Austin Chamber of Commerce 2006 report on CAMPO

SUMMERY:
CAMPO GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE
Recommendations for a successful
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Beyond
2006

BACKGROUND
The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CAMPO) Transportation Policy Board (Board) is
responsible for developing the region’s long range
transportation plan and prioritizing projects for
federal matching funds.  In July 2006, Chamber
Chairman Tim Crowley appointed the CAMPO Governance
Task Force.  He charged its members to review the
status of the CAMPO 2001 Peer Review recommendations,
seek input from former and current CAMPO Board Members
and community representatives on additional areas to
review, and develop recommendations to improve the
overall function of CAMPO. 

The Chamber wanted the recommendations to have the
support of regional leaders, some of whom will decide
whether to implement them.  To achieve this goal, the
Task Force was comprised of former CAMPO Board Members
and community leaders.  The Task Force also worked to
gather input from current CAMPO Board Members during
the process.  Immediate Past Chamber Chairman Kirk
Watson agreed to chair the Task Force.  Participating
community leaders included Daron Butler, Kent Butler,
Brandon Janes and Terry Mitchell.  In addition to Kirk
Watson, former CAMPO members on the Task Force
included Bill Burnett, Margaret Gomez, Robert Stluka
and Danny Thomas. 

The 2006 CAMPO Peer Review Update by Cambridge
Systematics and the Task Force found a lack of trust
among Board Members, Technical Advisory Staff and
CAMPO staff.  Also, there are structural and
procedural issues affecting both the CAMPO Policy
Board and its Technical Advisory Committee from
effectively discussing and developing consensus on key
regional transportation issues including effective
community engagement. 

RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2006 CAMPO Peer Review Update by Cambridge
Systematics and the Task Force both identified a lack
of trust among CAMPO Policy Board Members, Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) members, and CAMPO staff.
Additionally, there are other structural and
procedural issues affecting both the CAMPO Policy
Board and its TAC that, individually or collectively,
are preventing the organization from effectively
discussing and developing consensus on key regional
transportation issues.

The Task Force recommendations fall into the three
categories:
· Create an effective regional transportation policy
Board
· Facilitate Board member engagement
· More effectively incorporate public input

The primary recommendation regarding the policy Board
is reducing the number of voting members from 23 to
18, including the elimination of seven state
legislators and increasing the number of elected
officials representing local governments. 

The Task Force recommended a number of strategies to
facilitate increased Board member involvement from
changing the seating arrangement in meetings so that
Board Members can look at each other during
discussions to implementing a committee structure with
responsibility for detailed review of proposals. 

A number of the recommendations related to more
effective incorporation of public input are already
being implemented at our suggestion for an upcoming
Board vote.  A key component is holding public
meetings throughout the CAMPO jurisdiction with an
ombudsman to conduct the meeting and make the report
to the Board.

SUMMARY OF CAMPO GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CREATE AN EFFECTIVE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
BOARD

The CAMPO Board should be reduced from 23 to 18 voting
members, maintaining an appropriate balance between
the three counties currently comprising CAMPO.  The
Task Force also suggests amending the by-laws to
affirmatively state a goal of assuring as much racial
and ethnic minority representation as possible.  The
following is the Task Force’s recommended Board
composition:
16 Elected Officials
Williamson County – 4 seats: 1 Legislator, 1
Commissioners Court representative, 1 Round Rock City
Council representative, and 1 Alliance of Cities
representative.
Travis County – 10 seats: 2 Legislators, 3
Commissioners Court representatives, 4 Austin City
Council representatives, and 1 Alliance of Cities
representative.
Hays County – 2 seats: 1 Commissioners Court
representative and 1 Alliance of Cities
Representative.
2 At Large voting members: TXDOT; Capital Metro
1 Ex Officio Member: CTRMA

A member of the Legislature could be substituted for
an Alliance of Cities member and vice versa.  So, for
example, Williamson County might have 2 members of the
Legislature as part of its 4 members, but would
consequently not have an Alliance of Cities member.  A
process involving the timing of selection from
different entities would assure the balance.

The CAMPO Board should engage in facilitated, periodic
work sessions to address issues of mistrust, overall
mission, and inter-jurisdictional relationships to lay
the groundwork for consensus building in the coming
year. 

The Executive Committee should be engaged on a regular
basis to provide guidance to staff, ensure the Board
meets federal and state requirements, and make
governance recommendations (such as changes to bylaws,
reviews of Board Member requests, etc.) as necessary.



