Nueces County Record - Jan. 3, 2008 Companies with Texas, U.S. and international experience are competing to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 - one of the state's priority transportation projects.
Two private sector groups submitted proposals and qualifications to compete for the development of TTC-69, a multi-use transportation system stretching from Northeast Texas to Mexico.
"Inviting the private sector to invest in our transportation system is one of our strategies to meet the growing transportation needs of Texas," said Michael W. Behrens, TxDOT executive director. "We are focused on these five goals: reducing congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity, improving air quality, and increasing the value of transportation assets."
One proposal was submitted by Bluebonnet Infrastructure Investors, led by Cintra. Team members include Citigroup, Earth Tech, Blanton & Associates, Maunsell, Othon and W.W. Webber.
A proposal was also submitted by Texas-based Zachry American Infrastructure and ACS Infrastructure Development Inc. Team members include Steer Davies Gleave, UBS Securities, Dannenbaum Engineering, ACI Consulting, Sociedad Ibercia de Construcciones Electricas, Dragados, and William Brothers Construction.
These proposals include statements detailing the groups experience in developing and financing transportation projects similar to TTC-69. Also included are conceptual proposals describing how the team would finance, design, construct, operate and maintain TTC-69.
The next step is for TxDOT to complete an initial review of the proposals, which could be completed next month. Teams with experience, qualifications and innovative engineering will be placed on a short list of potential strategic partners for TTC-69.
Once this is completed, approval by the Texas Transportation Commission is needed to continue with the competitive selection process. If approved, TxDOT will request detailed proposals from the short list of potential strategic partners. A selection of a strategic partner could be made by the commission by late 2007.
With no funding set aside for construction, a public-private partnership would allow development of the entire 600-mile multi-billion dollar project from Northeast Texas to Mexico to be accelerated. Even with private sector resources to fund the project, state transportation officials stress TTC-69 will remain a state-owned project.
On a parallel yet independent track, work continues on the initial environmental study that would narrow the current study area to approximately four miles wide. Subsequent studies will be needed to determine a final route for the project.
Interstate 69 is being developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. If environmentally approved, the project would be developed as needed and as private sector resources are available.
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.”
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.
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)
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."
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.
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
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:
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.
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 theDMN
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.
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
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.
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]
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).
