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.

In her blog, she first claims that if they (ARMA) would drop the toll prospect for 281, that the northern ramps of the interchange could be built now with stimulus funds.  Now I know she believes that she autocratically controls what will be required for that stretch of road, but she is just plain wrong.  Because of the furor she has created (more on that in a minute), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has indicated in no uncertain terms that a full environmental impact statement (EIS) must be done for the 281 north project.  Whether the project will be tolled or not is irrelevant to them at this point because any project, tolled or not, will likely have similar– if not the same– physical footprints, and so they want to make sure all the i’s have been dotted and t’s crossed before issuing any approvals.  It’s their decision as to what is required, not Ms. Hall’s, and they’ve already said they want an EIS before anything is done.

The environmental process
This might be a good point to take a brief sidebar and explain the environmental study process.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires all projects on federal-aid roads to undergo environmental review.  There are essentially three levels of possible review: a Categorical Exclusion (CE), where the agency building the road can demonstrate that the proposed improvements will not cause any harm on the basis of previous experience (this is used for most relatively minor improvements to existing roads); an Environmental Assessment (EA), which is a basic study of the possible effects of a project to see if further study is warranted; and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the most intensive and comprehensive study.  Typically, engineers know what types of projects fit into which category of review, but sometimes a CE or EA may find something that then requires the next higher level of study.  (You can read more about this process on Wikipedia.)

Why an EIS for 281?
So how did we get to the point of having to do an EIS for 281?  The finger is squarely pointed at Terri Hall herself.  When she moved here from California, TxDOT already had federally-approved EAs for the “original” toll-free project that would have expanded US 281 from 1604 to Stone Oak to a six-lane expressway with overpasses and frontage roads.  When the edict came from Austin in 2003 to change it to a toll project and work began on the first tollway iteration in 2005, Terri Hall  joined forces with the environmental group Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas (AGUA) to sue to get those EAs voided.  TxDOT and FHWA agreed that a combined EA for the corridor might be better than the patchwork EAs done previously.  When that combined EA was completed and approved by FHWA, Terri Hall and AGUA sued again demanding that an EIS be done instead.  I’m not sure if she naïvely believed that an EIS might find an issue with tolling the road that would cause the toll option to be dropped or if she was just using an EIS to stall the project in hopes that the political or funding climate might change in the meantime.  In any case, during the discovery process for that lawsuit, TxDOT discovered some irregularities in the new EA and withdrew it.  Regardless of how it played out, it was Terri Hall who wanted– no, demanded– an EIS and now that she’s got it, she’s upset about it.  This is an object lesson in the old adage “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

The interchange project, on the other hand, is being submitted to FHWA as a CE.  Terri believes that a project that adds all those tall ramps and auxiliary lanes certainly demands the same level of scrutiny that the 281 project now requires, that being an EIS.  She asserts that adding the auxiliary lanes is a way to add capacity to both 1604 and 281 while circumventing an EIS.  But, as usual, she doesn’t have full grasp of the facts.  First of all, the 281 project has never qualified for a CE since its inception as a toll-free expressway, so there’s absolutely no way it would qualify for one now.  Regardless of whether it is built tolled or toll-free, it will require adding a lot of new pavement (more than double what’s there today) on a bunch of new right-of-way, relocating lots of utilities, and dramatically changing drainage and traffic patterns.  This is far more invasive than adding elevated connectors above existing controlled-access highways entirely on existing right-of-way.  Even adding the auxiliary lanes is not as invasive because, once again, those lanes are added onto existing controlled-access highways within the existing right-of-way.  Because the impacts of the interchange are trivial relative to what’s there today, it fits the qualifications for a CE.  The 281 project, which is orders of magnitude more invasive, was approved under a two seperate EAs, but because of the previous lawsuits filed by Terri Hall and AGUA and the ensuing controversy, FHWA is now requiring an EIS.  Terri Hall calls this hypocrisy, but the real hypocrisy here is that she made her own bed in this case and now she’s having to lie in it.

Flawed logic
Lastly, I think it’s evident that Ms. Hall is trying to assert logic about the local application of the environmental process that is contradictory to her pronounced convictions.  She seems to think that ARMA and TxDOT are intentionally causing the 281 project to be delayed while fast-tracking other, non-toll projects.  But her stated belief is that TxDOT and ARMA are chomping at the bit to build toll roads as some sort of money-grab.  If that were indeed true, why then would they want to intentionally delay those projects?  And, if delaying projects helps make the case for tolling them, why would they fast-track these toll-free projects, especially ones that were previously determined to be toll-worthy? 

It is deeply disturbing to me that Terri has taken aim at this project.  ARMA and the MPO have done a great job securing funding to get it built toll-free, and the project’s engineers have also done a good job thinking beyond the interchange itself and providing additional improvements to both 281 and 1604.  This is a good project that’s long-overdue and frankly, in my opinion, her histrionics about it only serve to further undermine and discredit her.

So Ms. Hall starts-off her blog by saying that the 410/281 interchange, which went to bid in early 2005, cost $155 million for all eight ramps, while the proposed 281/1604 interchange, which would only build four ramps, will cost $140 million.  She asserts that because only half the connectors will be built and because construction costs have been sagging this year that the price is way too high and must represent “padding” by including several ancillary improvements.

Only one of her assertions is actually true– yes, construction costs have dropped-off dramatically this year, down to about the level they were in late 2005.  But they’re still about 22% higher than they were when the 410/281 interchange was funded, so that alone accounts for a good chunk of the difference.

More than half being built
Although she never says it outright, she does imply that since only half the connectors in the new interchange will be built that the costs should be roughly half those of the 410 interchange.  However, what she doesn’t grasp is that actually about 75% of the new interchange is being built.  Yes, only four connectors out of eight are to be built, but six out of the eight connector “common structures” will be built.  Those are the upramps from the freeway and the elevated road that leads to the ramp split, and the elevated road from where the ramps come back together on the other side and the downramp to the other highway.  I have marked these sections in blue on the diagram below.

The ramps from the north will tie into what will then be the four existing common structures to the left and right on 1604.  Therefore, only two new common structures will need to be built to serve those new ramps, those being along 281 north of 1604.  Because the length of those structures is considerably longer than the actual turning ramps, about 75% of the required elevated structures (measured by linear footage) for the full interchange will be completed in this project.  In addition, much of the drainage infrastructure to support the full interchange will also be built in this project.  The net result is that well more than half of a full interchange is being built, so Ms. Hall can’t try to make an apples-to-apples comparison in that fashion.

So, let’s look at the numbers:

75% of the $155 million for the 410/281 interchange is about $116 million.  Take that and multiply it by the 22% construction inflation rate since early 2005 and you get about $142 million.  ARMA’s projected cost for this project: $140 million.  Sorry Terri, ARMA’s numbers work.

Ancillary improvements to blame
That aside, Ms. Hall wants to assert that several ancillary improvements that will be made to 281 and 1604 in conjunction with this project are what’s driving the costs up.  Again, although she says she wants to compare apples to apples, she’s not.  The 410/281 interchange project also included several supplementary improvements on 281 from Nakoma all the way to Hildebrand, including widening 281, redoing the exits to Jones-Maltsberger both north and south of 410, and adding TransGuide to that stretch of 281, not to mention repaving all of it.  That project also included the widening and improvements to Loop 410 from Jones-Maltsberger to Broadway.  So that project included lots of “padding” as well, in her lingo.

She claims that similar enhancements to be included in the 1604 interchange project have NOTHING to do with the interchange, but again, she’s just dead wrong.  Those improvements, like those made to 281 in conjunction with the 410 interchange, are designed to mitigate the effects that the new connectors will have on traffic upstream and downstream from the interchange.  We all know from experience that when a major bottleneck is removed from a highway, all the traffic that it frees-up can cause other issues further downstream.  Most of the ramp revisions and auxiliary lanes planned as part of this project are intended to address those issues.  In a nutshell, this is good planning.  Additionally, a number of safety improvements (such as illumination and sidewalks) will be included, and repaving both 281 and 1604 is necessary because all the improvements will change the pavement in several locations.  Now I will agree with Ms. Hall that the two proposed pedestrian bridges on each side of 1604 at 281 might cross the line as being a tad excessive, but everything else in the plans makes sense and is not superfluous.

Finally, she claims that the $84 million for those enhancements should be spent to build the roughly $60 million northern ramps.  However, those ramps cannot be built right now because they are included in the scope for the 281 environmental impact statement (EIS), which Ms. Hall herself sued to get and which won’t be completed until sometime around 2012.

We’ll pick up there tomorrow.

Tommy Adkisson

The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO is scheduled to vote next Monday on whether or not to remove the toll option from the US 281 and Loop 1604 expansion projects.  This plan was put forth by new MPO Chairman Tommy Adkisson, Bexar County’s Precinct 4 Commissioner and an ardent toll road opponent.  Make no mistake—his plan is actually the brainchild of staunch toll road critic Terri Hall, the self-appointed director of Texans United for Freedom and Reform (TURF), and is based on the theory that she could just take plans and estimates from 2001, add the inflation factor since then, and have the magic estimate of what it would cost to build the original toll-free plan today.  This elementary formula skips a number of important steps and omits several ancillary items that were not included in those original estimates, such as design work, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation.

The dissection of the nuts-and-bolts, apples-to-oranges issues here could go on ad nauseam.  But in the end, none of it really matters because Mr. Adkisson and TURF seemed to have overlooked this one incredibly significant point: it won’t matter if the MPO votes to remove tolls.  Here’s why:

The term of the MPO chairperson is two years.  Therefore, Mr. Adkisson’s term will end in 2011.  Despite what TURF wants to believe, no capacity improvements can be made to the US 281 corridor until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed, a circumstance that is the result of TURF’s previous lawsuits and has been confirmed several times by the Federal Highway Administration.  An EIS for the US 281 corridor won’t likely be completed until 2012 at the earliest, which is after Mr. Adkisson’s term has ended.  Therefore, a future chairperson could just as easily move to have the tolling option restored.  Admittedly, it’s always harder to get something changed than to leave the status quo alone, but if funding options remain as they are now, a future board will likely be receptive to changing it back if they need to.

Ergo, all this really is is an exercise in politics, ego, and bravado.