 | |
|
Obama Supporter State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-TX) On Barack Obama's Legislative Accomplishments MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?" State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am." Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can." State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now." Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir." State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments." Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?" State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight." Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?" Click here to watch the video!  | |
|
|
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fw: They Said It! Obama Supporter State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-TX) On Barack Obama's Legislative Accomplishments
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
WHY TXDOT, AN AGENCY GONE ROGUE, SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/
PEOPLE FOR EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
STATE of TEXAS SUNSET REVIEW OF TXDOT
JANUARY 7, 2008
TxDOT, an agency in control of Billions of tax dollars for Texas transportation, is out of control.
Under unaccountable, appointed leadership, TxDOT has thumbed it’s nose at not only Texas citizens, but elected local, state and national leaders:
VIDEO: TxDOT chair refuses to meet with chair of Texas Transportation Committee at House Transportation Committee meeting, 2/13/07.
Houston Chronicle article titled, “TxDOT Directive Drives Congress' Texans into Tizzy”, states, “"Arrogant," fumed Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco. "A letter like this is not a way to build relation ships," complained Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston. Said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble: "TxDOT needs to understand the elected representatives make the decisions on what projects we do — not the bureaucrats."” 3/22/07After decades of an unaccountable TxDOT being comfortable with the good old boy system it’s time to start fresh with TxDOT. TxDOT must be abolished, and a new accountable agency from the ground up needs to be formed, using the finest successful DOT’s from other states as a model. Texans deserve nothing less.
Bexar County commissioners threatened by TxDOT. As reported in the San Antonio Express, “TxDOT leadership has begun to take on a very different and mean-spirited tone of late," Adkisson's letter states. "This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, especially coming from appointed officials who are unable to be held accountable by the public.".” 6/19/06
Ft. Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief states in a Dallas News Op-Ed, “ TxDOT's understanding of the new CDA [Comprehensive Development Agreement] approach to road building is that local branches of government and the Legislature are no longer part of the process. According to the TxDOT view, once an agreement is made with a private partner, TxDOT and the provider alone are empowered to makes decisions concerning road alignments. This is a staggering change from the way we have historically made these decisions. These projects are too important to not allow the citizens to participate through their various voices in government. This is a fundamental issue of the separation of powers and checks and balances in the system.”, 6/18/06
State Sen. John Lindsay in a Houston Chronicle Op-ed, says “Highway extortion” and “Selling our state highways to anyone is terrible public policy.” and “Question: When is it more appropriate to call a proposal "highway extortion" rather than "highway robbery"? Answer: When the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) negotiates with the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) and makes demands such as TxDOT is now making on how new toll roads will be built in Harris County.”, 1/06/07
Rep. Joe Pickett in a Letter to Editor, Austin American-Statesman titled "TxDOT TRAMPLED ON US" “The Congress member in our area opposes creating a mobility authority, as does the county judge-elect. Do you think the Texas Department of Transportation honored the decision of the local planning organization? No way. It is the state's way or the highway, I mean tollway. It gets worse, 30 minutes after the vote was taken in El Paso against a mobility authority, a TxDOT commissioner called a road contractor and threatened to kill a pending project if they didn't get the mobility authority in line. Then TxDOT threatened the state of New Mexico by saying it would kill a joint railroad relocation study because some of our planning organization members who voted against the mobility authority are from New Mexico.”, 7/15/06
TxDOT continues to misinform the public and the press, claiming $2 to $3 gas tax increase would be needed if we don’t toll, after a 2006 report from the Governor's Business Council (GBC) told legislators that only pennies a gallon would be needed to build all the roads we need as free roads now. 12/27/07
Internal emails record how TxDOT hid TxTAG overcharges from the press and public for months, then intentionally deceived the press to play down the fact that tens of thousands had been double charged. 10/18/07
"State transportation officials have pushed San Antonio leaders, treated them rudely and ignored them,” said Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. 8/17/05
Reality-based accountability for people of texas and the legislature is required from this agency gone rogue.
1. Based on your experience, how could TxDOT's
transportation planning process be improved?
TxDOT's planning process is polluted with special interests, including lobbyists and campaign contributors which prevail over the wishes of the public.
Public records show TxDOT Engineer, Bob Daigh has been in constant contact with convicted criminal Pete Amos PetersTxDOT has public meetings, but the public’s input is simply ignored. Such as the overwhelming public outcry to not toll what should be a public expressway with our tax dollars.
TxDOT planning process includes strong arm tactics, to pressure local elected officials to ignore the public will, to divert tax dollars intended for freeways (as well as existing right of way) to build toll lanes, so TxDOT can create more revenue. The toll roads cost more to build and maintain than free roads, but that doesn't stop TxDOT’s thirst to become a taxing authority.
Our tax dollars should not be used to create yet another tax on our families.
The State Auditor found TxDOT’s estimate for it’s needs was off by tens of Billions of dollars, either in error or undocumented. That is unacceptable.
TxDOT’s planning process involves revenue by tolling freeways and not solving congestion.
CAMPO Board Member Jeff Mills speaks out about how TxDOT’s toll plan is about revenue, NOT congestion. "These projects do nothing for the main points of congestion," Mills said, noting that the Texas Department of Transportation had made it clear that it was only interested in toll roads. "There are sufficient funds for non-tolled roads." 10/08/07
TxDOT must be abolished, and a new accountable agency from the ground up needs to be formed, using the finest successful DOT’s from other states as a model.
outreach, education, and participation efforts,
particularly in the development of transportation projects?
TxDOT could listen, for a change. TxDOT never listens to those they are supposed to serve.
TxDOT needs to change its policies to restore public confidence. To do this, TxDOT must immediately stop spending our tax dollars on political propaganda such as the multi million dollar advertising campaigns for toll roads and TxTags.
Texas should eliminate the corruption (or appearance of corruption) that comes from the unlimited donations of road contractor contributions to Texas politicians, such as Gov. Rick Perry, who directly and indirectly chose the private road contractors.
ALL public records must always be easy to find an open to the public and the press.
Travel demand models promoted by TxDOT, and used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) like CAMPO, have been privatized and out sourced, so the public can no longer closely examine those models or major transportation decisions. TxDOT shifts many of its planning responsibilities to unelected Regional Mobility Authorities (RMAs), where public decisions are even more difficult to follow.
regional, state, and federal partners?
TxDOT partners with others “mafia style”, so long as everyone agrees with their policies and
doesn't mind being kept in the dark.
TxDOT is not a transparent agency and is run from the top down. Recently TxDOT announced that they were backing away from their commitments to help plan and build the toll roads they had promoted, causing an angry response from Sen. Kirk Watson, who asked them some hard-hitting questions:
Sen. Watson got a response from TxDOT, with none of his questions answered. This is par for the course for TxDOT. The lack of honesty and transparency demonstrated by such key information from a public agency is shameful.
right-of-way? Should the Department be authorized to
purchase property that is available on the open market?
The amount of land involved in ROW Acquisition can be greatly reduced by advocating for smaller footprints for roadways. Texas cannot afford to continue to build frontage roads, instead parkways should be built. No other state in the country wastes tax dollars by building frontage roads.
More free roads and less toll roads also take up less of a footprint, since free roads have smaller footprints.
TxDOT is guilty of having local “partners” buy land and then not building the road. Such as SW 45 in Austin: In 1997, based on a TxDOT promise to build 45SW voters approved bonds to buy ROW. But, TxDOT failed to build the road and hold up their part of the deal.
If they weren't committed to building the road back then, why did they have the taxpayers buy the ROW? (See attached 1997 letter from TxDOT to then Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire)
Now, TxDOT wants to use that tax funded right of way to build a toll road that costs more to build than it could make in revenue, since traffic projections prove the tolls are NOT needed. A CTRMA Feasibility Study for 45 SW now shows an additional $2.9 Million needed for ROW & Utilities for the oversized toll road.
Like a tragic oil spill, all the major problems we have with TxDOT have now leaked and expanded, in the form of RMA’s.
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?
TxDOT should NOT use any of these alternative financing methods for two very important reasons:
• They amount to corporate subsidies.The gas tax mechanism for collecting a taxes is perfect, if it’s indexed. Many states already index the gas tax, as every other product we buy is naturally indexed though the marketplace. The gas tax is the most cost efficient, fair and accountable form of taxation for our transportation needs.
• These deals also allow information that should be public, to be kept a secret.
Tolling roads are the most expensive, most bureaucratic and most unaccountable transportation taxation option. The Texas Transportation Institute (with the Governors Business Council) study from 2006 says indexing the gas tax to rising construction costs would be enough to pay for the roads needed now, without the need for tolls.
Using our gas tax dollars to create another tax by building toll roads where public expressways should be is unfair and an unaccountable form of taxation.
Developers who purchased cheap land need to start paying their share for the roads that make them rich.
Many of the problems Texas faces come from the diversion of tax dollars. Diverting tax dollars for toll roads will create more problems.
The Comptroller’s report called “Need for a Higher Standard” Special Report in 2005. Converting freeways into tollways more expensive, it's unnecessary, and it encourages TxDOT to bulldoze perfectly good roads in order to rebuild them as toll roads. This policy makes no fiscal sense, is a total waste of taxpayer resources, serves to grow government and it primarily benefits road builders, not taxpayers.
TxDOT lets and manages contracts for highway
construction and maintenance, for both
traditional tax-funded projects and projects funded
through innovative financing techniques?
Minimize the impact of mega-contractors. Require small contractor participation – not as a partner to the mega contractors. This would mean opening the bid up to partial bids, and an increase in the coordination capacity of TxDOT. But it would keep the process more transparent.
Any cost overrun more than 3% or $100k must be approved by a elected (legislative) board.
managing vehicle titles and registrations?
Hire an expert from another state who has set up a registration system that is a national model, and then give that person the money and authority to do it.
TxDOT administers its regulatory programs, including
motor vehicle dealer licensing?
Hire an expert from another state.
towards other modes of transportation, such as rail,
to meet the State's transportation needs?
Yes, BUT, the rail system needs to be financially feasible and we should not give subsidies to rail corporations who then profit from that public subsidy.
be continued for 12 years? Should the Legislature
make changes to the mission or
functions of the Department?
TxDOT has fallen under the influence of the many special interests that benefit from roads, particularly contractors and land developers. Change the mission to disconnect TxDOT from the decision making and the financing.
Sunset TxDOT and start fresh by looking at what other states have done, to keep the cost of roads in check.
Sunset the Regional Mobility Authorities which are nothing more than mini-TxDOT’s.
Texas Department of Transportation. If you would
like to suggest any changes to the Department,
its operations, or its statute, please provide:
Accountability and transparency is desperately needed.
Replacing the current unelected, unaccountable transportation commissioners with one elected person would be one step in the right direction.
Like many other states, TxDOT should be 100% disassociated from the decision making process, as well as from the financing process. Also, TxDOT should not hold any voting rights on MPO’s, since they often present the plan that is voted on.
TxDOT needs much more oversight by competent representatives of the people. TXDOT is generally allowed to work in secret, with nobody questioning their design decisions, their cost estimates, or their construction management. Thus we find out that a project is over budget once it's too late to do anything about it, and we don't have enough information to determine why.
TxDOT should not be allowed to perform, or to let to consultants, their own environmental reviews as allowed by NEPA. There is just too much opportunity for disingenuous behavior.
The State of Texas should review TxDOT's projects as per NEPA EIS regulations according to applicable State, Federal AND Local regulations. The savings would be in the form of designs done right the first time. The drawbacks of the complexity of the onerous system are that only truly qualified experts can understand whether or not a project meets the required regulations.
The State of Texas should require TxDOT to meet the highest regulatory standards whether they are Federal, State or Local. TxDOT is not required to even consider local regulations, that must change.
TxDOT, or the State of Texas for that matter, should constitute an Employee Suggestion Program like Wisconsin, and listen.
Any cost overrun more than 3% or $200k, whichever is less, must be approved by a elected (legislative) board.
TxDOT never takes oil prices into account in any aspect of its planning, whereas rapidly rising fuel costs reduces the amount that people drive, which must be taken into account when planning transportation for our future.
Like a tragic oil spill, all the major problems we have with TxDOT have now leaked and expanded across Texas like a poison. Recent laws have allowed mini-TxDOT’s, otherwise known as Regional Mobility Authorities (RMA’s), to spread across the state with the same lack of transparency and unaccountability, to assist TxDOT in taking our public assets. The bureaucracies absorb city, county and state tax dollars for seed money to get going. Then they steal the public's right of way, more tax dollars and create debt, while they create monopolistic tolls from what should be a public expressway.
State of Texas Comptroller report shows how RMA’s give out NO BID contracts. 3/05
See Appendices, Appendix 5
Toll Authorities are also an issue. Toll Authority Execs Raise Toll Rates Then Party in Vienna!
Thank you,
Sal Costello
Founder of People for Efficient Transportation
sal@texastollparty.com
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Sunset Review Asks For Suggestions To Fix TxDOT
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
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.
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
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
TxDOT response to request for cost of Mopac managed lane - 1 lane added within same width of road
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
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.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
My Formal Letter to the DA - Asking them to Investigate Sen. Kirk Watson's Conflicts
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
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?
Legislative Director
Congressman Nick Lampson (TX-22)
436 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
WHO VOTED TO TOLL MOPAC?
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
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!
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...