B. FACILITATE BOARD MEMBER ENGAGEMENT

Establish standing committees and require Board Member
participation to provide a mechanism to increase the
knowledge of all members and ensure engagement in the
process.  Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members
should serve on these committees with Board Members or
have a parallel TAC committee structure that provides
information to the appropriate Board Committee.
Appointment to the committees would be made by the
Chair with advice and consent of the Executive
Committee.

New members should be required to attend a CAMPO
Orientation session within three months of assuming
their new position to ensure a base level
understanding of duties and responsibilities. 

Staff should schedule individual semi-annual meetings
with Board Members to preview the upcoming six months,
identify possible concerns about future issues, and
ensure the Members’ overall needs and expectations are
being met. 

All CAMPO meetings should be held in a facility
designed to facilitate discussion and open dialogue
among Board Members.  It should be large enough to
accommodate the Board sitting in a U shape, with
adequate seating for the audience. 

Proxies should not have voting authority.  On the
occasions that members are unable to attend a Board
Meeting, their appointing organizations should name an
alternate with similar functions or responsibilities.


The Board should establish an attendance policy.  The
appointing body of a Board Member that misses half the
meetings in a calendar year should be approached to
appoint a new representative. 


C. MORE EFFECTIVELY INCORPORATE PUBLIC INPUT

Change the public input process.  A "Hearings
Subcommittee" should be created consisting of five
members of the TAC and an ombudsman who would conduct
the meetings on behalf of the six member subcommittee.
The subcommittee should hold at least one public
meeting in each county on significant public policy
items before the Board votes on them.  The ombudsman
and the subcommittee should submit a report to the
CAMPO Board on the input that was accumulated through
this public process, and that report should be
available to the Board and to the public four weeks
prior to the vote.
 
Set criteria for adding additional counties to the
MPO.  In the year following the adoption of a Long
Range Plan, the MPO should consider expanding its
boundaries to include counties that have reached a
population of 100,000, or are working to implement
both the expansion of a transportation facility of
regional significance and Federal requirements for
inclusion in an MPO.

Regional partners should be engaged on a regular
basis.  Transportation is not an issue constrained or
solved within governmental boundaries.  Policy and
project decisions should be considered in the context
of a regional system.  CAMPO can and should facilitate
regional cooperation and collaboration with
surrounding counties and contiguous MPOs.  One medium
to facilitate regional coordination is an annual
conference with CARTPO and contiguous MPOs to discuss
super-regional issues, best practices, and lessons
learned. 

Watson letter

This Watson email sent to current and upcoming CAMPO board members. It confirms Kirk Watson is working behind the scenes for the CAMPO chair position.
---------

Dear CAMPO Policy Board Members (and some others who may be shortly*):

This week, I sent a letter to a large number of you introducing the recommendations of a Chamber of Commerce Task Force related to CAMPO. If you didn't receive this report and would like to, please contact me. Separately, I wanted to address a couple of other important issues.

I'm writing as a future member of the CAMPO Board. I've also talked to many of you about playing a role in the leadership of CAMPO, although it's premature to make assumptions in that regard.

Whatever my role on your board proves to be, I want to recommend that a vote on the Phase 2 Toll Plan be put off for at least six months. I believe the new Board deserves the chance to thoroughly evaluate the proposal. We also need to review recent information that has become public that some suggest could alleviate the need for the Phase 2 toll plan. We should take a fresh look at our significant and growing transportation challenges. And we can give the Legislature time to decide what tools we should have to address those challenges.

Quite simply, I think the new board members -- and the current members, for that matter -- need time and information before they can be asked to take a vote of this magnitude. I also believe strongly that the reforms laid out in the Chamber of Commerce Task Force report could improve transportation planning for generations, and it would be a critical mistake to consider those reforms in the maelstrom of the so-called debate over toll roads.

I am not, however, averse to a vote that allows essential transportation planning to continue without committing to financing mechanisms at this time. We all want to assure that we meet our federal obligations regarding the Transportation Improvement Plan. I am currently analyzing options in that regard and will report my findings to you.

We will, of course, have to take up the delicate issues of funding and financing. But before making a potentially irreversible decision, I recommend that the CAMPO Board take advantage of this proposed six-month interim and begin crafting a policy framework to evaluate all transportation projects, as well as the possible methods of financing them.

The size and shape of this policy, of course, is entirely up to the Board. I will forward a proposed outline of a conceptual framework for analyzing transportation financing before the January Board meeting. We will need to pool our knowledge to fully develop a framework that can lead Central Texas to a comprehensive transportation plan that both serves the public and wins its support.

To help us develop this policy, I also propose that the CAMPO Board form a Mobility Financing Task Force, made up primarily of members of the CAMPO Board, which will spend the six months gathering input, weighing ideas, and developing recommendations that, hopefully, will help guide the Board as it drafts a policy. The Task Force would report back to the full Board in early June. At that time, the Board would consider a long-term transportation financing policy that will meet federal requirements and our constituents' demands for improved transportation.

I've had discussions with appropriate representatives of relevant agencies, who've said they understand the rationale and are not necessarily opposed to delaying parts of the Phase 2 plan. They've told me there will still be some issues to work out, but I'm confident that the Board can do that and still gain the time we need to create a policy that is right for the region and that the region will support.

These adjustments are not part of the Chamber Task Force report I sent you. I simply and strongly feel they are necessary for us to do our jobs at this important point in time.

Finally, I have an interest in a business that owns a piece of property on 290 East in Elgin, Bastrop County. While this is outside the CAMPO area and beyond the area of 290 East considered for inclusion in the Phase 2 Toll Plan, I will recuse myself from decisions regarding 290 East to avoid any conflict, real or perceived, that might impact my ability to assist with the work of CAMPO.

Sorry for the long letter. I just wanted to start laying things out. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Again, let me say that I hope you all have a great holiday. I am really looking forward to working with you in 2007.

Sincerely yours,
Kirk Watson
__________________________________
*If you're receiving this e-mail, it may be because you are currently on the CAMPO Policy Board and I've assumed you will continue that service in January 2007. Or, it may be that you're newly elected to office and I've made an assumption about you filling a place on the CAMPO Board. It might also be that you're newly elected to a body that gets to appoint a new member of the CAMPO Board and, so, I thought you should see this letter. Finally, it might be that you are a part of some organization, such as the Alliance of Cities, that gets to appoint members to CAMPO and, while you may not serve on the CAMPO Board, your organization has an interest in CAMPO. I've tried to cast a pretty broad net of likely future members of CAMPO or those who will be deciding who will be on the next Board. Feel free to forward this letter to others. I'm sure I've missed some folks.

Big boxes, CAMPO, and toll roads by Roger Baker

At the big box hearing at the Austin City Council last night, it
became pretty clear to me that the Council is very reluctant to take
on a well-organized grassroots opposition from an area that votes
heavily enough to determine the outcome of elections (see latest
Chronicle).

Austin is gentrifying because the roads are getting clogged up, and
there isn't enough money to try to build our way out of congestion
very well anymore (hence the toll road syndrome). Is it any wonder
that big box retailers are learning how to play politics as the
metropolitan roads clog up and refocus retail trade back into the
core city?

As part of gentrification, a lot of professionals are now deciding to
live in Austin rather than enduring traffic jams commuting out into
the suburbs, as they might have ten years ago, and they are willing
to create strong, smart coalitions like the WalMart opposition;
RG4N. They believe in defending their property rights against the
really big money, big box developer strategist Richard Suttle, etc

If these folks in north central Austin can do it, than other less
organized areas of town will certainly be inspired to get their act
together, and I assume ANC will gladly help.

The reality is that more or less insoluble transportation problems
have become a major growth policy constraint in the Austin area, and
the politics follows.

A majority of Austin's streets and roads are now in poor, failing or
failed condition, and this is not expected to improve even with the
recent bond election (a large part of Austin's year 2000 Prop. bonds,
at least $67 million and in total much more, was diverted to buy toll
road right of way outside the city in Williamson County).

Now on to the traffic impact study. This was required of the
proposed WalMart at Northcross Mall.

The traffic situation was marginal; the road capacity on Anderson
Lane and Burnet Road and was very near breakdown even when using a
lot of favorable assumptions. Like plugging in standard AASHTO
numbers that do not correspond to the known big box reality.

One of the biggest flaws in the Northcross traffic impact study was
not even mentioned at the hearing. That is the fact that they are
only using CURRENT traffic numbers for background traffic, as opposed
to the numbers projected five or ten or twenty years from now. If the
road system is near breakdown even now, assuming the Walmart-friendly
assumptions being used by the city, how bad will the situation be
even five years from now, once the Walmart is located there? The
system breaks down during rush hours and diverts.

The traffic impact only looked at the very nearby roads surrounding
Northcross. But anyone who lives along Shoal Creek Blvd. knows that
it is increasingly used as an alternative to Burnet Road when getting
to Northcross from Allandate and points south.

The traffic impact will clearly tend to make Shoal Creek (supposedly
being planned to be bike friendly) try to become a major arterial as
Burnet Road becomes the more congested alternative approach to Walmart.

Who has the numbers to properly analyze these traffic problems? CAMPO
does, sort of, and you can see for yourself by going to the following
link:



Look at maps 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

If CAMPO's travel demand models proposes to predict how congested the
roads will be 25 years from now in 2030.If so, they should be able to
tell you how congested they will be five or ten years from now, right?

One big problem is that CAMPO's modeling has recently been outsourced
so that the modeling assumptions and methods underlying these results
are no longer subject to public scrutiny. We can now only see the end
results. This amounts to heavy congestion throughout the city, even
assuming we do build the toll roads and can afford to expand the
secondary network throughout Austin (map 2.3).

TxDOT wants to get the toll roads surrounding Austin under contract
ASAP, and approved for construction this next spring, 2007. CAMPO
does have an improved growth concept in the works:



But CAMPO has said they will only start implementing this better
growth concept in 2010 at the earliest, AFTER the toll road contracts
TxDOT wants are let! So CAMPO's hypothetical future better
transportation and land use planning will have to wait for years,
until after the sprawl roads are approved and under construction. Its
like dangling a paper carrot in front of progressive planners to
distract attention from all the toll road construction.

But meanwhile the reality is that Austin cannot afford to "Improve"
its own roads to handle all the regional spill-over traffic generated
by poor land use planning that assumes that all the suburban
developers will build out as proposed for decades to come (in Texas,
private roads have become public subsidies for private development;
its a lot cheaper to buy a politician than to build a road).

The reality is that all the toll roads (ones that Councilmen Wynn and
McCracken approved a few years ago against strong public opposition)
will generate a lot of spillover traffic in the central city.

That is a major reason why so many of the Austin area roads in
CAMPO's long range plan are STILL projected to be severely congested,
assuming that Austin has the money to widen or maintain them. But
this is unlikely according to the Austin's current funding trends in
which a majority of Austin's roads are in poor condition.


In conclusion, roadway congestion is a primary cause of
gentrification. Then this gentrification refocuses the growth battles
from the suburbs back into the core city.

In the absence of good land use planning and high level public
transportation, this situation tends to create heavy congestion on
the major arterials like Anderson Lane, Burnet Road, Lamar, etc.
This generates lots of spill-over traffic filtering into the
neighborhoods. This also adds to the localized traffic generated by
the big boxes that are trying to capture travelers along there same
congested arterials, who may wish to chain their trips by shopping on
the way home.

One important factor never considered is that increasing fuel prices
are never taken into account by Texas transportation planners (even
through this key factor has caused traffic in Texas to decrease on
urban arterials by about 2% in the last year according to the federal
data!).

After all, Prez GWBush has recently been warning us that we are
addicted to oil and need to reduce its use (even though he doesn't
believe in global warming unlike most climate scientists).

A looming peak in world oil production is the main factor that I
strongly believe will doom ALMOST ALL of the future transportation
planning being done by CAMPO and TxDOT, along with causing the toll
road bonds to default. There are tons of supportive documents
concerning peak oil, energy and transportation problems, on "Energy
Bulletin" and "The Oil Drum" websites.

Anyhow, even conservative Re[publicans are starting to realize that
transportation planning in Texas is very largely a political scam
promoted by special interests.
Historically, these interests have been suburban developers and road
contractors.

Follow this link to a Texas Monthly blog in which Paul Burka
critiques the thinking that toll roads or higher gas taxes are really
necessary:



A lot of Texas' political influence peddling involves roads
(starting with Gov. Perry, who gets lots of money from the
contractors, and who then appoints the Tx Transportation Commission.
They then in turn determine TxDOT policy at the local level) This is
documented in the Dec. 15 Texas Observer in an article titled "The
Highwaymen":



--- Happy Holidays, Roger

East Austin Group says Phase II Tolls will have a disparate negative impact on low-income and minority citizens

People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources

December 5, 2006

Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Chair
CAMPO Board
P.O. Box 1088
Austin, TX 78767

Mr. Bob Tesch, Chair
CTRMA Board
301 Congress Ave., Suite 650
Austin, TX 78701

Dear Senator Barrientos and Mr. Tesch:

I am writing on behalf of PODER to provide comments on the Analysis of Effects of the Austin Regional Toll System on Environmental Justice Populations so that these comments may be considered as CAMPO and the CTRMA deliberate on the Phase II Toll Road Plan. We strongly feel that the Phase II Toll Road Plan, if implemented as currently proposed, will have a disparate negative impact on low-income and minority communities in Austin.

On August 14, 2006, PODER delivered a letter to the CAMPO board conveying our concerns about the disproportionate adverse impacts that the toll road system would have on low-income and minority populations. These comments were submitted before the above-referenced document, hereinafter referred to as The Toll System EJ Study, was made available to the public. The Toll System EJ Study suggests that the proposed plan would not have and adverse impact on low-income and minority populations. We strongly feel that this analysis is fundamentally flawed and would like to point out some of the specific shortcomings in the study. We urge CAMPO and CTRMA to requests that the authors of this report revise their analysis for the purpose of addressing the issues raised below. We further request that CAMPO and CTRMA take no action on the Phase II Toll Road Plan until these issues have been adequately addressed.

Lane Mile Distribution

The authors of the Toll System EJ Study claim that there exists no quantitative data that may be used to assess the effect of the regional toll system on environmental justice populations (pg. 6 and pg. 45). The authors of this report used this finding as a reason to fail to conduct a thorough analysis of the geographical impact of the toll system.

The study very clearly lays out the location of environmental justice populations, as well as the breakdown of the lane miles of the toll system located within EJ areas and outside EJ areas (see attached maps and figures). Because the authors analysis considered the distribution of the entire toll system and not Phase I and Phase II portions of the system separately, it failed to identify the disparate effect of the Phase II Toll Road Plan.

If you consider Phase I separately, the report indicates that 265 lane miles are located within EJ areas and 271 lane miles are located outside EJ areas.

Before tallying the lane miles inside and outside EJ areas for the Phase II Toll Road Plan, it is beneficial to consider what roads constitute Phase II. The roads typically associated with Phase II are:

SH 45 SW

SH 71 W

US 290 E

US 290 W

Loop 360

US 183 S

SH 71 E

Because it has been widely reported that no funding has been included in the Phase II Toll Road Plan for Loop 360, the lane miles for this road should not be included in the comparison of lane miles inside and outside EJ areas for the Phase II Toll Road Plan. Further, since it appears that there is insufficient right-of-way to provide a non-toll alternative to SH 45 SW, then the future of this road is also highly uncertain, and thus the lane miles for this road should not be included in a comparison of lanes miles inside and outside EJ areas for the Phase II Toll Road Plan.

If you compare the remaining toll roads that comprise Phase II, you discover that

143 miles are located within EJ areas and only 36 miles are located outside EJ areas.

In other words, of the roads that comprise the Phase II Toll Road Plan, 80% of the lane miles will be located within EJ areas.

Revenue Generation

The Draft Mobility Alternatives Finance Study (MAFS) provides some relevant revenue information for the Phase II Toll Road Plan. The MAFS assumes that the revenues produced by the proposed Phase II Toll Roads will be as follows:

SH 45 SW 12 %

SH 71 W 3 %

US 290 E 14 %

US 290 W 6 %

Loop 360 33 %

US 183 S 18 %

SH 71 E 15 %

However, if we make the same assumptions for Phase II regarding SH 45 SW and Loop 360 that we outlined in the previous section on Lane Mile Distribution, we find that:

83.9% of revenues for Phase II will come from the toll roads inside EJ areas and only 16.1% will come from toll roads outside EJ areas.

The Toll System EJ Study does not consider the issue of toll revenues from toll roads inside EJ areas being used to fund toll roads outside EJ areas. This is a significant oversight.

Time Travel Analysis

The travel time analysis also seems to have possibly overlooked some very important factors. The study found that the Toll Build Alternative (vs. the No Toll Build Alternative) did not cause greater than a 5-minute delay or greater than a 28% delay for persons residing in EJ areas. We find this difficult to believe if one considers the fact that a high proportion of the residents of the EJ areas are of low and moderate income. If these residents choose to use the non-toll alternative (e.g., choose to not pay the toll and use the access roads), it seem reasonable to assume that they will be delayed by more than 5 minutes. For this reason, it appears that there are some flaws with regard to the assumptions made in the travel time analysis with regard to persons living in EJ areas.

Public Involvement

The Toll System EJ Study found that there had been adequate opportunities for persons residing in EJ areas to provide meaningful input into the process. The Toll System Plan has gone through many different changes since the public dialogue on the proposal began. Thus, the input received regarding the overall toll road plan may differ significantly from the input that would be received if a concerted public involvement campaign were to be conducted regarding Phase II as currently proposed. Given the potential adverse impact of the Phase II Toll Road Plan on environmental justice populations that were outlined above, it appears that CAMPO and the CTRMA should seek further input from these stakeholders before proceeding.

There is a huge difference between East Austin tolls and other tolls that will be created across Austin. None of the other tolls in Phase I or II were 100% funded. Phase I doesnt take already funded public highways and shift them to toll ways. Shifting our East Austin expressways such as US 290 East, US 183 East and SH 71, to tolls roads will impact low-income and people of color communities while other, more affluent communities drive their expressways for free. Tolling and privatizing East Austin public highways is environmental injustice.

I hope that you will give serious consideration to these issues as you move forward with your deliberations on the Phase II Toll Road Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Susana Almanza
Executive Director
P.O. Box 6237 Austin, Texas 78762-6237
Email: poder@austin.rr. com
website: www.poder-texas.org

NOT NECESSARY TO TOLL, A&M EXPERT SAYS:

From Texas Monthly BurkaBlog

NOT NECESSARY TO TOLL, A&M EXPERT SAYS

Few things are duller than a committee meeting in the interim between legislative sessions. Witnesses drone on about policy choices involving arcane issues. Some of the committees exist only for a short duration and will vanish once the legislative session begins in January. The media almost never shows up for these meetings, which explains why the November 28 meeting of the Study Commission on Transportation Financing received virtually no attention. But a few minutes into the hearing, David Ellis, a co-author of a report by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M, dropped a bombshell on the commission. He said that Texas could finance its highway needs without toll roads. The headline for this post is based on Ellis's testimony. I have not come across any mainstream media reports of Ellis's remarks.

Ellis provided the committee with some background on transportation policy. The demand for new and expanded roads in the state's eight largest metro areas is increasing much faster than TxDot can build them. Over the next 25 years, the population of these areas is projected to increase by 2.8% per year, employment by by 2.3%, vehicles by 2.7%, and daily miles drive by 3%. Over the same period, the number of lane miles that can be built with currently available funding will increase by just .25% per year. Tx-Dot estimates that the state will need an additional $68 billion over the next 25 years to improve mobility. The TTI's estimate is slightly lower, $66.2 billion. Two-thirds of the needed new construction will be in the state road system, or some $44+ billion; the remainder represents improvements to local roads.

The money for highway construction comes from three sources: vehicle registration fees, the state gasoline (more properly, motor fuels) tax, and reimbursements from the federal gasoline tax, of which Texas sends more revenue to Washington than it gets back. Of these sources, the one that matters the most is the motor fuels tax. But the tax has been losing ground to inflation in recent years.

Now, here is the crucial part of Ellis's testimony: There are scenarios under which roads can be financed:

1. Raise the motor fuels tax, currently 20 cents per gallon, to 51 cents. Interestingly, a Tx-Dot engineer had previously told the committee that the motor fuels tax would have to be raised to $1.40 per gallon to pay for the needed new construction. Needless to say, the Legislature is not going to raise the tax by 31 cents, much less a buck twenty.

2. Raise the motor fuels tax by 8 cents and index it to inflation, using not the consumer price index, but a special highway construction index. The rate of inflation has been 1/2% to 1 1/2 percent per year.

3. Don't raise the gasoline tax at all. Instead, index it and put the incremental revenue in the mobility fund, where it can be used to pay off bonds. And here's the bombshell: "Under this scenario," Ellis said, " it wouldn't be necessary to toll as a means of financing, although that's certainly an option."

The cat is out of the bag now. Tolls aren't the only way to pay for new roads. Will the Legislature allow Tx-Dot to go forward with its mammoth toll road plan, or will lawmakers devise a solution that will allow revenue to be used to build free roads?

ACRE Eminent Domain Info

To: Anti-Corridor/Rail Expansion (ACRE) email list
From: susan_garry@hotmail.com
December 6, 2006

EMINENT DOMAIN INFO

On October 26, several hundred Texas landowners packed the Sts. Cyril
and Methodius Hall in Granger to organize against the Trans-Texas Corridor. The meeting was hosted by Dan and Margaret Byfield, founders of the Texas Landowners organization. The first action was a mass letter-writing campaign before the election, which I covered in a previous message I will report on the results of this campaign in a future email.

This message is to report the eminent domain information that was
presented at the meeting.

The reason that many of us along the Perry/Krusee Corridor route are thinking about condemnation or eminent domain proceedings is the release by Cintra, the Spanish corporation that has the contract to plan the Corridor, of their Master Plan, which shows the eastern part of Williamson County criss-crossed by vehicle, rail, and utility routes.

Dan Byfield opened the eminent domain presentation by letting the audience know that discussing condemnation is “not throwing in the towel. We are sending a message. The cost of land acquisition just went up.”

Chris Swanson, of the Austin firm of Barron, Adler and Anderson, discussed the condemnation process and how landowners can prepare for condemnation by getting expert legal representation before TxDOT comes knocking on the door.

The following comments are quotes and paraphrases from Mr. Swanson’s talk:

You the landowner will recover more if you are represented by an attorney.

If you have an attorney, you will set yourself up in the best position possible for the condemnation process. Regarding this process, first, TxDOT hires an appraiser to set a fair market value. They usually hire the same appraiser they work with all the time. They will select appraisers that are on the low end of valuing property. That becomes the basis of their “good faith” offer to you.

If an appraiser sent by TxDOT tries to talk to you, you are under no obligation to talk to the appraiser. You should be cautious about what you tell their appraiser. You can make a counter offer to TxDOT. An attorney can help you with this.

There is no negotiation with TxDOT. Their offer is a take it or leave it deal. If you do not agree with their offer, you can appeal to a special commission. The county judge appoints landowners to be these special commissioners. There is no requirement that they know anything about real estate.

They set an administrative hearing. You can go in and make a case for your value. There is an advantage to you if you have a specialized appraiser and attorney. The commission then issues an opinion. You are due fair market value of the property that will be taken plus damages to the remainder that will not be taken.

Once the commissioners decide that TxDOT is entitled to take your property, TxDOT deposits that amount as payment to you. Then, your property can be taken. Either side can appeal. You cannot appeal whether TxDOT is entitled to take your property. You can only appeal the amount that you will receive.

If you appeal, the case goes from the administrative phase to the judicial phase. A jury gets to decide the price. At this point, negotiations on price can occur. Ninety percent of cases settle between the commissioners’ decision and jury trial.

What can you do to get ready? You can do things to increase the fair market value of your property. Different types of property have different values in the marketplace. You can add value to your property by subdividing it, by bringing utilities to it, by planning a commercial use for it, since commercial property is more valuable than residential. Look into the best way that you could develop your property if you should choose to do so. This will help establish a higher market value for your property.

A condemnation attorney can help you select appraisal experts and land planners.

How is a condemnation attorney paid? By contingency fee. We don’t get paid unless we are successful in increasing the money you get—the increase from what you were first offered by TxDOT to the amount that you are awarded by the special commissioners or by the jury. Your attorney takes a percentage of that increase, typically a third.

If people along the Corridor route consult attorneys about their rights, this could influence whether the Corridor gets built. TxDOT’s and Cintra’s budgets will be affected by how many people get attorneys and fight.

Dan Byfield commented, “Bringing in a condemnation lawyer is part of the strategy. Our goal is to stop the Trans-Texas Corridor from being built.”

This message is not an endorsement of any particular attorney. In addition to Mr. Swanson’s firm, there are many condemnation attorneys in our area. An attorney who handles condemnations is a member of our email list:

Tony R. Bertolino of the Austin firm Bertolino Lorenzana. Buz Garry (my husband) of Coupland is a member of the Austin firm Wright & Greenhill. He notes that some general law firms have attorneys who do condemnation work.

FEDERAL CONDEMNATION LEGISLATION

In a related matter, the attorneys of the Castle Coalition of the Institute for Justice represented Suzanne Kelo, in the recent case before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that her municipality could take her house and turn it over to a private developer—a decision that outraged people of all political stripes across the country.

Christina Walsh of the Castle Coalition has sent around an email asking citizens to contact their Senators about Federal eminent domain protection legislation.

Green alternative for Oak Hill tollway project

Coalition report calls for widening road but protecting creek, trees.

By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Politicians, neighborhood groups and urban planners all have had their say on the debate over Texas toll roads.

Now environmentalists are weighing in.

The Texas Department of Transportation expects nearly 160,000 vehicle trips per day by 2030 at the U.S. 290 and Texas 71 intersection, shown looking east with Texas 71 rising from the lower left corner. The agency has proposed expanding to 12 lanes, six with tolls. The Fix290 Coalition says eight lanes could handle the traffic.

The Fix290 Coalition report, released last month, argues that a proposed highway interchange in Oak Hill at the intersection of U.S. 290 and Texas 71 would destroy too many trees and turn a stretch of Williamson Creek into a drainage ditch.

Parts of the interchange would sit above Williamson Creek, which feeds the Barton Springs portion of the Edwards Aquifer.

"Tolling is not the issue here," said the report, written by civil engineer Bruce Melton and backed by some neighborhood groups and nearly 2,000 people who have signed petitions supporting Fix290's alternative plan. "Responsible use of resources is the message that the Fix290 Coalition wants to convey."

U.S. 290 and Texas 71 would be tolled in the area as part of a state plan, and the Fix290 report appears to be gaining traction: In October, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, which decides which roads may be tolled, voted to study the plan.

The state transportation agency's current plan — expansions of the intersection have been batted around since the 1980s — would expand the four lanes of U.S. 290 and Texas 71 to 12 lanes (six toll and six frontage), some of them elevated, on a right of way as much as 400 feet wide. In the process, the state would remove dozens of live oak trees, according to the report.

Don Nyland, an engineer with the Texas Department of Transportation, said the agency would have to remove trees but would try to relocate them.

The department's project is based on estimates that vehicle traffic will grow from 59,000 trips per day in 2004 to nearly 160,000 by 2030. The agency says elevating the lanes is a way to keep local traffic separate from through traffic.

The project "is designed to move traffic efficiently from the Oak Hill area out 71 and into the Hays County area heading south," said Marcus Cooper, a Transportation Department spokesman.

The Fix290 coalition calls the traffic projections the department uses very aggressive and claims that the nearly milelong portion of elevated highway the state plans to build would create an aesthetic barrier that would block views of the bluffs of Oak Hill. Its report also cites a 2001 article in the Journal of Planning that found that elevated highways increase noise levels at least 77 percent.

Fix290 has proposed what it says is a less expensive alternative project that would be less than 150 feet wide with six ground-level freeway lanes and two more for bicycles that eventually could become freeway lanes. Melton said the eight lanes could accommodate the traffic projections of nearly 160,000 trips per day.

The group says its plan would preserve the creek in its natural state, save at least 90 percent of the remaining Oak Hill oaks and decrease light and noise pollution. The Fix290 report comes as the interchange project is under new scrutiny for environmental reasons. Cooper said the Transportation Department last filed updates with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and is working on another update.

Because the state plan would increase impervious cover — asphalt that doesn't let rainwater seep into the ground — it requires that more than a mile of Williamson Creek be transformed to accommodate runoff and fend off flooding.

The 20-foot-wide creek would become a grass-lined channel as wide as 80 feet, said Melton, a resident of Oak Hill. About 1,500 feet of the creek will be directly under the project's elevated lanes, the Transportation Department says.

That part of the project sparked a concerned e-mail from the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for reviewing the project's potential effects on waterways. The project might need an additional permit to go forward "based on the more than minimal adverse impacts to the aquatic environment," Jennifer Knowles, a member of the Army Corps' Forth Worth office, wrote in September to Dennis Nielsen, a water quality specialist with the state Transportation Department. (The e-mail was provided to the American-Statesman by the Save Our Springs Alliance, a group that works to protect Barton Springs.)

Nyland said that despite the asphalt that would be added, the department's plans include techniques to protect the creek's water quality, such as detention ponds that keep downstream water from being polluted. He also said the agency is considering "benching" the Williamson Creek channel, or creating a stepped slope on which it can replant trees.

"Technically, we're improving water quality in the 290 corridor," Nyland said.

Ed Peacock, an engineer with the City of Austin's watershed protection department, said the city is concerned about water quality in the creek and is trying to work with the Transportation Department to improve the plan for the interchange.

"It's in a state of flux," he said.