Thursday, November 09, 2006

Vince May letter to Dukes

Nov 9, 2006

State Rep Dawnna Dukes
CAMPO Board

Ms Dukes,
It appears that CAMPO is preparing to vote on the toll road question. The agenda for the 9-13 Monday night meeting has an item, #3, that will schedule a public hearing on toll roads for January 17, 2007.
http://www.campotexas.org/pdfs/item3Nov.pdf (small pdf file)
The January vote won't mention toll roads. But the outcome of this vote will decide the issue. CAMPO will be voting on the "TIP" (Transportation Improvement Program). TxDOT will be asking for authorization to begin spending hundreds of millions of dollars for engineering work on Phase II roads. The TxDOT spokesman will lie to the CAMPO Board and say "If we spend this money for engineering work, the roads can be constructed as either free roads or toll roads, when CAMPO makes up its mind."
Let me explain. On Sept 25, in response to a reader question, Mr Ben Wear wrote about the new section of US 183. The reader wanted to know why there was no exit from the SouthBound (SB) US 183 mainlanes at the US 290 interchange. We have to exit SB 183 before Cameron Rd, and sit through those lights, if we want to turn onto 290E. Mr Wear said that Mr Bob Daigh of TxDOT told him that there was not enough room for a ramp.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/25/25wear.html
This is not the only change for 183 and 290 users. If you are headed WestBound (WB) on 290 and turn SB onto 183, you now are forced to stop at the light on Springdale Rd. We can no longer use a bridge that we have used for 30 years. If you are headed NB on 183 and want to turn onto 290, you also now have to stop at the Springdale light. (I have a written promise from Ben Wear that he will write a column about this, plus all of the other currently free bridges on 183 that TxDOT will steal from us. But I think his editors won't let him write it. The Statesman strives to keep its readers ignorant.)
People traveling WB on 290 who turn onto NB 183 are also unable to get on the mainlanes until after they go trough the Cameron traffic signal. Congestion on the 183 frontage roads is just as bad as it was before the brand new section of 183 opened. How could this happen?
TxDOT designed, engineered and constructed 183 as a toll road. Their intent is to make life on the free lanes so miserable that people will get on the toll road and stay on the toll road at all times. Please recall that the work on US 183 was paid for 100% with gas taxes, yet TxDOT has stabbed us in the back and built a road that only functions well as a toll road, and only if 290E is also tolled.
This is why CAMPO must vote against putting any Phase II roads in the TIP. TxDOT has already designed the Phase II roads as toll roads. I have the maps to prove it. If you give TxDOT hundreds of millions of dollars they will engineer them as toll roads. That will be an irrevocable act.
If CAMPO later decides that CAMPO really wanted free roads, CAMPO will have to find hundreds of millions of dollars for new engineering work. That is impossible, so we will be stuck with toll roads. This is why CAMPO must vote for, or against, toll roads before putting the Phase II roads in the TIP.
I also question the timing of the January 17 vote. The people of Travis County have elected new leaders who will be answerable to us. A February vote would allow their voices to be heard. This is not just a lament about 'lame ducks.'
CAMPO member Mr Bob Daigh is serial liar. No vote on toll roads should be taken while he sits on the board. Other members have lied. I have compelling reason to believe that Chairman Barrientos sold his vote on toll roads. (I will provide detailed reports in a future letters.) For that reason, we should wait until incoming Senator Kirk Watson replaces Chairman Barrientos.
Let me summarize how I believe the people of east Travis County would want you, our representative, to vote:
1) On 9-13 you should vote against the proposed 2007 calendar, as written. It should be amended to remove any TIP vote in January.
2) CAMPO should vote on the toll road question (the moratorium) in February.
3) A vote on including the Phase II toll roads in the TIP should come after CAMPO has voted for, or against, tolling.
4) CAMPO should begin an immediate investigation of Mr Bob Daigh's fitness to continue on the Board.
Sincerely,
Vincent J May
272-5343

PS: I spoke with Mr Art Zamorano on 11-02. I noted that the CAMPO web site is missing numerous archives of meeting minutes. He acknowledged my concern and said the he would restore them back online if the board gives him support. All government bodies in Texas are required to maintain official records. Good government bodies make their records available online.
I take note of the deletion of the Preliminary Feasibility Analysis studies from the CTRMA web site. These studies are the only foundation documents CTRMA has in support of tolling. I am on record as calling officials at CTRMA liars with a criminal disregard for Texas law. You now have more proof.
The Feasibility studies had significantly different numbers from what CRA presented. For instance, CTRMA said that 290E would have 43k mainlane users in 2030 and 101k vehicles using the frontage roads. CRA did not give counts but said that the tolled 290E mainlanes would be moving at 33mph, which is consistent with >150k vehicles.
The numbers for other Phase II roads also varied widely between CTRMA and CRA. I will supply the missing CTRMA studies to anyone who will put them online for public use.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

TxDOT fails environmental approvals for SW Austin Phase II Toll!

From: Carol Cespedes
Subject: TxDOT fails environmental approvals
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:16:11 -0800 (PST)

Fix290 Group members:

You will find a reminder for Thursday evening's Fix290 Forum in your inbox, but we want to be sure you know about some breaking news relating to the featured presentation from Ed Peacock of the City of Austin watershed protection department.

We have just received documentation that TxDOT has been denied approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the Highway 290 West construction project. The rejection letter cites the project's “more than minimal adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.” All construction that involves "discharge of dredged and fill materials" into waters of the United States (including Williamson Creek) must be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. TxDOT still has the possibility of obtaining an "individual" permit for the construction, but we understand that process takes about two years.

There's more! The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has also requested that TxDOT resubmit its Water Pollution Abatement Plan because of flaws and omissions in the original submission.

What does this mean for the future of Highway 290 West? Does it improve the prospects for Fix290? Come to the forum tonight (Thursday, Nov. 2) and find out.

Time: 7:00 - 9:00 PM
Place: ACC Pinnacle Campus, Room 108
Carol Cespedes

RED LIGHT CAMERAS: PROFIT, NOT SAFETY

Central Texas Civil Liberties Union

For immediate release: Nov. 1, 2006

Contact: Debbie Russell, 573-6194

RED LIGHT CAMERAS: PROFIT, NOT SAFETY

Austin City Council--Don't Install Red Light Cameras!

Tomorrow, City Council is voting to install invasive, expensive “red light cameras” to catch red light runners without trying proven, inexpensive solutions first. These systems violate due process and studies show they’re ineffective, regularly ticketing innocent people while rear-end collisions increase.

"If red light cameras truly reduced red light running, red light camera manufacturers would be putting themselves out of business." -- National Motorists Association

Councilmember Kim, the City’s main proponent, cites a lobbyist’s study (the Texas Research Board) as the sole source for “debunking” the multitudes of nationwide government and safety-institute studies which show rear-end collisions have risen anywhere from 8-81% where these programs have been implemented. Through open records requests, we have found city officials have met with lobbyists from the system manufacturers, but not with safety institutes or governmental agencies that have studied the systems and found enough ills to develop strict guidelines for the programs to be used supplementally, NOT as a first-step/“easy” fix.

If safety were the primary concern for Council, these studies would NOT be ignored and federal recommendations NOT taken lightly; engineer-proven alternatives would at least be STUDIED locally (the City has NOT performed any study) - if not implemented first; and we would not be putting the petal to the metal on an approximately $1.5 million dollar venture without first waiting to see how the program plays out in Houston, as Mayor Wynn said he’d do just before passing the resolution this summer. Observing the legal implications of the civil vs. criminal charge in Texas as it will inevitably play out in Houston first is only common sense. Why not start with the simplest, cheapest, least controversial method of increasing public safety?

"Councilmember Kim misinforms the public when she claims Red Light Cameras improve safety. Studies from cities nationwide prove they have INCREASED accidents. Just like tolling roads we've already paid for (and shockingly, some of the camera dealers are the same special interest profiteers), proponents of these programs place profits before the public interest and our families’ safety," --Sal Costello, People for Efficient Transportation

Co-Sponsor Cmbr. Leffingwell, instead of examining the engineering and political failures that have led to many accidents at busy intersections, has blamed Austinites for their negligence. Had he looked at the MULTITUDES of government studies that prove that red light running is not largely voluntary - that too-short yellow light times don’t allow drivers enough time to clear intersections - he might hesitate to put the burden of guilt on the driver…and NOT vote to put more burden on the taxpayers of this city with buying into a broken technological system.

He also asserts there is a “direct correlation between congestion and the incidents of running red lights.” Odd, as studies show that one of the proven solutions to red light running, timing lights to decrease the chances of drivers having to encounter red lights, also happens to alleviate congestion, and, I might add for the environmentally concerned member, happens to also decrease idling time at intersections, which cuts down on pollution.

Instead of buying into more safety woes and inevitable legal battles, council, VOTE NO TOMORROW!

"...red light cameras aren't fixing a safety problem, they're creating one."

- Office of the U.S. House Majority Leader, 2001

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

RED LIGHT CAMERAS INCREASE PROFITS AND INJURIES

Numerous studies and reports now show Red Light Cameras actually INCREASE accidents.

City of Austin council members, such as Jennifer Kim, are putting financial incentives (for the city and their own campaigns - as in bundlers) ahead of the safety of our Austin families.

Below are a few examples:

1) Washington Post Reports Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents.

2) Colorado Study: Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents 83 Percent.

3) Portland Cameras Cause 140 Percent Jump in Rear End Collisions.

4) Maryland, Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents.

5) Georgia red light cameras are raising cash, accident rates, and the number of injuries.

And other concerns:

1) Chicago Man falsely accused of running a red light in a city he had never visited.

2) Minneapolis Red Light Cameras Nab More Innocent Drivers.

3) California issued nearly $10,000 in bogus red light camera tickets.

READ THESE Smart alternatives:

And lastly, our Constitution gives us the right to face our accuser in court. Who is the accuser here, a camera?

Monday, October 30, 2006

CTRMA email list

CorruptionDetails