CA Considers HOT Lanes

In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> necromancer wrote:
>> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
>> rec.autos.driving:
>> > The government is inept.
>>
>> Just look at the bush admin.
>
> You bet - and Pelosi is no sharp knife either. Doesn't that scare you
> just a little bit allowing government to grow and grow....

He's not and neither am I.

>> > Private enterprise cheats
>> Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia.....

> And they're in jail. Seems it works pretty well.

Seems most escape jail.

> But you don't have a solution that changes anything. That, and you
> started out with a fallacy (ownership). The State of Texas will own
> the land and road.

Don't drop the word effective. I put there or 'lease' in quotes to
indicate that I understand the difference, but don't consider it
significant given the length of the term.

> User
> fees based on actual use will be the source of revenue to pay for the
> road's construction.

And profit for several decades.

> Now, you give me a solution that accomplishes that and meets your
> ethics criteria.

Why do we need to unload goods made in china in Mexico and truck them to
Kansas?

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
rec.autos.driving:
> But you don't have a solution that changes anything. That, and you
> started out with a fallacy (ownership). The State of Texas will own
> the land and road. The State of Texas will not be required to use tax
> dollars to pay for the building the road. The State of Texas will not
> be required to sell bonds to finance the construction of the road. User
> fees based on actual use will be the source of revenue to pay for the
> road's construction.

What's wrong with the state if TX building the road and collecting the
tolls? Set up a tollway authority or something similar if you absolutely
have to keep it seperate from the rest of the state govt. Then any
profit made would stay in TX for the benefit of the people living there
instead of going to God only knows who.

> Now, you give me a solution that accomplishes that and meets your
> ethics criteria. Remember, niether the government or the private
> sector can be involved in the funding or running of the road. Perhaps
> a not-for-profit foundation funded by charitable contributions? Ooops,
> that won't work - a 501(C) costs the taxpayers lost revenue....hmmmm

necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> >
> > necromancer wrote:
> > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> > > rec.autos.driving:
> >
> > In spite of my best efforts, you are incorrigable.
>
> And why is that? Because I dare to form my own opinions on things

Yes, that you do - you form opinions. The basis of the opinion is
false but as an American, you are entitled, regardless.

> and
> don't let shrill people like yourself force your opinions on me?

I don't have an opinion regarding the road - I made an assumption that
the people of Texas as represented by their government wanted this
road. If that is not the case, then it is their call, is it not?

I expressed my opinion that the method by which Texas propoes to fund
and amange the building and operation of this road through the PPP
process is a good one. Please go back and read what I wrote if you are
having a problem discerning this difference.

> The
> simple fact is that I regard foreign ownership (and yes, I know its a
> lease, but a 99 year lease may as well be a sale from our point of view)

And that is the fallacy. It is not a sale. The land does not revert
to the King of Spain or the contractor. The road is owned by the State
of Texas. There is no way around this.

The lease is severable (see the agreement for severability clause) and
early termination is part of the agreement: listed in section 19..3.2
and 19.3.3. Non-performance is a severable provision as is default.

Exhibit 4 specifies the tollrate and tollrate calculations.

The agreement cannot be assigned to third parties without the express
agreement of the TxDOT. Solves the problem of selling it to someone
you don't like.

> of vital US infrastructure like this highway to be BAD, period.

Why? You haven't come up with a single valid reason why this is bad.
You did come up with a lot of emotion but not a single valid reason.

The road is owned by the state. The construction is funded by a
lender. The lender is paid back over the 99 year lease from tolls.
The operations of the road are governed by contract. The road cannot
be closed. It cannot fall into disrepair. Tolls cannot be raised
above the formula. The rights to the lease cannot be transfered
without TxDOT agreement. The borders are still managed by the US
Government.

What else did you argue makes it "bad?"

> > Your underlying
> > premise is faulty because you haven't a clue and you didn't make the
> > effort to educate yourself. I won't waste any more time with you.
> >
> > Here is your fallacious premise. Since the rest of the argument is
> > solely dependent on this fallacy, it has no merit.
> >
> > > Which makes it foreign owned as far as I am concerned....
> >
> > > They could do that and more. As the owners of the road (which AFAIC will
> > > be foreign soil) they can do as they damn well please.
> >
> > The agreement is one of lessee and lessor. There is a second
> > management contract for operations. The road is owned by the State of
> > Texas. The financing for building the road comes from a consortium of
> > investors from around the world. The road is managed by the
> > consortium. The consortium gets paid back its investment and interst
> > from the tolls collected.
> >
> > The contract determines the conditionals, responsibilities, and
> > remedies for breach. Its a business deal. These deals happen all over
> > the world for all sorts of things. I applaud the State for its
> > creativity, though they weren't the first to think of it.
>
> And when it all blows up in your faces,

How exactly will it blow up in "our faces"? When the Spanish Armada
comes to Laredo?

>don't come crying to me or to
> Brent or to others who think like we do. We tried to warn you and you
> let your greed and shortsightedness get the better of you.

Warn me about what? The fact that their is a 10 lane wide road that
runs from Mexico to Canada by wehich goods and people can be moved
economically and quickly and the fact that it only costs those that use
it any money?

If we could only run the rest of the government infrastructure that way
- 100% user fee financing.

Against my better judgement I posted - I really have little else to say
but perhaps you can prompt a response with something of value. By the
way, you and Brent don't agree aboyut this road. You want the road but
not using funding from Spain and Brent doesn't want the road because he
is against the road regardless of who builds it.

Maybe the two of you can work this out? I'd be interested to see how.

js

In article . com>, js wrote:

> I don't have an opinion regarding the road - I made an assumption that
> the people of Texas as represented by their government wanted this
> road. If that is not the case, then it is their call, is it not?

You need to do more reading. There are various groups opposing it and the
public meetings have been filled with opposition from what I have come
across thus far.

BTW, I just decided to look at the wikipedia article on it...

"To help pay for building the roads and rails, the highways will be
partially financed through private investment. The investors will then
operate the highways as toll roads. The current 4,000 mile (6,400 km)
plan has a projected cost of about US$183 billion."

Note the word -partially-

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, js wrote:
>
> > I don't have an opinion regarding the road - I made an assumption that
> > the people of Texas as represented by their government wanted this
> > road. If that is not the case, then it is their call, is it not?
>
> You need to do more reading. There are various groups opposing it and the
> public meetings have been filled with opposition from what I have come
> across thus far.

Then it's time that the State of Texas address the reasons why people
don't want the road. The road has been supported by the TxDOT and has
been part of the planning process since at least 2002.

> BTW, I just decided to look at the wikipedia article on it...
>
> "To help pay for building the roads and rails, the highways will be
> partially financed through private investment. The investors will then
> operate the highways as toll roads. The current 4,000 mile (6,400 km)
> plan has a projected cost of about US$183 billion."
>
> Note the word -partially-

Note also the description of the corridorS

There are two initial TTC corridors under consideration: One would
parallel Interstate 35, from Gainesville to Laredo and passing Dallas,
Austin and San Antonio. The other would be an extension of Interstate
69, from Texarkana past Houston to either Laredo or the Rio Grande
Valley.

The part of the project under contract to Cinca-Zachary is the TCC-35
corridor (not the rest of the infrastructure planned) and will be
funded entirely by private investment.

Please do your homework. And no, Wikipedia is NOT the definitive
authority - here is the definitive authority - the contract for the
Cinca-Zachary TTC-35 Corridor.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/publicati...-24_062906.pdf

js

In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, js wrote:
>>
>> > I don't have an opinion regarding the road - I made an assumption that
>> > the people of Texas as represented by their government wanted this
>> > road. If that is not the case, then it is their call, is it not?
>>
>> You need to do more reading. There are various groups opposing it and the
>> public meetings have been filled with opposition from what I have come
>> across thus far.
>
> Then it's time that the State of Texas address the reasons why people
> don't want the road. The road has been supported by the TxDOT and has
> been part of the planning process since at least 2002.

Yes, and people have been fighting it. But as anyone who has paid
attention in recent years has seen, what the vast majority of people want
doesn't really matter any more. At best we get a symbolic flip from R to
D or D to R, but then they go ahead and do the same thing anyway. As seen
by what the Ds have been spouting recently. They aren't going to do
anything to undo what Bush has done, they are going to work with him...
Actually for some parts of Bush's agenda he doesn't have to worry about
the members of his own party that were standing up for the people any
longer and will get to move those things forward.

> The part of the project under contract to Cinca-Zachary is the TCC-35
> corridor (not the rest of the infrastructure planned) and will be
> funded entirely by private investment.

> Please do your homework.

Coming from you, this is comical.

> And no, Wikipedia is NOT the definitive authority

Did not say it was.

>- here is the definitive authority - the contract for the
> Cinca-Zachary TTC-35 Corridor.

I had already refered you to offical government sites.

necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
> rec.autos.driving:

> > But you don't have a solution that changes anything. That, and you
> > started out with a fallacy (ownership). The State of Texas will own
> > the land and road. The State of Texas will not be required to use tax
> > dollars to pay for the building the road. The State of Texas will not
> > be required to sell bonds to finance the construction of the road. User
> > fees based on actual use will be the source of revenue to pay for the
> > road's construction.
>
> What's wrong with the state if TX building the road and collecting the
> tolls? Set up a tollway authority or something similar if you absolutely
> have to keep it seperate from the rest of the state govt. Then any
> profit made would stay in TX for the benefit of the people living there
> instead of going to God only knows who.

There is nothing wrong with it at all. It doesn't alter any of what
you believe is the "bad" (the terrorist highway to death).

It does raise a couple of thorny questions, though - like where to get
the money. How will find 183 billion in new tax dollars?

Obviously you will need to borrow it from someone. How will you pay
back the people that lent you the money? From tolls you collect. Can
you find a willing investor? Will they be local?

How will you run the operation? Hire a bunch of people and develop a
company to run it. maintenance, upkeep, toll collection....many local
and state governments already outsource much of this to private
companies.....

Can the government of Texas do this efficiently and effectively? What
would the rest of the state have to give up IF the state spent 183
billion on this road project?

Here are the various ways the US has developed and financed public
sector projects:

BT (Build-Transfer) where the government contracts out the building of
the asset and funds it and operates it. Schools, for example, are
classics as are waste treatment facilities

BTO's (Build-Transfer-Operate) l- a prevalent mechanism for public
sector infrastructure development when the opportunity is there to fund
it via user fees. The private sector builds the asset with private
funding and subsequently transfers title to the government. The
private sector operates the asset under a lease agreement for a period
of years to recover its investment. This is the TTC-35 model

DBOs (Design-Build-Operate) are similar except that funding comes from
the government and not the private sector.

BOO (Build-Own-Operate) is what Necromaniac argues is the model being
used. In this model, the government builds, finances, and operates the
asset. There aren't too many of these done anymore. Hoover Dam may
have been the last one.

There is a PBOO as well - private build-own-operate. Some communities
have opted for this approach for things like cable tv and solid waste
disposal.

Then there are Service and Management contracts. The difference is the
scope of activities are limited under a Service Contract (janitorial
services) versus management contract - real estate management for
example.

And then there is the Divestiture approach where public assets are sold
to private parties and the work is conducted in the private sector by
contracting it back in. The DoD is doing this for a variety of
non-core serices (utilities and housing for example)

Here are some other examples how local and state governments have used
these approaches:

We know all about tollroads. The Skyway is an example of a Management
Contract.
The Indiana Tollroad is another such example. There are similar
examples in other states.

Other (planned) tollroads are being considered as DBO and BTO ventures.
The toll collection program on the Florida tollroad is a DBO whereas
the TTC-35 as described is a BTO.

We know about electrical utilities - they are BOOs in many cases.
There are some that are BTOs as well.

Wastewater management and solid waste disposal facilities currently
being built in Seattle, Atlanta, and Phoenix are being built under the
BTO/DBO model.

The rationale, according to the governments undertaking this is that
they get better output at lower cost. The implementation is faster,
the management better, and the results superior over BT and BOO models.

> > Now, you give me a solution that accomplishes that and meets your
> > ethics criteria. Remember, niether the government or the private
> > sector can be involved in the funding or running of the road. Perhaps
> > a not-for-profit foundation funded by charitable contributions? Ooops,
> > that won't work - a 501(C) costs the taxpayers lost revenue....hmmmm

So, there are the options. Now - what exactly is wrong with the BTO
model?

js

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, js wrote:
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article . com>, js wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't have an opinion regarding the road - I made an assumption that
> >> > the people of Texas as represented by their government wanted this
> >> > road. If that is not the case, then it is their call, is it not?
> >>
> >> You need to do more reading. There are various groups opposing it and the
> >> public meetings have been filled with opposition from what I have come
> >> across thus far.
> >
> > Then it's time that the State of Texas address the reasons why people
> > don't want the road. The road has been supported by the TxDOT and has
> > been part of the planning process since at least 2002.
>
> Yes, and people have been fighting it.

Good for them. Why are they against it? Is it because they don't see
the value in the road or is it because they don't want foreign
investment in Texas infrastructure?

> But as anyone who has paid
> attention in recent years has seen, what the vast majority of people want
> doesn't really matter any more.

Did Texans lose the right to vote?

> At best we get a symbolic flip from R to
> D or D to R, but then they go ahead and do the same thing anyway. As seen
> by what the Ds have been spouting recently. They aren't going to do
> anything to undo what Bush has done, they are going to work with him...
> Actually for some parts of Bush's agenda he doesn't have to worry about
> the members of his own party that were standing up for the people any
> longer and will get to move those things forward.

Like I said - I don't do politics.

If the road is to be built regardless, the onl;y question that I am
interested in is how to fund it and how to manage it. I like the
approach proposed. UIt makes sense, it is efficient, and it has worked
elswhere across a variety of public sector service programs.

> > The part of the project under contract to Cinca-Zachary is the TCC-35
> > corridor (not the rest of the infrastructure planned) and will be
> > funded entirely by private investment.
>
> > Please do your homework.
>
> Coming from you, this is comical.

I'm glad you find it humorous. Considering that Wikipedia is your
mentor....

>
> > And no, Wikipedia is NOT the definitive authority
>
> Did not say it was.

Well, not exactly. You used Wiki tio substantiate that the TCC-35
Cinca-Zachary road project is partially funded by taxes. It is not.

> >- here is the definitive authority - the contract for the
> > Cinca-Zachary TTC-35 Corridor.
>
> I had already refered you to offical government sites.

I refered yout to the legal agreement. No spin - yyou are familiar
with contract law, yes?

Then read it.

js

In article . com>, js wrote:

>> Yes, and people have been fighting it.
>
> Good for them. Why are they against it? Is it because they don't see
> the value in the road or is it because they don't want foreign
> investment in Texas infrastructure?

Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
their land to a for-profit road and the road's purpose is unload ships in
mexico and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
facility in Kansas city that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
the property of mexico.

>> But as anyone who has paid
>> attention in recent years has seen, what the vast majority of people want
>> doesn't really matter any more.

> Did Texans lose the right to vote?

Since you don't do politics, explaining the whole false choice thing and
lying that is done in politics probably is a waste of time.

> If the road is to be built regardless, the onl;y question that I am
> interested in is how to fund it and how to manage it. I like the
> approach proposed. UIt makes sense, it is efficient, and it has worked
> elswhere across a variety of public sector service programs.

Name them.

> Well, not exactly. You used Wiki tio substantiate that the TCC-35
> Cinca-Zachary road project is partially funded by taxes. It is not.

I stated nothing of the sort. You create these things out of your mind. I
am refering to the entire TTC scope and I didn't say the other money came
from taxes.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
> their land to a for-profit road and the road's purpose is unload ships in
> mexico and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
> facility in Kansas city that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
> the property of mexico.

Just my dumb stupid curiosity, but *why* is this customs facility going
to be in KC as opposed to on the border where it belongs? Sounds like
almost 1000 miles (give or take) for a dirty bomb or other harmful
materials/contraband to take a detour off this road.

--
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin