Whatever. 

If you couldn’t tell, I think this is one of the more ridiculous chapters in the long-running saga of the US 281 story, a tale rife with zaniness.  This interchange project was environmentally-approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using a Categorical Exclusion, which means that in the experience of highway agencies across the country, these types of improvements have not had any significant environmental impacts.  It got that approval for good reason.  Yes, the project location is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, but it is wholly within the existing rights-of-way of 281 and 1604 (with the exception of a few small parcels of already-developed land at the corners of the intersection itself.)  Therefore, this project would not cause any additional environmental harm given what’s already there, and actually would help reduce air pollution and runoff pollution caused by oil and other contaminated drippings from vehicles idling at the existing intersection.  But AGUA doesn’t see that part apparently.

Instead, they compared it to the “loophole” that BP used to drill the now-infamous Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Seriously?  They’re obviously drinking some funny Kool-Aid over at the AGUA treehouse.

I had hopes that the anti-toll folks that had partnered with AGUA previously to stop the planned US 281 toll road would pressure them to ease-off of a lawsuit against the interchange.  If (or probably when) AGUA loses this lawsuit, their credibility will be shot, not to mention the enormous public backlash that they are about to incur for this stunt, thus almost certainly crippling any of their future opposition efforts.

Toll opponents have been generally mum on the interchange project.  Initially they made some mild noise about the project’s extent and costs, but as of late, they really haven’t been heard from, probably because it was to be built toll-free and because they read the same tea leaves I did about the public wrath that they would suffer if they opposed this nearly universally popular project.  It’s the old pick-your-battles lesson.

Hopefully this lawsuit will be resolved quickly.  If not, the project could lose its stimulus funding, and then we’re back to square one.

I’m sure I’ll have more on this in the coming days.

San Antonio Express-News (MySanAntonio.com) story

Of course, the response out of southern Comal County was nearly instantaneous.  Terri Hall wrote a verbose response on her blog lambasting Davidson and the E-N, essentially calling them shills for ARMA.  While she spends less than a sentence acknowledging Bruce’s main point about the Legislature, she spends probably 95% of the 1,516 words in her article assailing Bruce, the E-N, and ARMA.  As usual, there was much hyperbole and many inaccuracies in her comments (I’ll get to those in a minute), but the main thing that struck me was that she spent just about the entire piece focusing on Bruce’s defense of ARMA instead of balancing her tirade with a healthy amount of support for his focal point about the gas tax, a point which she actually agrees with (as do I for that matter.)  A more evenhanded response would have demonstrated that she’s not just trying to be antagonistic, an impression she has left on many folks.

It’s always fun to pick-apart Terri’s diatribes, so let’s take a look at some of her more “interesting” remarks:

Whenever we’ve attempted to go to the Editorial Board to dialogue about the toll issue, they flatly ignore us and our concerns (as well as elected officials, attorneys, certified planners, and other experts who have joined us) and print a negative editorial in response to our “visit.”

Maybe that’s because they see through the malarkey you wanted them to believe.

After all, the paper has the establishment to please, never mind the Express-News is bleeding readers. Why? Because of columns, editorials, and stories like this one. Or perhaps it’s because the RMA has paid the Express-News nearly $25,000 in government advertising.

That advertising is required as part of the federal laws regarding public involvement in the planning process, so they would have to spend that with the E-N regardless of whether or not the E-N supported their position.

It is interesting that she asserts that people who don’t like these types of articles would stop reading the paper.  There’s a word for that: close-minded.

This notion that the RMA “doesn’t care where the money comes from, they just want to fix the road” is a farce. They’re a tolling authority! They exist to toll roads!

And yet they’re building the 281/1604 interchange toll-free.

Most importantly, the needed fix to 281 was already paid for with gas taxes until TxDOT made the money disappear sometime in mid-2008. … They had the funds…it’s about tapping a new revenue stream and levying a discriminatory, targeted tax on 281 users in order to fund 1604 (which they don’t have the money for).

