Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Sunset Review Asks For Suggestions To Fix TxDOT

December 5, 2007

Dear Recipient:

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

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

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

Preliminary Issue List

Texas Department of Transportation

Name:

Organization you represent:

1. Based on your experience, how could TxDOT’s transportation planning process be improved?

2. How could TxDOT improve its public outreach, education, and participation efforts, particularly in the development of transportation projects?

3. How well does TxDOT work with its local, regional, state, and federal partners?

4. How could TxDOT improve the way it purchases right-of-way? Should the Department be authorized to purchase property that is available on the open market?

5. To what extent should TxDOT be able to use alternative financing methods, such as private investments and public private partnerships, in addition to the traditional means of funding roadways and transportation through fees and taxes?

6. What improvements are needed in how TxDOT lets and manages contracts for highway construction and maintenance, for both traditional tax-funded projects and projects funded through innovative financing techniques?

7. How could TxDOT do a better job of managing vehicle titles and registrations?

8. What improvements are needed in how TxDOT administers its regulatory programs, including motor vehicle dealer licensing?

9. Should the State and TxDOT direct more resources towards other modes of transportation, such as rail, to meet the State’s transportation needs?

10. Should the Texas Department of Transportation be continued for 12 years? Should the Legislature make changes to the mission or functions of the Department?

11. Please add any other comments about the Texas Department of Transportation. If you would like to suggest any changes to the Department, its operations, or its statute, please provide:

* a brief statement of the suggested change,
* background information on how the current system works and a description of what you would like to see changed,
* the benefits of your recommendation, and
* any potential difficulties that may arise from implementing your recommendation.

Please return to:

Jennifer Jones
Sunset Advisory Commission
P.O. Box 13066
Austin, Texas 78711
Fax: (512) 463-0705
Phone: (512) 463-1300
e-mail: sunset@sunset.state.tx.us

Sunday, November 25, 2007

nasty emails

Received: from 65.54.246.83 (EHLO bay0-omc1-s11.bay0.hotmail.com) (65.54.246.83) by mta364.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:48:58 -0800
Received: from BAY124-W21 ([207.46.11.184]) by bay0-omc1-s11.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:47:35 -0800
Message-ID:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_a5120c14-08ee-46cb-8fcd-ca44a80a293d_"
X-Originating-IP: [152.163.100.203]




"Ryan Tupa"


Wednesday, November 14, 2007

TxDOT response to request for cost of Mopac managed lane - 1 lane added within same width of road

Current Financial Cost of Proposed Managed Lanes for Loop 1

Current cost as per the latest Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP):
Federal: $81,600,000 State: $20,400,000


The cost for planning for the proposed Loop 1 managed lanes is included in the overall Loop 1
corridor planning, which began on November 5, 1998 (ledger to date):
Federal: $106,173.95 State: $10,353,071.28

Thursday, October 18, 2007

PRESS ADVISORY: TURF to introduce NEW EVIDENCE against TxDOT

PRESS ADVISORY

Contact: Terri Hall, Founder/Executive Director

Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom (TURF)

EMAIL: terri@texasturf.org

WEB: http://www.TexasTURF.org

TURF to present NEW evidence

at today's hearing in lawsuit to STOP TxDOT’s illegal lobbying & ad campaign

In Travis County District Court before Judge Orlinda Naranjo on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 2 PM, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF) has asked for a motion to reconsider the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to immediately halt the illegal advertising and lobbying by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) contained in the original petition (http://texasturf.org/images/stories/pdf/POP-and-App-for-TRO.pdf) in light of NEW EVIDENCE obtained through the Public Information Act.

An August 13, 2007 memorandum (http://texasturf.org/images/stories/pdf/KTM-memo.pdf) by Defendant Coby Chase confirms that TxDOT intends to spend public money for the political purpose of influencing upcoming public hearings for Trans Texas Corridor 69, and that the Keep Texas Moving campaign will continue into 2008.

TURF's attorneys Charlie Riley, David Van Os, and Andrew Hawkins have also asked for a continuance of the hearing for today’s scheduled plea to the jurisdiction since TxDOT has failed and refused to provide all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Public Information Act Request, thus preventing the opportunity to conduct written discovery and depositions.

WHO: Texas taxpayers through TURF

WHAT: Lawsuit seeking injunction to halt TxDOT’s taxpayer-funded illegal ad campaign & lobbying activities

WHEN: Thursday, October 18, 2007@ 2 PM

WHERE: Travis County District Court before Judge Orlinda Naranjo, 1000 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas

HOW: The press needs to register request for cameras in the courtroom in advance through the court clerk. Contact Warren Vavra at (512) 854-9093 for more information.

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.

On Monday, September 24, Judge Orlinda 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 an incredulous 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 (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/stay_informed, 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 (read about it here: http://satollparty.com/post/?p=605) 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 here http://texasturf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=26. The petition before the court seeks immediate injunctive relief in a civil proceeding.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

My Formal Letter to the DA - Asking them to Investigate Sen. Kirk Watson's Conflicts

10/8/06

Travis County District Attorney’s Office
314 W. 11th St.
Austin, TX 78701

Public Integrity Unit,

This is a formal request for your office to investigate Senator Kirk Watson, chair of Capitol Area Metropolitan Organization Planning Organization (CAMPO) for numerous conflicts of interest, and violations of the law.

Roads and development go hand in hand, soon after Sen. Kirk Watson became Chair of CAMPO in 2007, an organization that directs billions of road dollars in Central Texas, City of Austin records show Watson was put on the payroll of developers who profit from
important transportation decisions:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cityclerk/lobbyist/detail_clients.cfm?id=69

Watson is now pushing an unpopular plan to shift our freeways to toll ways using $910 million tax dollars (see attached). Developers see the double tax tolls as an eternal slush fund to pay for more roads to their cheap land.

The 2006 Austin Chamber of Commerce annual report, reveals that Sen. Kirk Watson individually, and his law firm both contributed money to the pro toll Chamber. see page 23: www.austinchamber.com/WhatsNew/2006OAAnnualReport.pdf

A signed letters of agreement by Sen. Kirk Watson, as partner of law firm Hughes & Luce, and the City of Austin show Watson billing the city at a rate of $450 per hour for representation on land deals with developers. Over $420,000 has been paid to Watson’s law firm, by the City of Austin in the last two years. (see attached)

How can Sen. Watson fairly represent the people while benefiting from so many seats at the table?

On 9/12/07 Watson sent emails to CAMPO Board members offering them free tickets/gifts to his campaign fundraiser. (see attached)

Also, the constitution states there must be a “separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch”, therefore, the legislative Senator Watson cannot sit on CAMPO’s executive board. Only City and County officials are allowed to sit on the CAMPO board.

Sincerely,

Sal Costello

Monday, October 01, 2007

TxDOT email lays out $270 TMF million dollars for toll roads - ZERO TMF dollars for non tolled option.

Mr Costello,

Bob Daigh asked that I respond to your information request.

The following is in response to your September 28, 2007 email
requesting " Please tell me the amount of tax dollars that would be
spent with the proposed toll roads in Central Texas compared to the
amount TxDOT will spend without tolls".

Below is the information you requested:

If the projects are leveraged through property taxes or tolls, the
proposed total of $1.449 billion in improvements will be comprised of a
breakout by the following funding resources:

A. $323,840,800 Federal - All federal funds from the National
Highway System (NHS) Program and the Surface Transportation Program
(STP)

B. $80,960,200 for 20% Non-federal is from State Highway Fund 6
that is used as local match for federal funds

C. $1,021,250,000 State - Texas Mobility Funds ($270 million),
Bonds ($539 million) and State Highway Fund 6 ($212,250,000)

D. $22,949,000 Local - City of Austin ($20,949,000) and Travis
County ($2 million)


For a reduced, non-leveraged program of only $280 million is estimated
to be available, the following is a breakout by the funding resources in
this case:

A. $155,800,000 million Federal - All federal funds from the
National Highway System (NHS) Program and the Surface Transportation
Program (STP)

B. $38,950,000 million for 20% Non-federal is from State Highway
Fund 6 that is used as local match for federal funds

C. $62,301,000 from State Highway Fund 6

D. $22,949,000 Local - City of Austin ($20,949,000) and Travis
County ($2 million)

I trust this provides the information you have requested.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Ed Collins


Ed Collins
Advanced Transportation Planning Director
Texas Department of Transportation
Austin District
P.O. Box 15426
Austin, TX 78761-5426
(512) 832-7041
(512) 832-7080 fax
ecolli0@dot.state.tx.us

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Plenty of ways to relieve congestion WITHOUT TOLLS!

NOTE: The tollers continually try to say we don’t offer alternatives to tolling. We have and continue to, they simply refuse to acknowledge them because their agenda isn’t congestion relief, but raising a slush fund for roads that will line the highway lobby’s pockets. Alternatives to tolls interferes with the cash cow profits the road builders, the bond companies, and politicians campaigns stand to make off of toll roads. The article below lists several VERY AFFORDABLE ways to manage traffic congestion WITHOUT TOLLS!

Creative ways to beat congestion
November 26, 2004
BBC News

CONGESTION IN ENGLAND
Congestion has risen 14% since 1995
Traffic volumes on motorways rose 26% in that period
But average traffic speeds at peak times have improved slightly

Congestion on England’s trunk roads and motorways could be cut with a little creative thinking, according to a new report. How? Drivers brace yourselves: congestion on England’s major roads is increasing while plans for tackling the problem remain up in the air.

As government strategists return to the drawing board for the third time in four years, seeking to revise targets for cutting congestion, measures to cut jams have suffered, according to a new report.

Traditionally, governments have sought to build their way out of the problem - expanding roads to cope with the rise in cars. But a new report, drawn up by the National Audit Office, has highlighted a number of simple, but more creative alternatives.

TIDAL FLOW
A fancy name for reversing the flow of traffic in one or more lanes during peak periods. Signals above the carriageway indicate which lanes are in use and the direction of traffic in those lanes. For example, a four-lane carriage way - two lanes in each direction - could be altered to allow three lanes in one direction, with just one going the other way.

Introduced in the 1970s, the system is well used in Holland and Germany as well as the US, Canada and Australia. So far, it is only found on a handful of trunk roads in England. Officials claim it is most effective on busy urban roads, to cope with morning and evening rush hours, but there are safety worries about fast traffic running in opposite directions without barriers to divide it.

VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS
Speed limits are adjusted depending on traffic volumes and weather in order to smooth flow, cut accidents and so reduce congestion. Traffic flow is monitored by electronic devices buried in the road and limits are signalled by displays on overhead gantries. It works by reducing heavy braking, stopping cars bunching together and so forming jams.
Compulsory variable speed limits currently operate on 30km of the western section of the M25 - London’s orbital motorway - while advisory limits are found on 30% of the wider motorway network.

Results from the M25 have been positive, reporting a cut in serious accidents of 10-20%, but England still lags behind other European countries. Half the motorway network in Holland uses variable speed limits.

DYNAMIC LANES
Currently being trialled in the Netherlands and Germany, this measure aims to reduce congestion during peak periods by increasing the number of lanes. Lights, similar to cats eyes, are set into the road and can be turned on or off to mark out lanes. Thus three normal lanes could be turned into four narrower lanes at the flick of a switch.

DEDICATED LANES
Although bus lanes are a common sight on Britain’s urban roads, they are rare on motorways. The M4 bus lane, which opened in 1999 and runs close to Heathrow airport, did not go down well with motorists although studies later showed it made car journeys slightly quicker during peak times. Off-peak journey times increased slightly, and there was a 20% cut in accidents.
Another sort of dedicated lane, pioneered in the United States, is the HOV - high occupancy vehicle - lane, in which only cars with two or more people can travel. The idea is to reduce congestion with commuter car sharing and, in places such as Washington DC, it’s taken off so well that commuters line up to hitch rides with lone drivers, in a practice known as “slugging”.

In the Netherlands HGVs can’t overtake on the vast majority of the motorway network, in effect making the inside lane a dedicated lorry lane.

RAMP METERING
Again, common in the US, ramp metering involves traffic lights on slip roads that lead on to motorways. By controlling the rate cars joins a carriageway, traffic surges can be ironed out, cutting congestion and accidents. It was introduced on parts of the M6 almost 20 years ago and cut journey times by up to 20 minutes.

However, the technique was not rolled out. Officials said the junctions in question were unique and ramp metering would not be as effective at other junctions. There have also been trials on the M27 and M3.

HARD SHOULDER RUNNING
In effect widening the road by opening up the hard shoulder to normal traffic. The Dutch and Germans have used this technique since the 1990s but in England it has been resisted by the emergency services which have concerns about how they would reach an accident site.
Where this works on the continent, speed limits are cut and frequent refuge areas are provided for motorists in trouble. Research has found that accident rates have fallen where this scheme is applied and the Highways Agency has recently embarked on a trial.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4044803.stm

Friday, August 24, 2007

Four Cities Form Commission

Four Cities Form Commission
to Stop the Trans-Texas Corridor

August 24, 2007
For Immediate Release

Contact: Mae Smith, President
254-657-2460

In an unprecedented move, the four cities of Bartlett, Holland, Little River-Academy, and Rogers formed the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission (ECTSRPC) on Wednesday to fight the Trans-Texas Corridor.

“This is one issue all four cities are united behind to save our rural way of life,” stated the newly elected president Mae Smith, Mayor of Holland, Texas. Other members of the board include Arthur White, Mayor of Bartlett; Ronnie White, Mayor of Academy; Rev. Billy Crow, Mayor of Rogers; and Ralph Snyder, business owner from Holland.

“The purpose of this Commission is to give us a voice in this process. It’s our land that the Texas Department of Transportation and our Governor want to take and we are not going to let them pave us over and ignore the concerns of our communities,” stated Snyder.

The Trans-Texas Corridor will confiscate between 5,000 and 7,500 acres in Bell County alone, while destroying another 50,000 acres of farmland between San Antonio and the Texas-Oklahoma border. The Texas Legislature created the TTC in 2003, and ever since landowners have been fighting to protect their rights.

The commission was formed using the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 391, which allows cities and counties to form regional planning commissions to work together to develop plans for their local region and to force the state agencies to coordinate with their activities.

Under Chapter 391.009(c), TxDoT is required to coordinate with commissions to ensure effective and orderly implementation of state programs at the regional level. “TxDoT must coordinate with us before they can implement their plans in our region,” said Ronnie White, vice president of the newly formed commission. “The TTC is driven by greed and has no respect for our rural way of life,” White continued.

Under state law, TxDoT will be required to work with the ECTSRPC and coordinate their plans with the local group before any land is taken or any construction begins. “If not, they are in violation of the state statute and we are prepared to take them to court if necessary,” explained Smith.

The individual cities have also requested that the Environmental Protection Agency reject the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by TxDoT, because the agency did not coordinate with local government as required under the federal law.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

HILLCO THREAT LETTER EMAILS

Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: sal costello
Subject: Re: May 9, 2007 "blog publication"
To: Jill McClure
CC: salcostello@yahoo.com

May 15, 2007

J. Hampton Skeleton
Skelton & Woody Attorneys
www.SkeltonWoody.com
HillCo Partners Representatives

Dear J. Hampton Skeleton,

I endeavor to be 100% accurate with my Muckraker blog publication.

Please explain exactly and precisely all current and past relationships between HillCo and Melinda Wheatley (the most wanted lobbyist in the state of Texas according to the Texas Ethics Commission website), so that I may accurately convey that information to my readers.

While you deny that Wheatley is "employed" by or "affiliated" with HillCo, you do not deny that Wheatley works for HillCo, perhaps under contract, or as a subcontractor. Do you wish to deny that?

Also, are you willing to send me a copy of Hillco’s entire check ledger for the last year? Or perhaps you might select to identify every person and every firm working with HIllCo Partners?

Thank You,
Sal Costello
Blogger for “The Muckraker”
Sal@TexasTollParty.com

---------------

From: "Hamp Skelton"
To:
Subject: FW: response to your e-mail of earlier today
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 18:13:18 -0500

Dear Mr. Costello:

I am writing in response to your email of today, May 15, 2007. Please go back and reread my May 14 letter. A copy is attached for your convenience. I quoted the language in your erroneous blog and denied every word of it relating to HillCo Partners. I unequivocally denied any affiliation between Ms. Wheatley and Hillco Partners. I did not use the words "under contract or subcontract" because you did not use them in your blog, but my letter was unambiguous in denying a broader range of affiliations which would necessarily include "under contract or subcontract." At the risk of indulging what appears to be deliberate gamesmanship on your part, I will specifically answer the new accusation you make in your email of earlier today: Ms. Wheatley has no current relationship and has had no past relationship with HillCo Partners that lend even the most slender reed of credence to your May 9 post. She has never worked for HillCo Partners in any capacity, including under contract or as a subcontractor. I mean this to be an unequivocal denial of any relationship and mean it in the broadest possible sense.

Taking you at your word that you strive for 100% accuracy in your blog, may I assume you will immediately post a clarification and an apology to HillCo Partners, making it clear your entry of May 9, 2007 concerning Hillco Partners was erroneous in every respect? I would appreciate an answer this evening or by 9 AM on May 16 at the latest.

You initiated this dispute by writing and widely disseminating false information that defames my client. My client has pointed out the errors to you in a professional manner and offered you an opportunity to correct the situation without incurring legal fees or the inconvenience associated with litigation. So far, you have failed to correct the misinformation. Nothing about this sequence of events calls for Hillco Partners, the victim of your wrongful conduct, to open up its confidential internal records to you, or anyone else. Accordingly, HillCo Partners declines to show you its proprietary information. If it is your position that you will not correct the defamatory remarks made in your May 9 blog without examining HillCo Partners' confidential and proprietary financial information, then I will have no other choice but to proceed with appropriate legal action.

You or your attorney should feel free to contact me at 651-7000 or 461-6112 at any time if you require any further clarification.

Sincerely,

Hamp Skelton
(512) 651- 7000 office
(512) 461-6112 cell

Monday, May 14, 2007

Congressman Lampson's powerful statement from Friday's hearing

Congressman Nick Lampson:
Secretary Peters, I would like to raise an issue that is very contentious in Texas at the moment, and that is whether Texas elected officials can proceed to make policy decisions without interference from the Federal Highway Administration.

Let me refer to a letter dated April 25, 2007 from the Chief Counsel of FHWA ostensibly in response to inquiries from Texas Department of Transportation, in which Mr. Ray stated, "we urge you to support the spirit of a fair and open competitive process in whatever procurement procedures are adopted." (p. 3)

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the April 25 letter from Mr. James Ray of FHWA to Mr. Michael Behrens of TxDOT be included in the record.

Mr. Ray was referring to legislation (HB 1892) that has passed the Texas House and Senate and is now awaiting the Governor's signature. The focus of Mr. Ray's concern is the SH 121 project in the Dallas area.

Secretary Peters, you are in favor of "a fair and open competitive process" in procurement, aren't you? In fact FHWA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the federal government are all supportive of a fair and open competitive procurement process, is that not true? So am I.

Mr. Ray may not be familiar with some of the relevant events leading up to the decision by the North Texas Tollway Authority ("NTTA") not to bid on the SH 121 project. So allow me to provide the background.

In January 2006, NTTA announced it was preparing to submit a proposal for the SH 121 project. Soon after, the Texas Transportation Commission unexpectedly began a TxDOT Comprehensive Development Agreement ("CDA") process for two significant projects that NTTA had spent years designing and shepherding through the environmental review process. These projects are the Eastern Extension to the Bush Turnpike and the Southwest Parkway in Fort Worth. By starting a CDA process, NTTA would be precluded by Texas law from carrying out the projects. This sent an unmistakable message to NTTA concerning the consequences of its attempt to compete on the SH 121 project. This occurred after private companies had complained that they could not and would not compete against NTTA on SH 121. Left with no tenable option, NTTA capitulated, signed a controversial agreement (the TxDOT/NTTA Regional Protocol) barring a bid on either SH 121 or SH 161, and received back the two other projects.

Madam Secretary, NTTA did not bid on SH 121 because of extortion by TxDOT, not out of its own free will. In February, TxDOT awarded a preliminary 50-year concession on the project to Cintra of Spain. Cintra's bid price was $2.8 billion.

Sensing that Cintra's bid might not have been in the public interest, Senator John Carona, Chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, asked NTTA how it might have responded if TxDOT had not denied it the opportunity to do so. NTTA responded informally that it could generate $6.3 billion for the region. It is able to generate so much more than Cintra because it has significantly lower cost of capital.

Secretary Peters, I don't think you would argue that the original procurement process was "a fair and open competitive process." That was clearly not the case. HB 1892 is Texas Legislature's attempt to correct significant mistakes and improper action by TxDOT. It provides an opportunity to NTTA to submit a formal bid on the SH 121 project.

We don't know what NTTA's formal bid may be. That will be forthcoming in the next week or so. But this process provides an excellent opportunity to test the hypothesis that has been stated so often that it takes on the aura of unquestioned truth - that is, the private sector can deliver transportation projects faster, better, and cheaper and can deliver greater value to the public. Now we can road test that proposition to see if it is indeed true. If NTTA's initial estimate turns out to be anywhere close to its formal bid - hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars higher than the highest bid from a private firm - then we know that the public-sector agencies can compete well against its private-sector counterparts. The original hypothesis is more an article of faith than a proven fact.

TxDOT also received a letter from Ms. Janice Brown, Texas Division Administrator of FHWA. In her letter dated April 24, 2007, Ms. Brown stated that "in our view, any arrangement with NTTA would be a government to government agreement, and we would treat the arrangement as a publicly owned and operated toll facility. Should TxDOT wish to re-compete the CDA after terminating the current CDA procurement process and seek Federal highway grant or loan assistance, we would be forced to closely examine the circumstances of the new competition, to ensure it met Federal requirements for fair and open competition." (p. 2, emphasis added)

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the April 24 letter from Ms. Janice Weingart Brown of FHWA to Mr. Michael Behrens of TxDOT be included in the record.

Secretary Peters, is a government to government arrangement treated differently by FHWA than an agreement involving a government and a private firm? If that is so, how are they different and what are the justifications for the differential treatment? And what are the ramifications of such differential treatment?

In addition, did FHWA not "closely examine" the original procurement process to "ensure it met Federal requirements for fair and open competition?" Or is Ms. Brown now raising the bar for NTTA and TxDOT?

Ms. Brown went on to observe that "should TxDOT wish to obtain TIFIA assistance for the SH 121 project after re-procuring the CDA, that request would have to be evaluated on its own merits as a totally new TIFIA application." If NTTA gets the contract to develop the SH 121 project, and if TIFIA is part of NTTA's financing package for the project, I would concur wholeheartedly that a new TIFIA application would be in order. But Secretary Peters, can you give me assurances that SH 121, NTTA, and TxDOT will not be prejudiced in the new TIFIA application simply because it is an application for federal financial assistance for a project that involves a government to government agreement?

On the 9th, you sent a letter to Senator Hutchison in response to her expression of concern over actions by FHWA - specifically Mr. Ray's April 25 letter - that she viewed might have overstepped its proper bounds from providing legal analysis to policy advocacy. The entire Texas congressional delegation received copies of that letter, and we appreciate very much your clarification that "HB 1892 would not affect the State's eligibility for funding under the Federal-aid highway program."

Unfortunately, your letter was followed within hours by another letter from Mr. James Ray of FHWA to Mr. Amadeo Saenz of TxDOT, dated May 10, 2007. In this letter, Mr. Ray first observed that the safeguards included in H.B. 1892 could be implemented to make the legislation "technically compliant with Federal requirements." But then he followed with this pronouncement: "The FHWA believes that implementing HB 1892 in [a] manner that fully complies with Federal requirements, [even with appropriate implementation of savings clauses included in the legislation,] will be very difficult." (p. 5)

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the May 10 letter from Mr. Ray to Mr. Saenz be included in the record.

No one argues that implementing fundamental changes embodied in HB 1892 will be easy. But isn't it the job of Texas legislators to make policy decisions? Isn't the job of implementing transportation laws enacted by the Texas government one that belongs to TxDOT? Proffering policy advocacy by FHWA at this delicate juncture in our legislative process is highly inappropriate.

Mr. Ray reminded Mr. Saenz that "[FHWA] would hold TxDOT responsible for any failure to comply with the Federal-aid Highway Program." Then he issued this ominous threat: "Failure by a local public entity to comply with these requirements could expose the entire State program to sanctions." (p. 5)

Secretary Peters, I must confess I am confused. Statements by Mr. Ray in his May 10 letter seem to run counter to - if not directly undercut - the position you expressed to Senator Hutchison in your letter to her. Can you give me your reassurance that TxDOT can implement HB 1982 in such a way that would not affect Texas' eligibility to receive Federal-aid highway funds?

Bobby Zafarnia

Legislative Director

Congressman Nick Lampson (TX-22)

436 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

bobbyz@mail.house.gov

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

WHO VOTED TO TOLL MOPAC?

According to CAMPO, the vote to toll mopac took place in January of 2004. The construction for Mopac tolls are 100% tax funded and the right of way is 100% tax funded:

Gonzalo Barrientos, Chair
Greg Boatright, Vice-Chair
Todd Baxter
Sam Biscoe
Bill Burnett
Bob Daigh
Dawnna Dukes
Gerald Daugherty
Dan Gattis
Terry Keel
Mike Krusee
Nyle Maxwell
Brewster McCracken
Elliott Naishtat
Steve Ogden
Eddie Rodriguez
Daryl Slusher
Karen Sonleitner
Mark Strama
Danny Thomas
Dwight Thompson
John Treviño
Will Wynn

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Dirty KIEWIT

FROM BLACKBOXVOTING, about Kiewit, who works with TxDOT, Zachry and others:

I became interested in Kiewit because if anything is less appropriate than Chuck Hagel’s ties to ES&S, it would be a Kiewit relationship of any kind to any voting-system vendor. So who is Kiewit? Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc. and its subsidiaries have been tied to a string of bid-rigging cases in as many as 11 states and two countries.

In an antitrust case that involved charges of bid-rigging in New Orleans, Kiewit pleaded no contest and paid $100,000 in fines and $300,000 in a civil settlement. In South Dakota, a Kiewit subsidiary pleaded guilty to bid-rigging on road contracts and paid a fine of $350,000. In Kansas, a Kiewit subsidiary was found guilty of bid-rigging and mail fraud on a federal highway project. The firm was fined $900,000 and a company official was sentenced to a year in jail. A Kiewit subsidiary paid $1.8 million for bid-rigging on a state highway project in Nebraska, and a Kiewit vice president was jailed.

This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org The Army Corps of Engineers at one point decided to bar Kiewit from bidding on all federal projects but later changed its mind. Kiewit builds munitions plants and military airstrips.

Does Kiewit have a political agenda? Absolutely. Kiewit’s Jerry Pfeffer has spoken before Congress to ask for more privatization: “Kiewit, based in Omaha, built more lane-miles of the Interstate Highway System than any other contractor,” he said. “…We’re active in toll roads, airports and water facilities …”

Pfeffer, advocating privatization of the highway system, has stated glibly that “American motorists will gladly pay market prices to avoid congestion.”

He goes on to suggest to Congress that Kiewit should get special tax treatment. Kiewit also owns CalEnergy Corp., has been involved with Level 3 Communications and is a quiet giant in telecommunications; underneath its highways, Kiewit lays fiber-optic cable and has been outfitting our roads with video surveillance cameras since 1993.

When the state of Oklahoma forbade Kiewit to bid anymore, Kiewit set up a different company called Gilbert Southern Corp. According to The Sunday Oklahoman, “Gilbert Southern Corp. recently submitted a sworn affidavit to the transportation department saying it had no parent company, affiliate firms or subsidiaries.”

But Kiewit owned Gilbert Southern Corp. lock, stock and barrel. When the state of Oklahoma found out, it yanked the contracts. In another obfuscation, Peter Kiewit & Sons took contracts in Washington State under the guise of a minority-owned firm. The government thought it was giving contracts to a company owned by African-American women; actually, it was a bunch of white guys in Nebraska. Kiewit paid more than $700,000 in fines while denying liability or wrongdoing.

Kiewit’s corporate papers indicate that investigations and litigation are normal, saying there are “numerous” lawsuits. This is a handy thing to know: Apparently you can skip disclosure of pending litigation, if there’s a lot of it.

This example illustrates why voting-machine vendors should be required to provide full disclosure on owners, parent companies, stockholders and key personnel. Kiewit has connections with both ES&S parent companies and has a track record of hiding ownership

We should require enough disclosure so that we can at least ask informed questions next time we buy voting machines. In 1997, the company that had called itself American Information
Systems bought elections-industry giant BRC and changed its name to Election Systems and Software. The Securities and Exchange Commission objected on antitrust grounds, and an odd little deal was cooked up in which the assets of BRC were shared between two voting companies: ES&S and Sequoia.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

REPORT AND PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF CAMPO TASK FORCE BY ROGER BAKE!

THANK YOU ROGER BAKER FOR THIS REPORT AND PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT!

Where is Sen. Kirk Watson headed? Not where TxDOT wants to go by tolling every new road -- thats for sure. Watson now has gotten strong control over CAMPO and has managed to put TxDOT's phase 2 toll roads on hold, for now.

He sought and got strong personal control over CAMPO at their last meeting. Watson is also on the Senate Transportation Committee. He just had an op-ed editorial in the Jan. 29 Statesman about the need for a new and much more open policy, but cautioned against the
expectation of "free" roads.

His new task force to examine CAMPO policy is NOT stacked with road warriors, as almost all other groups in this area linked to CAMPO and TxDOT have typically been. The task force group has a sprinkling of those, but it may even give the edge to reformers. Replogle is a very
smart transpo reform activist from DC and spoke up repeatedly at the meeting (with stuff that I would tend to agree with). My take is that the group, and Watson's aim, is designed to restore public credibility in Texas transportation planning as the dollars shrink.
Here is his group:

Sen. Watson, Texas Senate District 14
Cynthia Long, Williamson County Commissioner, pct 2 (western part)
David Ellis, Texas Transportation Institute
Greg Marshall, Marshall Group consulting company and Alliance for
Public Transportation
Betty Dunkerly, Austin City Council mayor
Frank Fernandez, House the Homeless
John Trube, Mayor of Buda in Hays county
Sarah Eckhardt, (progressive) new Travis County Commissioner, pct 2
Michael Replogle, transportation expert on Environmental Defense Fund
Gerald Daugherty, Travis County Commissioner, pct 3

-- Roger]

Watson’s first CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force Meeting, at the Capitol, Jan. 29, 2007. The meetings will be three hours long and the next meetings, all open to the public, are scheduled for Feb. 9, Feb. 23, March 12, and March 26.

Below is a fairly accurate, if not perfect, transcript of the end of meeting remarks by Sen. Kirk Watson (who had who had just returned from voting in the Senate an hour after after starting the initial meeting of the transportation task group he had picked.

At the first of the meeting Watson spoke of the public hostility that CAMPO and TxDOT had created by trying to impose toll roads on the community using a closed process until they had "dug ourselves into hole" -- turning everything into a toll road debate with polarization and no shades of gray, instead of a broader and more open process that he saw as necessary to defuse hostility and restore public confidence in the federally sanctioned publ.ic planning process that allocates federal funds. (Now the Texas Senate chaired by Sen. Corona from Dallas and with vice chair Watson appear ready to challenge the TxDOT bureaucracy appointed by Gov. Perry, and who favor toll roads as the major solution to road funding problems.)

Subsequently at the meeting TxDOT gave an unusually candid report (quite out of character for TxDOT) with a lot of facts and figures that underlined the fact that they had gotten themselves addicted to deficit financing to try to chase current and future projected travel demand (this was done with full federal approval). Now they have dug themselves in so deep that they could use up ALL TxDOT’s money doing nothing but maintaining existing roads; they see themselves as $100 million short of needs in District 10 alone:

Bob Daigh: “We (TxDOT) could spend all our state and federal money on maintenence”
(They've dug themselves into a hole that it has now led to trying to privatize and sell off Texas travel corridors to the highest foreign bidders using long term leases, in accord with Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridor plan. Meanwhile the federal highwat trust fund money is drying up, scheduled to drop to no added money by 2010, maintenance costs are rising fast, and energy costs are soaring. TxDOT is in deep deep trouble if they can’t keep on on borrowing money to go on building roads, which they have been assuming must be toll roads for this reason.)

Watson (having just come back to the meeting and responding to complaint from Dunkerly that they don’t have important growth planning tools outside the cities for the SH 130 corridor,etc):

“ It is probable that there are tools we don’t have. But to emphasize something the mayor pro-tem (Betty Dunkerly) just said, we have a real obligation, I think, to do something NOW to address the problems. I think that takes on two or three tasks; one is what from a practical standpoint can we do in the next year, two years, five years, ten years? Second is, and I happen to be a big believer that all the tools ought to be in the tool box, the ones we talk about
daily in this place and the ones that we don’t, and then that leads us to the question of what from a practical perspective will be available to us one year, two years, five years, ten years and beyond. And then leads to the question of part of what as I see as a framework for analysis which would be if I’m having to make decisions today about something I’m going to do, then that wqould actually play a role in what my matrix is and if its not something that is available to me now, and CAN’T be available for one reason or another for a period of time, I’m not going to take that into consideration on a vote today, but I think it is appropriate for us in our scope of work to try to think through why are certain things are not availble to us and can we make them available but always being practical about what our ultimate goal is, which is that we’re going to have to address our transportation needs.

“And I appologize that I’ve missed a chunk of meeting and don’t really know where we are in this whole thing, but if what we’re talking about is the scope of work aspect, I think ultimately its not about defining our mission in such a way we say are today going to seek out this type of transportation solution or that type. I go back to my opening comments which is that right now what I hope we do is we wipe the slate clean, we bring our experience and our intelligence
and our passion to it, and our education, but we don’t right now say that we’re prejudgethe outcome. But instead what we do is say lets put together the best-in-the country’s process, including all the appropriate decision points that a good Metropolitan Planning Organization would utilize, so that then when we consider any tools, we’ll come out with good decisions.

Watson then recognizes Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty (renowned for opposing public transportation):

“This is making me real nervous. Either we need to change the heading “mobility financing task force” -- which I thought that thats what we were going to do. I mean I know that there is a lot of these other things that need to be in here. I know that there are people in this community that have a real heart ache about single occupancy vehicles. But something that is irrefutable is that that people continue to use that as their major mode of transportation. I don’t think we need to NOT consider land planning and things that might persuade people to look at something else, but I don’t want to get to June and only to go to CAMPO and tell everybody that you know, what we did is we went off and we spent five or six months of feel good --
you know we got everybody on the same page with trying to get everone to travel a different way in this community -- we’ll still have five or six hundred people who want to come out and chew on us about this. You know the other thing thats irrefutable is its all about money. We just don’t have the money to build what we know is the number one thing that we’ve got to have and that is a comprehensive road system, which by the way is the best thing that you could build to make your public transit work better than it does. And if we divert too much attention away from this -- number one I don’t think we’ve got enough time between now and June...

Watson: Well we don’t ...

Daugherty: We don’t have enough meetings to do the kind of things I think people have been talking about since you’ve been gone, and I’m happy to talk about some of those things, but I’m afraid that is what this thing is about that kind of stuff and that we’re going to be in trouble come June...

Watson: Let me see if I can say it this way. The reason I said we need to deconstruct in order to reconstruct because too often what we do is we say well I’m for this for this, you’re for that, well I’m not for that -- so we immediately divide up and say tolls or no tolls, rail or no rail, roads or no roads, and and I truly believe it ends up being a financing task force but it probably is a little bit bigger than that.

“I probably made the mistake of letting the tail wag the dog a little bit because the whole debate has been a financing tool. The whole debate for 24 months has been a financing tool. And thats all it is is a financing tool. In my opinion a great mistake has been made is that this financing tool has been defined as public policy. And the only public policy.You don’t get to talk about a comprehensive road system. Because you need to talk about the financing tool. You don’t get to talk about land use because you’ve got to talk about a road financing tool. You don’t get to talk about an alternative to cars because you’ve got to talk about a road financing tool. When it gets to be a hold grail, all other debate comes to an end. And thats whats happened.

"What my hope is, is that we don’t TODAY start discussing what we think we want. How do we get what we think we want. whether it be more roads, or whether it be more land use, or whether it be rail. But we recognize that there are certain values that we seek to achieve. I’m not putting these in any order, so when someone wants to attack because they think I’ve got preconceived notions. But if reducing congestion is a value we want to achieve, and having money to achieve that value is a second criteria, then you start working through -- and you create your matrix, you create your decision tree, you create your conceptual framework for analysis in such a way that ANY substanitive tool can be put into it.

"And by the way, I think part of the value IS land use. I think its been -- and I’ll show one of my biases -- I think its been a HUGE mistake that its taken our region until 2006, until 2007 to start saying land use is something we really ought to be considering right because guess what, you need less roads if you can plan your community in a way that people live in -- you need a whole lot less of that maintenence money -- those kind of things. Well thats one of the things that we ought to be thinking about, we ought to put that.... What happens with any financing tool? Does it impact in a way that we see as positive or negative?

"And we start coming up with a matrix that then-- someone wants to put in a new rapid bus line, we say “run it through the matrix”. Somebody wants to put in rail? we say put it through the matrix. Somebody wants a new road, we say put it through the matrix if somebody says how am I going to fund that road, we say put it through the matrix. And we create a process that we just don’t have. We’ve NEVER DONE THAT in this community. Part of it is that we’ve kind of enjoyed the fight.

"And this isn’t about a preconceived idea. You know, you have very strong views, and you have very strong views; thats part of the reason that I put you all on here. But we’re not here about whatever your ultimate goal is. I don’t want to know what your ultimate goal is. But I can predict it within a variation of five percent. What I want is your value judgements, and your processes, so we don’t miss something.

"But if you think you’re on this task force to get toll roads, then please resign. If you think you’re on this task force to assure carpooling or rail, please resign. If you think you’re here to kill rail, quit, because we don’t need you! That we’ve got enough of in this town. What we need are people that are willing to guide us through a process, and put their intelligence and their efforts in that regard. If you have a preconceived idea of how you want this to come out and you’re going to work to get us there, quit. I won’t tell anybody why you quit. But we don’t need you. We’ve got enough of that going on in our community right now. The headline of the week. We cannot afford the headline of the week.

"Pretty long speech for a man that wasn’t here for the last hour or so... Laughter... Our next meeting is Feb. 23...

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

CorridorWatch.org also sends a Formal Complaint to Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Mr. Stall:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center has reviewed your complaint, and we have forwarded it to the appropriate legal staff for further review. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.

Sincerely,

Citizen Complaint Center

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

-----Original Message-----
From: David Stall - CorridorWatch.org [mailto:davidstall@corridorwatch.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:34 PM
To: Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
Subject: Macquaire Media Group acquisition of American Consolidated Media

The recent offer by Macquarie Media Group to purchase American Consolidated Media (including Valley Newspapers Holdings) raises considerable concern in Texas.

CorridorWatch.org represents thousands of members who reside in 199 counties across Texas who are challenging the wisdom of the Trans Texas Corridor.

We bring the following facts to your attention:

All of this generates more questions than answers.

Naturally our chief concern is that Macquarie Bank, though one of it's MMG subsidiary, has put itself in a position to attempt to manipulate public opinion by using a virtual monopoly of rural Texas media to improperly benefit another of it's subsidiaries, MIG.

Your consideration is appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Stall
CorridorWatch.org

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force report

THANK YOU MARK!

CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force report from Monday, Jan 29th, 2007
by Mark Kilgard:

In the course of trying to arrange a meeting with Senator Watson, his aide Steve Scheibal let me know about today's "CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force" that Kirk Watson has initiated. The meeting was today at noon at the Capitol (room E1.016). It went for three hours (wow, I didn't know it was going to go that long).

The task force members are:

1. Senator Kirk Watson, chair
2. Mayor (of Buda) John Trube, vice chair
3. Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, Travis
4. Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt, Travis
5. Commissioner Cynthia Long, Williamson
6. Judge Liz Sumter, Hays
7. Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley, Austin
8. Dr. David Ellis, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
9. Michael Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense
10. Greg Marshall, The Marshall Group (consultant), Business, Economic Development Capital City African American Chamber of Commerce
11. Frank Fernandez, Executive Director, Community Partnership for the Homeless

The meeting started (and ended) with Kirk Watson expressing his sense of purpose for the task force. He used the words "shelving the Phase 2 toll plan" to describe his actions at the last CAMPO meeting.

Watson provided three long paragraphs to describe the mission of the task force. In short, the claim is the task force is going to construct a "policy framework" for evaluating transportation proposals for Central Texas.

As near as I can tell, the group intends to invite experts to future meetings. Future meetings were proposed for Feb 9, 23, March 2, 12, and 26 with the March dates all tentative. The public is invited to all of them presumably.

It's rather unclear what the group actually provides back to CAMPO except that 7 of the task force members are actually CAMPO Transportation Policy Board members.

The "middle" of the meeting was spent hearing presentations from Bob Daigh (TxDOT District Engineer) and then Michael Aulick (CAMPO Executive Director). This was mostly a background briefing.

Bob spent his talk identifying funding sources for transportation projects. There was a bit of "funding crisis" to his talk when he described the "current balance" for the federal highway construction funding possibly going to zero in 2008. Talking about the "current balance" of something with as much cash flow as the federal construction fund is really beside the point. The slides give you the sense "we are almost out of money" when having a fund's "current balance" going to zero when the fund has inflows of billions of dollars a year is rather different than running out of money. No one on the task force pointed this out.

(Bob also seems to misunderstand the term "Private Equity". Equity implies some sort of ownership stake, but Bob used the term in his slides and discussion to describe any non-governmental financing. Basically he means "private capital" for financing.)

Michael went through his standard slide deck about what CAMPO is and discussed regional forecasts and the CAMPO 2030 plan.

At the meeting, there was a CD prepared by CAMPO with a large number of documents that were collected in hardcopy form in binders for the task force members.

The CD contains two PDFs: "Mobility Financing Task Force Binder.pdf" (492 pages) and "January 29 Final Presentation.pdf" (Michael's 57 slides).

The big document collected a bunch of CAMPO documents, studies, maps, etc.

It had two interesting documents I had not seen before.

Page 234 has a table of toll revenues CAMPO expects the Phase 1 and Phase 2 toll plans to generate. It's not clear when the table was prepared. The data claims to be 2003 dollar data so I assumed that's when the table was prepared. What's interesting is that the introductory paragraph suggests that CAMPO was/is expecting 50% of the construction cost of Phase 2 toll roads to be financed by toll-backed bonds.

They call this 50% "cost recovery". What's interesting is that the actual average capacity of the Phase 2 toll roads (according to the MAFS study) is 29% of the total construction cost, far below the 50% CAMPO hoped (in 2003?) to actually be able to recover.

Page 235 also confirms my working assumption that every 1 cent in gas tax brings in roughly $10 million per year. In 2005, fuel (gas and diesel) within the CAMPO region were 0.93 billion gallons total, forecast to rise to 1.8 billion in 2030.

After the meeting, Michael Aulick pointed me to the gentleman working at TxDOT responsible for the 17 cents/gallon estimate of what a local gas tax option would have to be to replace the Phase 2 toll roads. This estimate was prepared in response to a question posed by Rep. Mark Strama during a past CAMPO meeting.

What I learned for the discussion was that Mark's question was interpreted in an extremely broad way. Their 17 cents/gallon estimate was based on not simply paying for the total construction cost of the Phase 2 toll projects but also replacing ALL the projected revenue (not net income but revenue!) that such projects would provide in the future. This is a really bogus way of interpreting the Mark's question (the TxDOT claimed they asked Mark to make sure this was what he wanted but I have a hard time thinking Mark could have actually wanted his question understood the way TxDOT choose to understand it).

The TxDOT understanding of the question is bogus because there's no need to replace revenue that would go to operating a toll road if there was no actual toll road. This is what lead to a wholly excessive estimate, one repeated in the Statesman to help justify toll conversions. The TxDOT understanding also wanted to provide the FULL construction cost when in a toll financing scheme, toll-backed financing would only cover 29% of the construction cost according to the MAFS study (and 31% according to the 2004 project studies). So TxDOT apparently interpreting Mark's question to pay for 100% of the cost when actual toll conversion only paid for less than one third of the toll conversion construction cost.

I recall Mark asking the question at the CAMPO meeting and I really don't think TxDOT was answering Mark's question in anything approaching a reasonable way.

The gentleman went on to hand me a color TxDOT flier titled "The Texas Transportation Challenge" and point out the flier says a $1.40 per gallon gas tax "is necessary to expand our transportation system as needed over the next 25 years". It was a little odd for me to express my frustration about a gas tax estimate prepared by TxDOT being so out-of-whack and then be told about another estimate that was almost an order-of-magnitude larger than what I had just expressed frustration about.

Most of the task force members seem reasonable. Dr. David Ellis seems particularly appropriate member, very knowledgeable. One member I'm not so sure about is Michael Replogle ( http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=961) who doesn't appear to have any connection to Central Texas (he's from D.C.) and spoke repeatedly and, at times, verbosely about land use planning issues from an anti-sprawl perspective rather than really transportation funding issues.

Hope this gives you a little more sense of the continuing saga...

- Mark Kilgard

Monday, January 29, 2007

Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice responds to my Formal Complaint of Macquarie acquisition of ACM.

I spoke with the FTC this morning and emailed my complaint. They stated that the approval process is handled by the FTC or DOJ, and it's a 30 day process that is closed to the public. There is about 3 weeks left before final approval. The FTC forwarded my complaint to DOJ. I just received the response. Quick response compared to our local govt responses:

ATR-OPS Citizen Complaint Center wrote:

Subject: FW: Formal Complaint of Macquarie acquisition of ACM
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:18:25 -0500
From: Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
"ATR-OPS Citizen Complaint Center"
To: salcostello

Dear Mr. Costello:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Your complaint was forwarded to the Citizen Complaint Center(CCC). The CCC has reviewed your complaint, and we have forwarded it to the appropriate legal staff for further review. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.

Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Jennifer "Red Light Camera Scam" Kim wants special airport access (and comments)

Council member seeks special airport access
Jennifer Kim upset she can't go through security when she is not flying.


By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, January 27, 2007


Austin City Council Member Jennifer Kim has a beef with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

She said it's "ridiculous" that she can't flash her council member badge to federal screeners at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, go through the same security as passengers and access the restricted terminal area — even if she has no plans to fly.

Jennifer Kim Council member says her request for airport employee badge was denied.

After all, she said, "it's our airport."

Records show that Kim, who is serving her second year of a three-year term, began asking city workers this month for essentially the same privilege as airport workers, who show special credentials, go through screening and then go to their jobs. Even Mayor Will Wynn and City Manager Toby Futrell don't have that access.

And when city officials told her that wasn't possible, Kim said, she then asked for — and was denied — an airport employee badge.

"There are times I want to escort (an official) visitor to the gate or meet them at the gate," she said. "It's not like I want to go shopping in there or anything or grab a bite to eat."

Kim said she never sought to bypass security screeners and is willing to stand in line, slip off her shoes for metal detectors and send her handbag through X-ray machines, just like anyone else.

But a memo from the city manager's office used to summarize council members' concerns and questions said Kim "thought her VIP badge at our airport would allow her to get through security without going through screening. She has now been told that's not the case and is not happy."

Almost everyone who goes through security at Austin-Bergstrom — or any other airport — must have a boarding pass, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Doug Johnson said.

Parents or anyone escorting a minor can get special permission to go through security without a boarding pass, as can someone accompanying a person with disabilities.

Airport spokesman Jim Halbrook said city officials who are at the airport for official business must register at a security desk in the baggage claim area and are given a visitor pass. A city airport worker then escorts them through security and directs them where they need to go.

Wynn aide Matt Watson said the mayor follows that procedure. Futrell said that if she needs to meet with airport employees, she does so off-site and never picks up or drops off people who are in town on city business.

Council Member Brewster McCracken said he can recall only one time when he scheduled a meeting at the airport. He said he remembers being escorted, but not going through security.

McCracken said that he isn't sure that he would support rules giving council members permission to use their badges instead of having boarding passes but that he "can see an argument for that."

Kim said she thinks it's possible for her to get a special pass from airlines to meet their passengers while still going through screening. However, she said she didn't want to do that because of the wait at the ticket counter.

She said she recently planned to meet a visitor from the Ford Foundation and was delayed because she thought she could go through the security screening line without a boarding pass.

"I didn't know it was a (Transportation Security Administration) issue," she said. "I thought since it was our airport and we own it, and if we are pre-cleared, we could get through.

"Now we just have to go through all this bureaucracy to extend politeness to other people."

tplohetski@statesman.com; 445-3605

Comments

By Richard

Jan 27, 2007 9:33 PM | Link to this

Having reviewed a few of the posted comments, all I can add is More of the Same. She was elected to the city council,not Sainthood.

By janew

Jan 27, 2007 8:22 PM | Link to this

absolutely not, enough exceptions renders security worthless. She should have to go through security the same way everyone else does

By Bobby French

Jan 27, 2007 8:19 PM | Link to this

This is an example of why Margot Clarke should have won this council seat!

By Elias

Jan 27, 2007 8:07 PM | Link to this

She wants to dine on cake while the ordinary citizens eat bread crumbs.

By jim

Jan 27, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this

it's important that those that propose additional laws/ordinances comply with those very same rules. only when they have to live like those they represent will they weigh each and every proposal as to what effect another rule will have on all of us. i agree many of the changes since 911 stink, but they should apply to all

By betsy

Jan 27, 2007 7:52 PM | Link to this

Ms. Kim needs to stop whining and work on REAL issues that are important to the City. Get in line with the rest of us and get over it!

By Colorado Kool-Aid

Jan 27, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

get over yourself lady! you're an elected official, not queen of austin!

By Thomas

Jan 27, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

I think that councilwoman Kim has a valid point. I think that city council members, the city manager, and the city mayor should be granted the privelege to go through security with little trouble so they can greet corporate businessmen and goverment officials to Austin in a professional, friendly manner.

By Olivia

Jan 27, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

this request it is for personal reasons and she just needs to wait in line like everyone else no special treatment
who is voting for dumb people like this?

By Ron

Jan 27, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Dave: a yokel here--there is a system in place to handle her request, sign in like the mayor and be escorted. Don't need another special system for one person. Yokel out.

Comments

By Ron

Jan 27, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Dave: a yokel here--there is a system in place to handle her request, sign in like the mayor and be escorted. Don't need another special system for one person. Yokel out.

By Jerry

Jan 27, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

You know, I don't particullarly like waiting in long lines either. My time is important to me also. Also, since 9-11, she should realize that increased security is an absolute necessity for the security of this great nation of ours. So, if it inconveniences the city council person along the way, it can't be helped.

By Sue

Jan 27, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

NO, no way!

By Steve Simmons

Jan 27, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

From a person who has a badge at the Airport, we are prescreened(by the FBI) and given a badge that allows us to wait in the same lines and be screened so we can do our jobs, isn't all Ms. Kim is asking for; to be prescreened, issued a badge, so she can do her job?

By marvin

Jan 27, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

not just no but hell NO

By JLM

Jan 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Jennifer Kim is special, special, special. She should not have to wait in line for popcorn at the movies, pay to get into Barton Springs or clean up after her dog. Because she is special, special, special and you --- you are not special!

By Alan

Jan 27, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

I have to take exception to the comments that she is starting to act like a corrupt politician, she has acted that way since her election. She obviously feels that rules don't apply to her and she should receive special treatment not available to ordinary citizens. Her supports resort to personal attacks on anyone who does not agree with the view that she is 'special'.

By southside observer

Jan 27, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

First there was her championing of the all-important "bring your dog to a restaurant" ordinance. Then she spent city money to help upgrade her personal, self-promotional website. Now she wants special privileges at the airport. Serving or self-serving?

By Linda

Jan 27, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

She is willing to go through security, but does not want to stand in line (beaurocracy)to get a pass. "Just flash her badge" as she put it, or throw her weight around would be another way to say it. This is an abuse of her office. I don't believe any of her guests to the city expect such abuse on their behalf.

By Kevin

Jan 27, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

To "dave": No yokel here. But I do detect a political toady there. Hitched your wagon to Jen's political star (such as it was) in an effort to get through life without doing any real work, I bet. Typical of political flunkies, you are using insults to obfuscate the truth. Good luck with that.

Comments

By Bennie

Jan 27, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

After reading the article it seams to me that there is a procedure for this kind of situation as Jim Halbrook states. Maybe this lady needs to get some education on the matter and stop complaining about a security procedure that is in place FOR ALL OF US. And by the way Dave maybe you need to read the article or get somebody to explain it to you. She is asking to byp****security ( bureaucracy as she calls it) (Skip in line) and not stand in line like the rest of us do.

By ceecy

Jan 27, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Ummm.... what's the big deal? So what if she wants to meet someone at the gate on behalf of the City (some of y'all elected her!)? She SAID she would want to go thru security like everyone else. It's not as though it's for personal reasons. I don't see how her request for clarification on TSA policy and City if Austin protocol desrves the attack on her character. Most of y'all responding sound like the whiners.

By Fred

Jan 27, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

"Airport spokesman Jim Halbrook said city officials who are at the airport for official business must register at a security desk in the baggage claim area and are given a visitor pass. A city airport worker then escorts them through security and directs them where they need to go."

It's obvious that she wants access for personal reasons. If she were on official city business, she would simply comply with the procedure outlined above.

By rhonda

Jan 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

are you serious..?? so do People who are in the military that serve our country get special passes like that ?? I think not..she aint that special..

By D. Slater

Jan 27, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

No!! She puts her pantyhose on, one leg at a time, just like the rest of Austin. Rules are rules and we are all equal. It appears Ms. Kim feels that she is en***led to be more equal than others.

By dave

Jan 27, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Again, Nowhere in this does the councilmember ask to skip the line.

Yokels: please read the whole article before posting a comment to something you really don't understand fully.

By keith

Jan 27, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

How does she think she is so special that she can byp****TSA rules. Just cause you have a little badge saying you're a council member doesn't get you anywhere - then again this is the one that pe***ioned to get dogs allowed into bars and eateries....just another dumb thing for her to do - next thing it'll be "i can drive as fast as I want on Mopac cause I'm a council member"

By Walter

Jan 27, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

She said she stands in line like everyone else and is willing to continue to - so the question just has to do with being escorted without a boarding pass. I don't believe she wants special treatment - just a more efficient process to do her job.

By John Doggett

Jan 27, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

She is clueless. Worst, she is beginning to act like a corrupt politician. It is very simple. She works for us. We pay her salary. She should not have "VIP" rights that her employers, us, don't have.

If she wants to be a special, corrupt politician, she should resign and go live in Chicago.

I'm disgusted.

By Mike, Westlake

Jan 27, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

No. This is a great example the arrogance and sense of en***lement that permeates our country. Little wonder our children are growing up to be bombastic self-absorbed brats - just look at the example set for them by publicly elected civic leaders.

Comments

By Mel

Jan 27, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

If it really is "our airport" then everyone should be allowed to enter the boarding gate area without a boarding psss. I think not! There is a reason why the security rules are in place. Is it so much trouble to go sign in and get a visitor p****and be escorted as Mayor Winn does? If the Mayor has to do it, what makes you think someone beneath him doesn't? Get your head on straight.

By Dave

Jan 27, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Nothing about what Councilmember Kim says here implies that she wishes to enter the airport and byp****security. The way you frame the "story" it seems like she wants to pop into the airport to grab an overpriced lunch at the Salt Lick or pick up her grandmother at the gate.

By Brad

Jan 27, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

No. They can just escort their guest to the security line like everyone else. The days of walking your guest/loved one to the gate is over, we all know that! If a Council member has business at the airport that doesn't include flying they can follow the procedures laid out of TSA. They aren't that special.

By J.R. Vaughn

Jan 27, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

The Austin area reaps the benefits every time a major company extends their operations to the city. Meeting visiting execs as they get off the plane is a no-brainer. If the mayor and city manager aren't doing that, they need to take lessons from Ms. Kim. She never asked to by-p****security.

By Christine Rose

Jan 27, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Ms. Kim consistently demonstrates a very unbecoming at***ude of being better than the citizens who elected her to SERVE them which reflects poorly on her and the city.

Next time, she'll be unelected.

By Linda

Jan 27, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

If she is given special access to the gate area, where will it end? Everyone should then be able to go to the gates to meet loved ones or anyone else. Security rules are in place for a reason, and she certainly does not deserve any special treatment just because she is a elected official. She might not ever be elected to anything again after acting like a spoiled child.

By Frank

Jan 27, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

No. No. No. With my very own eyes, I have seen a British High Commissioner go through the regular line just like everyone else. An Austin Councilmember? Give me a break.

By Kevin Brady

Jan 27, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Note to Jen: there is no ruling cl****here. Why is someone from the Ford Foundation more importatnt than my nephew from New Hampshire or my best friends from California? By the way, we all found each other easily in baggage claim and we probably aren't nearly as smart as you and your guests. Also, as a public servant, try leading by example, you might find it very rewarding. Let the TSA do their thankless jobs. And you do yours while you still have one.

By rita williamson

Jan 27, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

miss kim should get the taxpayers to fly these politicos in on a private jet that should could then meet at a private airport......such a waste of her time to have to go thru all the same waste of time exercises that us commoners enjoy!

By ceecy

Jan 27, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

There's nothing wrong with her request. She's asking to p****thru security, to be there on official business. We aren't supposed to live in a friggin police state.

By Aaron

Jan 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

What an idiot! Who put that woman in office? She's an example of what's wrong with American politics. What kind of unbelievably inflated ego would allow her to think that she's above airport screening and rules.

By Robert

Jan 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

I wish the Statesman would post her picture, that interview was unbelievable

By Jason

Jan 27, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Grow up Ms Kim -- despite what you think, you are NOT better than the rest of us. You are not en***led to get around what everyone else has to deal with. Matter of fact, you should be delayed even more so you can see how it feels to be a citizen trying to get something done by the city governement. Work on cutting that red tape instead.

By Roger

Jan 27, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

While I am sure Ms. Kim shares in the level of frustration that ALL of us have experienced with the security screening process, I don't believe she is being selfish in asking the question. I would have truly enjoyed the opportunity to be able to escort my Grandmother to and from her flight recently. Don't blow a simple request out of proportion people.

By Don Joe

Jan 27, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Who voted her Queen of Austin?
She's gotten too big for her britches.
But I'm not sure this is top of the Web page worthy information.

Time to vote her and Mike Martinez, both beholden to the AFD Union, out of office and get some public servants in office.

By Fred

Jan 27, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Kim's most recent escapade is just the most recent of a long list of abusses that city employees are aware of. She is under the illusion that she answers to no one and abides by no rules. To the people that admire her I say watch what she does not what she say's.

By CH

Jan 27, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Yes, only if she is on an official city function and if done according to a protocal established by the city and the aiport. I am sure the city can come up with a practical solution which helps efficient use of citizens' representative while maintaining proper security measure.

By Robert

Jan 27, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

I remember when she first ran for the Council, I made the misrtake of voting for her. this just one of many things i have heard that makes me regret my decision.

By Patsy

Jan 27, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

I think Ms. Kim believes she's "all that", and once agains demonstrates her "greater than though" at***ude towards our City. It is an embarassment to the City, and it's taxpayers. She should get over herself, and just follow the rules. What's truly embarrasing is her waste of all our time and money with this silliness for an airport the City owns, and not HER....

Comments

By Anonymous

Jan 27, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Sounds like another Cynthia McKinney to me. Self-centered people like that have no business in a public service job. It's not our job to serve her, it's hers to serve us. She needs to be voted out next round, and this incident will cause her to be discredited and voted out. I hope she realises that this is harming her public image.

By Tom

Jan 27, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Looks like the beginning of the common disconnect between politicians and citizens. It's public servant, not public ruler stupid!

By CB

Jan 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Whine, whine, whine, me, me, me! Ms. Kim appears to be placing herself in a cl****above those who elected her. She doesn't have time to waste standing in line for an airline pass, and it is so hard to find someone at the airport! Airport security has a job, and so do our council members, let security do theirs and someone teach Ms. Kim what her duties are to the citizens.

By CB

Jan 27, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Sounds to me like Ms. Kim believes she should have priviledges above and beyond those who elected her. She doesn't want to wait in line, she has trouble finding people at the airport, she likes it like before 9-11-whine, whine, whine! Is not meeting a Ford Foundation member at the gate going to risk chances of donations? It would be nice to see our elected officials use their time as well as press time on matters important to us citizens. All this me, me, me really wears a person out!

By rachel

Jan 27, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Not only do I think city council members should be able to p****through security without a boarding p****- I think everybody should be able to! I've always liked this lady, and I admire her for speaking up about this issue.

By Pat

Jan 27, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

City Council members should NOT be allowed to enter the airport without a boarding p****and certainly not without waiting in the security line. They can wait like everyone else in baggage to great visitors.

By Joseph Palmer

Jan 27, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

No she shouldn't! If council members are allowed passed security everyone should.

By roscoe

Jan 27, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

I would like to remind Ms. Kim that, yes the city owns the airport but she does not. As a matter of fact she works for us so her status is not as elevated as she might like to think. There are a lot of things that Ms.Kim has had to realize about the en***lements that her job does not bring. She should get off her high horse and put this new realization in the same place that she put the realization that city funds are not to be used for buying her dog food.

By Steve D.

Jan 27, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

I don't think anyone should be allowed to go to the Gate without first going through security, Its a security measure thats in place for a reason. With all due respect, just because you're on the City Council that honor alone shouldn't allow you to byp****waiting in any lines. I wish they would allow everyone to go to the arrivel/departure gates again, but only after going through security check points.

By Marc Levin