Thanks to Marcia Snyder for sending the info below. The FHWA has issued the final Record of Decision on the Trans-Texas Corridor paralleling IH 35 and has chosen the No Action Alternative. Because the FHWA specifies that the “project is concluded” and “the project ends,” it would be very hard if not impossible for the pro-Corridor elements to resurrect TTC-35.
Margaret Byfield, American Stewards of Liberty, cites the following analysis from attorney Fred Grant, who was instrumental in forming the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission:
“The Federal Highway Administration has pounded the final nail in the coffin of the Trans-Texas Corridor-35. The Agency’s final Record of Decision, issued on July 20, 2010 selected the No Action Alternative but went further in ordering that 'a study area for the TTC-35 Project will not be chosen and the TTC-35 Project is concluded.' Twice the ROD states that the 'project is concluded', and six times it states that 'the project ends'. If TXDOT attempted to revive the 35 Corridor project and use the same EIS, this ROD would provide the base for issuance by a United States District Judge of a Declaratory Judgment prohibiting the action.”
Margaret says: “The Eastern Central Commission needs to count this as another major victory. They didn’t withdraw the study as requested but wrote the ROD in such a way that TXDOT cannot use this study in the future. Congratulations to all.”
I say, "Champagne for all!"
Showing posts with label FHWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FHWA. Show all posts
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Texas traffic counts are flat--we need maintenance more than we need new roads
Interesting analysis from Roger Baker, with backup data, that Texas traffic counts are flat--NOT increasing, even though this may conflict with perceptions. The below is verbatim from Roger:
Everyone knows that TxDOT loves to build roads. And so do the contractors that TxDOT hires. And not only do these contractors love to build the roads, but they are generously willing to help elect the politicians who decide to build these roads.But at some point, somebody really needs to ask if we need more roads in Texas than we already have. The answer is that we probably don't.
How do we know that? The most recent Federal Highway Administration data shows that from Nov. 2008 to Nov. 2009, the actual use of roads in Texas only increased by .1%, as we see here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09novtvt/page6.cfm>
In other words, taking the best data for travel on all the roads in Texas combined over the last year, we see that it would take about 100 years for the level of traffic to go up by even 10%. Consider the implications. The legislature is not willing to raise the gas tax, so this necessarily causes the gas tax revenue, both the state and federal portions, to be about flat. Which situation then makes it really really hard for TxDOT to borrow against this revenue stream, which is falling short of even keeping up with inflation.
Even though the travel demand on their current roads is flat, they they still want to build more roads, which would obviously cause TxDOT's maintenance funding shortfall to get even bigger. If TxDOT is as broke as they claim, and demand is flat, then why would they worry so much about anything beyond maintaining the Texas roads we already have?
At least not until someday when the economy recovers and/or we discover a new supply of cheap oil, causing people to start driving more and needing lots of new road capacity, right? TxDOT likes to complain that they can barely afford to maintain their current Texas roads. But the way they chose to deal with the problem is in a way that may be nice for their contractors, but is practically guaranteed to make TxDOT's maintenance problem worse.
Like they say, when things can't go on any longer, they won't. - Roger
Everyone knows that TxDOT loves to build roads. And so do the contractors that TxDOT hires. And not only do these contractors love to build the roads, but they are generously willing to help elect the politicians who decide to build these roads.But at some point, somebody really needs to ask if we need more roads in Texas than we already have. The answer is that we probably don't.
How do we know that? The most recent Federal Highway Administration data shows that from Nov. 2008 to Nov. 2009, the actual use of roads in Texas only increased by .1%, as we see here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09novtvt/page6.cfm>
In other words, taking the best data for travel on all the roads in Texas combined over the last year, we see that it would take about 100 years for the level of traffic to go up by even 10%. Consider the implications. The legislature is not willing to raise the gas tax, so this necessarily causes the gas tax revenue, both the state and federal portions, to be about flat. Which situation then makes it really really hard for TxDOT to borrow against this revenue stream, which is falling short of even keeping up with inflation.
Even though the travel demand on their current roads is flat, they they still want to build more roads, which would obviously cause TxDOT's maintenance funding shortfall to get even bigger. If TxDOT is as broke as they claim, and demand is flat, then why would they worry so much about anything beyond maintaining the Texas roads we already have?
At least not until someday when the economy recovers and/or we discover a new supply of cheap oil, causing people to start driving more and needing lots of new road capacity, right? TxDOT likes to complain that they can barely afford to maintain their current Texas roads. But the way they chose to deal with the problem is in a way that may be nice for their contractors, but is practically guaranteed to make TxDOT's maintenance problem worse.
Like they say, when things can't go on any longer, they won't. - Roger
Friday, October 9, 2009
Corridor--especially TTC-35--continues to be killed
MORE BLOWS AGAINST THE CORRIDOR
This week, more of the building blocks enabling the Trans-Texas Corridor, specifically TTC-35, have been destroyed. Previously, in the special session, legislators killed the funding mechanism for the Corridor—the Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA) with private companies. Also earlier this year, TxDOT announced it would not proceed with the overall Corridor plan and would consider it segment by segment. Now, TTC-35 has been terminated in two different ways.
CINTRA/ZACHRY CONTRACT CANCELED
First, TxDOT has canceled the contract with Cintra, the Spanish corporation, and its partner Zachry to build TTC-35. Cintra/Zachry had a CDA with TxDOT to plan and build TTC-35. In the special session, the overall CDA process was done away with, and now Cintra’s specific CDA has been canceled. Cintra has produced a plan, has been paid millions for planning, and may be paid more millions for the state to extricate itself from the complicated contracts negotiated by Giuliani Bracewell (the law firm of Perry pal Rudy Giuliani). However, Cintra will not do any building on TTC-35 except for the two southern segments of SH 130 that are underway and which will now be considered SH 130, not part of TTC-35.
NO-BUILD OPTION/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Secondly, the environmental process on TTC-35 ends with a recommendation by TxDOT to the Federal Highway Administration to do nothing—called the “no-build option” or the “no action alternative.”
TxDOT, using taxpayer funds, spent years of time and energy and millions of dollars on TTC-35, reportedly $131 million for planning and environmental work. In addition to all of this wasted effort and money on the part of TxDOT, there are the untold volunteer hours, contributions, and worry on the part of residents in the threatened areas and supporters around the state.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the 4,000-page document showing a general TTC-35 route, was released in 2006, and the Final EIS was scheduled to be released in 2007. TxDOT officials said that the decision not to build TTC-35 was in response to comments from citizens received during the environmental process. Of course, during the entire TTC-35 ordeal, TxDOT has not cared at all about citizens’ opinions.
WHAT REALLY KILLED TTC-35--
COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL PRESSURE IN THE LEGISLATURE
Even though citizen comments per se did not affect TxDOT, it was important that tens of thousands of residents attended the various levels of meetings and hearings, spoke against TTC-35, signed petitions, and submitted written comments. This effort formed the foundation of community organizations working against the Corridor and the process of influencing legislators and electing new legislators.
This, in turn, resulted in the legislature gradually turning against the Corridor and eliminating the Comprehensive Development Agreement tool.
EASTERN CENTRAL TEXAS SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (ECTSRPC)
The reason that TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration finally had no way to continue with the TTC-35 EIS was the action of the ECTSRPC in Bell and Milam counties. Five small towns and their associated school districts formed their Sub-Regional Planning Commission, and by state law, TxDOT was compelled to “coordinate” with their Commission. This meant that TxDOT had to take into account what the ECTSRPC citizens wanted and cover all required issues in the EIS process. TxDOT had not done this, meaning that the EIS was not legal and could not be recognized as legal by the Federal Highway Administration.
The ECTSRPC announced: “Selecting that option [no build] was exactly what the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission (ECTSRPC) forced TxDOT into choosing. . . . The planning commission began a series of what is called coordination meetings in the fall of 2007, by utilizing a little known state statute that forced the behemoth agency to come to Holland, Texas. . . . TxDOT came to Holland on three different occasions where they were asked to explain why they were going to destroy five towns and their school districts with a 1,200 foot-wide, 146 acre per mile toll road.
“‘Through coordination, we forced them to our table and then we used the federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) statute to box them in a legal corner out of which they could not escape,’ stated Ralph Snyder, a local Holland businessman and board member of the ECTSRPC. ‘That's what forced TxDOT to recommend 'No Build' to the Federal Highway Administration because we had shown how TxDOT, as the agent of the federal government, had violated the federal statute in at least 29 ways,’ Snyder continued.
“Fred Grant, president of American Stewards of Liberty, is the originator of the coordination strategy that brought TxDOT to their knees.”
FUTURE OF TTC-35 AND THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT
Some more time and paperwork is required to complete the TTC-35 EIS process, at the end of which the Federal Highway Administration will issue its Record of Decision approving the “No Action Alternative.” This is what so many of us asked in our comments, never thinking it would actually happen--it hardly ever happens--but now it is the final result!
Even though the Legislature has gradually turned against the Corridor concept, the legislation enabling it is still on the books. In addition, the Trans-Texas Corridor began as Gov. Perry’s “vision,” and he has never renounced it. We have to remain vigilant as long as the Corridor statute has not been repealed, and as long as Perry or anyone else who supports the concept is in the governor’s office.
This week, more of the building blocks enabling the Trans-Texas Corridor, specifically TTC-35, have been destroyed. Previously, in the special session, legislators killed the funding mechanism for the Corridor—the Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA) with private companies. Also earlier this year, TxDOT announced it would not proceed with the overall Corridor plan and would consider it segment by segment. Now, TTC-35 has been terminated in two different ways.
CINTRA/ZACHRY CONTRACT CANCELED
First, TxDOT has canceled the contract with Cintra, the Spanish corporation, and its partner Zachry to build TTC-35. Cintra/Zachry had a CDA with TxDOT to plan and build TTC-35. In the special session, the overall CDA process was done away with, and now Cintra’s specific CDA has been canceled. Cintra has produced a plan, has been paid millions for planning, and may be paid more millions for the state to extricate itself from the complicated contracts negotiated by Giuliani Bracewell (the law firm of Perry pal Rudy Giuliani). However, Cintra will not do any building on TTC-35 except for the two southern segments of SH 130 that are underway and which will now be considered SH 130, not part of TTC-35.
NO-BUILD OPTION/NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Secondly, the environmental process on TTC-35 ends with a recommendation by TxDOT to the Federal Highway Administration to do nothing—called the “no-build option” or the “no action alternative.”
TxDOT, using taxpayer funds, spent years of time and energy and millions of dollars on TTC-35, reportedly $131 million for planning and environmental work. In addition to all of this wasted effort and money on the part of TxDOT, there are the untold volunteer hours, contributions, and worry on the part of residents in the threatened areas and supporters around the state.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the 4,000-page document showing a general TTC-35 route, was released in 2006, and the Final EIS was scheduled to be released in 2007. TxDOT officials said that the decision not to build TTC-35 was in response to comments from citizens received during the environmental process. Of course, during the entire TTC-35 ordeal, TxDOT has not cared at all about citizens’ opinions.
WHAT REALLY KILLED TTC-35--
COMMUNITY AND POLITICAL PRESSURE IN THE LEGISLATURE
Even though citizen comments per se did not affect TxDOT, it was important that tens of thousands of residents attended the various levels of meetings and hearings, spoke against TTC-35, signed petitions, and submitted written comments. This effort formed the foundation of community organizations working against the Corridor and the process of influencing legislators and electing new legislators.
This, in turn, resulted in the legislature gradually turning against the Corridor and eliminating the Comprehensive Development Agreement tool.
EASTERN CENTRAL TEXAS SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (ECTSRPC)
The reason that TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration finally had no way to continue with the TTC-35 EIS was the action of the ECTSRPC in Bell and Milam counties. Five small towns and their associated school districts formed their Sub-Regional Planning Commission, and by state law, TxDOT was compelled to “coordinate” with their Commission. This meant that TxDOT had to take into account what the ECTSRPC citizens wanted and cover all required issues in the EIS process. TxDOT had not done this, meaning that the EIS was not legal and could not be recognized as legal by the Federal Highway Administration.
The ECTSRPC announced: “Selecting that option [no build] was exactly what the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission (ECTSRPC) forced TxDOT into choosing. . . . The planning commission began a series of what is called coordination meetings in the fall of 2007, by utilizing a little known state statute that forced the behemoth agency to come to Holland, Texas. . . . TxDOT came to Holland on three different occasions where they were asked to explain why they were going to destroy five towns and their school districts with a 1,200 foot-wide, 146 acre per mile toll road.
“‘Through coordination, we forced them to our table and then we used the federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) statute to box them in a legal corner out of which they could not escape,’ stated Ralph Snyder, a local Holland businessman and board member of the ECTSRPC. ‘That's what forced TxDOT to recommend 'No Build' to the Federal Highway Administration because we had shown how TxDOT, as the agent of the federal government, had violated the federal statute in at least 29 ways,’ Snyder continued.
“Fred Grant, president of American Stewards of Liberty, is the originator of the coordination strategy that brought TxDOT to their knees.”
FUTURE OF TTC-35 AND THE CORRIDOR CONCEPT
Some more time and paperwork is required to complete the TTC-35 EIS process, at the end of which the Federal Highway Administration will issue its Record of Decision approving the “No Action Alternative.” This is what so many of us asked in our comments, never thinking it would actually happen--it hardly ever happens--but now it is the final result!
Even though the Legislature has gradually turned against the Corridor concept, the legislation enabling it is still on the books. In addition, the Trans-Texas Corridor began as Gov. Perry’s “vision,” and he has never renounced it. We have to remain vigilant as long as the Corridor statute has not been repealed, and as long as Perry or anyone else who supports the concept is in the governor’s office.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
TTC-35 Final Environmental Impact Statement STILL not released
The TTC-35 nvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which is expected to show that SH 130 will be the Corridor route through Williamson County, was due out in 2007. Now, in the last quarter of 2009, there is still no FEIS.
The Hillsboro Reporter noted in August that John A. Barton, TxDOT assistant executive director in charge of engineering operations, said that a ruling on the FEIS by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) “is expected by the end of the year, but there has been no decision on what to do with the study if it is approved,” because “the corridor system proposed by Governor Rick Perry fell by the wayside following political pressure from rural Texas residents.”
Standing Ground, published by Dan and Margaret Byfield, reports that the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission has filed a petition with the FHWA requesting that the study be rejected because “time has expired for [TxDOT] to complete the study under the Texas Administrative Code, the Texas Legislature denied authorization for CDA’s [the funding mechanism] for the TTC, and the entire project has changed significantly, making the current TTC environmental study obsolete.”
The Commission is awaiting a response from the FHWA, while preparing for the next step. The DEIS did not address some issues that should have been addressed, which can be challenged in a court of law. The Byfields conclude that “the once fast-tracked project is now at a standstill as TxDOT and the FHWA determine which direction to head, given the illegalities of the environmental study.”
The Hillsboro Reporter noted in August that John A. Barton, TxDOT assistant executive director in charge of engineering operations, said that a ruling on the FEIS by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) “is expected by the end of the year, but there has been no decision on what to do with the study if it is approved,” because “the corridor system proposed by Governor Rick Perry fell by the wayside following political pressure from rural Texas residents.”
Standing Ground, published by Dan and Margaret Byfield, reports that the Eastern Central Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission has filed a petition with the FHWA requesting that the study be rejected because “time has expired for [TxDOT] to complete the study under the Texas Administrative Code, the Texas Legislature denied authorization for CDA’s [the funding mechanism] for the TTC, and the entire project has changed significantly, making the current TTC environmental study obsolete.”
The Commission is awaiting a response from the FHWA, while preparing for the next step. The DEIS did not address some issues that should have been addressed, which can be challenged in a court of law. The Byfields conclude that “the once fast-tracked project is now at a standstill as TxDOT and the FHWA determine which direction to head, given the illegalities of the environmental study.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Vince May files 290 E tolling lawsuit against TxDOT, others
Vince May has filed his lawsuit regarding tolling 290 East against CTRMA, CAMPO, TxDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. The major points are below. Keep an eye out for media coverage as news of this suit spreads.
"Plaintiff will enter into a binding agreement with defendants, with surety, if defendants agree to build and operate the 290E project under the terms of the 290E Environmental Assessment, as presented to the public in August 2008, and further provided that defendants begin construction before February 1 2010 and complete the continuous 3-lane frontage roads from US 183 to east of Parmer Lane before commencing work on the main lanes, or main lane bridges, other than movement of earth, or removal of existing pavements and structures.
"If this agreement can not be amicably concluded, plaintiff prays that the Judge will order that the 290E Finding Of No Significant Impact is null and void, and that defendants may only proceed after completing an Environmental Impact Statement if they seek federal money or loans.
"Further, plaintiff prays that the Judge will enjoin defendants from denying access to public information requested by the public pursuant to any future Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. This request pertains especially to 'Traffic & Revenue Studies,' no matter what stage of completion, whether Preliminary or Investment Grade."
"Plaintiff will enter into a binding agreement with defendants, with surety, if defendants agree to build and operate the 290E project under the terms of the 290E Environmental Assessment, as presented to the public in August 2008, and further provided that defendants begin construction before February 1 2010 and complete the continuous 3-lane frontage roads from US 183 to east of Parmer Lane before commencing work on the main lanes, or main lane bridges, other than movement of earth, or removal of existing pavements and structures.
"If this agreement can not be amicably concluded, plaintiff prays that the Judge will order that the 290E Finding Of No Significant Impact is null and void, and that defendants may only proceed after completing an Environmental Impact Statement if they seek federal money or loans.
"Further, plaintiff prays that the Judge will enjoin defendants from denying access to public information requested by the public pursuant to any future Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. This request pertains especially to 'Traffic & Revenue Studies,' no matter what stage of completion, whether Preliminary or Investment Grade."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
