Cities Lose Out on Road Funds From Federal Stimulus

By MICHAEL COOPER and GRIFF PALMER - The New York Times - July 8, 2009
Two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas, home to the nation’s worst traffic jams and some of its oldest roads and bridges. But cities and their surrounding regions are getting far less than two-thirds of federal transportation stimulus money.

According to an analysis by The New York Times of 5,274 transportation projects approved so far — the most complete look yet at how states plan to spend their stimulus money — the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money from the biggest pot of transportation stimulus money. In many cases, they have lost a tug of war with state lawmakers that urban advocates say could hurt the nation’s economic engines.

The stimulus law provided $26.6 billion for highways, bridges and other transportation projects, but left the decision on how to spend most of it to the states, which have a long history of giving short shrift to major metropolitan areas when it comes to dividing federal transportation money. Now that all 50 states have beat a June 30 deadline by winning approval for projects that will use more than half of that transportation money, worth $16.4 billion, it is clear that the stimulus program will continue that pattern of spending disproportionately on rural areas.

“If we’re trying to recover the nation’s economy, we should be focusing where the economy is, which is in these large areas,” said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, which advocates more targeted spending. “But states take this peanut-butter approach, taking the dollars and spreading them around very thinly, rather than taking the dollars and concentrating them where the most complex transportation problems are.”

The 100 largest metropolitan areas also contribute three-quarters of the nation’s economic activity, and one consequence of that is monumental traffic jams. A study of congestion in urban areas released Wednesday by the Texas Transportation Institute found that traffic jams in 2007 cost urban Americans 2.8 billion gallons of wasted gas and 4.2 billion hours of lost time.

The Times analysis shows that a little more than half of the stimulus money will be spent on “pavement improvement” projects, mostly repaving rutted and potholed roads. Nearly one-tenth of it will be spent to fix or replace bridges. More than a quarter of the money will be spent to widen roads or build new roads or bridges.

But the projects also offered vivid evidence that metropolitan areas are losing the struggle for stimulus money. Seattle found itself shut out when lawmakers in the State of Washington divided the first pot of stimulus money. Missouri has directed nearly half its money to 89 small counties which, together, make up only a quarter of the state’s population. The United States Conference of Mayors, which did its own analysis of different data last month, concluded that the nation’s metropolitan areas were being “shortchanged.”

Pat McCrory, the mayor of Charlotte, N.C., said his city “did pretty terrible” when it came to getting money. Of the $423 million in projects approved so far in North Carolina, only $7.8 million is going to Mecklenburg County, the state’s most populous county and the home of Charlotte.

Cleveland was initially promised $200 million of Ohio’s stimulus money to help build a five-lane bridge to replace the 50-year-old Innerbelt Bridge, which is so deteriorated that officials banned heavy truck traffic on it last fall. But state officials, worried about meeting federal deadlines, took back $115 million in stimulus money and decided to use it on shovel-ready projects elsewhere.

The state promised to find another source of money for the bridge project, but now Ohio’s largest stimulus project is the $150 million it is spending to build the Nelsonville Bypass in southeastern Ohio, which officials say will alleviate a bottleneck and improve transportation to Appalachia.

Transportation experts said the stimulus was drawing attention to a longstanding trend.

“We have a long history of shortchanging cities and metropolitan areas and allocating transportation money to places where few people live,” said Owen D. Gutfreund, an assistant professor of urban planning at the City University of New York who wrote “20th Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape” (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Professor Gutfreund said that in some states the distribution was driven by statehouse politics, with money spread to the districts of as many lawmakers as possible, or given out as political favors. In others, he said, the money is distributed by formulas that favor rural areas or that give priority to state-owned roads, often found far outside of urban areas.

Mayors had lobbied Congress to send the money directly to cities, but in the end, 70 percent of the money was sent to the states to be divided, and 30 percent was sent to metropolitan planning organizations, which represent the local governments in many metropolitan areas.

Those organizations were not bound by the June 30 deadline for getting their projects approved, so metropolitan areas could eventually see their share of the transportation money go up. Other pots of money in the transportation bill stand to benefit metropolitan areas more, including the $8.4 billion for mass transit and the $1.5 billion that the federal Department of Transportation can award to projects of national or regional importance.

Some cities have been delayed in winning approval for their projects. New York City is expecting $261 million of the highway stimulus money. It had hoped to start work in May on its biggest project, a $175 million rehabilitation of the St. George Ferry Terminal in Staten Island, but the project has yet to win approval.

Transportation is currently a hot topic in Washington, where Congress plans to pass a new six-year transportation law within the next year and a half. Washington’s difficulty in directing its transportation aid has led to calls for a national infrastructure bank, which would rank projects and help them get financed.

Obama administration officials, who have called for ending sprawl and making sure that federal transportation spending is cost-effective, say they are looking at how states are spending the money from the stimulus law, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

“The transparency that comes with Recovery Act funds is letting us see what’s happening in real time, and that’s a good thing,” said Roy Kienitz, an under secretary of transportation for policy. “Understanding where recovery dollars go and why will help us determine how to shape long-term transportation policies with the goal of getting the most benefit for every dollar.”

Read more in the New York Times

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.

Lobby firms, businessmen, colleagues have plenty riding on Texas House speaker vote

By R.G. RATCLIFFE - Jan. 7, 2007 - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — Far more is at stake in the race for Texas House speaker than just whose hand will wield the oversized pecan gavel used to bring the unruly chamber to order.

There also is influence. And there is the ability to implement laws that could affect billions of dollars in business profits or state spending.

Lobby firms whose members vacation with incumbent Speaker Tom Craddick or help him get an appointment with the pope stand to lose influence if he is ousted. So do tort reformers and businessmen Bob Perry of Houston and James Leininger of San Antonio.

If Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts prevails in his challenge, Democratic legislators and personal injury trial lawyers could gain a seat at the legislative negotiating table. Proponents of more state spending on public education or children's health programs may gain clout as well.

Winners and losers in the legislative balance of power will be determined Tuesday, the opening day of the legislative session, as House members choose between the two Republicans to lead them.

"The decision on who is going to be speaker of the House will have enormous pocketbook impact on all Texans," said Tom Smith of Public Citizen, a consumer group.

"The decisions the next speaker makes on who to appoint as committee chairs and what legislation comes to the floor and what is in tax and appropriations bills is going to affect each and every one of us."

Aligned with Craddick is a pair of powerful lobby firms — Hillco Partners and the Texas Capitol Group — which collect more than $1 million a year each in fees to represent a who's-who of business clients before the Legislature.

Texas Capitol Group lobbyist Bill Messer vacations with Craddick and his family. Messer's brother, Joe Cox, is a key researcher on Craddick's speaker staff. Mike Toomey, another lobbyist at the firm, helped Craddick win the speakership in 2003.

Hillco partner Bill Miller often serves as Craddick's political spokesman. He also arranged for the Catholic politician to have an audience with the pope at the Vatican.

Democratic political consultant Glenn Smith said the biggest loser in a Craddick defeat would be Gov. Rick Perry. Smith said Perry has been dependent in the past on Craddick to push his agenda through the Legislature.


Highway funding
William Lutz, managing editor of the conservative Lone Star Report, said the governor also could find opposition from Pitts to the centerpiece of his administration: expanding the state highways and building the Trans-Texas Corridor.

"Jim Pitts is not a friend of TxDOT (the Texas Department of Transportation)," Lutz said. "If Jim Pitts is speaker, the governor might get a few bills sent to his desk that he doesn't like."

Smith said other major losers would be Hillco and the Texas Capitol Group. Smith said the lobbyists relied on Perry to serve as a veto block on legislation they opposed and relied on Craddick to push what they wanted through the House.

"Their empire has been dependent on this speaker and the financial backing of Bob Perry," Smith said.

In the past five years, Bob Perry, no relation to Gov. Perry, has donated $915,000 to the Hillco PAC, about 43 percent of all the PAC's fundraising. The money was then donated to legislators.

Ethics advocate Fred Lewis said he thinks the money was not just meant to sway legislators but also to keep Craddick in power by financing lawmakers who support him. (Since Craddick was elected speaker in 2003, he has received $25,000 from Hillco and $35,000 from Bob Perry.)

Lewis said he also thinks a state law prohibiting lobbyists from influencing a speaker's race may have been violated when Hillco's Miller served as Craddick's spokesman in the early stages of the campaign last month. He said Craddick also should have reported Miller's services as an expense on his speaker's race financial disclosure statements.

"It is clear Bill Miller is providing professional services to Speaker Craddick, and they are not reported," Lewis said.

Forming relationships
Miller said his activities as a friend of Craddick's have nothing to do with his work at Hillco. Miller said he was friends with Craddick years ago when Craddick had no power in the House because Craddick had gotten crossways with former Speaker Pete Laney.

"My relationship with Craddick preceded Hillco. It goes back to when he was poison," Miller said. "We have a lot of clients. Do you think we'd subvert our clients for one member of the Legislature?"

Miller said he took reporters' calls during the holidays only because official spokeswoman Alexis DeLee was on vacation. He said he did it as a favor to the reporters and to Craddick.

Other potential losers in a Craddick defeat include Houston homebuilder Perry and San Antonio investor Leininger, both of whom are major Republican donors.

Under Craddick, the House approved creation of the Texas Residential Construction Commission, which protects homebuilders from lawsuits.

And Craddick pushed for a floor vote in 2005 on doomed private school voucher legislation, Leininger's top legislative goal. Leininger's mostly unsuccessful funding of efforts to unseat Republican incumbents who voted against that bill is partly responsible for the current rebellion of House members against Craddick.

Perry spokesman Anthony Holm said Perry makes political donations to both Democrats and Republicans who support a business-friendly agenda. Holm said that will not change if there is a new speaker.

Perry was Pitts' largest donor last year, giving him $15,000.

Leininger spokesman Ken Hoagland said the businessman accepts that trying to create a majority for vouchers by funding legislative campaigns was a mistake. Hoagland said Leininger has "apologized for excesses" and is working to persuade lawmakers he once opposed that vouchers would be good for the school children.

Variety of interests
As for Pitts, the Waxahachie lawmaker comes to the speaker's race with his own set of encumbrances.

Though he was the 10th-largest fundraiser among House members in 2006, his donations came from a broad array of interests. His brother, John, and nephew, John Jr., are lobbyists whose clients mostly include charter schools and businesses associated with the low-income-housing industry.

What worries some conservatives is Pitts' legislative history and the alliances he is making in the speaker's race.

In 2004, Pitts pushed legislation supported by the governor to legalize video slot machines at racetracks. Pitts' contributions last year included $7,500 from the political committee of Houston-based Maxxam Inc., a company interested in passage of such legislation.

To win the speakership, Pitts is putting together a coalition of Democratic and Republican lawmakers. He has promised to be more open than Craddick and give all sides of an issue a seat at negotiations on bills.

To conservatives, that means Pitts could be more willing to give in to Democratic demands on spending, social issues and lawsuit-reform legislation.

"That means our conservative agenda would be endangered if not DOA," said Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum.


'Tail wagging the dog'
Jim Cardle, president of the conservative Texas Citizens Action Network, said state government spending grew 19 percent with Pitts as Appropriations chairman during times when state revenue was tight. Cardle said he is worried about what will happen if Pitts is speaker and has to satisfy Democrats who helped elect him.

"Democrats would win. If Pitts wins, you've got the tail wagging the dog," Cardle said.

There also are political risks involved for House members in how they decide to vote.

Democrats who back Craddick could face retribution from their party in next year's primaries.

Republicans who bolt to Pitts face the similar possibility.

Smith said he does not think the Republican members need to worry. He said three of the five Republican incumbents targeted for defeat by Leininger last year survived.

Cardle agreed. He said Craddick Democrats have more to worry about, and he noted that the party defeated state Reps. Ron Wilson and Al Edwards of Houston and the late state Sen. Frank Madla of San Antonio in the primaries based on party-loyalty votes.

"The Democrats have a better enforcement mechanism than the Republicans do," Cardle said.


Money flows from lobbyists
Hillco and the Texas Capitol Group may be the most high-profile lobby firms with vested interests in a Craddick speakership, but they are not alone.

Through June 30, Craddick raised $1.2 million from lobbyists and business interests for his campaign, even though he faced no re-election challenge. He had $3 million in political cash in the bank.

Pitts raised $812,000 last year, but he also faced challenges in both the GOP primary and general election. His reports cover all but the last two months of 2006. He had $484,334 in political cash in his bank account.

Craddick's report for the second half of 2006 and a final tally on Pitts will not be available until after the speaker's race.

Because state law prohibits fundraising during a regular legislative session, if Pitts wins, lobby interests will be unable to make so-called late train donations to him until 20 days after the session ends.
Read more in the Houston Chronicle