Sunday, December 30, 2007

Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Williamson dies

By Ben Wear - Austin American Statesman - Sunday, December 30, 2007

Ric Williamson, the Texas Transportation Commission chairman and a take-no-prisoners advocate for his friend Rick Perry’s toll road policy, has died.

Williamson, 55, who had been on the commission since 2001 and its chairman since January 2004, died of a heart attack, said state Sen. Mike Krusee, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. It was not clear today if Williamson died late Saturday night or early Sunday.

Williamson, a Weatherford resident, had served in the Texas House for 14 years, leaving in 1999. Williamson dominated discussion of Texas transportation policy for most of this decade, holding forth at commission meetings in a curiously ornate but still straight-forward style that sometimes infuriated opponents of the toll road policy. Williamson, in particular, was four-square behind granting private companies long-term leases to finance, build and operate publicly owned toll roads, an approach that he said would raise billions for other roads but that others feared gave away too much control of public assets.

Texas Monthly in a June article had called him “the most hated person in Texas, public enemy number one to a million or more people.” In that same article, Williamson told writer Paul Burka, “I’ve had two heart attacks, and I’m trying to avoid the third one, which the doctors tell me will be fatal.”People could question Williamson’s policy stands and his approach - and plenty of Texas legislators did just that over the past year - but no one could question the horsepower of the intellect behind those policies.

“Ric was the smartest and most far-sighted person I’d ever seen in public life,” said Krusee. “I learned so much whenever I was around Ric, and I don’t just mean transportation policy.”


Transportation Department executive director Amadeo Saenz issued this statement this afternoon:

“Ric Williamson was a visionary. As a member and chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, he brought passion and focus to meeting many of the challenges facing Texas today and for generations to come. The entire TxDOT family will miss his dedication and his leadership. At this time, our thoughts are with his wife, children and grandchildren.”


Read more

Sunday, December 23, 2007

FOCUS ON ...City in Transition

Reprinted from Fort Worth Star Telegram Letters to the Editor - Dec. 15, 2007

Mansfield is a vibrant, growing city. The problem is that the good old boys haven’t grown with the city.

Mansfield elected a mayor to lead the city during its transition from a small 20th-century town to a 21st-century city. The challenge comes because of the City Council’s refusal to acknowledge the dynamics involved in the transformation.

The council rejected the elected mayor because he broke the “code” and isn’t a member of the good-old-boy network, resulting in a vendetta against him.

When a former council member spoke out against the mayor at the council’s open-microphone session, he was allotted extra time to do so. Has the council now done away with the five-minute limit on speakers? Or does it give special privileges to the good old boys?

The city manager says he can’t hire people because of unbudgeted legal costs. Yet the city manager can’t itemize legal costs. How can the mayor be responsible for unbudgeted legal expenses if the city manager can’t specify such?

The proposed $45 million public events center? Exposure of the consulting contract and cost estimates represented nothing illegal, said the city attorney. Where are all those who opposed the Big League Dreams project because of back-room decisions?

Barton Scott is a leader — a leader taking a 20th-century small town into the future. The future is a city in the 21st century.

Residents of Mansfield voted for new leadership. Now’s the time for residents to support that decision.

— Brent Henrich, Mansfield

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Thursday, December 20, 2007

TxDOT attorney admits ad campaign is ongoing

By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Dec. 20, 2007


Austin, TX, December 20, 2007 – Today in Travis County District Court, Judge Orlinda Naranjo did not sustain TxDOT’s objection to the requested material’s merits to the case, but ruled TURF’s document request was worded too broadly and needs to be resubmitted as part of the discovery phase TURF's lawsuit against TxDOT for illegal lobbying and use of taxpayer money to sell the public on toll roads.
“After tweaking the wording of the request a bit, we’ll be back in business. The Judge clearly agreed we have a right to get access to this information. She wanted to be sure we weren’t buried in piles of irrelevant documents,” notes a positive Terri Hall, Founder of TURF.

The court also granted TURF another 30 days to give them time to reword the document request and to depose witnesses based on the information discovered.
The most significant admission from the State was that the Keep Texas Moving ad campaign does have multiple phases (as the documents we presented to the court show that the State tried to deny), and that TxDOT is obligated to hand over any new documents related to any current lobbying or that relate to spending public money to promote toll roads.

“That’s HUGE! We went from a sworn affidavit saying the ad campaign is over therefore the case is moot, to an admission the campaign has multiple phases and is ongoing. We believe TxDOT is in the midst of rolling out Phase II or III of the Keep Texas Moving campaign since the public hearings for Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) 69 project start in February and are the target for the next phase of the campaign. The State admitted it MUST turn over any current information related to these allegations. It keeps the case alive and means we have a real shot at stopping the use of taxpayer money to promote the TTC!” Hall predicts.

The Attorney General Counsel representing TxDOT, Kristina Silcocks, tried to attack the merits of the case once again stating there is no ongoing lobbying of Congress and argued the Forward Momentum report sent to Congress in January that asks for legislation to allow them to buy back and toll existing interstates is in the past and cannot be explored in this lawsuit.

“Once again, TxDOT is wrong. An appropriations bill before the President RIGHT NOW includes an amendment PROHIBITING TxDOT from buying back interstates. There is CURRENT legislation pending as a direct result of TxDOT’s lobbying (in this case, as a backlash to TxDOT’s lobbying efforts). So for the State to tell the court TxDOT isn’t currently engaged in efforts to effect the outcome of legislation or support for toll roads, they’re quite mistaken,” notes Hall.

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to § 37, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TxDOT’s expenditure of public funds for the Keep Texas Moving campaign is illegal, and an injunction prohibiting any further illegal expenditures in this regard.
TxDOT has violated § 556.004 of the Texas Government Code by directing the expenditure of public funds for political advocacy in support of toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor, and have directly lobbied the United States Congress in favor of additional toll road programs as evidenced in its report, Forward Momentum as well as the Texas Legislature when it tried to defeat HB 1892, a private equity toll moratorium bill.

October 18, 2007, Judge Naranjo granted TURF a 90 day continuance and allowed them to move to discovery and take depositions. On Monday, September 24, Judge Naranjo did not grant a temporary restraining order (TRO). TxDOT unearthed a law that says they can advertise toll roads (Sec 228.004 of Transportation Code) and the citizens invoked another that says they can’t (Chapter 556, Texas Government Code). The burden to obtain a TRO is higher than for an injunction.

“TxDOT is waging a one-sided political ad campaign designed to sway public opinion in favor of the policy that puts money in TxDOT’s own coffers. School Boards cannot lobby in favor of their own bond elections, and yet TxDOT cites its own special law to line their own pockets at taxpayers’ expense,” says Terri Hall, Founder/Director of TURF.

Hall also notes that TxDOT’s campaign goes beyond mere advertising, “It’s propaganda and in some cases, the ads blatantly lie to the public! In one radio ad (scroll down to radio ad “continuing maintenance”), it claims it’s not signing contracts with non-compete agreements in them and yet last March TxDOT inked a deal with Cintra-Zachry for SH 130 that had a non-compete clause (which either prohibits or financially punishes the State for building competing infrastructure with a toll road).”

On August 22, 2007, TURF filed a formal complaint with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to investigate TxDOT’s illegal lobbying and asked him to prosecute TxDOT for criminal wrongdoing. See the formal complaint . The petition seeks immediate injunctive relief in a civil proceeding.

Read about TURF’s victory in court October 18 and
read TURF’s amended petition and supplemental affidavits go here: (Scroll to the bottom for links to the petition and affidavits)

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Highland Village residents sue to block highway

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER and JAY PARSONS - The Dallas Morning News - Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A citizens' group in Highland Village has filed suit in federal court seeking to block the extension of FM2499, a four-lane state highway that they say threatens the area's quality of life.

The highway, which could be built out to six lanes in the future, has been planned in the area for years, but that hasn't stopped the development of subdivisions, many of which find themselves just yards from the proposed route for the highway.

Residents have fought the route, however, saying it comes too close to homes and will destroy the area's rural charm.

Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels," stated a news release announcing the suit filed by residents calling themselves the Highland Village Parents Group. "The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design."

The suit claims that the environmental review process was short-circuited when state and federal officials agreed to permit a less-extensive review.

"This lawsuit was filed to challenge the arbitrary and capricious and illegal actions by a group of governmental agencies that had already made their minds up about what they were going to do and then simply did it, running roughshod over the procedural requirements" of federal law, the suit reads.

The suit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

A spokesman for the Texas Transportation Commission, which was among the agencies listed as defendants, could not be reached Tuesday afternoon.

Last month, Michael Morris, the transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, sent a letter to Highland Village residents opposed to the highway. Mr. Morris wrote that planning on the highway began 22 years ago, and that the property for the road was purchased by Denton County in the early 1990s. He said no homes were located within 2,000 feet of the property at that time.

Residents who oppose the road, however, have maintained that developers failed to adequately warn buyers that the road would come so close to homes that have subsequently been built.

The Highland Village Parents Group is the latest of several coalitions opposing the FM2499 extension, all insisting the road would cause pollution and harm the quality of life. None have been able to sway Highland Village city leaders from supporting the project.

In 2003 a group of Highland Village residents formed the Stop 2499 Coalition. That summer, about 1,000 people attended a public hearing on the road project, and hundreds more were turned away at the door. Most of those in attendance opposed the road expansion.

Stop 2499 fizzled out after the heated May 2004 election in which the coalition's candidates lost bids for seats on the Highland Village City Council.

Planning for the road has continued. Construction could start next year.

Highland Village resident Susie Venable said she almost gave up after the 2004 election. But then she decided to walk through and take pictures from the yards bordering the future roadway. The distances were too close to be safe, she said. "I went out there and I thought, 'Oh, my God, this is criminal,'." said Ms. Venable, one of the leaders of the Highland Village Parents Group.

Ms. Venable said several members of the group have children with respiratory problems. The roadway would put them at risk, she said.

The group is hoping for a court injunction that would force the government to do a more thorough environmental impact assessment. The group made that same request to several agencies and state officials without success before filing suit. "It's wrong," Ms. Venable said. "It's a mistake. You're not coming through our backyard. You're not going to destroy the lifestyle in this beautiful lakeside community."

Ms. Venable said no community should be treated the way Highland Village has been.

On Tuesday, Stop 2499 founder Paul LeBon called the road "a done deal."

"These people are beating a dead horse," said Mr. LeBon, who is not connected with the group. "Every 't' has been crossed and i' dotted, all the way up to the federal."

Mr. LeBon said the city's growing retail hub at the FM2499 and FM 407 intersection depends on the road's extension. That view puts him in the same camp as Highland Village Mayor Dianne Costa, who Mr. LeBon worked unsuccessfully to remove from office in 2004.

Ms. Costa said the city's air quality would improve when the road extends across the lake. The city expects traffic gridlock at the FM2499 and FM407 intersection to loosen with FM2499's extension.

"If it's delayed, it's not only going to negatively affect the development out there, it will also affect the congestion and air quality and everything else," Ms. Costa said. "The key goal in air quality is you keep things moving - not deadlock, standing still."

Read Document of lawsuit
Read letter from Mike Morris of RTC NCTCOG

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Parent Group sues Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and TX Transportation Commission

By HVPG - Higland Village, TX - Dec. 11, 2007
The Highland Village Parents Group (HVPG) filed a lawsuit Monday, Dec. 10, to prevent the construction of FM 2499 Section 4 until it satisfies the standards required by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Planned as a new construction four lane state highway to ultimately be build-out to six lanes, Section 4 of FM 2499 cuts.directly through residential sub-divisions and federal parklands and is planned to cross three tribitutaries which feed into Lake Lewisville (drinking water source of Dallas and Denton Counties). Only an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the project, which does not fully consider the tremendous negative impacts on human health, and is incomplete in many other areas as well.

Faith Chatham, co-founder of DFW Regional Concerned citizens and editor of About Air and Water states: "TxDOT and the EPA have fast tracked environmental studies on this road at the request of a handful of local Denton county officials who ignored the concerns of residents. In 2003 when public hearings were held on this road, the fire marshal closed the building because more citizens showed up to protest than the hall could accommodate. When the meeting was rescheduled, about 1000 citizens registered to testify. Yet their outcry was not given serious weight by elected officials and transportation bureaucrats. I am especially concerned that the route selected is the most costly to construct and the route which crosses the most vulnerable water / wetlands. The section of Lake Lewisville which has registered the highest concentrations of toxic gasoline additives is where TxDOT proposes building three bridges to cross tribitaries of Lake Lewisville. Currently there is no technology which will remove this additive from drinking water and Denton and Dallas County residents get their drinking water from Lake Lewisville. I am thankful that the Highland Village Parents Group is continues to press for full environmental impact studies. This route is controversial yet TxDOT has refused to classify it controversial in order to fast track construction."

The suit alleges that the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission (Defendants) were deficient in giving environmental clearance to the project, and in their failure to conduct a more intensive environmental study based on the significant health, air and noise pollution and safety impacts to residents, and in using federal recreational parklands, wildlife management areas and wetlands. Additionally, the Defendants provided clearance while ignoring the opposition of thousands of citizens of Highland Village and surrounding communities (97% of written comments opposed the project at the public hearings).

Recent studies report the significant negative impacts caused by increased ambient air pollution from vehicular emissions to the health of people living in close proximity to a major road like this one. These impacts include increased incidents of lung and heart disease. Children, in particular, are at great risk of suffering substantial, irreversible, long-term lung damage by living and playing in such close proximity (see recent 13 year USC School of Medicine Study published in January 2007 describing permanent lung damage to children growing up within 1500 feet of a major road).

Increased noise levels will exceed federal standards in many areas. Highland Village is a quiet neighbor-oriented community that will suffer from the amplified noise levels. The wildlife and people utilizing the federal park and wetlands will also suffer. The Defendants recognize the noise impacts, but completely fail to mitigate for these impacts by not including sound barriers in the design.
Families living in homes, many within 25 feet of the Right-of-Way, and residents utilizing public parks and the community pool directly abutting the right-of-way, will be placed in a very dangerous condition. Some portions of the highway will be elevated up to 15 feet above grade, raising significant safety concerns about accidents causing vehicles to leave the roadway and hazardous material spills into homes, yards and parks. Recent tanker truck accidents on I-35 and in Everett, Mass. are examples of the serious threat to these families and homes.

The route of the highway will cross sensitive emergent wetlands, recreational parklands and wildlife management areas. The Defendants failure to thoroughly consider alternative routes is clearly in violation of federal law which specifies that if feasible alternate paths for a highway exist, they must be used (there were ten original alternatives).

The Defendants fail to follow their own guidelines by refusing to carry out an EIS for the highway project. According to the Defendants’ own published rules and policies, highways such as FM 2499, Section 4 typically require an EIS, especially when there is significant controversy and federal parklands are involved.
The unique quality of life present in Highland Village, the primary reason people move to Highland Village, will be devastated by the construction of FM 2499, Section 4.

Highland Village Parents Group can be reached at hvparentgroup@gmail.com, or by phoning Roxane Thomas at 817-832-3319.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

ACTION ALERT: Sunset Review of TxDOT Comments due by Jan. 7 2008

December 5, 2007
Dear Recipient:

The Sunset Advisory Commission would like your help in reviewing and improving the State’s transportation system. The Legislature, through the Texas Sunset Act, has charged our Commission with reviewing the mission and performance of the Texas Department of Transportation.

In general, the Sunset Commission periodically evaluates state agencies to determine if the agency is needed, if it is operating effectively, and if state funds are well spent. Based on the recommendations of the Sunset Commission, the Texas Legislature ultimately decides whether an agency continues to operate into the future. Additional information on the Sunset Commission can be found on our website.

As part of this agency’s review, we seek the input of organizations and individuals who have an interest in the agency. Please take some time to comment on the attached preliminary issues identified by the Sunset Commission staff as potential research areas. Also, let us know of other issues of interest to you or your organization. Feel free to share copies of this e-mail and the attachment with any others who may have an interest in the Texas Department of Transportation. To help ensure the free flow of information, anything submitted to Sunset staff during the review until the staff report is released is confidential, and will not be shared with anyone outside of Sunset staff.

To give the staff time to consider your information during our review of the Texas Department of Transportation, we request you send your response by Monday, January 7, 2008. Please mail, e-mail, or fax your comments to the address or fax number provided in the attached Preliminary Issue List. Also, if you need more information or have questions about our process, please contact Jennifer Jones at (512) 463-1300. We greatly appreciate your assistance and look forward to hearing your ideas.

Sincerely,

Ken Levine
Deputy Director
Sunset Advisory Commission

Friday, November 30, 2007

COMMENTARY: LED billboards will ruin our roadways

By Karen Huber, Monday, November 26, 2007 http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/11/26/1126huber_edit.html

Picture this: You're going 65 mph in traffic when suddenly, ahead on the right, there's a huge billboard lighting up the night sky. What's this? The image is changing ... It's a new message ... for a different product ... What's it saying now ... ?

Distracted?

How could you not be?

Yet right now, at a time when driving while talking on a cell phone is a major threat to public safety, the Texas Transportation Commission has proposed a rule that could allow a far greater distraction: giant, brightly lit, shifting-image light-emitting diode billboards along Texas highways.

Each LED sign would be like a little bit of Las Vegas plunked down in the middle of our tranquil Texas landscape.

What would Lady Bird Johnson think? I think she'd say, "What happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas."

But the signs mess with Texas. Distraction — grabbing our attention — is their goal. Paul Meyer, president and chief operating officer of Clear Channel Outdoor, has been quoted as saying, "You can't avoid it. There's no mute button. There's no on-off switch."

I expect this from Clear Channel; that's its business. But I don't expect it from a Texas regulatory agency.

I expect more. I expect our highway commissioners to care about the beauty of our state, the costs of our highways and the safety of our roads. I expect them not to add to the taxpayer costs of highway construction by allowing more expensive billboards that need to be moved or condemned when a highway needs to be widened. I expect them to pay attention to studies that show that distracting a driver for as little as two seconds is enough to create a serious safety hazard. I expect them to listen to what we want our highway views to look like, and to protect them. An April 2007 survey revealed that 86 percent oppose more billboards of any kind, let alone LED signs that scream out for attention day and night.

Until TxDOT published the proposed new rules, it said LED signs were "intermittent" signs, specifically prohibited under the Highway Beautification Act. But the sign industry said, "Just because our messages change at regular intervals doesn't mean they are intermittent." And here's the kicker: Our highway commissioners suddenly agreed and created a new definition for "intermittent." As long as the sign changes its message no more than every eight seconds, it's not "intermittent."

But even if there were any basis to say seven seconds or less is not OK but eight or more is just fine, LED signs are not appropriate outside of Vegas or Times Square.
Earlier this year, the Marietta, Ga., City Council said no to Clear Channel's LED signs because it didn't want taxpayers to have to buy the very expensive signs when they widen their highway. Now that's good public policy.

If we don't rise up and tell the highway commissioners, Gov. Rick Perry and other elected officials that enough is enough, the ban on LED signs could be lifted as early as next month.

Lady Bird can't stand up for our Texas roadsides and vistas anymore, but we can. She was right: The best thing about Texas highways is the sheer beauty of our natural surroundings. These signs just aren't natural.

(Huber lives in western Travis County.)

The Texas Transportation Commission is accepting written comments on LED billboards through Dec. 6.
Send them to John Campbell, Director, Right-of-Way Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 E. 11th St., Austin, TX 78701-2483.

A public hearing will be held there at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

Or use this link to a form and submit your comments by email:

Monday, November 5, 2007

Sen. Lloyd Doggett faces off with Fed. Transportation Secretary Peters over Trans Texas Corridor and "Sell back to toll" Fed. Hwys

Thanks to Terri Hall of T.U.R.F. for forwarding this transcript
October 25, 2007 - U. S. House Budget Committee Holds Hearing on Surface Transportation Investment

DOGGETT:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony and your service. I must say that I'm a bit surprised by your use of the term "tax and spend," because, of course, as you know from your long career, the tax-and-spend approach had its origin under Dwight David Eisenhower, who felt that the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act should be paid for as you go, and that the pay-as-you-go approach was the appropriate one as the Highway Revenue Act was enacted at the same time in 1956.
It is true that in the last seven years on everything this administration has preferred a borrow-and-spend approach for all of our national needs. But it would seem to me that the more fiscally responsible one is to pay for our highways as we
determine we need them.
Now, there is an alternative model that Texas has really been pioneering with. And as you know, we have a governor in Texas who seems to have never met a highway that he didn't think he could toll. If he had his way, we would have toll roads blossoming in Texas like the wild flowers in the spring.
I have some concerns about the fact that the administration in its budget proposal really seems to want to incentivize more toll roads such as by its proposal to tax and spend for grants for high- tech electronic toll booths that would encourage states to use that means of finance.
Let me ask you if you support the requirement that no tolling occur on federal highways in the state of Texas or anywhere else.

PETERS:
Congressman, I'd be happy to answer your question. The answer is no, the administration does not support that provision, and let me explain why.

DOGGETT:
Well, because my time is short, and I'll give you an opportunity to elaborate at the end -- but do you support prohibiting states from buying back federal highways that the taxpayers have already paid for in order to toll those highways?

PETERS:
Congressman, we prefer to let states make those decisions, and I think one of the fundamental problems that we have today is that decision-making in too many
cases has been moved away from state and local government and decisions are being made at the federal level.

DOGGETT:
Well, I guess the concern is that these highways were paid for with federal tax dollars. You're proposing in your budget to encourage the states to toll more highways, and you've just indicated by your answers that you do not support restricting tolls on federal taxpayer-financed highways, and that approve of the practice of the states coming and buying back highways taxpayers have already paid for and tolling them.
And I find that to be very problematic and something that I'm hearing from many people in Texas is not the way to go. And the partner to the tollway on every highway that the taxpayers have already paid for in Texas is, of course, the very controversial Trans-Texas Corridor, where the same governor is proposing to take swaths of land as wide as 10 miles that would separate someone's century-owned farm or ranch home from their pastures and their field.
This has been a very secretive process. As you know, the House has also passed bipartisan language concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Is there any federal money of any type going into the planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor at present?

PETERS:
Congressman, I will have to check on that. I know at one time there was, but let me check on that and get back to you.

DOGGETT:
All right. The approach of doing so much of this in secret and treating our farmers and ranchers as just so much road kill when it comes to participation in the process is one that I know bothered not only me -- bothers not only me but bothers members on both sides of the aisle here.
That's why the House overwhelmingly approved legislation directed to the so-called NAFTA superhighway. I know the administration doesn't concede there is such a highway.
But as relates to participation in working groups concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA superhighway, if it's to extend beyond Texas, does the
administration support the amendment that the House overwhelmingly approved in that regard?

PETERS:
Congressman, I would say that we have not taken a position on that issue yet, but let me explain...

DOGGETT:
Well, we passed it a long time ago. Do you plan to take a position as this measure moves through conference one way or the other? Do you object to the restrictions that the House approved by a vote of 362-63 in July concerning this matter?

PETERS:
Congressman, we believe that state governments should have much more latitude than they have today to make decisions.

DOGGETT:
So it sounds to me like you want to give them the authority to have a secretive process, to build a 10-mile-wide highway, tearing up farms and ranches and rural communities where these people will not even be able to access the tollway, perhaps built by a foreign firm -- that as long as that's the state decision, you're content to let them do whatever they want to do?
I think we have some responsibility with federal tax dollars to try to safeguard property rights and involve the public in participation in these decisions.
Let me just close, because I can see my time is up, and I know the vote is under way, by also commenting about what you call your dirty little secret on earmarks.
It is not a dirty little secret that both of the federal transportation authorization acts were approved by Republican Congresses with Republican
chairs, that the so-called Bridge to Nowhere was the project -- a totally Republican project.
There is not one earmark in either of these transportation acts that would be there if this administration and the Republican leadership had wanted to cut them out.
Why is it that the administration has been so quiet for so long and has not done anything about these earmarks until the fact that we now finally have a Democratic Congress?

PETERS:
Well, Congressman, let me take two answers. First of all, with all respect, you misinterpreted my comments about the Trans- Texas Corridor.
Second, there is no NAFTA superhighway. There is no NAFTA superhighway at all. And we certainly believe in public disclosure as projects are developed.
This administration also has a long record, a long, long record, in speaking out against earmarks, speaking out against using the public's money in a way that is not publicly disclosed. And we will continue to stand behind that opposition.

DOGGETT:
Just specifically on the NAFTA superhighway, then, is there anything, since you believe in letting the states do essentially whatever they want in this area,
to prevent the Trans-Texas Corridor, when it goes from Mexico to the Oklahoma border, from being connected to an Oklahoma Trans-Oklahoma Corridor, and then a Kansas Trans-Kansas Corridor, all the way up to the Canadian border?

PETERS:
Congressman, there are restrictions about connecting to interstate highways, access points to interstate highways. Any time that a road accesses or intersects with an interstate highway, that does have to be approved.

DOGGETT:
But you are putting money into -- you have put money in the past into the Trans-Texas Corridor.

PETERS:
As I said sir, I will research that and get back to you.

DOGGETT:
I think you said you had done it in the past. You weren't sure if you were doing it now.

PETERS:
I said I thought we had, sir.

DOGGETT:
And you said that I have not correctly interpreted your comments about the Trans-Texas Corridor. Would you just elaborate on what your position is on the Trans-Texas Corridor?

PETERS:
I would be happy to, sir. We believe that there should be a full disclosure process, a process that involves not only the potential users of a highway but those who are affected by the highway. This is required by the National Environmental Protection Act.

And those types of processes, those open public processes, where the public has an opportunity to participate in decision-making, is absolutely something that we do support.

DOGGETT:
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Mass transit, HOV lanes do little to ease Dallas traffic

By BRUCE TOMASO - The Dallas Morning News - Saturday, November 3, 2007
The question comes up often at debates about the Trinity toll road:

What about mass transit?

In fact, Dallas Area Rapid Transit is doing precisely that. By 2030, the agency plans to double its light-rail mileage and ridership. Included in those plans are a new Green Line and its offshoot Orange Line that will, in places, roughly parallel the route of the Trinity toll road.

But transportation planners caution that neither those added rail lines nor other mass-transit improvements in the works – such as greatly increased use of HOV lanes – can, by themselves, address the region's growing traffic problems.

"Any kind of solution that we implement to fix traffic congestion in downtown Dallas has to be done with multiple modes," said Jeff Neal, principal transportation planner for the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

"We can't do it just with rail, and we can't do it just with road construction, and we can't do it just by improving bicycle and pedestrian access. We have to use all of the tools at our disposal."

He said that in determining the need for the Trinity Parkway, as the toll road is officially named, regional planners factored in all of the improvements that DART plans to make – every mile of rail that will be built between now and 2030.

And even taking those into account, he said, "we still end up with 110,000 cars a day on the Trinity Parkway."

That figure is the high estimate for what the toll road would carry.

By comparison, DART's total existing rail system, stretching from Plano and Garland to South Dallas and west Oak Cliff, carries about 60,000 people a day.

Doubling that ridership in the next 20 years or so would certainly help with road congestion.

But like it or not, planners say, new highways will continue to be part of any solution.

"We have 100,000 to 150,000 people moving into our region every year," said Doug Allen, DART's executive vice president for program development.

"They're not bringing their highways with them, and they're not bringing rail cars with them. But they are bringing their automobiles."

On Tuesday, Dallas voters will consider a ballot proposal that would kill a planned high-speed toll road inside the Trinity River levees. That measure, Proposition 1, was placed on the ballot by TrinityVote, a group led by Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt.

Ms. Hunt and other TrinityVote supporters say the proposed highway would spoil the downtown park that is also planned inside the levees, part of the city's overall effort to improve the Trinity River corridor.

Opponents of the ballot measure, led by Mayor Tom Leppert, say the toll road is needed if Dallas is to have any hope of addressing its ever-worsening highway congestion.

A report issued in September by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University ranked the Dallas area as the nation's fifth worst for traffic delays. Drivers here waste an average of 58 hours a year in stalled traffic, the study found.

And no one expects that to get better, at least not before it gets a lot worse. North-central Texas remains one of the fastest growing and most rapidly sprawling urban areas in the U.S.

The Trinity toll road would run from U.S. Highway 175 southeast of downtown Dallas to where State Highway 183 branches off from the Stemmons Freeway near Texas Stadium. It's envisioned as a reliever route that would help ease congestion along the Stemmons and in the knot of overcrowded freeways that come together just south of downtown.

In public forums, Ms. Hunt does not dispute the need to deal with downtown traffic. But if the toll road is the answer, she contends, it can go somewhere else.

"We're not saying don't built it – we're saying don't put it in our park," she said.

The mayor and other opponents of Proposition 1 steadfastly maintain that there are no good alternative routes. The best of a bad lot, they say, would be to run the toll road up Industrial Boulevard and Irving Boulevard.

That would require relocating hundreds of existing businesses and the condemnation of hundreds of parcels of privately held land. According to estimates from the North Texas Tollway Authority, which would build and operate the Trinity toll road, putting it along Industrial would cost about $300 million more than building it inside the levees: $1.6 billion for the Industrial route, vs. $1.3 billion inside the levees.

DART's new Green Line will run from north Carrollton, along a route just east of the Stemmons Freeway, to the Victory rail station near American Airlines Center. From there, the line will head through downtown (along the Pacific Avenue route now used by DART's Red and Blue lines) and turn south to serve Deep Ellum, Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas and Fair Park. The Green Line will end at Buckner Boulevard and Elam Road in Pleasant Grove.

The first leg, from Victory to Fair Park, is to open in 2009. The line is to be completed by 2010.

An offshoot, the Orange Line, will branch off from the Green Line in the Bachman Lake area, then head west, crossing the river near Storey Lane (Spur 482) not far from Texas Stadium. From there, it will have stops serving the University of Dallas, Las Colinas, North Lake College and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The first leg of the Orange Line is to open by 2012, with completion of the line by 2014.

Other improvements planned throughout the DART system include extensions of rail lines into South Dallas, West Dallas and Rowlett; development of an east-west express line through Far North Dallas and northern suburbs out to D/FW along the Cotton Belt freight line corridor; bus service improvements; and dozens more miles of HOV lanes along highways including Interstate 30, North Central Expressway and LBJ Freeway.

"We have a very full plate between now and 2030," DART spokesman Morgan Lyons said.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments predicts that by that year, the population of the 10-county region around Dallas and Fort Worth will swell to 9.1 million, up from 5.1 million in 2000. Employment is expected to grow similarly. (The 10 counties are Dallas, Tarrant, Wise, Denton, Collin, Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis, Johnson and Parker.)

DART's long-range plan, unanimously adopted by the agency's board a year ago, outlines the Sisyphean challenge that such growth presents.

"Nearly doubling the region's population and employment translates into a comparable increase in vehicle miles of travel and fuel consumption," the plan says.

"Although these factors increase by a factor of nearly two, congestion delay – the amount of time people are stuck in traffic – is expected to increase by a factor of five.

"This means that transportation improvements in the region cannot keep pace with population growth."

Does that mean that no matter what's done, fighting congestion is a losing battle?

Mr. Allen, the DART vice president, wouldn't concede as much.

"But," he said, "it is certainly a daunting task."


Transportation writer Michael A. Lindenberger contributed to this report.

Read more in the DMN

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Ad airs from group against the Trinity Toll Road

By DAVID SCHECHTER - WFAA-TV - Wednesday, October 31, 2007
You know it's almost election time, when every time you change the channel, you come across yet another political ad.

Yesterday, there was a new Trinity Toll Road ad airing.

It was the first TV ad from the group that is against the toll road.

It attacks the other side's claims that voting against the road will result in higher taxes in Dallas.

"The lobbyist and politicians are not telling the truth about their toll road Trinity Toll Road," we are told.

"According to The Dallas Morning News,they've used suspect statistics as truth to scare us of new taxes and lost funding," the ad continues.

That's unknown.

There are no firm figures on "new taxes" and "lost funding".

Building a toll road in another location, other than the Trinity, would require the city to buy and demolish properties.

That will certainly cost more, but there is no definitive answer on how much.

As for lost funding - TxDOT says the toll road is the centerpiece to redoing the Mixmaster.

Without it, they say, the federal government will not pay for an estimate $1.5 billion in downtown road improvements.

But, it's unknown how that will actually play out.


"Their claims make several leaps and aren't backed up by proof," the ad says.

That's true but again, the cost of building the road in an alternate location is uncertain.

Toll road supporters say it will cost $500 million but they have not been able to itemize that number.

The truth is it could cost more, or less and ultimately it would have to approved by Dallas voters.

"As for those illustrations of the toll road, we've all seen the Dallas Morning News called them 'figments,'" the ad says.

That's true.
Read more on WFAA

The images of a lush and pleasing tollway were produced by the NTTA, which would own and operate the road.

But the NTTA says the images are only an approximation of what the toll road would look like and is subject to change.

That's your reality check

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Ft Worth: Protesting Too Much - Who’s really acting the monarch on the Trinity?

By CLYDE PICHT - Fort Worth Weekly - Oct. 31, 2007

Fort Worth Star Telegram business writer Mitchell Schnurman called it “petty politics” and suggested maybe someone forgot to kiss a certain person’s ring.

He was talking about U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s recent refusal to include money for Fort Worth’s Trinity Uptown pie-in-the-sky project in a federal water projects bill, intimating that the Dallas congresswoman was acting like a queen.

If so, I have to say, God save the Queen for saving us! And further, I think it is Fort Worth’s own member of Congress, Kay Granger, who has been acting autocratic and undemocratic over this project, not Johnson.

In fact, Fort Worth leaders seem to have become fixated on a rather regal approach to the Trinity River Vision boondoggle, applauding Granger’s efforts to do an end run on the usual congressional appropriations process in order to get this project — which her boy J.D. has been hired to direct — off the ground ahead of other improvements that have been in the pipeline longer. Voters have had virtually no say in the process.

Perhaps Johnson’s actions will give us all the breathing space we need to ask ourselves why we are doing this. If we answer honestly, I think the “nays” will have it. Does Trinity Uptown solve a flooding problem? No. Do we need to create those thousands of jobs to pull us out of a depression? No. Do we need another mass of housing next to downtown? No. Will we realize so much economic gain that our street and drainage problems will be resolved? No. Will contamination from toxic waste products be abated? No. Will the property gained by developers be worth the losses to current property owners through the use of eminent domain? No.

Dallas has its own Trinity River vision. Ten years ago they set out to at least partially alleviate flooding and asked the voters to approve spending. They now want to change direction somewhat, but at least that city is asking for the voters’ approval. Compare that to Fort Worth.

Fort Worth leaders have become starry-eyed over the grand image of Uptown, created by Vancouver urban designer Bing Thom, that has been promoted by the Tarrant Regional Water District and a variety of other groups. The total price tag of $435 million in tax dollars includes $345 million for diversion of the Trinity River and $90 million for economic development of some sort. The price has escalated three times since the plan first surfaced.

The so-called flood control will protect the 800-acre Uptown area only when some of our effective levees are taken down. There is no flooding there now. The canals that Thom considered so essential to a waterside development are not funded and probably never will be. Digging canals requires relocating utilities and intruding on areas of contamination — a very expensive can of worms.

We were told in 2005 that the funding was set and that work could begin as soon as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the environmental impact statement. We are fast closing in on 2008, and the EIS still isn’t complete, and a new consortium of companies has been hired to plan the construction and refigure the cost.

That new cost figure could be sobering. Other projects started at around the same time — 2005 — are seeing appreciable increases in construction costs. The Omni Hotel started out as a $90 million project and now is expected to cost $170 million. The downtown campus of Tarrant County College should have been priced at $75 million and located somewhere else, but this Trinity Taj Mahal is now coming in at $336 million, with less space than originally planned — and still may end up being moved.

Then, consider how many other economic development projects in this town have been dismal, money-losing failures. The Evans Avenue project, Mercado I, and Mercado II all cost the taxpayers a bunch, and they are still in the doldrums after too many years. Then there is Fort Worth’s finest hour, when somebody convinced a majority of the city council that we should sell certificates of obligation to finance our very own $150 million hotel. Is there anyone out there who thinks for a nanosecond that the city-built hotel would have been of as high a quality as the Omni? Fortunately the citizens revolted, and that albatross flew south.

In the Trinity project, we’re talking about spending half a billion dollars of our money so someone else can profit from that “gorgeous waterfront property.” Schnurman claims that Johnson’s action “has no clear benefit for her or her district.” To the contrary, since it has been documented that the planned bypass channel would increase the potential for flooding downstream, I say the best benefit is no TRV.

Tarrant County Democratic Party chair Art Brender is concerned that Trinity River Vision is a scheme favoring Granger and the Republican Party. That’s not quite accurate. A scheme it may be, but most local Republicans abhor pork-barrel spending and the abuse of eminent domain. On the other hand, they probably appreciate Johnson being concerned about their interests on an issue where their own representative is AWOL.

Picht, a former Fort Worth City Council member, is helping gather signatures for a referendum to cap city spending on the TRV at $143 million unless voters approve an increase. He can be reached at 817-294-0396 or at cpicht@landslideclyde.com

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Jim Schutze urges Dallas voters to VOTE YES to keep the origninal plan for Trinity Park without the tollway

By Jim Schutze - Dallas Observer - Oct. 25, 2007
Click on title to read story.

Texas Toll Party urges voters to VOTE NO on Proposition 12

By Sal Costello - Texas Toll Party - Oct. 22, 2007

Prop 12: Beware of the Hungry Tax Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

VOTE NO on Prop 12!


The revenue hungry "Tax Wolf" is rearing its ugly head again with Proposition 12, which is carefully crafted to trick Texans to vote for debt, future tax increases and toll roads paid for with our tax dollars (an unaccountable double tax).

In recent years, TxDOT has claimed they’ve run out of money, while they spend billions of our tax dollars to shift our public highways to toll roads and push the equally unpopular Trans Texas Corridor (TTC). Also to blame are Texas legislators, who have diverted billions of our tax dollars intended for transportation, into their pet projects, while they allow TxDOT, a rogue agency, to run amuck.

The State Auditor caught TxDOT inflating it’s needs by $45 billion dollars this year and TxDOT continues to ignore the public by spending millions of our tax dollars on an ad campaign to sell us toll roads and TaxTags.

Proposition 12 is the largest proposed new debt on the ballot this year. It would authorize up to $5 billion dollars of state road debt to be repaid with general revenue, instead of dedicated transportation funds. Yet another accountability breech as TxDOT is eager to become an unaccountable taxing authority.

In 2001, Prop 15 (the first Tax Wolf in sheep's clothing) was put on the ballot and politicos promised it would help solve our transportation crisis by estab lishing the Texas Mobility Fund. Texans trusted TxDOT and le! gislator s and voted for "mobility" and Prop 15 became a constitutional amendment. Much like this years Prop 12, the ballot language of Prop 15 did not openly inform voters that TxDOT would use Texas Mobility Fund exclusively to shift our freeways to toll ways. Prop 15 took accountability and the will of the people out of the equation - so special interests could seize OUR LAND and OUR ROADS for profit.

Don’t be fooled again, help stop the tax wolf and vote NO on Prop 12 - get everyone you know out to the polls! Early voting begins Monday Oct 22. Election day is Nov 6th.

Sal Costello is founder of People for Efficient Transportation. People for Efficient Transportation PAC (PET PAC) is a not-for-profit political action committee registered with the Texas Ethics Commission. PET PAC is not tax deductible.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Stop FTA's Plan to Raid Federal Transit Funding for Roads!

Commentary by The Overhead Wire • September 2007
The following commentary has been adapted from entries originally posted to The Overhead Wire Weblog on 10 September 2007 and the Daily Kos on 11 September 2007.
The US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued an extremely ominous and potentially retrogressive Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) for the New and Small Starts programs. These programs provide the basic new-starts funding for major fixed-guideway capital projects such as light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit (RRT, or "heavy rail"), and so-called bus rapid transit (BRT).

Rails to roads?
The proposed new rules are alarming on a number of levels. Most notably, they downgrade the importance of land use and economic development despite congressional direction to the contrary, and they propose to redefine the definition of "fixed-guideway" to include transit funding for highway lanes that use tolling schemes – thus diverting rail transit money into roadway (tollway) development.

Why is this important? To some extent, the FTA's proposed new rules would entrench policy positions advocated by notorious motor vehicle zealots and transit critics – folks such as the libertarian Reason Foundation and the Randal O'Toole/Wendell Cox cabal. The proposed rules ignore current transportation law regarding required project justification criteria and add new Federal intervention into the local decision-making process. If finalized, the new rule-making policy will hamper American cities' ability to build new transit lines for the next 5 years!
However, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill moving through congress is an opportunity to formally weigh in and stop or alter the proposed FTA rule. In a recent development, Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby have proposed an amendment to kill the FTA's new rules. Transit advocates may wish to communicate their views on this issue to their own Senators on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, which can be accessed at the Senate Transportation appropriations webpage.

UPDATE: Light Rail Now has been informed that the Dodd-Shelby amendment was passed and has been added to the appropriations bill. However, President George W. Bush is threatening to veto this legislation. It's currently unknown whether there are sufficient votes in the US Senate to override such a veto.


More details on the new rule-making

See full text of the FTA's proposed rule.

This would diminish the ability of cities to get funding from an already crowded grant program. HOT lanes qualify for funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ... and we all know there's a lot of funding there. Over 300 New Starts projects – light rail transit (LRT), rail rapid transit, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), bus rapid transit – were authorized by the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill, and the argument by the FTA as to why they have such an intensive scrutiny of proposals is based mainly on the high demand for limited funding. Adding High Occupancy Toll freeway lanes to the list of eligible projects further strains the FTA's ability to fund new transit projects.

2. FTA would make the dreadful (and misnamed) cost-effectiveness index (CEI) the primary factor in deciding the fate of funding for New Starts projects
This "index" is the same measure that is killing top-quality rail projects, such as the Tyson's Corner Metro extension (Washington, DC area) and has killed, or set back, light rail plans in Columbus, Ohio, Raleigh. NC, and elsewhere. Almost every city that is looking to build new transit projects is worried about qualifying under this seriously flawed measure, and now it's being made even stronger. This measure is the reason why Minneapolis's Central Corridor light rail project might not be able to tunnel under the University of Minnesota, and why locally backed expansion of light rail has been turned into less effective BRT projects in some Houston corridors.

3. FTA's rulemaking pushes cheap, not completely dedicated-guideway, bus projects

The irony of the cost-effectiveness index is that, in reality, it fails to capture the full benefits and cost-effectiveness of a project. The index evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a light rail project versus corridor improvements such as bus rapid transit or improved local bus service. What this does is force cities to choose bus rapid transit projects over citizen-backed light rail projects that may have greater community benefits but also a higher initial price tag. Also, the measurements for the Very Small Starts program are set using the Southtown rapid bus project in Kansas City (which runs on city streets), and not rail or fixed-guideway BRT projects such as Los Angeles's Orange Line busway.

4. FTA reduces or ignores the importance of land use and economic development measures

Congress elevated land use and added economic development as project justification criteria in SAFETEA-LU (the current federal transit authorization). The US Department of Transportation (DOT), however, ignores this and has combined them into one measure with a combined weight of 20% in the overall rating process. The FTA states that it is too costly to implement the economic development measure, but the cost and burden to grantees such as cities and transit agencies is not considered when local jurisdictions are required to adopt the FTA's travel demand models, which have many problems and questionable aspects. The fact that they use those models to determine the "cost-effectiveness" rating – which decides who gets funding – is a problem in itself, as this rating index can't address all the benefits of fixed-guideway transit.

Furthermore, FTA argues that it's too difficult to separate land use from economic development, and that the increase in property values associated with proximity to transit is merely a result of improved time savings alone. We're sure many zoning offices and developers would be surprised to have these effects categorized so simplistically.

5. FTA's new policy could lower ratings for cities who are trying to address future rather than current congestion issues

The FTA would like to measure the New Starts program by the benefits to highway users, but ignores the effect of induced demand, which means that, when you build a new transit project, the space from cars that are taken off the road by transit is filled by new cars. The aim of transit opponents – to push money from the transit program into congestion pricing schemes and not-so-rapid bus projects – would result in less useful transit projects in corridors that might have real future need.

What can be done?

Transit advocates and other proponents of improved public transportation might consider contacting their congressmen or senators, to request them to stop the FTA's proposed rule and give the Department of Transportation a clear directive that the FTA must:

1. Comparably weight all 6 project justification criteria (mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, land use factors, and other factors – e.g., economic development, environmental justice considerations, livable communities initiatives, etc.), while recognizing the particular importance of transit-supportive land use and economic development in fostering successful and sustainable projects rather than considering just the direct costs of the project.

2. Maintain the current definition of "fixed-guideway transit" – i.e., focused on transit services operating on rails, special guideways, or busways.

3. Desist from raiding the federal transit program for road pricing schemes.

Light Rail Now! website






Here are details on what the FTA's new rules would do:

1. FTA would allow High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes to qualify for New Starts funding

House plan would make I-80 a toll road - Republicans failed to postpone a vote. Senate prospects are uncertain.

By Paul Nussbaum - Philadelphi Inquirer Staff Writer - Jun. 22, 2007

HARRISBURG - Democratic legislators, narrowly in control of the state House, pushed yesterday for new funding for mass transit and highways, setting the stage for a battle with the Republican-controlled Senate.
Rather than lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private company to raise the money, as requested by Gov. Rendell, the House plan would expand the turnpike commission's domain by making Interstate 80 a toll road.

And it would call for more local funding for transit, with authority for local governments to raise taxes to pay for it.

An initial vote on the measure was delayed until Monday, after contentious debate on the House floor that lasted until nearly 11 p.m. If it receives initial approval on Monday, the bill would still face a final vote before it could be sent to the Senate.

SEPTA officials, facing the prospect of steep fare hikes and service cuts without $100 million in additional state money, were cautiously optimistic that lawmakers were moving toward a solution. But they weren't popping any champagne corks yet.

"We're very pleased that we're seeing a lot of activity, but we're not there yet," SEPTA general manager Faye Moore said yesterday.

The House bill would provide about $102 million more in operating funds for SEPTA for the budget year that begins July 1.

The bill would fund transportation by borrowing against future toll increases on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and newly created tolls on I-80 across northern Pennsylvania. The increases and new tolls would be deferred until 2010.

Any tolls on I-80 would require approval by the Federal Highway Administration.

Tolls on the turnpike would rise by 25 percent in 2010 and about 2.5 percent a year after that. Tolls on I-80 would be set at the same per-mile rate (currently about 8 cents a mile) as those on the turnpike.

The House bill would raise an estimated $705 million in the next fiscal year, with $305 million earmarked for transit and $400 million for highways and bridges. The total funding is expected to rise to $900 million by 2010.

The amounts fall well short of $1.7 billion a year that a state panel calculated was necessary to repair highways and bridges and shore up mass-transit systems. Rendell proposed to raise $965 million a year for highways by leasing the turnpike and $760 million a year for transit by imposing a tax on oil company profits.

The House proposal, a 57-page amendment by majority whip Rep. Keith McCall (D., Carbon) to House Bill 1590, would increase funding from local governments (to 20 percent from the current 13 percent of state funding) and would authorize them to raise money by increasing the realty transfer tax, the earned income tax, the sales tax, or a parking surcharge.

The measure would also increase Philadelphia's clout on the SEPTA board of directors. The board would be increased from 15 members to 21, and counties would be allotted members on the board according to their share of local funding, up to eight members for counties that provide at least 50 percent of the local funding. Currently, Philadelphia provides 80 percent of the local operating funding to SEPTA.

Rep. Tom Killion (R., Delaware), a former SEPTA board member, criticized that change.

"We're about to shift all the power on that board to the city of Philadelphia," Killion said. He said the change would remove the incentive for the five counties to work together to run SEPTA.

And Rep. Mario Civera (R., Delaware), the ranking Republican on the appropriations committee, asserted that the change was "a Philadelphia grab. . . . Don't push this down our throats."

Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was conciliatory, telling Civera that "this is only the first step in a long negotiation. . . . We're going to work together."

With eight days left in the budget year, Evans reiterated his vow to block passage of a new budget unless the Senate approved funding for mass transit this month.

"They can't wait till fall," Evans said in an interview yesterday.

Senate Republican leaders indicated little desire to immediately tackle the funding issue. "I don't know that it can get approved in the next week, and I don't know that it's a crisis if it doesn't," said Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate majority leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware). "Sen. Pileggi's goal is to address this, but not in a way that makes members feel rushed."
Read more in the Philadelphia Inquirer

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

T.U.R.F. Press Cconference video on Federal Lawsuit against San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization



TURF to sue transportation board for equal protection
MPO Board composition violates First and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution

By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Oct. 23, 2007

San Antonio, TX, Monday, October 22, 2007 – In what could change the way toll roads are decided and approved in Bexar County, TURF filed a NEW lawsuit in FEDERAL COURT to put the power over transportation decisions back in the hands of the PEOPLE. TURF recently scored a victory in STATE COURT in a different lawsuit (read it here) against members of the Texas Transportation Department and Transportation Commission.

A lawsuit has been brought against the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization (SAMPO) Transportation Policy Board that allocates tax dollars to transportation projects and approves toll rates and toll projects and San Antonio Councilwoman and MPO Chair Sheila McNeil. The lawsuit alleges that the composition of the SAMPO Board is unconstitutional and Chairwoman McNeil has been a party to denying the First Amendment right of free speech to the constituents of elected MPO Board members like State Representative David Leibowitz by blocking an agenda item and any debate on an issue brought up at his request. This novel lawsuit cuts to the heart of how toll roads are approved.

It’s based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 28 U.S.C. §§1343(3) and (4). The section of the post-Civil War civil rights enactments codified as 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides the Plaintiff’s enabling cause of action. A faction of governmental officials with the help of unelected board members have shut citizens and voters who oppose toll roads out of equal participation in the political process. The case will also argue that actions like Chairwoman McNeil’s removal of an agenda item asking for the funds TxDOT is spending on the Keep Texas Moving ad campaign be returned to building roads.

By way of recent example, in a SAMPO Transportation Policy Board meeting of September 24, 2007, Defendant McNeil, using the badge of authority of Chairmanship of the Board, arbitrarily removed from the meeting agenda a motion by State Representative and MPO Board member David Leibowitz calling for SAMPO to object to certain expenditures of public money by TXDOT promoting toll roads, which expenditures Representative Leibowitz believed to be inappropriate.

Defendant McNeil, acting under color of law, removed Representative Leibowitz’s motion from the meeting agenda even though Representative Leibowitz had properly and legitimately placed it on the meeting agenda and SAMPO had included it in the public posting of the agenda pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Defendant McNeil, acting under color of law, refused to permit Representative Leibowitz to present his motion because of her disfavor of his attempt to provide a voice for his constituents who oppose turning free public highways into toll roads.

TURF will be asking for both a temporary and permanent injunction to suspend ALL activities of the MPO until the case is decided and the Board’s composition is changed to reflect proper Constitutional representation allowing equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment.

The unconstitutional MPO has blocked agenda items, voted against an independent review of toll plans that would bring accountability to the gross misuse of taxpayer money in these toll plans, voted against restoring the gas tax funded overpasses on 281 (281 in particular DOES NOT NEED TO BE TOLLED, what’s needed are overpasses and they’ve been paid for since 2003, the money is STILL there, they could do it tomorrow, but this un-Constitutional Board persists in preventing the simple solution that’s already paid for!

The MPO Board has also delayed votes, blocked the succession of the next Chair, and changed the bylaws to allow yet more illegal representation on the Board.

“The people of Texas are FED-UP with out-of-control abusive government. We’ve done everything in our power to exert the political pressure to change this unconstitutional Board, but when the deck is stacked and a powerful unelected voting block is allowed to persist unchecked, we have no choice but go to court to address our grievances. This is taxation without representation and we cannot and will not allow it to continue,” says Terri Hall, Founder and Director of TURF.

For a history of the efforts of the pro-toll faction blocking citizens from equal representation:
Click here and scroll to bottom for links to each action.

Chairwoman McNeil strips agenda item requested by State Representative David Leibowitz on expenditures for toll roads (click here.)

Monday, October 22, 2007

TURF sues transportation board for equal protection

By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Oct. 22, 2007
MPO Board composition violates First and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution

San Antonio, TX, Monday, October 22, 2007 – In what could change the way toll roads are decided and approved in Bexar County, TURF filed a NEW lawsuit in FEDERAL COURT to put the power over transportation decisions back in the hands of the PEOPLE. TURF recently scored a victory in STATE COURT in a different lawsuit against members of the Texas Transportation Department and Transportation Commission.

A lawsuit has been brought against the San Antonio Metropolitan Planning Organization (SAMPO) Transportation Policy Board that allocates tax dollars to transportation projects and approves toll rates and toll projects and San Antonio Councilwoman and MPO Chair Sheila McNeil. The lawsuit alleges that the composition of the SAMPO Board is unconstitutional and Chairwoman McNeil has been a party to denying the First Amendment right of free speech to the constituents of elected MPO Board members like State Representative David Leibowitz by blocking an agenda item and any debate on an issue brought up at his request. This novel lawsuit cuts to the heart of how toll roads are approved.

It’s based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 28 U.S.C. §§1343(3) and (4). The section of the post-Civil War civil rights enactments codified as 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides the Plaintiff’s enabling cause of action. A faction of governmental officials with the help of unelected board members have shut citizens and voters who oppose toll roads out of equal participation in the political process. The case will also argue that actions like Chairwoman McNeil’s removal of an agenda item asking for the funds TxDOT is spending on the Keep Texas Moving ad campaign be returned to building roads.

By way of recent example, in a SAMPO Transportation Policy Board meeting of September 24, 2007, Defendant McNeil, using the badge of authority of Chairmanship of the Board, arbitrarily removed from the meeting agenda a motion by State Representative and MPO Board member David Leibowitz calling for SAMPO to object to certain expenditures of public money by TXDOT promoting toll roads, which expenditures Representative Leibowitz believed to be inappropriate.

Defendant McNeil, acting under color of law, removed Representative Leibowitz’s motion from the meeting agenda even though Representative Leibowitz had properly and legitimately placed it on the meeting agenda and SAMPO had included it in the public posting of the agenda pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act. Defendant McNeil, acting under color of law, refused to permit Representative Leibowitz to present his motion because of her disfavor of his attempt to provide a voice for his constituents who oppose turning free public highways into toll roads.

TURF will be asking for both a temporary and permanent injunction to suspend ALL activities of the MPO until the case is decided and the Board’s composition is changed to reflect proper Constitutional representation allowing equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment.

The unconstitutional MPO has blocked agenda items, voted against an independent review of toll plans that would bring accountability to the gross misuse of taxpayer money in these toll plans, voted against restoring the gas tax funded overpasses on 281 (281 in particular DOES NOT NEED TO BE TOLLED, what’s needed are overpasses and they’ve been paid for since 2003, the money is STILL there, they could do it tomorrow, but this un-Constitutional Board persists in preventing the simple solution that’s already paid for!

The MPO Board has also delayed votes, blocked the succession of the next Chair, and changed the bylaws to allow yet more illegal representation on the Board.

“The people of Texas are FED-UP with out-of-control abusive government. We’ve done everything in our power to exert the political pressure to change this unconstitutional Board, but when the deck is stacked and a powerful unelected voting block is allowed to persist unchecked, we have no choice but go to court to address our grievances. This is taxation without representation and we cannot and will not allow it to continue,” says Terri Hall, Founder and Director of TURF.


See history of the efforts of the pro-toll faction blocking citizens from equal representation. (scroll to bottom for links to each action)

Chairwoman McNeil stripped agenda item requested by State Representative David Leibowitz on expenditures for toll roads.

San Antonio attorney David Van Os, is representing TURF.

City of Mansfield changes Debt Collectors due to questionable political campaign contribution

City Council plans to consider hiring new debt collector
By ROBERT CADWALLADER - Special to the Star-Telegram - Oct. 22, 2007
MANSFIELD -- The City Council tonight will consider hiring a Round Rock-based law firm to replace the city's fired debt collector.

The staff has recommended McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, which collects delinquent property taxes or court fees and fines for about 450 taxing jurisdictions statewide. The firm has no collection clients in Tarrant or Dallas counties.

The council terminated the city's contract with Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson of Fort Worth on Sept. 28, taking issue with a $2,000 campaign contribution the firm made to Mayor Barton Scott after his election in May. The move apparently did not violate local or state campaign finance laws, but the council called it inappropriate and also voiced concerns about investigations of Linebarger contributions in other cities.

Scott, who blamed council politics for Linebarger's firing, said he will question the recommendation for McCreary because the staff did not conduct a full selection process, including advertising for proposals.

"When we start playing political games with vendors, we are not acting in the best interests of the citizens," Scott said.

Staff officials said they didn't advertise for proposals because the process would have taken at least 90 days. The city has no one collecting back taxes.

As a corporation, McCreary is prohibited by law from making political contributions, a McCreary official said. Although individual employees are allowed to donate to local candidates, no employees will donate to Mansfield public officials, President Harvey Allen said.

That could become the law in Mansfield anyway. A council subcommittee is considering revising the city's ethics ordinance.

"I will tell you, we as a firm get virtually no solicitations for campaign contributions from anybody," Allen said. "And I think that's because we have the reputation of not doing it."

Linebarger, as a limited liability partnership, is allowed to make political contributions.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Trinity park planners challenged to provide easy access over levees - Bridges, trails suggested as ways to enter planned oasis

By BRUCE TOMASO - The Dallas Morning News - Sunday, October 21, 2007
Designers of the Trinity River project have an ambitious vision.

They say they want to see the river transformed "from the city's back alley to its front yard."

The central element of that vision, for many people, is the proposed downtown Trinity River park. With its lakes, river meanders, hiking trails, canoeing course, greenbelts and promenades, the downtown park, at roughly 100 acres, is often extolled as having the potential to become Dallas' Central Park, or Dallas' River Walk, or Dallas' Town Lake – an urban oasis that will draw visitors from near and far.

Also Online
Interactive map: Trinity toll road issues

Map: Trinity toll road issues (.pdf)

Archive: Learn more about the Trinity toll road fight
But there's at least one big obstacle to that vision – or two, actually – having nothing to do with the Nov. 6 referendum on whether to build a toll road in the park.

Unlike Central Park, or the San Antonio River Walk, or Austin's Town Lake, the Trinity is cut off from the rest of the city by its levees – "two 30-foot mounds of dirt separated by a half-mile of weeds," in the memorable phrase of Paul Lehner, director of planning and development for the city's Trinity River Corridor Project office.

"We can't do exactly what they've done in San Antonio," said Mr. Lehner. "We won't have people who can just step out their doors and be right at the water, because of the levees. For that reason, providing connectivity to the park through a number of points has been very high on our list."

The levees, built in the 1920s and '30s to protect downtown against flooding, aren't going anywhere. In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to raise the levees by about two feet over the next few years.

The corps has said emphatically that whatever else is done to the river corridor – park, lakes, toll road, no toll road – flood protection remains its primary function.

So to get to the park, folks would have to find ways over those "mounds of dirt."

Dallas being Dallas, many of them would drive. Their access to the park depends very much on what happens Nov. 6, when voters will weigh in on Proposition 1, a ballot measure to scrap the high-speed toll road now planned inside the levees.

Whether that toll road is built – and, if it isn't, what gets built instead – will affect many aspects of the Trinity project, from its funding sources to its build-out schedule to the aesthetics of the park to transportation through and to the central city. One of few things that both sides agree on in the toll road debate is that a lot of uncertainty looms – and a lot of recalibration will have to take place – if Proposition 1 passes and the toll road is scrapped.

In ways big or small, the vote could alter almost everything and anything about the park. So all of what follows is open to change. There are lots of things we simply don't know about how the Trinity project might look.

But for now, let us forget about toll roads, figuratively park our cars, lace up our walking shoes and take a stroll through some of the plans for ways that Dallas residents would be able to get to, and enjoy, their park on foot.

Reunion Overlook

This would be one of the prime entry points to the downtown park – and, Mr. Lehner hopes, a gathering point in and of itself.

Reunion Boulevard is the short roadway off Houston Street that now passes the Hyatt Regency Dallas, Reunion Tower and Reunion Arena before dead-ending at Industrial Boulevard.

Under its plans, the city would extend the boulevard another few hundred feet to the west, to the river levee. There, a building of some sort could be built – there is no final design now – at the level of the levee top. The building could house an information center, perhaps a history museum of the Trinity River, perhaps concession stands. From it, there would be "vertical access" via elevators or stairways, down into the river bottoms. At that point, visitors would be in the park, at the promenade along the water.

Mr. Lehner told a City Council committee last week that the Reunion Overlook could evolve into the main "linkage between downtown and the Trinity Corridor."

The trails

The park is to include a network of trails – some near the water and some, perhaps, along the tops of the levees.

Near Sylvan Avenue, these trails would connect with the Trinity Strand Trail, a new trail network being built just outside the levees, behind the Stemmons Freeway along the original, meandering channel of the Trinity River.

The Trinity Strand Trail, in turn, would eventually hook up with the Katy Trail at a point just north of American Airlines Center.

That means hikers, joggers, bicyclists and roller-skaters could come down the Katy Trail from as far away as Southern Methodist University – and eventually farther, as the Katy Trail expands – and get into the Trinity park.

And from the Knox-Henderson neighborhood south, those visitors would never have to cross a vehicular road, said Mike Kutner, chairman of Friends of the Trinity Strand Trail, a group raising private money to complete the trail.

He also noted that there are 13 hotels, including the huge Hilton Anatole, along Stemmons Freeway within a short walk of the Trinity Strand.

"For visitors to our city to be able to walk out of their hotel and get on these trails and enter the park – that would be fantastic," he said.

DART

The Dallas Area Rapid Transit station at Eighth and Corinth streets in Oak Cliff is the southernmost station that jointly serves DART's red and blue rail lines.

The station is close to the Trinity, near where the downtown levees stop.

It's also adjacent to an abandoned railroad trestle. That old railroad bridge, city officials said, could be converted to a pedestrian bridge. Visitors from as far away as Garland or Plano could ride DART to Eighth and Corinth and use the pedestrian bridge as a way into the river bottoms.

At that point, they'd be near the northern boundary of the Great Trinity Forest, an unspoiled hardwood stand covering several thousand acres that the city is assembling. A canoe launch into the river channel is also planned at Moore Gateway Park, near the trestle.

Continental Avenue

Work has just begun on the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge, a soaring structure by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava that will extend the Woodall Rodgers Freeway west over the Trinity to Singleton Boulevard.

It's the first of three Calatrava "signature" bridges over the Trinity that planners hope to see completed someday. The others are at Interstate 30 and Interstate 35E.

The Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge will cost an estimated $115 million, according to the city. It's being built with $28 million in city bond proceeds, some funds from state and federal agencies, and a lot of private donations, notably from the family of Ms. Hill, the oil heiress and Dallas philanthropist who died this summer.

When the bridge is completed, the plan is to close the adjacent Continental Avenue viaduct to cars, allowing only pedestrians and bicyclists to use it.

From the east (downtown) side, the Continental bridge would provide a ready way into the park from the West End, Victory and Uptown.

On the West Dallas side, the city would build a "gateway park" that would afford spectacular park views, framed by the downtown skyline in the distance and the Calatrava bridge in the foreground.

"That becomes the Dallas postcard," Mr. Lehner said.

People walking or biking over the bridge would be directly above one of the man-made lakes that are planned as key features of the park.

"The experience," Mr. Lehner said, "will be unlike anything that you can see now in the city."

Oak Cliff

The West Dallas gateway park is one of several spots on that side from which people could enter the park. Another is a planned observation deck that would be built in North Oak Cliff, near Beckley Avenue and Commerce Street, so people could come and watch the progress as the park is built.

"It's the proverbial hole in the construction fence," Mr. Lehner said.

But really, said Bob Stimson, a former City Council member who heads the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce, almost anyplace along the levee on the Oak Cliff side would provide ready entry.

"When it comes to accessing the park, Oak Cliff is in a perfect position," he said. "At any number of spots, you'll be able to just walk up over the levees and enjoy this park."

He said that unfettered access is one reason the chamber supports the current Trinity River project plan, which puts all of the highway lanes on the downtown side of the river.

Mr. Stimson said he hoped that Oak Cliff's open access to the Trinity park would "give us a tremendous advantage in the eyes of developers. They'll be salivating at the chance to build over here."

TRACKING THE TRINITY TOLLWAY VOTE
What am I voting on? Passage of Proposition 1 would create a Dallas ordinance prohibiting the construction of a high-speed toll road within the Trinity River Corridor's earthen levees. If the proposition passes, any road built within the corridor would be limited to four total lanes with a 35 mph speed limit.

When to vote: Early voting on Proposition 1 begins Monday and runs through Nov. 2. Regular voting for the referendum is Nov. 6. Only registered Dallas voters may participate.

A "FOR" vote means: You want to prohibit the high-speed toll road's construction within the Trinity River's levees.

An "AGAINST" vote means: You want to preserve the current Trinity River Corridor plan, which calls for construction of the high-speed toll road within the levees.
What supporters of Proposition 1 say: A high-speed toll road would irreparably harm an adjacent urban park also planned as part of the city's broader Trinity River Corridor project. The road could be built outside the levees, along Industrial Boulevard, or elsewhere.

Supporters of the proposition say that since Dallas is endowed with a massive, empty greenspace in its city center, it should use its prime opportunity to develop it to create an urban oasis, unadulterated by a loud, unsightly highway carrying tens of thousands of vehicles each day.

They also say the toll road may be prone to flooding and would lead to more air pollution in downtown Dallas.

What opponents of Proposition 1 say: Removing the toll road from the larger Trinity project is akin to yanking on threads from a suit: It'll soon unravel.

Private funding for the park element, as well as county, state and federal funding for transportation components both related and unrelated, are contingent on the toll road being built as planned. Passage of Proposition 1 could also delay the project, which was originally passed in 1998, for years.

Opponents of the proposition say that building the road elsewhere could cost hundreds of millions of dollars more, and not building it at all would lead to unacceptable traffic congestion in downtown Dallas.

Voter turnout? Both sides expect it to be low, meaning individual votes carry more strength than in a well-attended election.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

When NO means YES and YES means NO - Dallas Votes Nov. 6th on whether they want a toll road in Trinity Park

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Oct. 21, 2007
Photos used by permission of Tom Blackwell
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Flags mark the route of the proposed toll road in Trinity Park, Dallas. Voters will decide whether they want the toll road through the park.
A YES VOTE means that NO TOLL ROAD IS WANTED IN THE PARK.
A NO VOTE means that you WANT THE TOLL ROAD THROUGH THE PARK.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Below is a picture of the park where the proposed Trinity Toll Road is planned. Opponents (urging voters to vote YES) say too much land will be taken out of the park. The Toll Road will be high speed, without access to the park.
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

How Represenatives from NCTCOG Region rank on the Environment - 2007 Texas Legislature

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Oct. 20, 2007
Snapshot from Texas League of Conservation Voters Scorecard for 2007 Texas Legislature

A look at the scores Average House score: 56%
Avg. Republican score: 32% F
Avg. Democratic score: 84% A
Perfect 100s: 11
Overachievers (A+): 36
Failures (F): 56
House Republicans over 50%: 2
House Democrats below 50%: 3
Highest Republican score: Kirk England (69%)
Lowest Democratic score: Joe Pickett (37%)
Now that Kirk England has switched parties, that means the highest scoring Republican got less than 69%.
NOTE: BOLD FACE NAMES INDICATE ALL OR PART OF DISTRICT IS IN THE 16 COUNTY DFW REGION (NCTCOG)

At the top:
Burnam, Lon (D) 100% A+
Coleman, Garnet F. (D) 100% A+
Dunnam, Jim (D) 100% A+
Gallego, Pete (D) 100% A+
Howard, Donna (D) 100% A+
Miles, Borris (D) 100% A+
Naishtat, Elliott (D) 100% A+
Oliveira, Rene O. (D) 100% A+
Rodriguez, Eddie (D) 100% A+
Thompson, Senfronia (D) 100% A+
Bolton, Valinda (D) 96% A+
Davis, Yvonne (D) 96%
Escobar, Juan Manuel (D) 96% A+
Farias, Joe (D) 96% A+
Escobar, Juan Manuel (D) 96% A+
Herrero, Abel (D) 96% A+
Hochberg, Scott (D) 96% A+
Hodge, Terri (D) 96% A+
Leibowitz, David McQuade (D) 96% A+
Martinez, Armando (D) 96% A+
Noriega, Richard "Rick" (D) 96% A+
Olivo, Dora (D) 96% A+
Vaught, Allen (D) 96% A+
Veasey, Marc (D) 96% A+
Vo, Hubert (D) 96% A+
Pierson, Paula (D) 95% A+
Allen, Alma (D) 93% A+
Anchia, Rafael (D) 93%
Ortiz Jr., Solomon (D) 93% A+
Strama, Mark (D) 93% A+
Castro, Joaquin (D) 92% A+
Hernandez, Ana (D) 92% A+
Lucio III, Eddie (D) 92% A+
Martinez Fischer, Trey (D) 92% A+
Raymond, Richard (D) 92% A+
Chavez, Norma (D) 91% A+
Gonzalez Toureilles, Yvonne (D) 89% A
Alonzo, Roberto (D) 88% A
Garcia III, Juan (D) 88% A
Mallory Caraway, Barbara (D) 88% A
Moreno, Paul (D) 88% A
Cohen, Ellen (D) 88% A
Farrar, Jessica (D) 87% A
Villarreal, Michael (D) 86% A
Dukes, Dawnna (D) 85% A
Flores, Ismael "Kino" (D) 82% A
McClendon, Ruth (D) 80% A
Quintanilla, Chente (D) 80% A
Giddings, Helen (D) 79% B
Eiland, Craig (D) 78% B
Dutton Jr., Harold V. (D) 77% B
Menendez, Jose (D) 77% B
Frost, Stephen (D) 72% B
England, Kirk (R -switched to D) 69% B
McReynolds, Jim (D) 69% B
Puente, Robert (D) 68% B

Here are NCTCOG (DFW REGIONAL) Incumbents scores which are lower than B:

Hill, Fred (R) 44% D
Mowery, Anna (R) 37% D
Keffer, Jim (R) 35% D
Laubenberg, Jodie Anne (R) 35% D
King, Phil (R) 32% F
Geren, Charlie (R) 31% F
McCall, Brian (R) 31% F
Miller, Sid (R) 31% F
Paxton, Ken (R) 31% F
Patrick, Diane (R) 30% F
Goolsby, Tony (R) 30% F
Harper-Brown, Linda (R) 30% F
Jackson, Jim (R) 30% F
Solomons, Burt R. (R) 29% F
Hancock, Kelly G. 28% F
Zedler, Bill (R) 27% F
Orr, Rob (R) 26% F
Madden, Jerry (R) 27% F
Brown, Fred (R) 26% F
Smith, Todd (R) 26% F
Truitt, Vicki (R) 23% F
Crownover, Myra (R) 23% F
Branch, Dan (R) 22% F
Pitts, Jim (R) 22% F
Hartnett, Will (R) 21% F

See the Scorecard and examine the votes by issues ranked to determine the scores.
Look at previous session's scores.

When examining votes on toll road, there was less difference by party than was reflected by donors. The votes on the environment do reflect distinct party differences. This is sad. Republican voters also need clean air. Republican voters also have to breathe dirty air and children of Republican voters suffer from asthma and allergies at the same rate as children of Democratic voters. We do not know how distinct a difference will be shown when campaign donor bases are examined on a per vote basis by Legislator.

Fair Use

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Material from diverse and sometimes temporary sources is being made available in a permanent unified manner, as part of an effort to advance understanding of the social justice issues associated with eminent domain and the privatization of public infrastructure. It is believed that this is a 'fair use' of the information as allowed under section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the site is maintained without profit for those who access it for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ To use material reproduced on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', permission is required from the copyright owner indicated with a name and an Internet link at the end of each item. [NOTE: The text of this notice was lifted from CorridorNews.blogspot.com]

See ARCHIVE on side bar

Content is being archived weekly. Many pertinent articles regarding Transportation in the DFW Region are in the archives.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

The Opnions On this Site are Diverse

DFW Regional Concerned Citizens attempts to examine issues from all directions. When a story says "By Faith Chatham" it contains my viewpoint. When it is by others, but posted by Faith Chatham, it is from someone else's viewpoint. When I discover contents which is on topic for this site, I frequently link to other sites. Usually those sites contain content which differs from my viewpoint (and frequently that of other members of DFW-RCC).