of railroad track put down in Texas since the early 1900s.

The line could pull a million trucks a year off Interstate 35 with the promise of cutting cross-state trips on rail by up to two hours, Cintra-Zachry said in a letter to the Texas Transportation Commission.

Officials believe railroads would be willing to pay for faster speeds, move some of their hazardous cargo off tracks in urban areas and possibly free up lines for passenger rail, such as a San Antonio-Austin commuter service.

“This confirms Gov. Perry’s vision that once our mobility challenges were open to innovation, the market would respond,” Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson said at a news conference announcing Cintra’s proposal.

The rail line is a major piece of the Trans Texas Corridor puzzle, a 4,000-mile network of toll lanes, freight and passenger rail lines, and utility lines crisscrossing the state. Perry proposed the corridor four years ago.

Cintra-Zachry, which won a bid to develop plans for the corridor segment paralleling I-35, offered to build a toll road from San Antonio to Dallas and pay $1.2 billion to collect fees from it for up to 50 years.

The proposed rail line, which likely would be double-tracked and designed for double- and triple-stacked containers going 70 mph, could cost up to $6 billion to build, Texas Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton said. Tracks would be separated from roads by bridges and underpasses.

The line could be a magnet to handle trade to and from Mexico and China and could be a boost for Texas ports such as KellyUSA, Houghton said.

“The opportunities we have are absolutely enormous,” he said. “It should have been built years ago.”

Construction could start in two or three years, probably beginning with a project to solve congestion in Fort Worth. Nobody took at stab at how long it would take to get anything completed.

Spain-based Cintra and San Antonio partner Zachry Construction Corp. expect to finance the line through charges to shippers but might ask for money from the Texas Rail Relocation Fund or federal and state programs.

If public funds are sought, the state will want concessions such as use of the tracks for passenger rail or allowing a third track with passenger train speeds of 120 mph or more, Transportation Commission chairman Williamson said.

“Passenger rail in this country is only affordable if you can do it in conjunction with the construction of other assets,” he said.

Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who’s challenging Perry for the governor’s seat, renewed criticisms about letting foreign companies control public infrastructure and allowing secrecy on such deals.

“Whether it is a foreign company running our roads, our rails or operating our ports, it’s wrong,” she said in a statement. “This deal just adds to the land grab.”

San Antonio officials say new tracks could remove many of the 70 trains going through the city every day, but they don’t know how Cintra-Zachry’s proposal might work.

Bruce Flohr, president of the Bexar County Rail District and chairman of a rail relocation study, said similar ideas have been discussed in other states, though not for a project this big, and none ever was implemented.

“Lots of details,” Flohr said. “Most of the times these things fall apart, primarily on the fees being charged.”

And the players that need to be on board to make it happen, large railroads such as Union Pacific and BNSF Railway Co., hadn’t heard of the track proposal until Wednesday, spokesmen said.

UP and BNSF signed an agreement with Perry last year that called for sharing costs of relocating rail traffic around cities.

“We’re just trying to figure out how this will fit into that agreement,” UP spokesman Joe Arbona said.

Link to Slate.com article here.

Note to Joe Krier: Here’s another article showing at least a 12% return on investment in these sweetheart monopolies you’re giving foreign companies!

Lost Highway
The foolish plan to sell American toll roads to foreign companies.
By Daniel Gross
Slate.com
Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2006

If a governor told you there were a way to spread pork, raise funds for infrastructure investment, promote jobs, avoid raising taxes, and put a dent in the trade deficit—all in one fell swoop—you might think he had a bridge to sell you. And you’d be right. Only in this case, it’s a toll road. And instead of a sale, how about a long-term lease?

Earlier this month, in a triumph for Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana’s House narrowly approved his proposal to lease the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road, which spans the northern part of the state, for $3.85 billion to a joint venture of Cintra, a Spanish company, and Australia’s Macquarie Bank. The two companies have been active in the U.S. road business. In 2004, the two inked a 99-year lease for the 7.8-mile elevated Chicago Skyway. Last year, Macquarie completed its acquisition of the Dulles Greenway outside Washington, D.C. And Cintra, which manages toll roads in Europe and the Americas, is a strategic partner to the Texas state government in the planned Trans-Texas Corridor. There are likely more such deals to come.

For Daniels—who failed to live up to his nickname (“The Blade”) when he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the first Bush administration—the 75-year lease is an elegant solution. The state needs billions of dollars to invest in new roads. Getting the cash upfront will allow Daniels to speed up construction on needed infrastructure projects, create new jobs, and fund his Clintonian Major Moves initiative. (Here’s a list of projects to be funded and a fact sheet on the deal.) And by raising the cash from foreigners, he’s doing his part to rein in the pernicious current-account deficit. “Too often in Indiana, we see Hoosier dollars and jobs leaving the state. Major Moves is an exciting opportunity to recapture U.S. dollars by attracting foreign investment, and use them to create jobs for Hoosiers,” he said.

What’s in it for the foreign companies? Huge potential profits. Gigantic, steady profits. Toll roads are an incredible asset class. They’re often monopolies. They can support debt, since they provide a recurring guaranteed revenue stream that is likely to rise over time, as more people take to the roads and tolls increase. According to Cintra, the Indiana Toll Road generated $96 million in revenues in 2005, and Cintra expects a 12.5 percent internal rate of return on its investment. The heavy lifting has already been done: The state or federal governments have acquired the land and rights of way, built the roads and maintained them for years, and enacted toll increases. All the private companies have to do is deliver cash upfront, maintain the roads, and collect the windfall. The buyers can also increase their profits by making toll roads run more efficiently with technology. After assuming control of the Chicago Skyway, the Cintra-Macquarie consortium installed electronic toll equipment on some lanes. And by refinancing nimbly, companies can cash out. Last year—just seven months into its 99-year lease— Cintra announced that it had recovered 44 percent of its initial investment in the Chicago road through refinancing.

(So, why aren’t American companies buying up our toll roads? Here’s a theory.)

This easy money for foreigners makes the locals uneasy. In mid-March, the Indiana House approved the deal by a surprisingly slim margin. The Indiana scheme continues to engender local opposition. Last week, while participating in a panel discussion in South Bend, Ind., I got the sense that the toll lease made Hoosiers uneasy for reasons they couldn’t quite articulate. It’s not like the buyers could uproot the concrete and move it to Queensland, Australia, or Seville, Spain. The 400-page contract spells out in detail obligations of the consortium to invest in maintenance and safety and to keep a lid on toll rates. And unlike the Dubai ports case, it’s hard to see how management of the toll road by a foreign entity could raise security threats.

I think the uneasiness has more to do with what it says about the peculiar fiscal climate in the United States. How is it that in the richest nation on the earth, localities simply don’t have the cash to do necessary maintenance on basic infrastructure, the political will to raise such funds, or the competence to run such easily profitable operations? Why are they being forced to sell off long-term cash cows for short-term cash?

Leasing or selling a public asset is a classic one-shot—a short-term measure that bolsters the balance sheet today but that can’t be repeated. While politicians like Daniels focus on getting through the next few fiscal years with minimum pain, foreign companies are thinking about how to get rich off of tolls for the next three-quarters of a century. From Gov. Daniels to his former boss, President Bush, there’s a troubling unwillingness to align governmental resources with the express goals and responsibilities of government. At the federal level, we rely on China’s central bank to buy our bonds and fund basic operations. As a result, our tax revenues wind up in Beijing—as interest payments. At the state level, Indiana is relying on foreign companies to lease public infrastructure like toll roads. And under these arrangements, tolls—taxes people pay for driving—are being paid to foreign shareholders of foreign companies.

Of course, by selling public infrastructure at high prices, state governments could be taking foreigners for a ride. The Japanese famously overpaid for Rockefeller Center, after all. It’s possible that Indiana just ripped off the Spaniards and Aussies. But I doubt it.

Why aren’t American companies buying the roads and making the profits that are going to Cintra and Macquarie? Oddly, it may be because the toll roads are good investments—but not great ones. The long-term economics of these sweetheart deals don’t appeal enough to today’s quick-buck American investors. Big private-equity firms are sitting on piles of cash, and money is cheap. And yet they’re not bidding seriously on these lease deals. Ironically, the very factors that make the United States an appealing market for foreign investors—its size and stability, the security afforded by the rule of law—make it comparatively unappealing for some local investors. Macquairie and Cintra might be perfectly happy with 12 percent internal rates of return. But many big U.S. investors are seeking returns at twice that rate, which they believe can be found more easily in riskier markets like India and China.

Daniel Gross (www.danielgross.net) writes Slate’s “Moneybox” column. You can e-mail him at moneybox@slate.com.

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Express-News article here.

Corridor plan depends on how the money flows
Web Posted: 03/23/2006 12:00 AM CST
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Staff Writer

AUSTIN — Jose Lopez, Cintra’s director for North and South America, has some ideas on where to build the first sections of the colossal Trans Texas Corridor, and the analysis boils down to a simple equation.

“It’s the money,” he told a state advisory committee Wednesday. His ideas:

To get the most money the fastest, Texas 130 toll lanes should be extended 46 miles from Lockhart to Seguin. The segment to Georgetown is to open next year, and if all goes well, the rest could open in four years.

Then a 105-mile toll bypass east of Dallas would make the most sense, followed by toll lanes from Dallas to Texas 130, with work starting by 2010.

“This is what will attract the most cars,” Lopez said.

The Trans Texas Corridor is a 4,000-mile network of car and truck lanes, freight and passenger rail lines and utility lines that Gov. Rick Perry proposed four years ago.

Cintra, a Spanish company, and Zachry Construction of San Antonio in 2004 offered $6 billion to build the San Antonio-Dallas toll road and pay $1.2 billion to operate it and collect toll fees for up to 50 years.

Some of the $1.2 billion could relocate freight rail around Austin, and build a toll road around Southeast San Antonio to link Texas 130 traffic to Interstate 35.

That’s the financial perspective, which omits high-speed rail and the border for at least 20 years.

“That’s the problem when it’s driven by money,” said committee member Linda Stall of Fayetteville, a critic of the Trans Texas Corridor.

Then there’s politics, and questions.

Dallas and Fort Worth officials want toll lanes through the Metroplex instead of around it, and they’ve come up with ways to use Cintra-Zachry’s $1.2 billion there.

link to Washington Times article here.

Commentary: See a trend here? Yet more privatization of key public infrastructure. Seems EVERYTHING is for sale, and that there is seemingly no end to the public infrastructure politicians are willing to privatize at the expense of national security and the public good. As long as the good ol’ boy BIG MONEY interests get their pay-offs, our politicians seem to think all is well in the world. Shutting out and ignoring the grassroots will NOT work and in fact, will BACKFIRE! No one is opposed to contracting with private companies when there’s efficiency, transparency, oversight, and competition, but Americans have well-founded concerns and even outrage when our limited public infrastructure is handed over to private companies for commercial gain. Taxpayers can’t go build another highway if we don’t like how Cintra or some other foreign company tolls us. Highways are the responsibility of government not private contractors who have profit as their motive. Highways, ports, cargo inspection, and airport management SHOULD NOT BE OUTSOURCED!

Whether it’s toll roads, ports, cargo, highways, or airports, foreign companies are buying up control of America through control of our commerce and major trade routes. If these companies control our commerce, they control America and can bring us to our knees. Giving foreign entities 50-99 year monopolistic sweetheart deals, kept secret from the public, with no cap on rates and no oversight by any elected official (like Governor Perry and our Legislature is doing on toll road contracts) isn’t American, Capitalism, or free market…it’s highway robbery and the citizens of this GREAT REPUBLIC will not sit idly by and allow it to happen! It’s time for the President, Congress and our Texas politicians to get their priorities straight. If we’re so mismanaging our hard-earned tax money that we can’t hire proper personnel to oversee puboic infrastructure and national security, then they don’t deserve to hold office. Look no further than the $295 BILLION highway bill Bush signed last summer with 6,000 earmarks for congressional pet projects that have little to do with maintaining or improving needed highways. Between that and other pork-laden bills, we’re clearly paying enough taxes, what we have is a spending problem which lies at the feet of our politicians. To our weak, lobby-friendly, easily purchased politicians: get your priorities straight and house in order or we’ll do it for you! Thank God we have elections this fall to ensure that they do!

U.S. eyes privatizing cargo security work
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 21, 2006

Homeland Security officials are looking to have private companies validate the security procedures under which cargo travels from foreign ports into U.S. terminals.
The program, which would give speedier entry to U.S. ports to ships and suppliers that meet the security standards, is now in the hands of 80 Homeland Security inspectors who have to plow through more than 10,000 applicants.
Although Homeland Security plans to hire an additional 40 inspectors in the coming months, the department also is looking to outsource to private companies some of its duties, in particular the validation process, which has dragged for years and involves on-site inspections of ships and cargo abroad.
More than 5,800 companies currently get some shortcuts by being “certified.” But only 1,545 have been “validated” to receive the full benefits of the program after first-hand inspections, such as fewer on-site checks at U.S. ports, said Jayson P. Ahern, assistant commissioner of field operations for Customs and Border Protection.
Mr. Ahern says the manpower shortage has the department exploring other options, including contracting the work to the private sector.
“I am not happy where our progress has been,” Mr. Ahern told a House panel last week.
The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) was initiated after the September 11 attacks to secure the cargo chain from port to port. Companies that open their doors to full security inspections get fewer checks at ports of arrival and faster processing.
Although critical of the program’s sluggish pace, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, California Democrat, endorsed the idea of outsourcing.
“We are relying on companies that we haven’t even gone out to check to see if in fact they have the security things in place that you said they had,” says Miss Sanchez, ranking member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on economic security, infrastructure protection and cybersecurity.
“I mean, you have 80 people that can’t possibly check these 10,000 companies. What about having somebody else check them?” said Miss Sanchez, who formally asked the agency to consider privatizing the work.
“We have, to this point, resisted the notion of third-party validators. We think it is a responsibility that we should be doing in the government, and not necessarily contracting it out. However, given the current situation … we want to have more parties involved with a trusted program. We want to have the largest corporations in the industry, the importers reaching back to their suppliers, vendors, manufacturers, putting levels of security in place throughout the supply chain,” Mr. Ahern said.
“So perhaps we are coming to a point in time where, in certain environments with certain countries that may not be of a significant risk, maybe [using] the third-party validator has a [place] for us. So we are going to be evaluating that with new eyes, but to this point we have been opposed to it,” Mr. Ahern said.
Suzanne Trevino, a spokeswoman for CBP, said yesterday that her agency is looking at the prospect of hiring third parties to validate security.
“At this point, the only thing we will say is that we will look at it, but we have not started a formal process. We don’t have the resources to complete the validation necessary or that Congress wants,” Mrs. Trevino said.
Last March, the Government Accountability Office criticized the program and cited weaknesses in the validation process, which it said “is not rigorous enough to achieve its stated purpose, which is to ensure that the security procedures outlined in members’ security profiles are reliable, accurate and effective.”
As of Nov. 2, 2004, more than 7,300 applications had been filed. Of them, 4,153 had been certified and slightly more than 400 validated. Almost 3,000 applications have since been filed.
Peter Tirschwell, publisher of the Journal of Commerce, called the Homeland Security idea an “outsourcing of security.”
“They exist in a commercial environment to facilitate commercial transactions. Something as important as our national security, asking them to perform what is a government role — it’s hard to see how that could be successful,” he said.
The move comes on the heels of furor over a plan for a Dubai company to operate terminals in six U.S. ports. Asked whether the current mood against foreign companies operating in matters of national security might affect this proposal, Mr. Tirschwell said, “I think it would not be looked at favorably.”
Seth Stodder, former director of policy and planning for Customs and Border Protection, said private validation firms can serve as a “force multiplier” but the final responsibility has to lie with the government.
“The devil’s always in the details, but in the abstract, I think it’s a good idea to help CBP get more validators out there, and that’s critical,” said Mr. Stodder, who works with the lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
“There is a need to step up validation and make it faster, but there are hurdles to think about when using third parties — training and management, vetting employees,” Mr. Stodder said.

See Driscoll’s blog about it.

Note who he calls the losers on the deal, those with concerns but without organization or deep pockets to combat the pro-toller propaganda and misinformation campaigns. We have the organization, now we need to get some deep pockets! Get on the phone folks! But my favorite is the backlash Republicans will get from having pushed this deal through when the public was against it 2 to 1…you bet there’ll be a B-I-G BACKLASH like the one we just helped orchestrate in the primaries!

MOVET IT! Blog
Very big deal
Two foreign companies competing to develop and operate toll roads in San Antonio now have a clear path to team up and pay the most ever for a government asset in the U.S.
By Pat Driscoll
Express-News Reporter
March 15, 2006

After much wailing and thumping, Madrid-based Cintra SA and Sidney-based Macquarie Infrastructure Group got approval Tuesday to lease the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road for $3.85 billion over 75 years. The deal is expected to be finalized in June.

A year ago, the Spanish and Australian firms joined up to lease the 7.8 mile-Chicago Skyway, the first private buyout of a tollway in the U.S., for $1.8 billion over 99 years. In Texas, Macquarie and Cintra are leading various consortiums competing for several toll projects, including San Antonio’s planned 47-mile network on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 on the North Side.

Here are some of the winners and losers in Indiana’s deal, as gleaned from reports by the Indianopolis Star and Bloomberg:

WINNERS

•Republicans, who squeezed out a three-vote victory in the state House to pass needed legislation. No Democrats voted for the measure while just one Republican opposed. In the 31-19 Senate vote, four Republicans were opposed while two Democrats supported it.

•Gov. Mitch Daniels, who wants to use the money to help pay for his 10-year, $10.6 billion statewide road construction plan, which he says will create thousands of jobs.

•Cintra and Macquarie , which are among a handful of companies seeking to build and operate toll roads in the U.S. and profit by raising tolls and installing electronic toll collections to cut costs.

•Global investment bank Goldman Sachs stands to collect about $20 million in fees as Indiana’s adviser.

LOSERS

•Democrats

•Republicans, who might face a backlash in some districts. “We acknowledge that it’s very, very hurtful to a likely Republican majority in the House the next time around,” one leader said.

•The average Joe — an Indianapolis Star poll of 501 Hoosiers statewide found opposition running 2-to-1.

•Those with concerns but without deep pockets or organization to quickly respond to well-funded industry propaganda, laments this Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial.