Roadblock:
Riders On The Storm
By Paul Burka
21 April, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
two-year moratorium on the privatization of highways that Lois Kolkhorst
tacked onto a transportation bill in the House last week was just the
first shot against the Trans-Texas Corridor. The amendment prohibited
the Tx-DOT from entering into a comprehensive development agreement
with any private entity and banned the sale of any toll road to a private
entity until the moratorium expires on September 1, 2009. (The amendment
did contain some carve-outs for certain regional toll authorities.)
Senate budget writers fired
the second volley this week in a series of riders in the Tx-DOT budget
that inhibit the department's ability to enter into privatization agreements
free of legislative oversight, as it has been able to do until now.
The House version of the budget also addresses oversight issues, particularly
of the Corridor. In addition to these riders, others place strict reporting
requirements on the department to account for its use of funds.
Four years after the Legislature
gave Tx-DOT carte blanche to privatize the state highway system, lawmakers
have reasserted their control. This is a salutary development, the real
credit for which goes to the public, which saw the potential for abuse
and corruption in the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as its cost to motorists
and its impact on rural property ownership, long before the politicians
did. The two budget bills, which will be reconciled in conference committee,
go a long way toward establishing legislative oversight regarding the
Corridor and toll roads generally.
Legislators should recognize,
however, that the moratorium and the budget riders do not solve the
long-term mobility issues facing Texas. The ultimate objective is a
superior system of free intercity roads, supplemented by toll roads
in congested areas, that are built, maintained, and operated with public
funds. This is an achievable objective. Despite assertions by Tx-DOT
in the past that this objective cannot be realized without tolling,
the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M has indicated otherwise:
Increasing the gasoline tax by 8 cents per gallon and indexing the tax
to inflation in the highway construction index will produce sufficient
revenue for the state to meet its transportation needs over the next
25 years by issuing bonds. Unfortunately, the political will and leadership
necessary to take these steps do not seem to be present, although you
would think that the hostility toward the Corridor outside the Capitol
would provide enough cover to allow those inside to muster a little
courage.
The public uprising against
the Trans-Texas Corridor is a significant event in Texas political history.
Historically, grass roots activism has not flourished here. A few groups
have been effective in getting their programs enacted--Mothers Against
Drunk Driving comes to mind--but, session after session, the agenda
tends to be set by the lobby and the leadership, who are responsive
to important organized constituencies within their political parties.
The last time I can recall citizens storming the Capitol demanding action
occurred in the late eighties, when overcrowding of Texas prisons led
to the release of violent criminals by the thousands. The Legislature
responded with a mammoth prison-building program. In the last couple
of years, however, Texans have organized to express concerns about illegal
immigration (on both sides of the issue), about coal plants, and about
Governor Perry's and Speaker Craddick's hostility toward the education
community--and, of course, about the Trans-Texas Corridor. I think this
new activism reflects that Texas is changing in ways we don't fully
understand, that quality of life issues are becoming as important as
social and economic issues, and that the state's political leadership
is seen as being out of touch with the times. And rightfully so.
I seem to have strayed from
the subject of the transportation riders. The Senate's provisions appear
first, then the House's. The numbering of the Senate riders, immediately
below, is my own, not the budget writers'. Both bills can be found on
the Legislative Budget Board's Web site. The Department of Transportation
budget is in Article VII.
#1. Comprehensive Development
Agreements (translation: privatization)
The Department of Transportation
may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department
under a comprehensive development agreement and deposited to the State
Highway Fund #6, including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. the department submits
a report to the Legislative Budget Board ... outlining the amount of
funds available from such payments ..., the department's anticipated
use of such funds and their projected impacts, and
b. The Legislative Budget
Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#2. Appropriations of Concession
Fees and Payments Received under a Comprehensive Development Agreement.
The Department of Transportation
may not expend any amounts from payments received by the department
under a Comprehensive Development Agreement and deposited to the State
Highway Fund...including applicable concession fees, unless:
a. The department submits
a report to the LBB ... outlining the amount of funds available from
such payments ..., the department's anticipated use of such funds, and
their projected impacts; and
b. The Legislative Budget
Board issues a written approval for the use of such funds.
#3. Toll Project Revenue
and Funds Report.
Using funds appropriated
above, the Department of Transportation shall submit to the Legislative
Budget Board...an annual report of all state toll project revenue received
and any other related funds that are deposited outside the state treasury,
including the purpose and use of such funds....
#4. Limitations on Expenditures
for Contracts
a. Without prior approval
of the Legislative Budget Board, the Department of Transportation shall
not use funds appropriated above to enter into any contract with a private
participant for the construction, maintenance, or operation of a road
or highway in the State of Texas that:
(1) contains any provision
that would guarantee or ensure a return on investment;
(2) would reduce the risk
of the private participant as a result of any action taken by the department
or the State of Texas;
(3) would limit or penalize
the expansion of any other department-run facilities designed to reduce
congestion;
(4) fails to contain a stated
buy-back provision that can be calculated without using estimates of
future revenues;
(5) contains any possible
financial liability that could be inherited by the department, the State
of Texas, or any other state agency.
(b) The Legislative Budget
Board may consider a request from the Department of Transportation to
expend funds appropriated above to enter into a contract containing
any of the criteria specified in this rider. A request by the department
to expend funds under this provision must include information regarding
the location, project costs, and projected benefits to the state for
each project request proposed under such contracts.
The House also adopted a
rider addressing the Trans-Texas Corridor, reflecting recommendations
made earlier in the session by the State Auditor:
Miscellaneous Provisions
Related to Toll Roads and Trans-Texas Corridor Projects.
a. Toll Road Projects. The
Department of Transportation may not use appropriate funds to pay any
costs related to making projections, using department personnel, of
revenue to be generated by a toll road project. The department may use
appropriated funds to may the cost of making those projections only
if the projections are made under an interagency contract between the
department and the Comptroller of Public Accounts under which the Comptroller:
(1) makes the projections
for the department; and
(2) projects the toll revenue
for each geographic region of a toll road segment before the department
signs a contract with a developer to operate, lease, and finance that
segment.
Click
here to comment
on this article