Truth Be Tolled

Stimulating sprawl

"The Recovery Act creates jobs by investing in immediate projects such as highways, bridges and tunnels — and within limitations to prevent waste, fraud, and ‘highways to nowhere’ — grants the states and their citizens broad discretion to choose which highway projects get funding."

--Nick Shapiro, White House Spokesman, in an article by Mike Cooper in the New York Times about a Texas plan to use $181 million of federal stimulus money to build a 15-mile, four-lane toll road through the Katy Prairie outside of Houston

Cooper  writes:  "The road exemplifies an unintended effect of the stimulus law: an administration that opposes suburban sprawl is giving money to states for projects that are almost certain to exacerbate it."

Stimulus paying for toll roads?

Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

By Yereth Rosen

From Reuters

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain's vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" has upset many Alaskans.

During her first speech after being named as McCain's surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress "'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."

In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor.

The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects.

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.

Palin's spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment.

National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion.

Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.

The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.

Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican who represented the Kenai Peninsula city of Homer, is also critical about Palin's reversal on the bridge issue.

"You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it," said Phillips, who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."

Bush's latest gift to developers

Or, how to bypass the Environmental Impact Statement when you want a new road project?  It pays to have friends in high places.

From MSNBC

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Monday said it plans to let federal agencies decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

The proposal, which does not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years. Developers welcomed the plan, while environmentalists derided it.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

"These changes are designed to reduce the number of unnecessary consultations under the ESA so that more time and resources can be devoted to the protection of the most vulnerable species," the Interior Department said in its announcement.

“The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays," added Kempthorne. "The proposed regulations will continue to protect species while focusing the consultation process on those federal actions where potential impacts can be linked to the action and the risks are reasonably certain to occur. The result should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources."

The proposal would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

The Interior Department cited its recent decision on polar bears as an example. While listing polar bears as endangered due to melting sea ice habitat, it argues that scientists at this time cannot "draw a direct causal link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts affecting species.

Read more here.

Current admin in action: ignoring rules to get what it wants

"Laws ensuring clean water for us and our children -- dismissed. Laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams and places of cultural significance -- just a bother to the Bush administration. Laws giving American citizens a voice in the process -- gone. Clearly this is out of control.

It is this kind of absolute disregard for the well-being and concerns of border communities and the welfare of our wildlife and untamed borderlands that has forced Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club to take a stand and say 'No more!'

Just a few weeks ago we filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to fight the unconstitutional authority the Bush administration has seized to waive any and all laws it views as inconvenient in its rush to build an unpopular, ineffective border wall. Today's egregious abuse of power is more proof that this cannot be allowed to continue."

--Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, in response to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's announcement today that he is imposing a blanket waiver of environmental and land management laws along 470 miles of the U.S. and Mexico border

Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of this controversial waiver as a "flagrant violation of the separation of powers principle that frames the U.S. Constitution."

TTC segment gets by with a little help from its friends

Public private partnerships in action: the ink wasn't even dry on Cintra's SH 130 financial contract when the following press release came out.

From USDOT

U.S. Department of Transportation Approves $430 Million Loan to Complete New Alternative to Congested I-35

WASHINGTON, DC - A $430 million loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation will give Texas the financial push it needs to help complete a new north-south highway as an alternative to the congested I-35 from Austin to San Antonio, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today.

"We're helping give this project the push it needs so commuters can experience less congestion, shippers less delays and the region less headaches," Secretary Peters said.

The new southern portion of the four-lane highway is scheduled to link to the already opened northern one in 2012. When complete, the 91-mile SH 130 corridor will be entirely tolled and provide a new route to take traffic off the most congested section of I-35 in the central United States.

Cintra and Zachry American Infrastructure will finance the $1.36 billion project through the USDOT loan, bank loans and investor capital. Electronic tolling will make it possible for drivers to pay the toll without having to use cash at a tollbooth.

The loan was made possible through the Department's innovative Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program which encourages private sector participation in the financing of highway projects with flexible repayment terms.

Secretary Peters added that the Texas project was another example of the private sector's readiness to invest in U.S. transportation infrastructure and of an evolving federal approach to financing major capacity improvements.

Mary Peters pushes privatized tolls for all of U.S.

From Associated Press

WASHINGTON — While the federal transportation secretary says privately built toll roads can help meet states' transportation needs, Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe says rural areas don't have the traffic counts that will justify their construction.

Speaking to the National Governors Association on Sunday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said private dollars are needed to meet highway needs, not just public funds that are subject to regular fights in Congress.

The nation's current highway funding law expires in September 2009. Peters suggested replacing the current funding plan with a $400 billion network of privately funded toll roads and bridges — saying many investors are willing to step in.

But Beebe said rural states don't generate enough traffic to justify private investment in toll roads and asked Peters why the United States was building roads overseas instead of making more funds available at home.

"Does the administration have any plans to increase the size of the pie?" Beebe asked.

Peters said the foreign infrastructure investments, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, had played a significant role in keeping the United States safe from terrorists.

The Delta Regional Authority, meanwhile, said the federal government should give a higher priority to road projects that can help generate business. The agency is seeking its own funding stream and said it would like $18.5 billion to fund 3,843 miles of new roads, including 11 projects in Arkansas.

Rex Nelson, the federal co-chairman of the authority, said the agency also wasn't sure about Peters' interest in privately owned toll roads.

"Traffic count is certainly a concern for us," Nelson said.

Perry for President?

From Dalllas Morning News

COLUMBIA, S.C. – After watching Gov. Rick Perry gallivant around Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina these past weeks, the conclusion is unavoidable: Our governor is running for president.

Stop laughing; it's true.

Why else would he play to small crowds in small towns, talking to people who have never heard of him and, in some cases, care less about the candidate he represents?

He's not running for president now, of course. For 2008, he'll be happy to be mentioned as a vice presidential contender.

What Mr. Perry wants is consideration for a White House run in 2012 or beyond.

For the record, he says he's only thinking about getting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani elected. But what else is he going to say at this point?

"I have no idea what I'm going to do in 2010," he said after a campaign stop in Columbia, referring to the year his current term expires. "The good news is I don't have to make a decision."

One Republican who watched him speak in Columbia couldn't help but point out the obvious, as Mr. Perry continued making sudden gestures with his arms and hands.

"He's very Bush-like with that," said Scott Malyerck, South Carolina's deputy state treasurer.

Mr. Perry's foray into the national spotlight began as summer concluded. He addressed a convention of California Republicans, receiving better applause from the grass-roots activists than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by telling them to stay true to their conservative values and ignore soothsayers who contend the GOP must become more moderate.

Months later, he made a mildly surprising endorsement of Mr. Giuliani for president. Mr. Perry's support was based on Mr. Giuliani's ideas about fighting the war on global terrorism and his record as a fiscal conservative.

On the social front, Mr. Giuliani differs from Mr. Perry by supporting abortion rights and gay marriage.

After the public endorsement, Mr. Perry began making trips to Iowa, meeting Hawkeye State voters who marveled at his boots and striking hair.

After a couple of trips, his conversations often would veer off the subject of Mr. Giuliani. A few weeks ago he told Iowa voters that President Bush was not – and had never been – a fiscal conservative.

On Tuesday, Mr. Perry was in South Carolina meeting Giuliani supporters.

"I'd rather be in Texas," he told a small band of mostly Giuliani Republicans. "I'm here because I believe in this guy."

That Mr. Perry supports Mr. Giuliani and is willing to campaign for him in early primary states is not that unusual.

But it's clear that Mr. Giuliani is not investing his campaign resources in Iowa or South Carolina.

These are states where Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and John McCain are slugging it out.

Last week, when most other GOP candidates were in Iowa, South Carolina or other early primary states, Mr. Giuliani was in Dallas for a day of multiple fundraisers.

In essence, Mr. Perry is helping the former New York mayor make the rounds in states he doesn't expect to win.

He's preaching to a choir that's being led by another minister.

So what does Mr. Perry get out of it?

Well, if Mr. Giuliani's strategy of winning the nomination by holding on until Feb. 5 and then cashing in on the big delegate states like New York and California works, Mr. Perry could see a payback.

He'll get mentioned as a possible running mate, though most analysts say the Bush years have tired the nation on another Texan on the presidential ticket.

But it's the mention and subsequent discussion that Mr. Perry wants.

He'll take that and run with it, particularly when the 2012 presidential sweepstakes begin. That's when he'll return to Iowa and South Carolina with his boots and that hair and hope that the party faithful remembers how charming, thoughtful and conservative he was when stumping for Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Perry knows it takes years for an outsider to build relations in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Yes, he says he's in those states for his man Rudy.

In reality, he's also looking out for himself.

"I'm very impressed with him," said Craig Wall, a 38-year-old Columbia developer. "I'll keep an eye on him. You never know."

Congressmen troubled by TxDOT

By Charles Davis

Texas Public Radio's Capitol Correspondent

Last month members of the Texas congressional delegation received an unusual letter from the Texas Department of Transportation.

In the letter TxDOT is demanding that Texas congressmen seek approval for all transportation projects with them in Austin before obtaining federal funding.

Republican Congressman Ted Poe of Humble, Texas, said that’s not how the funding process works. He was blunt about what he thinks of TxDOT’s demands.

“They’ve gotten too big for their britches. Obviously,” Poe said.

He argues only lawmakers should choose what projects are built because only they are accountable to their voters.

“TxDOT is an administrative group and they are to spend the money as we direct that they are to spend it, whether they like it or not. Their responsibility is not to determine projects. Their responsibility is to build bridges and roads and freeways,” Poe said.

TxDOT spokesman Randall Dillard says the agency just wants to make sure that those bridges and roads are built where they are most needed.

“We didn’t mean to offend anybody by the letter. We’re certainly sorry if it did offend people. Our intent is just to make sure that we can advance transportation projects here in Texas,” Dillard said.

But unless TxDOT compromises on their position, some lawmakers feel funding for their districts could be in danger.

San Antonio Democratic Congressman Charlie Gonzales thinks TxDOT’s letter was strange, and says the agency’s position could hurt the state.

“For TxDOT to basically say ‘don’t send us any federal dollars’ is not truly in the best interests of Texans and our communities that are petitioning and requesting their representatives here in Congress to seek those funds.” Gonzales says he understands TxDOT’s concern over which projects get federal funding. But he argues that Congress only appropriates money where it’s needed.

“Obviously we’re not asking for these funds unless someone has brought some great need to our attention,” Gonzales said.

South Texas Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar said he is also upset at TxDOT. But he’s more diplomatic about it.

“I understand and respect the Department of Transportation for the position that they’ve taken. But for us to pre-clear everything through them – it’s just not the way things are done,” Cuellar said.

Cuellar said he thinks TxDOT won’t actually turn down any federal money. He says the agency needs to work closer with Congress to determine the state’s most pressing needs.

“You know we can also set priorities, that if they have a difference I think they can sit down with us. But to send a letter like they did, without even talking to us; I think was not the right thing for them to do,” he said.

TxDOT receives about 40% of its budget from Washington. But the agency usually needs to match those funds, sometimes for projects that might not be a priority. Spokesman Randall Dillard says TxDOT wants to ensure lawmakers work together for the state, not just their district.

“We just want to make sure that when our congressmen and women in Washington are securing dollars for specific projects, that those projects are coordinated and that we’re all working to advance that same project,” said Dillard.

According to the US Census, Texas’ population is growing by almost twice the national average. Dillard says Congress needs to work closely with TxDOT to find the best solutions to the state’s growing transportation needs.

“Every three years we add the equivalent of a city the size of San Antonio to our population. So the challenges are out there, and it’s a situation where with the rising congestion it’s impacting peoples safety, it’s impacting air quality, it’s impacting the overall quality of life for millions of people,” said Dillard.

But lawmakers argue that TxDOT officials aren’t elected, so they shouldn’t choose which projects are built.

Congressman Gonzales says he and other lawmakers wrote a letter to TxDOT explaining their concerns.

“I thought it was a very polite letter saying, ‘look, what do you mean by this and it doesn’t make any sense,” Gonzales said.

“Do you really want us to stop attempting to gain federal dollars for Texas highway dollars when we have every other state in the union fighting for the same dollar?’

Most lawmakers think their dispute with TxDOT can be worked out before federal transportation dollars are threatened. But almost a month after their letter was sent, they say they have not even received a response.

Federal bills seek to halt tolling

By Jill Dunn

From etrucker.com

U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, has introduced the Toll Road Prohibition Act, the latest bill designed to prevent tolling on federally built highways.

HR 3802, introduced Oct. 10, would require states and cities to repay the U.S. government all federal funds used for construction of highways, bridges or tunnels, along with “reasonable interest,” before introducing tolls. “The American people should not be required to pay for the same highway twice, once through their tax dollars and again through new tolls on federal interstate highways,” Boswell said.

The legislation would not prohibit the states from entering into public-private toll agreements, but it would force them to repay the federal Highway Trust Fund first. The bill has been referred to the House transportation and infrastructure committee.

Also before that committee is a bill introduced Sept. 7 by U.S. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. HR 3510 would prohibit tolls on federal highways and on any highways bought back from the federal government by states. Peterson said it was part of his opposition to his state’s plan to toll Interstate 80.

Peterson’s bill is the House companion to S2019, introduced by U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation wants a change in federal law to allow state buybacks of federal highways for the purpose of tolling.

Hutchison’s bill is a rare instance of a Republican on Capitol Hill at odds with a Republican governor’s administration at home. Many of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s ambitious toll-financed transportation plans have proved unpopular within his own party. The Texas GOP opposes Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridor, for example, arguing it will require the confiscation of too much privately owned land.