Tollway funding is question of control

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | Tue, Jan. 25, 2005 | Gordon Dickson

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

What can I say. The Trans-Texas Corridor interests me, and it obviously interest other people on this forum, or I'd be getting no replies at all. I will remove you from the ping list.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

320 million misappropriated dollars??? Man, that turnpike could be improved tons faster if it was PROPERLY spent! You can't trust government with ANYTHING!

[BobL]

"Nobody is being forced onto toll roads in this state."

Well then....

"In your lifetime most existing roads will have tolls."
- Ric Williamson (Houston Chronicle, 11-Oct-2004)


...Please reconcile (and keep up with the statements from this out of control governor and his staff).

[BobL]

"If the Trans-Texas Corridor administration wants to actually see profits, I think they would be wise to follow the PA Turnpike's example."

You have to keep in mind that the basic model of a monopoly, as Cintra is about to acquire, is to make the most money - period.

When you have a state-owned toll road like the PA Turnpike, then there's also an incentive for the politicians to keep the prices under some control, and encourage use of the facility (as the toll road lovers like to call their projects).

The point being that high volume and low toll rates can still make some money for a toll road - but low volume and VERY HIGH toll rates make more money. Now with Cintra being given one of the most precious assets of the State of Texas, the right-of-way parallel with I-35, Cintra has no reason to give a damn about how much use their toll road gets, as long as the rates are high enough to maximize profits.

[BobL]

"Why are you so fascinated with the politics of road construction in Texas?"

I'll take a stab at that also. To me it's simply freedom, fairness, and an appreciation of the Interstate Freeways that one gets after driving in 49 states. To be honest, I am probably the least affected with this freeway to toll roads conversion that's in process. I've already completed my traveling just about everywhere that I want to go. I don't even need to use a freeway (or a toll road) to get to work.

I think that everyone should pay fairly for their roads. The fact that it's easier to track people on limited access roads is no reason to SCREW them big time - by a 10:1 ratio, per mile. What I've always said is that the people who should get punished are the ones that DON'T take the limited access roads, because they're clogging up the surface streets. Those people should either get off of the surface streets or pay tolls each time they clog up a traffic light.

But what really galls me about this Cintra deal is the track record that Cintra has (as evidenced by the article) and the fact that no Governor can undo this damage - based on Canada's experience. At least if you kill someone and are sentenced to the death penalty, there, most likely, will be new governor to look over your case before you're fried. But with Cintra - Perry is giving away a Right-of-Way for the rest of my lifetime - non revocable. Just think, building an overpass 10 miles away from Cintra's toll road (for a parallel highway) will require Cintra's approval, and probably tax money going to Cintra (to make up for their perceived loss of revenue). That, my friend, is a SELL-OUT.

[Dog Gone]

The Katy Freeway expansion, which is well underway, will include toll lanes, HOV lanes, as well as additional free lanes.

That's reconciled.

[BobL]

Technicall - yes, I stand corrected.

I do think that if you asked 100 people what Williamson meant when he said that all highways will have tolls, 99 of them would have assumed tolls ONLY, not the option of "free" lanes.

By the way, the California project (SH 91), that is the basis for the Katy project, now costs $0.70 per mile during peak drive times, not to mention the other nightmares associated with it.

On last comment: Note that the Katy project does not, as of yet, involve of sellout of the corridor to a private company. That is a big difference.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not keen on the idea of selling out the corridor to a private company, either, although I have little doubt that private enterprise could build the project faster and for less money than government.

I have no problem with them getting a fair return on their investment, but it should only be a fair return and then the project should be returned to the state on behalf of the citizens who live here.

[BobL]

Maybe we're not that far apart after all. We both (appear to) agree that a private company (particularly this company) will not give a darn about the drivers in Texas - rather they will answer to their bondholders and stockholders.

I agree with you that projects can generally be done faster by private companies, but much of that is due to the government's own regulations - regulations that could be suspended or revoked at the governments choosing. In other words, if Mr. Perry would spend 10% of the time that he spends shoving toll roads down our throats, instead working with the legislature - which is now solid Republican (but I doubt he's noticed), we could come up with much more efficient ways to build roads.

For example - the Northridge Earthquake in California took out a 10-lane wide road bridge on the Santa Monica Freeway. The bridge deck simply left its support on one end and dropped down to the street below. So there it was, sitting diagonally, with the freeway now severed. What happened: Governor Wilson called up a big-contractor friend and in 30 days the old bridge was cleared and a brand new replacement was completed. They later negotiated the contract and payments - meaning it can be done.

[Dog Gone]

Enough with the Perry-bashing. He doesn't have the power to shove anything down anyone's throat. At best, he can be a cheerleader and can wield his veto pen.

If you don't have equal wrath for David Dewhurst and the Republican legislature that enacted the legislation for this corridor, then I have to wonder what the real agenda of these threads is.

[BobL]

"He doesn't have the power to shove anything down anyone's throat."

...then why is Cintra negotiating with him?


I do have a problem with the Republicans in the legislature. They did pass the law that enabled that scum-bag Perry to move out on his money grab (couldn't resist).

But it is still Perry, and his cronies, that are causing the damage today, so they have to be dealt with first. They are the only ones that can stop it.

What can I say, the legislature was suckered - and I don't know what to say about Dewhurst. They didn't see the implications of what they voted on, and no doubt more than a few were right there with Perry. But there's not much that the legislature can do now, even if they wanted to. They could pass a bill reversing the authorization that they gave to Perry. But, then, Perry would veto it - and continue to sell out the state.

But ask yourself this question: Did you think, or did anyone you know think, that the governor was being given carte Blanche power to sell off our highway corridors when the bill was pass? And even if you were aware of this power, did you really think he would do it?

No other governor, Democrat or Republican, that I can think of has ever attempted anything this audacious. Don't you think there could at least be some public input - before the damage is done? So we don't end up like Ontario.

As to my agenda - checkout my other 500 or so postings (other than on toll roads) - you won't anything approaching liberalism. I simply want to keep our freeway system, throughout this country, in the form that's worked so well. Yes, we have financing problems, but a governor with some leadership skills would push for a gas tax increase, rather than selling out our corridors to the highest bidders. Heck, even the Republican House (in DC) passed a 5 cent increase in the gas tax (last year) to pay for new highways - but the Senate killed it.

That's all. If Perry drops this scheme (the part about selling out our corridors) than I'll go back to bashing Muslims. If Perry wants to keep his corridors, that's also fine with me - just get rid of the tolls - make it up in gas tax, or make it up in a mileage tax, so that everyone pays their share and no one is punished.

[Dog Gone]

I certainly was not aware of any of the details of the corridor plan, except for its physical characteristics, when the legislation was enacted. I'm not sure how many within the legislature were, either, although their staff is paid to read each bill before the votes are cast.

I think the concept of mega-corridors crossing the state is a good idea, and I'm reminded of that every time I drive to Dallas and back in massive snarled traffic.

The debate is how such corridors should be funded, because they won't be cheap. Have you read the fine print of the enabling legislation? Does Perry have to submit any contract to the legislature for its approval? I would suspect so, but the answer is critical in determining whether there is an opportunity for further public input into the plan.

[BobL]

Reasonable comments. No, I haven't read the legislation, but the news articles make it clear that the contract is between Cintra and the DOT, and is not going to be available to anyone else, until after it is signed.

They claim that's to protect Cintra's proprietary rights, but I have some serious doubts about that. After all, Cintra already won, and the contract will, eventually, become public (by the way, it took 3 years in Canada for the Ontario contract to become public).

So I doubt anyone gets to see it until well after the ink is dry (and maybe many other contracts are signed). Additionally, (Transportation Commission Chairman) Williamson has stated that Cintra will get franchise protection, so that's about all I need to know.

From what I can tell, the State of Texas has no protections against abuse from Cintra, at least per the legislation, or Williamson and others would be explaining that to the public.

To data, I have no reason to believe that the interests of Texans is being protected, other than the word of Perry, and I wouldn't trust him or any other single politician (including Kay, Reagan, Bush-43) with that much power. The whole system of checks and balances is gone with these deals and that scares me.

[Dog Gone]

Well, you have certainly succeeded in raising issues that demand answers. I would hope that the enabling legislation requires approval of the signed contract by the Legislature before it can become effective.

Maybe it doesn't, but if a multi-billion dollar project (which obviously will have the power of eminent domain) can be negotiated and awarded without any scrutiny from lawmakers or the public, then something is seriously wrong.

[BobL]

Thanks Dog Gone - I appreciate you believing what I've said.

I'll double-check some of the news stories to make sure that I'm giving out good data.

[BobL]

I think that this column by Ben Wear, who's the Austin-American Transportation Reporter pretty much sums up how we got to where we are. It becomes pretty understandable why people are so angry about how this was done.

---

Monday, December 13, 2004
When I moved back to Austin about 16 months ago after living elsewhere since early 2001, everything I saw and was told indicated that Texas had a discussion about toll roads while I was gone and decided that turnpikes were the wave of the future.
Texas 45 North was under construction, and bulldozers were warming up for Texas 130 and the MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) extension. A route had been picked for Texas 45 Southeast, and a newfangled thing called a "regional mobility authority" was hard at work planning another toll road. Several months earlier, in the 2003 session, the Legislature had overwhelmingly passed a huge transportation bill that, in a variety of ways, prepared the ground for turnpikes.
As state Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said to me last year about toll roads: "That's state policy. And I think the public needs to accept that."
The toll road storms of 2004, here and in Dallas, Houston, El Paso and various other locales, indicate that a large chunk of the public hasn't accepted it. And part of the problem may be that this is a rare example of a sweeping and fundamental new policy, one that will affect people every day of their lives, that became law without public demand for it or even much awareness that it was happening.
Think back to the 2003 legislative session. What do you remember about it? Well, Ardmore, Okla., mostly. And the stories weren't about how Democratic House members, trying to foil GOP redistricting plans, got caught in Interstate 35 traffic on their way to Oklahoma and wished they'd been able to take a toll road instead. Oh, and there was that budget problem, too, about $10 billion worth, and school finance.
Meanwhile, state Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, and Ogden, chairmen of the two committees overseeing transportation, were knee-deep in a 300-page transportation bill, House Bill 3588, that beefed up regional mobility authorities, made possible Gov. Rick Perry's 4,000-mile Trans-Texas Corridor toll roads, and gave the Department of Transportation all sorts of new powers. That bill passed the House on May 10, two days before the Democrats absconded. Something tells me the Democrats were more interested in their stealth travel plans, and the Republicans in congressional districts, than in the details of HB 3588.
The press, for its part, wasn't paying a whole lot of attention, either. The Austin American-Statesman's transportation reporter left for the Peace Corps as the bill was passing the House and was gone when it passed the Senate, was amended in conference, and became law. The state's other major newspapers don't have transportation reporters in Austin, and the Capitol bureaus were focused on redistricting and the budget.
So toll roads became state policy while almost no one was looking. Everyone's looking now, however, and HB 3588 is likely to undergo significant change in the coming session. Some lawmakers will try to defang it, while toll road supporters actually want more money for tolls and more flexibility. We'll be watching this time.

[deport]

I haven't read the enabling legislation but here is the info put out in their press release when Cintra was selected......

In return for building the new transportation corridor and giving it to the state — plus paying the state $1.2 billion to invest in the corridor — Cintra proposes to negotiate for a 50-year contract to maintain and operate the new highway as a toll road.

“The private sector is willing and able to invest in transportation improvements to reduce congestion, improve safety, provide economic development, and protect our quality of life,” said Williamson. “There are many details to be worked out and separate environmental studies must be completed. Without a doubt, the private sector is knocking at our door with a nearly incredible opportunity for Texas.”

Contract negotiations between TxDOT and Cintra will begin immediately. The complete proposals will be made available for public review once a contract has been signed and TxDOT obtains ownership of the ideas and innovations presented by all three private firms. Prior to that, release of the proposals is prohibited due to the proprietary information they contain.

Now the question is will the Texas negotiators learn from what has gone down in other areas?.... It's no question that the need for this is out there as we march toward mid century.

[Dog Gone]

What "proprietary information" is involved in a road project? That's just weird.

[deport]

No idea...

[BobL]

Here's something that won't make any of you guys feel better:

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/metro_state_143d6b2506a5910a1022.html