80 replies to this topic

[FoUTASportscaster]

Let's set something straight. This idea was introduced as a way to pay for transit and transit only. No highways. Highways were introduced as a way to compromise with those who are pro-highway. Then the bill states that if you already have a transit tax, that money can be used for roads. Then, along comes a Tarrant County official who says were are better off spending the money on a highway rather than a rail. I call you naive because either you are (at the age of 55 and a follower of rail, you would have seen this repeatedly over the course of your lifetime in Texas) or you aren't truthful about your age (since someone who would actually believe that a pro-highway state like Texas would actually share taxes with transit first, then take the scraps would have to be young). Given the context of your posts, I'm inclined to believe the second.

On more than one instance, pro-highway folks have tried to gut the sales tax from DART and the T for road purposes. After the failed 1988 DART bond vote, the were partially successful, as 25% of the sales tax that was collected from the burbs were returned for road improvements. That is exactly what is going on again. The major difference this time, is unlike the DART sales tax that is exclusively tied to transit, this bill won't be and a lot more money can be diverted to road and highway use and not transit.

[AndyN]

Please, gentlemen! Let's focus on discussion of the topic and not Electricron's naiveté.

We can have spirited debate without speculating on or disparaging the mental state of the posters.

[FoUTASportscaster]

10-4

[Electricron]

The local option tax reserved exclusively for transit, was dead upon arrival (DOA) on reaching the Texas Legislature this session. Without a funding solution from the Legislature this session, whether you think one should compromise or not over the transit and highway funding, the Rail North Texas initiative will be dead. NCTCOG will have to delete the Rail North Texas plan from its 2030 and future plans because its unfunded. By Federal Law, unfunded plans must be removed. NCTCOG is relying upon Rail North Texas to meet Environmental requirements (Ozone), therefore removing it from future plans also means reworking how North Texas will meet its environmental targets. Without a plan to meet environmental targets in place, no Federal funds can be spent in this area on transportation, highways, transitways, bike paths, etc.

Without a compromise to find a rail funding mechanism, Rail North Texas is dead and North Central Texas Council of Governments losses millions of Federal dollars, until another plan is developed. As long as a funding mechanism exists that potentially finances rail, the Rail North Texas plans can continue to exist. That's why our North Texas bill sponsors have been compromising.

[FoUTASportscaster]

In my personal opinion, the rail proposal is dead either way. Either the bill dies or it passes and the money will get jacked for highways. Plus, let's say in the perfect world, this bill does get put before voters. Do you honestly expect them to raise their taxes for rail in Tarrant, Denton or Collin Couinties, which have historically been hostile to transit taxes? Tarrant maybe, but I can't see the others excepting it that don't have it, and voters in cities with existing service voting to tax themselves again.

Except for the southern suburbs, Dallas County doesn't really need it and if they tax themselves, the money will be used for roads. Overall, this funding mechanism is flawed.

Plus, look at the bright side, this proposal doesn't stop you from getting a highway to Granbury.

[360texas]

There was always something odd about that transit issue. It was not a matter of if we wanted it or not... it was.. ok WE decided YOU Need it.. Now how do YOU want to pay for it.

Wrong !

I just bought a Hybrid.... yeah go ahead and add a 10 cent gas tax. I will be buying only 1/3th the gas I bought last year. Last year we were getting 24 mpg. This year we are getting close to 60.
Extend that thinking to where IF everyone got 60 - 100 miles per gallon [not realistic].... look at your source of funding now !!!

[RD Milhollin]

yeah go ahead and add a 10 cent gas tax. I will be buying only 1/3th the gas I bought last year. Last year we were getting 24 mpg. This year we are getting close to 60.
Extend that thinking to where IF everyone got 60 - 100 miles per gallon [not realistic].... look at your source of funding now !!!

Ha ha, I just fixed up my old '89 CRX and am getting close to 45 mpg! Raise the state fuel tax 20 cents! If the government can put sufficient pressure on the domestic auto manufacturers (who "owe us one" now) to produce good quality hybrids, and the federal gasoline tax is adjusted quarterly to assure a $3.75 per gallon price, people will buy, economies of scale will lower the cost per unit so more people can afford a new hybrid, and those who insist on driving battle tanks will bear the tax burden for building the new infrastructure. seems OK to me.

[360texas]

Well said. YES

[Electricron]

Personally, I think the State should raise the gas tax 10 cents per gallon anyways, with the local option potentially adding an additional 10 cents per gallon.
The first 10 cents per gallon will only restore the ratio of tax to price of gas that the State charged more than 10 years ago. The second 10 cents per gallon could be used for financing regional transit projects.