Ugh, how many times do we have to go through this?  Yes, funding was promised to the 281 project in the MPO TIP ca. 2000, but when the Transportation Commission (at the behest of the Governor) edicted that all new expressway projects be considered for tolling, the 281 project was required to become a toll project.  Consequently, the funding that was budgeted for it was re-allocated to other toll-free projects.  The money didn’t just “disappear”– it was spent on other roads that we all drive on.

Then, the stimulus money the RMA is using to build HALF of a non-toll interchange (for the price of a WHOLE interchange) is a one time deal. We’ve long objected to the RMA even doing a non-toll project, especially with the pricetag they can’t justify ($143 million for just the four southern ramps of the interchange when the RMA’s published price to build the northern ramps in 2018 dollars is $59 million. If they can build half of the interchange for $59 million, they can surely build the whole thing NOW for $120 million! For comparison, the 410/281 interchange just built cost $155 million.

As I explained in great detail in a previous post, her logic on this allegation is severely flawed.  You can read my previous post for the details, but the upshot is that much more than “half” an interchange is being built: about 75% of the ultimate bridgework for the full interchange would be built in this initial project, along with the bulk of the final ancillary infrastructure (e.g. drainage and such).  This project also includes lots of improvements to the 281 and 1604 approaches.  You can’t compare the 410/281 interchange for a number of reasons, including the fact that a good portion of the prep work for it was built in separate, preceding projects.

(The RMA) hides behind a state law that allows these agencies to keep toll viability studies, the market valuation, and other key financial details SECRET from the public AND even YOUR elected officials.

By her own admission, they’re not doing anything illegal.  If she doesn’t like that, she needs to lobby to get the law changed.  She may not like what they’re doing, but they are allowed to do it.  As they say, hate the game, not the player.

As long as the 281 & 1604 projects are marked “toll” in the MPO’s plans, the RMA has control of the project and a vested interest in ensuring it remains tolled even when new sources of revenue become available.

Not true.  The 281/1604 interchange was listed in the MPO’s plans as a toll project before the stimulus funds became available.

The RMA is conducting its own environmental studies on both the 281 and 1604 toll projects (the fox guarding the hen house)…

She forgot to mention that they’re doing this at the direction of (and with the oversight of) the Federal Highway Administration.

RMA Chair Bill Thornton promised on WOAI radio January 14, 2009 that they’d fix 281 non-toll if they got a new source of funds. When stimulus funds became available, the RMA STILL submitted the project as a toll project (they planned to build it with stimulus money and still charge users a toll to drive on it, a DOUBLE TAX), which is proof-positive that even when they get a new pot of money to do something non-toll, the RMA still pushes its toll agenda…regardless of the opposition to it.

Again, the interchange project is the proof that that’s not true.  And in the case of 281 itself, it’s all moot because no project could/can be built on 281 until the environmental study is done.  Since projects had to be “shovel-ready” to get stimulus funds, 281 was not eligible for those funds!

Also, the FHWA also informed MPO Chairman Commissioner Tommy Adkisson that as long as a project is marked toll in the MPO plans, it will be done as a toll project.

Once again, the interchange project invalidates this claim.

Goes to show, one must do his/her due diligence before believing what you read in the Express-News.

This is even more true when reading Terri Hall’s blog.

That said, she did have some valid points, mainly these:

Second, where is Davidson’s call to end the diversions to the gas tax we ALREADY PAY? Why would any thinking person ask government to raise taxes when they’re misappropriating the taxes we already send them? Third, why isn’t Davidson insisting San Antonio get back the money we already send to Austin and Washington that we’re shorted before he advocates for higher taxes (tolls)? Lastly, ending the vehicle sales tax diversion (that’s being dumped into general revenue instead of going to roads) would nearly triple our region’s road money WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!

And this one in particular about my fellow OnTheMoveBlog contributor:

…since they laid off the excellent, unbiased, and very fair transportation reporter Pat Driscoll

A good summary of my position (and Bruce’s) is this comment I posted on Terri’s blog (which had not yet been approved as of the writing of this blog):

Our state lawmakers are entirely to blame. There would be no ARMA nor need for them if the Legislature had just done their jobs. ARMA and toll roads are just a *symptom* of the root problem, and ARMA (and TxDOT for that matter) just play the hand they are dealt by the Leg and Governor.

Artist's rendering of possible elevated expressway at 281 and Evans

The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority will be holding the third public meeting on its Environmental Impact Statement for the US 281 North corridor tomorrow evening (Thursday).  This meeting will allow ARMA to share the latest status of the study and get input from the public on the remaining proposals.  The process has whittled-down the list of options to three viable proposals:

• Overpasses: This would build overpasses on US 281 at major intersections.  This proposal provides the least increase in capacity but has the lowest cost.  However, as a toll-free option, funding would need to be found.  Also, because the overpasses would increase travel speeds, many side streets and driveways would possibly need to be eliminated for safety and operational reasons.
• Expressway: This option would build a conventional expressway with six to eight main lanes and six lanes of frontage roads.  The new expressway main lanes could be toll-free, tolled, or managed.
• Elevated expressway: This proposal would leave the existing 281 mostly in place as-is and would build four to six elevated expressway lanes above the existing lanes.  South of Stone Oak, the elevated lanes would be on each side of 281, much like the double-decked expressways downtown; north of Stone Oak, the elevated lanes would run along the west side of the existing lanes.  Access ramps connecting to the existing 281 would be provided at strategic locations.  Just as with the conventional expressway option, the new elevated lanes could be toll-free, tolled, or managed.

In addition, any final proposal will also consider bus and park & ride facilities, pedestrian and bike improvements, growth and demand management, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (e.g. TransGuide).  All of the options also consider reserving an envelope for a future high-capacity transit option, such as HOV lanes or light-rail.  One option that had been carried forward previously– the overpasses coupled with additional expansions of Blanco and Bulverde Roads– is recommended to be dropped because of a number of factors.

Each of the options to be carried-forward has strengths and weaknesses.  The next phase of the study will further analyze each to determine which has the most pros and least cons.

The meeting will begin with an open house from 5:30-7pm, followed by a presentation from 7-7:30 and small breakout group sessions thereafter.  It will take place at the Summit Christian Center at 2575 Marshall Road (the same place where the Super Street meeting was held last year.)  More information, including advance copies of the presentation and a map of the meeting location, is available here.

People mill about at a meeting earlier tonight for Loop 1604

Here’s the gist of what’s being laid out, in a series of public meetings wrapping up tonight, for Loop 1604’s future.

The problem, officials say, is that traffic demand in 25 years will be twice as much as what can fit on the highway today. The lanes can currently handle about 80,000 vehicles a day, but demand is 110,000 now and will surge to 155,000 by 2035.

An environmental study is sizing up impacts of three basic strategies:

Buses and passenger rail. At best, this can meet 15 percent of demand when you consider that top-notch transit cities such as San Francisco, Washington and Boston snare about that much of the trips in those cities.  

Managing and improving traffic flows. This is done with engineering, like the super street idea, and behavior incentives that range from carpooling to staggered work hours and telecommuting. California enacted laws requiring large employers to use such commuting strategies but cut traffic just 3 percent.

Adding four lanes to the highway. Since each lane can handle about 20,000 vehicles a day, that would do the trick.

So you can see where the math leads. 

However, a dozen various community criteria will also drive decisions, and that produces a little more mix into the approaches.

That brings us to the proposed options:

ONE: Add lanes in the median. Weaving and merging would increase. Adding multi-modal solutions might require additional right of way. 

TWO: Add managed lanes to the median, which can restrict use based on things such as paying tolls, sharing rides or riding transit. Adding other multi-modal solutions could require additional right of way.

THREE: Add managed lanes between frontage roads and existing main lanes. Long stretches might need to be elevated, which is expensive. The median could later be retrofitted for use as a multi-modal corridor. 

There it is. My money’s on TWO rising to the top.

And tolls? I’d bet on that too, though the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority is open to multiple sources. It’s just that, as hot as toll roads are, so is raising taxes. 

The top ideas on how to add lanes to almost half of Loop 1604 will be laid out in a series of three public meetings this week so officials can get input.

With gas taxes strangled by decades of inflation, diversions and political inaction, toll fees and toll-backed bonds have emerged as a primary path to get some things done on the 37-mile stretch of highway. 

A previous study was derailed in 2008 after toll opponents and environmental activists filed a lawsuit in a federal court. The lawsuit in part called for Loop 1604 and U.S. 281 to be studied together, since they would have been part of an interrelated tollway system, and the judge seemed to agree.  

For this week’s meetings, study officials will provide several short presentations each night, from 6 to 8:30 p.m.:

• Monday, Valero Headquarters, Building D, One Valero Way.
• Tuesday, Live Oak Civic Center, Main Hall, 8101 Pat Booker Rd.
• Wednesday, Vale Middle School, cafeteria, 2120 N. Ellison Dr.

For more information or help, start out at More for 1604’s event page.

Other links:

• The environmental impact statement
• More for 1604 Blog

Nobody wanted the job.

According to news reports, there were no responses to a RFP that the MPO put out for the study last month, which was earlier estimated to cost about $250,000.  Apparently either local engineering firms were already working on one of the environmental studies for 281 or 1604 (thus representing a conflict of interest), had no free clock cycles to do the work, or just weren’t interested in taking what could potentially be a politically-charged hot potato.  As a result, the study has been put on the back-burner for now and officials say they’ll probably wait for the results of the comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) for 281 that’s currently under way.  It’s a shame that the side-by-side study fell through; it would have put a lot of the misinformation propagated by toll opponents to rest once-and-for-all.  And as expected, the local toll conspiracy theorists are already making inane claims that there are nefarious reasons that nobody bid to do the study.

Meanwhile, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority hinted recently that three options were front-runners in the 281 EIS: a new expressway featuring toll-free expressway lanes with tolled “managed” lanes down the middle (like those built on the Katy Freeway in Houston recently and proposed for Loop 1604 North); an elevated expressway also with both tolled managed lanes and non-toll lanes; and a scaled-down, toll-free overpasses plan.  The latter would have the smallest footprint and would provide the least additional capacity, but would also be the cheapest.  However, without a toll element, funding would have to be found for it.

But stranger things have happened.

 I marked the occasion by not driving it at all.  Instead I cycled the 23 miles to and from my job at the Texas Transportation Museum.  It was a windy day, too, and the ride was, as usual, significantly less than enjoyable.  Too many busy roads impossible to avoid.  I have an easier time cycling to my other job at Camp Bullis, which I did for the first time this year on Friday.  Yesterday, Saturday, I took the museum’s 1924 Ford Model T truck for a ten mile spin which was unsatisfactory, as it has just come out of the shop – again – and it needs some more work before everything gets settled in nicely.  The same day I also took the museum’s 1929 Ford Model A truck to a meeting at, of all places, the Barnes & Noble store at Henderson Pass and Loop 1604.  Nothing makes you appreciate how much of an improvement the A was over the T like driving one right after the other.  And both will make you feel like you drive in luxury in any kind of modern vehicle.

 The 2005 Dodge has been, so far, a wonderful form of transportation.  I no longer drive it anywhere near as much as I used to, mainly because research for my “San Antonio On Wheels” book which obliged frequent out of town visits to places like Kerrville and Seguin is long finished.  Since I have owned the vehicle, it has only been out of the state once.  I think I have only had the third row seats installed and occupied maybe three times since I have owned it.  On the trip to Orlando in 2007, accomplished more or less non-stop in less than twenty-hours each way, we took out one of the second row seats as well and placed an inflatable mattress so my wife and I could lay down between driving shifts.

All in all, I am delighted with it.  I bought from a Red McCombs used car lot which now sells new KIAs and HYUNDAIs.  There is a flip side to their slogan, “Where the deal gets done.”  Having sold cars for a while, not too long ago, I knew how the system could work to my advantage, despite being in a tough spot with a badly damaged trade-in, less than glamorous credit and nothing to put down.  I told them up front what it would take for me to leave in one of their cars and they made it happen, with a pretty good interest rate to boot, something my own lousy credit union could or would not do.  My bottom line buying point was a low monthly payment.  How they made it happen was up to them.

 It helped that they happened to have a short wheel base minivan with non fold-flat seats on the lot due to go back to the auction the next deal.  Dealers will do just about anything to avoid sending such “cold” vehicles back.  Not only was this the first minivan I have owned, it my first non convertible.  But I like the thing, I really do.  You can drive it for hours and not get a sore back and the backs of the second row seats go almost horizontal which is wonderful for taking naps.  I have heard that the trade off for the utility of fold flat minivan seats is that they are nowhere near as comfortable plus they don’t recline.  That’s a bad deal, if you ask me.  Admittedly the seats on mine are a tad cumbersome but I’ve only had the second row out two or three times, and the discomfort is not worth the sacrifice, in my experience.

 The thing has been very reliable and gets pretty good mileage.  Before they started selling 10% ethanol gas, which screws up the performance of the Model T and the Model A something rotten, I used to get over 26 MPG.  Now I only get 25.  It has the popular SXT package, with a lot of nice features.  The most amusing is the CD / tape deck combo.  Who would have guessed in 2005 that both formats would be completely obsolete so soon?  The tape deck has one big advantage.  It allow me to play my MP3 player through an adaptor.

 I also spent some time today on a John Deere back-hoe / front end loader combo today, smoothing out some of the museum’s unpaved roads after this weeks rain.  Talk about getting in touch with the fundamentals.  And in yesterday’s mail I received my first ever toll road bill, for a couple of trips in Austin over the last few weeks.  No toll plazas on those roads, just a bank of cameras and scanners at certain points.  I guess over the next few years I’ll be getting more and more of those unhappy-grams as souvenirs of my continuing travels around the state.  I’m optimistic the Dodge will see me through many more comfortable miles.  I’m certainly happy so far.

Streetcar from VIA Metropolitan Transit report (looks like it's in Portland).

After starting the fiscal year by shaving $19 million in spending, including 330 jobs, the city is now being asked to kick in $17 million to build a two-mile streetcar line.

That’s just part of the bill to buy streetcars and lay rails along Broadway and South Alamo Street by 2014. The county, VIA Metropolitan Transit and the federal government could also pony up to help pay what would be an estimated $90 million.

City Council heard the pitch this afternoon.

“If there was any sticker shock … council members mostly kept it to themselves,” the Express-News wrote.

The city hasn’t made any commitments, at least not yet.

At $45 million a mile, the price tag is quite a bit cheaper than, say, turning U.S. 281 out by Stone Oak into a superhighway, or, I should say, tollway.

Ah, but already I’m talking apples and oranges. This quaint two-mile rail line wouldn’t be a wide commuter route helping connect San Antonio’s core to its fringes.

Nope, unlike U.S. 281’s role as an artery for sprawl, the rail line, if done well, would be a magnet for compact living, working and playing. The idea is to drive some growth to the inner city, by creating a place where people would gladly leave their cars behind more often. Tourists would love it too.

Nonetheless, critics and proponents will duke it out with such comparisons. And with so many angles on varying public and private costs, some visible and some not so visible, expect a debate that’s about as clear as mud.

Docs and links:

• City Council agenda briefing
• Downtown Circulator Study
• City 2010 budget highlights
• Express-News story

The candidates’ (major candidates only) policy statements are evaluated in order of their current polling numbers, Republicans first.

Republicans

Rick Perry
Perry is pretty much running on his record, and his transpo policy proposal is essentially “more of the same”, sans the Trans-Texas Corridor, which he has said many times is “dead”.  Yes, the language for it still exists in the Transportation Code, but that’s not something he can control– only the Legislature can change the law.  In any case, as I pointed-out with my review of KBH’s policy, there is still language in the Transportation Code that authorizes the state to install roadside emergency call boxes.  But after a pilot project back in the ’90s, that concept was dropped, so there’s no reason to believe the Trans-Texas Corridor is any different.

My main beef with Perry is his steadfast opposition to raising the gas tax.  I know that’s a conservative cornerstone, but in terms of real value, raising the gas tax in proportion to the amount of value it has lost due to inflation and improved fuel economy isn’t “raising taxes” in the traditional sense.  Furthermore, it’s the responsible thing to do to maintain and improve our roads, something that is a cornerstone of state government.  Kicking the can down the road (pun intended) is not a solution.

Debra Medina
If her answer to the 9/11 question on the Glenn Beck show a few weeks ago didn’t make her appear either out on the fringe or, at the very least, not able to concisely take a single, identifiable stand on an issue, then reading her transportation issues page will.  Her plan is long and byzantine, so pardon the length of my review of it.

She starts her policy sheet by discussing the plight of a small business owner who complained to her that they lost a contract to TxDOT to install security cameras for the North Texas Toll Authority (NTTA).  The contract was instead awarded to a large company with some foreign offices and many subsidiaries, and one of the subcontractors listed on the project is a well-known, mega-company with “many national and international Dept. of Defense contracts” and from whose staff Perry had appointed members of the Texas Aerospace board.  She goes on to label this– indirectly, anyway– as a “clandestine global corporate pork project”.

Predictably, this ”everybody in government is crooked, so there’s gotta be a scam here somewhere” mindset just undermines Medina’s own credibility.  First of all, she makes the huge leap that just because Perry appointed some employees of one of the subcontractors to one his most obscure boards, that that somehow influenced to whom TxDOT awarded the contract to install a few security cameras for NTTA.  Now I don’t know for a fact that any of this is not true, but the number of moving parts between one end of that logic train and the other is enough that it’s simply implausible that her cronyism accusation would beget her assumed outcome without some kind of actual evidence of such.  But, like 9/11 truthers, if you’re looking for a conspiracy, you can connect all sorts of dots, even if the likelihood of the supposition actually being true is less than me winning the lottery and getting hit by lightning on the same day.

The far more likely truth in this story is very simple: the security camera contact, like most others in government, was a low-bid contract.  The company that won it has the resources to outbid a small company because of the simple matter of their sheer size; it’s the economic law of scale.  I know it’s hard for folks who truly hate Perry and/or TxDOT to imagine, but not everything that happens with either is devious.

Once you can get past that, her actual transportation plan is all over the map.  The core is essentially the “no build” option considered by planners when they look at a proposed project.  The gist of her plan is that congestion is self-limiting– in other words, once a road gets so badly congested, people will find other routes or just not drive.  To wit, she rails against the “biased” opinions of TxDOT and Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) engineers and the computer modeling used by traffic planners that she claims doesn’t take into account the self-limiting nature of congestion.  Although she attacks foreign companies, she says we should look into foreign research on traffic issues (specifically Canada’s), which questions TTI’s annual congestion report.

Beyond that, she throws-in the populist complaint that TxDOT has no transparency in funding and no accountability for project completion, and she would solve that with the requisite audit and unspecified “reform” of TxDOT.  I welcome an audit of TxDOT—besides finally eradicating this constant battle cry, I don’t think it would find anything significant, and we could finally put all these accusations of fraud and waste to rest.  There’s also the usual “no toll roads” and “get rid of the Trans-Texas Corridor once-and-for-all” pledges, including specifically banning any project known as the North American Super Corridor.  She thinks that TxDOT has gotten “too big for its britches” because it has “gone far beyond road building and ventured into every area of transportation in which the federal government has grant money to offer”.  (Let’s see, last time I checked, they are the Texas Department of Transportation, not the Texas Department of Highways, but I digress.)  She labels the Texas Enterprise Fund “Perry’s slush fund” and says it should be redirected to transportation.  I guess she meant to say “highways”; in any case, I think the Enterprise Fund, besides making such a little dent in the transpo funding shortfall, actually serves a valid purpose.  And, enigmatically, she makes mention a couple of times that the public should know how much road building is done by the private sector, including requiring MPOs to specifically track that, but I have no idea where she was going with that, and she proffers no explanation.

She wraps-up by citing Terri Hall, of all people, who reports that the Texas Transportation Commission “has agreed to pledge the State’s credit… for two (NTTA) toll projects in north Texas”.  Finally, something I actually agree with– I am opposed to the state essentially co-signing on NTTA’s loans, although I do appreciate the strings they did include to help protect the state.  She also laments that the state is using credit to build roads, a point I also agree with.  But her solution to that, besides the do-nothing-and-just-let-congestion-limit-itself approach, appears to be to thumb our noses at the federal government by keeping all gas taxes collected in Texas and rejecting “interference in transportation by federal agencies such as the EPA and insure that Texas agencies enforce only state law.”  Wow, I’m not even sure where to start on that one, so I’ll just let it speak for itself.

There was one sensible, albeit minor, solution that she proposes that I strongly agree with: “Place a stronger emphasis on incident management, including minimizing irregularities in traffic flow that are the major irritants to road users”.  I think that transportation and police agencies statewide can do a much better job of incident management.  And, I also agree with prohibiting TxDOT from lobbying the Leg or Congress—no state agency should be in the business of lobbying.

Democrats

Bill White
Mr. White lacks a comprehensive plan on transpo, at least one that I could find.  His issues page on the topic is a mere two bullet points: end the Trans-Texas Corridor (my position on which I’ve already discussed), and decentralize TxDOT and allow local governments to set regional priorities.  This approach neglects the fact that the Federal Highway Administration warned the legislature during its last session that reorganizing TxDOT in such a way would jeopardize federal funding, which requires a strong centralized and statewide transportation department to accept, allocate, and spend such funds.  Having numerous transportation fiefdoms across the state is more scary to the feds because it diminishes control and oversight and increases administrative costs.

Farouk Shami
Mr. Shami is the only candidate to suggest raising the gas tax.  In his plan, he would raise the gas tax eight cents, then index it to the Highway Cost Index (HCI) going forward, limiting annual increases to 4% and allowing any requisite increase in excess of that to be postponed to the following year.  In years of a negative HCI, the tax would not go down, but the “excess” revenue generated would be using to pay-off bond debt.  As I have mentioned many times, I fully support increasing the gas tax, so I give him a big thumbs-up on this.

Mr. Shami would also allow the Transportation Commission to issue bonds backed by future gas tax revenues, a point I disagree with.  The state has already issued enough debt for roads; it’s time to get back to a pay-as-you-go system.

He also supports no taxes on alternative fuel vehicles to encourage their adoption in order to improve air quality.  I also disagree with this– those vehicles still use our roads and therefore should pay something; maybe not as much as gasoline or diesel vehicles, but they shouldn’t get a free ride.

Other points of his plan are to increase the Texas Transportation Commission to 14 members who would be elected, with their districts coinciding with the state Board of Education districts.  I’m OK with this idea, as I was when KBH proposed it.  He also says he would require all bidders of TxDOT contracts to disclosed their political contributions (that’s OK with me; the more transparency, the better), ban TxDOT from lobbying (again, I’m on-board with that), adjust senior management of TxDOT by having the elected Transportation Commission appoint a CFO and IG (essentially the same idea as KBH’s “transportation CEO”, which I like), and improve TxDOT’s interaction with the public and local governments (which as far as I’m concerned is the typical political lip-service.)

He also has the requisite “kill-the-Trans-Texas-Corridor” and “no-toll-roads” pledges, a proposal to change TxDOT’s focus to concentrate on repair and replacement of existing roads (thumbs-down from me on that; maintenance, repairs, and capacity improvements all require equal attention IMO).  He accuses TxDOT of “artificially and fraudulently” lowering the estimates of road life “to overstate maintenance costs” (not sure what his basis on that is, so I can’t give an opinion.)  He wants to focus on “real mass transit solutions”, but doesn’t elaborate any more (I’m fine with the concept, but want to see more details on what he believes to be “real solutions”.)  Lastly, he wants to end eminent domain “abuse” with a six-point plan and to focus on expanding roads within existing rights-of-way, both of which I agree with where reasonable.

So, if you’re a single-issue voter and transportation is that issue, my impression is that Mr. Shami is probably the best of the bunch just based on his published policy ideas.  However, few voters are single-issue voters (myself included), and given a recent poll that showed that Texas voters would cut highway funding first to balance the budget, transportation frankly isn’t as big an issue as it probably should be.

When reading her transportation policy page, there are a lot of good ideas.  For instance, the idea of expanding the Transportation Commission is a good one as is reducing their direct oversight of project decisions and instead appointing a ”transportation CEO” to run TxDOT.  I’m on-board (pun intended) with advancing high-speed and commuter passenger rail, and I like the idea of following-up on projects to see what demonstrable benefit they provided.  I also like the fact that both on her website and during her recent debate, she was careful to specifically applaud the efforts of TxDOT’s rank-and-file employees and separate them from the agency’s executives.  Now while I don’t believe TxDOT’s leadership is “out-of-control” or “arrogant”, there have been some missteps at the top and some tweaking of things is probably in order.

That said, KBH’s transportation vision still shows a lot of nearsightedness.  The biggest flaw remains her lack of backbone to support raising the gas tax.  Like all the politicos that have come before her, she is kowtowing to voters who don’t want their taxes raised.  But those same voters want their roads fixed and congestion reduced, and her plan doesn’t define where the money to do that will come from.  (To be fair, neither do the other candidates.)  In short, it’s the same thing we’ve been dealing with in this state for the past two decades.  Instead, she wants to appoint yet another committee to study the problem to see if there really is a need for additional funding, essentially sidelining that issue until after the election, despite several legislative and independent studies that already show the need is there, a growing chorus of newspaper editorial boards and trade groups endorsing an update to the gas tax, and despite plain old common sense and an understanding of basic economics.

She also says she will kill the Trans Texas Corridor once and for all.  I guess living in Washington, she’s not aware of the fact that it’s already dead.  Yes, the legal language authorizing it remains in the Transportation Code, but there’s still language in the TC authorizing emergency roadside callboxes, and I don’t see any of those around.

Her platform calls for ending diversions from the Highway Fund (except for the 25% that goes to public education), a position also supported by Rick Perry and pretty much every other politician.  That’s a great idea, but that’s something only the legislature can do, and from where the money will come for the programs that the current Peter Pan plan is backfilling is not discussed.

In her transportation plan, she mentions TxDOT’s 2008 $1 billion budget error, but then says, “We must restore our taxpayers’ trust that their transportation dollars are being efficiently and properly spent.”  This demonstrates that she doesn’t even understand what the issue was, a little disconcerting for someone who wants to be governor.

Lastly, her vision on toll roads is quite vague, and intentionally so I believe.  She supports tolling new roads and even public-private partnerships (PPPs), but has been mum about whether she supports PPPs that include foreign entities.  She’s really stuck between a rock and a hard place on that one– if she shows support for foreign companies operating Texas toll roads, she risks angering folks like Terri Hall and lots of other toll opponents around the state, but if she shows opposition to the foreign companies, she risks angering lots of voters in the DFW area who are quite content with Cintra coming-in and building two bigtime congestion-busting projects there.  The folks at the Dallas Morning News have been trying to get her to take a side for nearly two weeks now without any success.

So in the end, while I think some of her ideas are good ones, I think that overall it’s the same-old song-and-dance we’ve seen from politicians, one that offers some crumbs to folks looking to lambast the current administration over the state of transportation but doesn’t offer any real solutions.

I’ll take a look at the other candidate’s transportation plans in future posts.