"The decision on who is going to be speaker of the House will have enormous pocketbook impact on all Texans."

Lobby firms, businessmen, colleagues have plenty riding on Texas House speaker vote

Jan. 7, 2007

By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Austin Bureau
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2007

AUSTIN — Far more is at stake in the race for Texas House speaker than just whose hand will wield the oversized pecan gavel used to bring the unruly chamber to order.

There also is influence. And there is the ability to implement laws that could affect billions of dollars in business profits or state spending.

Lobby firms whose members vacation with incumbent Speaker Tom Craddick or help him get an appointment with the pope stand to lose influence if he is ousted. So do tort reformers and businessmen Bob Perry of Houston and James Leininger of San Antonio.

If Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts prevails in his challenge, Democratic legislators and personal injury trial lawyers could gain a seat at the legislative negotiating table. Proponents of more state spending on public education or children's health programs may gain clout as well.

Winners and losers in the legislative balance of power will be determined Tuesday, the opening day of the legislative session, as House members choose between the two Republicans to lead them.

"The decision on who is going to be speaker of the House will have enormous pocketbook impact on all Texans," said Tom Smith of Public Citizen, a consumer group.

"The decisions the next speaker makes on who to appoint as committee chairs and what legislation comes to the floor and what is in tax and appropriations bills is going to affect each and every one of us."

Aligned with Craddick is a pair of powerful lobby firms — Hillco Partners and the Texas Capitol Group — which collect more than $1 million a year each in fees to represent a who's-who of business clients before the Legislature.

Texas Capitol Group lobbyist Bill Messer vacations with Craddick and his family. Messer's brother, Joe Cox, is a key researcher on Craddick's speaker staff. Mike Toomey, another lobbyist at the firm, helped Craddick win the speakership in 2003.

Hillco partner Bill Miller often serves as Craddick's political spokesman. He also arranged for the Catholic politician to have an audience with the pope at the Vatican.

Democratic political consultant Glenn Smith said the biggest loser in a Craddick defeat would be Gov. Rick Perry. Smith said Perry has been dependent in the past on Craddick to push his agenda through the Legislature.

Highway funding

William Lutz, managing editor of the conservative Lone Star Report, said the governor also could find opposition from Pitts to the centerpiece of his administration: expanding the state highways and building the Trans-Texas Corridor.

"Jim Pitts is not a friend of TxDOT (the Texas Department of Transportation)," Lutz said. "If Jim Pitts is speaker, the governor might get a few bills sent to his desk that he doesn't like."

Smith said other major losers would be Hillco and the Texas Capitol Group. Smith said the lobbyists relied on Perry to serve as a veto block on legislation they opposed and relied on Craddick to push what they wanted through the House.

"Their empire has been dependent on this speaker and the financial backing of Bob Perry," Smith said.

In the past five years, Bob Perry, no relation to Gov. Perry, has donated $915,000 to the Hillco PAC, about 43 percent of all the PAC's fundraising. The money was then donated to legislators.

Ethics advocate Fred Lewis said he thinks the money was not just meant to sway legislators but also to keep Craddick in power by financing lawmakers who support him. (Since Craddick was elected speaker in 2003, he has received $25,000 from Hillco and $35,000 from Bob Perry.)

Lewis said he also thinks a state law prohibiting lobbyists from influencing a speaker's race may have been violated when Hillco's Miller served as Craddick's spokesman in the early stages of the campaign last month. He said Craddick also should have reported Miller's services as an expense on his speaker's race financial disclosure statements.

"It is clear Bill Miller is providing professional services to Speaker Craddick, and they are not reported," Lewis said.

Forming relationships

Miller said his activities as a friend of Craddick's have nothing to do with his work at Hillco. Miller said he was friends with Craddick years ago when Craddick had no power in the House because Craddick had gotten crossways with former Speaker Pete Laney.

"My relationship with Craddick preceded Hillco. It goes back to when he was poison," Miller said. "We have a lot of clients. Do you think we'd subvert our clients for one member of the Legislature?"

Miller said he took reporters' calls during the holidays only because official spokeswoman Alexis DeLee was on vacation. He said he did it as a favor to the reporters and to Craddick.

Other potential losers in a Craddick defeat include Houston homebuilder Perry and San Antonio investor Leininger, both of whom are major Republican donors.

Under Craddick, the House approved creation of the Texas Residential Construction Commission, which protects homebuilders from lawsuits.

And Craddick pushed for a floor vote in 2005 on doomed private school voucher legislation, Leininger's top legislative goal. Leininger's mostly unsuccessful funding of efforts to unseat Republican incumbents who voted against that bill is partly responsible for the current rebellion of House members against Craddick.

Perry spokesman Anthony Holm said Perry makes political donations to both Democrats and Republicans who support a business-friendly agenda. Holm said that will not change if there is a new speaker.

Perry was Pitts' largest donor last year, giving him $15,000.

Leininger spokesman Ken Hoagland said the businessman accepts that trying to create a majority for vouchers by funding legislative campaigns was a mistake. Hoagland said Leininger has "apologized for excesses" and is working to persuade lawmakers he once opposed that vouchers would be good for the school children.

Variety of interests

As for Pitts, the Waxahachie lawmaker comes to the speaker's race with his own set of encumbrances.

Though he was the 10th-largest fundraiser among House members in 2006, his donations came from a broad array of interests. His brother, John, and nephew, John Jr., are lobbyists whose clients mostly include charter schools and businesses associated with the low-income-housing industry.

What worries some conservatives is Pitts' legislative history and the alliances he is making in the speaker's race.

In 2004, Pitts pushed legislation supported by the governor to legalize video slot machines at racetracks. Pitts' contributions last year included $7,500 from the political committee of Houston-based Maxxam Inc., a company interested in passage of such legislation.

To win the speakership, Pitts is putting together a coalition of Democratic and Republican lawmakers. He has promised to be more open than Craddick and give all sides of an issue a seat at negotiations on bills.

To conservatives, that means Pitts could be more willing to give in to Democratic demands on spending, social issues and lawsuit-reform legislation.

"That means our conservative agenda would be endangered if not DOA," said Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum.

'Tail wagging the dog'

Jim Cardle, president of the conservative Texas Citizens Action Network, said state government spending grew 19 percent with Pitts as Appropriations chairman during times when state revenue was tight. Cardle said he is worried about what will happen if Pitts is speaker and has to satisfy Democrats who helped elect him.

"Democrats would win. If Pitts wins, you've got the tail wagging the dog," Cardle said.

There also are political risks involved for House members in how they decide to vote.

Democrats who back Craddick could face retribution from their party in next year's primaries.

Republicans who bolt to Pitts face the similar possibility.

Smith said he does not think the Republican members need to worry. He said three of the five Republican incumbents targeted for defeat by Leininger last year survived.

Cardle agreed. He said Craddick Democrats have more to worry about, and he noted that the party defeated state Reps. Ron Wilson and Al Edwards of Houston and the late state Sen. Frank Madla of San Antonio in the primaries based on party-loyalty votes.

"The Democrats have a better enforcement mechanism than the Republicans do," Cardle said.

Money flows from lobbyists

Hillco and the Texas Capitol Group may be the most high-profile lobby firms with vested interests in a Craddick speakership, but they are not alone.

Through June 30, Craddick raised $1.2 million from lobbyists and business interests for his campaign, even though he faced no re-election challenge. He had $3 million in political cash in the bank.

Pitts raised $812,000 last year, but he also faced challenges in both the GOP primary and general election. His reports cover all but the last two months of 2006. He had $484,334 in political cash in his bank account.

Craddick's report for the second half of 2006 and a final tally on Pitts will not be available until after the speaker's race.

Because state law prohibits fundraising during a regular legislative session, if Pitts wins, lobby interests will be unable to make so-called late train donations to him until 20 days after the session ends.

r.g.ratcliffe@chron.com


© 2006 Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

"The Trans-Texas Corridor is not the answer."

Funding solutions for planned corridor legislators' dilemma

Transportation network could use private money

January 07, 2007

By JIMMY ISAAC
Longview News-Journal
Copyright 2007

More than 54,000 cars a day pass through Interstate 35 near Hillsboro where the highway splits, leading motorists either through Dallas or Fort Worth.

Added volume on New year's Day slowed traffic to 5 mph through the town, with cars stuck in medians and map-savvy drivers turning the Hill County Courthouse square into a traffic jam.

Hillsboro is more than 150 miles from Tyler, Longview and Marshall, but one official says the growing pressure on the Central Texas highway is beginning to affect East Texas arteries.

"I-35 is one of the busiest in the state, and people are already coming through our rural East Texas towns to bypass Dallas and Houston," said Jeff Austin, chairman of the Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority, "and we don't have nearly the infrastructure that they do."

Enter the Trans-Texas Corridor, a proposed multi-use, statewide transportation network of tollways, free lanes, rail and utility right-of-ways. The proposal was announced by Gov. Rick Perry in late 2005 after the state was warned that federal transportation dollars to Texas would soon be slim to none.

According to www.keeptexasmoving.com, plans call for the corridor to be completed in phases over the next 50 years with routes prioritized according to the state's needs. The Texas Department of Transportation would oversee planning, construction and ongoing maintenance, but private vendors would be responsible for much of the daily operations.

It is that last phrase that has East Texas legislators flashing caution lights. Reps. Tommy Merritt and Bryan Hughes and Sen. Kevin Eltife have voiced support for increasing the state's gasoline tax rather than tolling and privatization to pay for future highway infrastructure improvements. Texas' gas tax rate is 20 cents per gallon — the 12th lowest rate among the 50 states.

"I think toll roads are a piece of the solution," Hughes told Longview News-Journal editors in December. "On the other hand, pay as you go makes sense.

"If we were to index the gas tax to inflation and dedicate it to highways, it would go a long way to lessen infrastructure needs."

Those needs don't stop with I-35. Longstanding coalitions from South Texas to Houston and northward are continuing their decades-old push for a controlled-access highway — or I-69 — that would follow along the U.S. 59 route.

Harrison County Commissioner James Greer attended the I-69 Alliance's annual December banquet, as did NET-RMA Vice-Chairman Linda Ryan Thomas and former Carthage Mayor Charles Thomas.

Even though federal highway funds for the I-69 proposal have been pulled, Greer said environmental studies are being completed for segments of what would be Trans-Texas Corridor 69 from Houston southward. The plan, he said, is still to continue the highway north to Texarkana.

"The original plan was to come up through Texas somewhere around Carthage and that area and start northeast and north of Shreveport and into Tennessee and Arkansas and that area," Greer said. "Since the federal government pulled the plug on the funds for it, I don't know what Louisiana is going to do with it. Of course, Texas is looking at alternative funding sources."

Two private-sector groups have submitted proposals to develop the proposed 600-mile TTC-69 thoroughfare from the Texas-Mexico border through East Texas. The private vendor with the winning proposal would handle daily operations of the corridor as well as provide its agreed investment. However, TxDOT would oversee planning, construction and ongoing maintenance of the project.

Rusk County Judge Sandra Hodges is hopeful that TTC-69 cuts through her county, but she said she isn't excited about having investors from outside Texas and the United States paying for state road construction.

"I know that they need to be creative, and I know that we are growing and we're going to have to have the roads," she said. "I'm not sure that I want some foreign company ... coming in and building these highways. I think TxDOT is a large part of our government, and with all the engineers they have and the people that work for them, somehow we need to have our own people building those roads."

Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt also sides with area legislators, saying that a gas tax is the fairest way to pay for transportation infrastructure.

"What (state officials are) asking us now is to get into a lot of debt," he said. "That's a formula that could be a tremendous issue down the road when you get all of this debt in place and you have no way to pay for it."

East Texas officials have long wanted a controlled-access highway — a highway on which entrance and departure of traffic is regulated, such as an expressway — to Houston.

Because of overall decreases in future funding commitments, TxDOT has trimmed its budget to handle mostly maintenance and operation of existing roadways.

In 2003, Texas lawmakers created RMAs, which allow regions to come together to develop alternative funding sources after identifying mobility needs. The Northeast Texas RMA was founded by Smith and Gregg counties, but has since added four adjoining counties. All of the counties have expressed either slight or heavy interest in bring I-69 or TTC-69 to the region.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that Texas will grow 1.6 percent annually, adding another 5.7 million people between 2005 and 2015.

Many officials agree that north-south transportation infrastructure is needed. It is the TTC proposal and its potential funding mechanism that has some leaders moving in different directions.

"The Trans-Texas Corridor is not the answer," Eltife said. "Toll roads should be a piece of the overall infrastructure picture, but it's not going to solve our problems. I think transportation is our number one issue for our economic development future. If you can't travel and move in our little cities, people aren't going to move here, so we need to encourage community leaders to work every option on the table."

© 2007 Longview News-Journal: www.news-journal.com

"Selling our state highways to anyone is terrible public policy. It's up to the Legislature to make some changes in the law."

Viewpoints, Outlook

ROAD KILLER:

State's game? Highway extortion

Harris County is getting held up on toll road funding

Jan. 6, 2007

By STATE SEN. JON LINDSAY
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2007

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.

TxDOT wants the county to pay TxDOT $1.234 billion for the right to use or cross the state's right of way for the construction of possibly three new tollways. The county will then be responsible for all other right of way and construction costs. When the project is completed and tolls are being collected, 8 percent of the gross tolls will be paid to the state.

This extortion, of course, is not acceptable to the county. The county has offered to pay the state $1.2 billion, payable over 40 years with $350 million of that being paid up front. I believe even this is too generous to the state. Remember: the county has already paid the state $250 million to build part of the Katy Freeway.

When I (as Harris County judge) negotiated with TxDOT in 1983 for the right to build the Hardy Toll Road and West Belt (which became the Sam Houston Toll Road), the state highway commission was great. Again in 1990, the commissioners were supportive in the construction of the south and east belt, along with the county taking over the money-losing toll bridge at the Houston Ship Channel. We were able to complete all of those projects ahead of schedule and below projected budget.

The agencies that rate the county bonds have rewarded Harris County by improving ratings because of the toll road authority's strong financial position. I don't believe we can keep our favorable rating if the state prevails in its current demands.

This present state commission for TxDOT has a different attitude than the commission I dealt with in the past. The current TxDOT commissioners want to do in Harris County what they've done in central Texas. In the Austin area they took proposals from private groups to build and operate some toll roads. TxDOT accepted the proposal that offered the most money to the state. Great for the state; bad for the users. Although the private group has to pay large amounts to the state, they don't care because they can pretty much charge what they want to the users.

Instead of building public projects based on the best low bid, the state is adopting a policy of building major projects based on the best high bid. When the state enters into one of these agreements called a "comprehensive development agreement," or CDA, the state agrees to limit competition. The investor gets a guarantee that other roads will not be built to compete in any way with the CDA toll read.

Who knows what effect this will have on future development? This has already happened in Pflugerville, on Texas State Highway 45, where an exit was denied in order to maximize revenue, thus hurting local business.

California did a CDA on a state road in the Los Angeles area and later decided more capacity was needed. However, before they could proceed they had to buy back the CDA from the investors. The buy-back cost the state a lot of money. Apparently, this procedure will be used by TXDOT to build FM 1604 in San Antonio.

I believe the state is being unreasonable with Harris County, because it knows it can receive proposals from private entities for as much or more. If that happens, the roads will still be built. The tolls will be a lot higher. Local control will be lost. The private entity will make large profits and those profits will leave the area, probably going overseas to Spain as has happened in the Austin area.

This is not just a Harris County problem. A similar concern is developing in North Texas with the North Texas Toll Authority. The move there by TxDOT could be that the state takes over the toll authority's toll roads, including the existing ones. TxDOT is asking for legislation that will allow this to happen. San Antonio will soon be facing the same issues.

Texas should continue past policies that encourage the development of its transportation system in the most efficient manner with as much participation with local agencies as possible.
There are better options available to the state to improve our mobility problems. A gasoline tax pegged to inflation with bonding ability, along with efficient toll roads with local control, would go a long way; and we would not be sending our money to overseas investors — money that should be invested locally, which is what the Harris County Toll Road Authority does. Selling our state highways to anyone is terrible public policy. It's up to the Legislature to make some changes in the law.

Lindsay, a Republican, has represented State Senate District 7 in Houston since 1996. Prior to that, he was Harris County judge for 20 years.

© 2007 The Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"Tolling a road that's already been paid for by taxes should be against the law, if it isn't already."

Free Ride Is Over On Central Texas Tollways

Jan 6, 2007

Gregg Watson Reporting
CBS 42 (Austin, TX)
Copyright 2006

Drivers now have to pay to use Central Texas toll roads. That has some people are clamoring for TxTags and others protesting.

A group called Austin Toll Party is fighting to keep the roads free, at the same time others are paying for the privilege to drive out here.

Some say the toll road is a faster way to get to where they're going.

"I live up north and it makes it tremendously convenient to hop on the toll road as to oppose to waiting in traffic," Bobby Williams said.

Those who have not bought a TxTag must now pay. The free ride continues for TxTag holders until the end of the month.

"I'm going to take advantage of the month of January being free with the tag," Monica Hurt said.

But not all embrace the toll roads. Harris Harold is out on Highway 71 to warn folks about coming toll roads.

"They're going to toll this highway, if we don't stop them," Harold said.

And he's not alone. Several anti-toll protesters spread the word that drivers shouldn't pay for roads their taxes paid for.

"Tell them no, we've already paid for this road, no tolls," said Virginia, who didn't want to use her last name.

"Somebody has got to stand up and say, hey is time to stop, you are being taxed enough,� Harris Harold said.

Some drivers don't want see Highway 71 become a toll road.

"Tolling a road that's already been paid for by taxes should be against the law, if it isn�t already," Joe Nichols said.

What some call highway robbery, others call convenient--even if they have to pay for it.

The tolls that kicked in Saturday morning are for Phase One. Tolling on Phase Two of the turnpike project is still open to public debate.

There are two public hearings coming up. The first is next Wednesday at LBJ High School, then Thursday at Kyle City Hall.

Most of the tolls cost 50 cents each way, but that price jumps to a $1.50 at the toll plazas along Highway 130.


© 2007 CBS Stations Group of Texas: www.keyetv.com

"The CAMPO politicians know that their buddies have been de-elected, and they know that they can be de-elected as well. "

Austin Toll Party Trying To Stop Phase 2 Of Toll Roads

Jan 5, 2007

KXAN TV (Austin, Texas)
Copyright 2006

Starting Saturday, you'll have to pay to drive on Austin's new toll roads, which is known as phase one of the toll road project. Phase two is still up in the air.

A group is hoping to stop that toll plan dead in its tracks.

The phase two project calls for tolls on roads already built, including parts of Highways 71, 290, 183 and 360.

If some elected officials have their way, it'll cost you to drive on those roads. These are roads built by your taxes.

The phase two toll road project has been stopped once and comes up for another vote in early January.

Friday, the Austin Toll Party group was passing out flyers hoping to educate drivers keep the roads free.

Austin Toll Party is trying to stop the phase two toll roads on Highways 71, 290, 183 and 360. They are calling it the knock-out punch campaign.

The group handed out flyers trying to educate people. They vow there's more to come.

"That's just the beginning because they're running amok here taking our existing roads," Richard Reeves with the Austin Toll Party said.

Reeves is talking about the elected officials who voted to make you pay tolls on roads that are already paid for. The activists are targeting those elected officials in a new online video.

"As soon as the public is educated that one of these elected officials voted to toll a road we've already paid for, it is the kiss of death," Sal Costello with the Austin Toll Party said.

Costello says the group has already held elected officials accountable by claiming to be instrumental in the last election and ousting a county commissioner and the vice chair of CAMPO. Costello is hoping the current politicians will hear their message.

"They know that their buddies have been de-elected, and they know that they can be de-elected as well," Costello said.

The phase two toll project will gather the public input on January 17. The vote on the phase two project is slated for February 10.

Until then, the campaign continues on the streets and online.

"Our politicians, our representatives need to learn to stand up, get a spine, get a backbone and say, 'No.' And we the people will get behind them if they'll do that," Reeves said.

Councilmember McCracken and Representative Strama did vote to toll the roads, but now say they're reconsidering tolling these existing roadways.

Whether you're for or against the toll roads, Austin Toll Party's Web site has set-up an automatic e-mail, where you can offer your opinion and send it to the 23 CAMPO board members with one click.


© 2007 WorldNow and KXAN: www.kxan.com

"Dethroning Craddick would seem like a righteous reckoning. "

COMMENTARY

Flush with victory?

1/5/06

David Lowery
Austin American-Statesman
Copyright 2007


There is a lot of back room scheming and horse-trading going on in the challenge to Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, and good reasons for all of it.

There's the speaker's power to appoint committee heads and have them do his bidding if they want to keep their jobs. There's the lofty seat up there on the podium, and the big gavel to wield with authority when things get a little rowdy on the floor.

There's power over the budget, setting the agenda for the state, making and breaking political careers, blah, blah, blah.

What's really important in the speaker's race is who gets to live in the fine new digs Craddick and his wife Nadine have fixed up in the Capitol.

Forget muscle and prestige — what matters when the speaker is chosen Jan. 9 is who gets to live in the Speaker's Apartment.

The Craddicks spent more than $1 million renovating the 2,000-square-foot apartment in the Capitol (the nation's only living quarters in a state capitol).

It wasn't their money, you'll recall, but they still had to twist some arms and box some ears to get it.

And now, after all the grief they've endured and work they've done choosing the proper drapes and such, they may not get to live in it any longer.

To Craddick's political enemies, his dethroning would seem like a righteous reckoning. They'll see his being tossed out of the apartment during the final touches as just reward for his hubris. The Craddicks' stuff won't be stacked on the lawn like some deadbeat renter's, but it's an image his opponents must treasure.

A lot of Texans have wondered about those $1,000 toilets in the speaker's pad. And the $7,000 refrigerator, the $1,400 washing machine and the $36,000 New Zealand wool carpets that were ordered, only to be cut up for area rugs after it was decided hardwood floors would look better.

Not just any old boards would do for the Speaker's Apartment floors, either. The Craddicks thought original wood from the 1880s and 1890s would go best in their redone crib, so they ordered it up at a cost of $87,000.

Now, no one would be happy about being evicted from his domicile after going through all the work it takes to find the right carpets to chop up, the matching window treatments, hand-crafted knobs, $1,000 toilets and all the other headaches.

That is surely one of the reasons Craddick is not going to leave the speaker's post without putting up a heckuva fight.

But the folks who really will be upset if the Craddicks get the boot from their abode are the lobbyists who paid for the extreme makeover.

After some lawmakers groused about the project, Craddick said he'd seek private donations to fix up the place. That meant he would milk the necessary cash from the lobbyists for special interests. After all, it's their job is to seek favors from the Legislature and his job to grant or deny them.

Lobbyists for special interests such as AT&T, Maxxam Inc., the beer distributors and other big players who have a lot of business at the Capitol came across with the dough. They didn't have much choice if they want the speaker's ear this session.

But how are they going to feel if the members give Craddick the boot? Not too sprightly, I imagine, after they were pushed to the pay window and told to put $1 million on the No. 1 horse to win — or else.

So those lobbyists' money will have been flushed down the expensive toilets if Craddick loses power. Not only that, but under a different speaker, it might be awhile before their Guccis touch the fancy rugs and aged hardwood floors that they paid for.

Oh, they would get up there eventually, but it would cost them. They'd have to spread some more special interest money around for the new speaker and the new committee leaders.

That's how the game is played.

But they'd be in good company if they never make it inside the second-floor apartment.

Most Texans won't get that far, even though it sort of belongs to them. The Craddicks said the redo is "a gift to all Texans," but they haven't let the press in for a gander and won't answer questions about it.

Craddick may well win re-election as speaker and be able to settle into the apartment comfortably for a couple of years.

If Craddick loses, though, the new speaker should hold an open house to show off the refurbished crib. He could do it up right, with a rope line, attendants and docents to point out the more interesting features of this gift to all Texans.

After the intrigue in the speaker's race and questions about the apartment, I'd stand in line to see it.

dlowery@statesman.com; 445-3611

© 2006 Austin American-Statesman: www.statesman.com

Austin Toll Party mobilizes "Knock-Out Punch” campaign

MEDIA ADVISORY

Citizens Group Forms Flier Brigades to Stop Phase II Tolls

Public Feedback Deadline Nears

1/5/07

Austin Toll Party
Copyright 2007

AUSTIN – After nearly 30 months of attempting to stop Central Texas Phase II tolls from charging drivers on Hwys 71, 290, 183 and 360, citizen group AustinTollParty.com declares they are ready to deliver the Double Tax Toll “Knock-out Punch” with a well planned campaign. CAMPO Phase II

Re-Vote is coming soon with public feedback ending Jan 17th.

WHO/WHAT: AustinTollParty.com Flier Brigades

WHEN: Friday, Jan. 5th 2007 at 4:00pm

WHERE: Ben White (Hwy 71E) and Montopolis and other East Austin intersections.

The heat is on; the re-vote for CAMPO Phase II is approaching quickly with public feedback
opportunities ending on Jan 17. AustinTollParty.com will mobilize volunteers until then with its “Knock-Out Punch” campaign by hitting the streets to spread the word on how Phase II toll will permanently shift public expressways to tollway for the first time in the country.

As a part of the “Knock-Out Punch” campaign, ATP released a scathingly funny video, called “Circle of Payola”. The online video stars local elected officials and was released yesterday (Thursday) at AustinTollParty.com. Just hours after its release, the new online cartoon was deemed viral after well over 1,000 visitors have viewed the piece.

The group was created as a means to influence the wrongful doings of representatives who ATP says 'represent special interests, not the people.’ AustinTollParty.com founder, Sal Costello said, “The politicians take our tax dollars, pay for toll roads and then claim they’ve run out of money to build freeways. That’s highway robbery!”

After its creation in 2004, AustinTollParty.com has claimed various victories including South MoPAC at Wm. Cannon tolls being pulled from the Phase II plan. “The SW Austin community saves millions of dollars a year, by not having to pay a toll for stretch of MoPAC we’ve already paid for. We seek to remove 71E and 183S tolls from the plan next, as they are 100% paid for as well” Costello said.

For more information or to view the new video, visit: www.AustinTollParty.com

© 2007 Austin Toll Party: www.AustinTollParty.com

"Fed up with the state's insistence on building toll roads."

Business Owner, Commissioner Unite To Stop Toll Roads

January 4, 2007

KSAT (San Antonio)
Copyright 2006

SAN ANTONIO -- Two prominent men from the city's North Side have joined forces to urge local leaders to keep toll roads out of Bexar County.

Ancira automotive owner Ernesto Ancira and Lyle Larson, Precinct 3 county commissioner, plan to lead a charge against toll roads in the county.

Ancira said he's fed up with the state's insistence on building toll roads to relieve congestion.

"We can certainly stop it; it's not too late," Ancira said. "We can certainly come up with alternative plans of being able to make improvements to our existing roads."

Ancira said he sent a letter to members of the local Metropolitan Planning Organization to urge them to back off on toll roads on US Highway 281.

He said he spent millions of dollars to build a dealership along Highway 281 with the understanding it would remain a freeway.

Ancira said tolling it would have a catastrophic impact on his businesses and others.

"You'll see that no retail has ever developed adjacent to a toll road," Ancira said. "So, you've got a lot of small-business people who put in their whole life savings, and all of the sudden they're going to be bypassed."

Larson said the effort wouldn't have been necessary if lawmakers hadn't spent billions of dollars from the gas tax on non-transportation projects.

"(Lawmakers) diverted 9.3 billion dollars from the (state) highway fund, which has created this crisis of funding," Larson said.

"If you look at what the county's share of that $9.3 billion is, it would be a billion dollars," Larson said.

Larson said that amount would be enough to fix Highway 281, Loop 1604, and Wurzbach Parkway.

In 2005, $775 million was diverted from the state highway fund to pay for programs in the state Department of Commerce and the Texas Historical and Arts Commission.

Larson said if the state would stop the diversions and replace the pilfered money with a surplus of an estimated $15 billion that he expects to come out of the next legislative session, the state could start fixing its transportation woes.

House Speaker Tom Craddick said if the Legislature stopped using those funds for non-transportation needs, lawmakers would be forced to cut many programs or raise taxes and fees.

Copyright 2007 by KSAT.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2007 by KSAT.com: www.ksat.com

Rick Perry's Texas Transportation Commission: Mouthpiece for private toll road consortiums

Forward Momentum: A report to the 110 th Congress, 1st Session

Comment Draft

January 25, 2007

Texas Transportation Commission
Copyright 2007

INTRODUCTION

A year ago, with the passage of the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU), the guiding principle of TxDOT’s federal legislative activities was “Building on Success.” This principle has notchanged; however, in order to ensure the future reliability of our state’s transportation infrastructure, we must now move forward and begin the process of educating ourpartners on the importance of both building on our past successes and forging new ones.

When Congress passed and the president signed SAFETEA-LU, federal highway, highway safety and transit programs were reauthorized through fiscal year 2009. What seemed far away at the time is now a mere 30 months down the road.

For more than two decades, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has been actively engaged in federal legislative advocacy; however, our greatest challenge may yet be upon us. Experts in and out of the transportation industry predict that the funding levels authorized in SAFETEA-LU will exceed revenues to the Highway Trust Fund within the next few years, effectively rendering it bankrupt. The traditional modes of funding, operation and thinking are no longer working for our state or nation. TxDOT worked hard during the course of SAFETEA-LU to lay the groundwork for the use of new and innovative financing tools in transportation infrastructure delivery.

In many ways, TxDOT has already begun the education process through the many public meetings it holds throughout the state and the publications it distributes each month. During the 110th Congress, the department will work with members of Congress, the Bush administration and our other federal partners to not only protect the gains of SAFETEA-LU, but to strengthen them.

Contained in this report are brief synopses of our 2007, or post-SAFETEA-LU, federal priorities.

Questions regarding this report should be directed to Cindy Mueller (cmueller@dot.state.tx.us) at 202/434-0230, Patrick Mullane (pmullan@dot.state.tx.us)
at 202/434-0209, or Christopher Lippincott (clippin@dot.state.tx.us) at 512/463-9957 in the department’s Government and Business Enterprises Division, or in writing to:
125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701.

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES

During the development of SAFETEA-LU, TxDOT and its partners —both public and private— fought hard to achieve advances in funding and policy flexibility. At the end of the day, success was achieved. Since the bill’s passage, we have worked, through the federal rulemaking process, to ensure congressional intent is maintained and that lawmakers understand that new laws are creating important new opportunities in Texas. As we move into the new 110th Congress, it is absolutely critical that we further our successes.

FORWARD MOMENTUM

The following is an overview of broad policy issues. None of these issues can be considered new, but they continue to be important to the future of our state’s transportation infrastructure delivery system. TxDOT strongly advocated for and achieved success on many of these items during the passage of SAFETEA-LU. Other items, such as Aviation Reauthorization and the Water Resource Development Act (WRDA), are an element of timing. All of the issues in one way or another reflect the department’s commitment to achieving its five core goals of reducing congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity, improving air quality, andincreasing the value of transportation assets.

HIGHWAY FUNDING PRIORITIES

IMPROVED FUNDING FLEXIBILITY

When looking into the future and exploring possibilities for funding Texas’ transportation infrastructure, the watchword is “flexibility.”

TxDOT has always been a leader in the nation’s transportation community. Legislative successes in SAFETEA-LU and at the state level have put Texas at the forefront when it comes to finding new and innovative financing. However, because of a traditional overreliance on fuel taxes, finding success has at times been challenging, making it even more apparent that the current system of funding transportation via motor fuel taxes is no longer sufficient.

In SAFETEA-LU, Congress called for the establishment of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Revenue Study Commission) to examine the nation’s surface transportation system, as well as alternative revenue sources to support the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). TxDOT believes that the Revenue Study Commission and Congress must upend traditional thinking and embrace innovation. We must strive to achieve a more results-driven funding process with clearly stated goals and objectives.

Over the years, countless studies and panels have been commissioned in an effort to address the future of the HTF and fuel taxation. It is our hope that, as a result of its work, the Revenue Study Commission will be able to develop a set of sound recommendations for Congress and the administration. For that to happen, the commission will need to keep meeting beyond their current deadline of July 1, 2007.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and others have called for the commission’s charge to be extended to year’s end. We support the proposed extension and remain ready to share details of the Texas experience with our federal partners.

Pursuing flexibility will allow Texas and other states to do more with the funds they have regardless of whether additional funds are made available for transportation projects. Formula programs would provide states with more certainty in funding. Since the formulas are established in authorization acts, the resulting distributions of apportionments to the states are known fairly soon after the legislation is enacted, and the formula programs would not be subjected to the earmarking process that dilute the impact of those funds.

Flexibility in federal funding and accountability from state transportation departments are not mutually exclusive. Federal funds sent to states with the proviso that certain goals be achieved with those funds will demand the responsibility and creativity that are the hallmarks of locally-driven problem-solving processes.

We Propose To:

• Work with the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission and our other federal partners to ensure flexible and innovative federal funding for transportation infrastructure needs; and

• Support an amendment to federal law to extend the current tenure of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

• Support the expansion of goal-oriented formula or block grant funding for transportation.


TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Transportation is in need of additional sources of capital. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, Congress expanded our ability to issue debt and eased a variety of associated restrictions, allowing for greater private-sector participation in transportation infrastructure.

We must now take the next step by urging Congress to allow for expanded means of investment such as equity capital. The use of equity capital for investment in transportation infrastructure is gaining attention. Pension funds, both public and private sector, have $7 billion of capital and comprise the largest potential source of investment for future transportation projects.

We Propose To:

• Work with Congress to amend federal law to allow equity capital to be utilized as a transportation investment source.

• Work with Congress to amend federal Tax Code to exempt partnership distributions or corporate dividends related to ownership of toll road from income taxation.


PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND REFINEMENT

TxDOT’s successful advocacy for the expansion of the SAFETEA-LU Private Activity Bond (PAB) program to include highway, rail and intermodal projects has paved the way to raise more than $1.8 billion in private funds for work on State Highway (SH) 121 outside Dallas.

PABs are used to attract private investment for projects that have a distinct public benefit, such as water and sewage facilities, and public and low-income housing. The tax exemption increases the normally low value of the investor return, allowing public infrastructure projects to better compete for private investment dollars. Until now, airports and maritime ports were the only eligible transportation projects.

In adopting the new provisions, Congress did not provide guidance regarding federal limitations on the investment and expenditure of the revenue generated by issuance of these bonds. As a consequence, there are questions regarding arbitrage limitations, and limitations on right-of-way acquisition and use of PAB funds for the purchase of existing infrastructure within the given project.

These limitations could significantly limit the ability of departments of transportation to fully utilize PABs for projects such as SH 121. TxDOT will continue to work with its partners in both the legislative and regulatory arenas in an effort to find workable solutions to these issues.

We Propose To:

• Pursue legislative remedies to amend restricting provisions and remove limitations on PAB issuance.

• TxDOT will also work with the Department of the Treasury to adapt regulations to accommodate for the unique needs of highway, rail and intermodal projects under the PAB program.

TOLLING AUTHORITY EXPANSION

SAFETEA-LU recognized the importance of tolling and expanded the ability of state DOTs to utilize tolls on certain types of federally funded projects. It also created three new opportunities to utilize vehicle tolls as a means to finance interstate construction and/or reconstruction, reduce congestion and improve air quality.

TxDOT has been at the forefront of using all available federal tools, and we have seen other states follow our lead to meet their mobility needs. The Government Accountability Office released a report in June of 2006 that cited Texas (and Governor Perry specifically) as a leader in using tolls to reduce congestion. Tolling isn’t an easy or popular decision for states, but TxDOT is leading a national trend toward innovative financing.

Despite our successes in SAFETEA-LU to expand tolling options, federal law still severely curtails states’ ability to use tolling to meet their financing and mobility needs. History has shown that it is unlikely the next reauthorization will fully supplement a federal gas tax that has decreased in value for decades. For this reason, states cannot afford to be denied reasonable and efficient funding solutions, such as tolling. TxDOT will work to educate Congress of the importance to include new, innovative federal funding resources in the next reauthorization bill.

We Propose To:

• Reduce restrictions on tolling programs and remove their pilot project status to give states, such as Texas, as many opportunities as possible for new funding alternatives; and

• Authorize states to implement interstate tolling options beyond current SAFETEA-LU pilot programs and allow toll revenues from toll financed facilities to be used for other critical system needs; and

• Allow states to “buy back” or reimburse the federal government for its share of investment in interstate segments.

DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTING

SAFTEA-LU amended federal law to allow for the use of “design-build,” an innovative method of project delivery that combines the design and construction of a toll project into one contract rather than the traditional “design-bid-build” method. FHWA opened its rulemaking process during the summer of 2006 to amend design-build contracting provisions. Unfortunately, elements of the proposed rules did not follow congressional intent in some regards. TxDOT worked closely with its partner states and associations and submitted comments detailing its concerns with the draft, and we will work actively with U.S. DOT and our partners to create the appropriate rules.

We Propose To:

• Work with our federal partners to ensure that final administrative rules follow legislative intent and do not impose more cumbersome restrictions on the design-build process.

AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE FEDERAL CONTRACTING DOLLARS

Finally, because of issues related to matching earmarks to transportation plans, DOTs often run the risk of their contract authority lapsing. At other times, states’ contract authority can lapse because they do not have sufficient non-federal funds to match these dollars. TxDOT believes states that have available non-federal funds should be able to provide financial assistance to other states by purchasing their unused contract authority (e.g. demonstration projects, surface transportation program, safety, bridges, etc.).

We Propose To:
• Amend federal law to provide a state authorization to purchase unused federal contract authority from other state departments of transportation prior to the lapse date.

ENHANCEMENT FUNDING

Currently, each state DOT is required to set aside 10 percent of its federal Surface Transportation Program formula funds for use on transportation enhancement projects such as hike-and-bike trails, education, beautification, and historical preservation. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, Congress dedicated over $333 million of Texas’ federal funding to the Transportation Enhancement Program. While this program is important, its lack of flexibility severely hampers the ability of state DOTs to maximize federal funds to meet more pressing mobility needs, such as highway construction and maintenance for congestion relief and safety. A review of other states found DOTs exercising little creativity or flexibility with their enhancement dollars. The Enhancement Program would benefit from provisions that more clearly support using those funds to support states’ mobility needs.

We Propose To:
• Amend federal law to allow state DOTs greater flexibility in their use of enhancement funding.

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT REFORM

While well intended, demonstration projects, or “earmarks” as they are more commonly known, can create significant financial problems for state and local entities. This issue is particularly evident in authorization legislation such as SAFETEA-LU, yet can also be seen in annual appropriation processes. In SAFETEA-LU, a sum of over $669 million was earmarked for highway-related transportation projects throughout the State of Texas. While this may seem like a substantial and useful sum, approximately a third of the total dollar amount was designated for projects that had not been approved via a local or regional planning process. Furthermore, authorization bill earmarks do not bring additional funds to the state. As a consequence, communities throughout the state have to "rob Peter to pay Paul." Mobility projects that have been approved for funding by local officials must be moved off priority lists so that funding can be reallocated in an effort to fully fund the newly authorized demonstration projects. These local entities, working with TxDOT, must make the agonizing choice about which approved high- priority projects will lose funds to underfunded, lower priority demonstration projects.

This issue is neither new, nor isolated to Texas. DOTs throughout the nation are struggling with how best to address this issue. TxDOT will continue to work with the Texas Congressional Delegation, and regional and local governmental entities in an effort to ensure that that funding appropriated for projects throughout Texas can beutilized in the most efficient manner possible.

We Propose To:

• Seeking further public input to formulate a Commission position.

INTERMODAL PRIORITIES

FEDERAL AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION

General aviation plays a vital role in Texas and supports local economies. It is a necessary access link to business and industry throughout the state. In addition to access benefits, the state’s general aviation industry has an annual impact of over $5.9 billion. As a participant in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) State Block Grant Program since 1993, TxDOT is responsible for taking the lead in carrying out the state’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for all reliever and non-reliever general aviation airports in Texas. As such, TxDOT supports a stable, reliably funded federal Airport Improvement Program.

VISION 100, or the Century of Aviation Authorization Act, expires on September 30, 2007. As Congress begins work on the aviation authorization bill, TxDOT will be educating members and emphasizing the need for a more stable source of funding for general aviation and opposing any efforts to divert funding from the Airport Improvement Program. As airport congestion continues to grow, providing air service to smaller communities will become an even greater issue.

As previously discussed, demonstration projects can be a challenge for Block Grant states such as Texas. These states do not always receive discretionary funding from the FAA to for congressionally designated AIP demonstration projects, requiring them to work with local communities to reallocate funding from one project to another.

We Propose To:

• Work with Congress and our other federal partners through theaviation reauthorization process to ensure and protect a stable Airport Improvement Program funding source; and

• Work with Congress and FAA to ease discretionary funding restrictions placed on Block Grant states in receipt of AIP demonstration projects.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

A Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) reauthorization has not been passed by both houses of Congress since the Act expired over four years ago in 2002. The most recent reauthorization report proposal passed both the House and Senate; however, the conference failed to reach consensus in the final days of the 109th Congress.

WRDA reauthorizations are traditionally project-driven processes. As in the past, TxDOT will provide key legislators with a list of projects from throughout the state that have been deemed in need of funding by our local and regional partners.

TxDOT’s greatest concern in passage of WRDA is the establishment of a more stable source of funding for the continued operation and maintenance of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

We Propose To:

• Work with Congress to ensure a more stable source of funding for the continued operation and maintenance of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, public transportation received an increase in federal funding. However, even with the increase, the gap between available funding and the operating and capital needs of the state’s transit providers continues to grow. Operators have found themselves in a position of having to trade off critical investments for short- term operating expenditures. We must continue to work with Members of Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to explore alternative funding methods to bridge this ever-growing gap.

Earlier in this document, we stated that earmarks do not help the highway funding big picture. Transit can be a different story. With limited budgets that often cannot cover routine maintenance, much less new vehicles, Texas’ rural and small urban transit providers are searching for ways to fund their programmatic needs. As individual units, these small providers simply do not have the ability to actively pursue discretionary funding for much needed capital equipment; however, as a collected group they are much more powerful. We believe the pursuit of a “statewide” earmark for transit vehicles is both worthy and important, and will continue to work with our state’s transit providers and the Texas Transit Association to achieve this goal.

To further expand the impact of a statewide earmark, we are researching the possibility of creating “Regional Maintenance Facilities” throughout the state. Regional maintenance facilities would relieve local providers of many of their maintenance and training costs and focus funding in a manner that could provide the maximum benefit possible.

The FTA is now in the process of proposing and promulgating new administrative rules based on actions from SAFETEA-LU. Just recently, TxDOT submitted comments expressing our concerns and suggestions to the FTA regarding their proposals for the new Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Programs. We will continue to do the same as the FTA works through their post-SAFETEA-LU rulemaking processes.

We Propose To:

• Work with the Texas Congressional Delegation to pursue a statewide transit earmark during the annual appropriations process.

• Research the concept of Regional Maintenance Facilities to focus limited funds and relieve local providers of budget-draining maintenance costs.

• Continue to monitor FTA’s post-SAFETEA-LU rulemaking and work to ensure TxDOT’s policy positions/comments are taken into consideration in these processes.


RAIL RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS

In order to mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle flow or community quality of life, SAFETEA-LU established a grant program to authorize $350 million per year for local rail relocation and improvement projects. Although the program has not yet been funded, TxDOT will strongly encourage Congress on the need to fund not only the existing SAFETEA-LU authorization, but also to expand innovative financing options to include giving states the ability to use surface transportation funds for the acquisition or relocation of rail lines and facilities. Federal support is critical to meet the state’s approximately $15 billion in rail relocation and improvement needs.

We Propose To:

• Work with members of Congress to ensure a maximum level of funding is appropriated to the state to assist with meeting its rail relocation and improvement needs.

• Amend Chapter 3 of Title 23 to allow states to use surface transportation funds for the acquisition and/or relocation of passenger or freight rail lines and facilities.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TxDOT is committed to working with our state and federal partners to expedite commercial and private vehicle flow through our ports while still doing our part to ensure safe and secure borders. TxDOT does not view those goals as mutually exclusive. The Corridor/Border Program was restructured in SAFETEA-LU by dividing it and making the border portion a formula program. This restructuring has greatly benefited the State of Texas. The new formula program directs funding to U.S. border states for the promotion and facilitation of trade across U.S. borders, as was originally intended.

Texas has the most ports of entry and the longest contiguous U.S.-international border. As such, there is a great need for these funds in Texas and the new formula program acknowledges this need.

Unfortunately, funding alone will not solve all the mobility problems along the Texas/Mexico border. TxDOT will continue work with its federal partners, including Federal Motor Carrier Administration and Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Patrol to develop safe and efficient border crossing facilities for the movement of people and freight across our international border.

We Propose To:

• Work with federal partners to identify and employ best methods for expediting commercial and private vehicle flow through our ports of entry while ensuring a maximum level of safety and security.

© 2007 Texas Department of Transportation: www.dot.state.tx.us

Open road tolling is proving to be penny wise and pound foolish

Toll tags urged for travelers on 121

State trying to work kinks out, end bills for meager amounts

January 3, 2007

By MONTY MILLER JR.
Denton Record-Chronicle
Copyright 2007

The Texas Department of Transportation is urging exasperated motorists using the new State Highway 121 toll road to purchase toll tags, which can cut the cost of using the road by a third and eliminate the hassle of a monthly bill.

Department spokeswoman Kelli Petras said drivers have objected to receiving bills of as little as 25 cents for using the road, the first all-electronic toll road in Texas.

"There have been some complaints about being billed small amounts," she said.

The Texas Turnpike Authority Division in Austin, which governs the billing process, is working to resolve bugs in the system so that bills won't be sent out for totals that low, she said.

Motorists have also complained about toll tag malfunctions, Ms. Petras said, while others have said they didn't realize the 5.9-mile stretch of Highway 121 had become a toll road.

Motorists have two options to pay the toll: purchase a toll tag or receive a more costly monthly bill.

Toll tag users have a windshield transponder that deducts the toll from their account. For vehicles without a toll tag, a camera records the license plate number and the vehicle's owner receives a bill, which amounts to about 33 percent more than toll tag users have to pay.

The Transportation Department began collecting tolls on the road Dec. 1.

Gas taxes, the traditional funding option for highways, are not generating enough revenue to keep up with demand, said Mark Ball, a spokesman for the department. He said toll roads could help offset the funding needs and prevent gas taxes from rising.

New sections of Highway 121 are to open as toll roads in the coming years, including a portion of road from Old Denton Road east to the Dallas North Tollway and a section east of the tollway to Central Expressway.

Denton County Judge Mary Horn said tolls are the only sensible way to get funding to build the roads the county needs.

"Building roads is just outrageously expensive, and bridges are even worse than that," Ms. Horn said. "If we were to wait on TxDOT to build these roads, they wouldn't get to it until around 2030."

To purchase a toll tag, call 972-818-6882 or visit the North Texas Tollway Authority's Web site at www.ntta.org.

E-mail mwmiller@dentonrc.com


© 2007 WFAA-TV: www.wfaa.com

“One of the most dramatic coups in recent Texas political history.”

2 GOP foes of Craddick join forces to oust the speaker

Jan. 03, 2007

By JOHN MORITZ and JAY ROOT
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Austin Bureau
Copyright 2007

AUSTIN - Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts, the head of the powerful Texas House Appropriations Committee, won the endorsement of his one-time rival Brian McCall of Plano on Wednesday in the effort to oust House Speaker Tom Craddick when the Legislature convenes next week.

Several House sources said Pitts will announce Thursday that he has enough Republicans in his camp to end Craddick’s four-year reign as speaker - but only if the 14-year House veteran can secure the backing of the bulk of the House Democrats to get the 75 votes needed for victory.

If the effort succeeds, Craddick’s opponents will have executed one of the most dramatic coups in recent Texas political history.

“Both members had substantial support, but they thought it would be best to consolidate that support behind Jim and move forward,” said one Republican House member close to the negotiations who asked that his name be withheld because of the sensitivity of the talks.

While reports that Pitts and McCall had joined forces reverberated through the Capitol, Craddick’s camp maintained an air of calm. Spokeswoman Alexis DeLee said she was unaware of any agreement that would lead to the House leader’s ouster when the 80th Legislative session begins Tuesday.

Craddick support

Several Craddick loyalists said they had no plans to abandon the long-serving lawmaker in his quest for a third term at the helm.

“Last I heard, the people that were supporting Craddick were solid,” said state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands.

The race for speaker has dominated news from Austin during the usually quiet holiday season. Whoever wins the post will wield great power in state government, controlling the flow of legislation to the House floor and making all of the members’ committee assignments. Bills that do not have at least tacit support from the speaker seldom make their way into the law books.

McCall, an eight-term Republican, announced his challenge to Craddick just before Christmas and soon won the backing of a substantial bloc of House Democrats. Pitts joined the race last week, saying that he could bring more Republicans, thereby avoiding the appearance that the outnumbered Democrats had retaken control of the 150-member House by default.

Both men have sharply criticized Craddick’s leadership as heavy-handed, saying that many members were often pressured to vote against the interests of their constituents to advance the speaker’s agenda.

The GOP House member close to the negotiations said the names of Pitts’ supporters will be made public today, but one key Democrat cautioned that the deal was not yet done.

“Democrats believe McCall would be a good speaker,” said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, R-Houston. “I don’t think Democrats have had a good opportunity as a whole to discern whether they think Pitts falls into that same category.”

State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said either would be an improvement from the status quo.

“I find a great deal of satisfaction in the notion that Tom Craddick will not be speaker anymore,” said Burnam, the only House member who voted against Craddick when he became speaker in 2003.

A high-risk bluff?

Some Craddick backers suggested that Pitts and McCall had concocted a high-risk bluff in a last-ditch effort to bring pliable members to their side. And Craddick has insisted that he had the support needed to win a third term as speaker, but implicitly acknowledged that some of that backing had eroded in recent weeks. Soon after the Nov. 7 elections, Craddick released the names of 109 members supporting his re-election. Then on Dec. 28, he revised the list saying that he had the “unequivocal support” of 84 members.

But the list included the name of Pitts, and he announced his challenge within hours of Craddick’s decision to release it.

State Rep. Todd Smith, a Euless Republican and a Craddick critic, said he plans to attend Pitts’ news conference, scheduled for 4 p.m. in the Capitol.

“I’m voting for Jim because I think he’ll be a good speaker,” Smith said, “not because he does or does not have the votes to win.”

© 2006 Fort Worth Star-Telegram: www.dfw.com

"Money down a $1,000 toilet."

'Craddick's Castle' controversy heats up

January 3, 2007

By BRAD WATSON
WFAA-TV (Dallas/Ft. worth)
Copyright 2006

As two lawmakers face off against Tom Craddick for Texas speaker of the house, controversy has intensified surrounding an apartment recently remodeled by Craddick and his wife using hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate donations.

Critics call it "Craddick's Castle."

Craddick, of Midland, could soon be evicted as leader of the Texas house.

"I wouldn't be standing here today if I didn't feel like I was going to win overwhelmingly," said Rep. Jim Pitts of Waxahachie, who is a fellow Republican challenging Craddick.

If Craddick loses, he also faces eviction from the speaker's apartment in the Capitol and may never get to enjoy his controversial improvements.

In a University of Texas documentary on the apartment, Craddick called the place historic.

"We really feel like it's part of Texas history, and everyone needs to enjoy it," he said.

But the taxpayer owned apartment is not open to the public and not a stop on Capitol tours.

Craddick started remodeling the apartment last year and raised a million dollars in private donations not covered by state ethics and campaign finance laws.

Telecom giant AT&T, Maxxam; which owns horse tracks in Texas, and Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons were among those who chipped in.

But watchdog groups claim that the use of money was a conflict of interest for Craddick.

"And it's no accident that the people who are ponying-up these large contributions are major commercial interests that have business in front of the state legislature," said Andrew Wheat, Texas for Public Justice.

A Craddick spokeswoman said donors are interested in historic preservation, but what got attention were the contractor's suggestions - a $1,300 custom shower door, an almost $15,000 range, a $7,000 freezer and two $1,000 toilets - after Craddick's wife said she wanted the apartment redone in "grand style."

The spokeswoman claims no $1,000 toilets were installed, but didn't know about the rest.

Texans for Public Justice isn't sure the commodes weren't put in, but knows if Craddick loses it could mean a big loss for the Craddicks.

"I guess it could be money down a $1,000 toilet," Wheat said.

E-mail bwatson@wfaa.com

© 2007 WFAA-TV: www.wfaa.com

TxDOT springs Big Brother tolling on an unwitting public

Third way to pay toll added: Drive through and get a bill

State decides at last moment to allow 'open-road' tolling on three Central Texas roads

January 03, 2007

By Ben Wear
Austin American-Statesman
Copyright 2006

So, you don't have a toll tag, but you still don't want to stop at toll booths?

No problem, Texas Department of Transportation officials said Wednesday, just three days before the agency will begin charging for cash customers to drive on the three Central Texas toll roads that opened late last year.

Drivers will be given a third way to pay to drive on the toll roads, a new approach in the rapidly evolving world of toll roads typically called "open-road tolling" or "video tolling." It will be more expensive than paying cash or using a toll tag.

Under the plan, drivers who don't have a toll tag nonetheless will be able to remain on the main lanes at the 70 mile-per-hour speed limit and use the faster, nonbooth lane on entrance and exit ramps.

Cameras suspended on overhead gantries (alongside equipment that reads electronic toll tags) will shoot pictures of the license plates of such drivers and the registered owner of the car will be billed. Invoices would come once a month, and the toll charges would be approximately 33 percent higher than the normal cash rate of about 12 cents a mile.

"It's something we talked about several months ago, but not seriously until very recently," said David Powell, the Transportation Department's director of toll information technology and operations. "It wasn't until literally just a few days ago that we said, 'You know, we are able to do this, and we should.' "

Those cameras already had been installed at the overhead gantries on the Texas 130, Texas 45 North and Loop 1 tollways (41 miles of which opened in November and December) to capture license plate numbers of scofflaws so they could be mailed a violation notice. Those violations were to carry a $5 added charge, which the Transportation Department had said was its estimated cost to process them.

Under this new approach, however, that added cost to the driver will be much smaller.

For instance, the charge at most ramps is 50 cents at toll booths, meaning that the surcharge would likely be 15 cents. At the Texas 130 mainlane plazas, on the other hand, where the cash charge is $1.50, the surcharge might be 50 cents. Powell said that the Texas Transportation Commission will have to decide on the exact numbers at its meeting late this month. Until those charges are set, open-road customers will pay the same amount as people who stop at toll booths.

So how will the processing cost go from $5 to just a few cents? Powell said human involvement for video tolling will be minimal, particularly after the department works out the kinks on computer software that can read the license plate numbers from the photos. With video tolling, there will be one mailing a month instead of a separate mailing each time a scofflaw runs through a toll point. People who don't pay after receiving that first invoice will get a second invoice, Powell said. Then, if they still don't pay, they'll get a violation notice. And that $5 charge will apply to each toll transaction on the bill.

The last-minute change raises other questions:

•Why now? After several months of publicity about the two ways to pay — at cash booths and with toll tags — adding a third way could confuse the public. But it also could increase the volume of customers, and tamp down ill-will in the long run. Drivers who blunder onto a toll road inadvertently and then get a bill with a small surcharge on the toll will be happier than if they got a similar mailing carrying $5 violation charges.

Powell said that the department's November and December opening of two "open-road" tollways in Dallas and Tyler (the first in the United States, Powell said) convinced the agency that the billing system could work. And the agency had already planned to have open-road tolling — no booths, that is — on the Texas 45 Southeast toll road that will begin construction later this year and connect to Texas 130 in Mustang Ridge.

Having two connecting roads with different billing approaches would be confusing to the public, Powell said.

"This was something we were going to be faced with eventually anyway," he said.

•Won't that be a problem with the 183-A tollway? That toll road, under construction by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority and due to open in March, at least as of now will not have open-road tolling. It will connect seamlessly (through flyover bridges) with Texas 45 North. So, in theory, a customer without a toll tag could find himself getting an invoice from the state transportation department for one part of a trip and a violation notice from the mobility authority for traveling that extra mile or two.

Toll transactions for all four roads are being handled by the same contractor, the Washington Group, out of one customer service center near the Loop 1 tollway.

"We've had discussions about this with them," Powell said.

Mike Heiligenstein, executive director of the mobility authority, said that his agency for now has decided against adding the open-road option. Heiligenstein said that because of problems with defunct, foreign or obscured license plates, the agency might find itself unable to collect on up to 20 percent of tolls.

With a mixture of toll booths and toll tag readers only, he said, that "error rate" would be 3 percent or lower. And the mobility authority's ability to pay back the $234 million it borrowed to build the 11.6-mile road depends solely on toll revenue.

The state, on the other hand, can turn to gas tax revenue if toll revenue comes up short.

"The right people are working out the kinks in video tolling, that being TxDOT," Heiligenstein said. "We can't be the ones working out the kinks."

•What about all those toll booths? Was it a waste to build them? The Loop 1 tollway plaza near Merrilltown Drive has 16 cash booths (the plazas on Texas 45 North and Texas 130 are much smaller). If enough people use toll tags and open-road tolling, many of those booths might become unnecessary.

"I honestly hope we have a surplus" of booths, Powell said. "I can't say we would have done anything different if we'd have known (about video tolling plans). When you have a multimillion dollar project, you want to be careful not to make any mistakes. And to undersize the toll plazas would be a big mistake."

bwear@statesman.com; 445-3698

How to get a TxTag

Drivers with a TxTag, a windshield sticker with a tiny transponder, will be able to drive toll roads statewide without stopping at booths and will pay 10 percent less than cash customers. The tag is free (for now), but you'll have to establish an account and prepay $20 in tolls. You can get a tag by calling (888) 468-9824, going to www.txtag.org or visiting the state's tollway customer service center at 12719 Burnet Road.

Three ways to pay

Cash: Drivers would stop at booths on some entrance and exits ramps and, at certain points in the run of the tollways, would have to pause at toll plazas to pay charges. The cash charges — 50 cents at most ramps and 75 cents to $1.50 for the mainlane plazas — are considered the basic toll rates.

Toll tags: Motorists can get a prepaid toll tag and affix it to their windshield. With a tag, which communicates with overhead detectors, drivers can remain on the main lanes of the tollways at full speed and can enter or exit on toll ramps without stopping at a booth. Cars with toll tags will not be subject to tolls until February, when they will pay 50 percent of the basic toll rates. Then, in March, toll tag users will begin to pay their permanent rate, which is 90 percent of the cash toll rate.

Open-road tolls: Cars without a toll tag can still stay on the main lanes or avoid ramp booths, but will pay a surcharge of about 33 percent over the basic cash price. Overhead cameras at toll plazas will record a car's license plate number and the owner will be mailed a monthly invoice with the charges.


© 2006 Austin American-Statesman: www. statesman.com

"We don’t deserve Tom Craddick."

Opinion/Analysis

A Reminder To Texas House Members About Craddick

January 2, 2007

John Cobarruvias
Fort Bend Now
Copyright 2007

It is hard to believe, with Speaker Tom Craddick’s record, that anyone, especially any Democrat, would ever consider voting for him as one of the most powerful individuals in Austin who will set the course for our state in 2007. Maybe the 84 members who have pledged to him need to remember a few things about Craddick.

Craddick has been in office twice as long as Tom DeLay. He has been a State Representative for 38 years. He is a professional politician and when he retires, will receive a pension bigger than most Texans will ever see after spending their entire life at one company. Craddick, like Tom DeLay, is the poster child for term limits. No one should be in office for 38 years.

In just a few short years as Speaker of the House, Craddick renovated the Speakers apartment inside the Capitol with over $700,000 in donations from lobbyists. This included $250,000 from the AT&T Foundation and $250,000 from billionaire investor Harold Simmons . The renovations included not one, but two, $1000 toilets. Most Texans spend $2000 to renovate their entire bathrooms. Craddick instead buys $2000 in toilets for his and her’s thrones. Clearly Craddick is out of step with the working class in Texas.

Since becoming Speaker in 2003, Craddick has hid over $31,000 in expenditures behind credit cards, which is against ethics rules. He also has an enormous water bill from Ozarka for over $14,000 maybe for flushing his $1000 toilets. Again, Craddick is out of step with those who drink tap water and who follow the laws that he creates.

Craddick’s heavy handedness is second only to Tom DeLay, but it is a leadership method that was rejected by the voters with the 2006 elections. It has no place in our government. It has no place in Austin.

The 84 members supporting Craddick need to decide who they really support, the lobbyists and the heavy handed politics of a professional politician or the people of the state who own $50 toilets, drink tap water, and are held accountable for breaking the laws of the state.

This is a simple decision. How can you vote for someone to represent the hard working, law abiding citizens of the State of Texas while he sits upon his $1000 throne, drinks $14,000 of bottle water, and believes the laws are only for those he serves?

Tom Craddick doesn’t deserve to be Speaker of our House. And we don’t deserve Tom Craddick.


Houston

© 2006 Fort Bend Now: www.fortbendnow.com

"People are coming to the realization that tolls may not be the best way to build every road."

Report new weapon in toll-road fray

Gas-tax backers tout findings, but researcher says their interpretation is on a detour

Jan. 1, 2007

By RAD SALLEE
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2007

Toll-road skeptics and others who oppose long-term leases on Texas roads to private companies, especially foreign ones, are citing the work of a Texas Transportation Institute scholar to make their case for traditional road financing with fuel taxes.

Ironically, the findings by associate research scientist David Ellis appear in a report by the Governor's Business Council. And the council, reflecting Gov. Rick Perry's own strong views, is very much in favor of tolls.

Caught in the middle, Ellis says his work is being misinterpreted.

"People find in there what they want to find and read what they want to read," he said. "This report says tolls are an important part of this proposition."

That's true, but the report, "Shaping the Competitive Advantage of Texas Metropolitan Regions," also explores the option of increasing the gasoline tax — a move many conservationists say would have the additional benefits of encouraging fuel efficiency and discouraging unnecessary travel.

The researchers began by asking how much road construction would be needed to eliminate the worst bottlenecks in the state's eight largest metro areas, said Texas Transportation Institute researcher Tim Lomax.

Accomplishing that, they calculated, would result in a typical rush-hour trip in the Houston metropolitan area taking 18 percent longer than one when traffic flows freely.

At present, Lomax said, that trip takes about 25 percent longer than during free flow.

Without the added capacity, he said, congestion and delays in Houston and the other metro areas will rise sharply over the next 25 years as population and commerce increase.

Construction funding

The construction cost the researchers came up with was $66 billion over 25 years. That's close to the Texas Department of Transportation's estimate of $68 billion.

TxDOT also estimates it would cost $9 billion each to do the same for smaller urban areas and rural roads, for a total of $86 billion statewide.

Then Ellis looked at ways to raise the needed money.

"We have an $86 billion problem out there that gets worse every year and three sources of revenue that lose value to inflation every year," he said. These are:

•The state gasoline tax of 20 cents a gallon.
•Vehicle-registration fees based on vehicle weight.
•The 18.4-cent-per-gallon refund of federal gasoline tax to Texas.

Ellis said none of the three is based on costs, so when these go up, the purchasing power of the revenue falls. For example, he said, "The 20-cent gas tax was put in effect in 1991 and is now worth 14 cents in purchasing power."

Among Ellis' proposed solutions is a one-time increase in the gasoline tax, followed by automatic adjustments for inflation in the cost of road-building over the 25 years.

He concluded — and this is what excited toll opponents — the state could raise $66 billion for the eight metro areas by hiking the 20-cent tax to 28 cents and tying it to the Highway Construction Index, a sort of Consumer Price Index for road builders.

'Every available tool'

Another method he proposed is toll financing, but that was old news.

"Whether we toll, raise the gas tax, index the tax or issue bonds (against the expected tax revenue), we get these benefits as long as we get the job done," he said. "We have to employ every available tool."

Although the Texas Transportation Institute and the Business Council did not look at rural areas and smaller cities, Ellis noted that the fuel tax would have to be raised higher to cover their needs, too. "You have a lot of roadway out there," he said.

Nor did the study address Perry's grand plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor, a network of massive toll road, rail and pipeline facilities linking urban areas. Staggering tax increases would be needed to pay for such huge projects, and Perry's plan would lease corridor segments to private companies to build and operate.

Support for the report

One who welcomed the report is David Stall, a former Columbus city manager who opposes the corridor plan and the increased reliance on toll funding generally on the Web site www.corridorwatch.com.

"People are coming to the realization that tolls may not be the best way to build every road," Stall said — although he said they are appropriate for roads that let motorists choose to pay a fee for a faster ride.

Stall does not support allowing a company to build and operate a state-owned toll road for 50 years and reap the profits. "They're just taking money out of your own pocket and giving it back to you while they keep a piece of the action," he said.

Although fuel-tax increases are unpopular, Stall says that a driver who gets 20 miles to the gallon and drives a toll road at a typical fee of 15 cents a mile is paying the equivalent of a $3-per-gallon gas tax.

Toll-road leasing

TxDOT spokesman Randall Dillard noted that "the Legislature sets transportation-funding policy, and to date, the Legislature has given us options that do not require an increase in the gas tax.

"These options focus on innovation, private-sector investment and choice for users," he said.

Supporters of leasing toll roads to private firms say the money to build them can be raised quickly by tapping the equity market — investors who will put up construction dollars now and are willing to wait for long-term profits.

This gets concrete poured a lot faster than waiting for voters to approve a bond issue or legislators a fuel tax hike, they contend. And time is money.

"Public-private partnerships can mobilize these investments much more quickly," said New York state transportation Commissioner Thomas J. Madison Jr. "And by moving projects up faster, you're saving a lot of money lost to inflation."

In all, said TxDOT's Dillard, the report has had a good effect: "More people are discussing and working on the transportation problem."

rad.sallee@chron.com


© 2006 Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com