The major problem with the local option gas tax is that it requires two votes. Vote #1 a state wide vote to change the State's Constitution to allow a local gas tax, and Vote #2 a local county wide vote financing specific projects.

Sen Corona has a few new tricks up his sleeve.
http://trailblazersb...rtation-bi.html
Local-option transportation bill takes a short cut.

What began as the North Texas rail bill and now has expanded to include other large metro areas has spurted ahead in the process.
The local-option component has won some stiff opposition from conservative groups - including the Republican Party of Texas - that frown on rising taxes. The bill would allow voters in certain communities to pass a tax on themselves through various means -- be it higher gas taxes, a vehicle registration or drivers license add-on fee, or parking and emissions charges. The new money would be used for transit projects wanted by the community, such as rail.
The bill had passed the Senate and was awaiting action in the House on Thursday. But the entire proposal has now been attached to another bill - the Texas Department of Transportation sunset bill, which already has passed the House and was voted out of a Senate committee on Wednesday.
Those following the issue said when the TxDOT bill passes the Senate, then the local option provision will be part of the discussion during conference committee. This procedure basically just jumps the bill through a few less hurdles and bypasses what could have been a fiesty debate in the full House.

[Electricron]

Local Option Tax for transportation dead!

http://www.dallasnew...ot.44bc67b.html

For three straight legislative sessions, Dallas-area officials have pressed for permission to ask voters to pay more taxes to keep traffic moving in the state's fastest growing metropolitan area. If the Legislature is too scared to raise taxes itself, they argued, why not let local officials ask voters to do it themselves? On Saturday, amid hot tempers and high legislative drama, they got their answer: No.

It's not immediately clear exactly what impact the demise of the provision, which could have raised $7 billion over time, will have on North Texas, the nation's fourth-most-traffic-clogged metropolitan area. But regional planners have warned for weeks that it could mean having to scrap plans for hundreds of miles of suburban rail lines and could put in jeopardy the region's ability to comply with federal clean air standards.

Dallas City Council member Linda Koop, chairwoman of the Regional Transportation Council, said local leaders will have to accept the reality that additional funds for highways or rail lines are simply not going to be available – at least not from state or local sources.
"It's a missed opportunity," said Rep. Vicki Truitt, the Keller Republican who carried the local-option bill in the House. "This was not for today, but for 30 years, 40 years, 50 years out." Her own constituents are conservative, she said, but would have been willing to pay more to ease traffic. "Let us pick our poison," she said. "It's either stay stuck in traffic or pay a few more bucks per year for our infrastructure."

Opponents, though, say it's a mistake to allow for increased taxes, especially in a time of economic crisis. The bill had begun with a focus on rail but evolved into a bigger proposal that would have added as much as $7 billion for North Texas roads and rails by 2030. Despite those changes – and despite lopsided votes in favor of the bill by the Regional Transportation Council – the proposal arrived in Austin last winter facing significant obstacles. The most important weaknesses included lack of support in key corners and a failure to have a unified front at home.
Gov. Rick Perry's support for the bill was weak, and as soon as the measure was changed to affect more areas than North Texas, he pulled back. He never threatened to veto the bill, but he made it clear that he wouldn't help Carona or Truitt get it passed. The bill was a "big huge monstrosity with lots of taxes and lots of areas of the state," Perry said Saturday, adding that it had changed too much for him to support it.

Compromises on the Bill:
What House and Senate negotiators agreed to on key sticking points in major transportation legislation:
Red-light cameras: A proposal to phase them out is not included in the final bill.
Transportation Department governance: Few changes are made to Department of Transportation leadership. The governor would retain the authority to appoint five commissioners for six-year terms. The executive director would no longer be required to be a licensed engineer. And a new legislative oversight committee would be established to monitor the department's compliance with the Legislature's wishes.
Planning authority: The department would retain a central role in deciding which roads to build where. Formulas for awarding funding to metro areas would be given more teeth, limiting the agency's discretion in some cases.
Toll roads: Authority for new private toll road deals would be extended until 2013, after which they would no longer be legal.

(1) The Texas House refused to allow a local tax option for transit and highways.
(2) The Legislature failed restore significant gas tax funds to TXDOT, nor give it more state funds.
(3) The Legislature limiting private toll roads deals only to 2013.

So basically, we're going to be stuck in traffic in gridlock for many decades to come.
Our Texas Legislators have decided not to give or allow TXDOT more public or private funds and failed to allow local governments taxing authority for local sources of funds. Therefore, no new highway lanes will be approved to be built after 2013.

In North Texas, our RTC has made private deals for Managed Lanes on several freeways, there's several more freeways programed for Managed Lanes. I doubt our COG will have public funds needed to make the private deals before 2013 for the remaining freeways. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

[360texas]

If it looks and walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, there I made a decision and IT MUST BE A DUCK.

Local Option attempts to create a "funding source" for North Texas rail and roads.

Funding Source is not a reallocation of existing state funds for a new purpose. They really are disgused as new taxes increases.

Fort Worth Star Telegram page 4 of Section B. BILL "Some Leaders opposed local option " Dave Montgomery
"Asked what killed the proposition, Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, a supporter, replied: "Political fear. The fear of moving a bill forward that looks like a tax increase."

See it really is a DUCK !


What I really think all this is a "Shot across the Texas Department of Transportation's bow" Saying you better get your financial house in order - If you do not fix our North Texas Road system - We will do it for you !

[360texas]

Probably do not have all the facts but

"In North Texas, our RTC has made private deals for Managed Lanes on several freeways, there's several more freeways programed for Managed Lanes. I doubt our COG will have public funds needed to make the private deals before 2013 for the remaining freeways. I certainly hope I'm wrong."

I certainly hope the the 'deals' were not complete [wet signatures on contracts] without first having sufficient obligated funding. That would be like writing a personal check without having sufficient funds in the bank to cover the value of the check. I know that a written check is only a "Promise to Pay" and not real cash. If they did that's called check kiting and is illegal and can't pass 'Go' without going to Jail.

Ramblings: Many years ago I wrote a check in HongKong China on a US Bank and it cleared over night.

[Electricron]

I certainly hope the the 'deals' were not complete [wet signatures on contracts] without first having sufficient obligated funding.

Of course, all the deals that have been signed with private contractors have their share of public funding in place. That includes the LBJ expansion from just east of US-75 to just west of I-35E. That includes I-820 and SH-121 expansion from just west of I-35W to just east of SH-360. But that doesn't help expansion of other freeway expansions that's planned for the future. What's good is having freeway expansions half completed? What do you think will happen when a 12 lane freeway/tollway ends at the Dallas County Line or when a 14 lane freeway/tunnel ends in northeast and northwest Dallas? Shucks, we will not even have the public funds for more those public-private partnerships, that are financed with 10% public and 90% private funds, nor time to bid them (end for signing such contracts by 2013)

[RD Milhollin]

... The bill had begun with a focus on rail but evolved into a bigger proposal that would have added as much as $7 billion for North Texas roads and rails by 2030. Despite those changes – and despite lopsided votes in favor of the bill by the Regional Transportation Council – the proposal arrived in Austin last winter facing significant obstacles. The most important weaknesses included lack of support in key corners and a failure to have a unified front at home.
Gov. Rick Perry's support for the bill was weak, and as soon as the measure was changed to affect more areas than North Texas, he pulled back. He never threatened to veto the bill, but he made it clear that he wouldn't help Carona or Truitt get it passed. The bill was a "big huge monstrosity with lots of taxes and lots of areas of the state," Perry said Saturday, adding that it had changed too much for him to support it.

Perhaps this should be a lesson: Get the North Texas Regional Commuter Rail system housed in it's own bill and keep highways separate. Perhaps it is time for Northeast Tarrant constituents to reconsider whether Rep. Hancock is doing a good job of representing the long-term interests of his district. Oh well, it looks as though the SW2NE line is a go, perhaps he feels that is all his constituents care about.

[Bart]

Not that this is specifically associated with the on-going discussion, and probably applies more to another topic in the transportation section, an interesting article with supportring information:

http://www.nytimes.c...html?ref=europe

Texas . . . 261,916 sq mi

Spain . . . 192,738 sq mi

Granted, there are numerous differences, but just thought it offered a bit of a comparison.

[Keller Pirate]

Perhaps this should be a lesson: Get the North Texas Regional Commuter Rail system housed in it's own bill and keep highways separate. Perhaps it is time for Northeast Tarrant constituents to reconsider whether Rep. Hancock is doing a good job of representing the long-term interests of his district. Oh well, it looks as though the SW2NE line is a go, perhaps he feels that is all his constituents care about.

I don't think the roads are what killed the bill. Also, with the gas tax alone, it would not have raised enough to build the entire rail system, let alone cover the operating cost. Last time I looked NTCOG had raised the projected construction cost past $9 billion. Usually planners underestimate costs for transit systems. Also, without the roads componet, there would have been even less support from voters that wouldn't have been on the projected rail lines, everybody needs a little something to show for their money.

I spent most of Thursday sending emails to legislators supporting the bill, obviously, it didn't do any good.

SW2NE seems to be having some problems too. I wish the T would have some more public briefings. Last meeting I went to was over a year ago. Last I heard, they are planning on going together with DART for vehicles that can run on the Rock Island extension, but that is a long way off. There was a recent story in the DMN about DART and the T looking for some private money for those two projects.

It looks like transit in North Texas is in big trouble, roads and rail. The state doesn't have the money and won't let us raise our own. Thank God for direct deposit, I never have to leave the house, unless I want to.

I see we did get some money ($87 Million?) for Tower 55, now I want to see how they plan to spend it.

[360texas]

There was always something odd about that transit issue. It was not a matter of if we wanted it or not... it was.. ok WE decided YOU Need it.. Now how do YOU want to pay for it.

Wrong !

If you are going to try to take money from my pocket and put it in yours I need 2 questions answered:

I am already over taxed and my insurance costs me more than I almost can afford.

What's in it for me? Where and when do I benifit ?
Exactly how much are you going to take from me to do what you want to do?

None of these questions were answered. It was UP to 20 cents on gas tax and raise the vehicle registration TAX [no amount specified] and some other question, can't remember right now.

If you can't be more specific about how much and what exactly you are going to spend it.... go away figure it out and come back later with specific answers. I don't give blank checks to people I do not know REALLY WELL !

[360texas]

Bart - thanks for that article

Fort Worth to San Antonio = about 290 miles
By car Fort Worth to San Antonio in 4.83 hours

Spains AEV speed is stated at 217 miles/hour.

290 miles/ 217 mph = 1.34 hours or 1 hour 20 minutes

Of course that bi passes Waco, Austin and smaller places along the way.

Flying DFW to San Antonio would take:
45 minute drive to DFW parking
20 minutes to the terminal
2 hour early arrival for security check points
48 minutes flying time
30 minutes to collect baggage
20 minutes to get rental car
----
283 minutes = 4.71 hours

Bring the AVE here to Texas - its better than driving or flying

[Electricron]

I don't think the roads are what killed the bill. Also, with the gas tax alone, it would not have raised enough to build the entire rail system, let alone cover the operating cost. Last time I looked NTCOG had raised the projected construction cost past $9 billion. Usually planners underestimate costs for transit systems. Also, without the roads componet, there would have been even less support from voters that wouldn't have been on the projected rail lines, everybody needs a little something to show for their money.
SW2NE seems to be having some problems too. I wish the T would have some more public briefings. Last meeting I went to was over a year ago. Last I heard, they are planning on going together with DART for vehicles that can run on the Rock Island extension, but that is a long way off. There was a recent story in the DMN about DART and the T looking for some private money for those two projects.
It looks like transit in North Texas is in big trouble, roads and rail. The state doesn't have the money and won't let us raise our own.
I see we did get some money ($87 Million?) for Tower 55, now I want to see how they plan to spend it.

Last Rail North Texas construction cost estimation was less than $5 Billion in 2008 Dollars.
Source: http://www.nctcog.or...ngs/RailNTX.pdf
Year Construction costs Maintenance costs Total costs
2008 Dollars $4.7 Billion $875 Million $5.5 Billion
Throughout 30 year plan $8.1 Billion $1.4+ Billion $9.5 Billion
Annual $390 Million $68 Million $458 Million

The State Legislature increased TXDOT's budget the next two years an additional $300 Million by preventing that much diversion from gas taxes. Somehow, the measely $300 Million additional revenues for TXDOT is like a drop in a bucket, when you consider that $1 Billion will still be diverted from TXDOT every year to fund other state programs.

I simply suggest our Texas Legislators don't drive on our highways anymore, or have just given up.

The idea that TXDOT can squeeze additional funds from a financial turnip that's been around since 1992 is ridiculous.

[Electricron]

To throw a monkey wrench into those opposing allowing local option taxes for transportation, I would love to see the NCTCOG cancel all highway projects and place all Federal and State transportation funds into bike/hike trails and trains, just to see what those wanting more highways would tax.

As for the first idea being unrealistic, all the COG would have to do is claim North Central Texas hasn't and won't meet EPA ozone targets with any more highway construction.

[Sam Stone]

The federal government is going to have to take the lead on this.

1. By raising the federal motor fuels tax, rate increases by the states will make up a smaller portion of the total price than they would without a federal increase.
2. The federal government could and should use that increase to pay for part of a national high speed rail system.
3. I know that this topic is devoted to regional rail, but the point is that any type of transportation system works better when its connected to everything else.

[Keller Pirate]

I don't think the press did a very good job presenting the Local Option plan since the start of the legislature. By over emphasizing the rail plan they created an instant group opposed to the funding options. The bills funding options morphed in the house until only the gas tax was left and it was never more than 10 cents a gallon at the most. Also when vehicle registration was part of the bill there was a maximum amount it could be raised, at the end it was $25. I think the Fort Worth Weekly gave the best presentation of the options and possibilities. http://www.fwweekly....c...&Itemid=375

Passing the bill would not have raised any taxes, in fact an election to vote on projects we might want to build and how we might want to pay for them wouldn’t take place until 2012.

The sad thing about the failure of this bill is that it makes it more likely that someone will decide what you need and will also decide what you are going to pay for it, without asking For instance take the streetcar, city taxes are the obvious choice but the funding plan also includes construction and operating funds from the county, TCC, JPS, UNTHSC among others. Each of these agencies will just raise your property taxes a penny or two and won't even ask if you care or not.

SW2NE isn't funded either, as far as I know, there is a few more cents out of your house, without asking you if you want it.

There is no point in talking about how much the rail plan was going to cost in 2008 dollars, 2008 is long gone and construction isn't going to start on anything for at least 3 or more years from now. Also it wasn’t a pure commuter rail system, as FOUTA pointed out early on in this thread, 3 of the 11 proposed routes were going to be light rail, something none of the reporters ever tumbled to.

However I did read a fun story the other day about a light rail system that came in under budget. Sort of.

http://www.charlotte...ory/753548.html

[Electricron]

After Carona's threats of fillerbusting, neither the Texas House nor Senate passed the TXDOT bill.
The House failed to pass the catch-all sunset bill too. Technically, TXDOT doesn't exist anymore.

I wonder how the Feds will allocate transportation (including highways) to Texas? TXDOT also just lost the ability to sell $2 Billion worth of bonds for highways.

I repeat what I wrote earlier, the Texas House completely gave up trying. That's poor leadership.

I wonder how fast TXDOT will announce delaying ALL highway projects again?

[FoUTASportscaster]

Perhaps this should be a lesson: Get the North Texas Regional Commuter Rail system housed in it's own bill and keep highways separate.

That's how it originally was. For many reasons (that I'm sure Electricron will copy and paste two pages worth of stuff), the road warriors were able to tack highways on the funding source. Now is a bad time to ask for a tax increase for any reason. That is what ultimately killed the deal. That's the problem with this state. Urban issues are on one plain and rural issues are on another and many times they don't co-exist. A Midland rep sees little need for this bill and when he sees tax increase, says nope.

That said, as pro-transit as I am, I am glad this failed. This was a way for cities like NRH or Haltom City to have their cake and eat it too. If they want rail, there is a great way to get it now, join the T. It means you have to give up the frivolous economic development tax, which is nothing but a drain on the region, and allocate it to the transit agency now. Prior to this session, it was a transit exemption for the sales tax, meaning we want to keep charging what already are, but we don't want to make any sacrifices, but want more. Sounds like a typical American to me.

Thank God for direct deposit, I never have to leave the house, unless I want to.

I guess that's the difference between living in a walkable area or an auto-oriented area. If I want to get out, it costs me nothing in time, money or frustration. Plus, it is quite enjoyable. I no longer dread trips to work or recreation.

There was always something odd about that transit issue. It was not a matter of if we wanted it or not... it was.. ok WE decided YOU Need it.. Now how do YOU want to pay for it.

While I think the funding mechanism was completely flawed, so is this statement.

1) How do you know what we wanted and didn't want. There has been no vote or poll that I am aware of, except maybe increasing ridership on the T, DART and DCTA services even as gas prices fell. Don't confuse what you want with what the majority wants. I've done that many times and it can sting when you lose (Dallas' Trinity tollroad and the Convention Center Hotel).

2) This wasn't a bill on how you were going to pay for it, this was a bill to authorize counties to ask voters if they wanted to pay for it with these taxes.

3) You may never use a train and completely hate them, but as long as they aren't around, there is a greater than zero chance that you precious funds for highways will be withheld as air pollution gets worse. I can promise you this. As long as there is no alternative, people will always use a car, but when there is an alternative, surprise, surprise, some people will actually not use a car for all of their trip. 35% of trips generated along the US-75 corridor in Dallas a via the rail. As the LRT system expands, that number will go up, as people from other areas not previously served by rail can once a new line is in.

The State Legislature increased TXDOT's budget the next two years an additional $300 Million by preventing that much diversion from gas taxes. Somehow, the measely $300 Million additional revenues for TXDOT is like a drop in a bucket, when you consider that $1 Billion will still be diverted from TXDOT every year to fund other state programs.

I simply suggest our Texas Legislators don't drive on our highways anymore, or have just given up.

Or it could be the induced traffic principle, and proof that the more we build, the worse it gets. Even CoG transportation planners recognize this and acknowledge that is part of the reason we will never have enough money to be congestion-free. While I like the idea of managed lanes, it still won't solve the problem.

The idea that TXDOT can squeeze additional funds from a financial turnip that's been around since 1992 is ridiculous.

There is a lot of truth to this, but short of quintupling the gas tax, there isn't much that can be done here. Raising it 10 cents will do little more than pay the interest that's been accruing since voters gave premission to TxDoT to get a limitless credit card a few years ago.

The sad thing about the failure of this bill is that it makes it more likely that someone will decide what you need and will also decide what you are going to pay for it, without asking For instance take the streetcar, city taxes are the obvious choice but the funding plan also includes construction and operating funds from the county, TCC, JPS, UNTHSC among others. Each of these agencies will just raise your property taxes a penny or two and won't even ask if you care or not.

SW2NE isn't funded either, as far as I know, there is a few more cents out of your house, without asking you if you want it.

I know! It is like those pesky ISD taxes. I am not getting any direct education, and there is no value to me if someone else does.

Or fire, my house has never burned, so I shouldn't pay for any sort of FD.

Heck, I haven't needed a police service in four years. Why have a been paying taxes for something I haven't used.

Plus, I pay gas taxes that build and maintain highways I'll never directly use.

Lunacy!

You are going to pay sales tax with or without the SW2NE rail line. It would actually make sense to have a transit option that connects employment areas with residential areas and a higher level of service than any bus could do.

[RD Milhollin]

What about the Economic Development andf Crime Districts several cities have adopted, and that have used up the local option portion of local sales taxes?

Cities Must Now Look Elsewhere for Rail Funds

By GORDON DICKSON gdickson@star-telegram.com

Cities hoping for help from the state in paying for commuter rail service must now reassess plans after Texas lawmakers killed a proposed law that would have allowed local-option elections to raise taxes and fees for transit.

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority, also known as the T, has a service area that only includes about half of Tarrant County’s 1.8 million residents. Cities such as Arlington, North Richland Hills and Burleson must now find other ways to connect to the agency’s rail network.

In Arlington, elected leaders must now decide whether to ask city voters for permission to raise sales taxes for transit. Arlington has a quarter-cent available, but transit elections in the city have failed three times since 1980.

"Everything is back on the table. We’ll look at all the options and do the best we can do," said Arlington Councilwoman Kathryn Wilemon. "A decision will have to be made by the Arlington council."

Barring a sales tax increase for transit in Arlington, Wilemon said, "it just leaves Arlington out of the rail picture, pretty much. There’s no funding for that right now."

A quarter-cent would provide enough funding to build a Trinity Railway Express station near Farm to Market 157 in far north Arlington, and extend express bus service from that station to the entertainment district, said T President Dick Ruddell.

Projects continue

Other cities near Fort Worth are in much the same situation.

In Northeast Tarrant County, cities such as North Richland Hills and Haltom City may have to wait many years before building train stations on the proposed southwest to northeast commuter rail line that will cut through their city and is scheduled to have passenger service by 2013. Those cities don’t have any room under the state’s 8.25 percent sales tax limit, and were hoping for options such as a local gas tax or vehicle registration fee to generate revenue.

But several commuter rail projects already in the planning or construction phases will press on, and that’s good news for cities such as Fort Worth and Grapevine, which are combining forces to develop the rail line from southwest Fort Worth to the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport north entrance.

Grapevine voters already agreed to raise their sales tax by .375 cents to pay for commuter rail to their city.

Tough questions

As for the cities that can’t afford to join, the T will continue to keep their proposed stations in the master plan, Ruddell said. "It doesn’t cost anything to leave them in the plan."

The failure in Austin also won’t hurt the efforts of the Denton County Transportation Authority to get its A-train open from Denton to Carrollton by December 2010. The project is already funded, and rail cars have been ordered.

Private investment on the Cotton Belt portion of the southwest to northeast line could improve the financial picture — and Dallas Area Rapid Transit is actively seeking private partners. However, private funding likely would benefit cities such as Addison and Carrollton on the more densely populated North Dallas segment, Ruddell said.

County officials may now look at their options. In Tarrant County, officials in 2006 passed a $433 million bond package for roads.

"These are really tough questions, and we don’t have the answers for now," said Amanda Wilson, a council of governments spokeswoman. "If you’re not a member of the T, and not planning on it, I can imagine that rail is not in your future for the next two years."

GORDON DICKSON, 817-390-7796

[AndyN]

A Midland rep sees little need for this bill and when he sees tax increase, says nope.

I have been working in Midland since last October and I can vouch for that. I spent 10 minutes on the local conservative morning talk show last week explaining this bill to the locals. I don't know how you can be so opinionated on a bill that doesn't really affect your area.

[FoUTASportscaster]

What about the Economic Development and Crime Districts several cities have adopted, and that have used up the local option portion of local sales taxes?

The economic development taxes are the exact ones I am talking about. They are essentially useless. In Cedar Hill, they were pounding their chest because the economic development team and the associated tax were able to lure a hotel to the city. When you look at cities with transit places like Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving, Plano, Carrollton or Richardson all have transit and all have a greater daytime pop than residential pop. That means basically more workers in the city than residents. None have an economic development tax.

Now look at places without transit, but with some other form of 4A or 4B sales tax for economic development. Arlington, Grand Prairie, North Richland Hills, Mesquite, Duncanville or Haltom City. All have some form of economic development tax, but none have a greater daytime pop than residential.

The reasoning is simple but numerous. If I were to build an office building, I'll need low-wage help, whether it be in the form of janitors of security, or the creative class, which values transportation options. Downtown Fort Worth is more accessible than Alliance, and therefore they are able to keep the wages down (and therefore profits up) of the hired help, while also being attractive to that creative class, who likes the idea of walking (an environment that transit helps create and cars help destroy) or the train, finds a job more desireable in such an environment. Downtown Dallas has lured several corporate or regional headquarters of late and all have listed the transportation options as a major reason. It is literally cheaper to do business (ceteris paribus) and more attractive in such an environment.

If a city is truely devoted to economic development, and not just using the tax to use it, they get a better bang for the buck by having transit.

As for the crime districts, I can not say how effective they are. I have not seen any research into them and haven't studied them myself. I will say, just from an intuitive standpoint, that they seem more effective, since they are essentially police funding mechanism. What remains to be seen is whether the general fund kept up its commitment to the respective PD's or whether the crime district was a swap of funds.

In Arlington, elected leaders must now decide whether to ask city voters for permission to raise sales taxes for transit. Arlington has a quarter-cent available, but transit elections in the city have failed three times since 1980.

Interesting. A quarter-cent wouldn't be full T membership, which is ideal. The best the y could do is try for municipal only bus, with connections to the TRE. That would be lame.

A quarter-cent would provide enough funding to build a Trinity Railway Express station near Farm to Market 157 in far north Arlington, and extend express bus service from that station to the entertainment district, said T President Dick Ruddell.

Better than nothing, but still rather lame. It also show the contrasting style of the two transit agencies. While DART has said they may contract out rail service only for 1/2 a cent (DART charges a full cent to the T's and DCTA's 1/2 cent), nothing has really come of it. The T on the otherhand, seems more than happy if they don't have full members. Grapevine is contacting for rail service at 3/8 of a cent and they seem to already have a plan in place for Arlington at less than full membership.

Plus, I'll tell you, a better place to run service would be to UTA. More than 30,000 people learn or work there, and many a auto-less, and the environment is built for it. The ridership would be higher than an auto-oriented entertainment district, where the stops would be few and the route long.

The failure in Austin also won’t hurt the efforts of the Denton County Transportation Authority to get its A-train open from Denton to Carrollton by December 2010. The project is already funded, and rail cars have been ordered.

This, along with the SW2NE Line were once in the CoG's rail plan, but were pulled when the cities figured out a way to pay for them. Once they did that, as well as the current cities served by the T and DART, any money raised by that tax plan for the regional rail would have gone to roads. That was another reason I was against the plan.

County officials may now look at their options. In Tarrant County, officials in 2006 passed a $433 million bond package for roads.

Non-user paid roads. Proof that the political will just doesn't exist for this yet.

I have been working in Midland since last October and I can vouch for that. I spent 10 minutes on the local conservative morning talk show last week explaining this bill to the locals. I don't know how you can be so opinionated on a bill that doesn't really affect your area.

I grew up there and that is why I explicitly chose Midland. From a legislative standpoint, they look at anything the big cities want skeptically. That is the problem with Texas. It isn't completely rural anymore and it isn't completely urban. Essesntially, the size restricts anything. There have been many times where the opposite occured and the urban interests prevented a rural issue from reaching the gov.'s desk. They see tax increase, and pandering to their base, say no, I will not support a tax increase, regardless of the legislation that restricted it to the five largest urban areas. Maybe for the road warrior, that was the problem. I can here the rep now. "In Midland, we can't build any new roads and we oppose tax increases."

If Texas were divided into quarters and made into 4 states, you'd have two states that were urban-oriented and two that were rural-oriented. As it is, its pure size (bigger isn't always better) prevents a lot of things from getting done.

[Electricron]

I'll agree, those Economic Development taxes don't help develope a city's economy.
Texas has capped sales taxes at 8.25 cents per dollar. 6.25 cents goes directly into the State's General Fund, 1 cent automatically goes into the local city/county's General Fund. 1 cent is optional. Many cities have used that last 1 cent sales tax so they could lower property taxes. Few have used that last 1 cent sales tax for transit.

The anti-taxers state over and over again that sales taxes are unfair, yet many cities prefer to maximize sales taxes over property taxes.

Before April 1st, two elections were required, one to cancel economic development sales taxes and make room under the sales tax cap, a second election to approve transit sales taxes. Today, that can be accomplish with just one election. All it takes is for the local city governments to bite the bullet and hold the elections. Too bad, they rather not.

In the past 6 years, the legislature has declined to increase the sales tax cap above 8.25 cents for specific cities, and now declined to raise gas taxes up to 10 cents per gallon for specific cities too.

The National Highway Trust fund will be bankrupted before September arrives. The Feds can make money to infuse that fund with $Billions in cash; States and Cities can't, they have to tax something to sell bonds.

[BlueMound]

North Richland Hills approves rail-oriented development

NORTH RICHLAND HILLS — The city’s plans to join an emerging commuter rail network in Tarrant County may have fizzled in the Legislature, but the City Council is pushing ahead with planning for rail stations and surrounding development in two neighborhoods.

On Monday night, the council unanimously approved changes to the city’s comprehensive plan that create "transit-oriented developments" in the Iron Horse and Smithfield areas. Next month, the council is expected to vote on rezoning hundreds of commercial and residential properties within those boundaries.

Before Monday’s vote, Mayor Oscar Trevino — a major supporter of a regional rail line that will run from southwest Tarrant County to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport — rebuked the Legislature for failing to pass a bill that would have let communities like North Richland Hills seek voter approval for taxes or fees to fund rail projects. That means the city still has no funding mechanism to join the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.

"We can sit here and bury our heads in sand and play like the Legislature and say, 'We don’t need to do anything,’ " Trevino said. "Or we can move ahead and be ready when the Legislature decides they will be leaders. [Rail] is the future of this region. We need to be ready when it comes."


For two years, the city and consultants from the Gateway Planning Group have envisioned creating two train stations in North Richland Hills and surrounding them with mixed-use development of retail, apartments and green space akin to Mockingbird Station in Dallas or Addison Circle.

City officials have pursued a plan to rezone almost 500 acres and have drawn up ordinances that would prohibit certain uses, such as drive-throughs, allow others, such as on-street parking, and enforce architectural standards.

The zoning around the Smithfield station would take advantage of the area’s historic character, churches and nearby neighborhoods and would feature more shops, cafes and low-density apartments.

City leaders want the Iron Horse station, in a mostly big-box-retail and industrial area just north of Northeast Loop 820, to have denser and taller buildings for residences and businesses.

CHRIS VAUGHN, 817-390-7547

Article Link

[FoUTASportscaster]

Before Monday’s vote, Mayor Oscar Trevino — a major supporter of a regional rail line that will run from southwest Tarrant County to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport — rebuked the Legislature for failing to pass a bill that would have let communities like North Richland Hills seek voter approval for taxes or fees to fund rail projects. That means the city still has no funding mechanism to join the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.

Uhh, yeah, you do have a funding mechanism. Drop that useless 1/2 cent economic development tax and join the T.

This is like someone who goes shopping at Nieman Marcus once a week, then standing in line for food stamps.

[Electricron]

DART not too disappointed that the Local Option Tax bill failed.

From http://www.dart.org/...09DARTBoard.pdf
Mr. Whitaker asked Mr. Pratt to elaborate on the lack of support that prevented S.B. 855 (TLOTA) from passing in the House. In brief, Mr. Pratt explained that many politicians feared adverse repercussions if they supported any Bill that was preceived as involving taxes and there was also a vacuum transportation leadership.
Mr. Enoch expressed his gratitude to Mr. Pratt and stated that in the recent past DART was in a leadership position at the State level for championing funding mechanisms that would facilitate partnering between transit and non-transit related cities. Mr. Enoch stated that the agency and the Board should begin formulating a strategy for the next Legislative Session, two years in the future. Mr. