Posted on 10/09/2005 3:49:43 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
AUSTIN - The first of nine state constitutional amendments proposed on the Nov. 8 ballot would establish a fund through which taxpayers would help pay for relocating freight rail lines from congested urban areas.
Like most of the ballot proposals, except for the ban on same-sex marriages, Proposition 1 has received little attention. But it is beginning to spark some debate and, depending on how it fares at the polls, could become an issue in the March Republican governor's primary.
Proposition 1 supporters, including Gov. Rick Perry, think the new fund would be an important step toward easing traffic congestion and improving public safety in Texas' cities.
Opponents, who include Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the governor's GOP primary challenger, contend the proposal represents, more than anything else, an expensive gift of tax dollars for railroad companies, whose political arms have been generous contributors to Perry, Strayhorn and other state officials.
Proposition 1 would amend the Texas Constitution to authorize the creation of the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund in the state treasury. The Texas Transportation Commission would administer the fund and could issue bonds pledged against it.
The proposal includes no funding, and it doesn't specify how much should be set aside for the effort.
If voters approve the amendment, the Legislature would have to provide initial funding in 2007.
The fund could be used to relocate or improve private or publicly owned rail facilities to relieve congestion on highways, improve public safety or air quality, or expand economic opportunity.
Safer crossings sought
Earlier this year, Perry signed separate agreements with Union Pacific Railroad and the BNSF Railway Co., pledging the railroads' and the state's cooperation in moving freight rail out of densely populated urban areas.
The governor said the initiative would lead to safer rail crossings, less hazardous cargo carried through populated areas and faster movement of products to market because freight trains no longer would have to slow down in congested areas.
More than 5,500 people have been killed or injured in vehicle-train collisions in Texas since 1984, Perry said.
Supporters of the amendment also say old freight lines could be upgraded for urban commuter trains.
The proposed relocations tie into the Trans-Texas Corridor concept, Perry's long-range proposal for a dedicated transportation network stretching across Texas.
Perry's agreements with the railroads, however, didn't say how the relocations, which could cost untold millions of dollars, would be paid for, except that the agreement with Union Pacific ruled out additional taxes or fees on the railroad industry.
Provisions for funding
Proposition 1 would provide a funding source, although Perry spokesman Robert Black emphasized, "I don't think it was ever determined for the state to do (pay for) all of it."
Union Pacific spokesman Joe Arbona said the railroad's financial contribution to rail relocations would depend on the project. "If it's something that would be beneficial to the railroad, we would pay for that part that's beneficial to us," he said.
Union Pacific's political action committee donated more than $300,000 to Texas political candidates and parties during the 2004 election cycle. That included $25,000 to Perry, $50,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and $15,000 to Strayhorn, who weren't up for election then, and $20,000 to House Speaker Tom Craddick, who was.
Texas political contributions by BNSF's political action committee totaled about $80,000 during the 2004 cycle, mostly to parties and committees.
Dewhurst received $10,000 from the PAC.
There were no donations to Perry, Craddick or Strayhorn.
Strayhorn hasn't made an issue of Proposition 1, but spokesman Mark Sanders said the comptroller will vote against it because "she believes that taxpayers should not have to pay to subsidize private industry."
Source of opposition
Much of the opposition to Proposition 1 is being drummed up by Texas Toll Party, a group that formed in Austin initially to fight the conversion of tax-financed highways to toll roads. The group hasn't endorsed anyone in the governor's race yet, but it has found common ground with Strayhorn in opposing Perry's support of toll roads and now in opposition to the rail proposal.
Sal Costello, the group's founder, called the amendment an "open-ended corporate subsidy scheme — a blank check."
"That means increased taxes somewhere down the line," he said. "Perry's folks probably don't know (how much it will cost), and they don't care. They will send us the bill."
Spokesman Frank Michel said Houston Mayor Bill White is concerned about traffic congestion and safety issues involved with a large number of rail crossings, but he said the city hasn't formally taken a position on the amendment.
CorridorWatch.org - TxDOT and Money (09.20.05)
CorridorWatch.org (09.20.05)
TxDOT AND MONEY
by CorridorWatch.org Member, San Antonio
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is big business. In fiscal year 2004, it took in $6.1 billion in taxes and fees. If it were a private corporation, it would rank 304th in the Fortune 500, ahead of companies like Southwest Airlines ($5.9B), Monsanto ($4.9B), and Starbucks ($4.1B).
Unlike a private corporation which depends on attracting customers, TxDOT is a governmental monopoly without competition. It gets its revenues from both user taxes and fees as well as tax subsidies from non-users. Approximately one-third of TxDOT revenue comes from state excise taxes on gasoline, diesel and other motor fuels. The tax that most Texans are aware of is the state gasoline excise tax which is 20-cents per gallon. Twenty of the 50 states have a gasoline excise tax less than 20-cents per gallon.
Texas taxes diesel fuel at the same rate as gasoline even though large, heavy trucks – usually powered with diesel fuel – cause most of the wear and tear on our roads. According to the Federal Highway Administration, large tractor trailer trucks are responsible for road costs on a vehicle-mile basis that are more than 10 times that of automobiles. To achieve more equity, 15 states charge a higher excise tax on diesel fuel than on gasoline.
In 2003 (the most recent year for which comparison data is available), TxDOT was second only to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in terms of total disbursements. In that year, Caltrans spent $9.3B while TxDOT spent $6.8B. But, California has more population than Texas, so Caltrans only spent $259 per person compared to TxDOT’s $306 per person.
In addition, Caltrans spent 23.7% of its budget on local streets and roads as well as grants to local governments while TxDOT only spent 6.5% of its budget on local roads. As a result, TxDOT spent $286 for every man, woman and child in Texas only on its state owned roads. This is $88 per person more than Caltrans spent on its state road system.
In Texas, cities and counties are expected to come up with their own funding for local roads as well as to contribute to state road projects. Two cents of every dollar spent by TxDOT comes from sources such as local property and sales taxes. San Antonio is the only Texas city with a specific general sales tax dedicated only to state road projects.
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/pdf/TxDOT%20and%20Money.pdf
============
Editors Note: California collects 80% more tax per gallon than Texas (35.9-cents/gallon including California state excise and sales taxes). If Texas made gasoline (and road diesel) subject to state sales tax and dedicated that revenue to highways it would more than double TxDOT's state gas tax revenue for highways.
For Additional Information Visit:
http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-gastax-states.htm
============
CorridorWatch.org
============
CorridorWatch.org MEMBER BULLETIN (09-18-05)
> TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER CONFIRMS CORRIDORWATCH PREDICTION
> MORE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS JOIN OPPOSITION
> MEMBERSHIP GROWS TO 174 COUNTIES
==================
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER CONFIRMS CORRIDORWATCH PREDICTION
Two weeks ago CorridorWatch issued a bulletin to its membership expressing concern that the massive Wal-Mart purchase-lease land scheme recently touted by State officials would serve as the model for development along the length of the Trans-Texas Corridor. It is a concern CorridorWatch has expressed and monitored for more than a year.
Today that concern has turned very real.
Yesterday, the Victoria Advocate reported Texas Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton, Jr., as telling a group assembled at the Victoria Country Club that "the corridor would create opportunities for economic development." As predicted by CorridorWatch and now reported by the Advocate, Commissioner Houghton went on to cite the "recently constructed 4 million-square-foot Wal-Mart distribution center in Baytown" as his example for future corridor development.
Rather than sticking to the traditional government role of providing infrastructure that encourages private development and free enterprise, the State itself is now playing the part of developer.
In the Baytown deal, Wal-Mart has secured preferential treatment over thousands other businesses in Texas. Thanks to the sweetheart deal Wal-Mart will avoid paying nearly $3 million dollars a year in local property taxes that would have otherwise added to the local economy. Meanwhile the State will collect large profits as the land developer.
These agreements erode local government revenues while increasing the burden on local taxpayers to provide infrastructure and services. The State reaps profits, big business avoids taxes, and taxpayers pick up the tab.
Some Texas legislators may have thought they solved this problem during the last session. House Bill 2702 removed the property tax exemption for private commercial use of highway and toll project land. While addressing the property tax issue for traveler services built on the future toll roads, it apparently does not to extend to adjacent ancillary facilities. Commissioner Houghton continues to envision State land development along the TTC.
CorridorWatch has serious concerns about the State of Texas using powers and leverage only available to government to directly compete with private land developers.
SOURCE:
http://www.thevictoriaadvocate.com/front/story/3042135p-3526781c.html
==================
MORE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS JOIN OPPOSITION
Grimes County Commissioner’s Court joined thirty-one other counties last week when they passed a Resolution opposing the Trans Texas Corridor. [See http://CorridorWatch.org for a complete list]
Opposition continues to grow. Members have reported Resolutions opposing the TTC passed by twelve cities, three school districts, two electric co-op, three water supply districts, and a city economic development corporation.
==================
MEMBERSHIP GROWS TO 174 COUNTIES
This week CorridorWatch.org added a new member in Floyd County. That gives us thousands of members across 174 Texas counties.
==================
CorridorWatch.org
==================
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
Will this end of being an eminent domain issue?
end up?
Wouldn't surprise me.
Sounds good to me. Not only will moving freight rail to the outskirts make it easier to tie cargo haulers in to the upcoming Trans-Texas high-speed rail net, it will have two other beneficial effects:
1) It will increase throughput on city streets by getting rid of the many at-grade crossings which currently block major thoroughfares, and
2) It will free up existing urban rail corridors for better uses, such as regional commuter rail, reducing infrastructure costs for transit systems.
Our city would benefit greatly from freight rail relocation. It only takes one big train on our at-grade crossings to essentially cut our central city area in half, and we get at least half a dozen such trains through town daily -- each tying up traffic for miles around as they pass. Too, the regional transit authority has long wanted to provide a commuter service down the extant UP road that runs through the downtown area of our city. As the Era of Cheap Gasoline begins to draw to a close, demand for commuter rail here in North Texas is growing steadily; with the UP road freed from freight rail traffic, commuter trains could serve our area much more efficiently than it is now served (by the often-packed single-track service running on the BNSF road twelve miles to the north of our town).
Based on what I know today, I support the proposal.
I am not even running on the track and I support the proposal. Getting high density rail out of high density urban areas is only good sense. We do not care where we run our trains. We are damn tired of running over you people. Sit with me behind the throttle one time at 60 mph going through an urban area at 500pm. You will have to pull the seat out of your
Thanks for the ping!
BTTT
Thanks for the ping.
Jen
Are you worried about the eminent domain issue? That is, the relocations could end up taking land from private landowners for private, not public, use. At least with the privately-run highway section of the Trans-Texas Corridor, you could make a case that the highway is still public use.
Another way of looking at it is if a company wanted to establish a commuter railroad, it's quite possible that eminent domain would be legitimate, since the general public would be using the road. However, a freight railroad does not qualify as public use, as far as I can tell, unless Amtrak runs on it, perhaps.
You all are welcome. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.