Poll: Overwhelming opposition to tolls

Link to article here.

Poll Shows Overwhelming Opposition To Tolling
Two out of three reject the administration plan to toll existing interstate freeway lanes in a new Rasmussen Reports poll.
TheNewspaper.com
May 8, 2014

In a nationwide survey of American adults, only 22 percent expressed support for the administration's latest push to allow states to convert existing freeway into toll roads. Rasmussen Reports released the findings Wednesday in the wake of the Transportation Department's presentation of its funding blueprint to Congress.

"A proposal has been made to allow states to put tolls on Interstate highways to help pay for highway and other infrastructure repairs," the pollsters explained to a thousand survey participants. "Do you favor or oppose putting tolls on Interstate highways for infrastructure maintenance?"

Colorado Governor Vetoes Toll Road Accountability Bill

Link to article here.

Just when the grassroots make progress, the special interests swoop down and overturn any effort at transparency and accountability with our tax dollars. The big money wants these P3 rip-offs and they know public scrutiny will KILL them.

Colorado Governor Vetoes Toll Road Accountability Bill
Veto by Colorado governor preserves secrecy when negotiating long-term toll road contracts.
The Newspaper.com
June 9, 2014

Critics of long-term toll road contracts complain that they are often negotiated in secrecy by unaccountable bureaucrats, cutting the public out of the process entirely. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) is not among those who see any problem with the way things are done. On Wednesday he put his veto pen to Senate Bill 14-197, the Transportation Enterprise Transparency Act, ensuring the status quo.

"We firmly believe that government should always strive to be transparent and accountable," Hickenlooper wrote in his veto message. "Unfortunately, SB 14-197 is not just a transparency bill -- it also inappropriately constrains the business terms of future P3 [public-private partnership] agreements."

Rail not sufficient as transit answer

Link to Letter to Editor here.

May 28, 2014 - Austin American Statesman

Rail not sufficient as transit answer
Re: Re: May 18 commentary, “Choice is clear, rail or fail.”

Mayor Lee Leffingwell’s answer to traffic is always “rail,” which mainly addresses inner city. Where is the relief for Capitol of Texas Highway, which could be accomplished with overpasses at the traffic lights? Where is the relief for U.S. 183 from Northwest Austin to the airport? Again, overpasses at about three stoplights. Where is the relief for RM 620 or Bee Cave Road?

I used to work downtown and would have considered taking the rail to work except that I worked north of the Capitol and would have had a long walk in heels and heat or rain. What happened to the ’Dillo? That was a great way to get around downtown and a way for tourists to see more of Austin.

E. HARRISON, AUSTIN

Wolff, Campbell, partner up to get more non-toll lanes on 281

Judge Wolff and Campbell partner to reduce tolls on U.S. 281
By Vianna Davila : May 20, 2014
Express-News

SAN ANTONIO — Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff and state Sen. Donna Campbell are trying to find a way to reduce the number of toll lanes planned as part of a U.S. 281 expansion project.

The solution might depend on passage of a statewide constitutional amendment in November that could generate $1.4 billion for Texas roads.

Wolff, a Democrat, and Campbell, a Republican, sent a letter to Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ted Houghton on Monday, asking for money to be allocated to the U.S. 281 project should voters approve the ballot measure.

Read more here.

5 ways privatization is fleecing American taxpayers

Link to article here.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014
5 ways privatization is fleecing American taxpayers
Government outsourcing goes horribly wrong more often than not. Here are a few representative horror stories
Dave Johnson, AlterNet
Salon.com

For decades we’ve been subjected to constant propaganda that government is inefficient, bureaucratic and expensive. We’re told that the answer is to “privatize,” or “outsource” government functions to private businesses and they will do things more efficiently and everyone comes out ahead. As a result we have experienced decades of privatization of government functions.

So how has this wave of privatization worked out? Has privatization saved taxpayers money and improved services to citizens? Simple answer: of course not. If a company can make a profit doing something the government had been doing, it means that we’re losing out one way or another. It’s simple math. And the result of falling for the privatization scam is that taxpayers have been fleeced, services to citizens have been cut way back and communities have been made poorer. But the companies that convinced governments to hand over public functions have gotten rich off of the deal. How is this a surprise?

Here are 5 privatization horror stories, where government outsourcing has gone terribly wrong. (Or maybe you’d say it has gone terribly right if you are one of the companies getting the taxpayer dollars.)

1. Chicago Parking Meters
The mother of all privatization horror stories is what happened with Chicago’s parking meters. In 2008 the city “financialized” its parking meter revenue stream. It leased the rights to collect from parking meters to a consortium led by Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley. The lease is for 75 years.

Right away parking-meter rates went up fourfold and meters stopped working. The city’s residents were unhappy, but there was nothing they could do about it.

But wait, it gets worse. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the big Wall Street bank was more interested in making money than in giving Chicago the best deal it could. An inspector general looked into the deal and found that the city was shortchanged by at least $974 million. But a 2010 Forbes story says the Morgan Stanley consortium may realize a profit of $9.58 billion after paying Chicago only $1.15 billion.

To top it off, the city not only gave up 75 years of revenue for not nearly enough up-front cash, it had signed a contract prohibiting the city from interfering with Morgan Stanley’s ability to profit from the deal. This means the city can’t build parking structures where they are needed and can’t even give out disabled parking permits. The city can’t even close streets to have street fairs or festivals without paying Morgan Stanley for lost meter profits.

2. Toll Roads
Some states are considering privatizing their roads with “public-private partnerships.” The deal is that private companies maintain the roads and in exchange can charge a toll and make a profit. How is this working out?

In 2006 Indiana privatized I-80, the Indiana Toll Road. For $3.8 billion the state gave a 75-year lease to the Australian company Macquarie Group and Spain’s Cintra. (Goldman Sachs is said to have earned $20 million for brokering the deal.) At the time Washington Post business columnist Jerry Knight wrote that the deal sounded like “tossing the family furniture in the fireplace to keep the house warm.”

Since then tolls have just about doubled. And it’s going to get worse. Dave Jamieson at the Huffington Post explained, “The road’s leaseholders can now raise the toll annually at one of three rates — at a flat two percent, at the percentage increase in the consumer price index or at the percentage increase in gross domestic product — whichever is highest. Over the course of the coming decades, Hoosiers can expect to learn a hard lesson in compound interest, long after Gov. Daniels is gone.”

In 2007 Colorado leased its Northwest Highway to a Portuguese/Brazilian company for 99 years. The company raised tolls 50% and taxpayers have to pay the company if too many carpoolers use the high-occupancy lanes. The contract includes a “non-compete” clause that “requires payments to the foreign corporation if certain roads or facilities are built in the area that would compete with the toll road.” In other words, if traffic gets really bad Colorado is not allowed to do anything to solve the problem for its citizens – mass transit, congestion-relief arteries, etc. — instead forcing citizens to use that highway and pay whatever the toll is. For 99 years.

3. Prisons for Profit
Imagine a system where someone makes a profit if more and more people are put in prison. This is known as a “perverse incentive.” Really, can you think of anything worse than getting a profit to get people put in jail? What you think could go wrong is exactly what does go wrong. These companies want profits, so rehabilitation becomes a “cost.”

These companies push for government policies that put more people into prison for more crimes and for longer sentences. Prison-for-profit companies working with the corporate/right-wing lobbying outfit American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) came up with model legislation pushing things like “three strikes” and “truth in sentencing” which greatly increase the number of prisoners and the amount of time they serve.

But the worst part of prison privatization is companies saving on “costs” by cutting back on staff, food quality and you-name it. A 2013 Palm Beach Post investigation found that “dangerously low numbers of corrections officers — including local guards with criminal backgrounds — and reports of squalor, rape and riots dog corporate prison operators. …Audits, security reports, lawsuits, government records and state and federal investigations in 21 states unveil a startling pattern of murder, riots and sexual assault at private prisons nationwide. Often, those failures stem from not enough guards.”

Nine major riots erupted since 2000. At least 25 inmates died amid claims of mistreatment, inadequate medical care or in riots. Three prisons for teenagers were shuttered between 2000 and 2012 after discoveries of squalor and sex abuse. A women’s prison was emptied after widespread reports of rape by staff.

How does this compare to prisons that are not run by private companies for profit?

At Florida’s state-run prisons in the same 12-year period: No major damage or severe injuries from riots; no closures over squalor; no Justice Department investigations over human rights.

In another example in Mississippi, a private company called the GEO Group ran the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility. The Justice Department spent two years looking into conditions at the facility and issued a report saying the facility engaged in “systemic, egregious and dangerous practices.” A judge wrote the company ”has allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.”

A recent In the Public Interest report, The Costs of Private Prisons, says “the promised cost savings often fail to materialize.” The report looked at more than 40 studies of private prisons and how this turned out, in five states. They found “no cost advantage” and that for-profit prison companies, “employ questionable methodology when calculating costs of private facilities. This includes finding ways to hide the costs of private prisons, ensuring that increased costs are not apparent until after the initial contract is signed, and using inflated public prison costs during comparisons.”

4. Cost Overruns
Cost overruns are a common scam when governments outsource to private companies.

In 2008 New York City decided to “save money” by contracting out its payroll system. The original estimate to develop the “CityTime” system was $68 million. A little over 10 years later the cost had ballooned to more than $700 million and the system still didn’t work. A recent Daily Kospost descibed what an investigation revealed:
The corrupt contractors lined their pockets with millions of dollars as they accepted kickbacks, funneled huge sums into shell companies, deposited stolen money into overseas accounts, inflated bills and maintained a bloated payroll with excessively paid and even fired employees.

The contractor, Science Applications International Corp. has agreed to pay the city $500 million“under a deferred-prosecution agreement to resolve claims that it conspired to defraud the city.” Three employees were recently sentenced to 20 years each for their roles in the theft and fraud.

5. Any Government “Outsourcing” Anything
If you examine the claim that private companies are always more efficient than government, the argument starts to fall apart. Just how are companies more efficient?

The first way companies are supposed to be better is cost-savings. But just how do they save money? There are two ways a company can save money over what government spends. The first is to reduce what it pays employees and suppliers. The second is to cut back on the amount or quality of the service the company is taking over.

So let’s say a town decides to “save money” by outsourcing its trash collection. The people who were employed by the city to do this are laid off and things are turned over to the company. Typically the company will hire people at as close to minimum wage as possible and likely with no benefits. It will employ fewer managers and pay them less as well. It will cut back on maintenance of the fleet, and it will try to cut back on the pickup service.

Does this actually save government money? If people with OK public-employee jobs are replaced by lower-paid workers the community is poorer in the aggregate. More people will need public “safety-net” services. There will be foreclosures. Tax revenue drops because of lower pay but also because poorer people can’t spend as much in stores. Sales taxes drop as stores face fewer customers able to get by.

Daphne Greenwood of the University of Colorado did a study of privatization titled, The Decision to Contract Out: Understanding the Full Economic and Social Impacts. The study found that the resulting wage and benefit cuts hurt the community at large, including declining retail sales, greater reliance on public assistance and a larger share of at-risk children in low-income families. On a recent phone call discussing the study Greenwood said that when governments outsource, “the availability of middle-class jobs is affected, even upward mobility.” She said, “Contracting to private corps usually means big reductions in worker benefits and benefits,” and “lower wages often mean a shift to less experienced employees.”

In addition, she said, “There are more workers and retirees who end up on public assistance, which means more children in poverty so local schools are dealing with more problems.”

Janice Fine of Rutgers University has also done a study, Overlooking Oversight: A Lack of Oversight in the Garden State is Placing New Jersey Assets and Residents at Risk. She looked at outsourcing in New Jersey and found that a “stunning lack” of government oversight of contractors caused problems for Hurricane Sandy victims as well as greater risk for vulnerable children – and millions in wasted tax dollars in New Jersey.

On the same call as Greenwood, Fine said she found, “a stunning lack of government oversight of contractors,” and that, “oversight shouldn’t be set aside because of cost, it should be an essential part of outsourcing.”

Time To Reassess
Government outsourcing, also known as privatization, has been going on for decades, and now governments are reassessing whether turning public property and services over to private companies has really been a good idea. Story after story has appeared detailing horror stories of corruption, incompetence and general scamming by companies interested only in profit.

Molly Ball reported recently in The Privatization Backlash in the Atlantic, “In states and cities across the country, lawmakers are expressing new skepticism about privatization, imposing new conditions on government contracting, and demanding more oversight. Laws to rein in contractors have been introduced in 18 states this year, and three—Maryland, Oregon and Nebraska—have passed legislation, according to In the Public Interest, a group that advocates what it calls ‘responsible contracting.’”

Other Horror Stories
A report by In the Public Interest titled “Out of Control: The Coast-to-Coast Failures of Outsourcing Public Services to For-Profit Corporations,” highlights several other horror stories that happen when local and state governments privatize public functions to private companies. The report begins,

“Eager for quick cash, state and local governments across America have for decades handed over control of critical public services and assets to corporations that promise to handle them better, faster and cheaper.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, not only has outsourcing these services failed to keep this promise, but too often it undermines transparency, accountability, shared prosperity and competition – the underpinnings of democracy itself.”

The next time someone tells you private companies are always “more efficient” than government, tell them the facts are against them. It has been tried and it didn’t work.

WSJ: Highway Trust Fund Is Running on Fumes

Link to article here.

Highway Trust Fund Is Running on Fumes
By Damian Paletta
Wall Street Journal
May 8, 2014

Sometime this summer, the Transportation Department is expected to begin delaying payments to states for road and bridge projects because the Highway Trust Fund is rapidly exhausting its reserves.

Congress has tackled or punted many of the “must pass” bills of 2014, but evaporating highway money looms like a pothole on the road to the midterm elections. Resolving the issue is important for lawmakers because constituents care about their local roads and bridges–but they also pay close attention to any changes in tax and spending rules.

The highway trust fund’s balance will be just $2 billion at the end of September, because gasoline-tax revenue isn’t keeping up with spending. That figure assumes payments are delayed in the coming months, a prospect that could infuriate governors, mayors and a number of businesses depending on the funds. Much of this money is disbursed by the federal government to states and local governments.

The highway fund provides nearly a quarter of the $216 billion annual total public spending on highway and mass-transit construction, which translates to roughly $1 billion a week funneled to states to pay contractors, Josh Mitchell reports.

Directing money for roads and bridges is a bipartisan pastime, but lawmakers are very divided on how to come up with money to pay for these projects. They could raise taxes, like the 18.4-cent-per-gallon gas tax, a prospect that is considered very unlikely given GOP control of the House. They could redirect money from other government programs, which is what they’ve done before, though options in a tight budget environment are limited. Or, they could cut highway spending, which many Democrats and some Republicans could try to block.

Even with the expected delays, the $7 billion shortfall between trust fund revenues and total spending in 2013 is expected to keep widening because tax revenue will continue falling far short of projected spending levels.
Lawmakers from both parties are flummoxed on how to proceed, particularly during an election year when every vote is viewed under a political microscope.

A number of lawmakers and analysts believe that policy makers will try to come up with a temporary fix that will at least buy Congress time until sometime next year, when they might be able to make more structural changes to put the program on firmer footing. But, as both parties have learned, votes on tax and spending measures are very unpredictable.

“There is not a silver bullet, other than the most obvious (raise the gas tax and index to inflation),” writes Chris Krueger of Guggenheim Securities LLC in a research report. “A temporary extension of the Highway Bill would likely create a headwind for all companies that rely on federal infrastructure investment ” until a new bill is signed into law.

And the longer they wait, the bumpier the road could become.

Pasco officials say DOT ready to scrap private toll road

Link to article here.

Pasco officials say DOT ready to scrap plans for proposed toll road
By Lisa Buie and Rich Shopes,
Times Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 7, 2014

State transportation officials are moving to scrap plans to let a private investor build a toll road across southern Pasco County amid concerns that the project would need tax dollars to be viable.

Florida Transportation Secretary Ananth Prasad "wants to reach out one more time and see if we have the facts straight, but right now it does not look good," department spokeswoman Kris Carson said after a meeting DOT officials had with the group proposing the road.

Last summer, a private consortium called FL Express 54 came forward with an unsolicited proposal to build a toll road along State Road 54 from U.S. 19 to U.S. 301, some of it above existing lanes. The consortium would have leased right of way, shared the toll revenues with the state and paid for construction and the road's operation.

The idea generated support initially because, as pitched, it would have required only private money. But by December, a groundswell of opposition had formed in south Pasco, and several county commissioners were starting to question the proposal.

Commissioner Henry Wilson flat-out rejected the idea, followed by commission Chairman Jack Mariano.

"I'm delighted that the DOT made this decision. I think it's the right decision," Mariano said. "I'm glad they looked at the feasibility of it and reviewed that, but from the overwhelming negative feelings about the plan coming from the community and the objections raised, it was definitely the right decision to make for the people."

Hundreds of residents calling themselves Pasco Fiasco lined up against the road. Rich Connors, the group's founder, called the state's decision "a big victory."

DOT spokesman Dick Kane said Prasad had misgivings after a May 1 videoconference with local DOT officials and FL Express 54. The sides went back and forth about whether to shorten the road to 10 miles from 30 and place more of it at ground level.

"There was a lot of technical information, and the project raised more questions than (it) answered in trying to understand what needs to be done," Kane said.

He added that transportation officials were told initially that the project would be financed through private dollars. Then the group proposed using public funding, as well.

"That was not what we were initially led to believe," Kane said.

He wasn't sure how much state funding FL Express 54 was requesting.

FL Express 54 includes local engineer Gerald Stanley, a New York financier and Spanish road-building company OHL Infrastructure. Calls to Stanley were not returned.

The consortium submitted its proposal to transportation officials unsolicited, withdrew it briefly and resubmitted it in January. Public hearings were expected this summer.

As officials evaluated the plan, support for it in Pasco faltered.

Prasad said from the outset that the project would not proceed if Pasco opposed it. Scores of south county residents sought to capitalize on that promise.

Hundreds started attending town hall meetings organized by the county and writing emails to commissioners. Staff presented the road as an alternative to the massive widening of SR 54 needed to keep pace with growth, but many of the residents complained that the county was resorting to scare tactics to garner support for the road.

Officials got an earful in March when speakers lined up for more than an hour to blast the project as a threat to real estate values, businesses and south Pasco's ambience. Many said the road would divide the community and create noise and pollution.

Then in March, the Urban Land Institute reiterated its findings, noting that many communities with elevated roads were looking to scrap them. It advised Pasco to work with other counties toward regional traffic solutions.
Pasco's planning director, Richard Gehring, supported the road for months, but said the decision to abandon the project was ultimately the state's — though it leaves Pasco in a lurch. The county still needs to fix traffic congestion in south Pasco, he said.

The county's Metropolitan Planning Organization will make recommendations about south Pasco as part of its long-range transportation plan due in December.

Gehring said he viewed the state's rejection as part of "a positive learning experience" after hearing residents demand alternatives. He said county staff are evaluating those alternatives, which include widening the road, adding bus rapid transit, express lanes and other measures.

"I think it was a positive that someone was looking at this idea and responding to it," he said of the DOT. "But there is still a strong demand for solutions for what happens in that corridor. We still need a solution."

Letter to Editor: Stop tolls on 281

Link to editorial here.

Stop toll road plan on U.S. 281
Don Dixon, For the Express-News
May 16, 2014

San Antonio is known as the cradle of Texas liberty. There are no people in Texas who love freedom more than San Antonians. Yet politicians and government could take away part of our freedoms by illegally converting public-road rights of way to double-tax toll roads at an extra confiscatory tax of 17 to 75 cents per mile ($3.50 to $15 per gallon of gas).

When ranchers and landowners donated land or had their land taken by eminent domain for a public road, they intended and contracted that their former land would be forever a public road.

Apparently, San Antonio's spirit of freedom and rule of law mean little to the Texas Transportation Commission. It is hellbent that San Antonio public rights of way be converted to toll roads.

Letter to Editor: Don't take my public roads & turn them into P3 tollways

Link to article here.

Paved with bad intentions?
By Rork Hilford, Calgary Herald May 12, 2014

Re: "High-tech toll roads envisioned," May 7.

Let me get this straight. A self-appointed navel-gazing think tank has decided that it would be a good idea to divide public roads into plebeian and toll lanes.

The trouble is that I've been a land owner and taxpayer all of my adult life. I've paid for those roads to be built and I've amortized all the cost of the bridges. I've been taxed for resurfacing and snow shoveling for almost a half-century. That's why I pay taxes, so that I can use the roads.

Now, this exclusionary group wants to take away my right to use the byways because they would like to play the entitlement card.

Let them pay to build and use toll roads. Let them acquire rights and build an overhead toll road over Macleod Trail from Cranston to City Hall at their expense. Then let them pay $20 a day to use it. Let them pay for a toll road through the Weaselhead, then maintain it.

I can see right through this. I will not allow public property to convert into P3 use.

Is there a Road'n Hood hiding in the concrete forest to stop robbing from the poor to give to the rich?

Obviously, he does not belong to the Manning Foundation!

Rork Hilford
Calgary

Mica flip flops on tolls now that they're coming to a road near him

Link to article here.

This is incredible, Mica never saw a toll road he didn’t like when leader of the House Transportation Subcommittee, now that one has come knocking in his backyard and voters are angry, he says he won’t allow tolls on one inch of interstates. How convenient, after his policies have wreaked havoc on millions of American motorists!

U.S. Rep. Mica: Adding tolls to I-4 would be double-dipping on taxpayers
News 13.com
May 6, 2014

Toll roads could be added to I-4 under a proposed plan, but U.S. Rep. John Mica promises to take on the White House over the issue.

"I will not let them impose tolls in Central Florida or on 1 inch of interstates in America," Mica said.

The White House announced a plan to let states decide whether to turn interstates into toll roads. Toll revenue could be used to repair highways, but Mica said that's essentially double-dipping on taxpayers.

"People have already paid for those roads, and we need to keep it a national interstate system and not a series of toll roads," he said.

The White House's idea is different from a separate plan to add toll lanes to I-4 where drivers would only pay if they drove in those lanes.

However, according to an article from July of 2011, Mica does support that separate plan. He explained back then that the gas tax, which is normally used to pay for roads, is not bringing in enough money to pay for roads across the country.

USA Today: Obama's highway tolls take cash, time and privacy

Link to article here.

Obama's highway tolls take cash, time and privacy: Column
When government success means you pay more taxes.
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
May 4, 2014
USA Today

It's yet another lesson in the law of unintended consequences — and, as usual, the government wants us to pick up the tab for its poor planning. This time, it's the Obama administration's proposal to allow tolls on interstate highways, where such tolls have been banned since the Eisenhower days.

The problem is that government efforts to discourage driving and to encourage fuel conservation have been successful. With people burning less gas, revenues from the gasoline tax are down.

People burning less gas is what the government wanted. But with gas prices at historically high levels (often over four bucks a gallon), and with trust in government at historic lows, politicians aren't too enthusiastic about taking the obvious step, increasing the gas tax. They don't want to take the heat. Instead, they're looking to increase revenue in other, less obvious ways.

This has led states such as Oregon and New Jersey to propose taxing people for mileage instead of gas, probably using GPS trackers. That approach increases taxes most on gas-sipping hybrids and electric cars, which use no gas at all. (You know, the cars the government has been busy subsidizing because they use less or no gas.) But the idea of having all our movement tracked by government-mandated GPS units hasn't played very well with voters, so those schemes have had trouble getting traction.

Tolls are plan B. But they'll also make the driving experience worse, and less private. If states set up old-fashioned toll booths on the interstate, as a number already have for bridges and tunnels, you'll have to slow down to pay. (Which, ironically, will waste gas.) Politicians will undoubtedly like it, though, because all those toll booth employees will be government employees who can probably be counted on to re-elect incumbents.
Of course, this is the 21st century, so we'll let drivers who opt in use radio frequency chips or bar codes to whiz by sensors that withdraw money from your bank account. But that's not really an improvement because it also means that the government will have a handy computerized record of where you go and when. It might not save time, either, as E-ZPass lanes clog up, too.

One of the nice things about driving in America today is that if you tire of the Big Brother aspects of air travel, you can just get in your car and go. Sensor-equipped tolls will make it easy for a government that already spies on us too much to spy on us some more. Whatever promises are made now, experience shows that's exactly what the government will do.

If the gas tax really isn't raising enough money to fix the roads, then our politicians should man up and increase it or better yet stop spending so much of it on sidewalks, bike lanes and mass transit. The worst possible outcome is tolls that instead of just taking our money like a gas tax, will take our money, waste our time and destroy our privacy.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

NTTA sicks DPS on toll violators, to impound cars

Link to article here.

So now we've reduced our Department of Public Safety to little more than glorified meter maids for the toll authority. Really? This is what toll policy has gotten us in Texas under Rick Perry.

NTTA to team up with DPS to catch habitual toll violators
by JOBIN PANICKER
WFAA
May 1, 2014

DALLAS — The North Texas Tollway Authority is taking a bold step to recoup millions in unpaid tolls across North Texas.

Starting in the month of May, NTTA and DPS will team up to begin pulling over habitual toll violators, and in some cases, towing their vehicles.

“People have had every notice," said Michael Rey, of NTTA. "The folks who are in this category are blatantly violating the terms of the roadway."

NTTA’s ban will first start with 500 drivers. And after some time, 500 more. NTTA officials hope to get the attention of 6,000 drivers by the end of the year. Rey says every one of these drivers will be process-served with notices. That notice calls for 10 days to either appeal or pay up.

To make this notorious list, Rey says drivers must have at least 100 outstanding tolls and two NTTA failure to pay notices.

“I was on that list," said Steven Porter, who went to the NTTA Thursday. "I’m not high up on that list, but I’m on that list.

He didn’t disclose how much he has to pay in fines but said it’s more than $5,000.

The list of habitual violators started with 75,000 names and it’s now down to 30,000 in Texas.

If Porter doesn’t pay, DPS will be on him and new license readers will be scanning for his license plates. NTTA has just purchased four new license readers that are mobile and will be placed in different areas of toll roads every day.

“They match them to a list of habitual violators eligible for ban," Rey said. "If they trigger one, the command center will relay that to DPS troopers and they will pull over the vehicle."

NTTA tells us the first time toll violators get pulled over they will get a citation, a fine up to $500 and a Class C Misdemeanor. Rey says if the trooper realizes you have been using the toll roads several times without paying, your car may be impounded. And getting the car returned will require the violator to pay the fines or set up a payment plan.

Washington Post: United States of Toll Roads

Link to article with full charts & graphs here.

The United States of toll roads
By Laris Karklis and Reid Wilson
Washington Post
May 1, 2014

Imagine flying down the open road in Texas, where the speed limit is something like 150 miles an hour. You’ll experience the fresh air, the thrill of the open road — and, if you’re on certain highways, the hassle of slowing down and tossing a handful of quarters at a toll booth.

Texas is one of 29 states that charges drivers money to travel on certain roads. Texans pay for the right to drive on 503 miles of roads, both interstate and non-interstate. Florida drivers pay tolls on 719 miles of roads, while New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Oklahomans all fork over money to travel more than 550 miles of roads.

Under a new proposal from the Obama administration, a lot more of us might be paying tolls in the future. Our colleague Ashley Halsey reports the Obama administration’s version of a transportation bill would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

“We believe that this is an area where the states have to make their own decisions,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We want to open the aperture, if you will, to allow more states to choose to make broader use of tolling, to have that option available.”

The possibility of more toll roads is emerging as an alternative source of funding for the 46,876-mile interstate system. With more fuel-efficient cars hitting the road, the 18.4-cent federal gas tax no longer provides the revenue necessary to maintain infrastructure.

Toll roads would be a minor part of the new funding structure. The White House proposal relies on funding that would come from a series of corporate tax reforms, most of them one-time revenue sources that would close the highway trust fund deficit and provide an additional $150 billion above gas tax revenue.

Labor and transportation interest groups mostly favor raising the gas tax to cover the expected $63 billion shortfall over the next four years.

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways

Link to article here.

White House opens door to tolls on interstate highways, removing long-standing prohibition
By Ashley Halsey
Washington Post
April 29, 2014

With pressure mounting to avert a transportation funding crisis this summer, the Obama administration Tuesday opened the door for states to collect tolls on interstate highways to raise revenue for roadway repairs.

The proposal, contained in a four-year, $302 billion White House transportation bill, would reverse a long-standing federal prohibition on most interstate tolling.

Though some older segments of the network — notably the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes and Interstate 95 in Maryland and Interstate 495 in Virginia — are toll roads, most of the 46,876-mile system has been toll-free.

“We believe that this is an area where the states have to make their own decisions,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We want to open the aperture, if you will, to allow more states to choose to make broader use of tolling, to have that option available.”

The question of how to pay to repair roadways and transit systems built in the heady era of post-World War II expansion is demanding center stage this spring, with projections that traditional funding can no longer meet the need.

That source, the Highway Trust Fund, relies on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax, which has eroded steadily as vehicles have become more energy efficient.

“The proposal comes at the crucial moment for transportation in the last several years,” Foxx said. “As soon as August, the Highway Trust Fund could run dry. States are already canceling or delaying projects because of the uncertainty.”

While providing tolling as an option to states, the White House proposal relies on funding from a series of corporate tax reforms, most of them one-time revenue streams that would provide a four-year bridge to close the trust-fund deficit and permit $150 billion more in spending than the gas tax will bring in.

The corporate tax reform proposal has gotten a lukewarm reception even from Democrats in Congress, and Foxx emphasized that the administration is open to any counterproposal that wins bipartisan support.

With the trust fund about to run into the red and the current federal highway bill set to expire Sept. 30, Congress cannot — as its members often note — keep “kicking the can down the road.”

Even a temporary extension of the current bill would require them to authorize a transfer of money from the general fund.

Details of the president’s proposal, which he first outlined almost two months ago, were welcomed as a sign of growing momentum toward a resolution, even by those who couldn’t fully embrace his plan.

“While we may not agree with all aspects of the administration’s proposal, we look forward to the continuing dialogue with Congress and the administration on charting America’s transportation future,” said Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said the bill helped “advance the discussion” but said a federal gas tax increase should be used to fund it.

“The gas tax remains the most tested and logical way of meeting our critical investment needs,” O’Sullivan said.

“For too long, Congress’s duct-tape approach has made our roads and bridges unsafe, destabilized the construction industry and slowed our economy.”

The federal tax last was raised in 1993 and has not been adjusted for inflation.

Another advocacy group, the nonprofit Transportation for America, spelled out its concerns Tuesday in a report, “The looming financial disaster for transportation.”

The report provided a state-by-state accounting of the percentage of transportation funding that came from Washington. In most cases, it amounted to about half, though some states were far more dependent on federal dollars. (Federal funds accounted for 52 percent of the District’s funding, 49 percent of Maryland’s and almost 59 percent of Virginia’s.)

It also broke down the funding that would be lost by each major metropolitan area without federal revenue, pegging the Washington region’s loss at $424 million.

“Congress has an opportunity to not only save the transportation program, but to recommit to investing in the repairs and improvements our communities and businesses need,” said James Corless, the group’s director.
Corless predicted that most Americans would accept tax increases to fund transportation.

“When people understand where the dollars are being spent, the direct impact to their lives, they support paying their fair share,” he said.

Foxx said the highway trust fund would face a $63 billion shortfall over the next four years.

“What our proposal would do is [use] pro-growth business tax reform to backfill in the highway trust fund,” Foxx said. “We would put that $63 billion back in place to stabilize the highway trust fund, and then the additional $90 billion would be spent on new programs.”

He said the $302 billion bottom line for the proposal would be reached “through a combination of existing taxes that go to the highway trust fund that would equate to $152 billion on their own, and then $150 billion in transitional revenues from pro-growth tax reform.”

The proposal emphasizes a fix-it-first approach that would give funding priority to existing roads, bridges and transit systems rather than expanding their network.

It would expand reforms intended to streamline environmental reviews and project delivery that were begun in the current federal highway bill.

It also would expand popular loan-guarantee programs that have been used by state and local governments to fund projects. The White House plan would almost double funding — from $12.3 billion to $22.3 billion — for transit systems and intercity passenger rail.

In addition, the plan would increase the fine an automaker could face for a safety violation from the current $35 million to $300 million.

Though that proposal is not new, it takes on greater significance amid the debate over General Motors’s delayed recall of 2 million cars with faulty ignition switches that are alleged to have led to at least 13 deaths.

COuncilwoman rejects mass transit, bike trails for south Dallas

Link to article here.

We fail to see how a toll road services the economically disadvantaged in South Dallas, but a free road surely would!

Vonciel Jones Hill, transportation chair, says it’s time to find ‘creative funding’ to pay for Trinity River toll road
By Robert Wilonsky
Dallas Morning News
April 28, 2014

Vonciel Jones Hill, chair of the Dallas City Council’s Transportation and Trinity River Corridor Committee, wants the Trinity River toll road built, and she will no longer take “no money” as answer. Said Hill Monday afternoon, there may have to be some “creative funding” to build the high-speed, nine-mile-long, six-lane-deep toll road along the east levee — not to mention the rest of the Trinity River Corridor Project first approved by voters in 1998 — but it will be funded.

“We have built Central Expressway,” she said at the close of today’s briefing by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which came to explain, among other things, the need to tear down a piece of old bridge and move a piece of the river. “We have built 635. We have built the tollway. We have built 121. We have built 161. We have built the Chisholm Trail. I could go on, but my point is once we have started to build a roadway project, we have always been confronted with the challenge of funding it.”

From a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers briefing presented to the Dallas City Council in August
And, she said, that money’s always been found — especially when that roadway project serves what she calls “the northern portion” of the city.

Alas, she insisted, the “parkway serves the people south of 30, the people coming out of southern Dallas and Pleasant Grove. And so now all of the sudden some folks want to say we can’t find the money? That is fallacious. If we found money for everything that goes north, I suggest we put our shoulders to the wheel and find the money to build the road that enhances the south.”

Said Hill, the road’s critics have essentially told “people in the south” they “will have to rely on mass transit, bicycles and walking.” And, said Hill, “I reject that argument.”

The road, of course, will cost around $1.5 billion — give or take an amount yet to be determined. Fact is, we won’t know who’s going to build the road until after the Corps and Federal Highway Administration’s separate environmental impact statements are made final. Then and only when will the Corps issue its record of decision, which is expected in December. When that happens, says NTTA spokesman Michael Rey, “That allows us to study what (if anything) is approved to be built.”

It’s not clear how long that feasibility study would take, but at the end of it the NTTA will determine if it’s worth its while to build the road. If that NTTA passes, it’s not clear if anyone else would be interested in building a road that could wind up beneath floodwaters from time to time.

And, as the Corps’ Rob Newman explained today, whoever builds the road will also have to pay for moving 100 feet of river that overlaps with the parkway just south of downtown, between Stemmons and Corinth. But Hill and assistant city manager Jill Jordan, who oversees the Trinity River Corridor Project, insist the city will not pay any more for the toll road — that Dallas’ contribution has been “capped.” But it remains unclear exactly how much the city has spent using tollroad-designated funds, which have been used on various parkway-”related” projects, including using dirt from the proposed lakes to build a “bench” along the east levee.

And as Newman, the Corps’ director of the Trinity River Corridor Project, reminded the council today, the city will still be on the hook for $70 million in other expenses related to the completion of the so-called Balanced Vision Plan, including restoring the natural meanders to the river near downtown. As Jordan said again today, that money will likely come from future bond elections as the Trinity morphs into an ongoing concern, ‘like all other large parks, like Fair Park or the zoo or White Rock Lake.” In other words, it will always need money.
Hill, though, doesn’t want to hear that the lack of money will kill the tollroad.

“The parkway continues to have conversations,” she said. “The voters have twice — twice — approved the parkway.” She was referring to the 2007 referendum that nearly killed the toll road.

“The increased costs would probably not have been such if we had not had to endure the second referendum, but we did and that has delayed the parkway. The issue continues to be the cost.”

Said Hill, stop talking cost and come up with a solution involving “creative funding.”

Editorial: U.S. 36 toll deal needs audit

Link to article here.

Editorial: U.S. 36 deal calls for audit
Reporter-Herald Editorial Board
April 28, 2014

A bill proposing a financial audit of the 50 year public-private partnership for changes to U.S. 36 between Boulder and Denver is a good idea because it will emphasize that the public is an important part of this partnership and deserves to know what is going on.

The project between the Colorado Department of Transportation, the state's High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the company Plenary Roads Denver, an Australian-based concern, will widen the highway and install toll lanes and collection areas. Plenary Roads Denver will complete the second phase of the upgrades between Boulder and Broomfield and then collect tolls on the High Occupancy Lanes built by the company, the Denver Post reported.

Rep. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette, and 14 other legislators have proposed the audit to State Auditor Dianne Ray and the Legislative Audit Committee.

The $425 million project deserves greater public scrutiny than it has received so far. Foote said "the people deserve trustworthy answers to the many questions they have on the U.S. 36 project. A state audit will clear up the confusion and give us guidance about the proper role of public-private partnerships in transportation development in Colorado."

Colorado transportation officials have noted that the state has many transportation needs and that traditional state funding alone will not get the jobs done in a timely manner. The state says that more than 80 percent of the transportation department's $1.1 billion budget goes for maintenance of the current system. That's why the involvement of a private company was sought.

The transportation department notes that the Federal Highway Administration defines a public-private partnership as a "contractual agreement formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that allow(s) for greater private sector participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects." The word public is the most important part of that sentence, and officials should be reminded of who pays the bills and act accordingly.

Another bill, this one by Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, would require more transparency in future public-private partnerships lasting more than 35 years. If approved, there would be requirements for town hall meetings and legislative approval and oversight.

Such a bill is important, because it's not hard to see where the next public-private highway deal might occur: here in Northern Colorado. If it does, residents should be part of the mix.

Bicyclists want motorists automatically guilty

Link to article here.

Scotland: Bicyclists Seek To Declare Motorists Automatically Guilty
Bicycle activists in Scotland move to make car drivers automatically liable in the event of an accident.
The Newspaper.com
April 28, 2014

When there is a collision between a bicyclist and a motorist, the Scottish Parliament is considering making it a rule that the automobile driver is presumed responsible. Thousands "pedaled on Parliament" in Edinburgh Saturday in a rally to convince lawmakers to adopt the strict liability policy as well as other initiatives that would provide special treatment for two wheelers, such as diversion of motoring tax revenue to cycling programs.

Transport Scotland has been active in reviewing the prospects of "strict liability" legislation that would hold motorists automatically responsible in the event of a collision. The work began four years as part of the agency's "Cycling Action Plan." Members of the Scottish Parliament have been meeting with bicycle activists to develop an implementation strategy. At one meeting, Dave du Feu with the Lothian Cycle Campaign warned of the need to carefully manage public perception.

"Du Feu also expressed support for ensuring that the campaign succeeds," the minutes of an April 2013 meeting with parliamentarians stated. "Du Feu noted that there has, to date, been mixed public opinion with some people thinking that it is cyclists angling to be a 'special case.'"

The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) went beyond that criticism and called the plan a "fraudsters charter" that would lead to innocent motorists being penalized for the mistakes of bicyclists.

"A driver could be involved in an accident caused, for an example by a cyclist running a red light, yet potentially face hefty legal bills trying to prove their innocence," ABD spokesman Sean Corker said in a statement.

Beyond strict liability, the Pedal on Parliament group released a manifesto demanding the speed limit on residential roads be cut to 20 MPH. The plan also seeks to take away lanes from automobile traffic for use by dedicated bicycle lanes. The basic idea is to destroy the UK's "car culture" and replace it with one that favors pedal-powered transport.

"In the Netherlands, bikes reign supreme," a Pedal on Parliament video explains. "And the cars are the ones who must show care and navigate around... Is it not about time we gave the bicycle a bit more respect in the UK?"

The ABD insists the idea that the way for cyclists to get respect is not to shake down the motoring public.

"All drivers could potentially be affected in the same way that we are all potentially vulnerable to credit card fraud or identity theft," Corker said.

Columnist rants against tolls entering D.C., calls it 'rape'

SIMMONS: A HOT D.C. is point of no return

Bundy grazing battle more complex than first blush

Link to article here.

Nevada Cattle Rancher Standoff Far More Complex than Simple Lawbreaking
Cliven Bundy claims that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights’ on federal land because his ancestors kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, before the Department of the Interior was created. However, by continuing to graze his livestock on federal land for over 20 years after he stopped paying fees in 1993, Bundy may have acquired “prescriptive rights;” the right to an easement over property after trespassing on it for several years.

By Rachel Alexander | April 23, 2014
Selous Foundation for Public Policy & Research

Some legalistic conservatives aren’t jumping to the defense of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his recent standoff with the federal government. They’d rather focus on the fact that he broke federal law by not paying taxes for permitting his cattle to graze on 150 square miles of scrub desert overseen by the federal government. Such a shallow analysis fails to take into account the facts during the years leading up to the showdown, as well as other laws that may likely exonerate him.

Bundy paid grazing taxes until 1993, when federal grazing rules were restricted in the Gold Butte and Bunkerville areas of Nevada for the dubious reason of protecting the desert tortoise. The desert tortoise is listed as vulnerable, not endangered, despite virtually every media article hysterically referring to it as “endangered.” It is not clear how grazing cattle threatens the desert tortoise. Even more bizarre, it has been revealed that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has shot many of the desert tortoises it claims to protect.

Infuriated by the federal government instituting these draconian environmental regulations in 1993, Bundy insisted on paying grazing fees to local government instead of the feds, so his money wouldn’t be used against him, but Clark County declined. After that, Bundy says the federal government overreach drove every other rancher in the area out of business except him.

He owns the last large cattle ranch remaining in Clark County. The feds now own 84 percent of the land in Nevada, and large portions of other Western states, including a massive 96 percent of the land in Alaska.

Bundy’s friction with the federal government is nothing new. In the 1970s, cattle ranchers in the Western states fought with the federal government over land in what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion.

It was widely believed that President Jimmy Carter instigated it, by purposely punishing ranchers in the states that didn’t vote for him by “halting work on vital water projects, hiking fees for grazing cattle on public land and attempting to break up large farms irrigated by federal water systems.” Former president Ronald Reagan ran for president backing the rebellion, saying in a campaign speech, “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.”

Bundy claims that he inherited “pre-emptive grazing rights” on federal land because his ancestors kept cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, before the Department of the Interior was created. “My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed,” Bundy told KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. Bundy has also argued that Nevada’s open range statute excuses his trespass.

So far, the federal courts have sided with BLM against him on both of these legal arguments, very likely due to a cozy relationship between the two branches of government under the liberal Obama administration.

However, by continuing to graze his livestock on federal land for over 20 years after he stopped paying fees in 1993, Bundy may have acquired “prescriptive rights;” the right to an easement over property after trespassing on it for several years. Columnist Ben Swann interviewed Montana cattle rancher Todd Devlin about the possibility. Devlin asked the BLM if Bundy had acquired prescriptive rights, and was told that the agency is concerned he may have.

The BLM could have attached a lien to the cattle, instead of spending $3 million forcibly rounding them up. The reason the BLM didn’t try to remove the cattle peaceably this way through the court system may be because it wouldn’t have won due to Bundy’s prescriptive rights.

Instead, the BLM forcibly started seizing Bundy’s cattle, and destroyed several of them. Former judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News, “The draconian, authoritarian way that the government is going after Mr. Bundy is obviously to try and scare him, and scare ranchers, and send a message which is utterly un-American and not consistent with a free people.” Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) spoke out during the standoff, “I told him [BLM Director Neil Kornze] very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.”

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval also sided with Bundy, saying, “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans. The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”

In recent years, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has attempted to seize land in Nevada and award it to his major political contributors. Since the head of the BLM is a former high-level staffer for Reid, it appears very likely that Reid masterminded the Bundy cattle siege, in a type of eminent domain. One anonymous source who has lived in the area for 35 years says the BLM is using the desert tortoise as a pretext to grab the land and seize its water rights.

There have been several cases similar to Bundy’s in recent years. Rancher Wayne Hage won his battle against the government by arguing that he had the right to graze his cattle within two miles of a water source he had developed. Bundy’s case may yet be resolved in a manner such as this.

This dispute has sparked a debate over the federal government’s massive land grabs and intrusions into states’ rights. Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who helped Bundy get his livestock back, said, “It’s time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada.” At a town meeting, Bundy declared, “It’s about freedom and liberty and our Constitution … and above all it’s about our policing power. Who has policing power today?” It was local law enforcement that finally broke the standoff, not the BLM. Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts ended it by announcing that Bundy’s cattle would be returned within 30 minutes.

Bundy may not be a sympathetic person, in part due to his statements about not recognizing the federal government and holing up with his guns. But Americans are fed up with the federal government’s expansion and overreach, and so even though Bundy was technically breaking a law, patriots stood with him because this was a clear example of how government expansion had forced out hundreds of innocent ranchers over the years. Bundy broke the law, but only because the law had become so oppressive it was destroying the livelihood of ranchers in the name of radical environmentalism and crony capitalism.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation last year that would have given state governments more control over federal land and the Endangered Species Act. Considering this has been taking place since the Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s, it is long overdue for local and state governments to take back control of land seized by the federal government.

Rachel Alexander is the founder of the Intellectual Conservative and an attorney. Ms. Alexander is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Aussie firm defends U.S. toll road failure

Link to article here.

Australian Tolling Firm Defends US Toll Road Failure
Capital Beltway high occupancy toll lane project loses $51 million in its first year of operation.
February 20, 2014
TheNewspaper.com

An Australian toll road company is getting defensive about its investment in an underperforming toll road in Virginia. Located just outside Washington, DC, the state and federal authorities poured hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds on what was supposed to be a showcase for public-private partnership innovation. Transurban charges up to $10 for a short 13-mile trip high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on the Capital Beltway, a proposition that far fewer motorists than expected have found worthwhile. Though the firm collects an average of $64,000 per day from drivers, this amount is well below projections. Transurban CEO Scott Charlton defended the plan with investors in a conference call last week.

"Traffic and revenue has remained below our project case expectations," Charlton admitted. "We've now completed a full review and the result is a reduction in traffic and an extension of our ramp-up profile."

The executive blamed the poor performance on the brief government shutdown last October and the current bout of "extreme weather." To cover the losses, the firm is restructuring $430 million in debt for the Interstate 495 project and making an equity call to investors to put more money into the lanes.

"We think there is long term value here, recognizing that this is a 75-year concession period," Charlton said.

Transurban unsuccessfully attempted to draw extra traffic to the pay lanes by holding down the speed limit in the general purpose lanes with a non-compete clause in its contract with the Virginia Department of Transportation. The idea was to lure customers with the chance of legally driving 10 MPH faster by paying a toll. In total, the 495 project lost $51.6 million last year. It collected $11.6 million in tolls and issued $3.2 million in fines and fees. It cost $18.9 million to collect those tolls and operate the road, on top of the $36.4 million cost of financing the debt. The books also reflect $11.1 million in depreciation.

Still, Transurban profit was down just $200,000 in the first half of the fiscal year, thanks to a 13 percent increase in toll revenue from higher rates imposed on all other toll roads worldwide.

Instead of waiting to see how the 495 lanes performed, the state of Virginia raced ahead with a plan to give the Australian firm control of 29 miles of existing lanes on Interstate 95. Construction on adding the toll collecting equipment has advanced with a scheduled completion date set for the end of the year. Transurban controls the Interstate 495 lanes until December 2087.

In reference to other failing toll projects, including the Pocahontas Parkway in Richmond, Charlton pointed to faulty traffic and revenue forecasts, a known problem in the industry (read report).

"Small traffic modeling assumptions compound exponentially and create some outcomes that were not the best outcomes for some of the investors in some of these projects," Charlton said. "Again, we continue to apply our discipline and we think we differentiate ourselves from the rest of the market."

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 20 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases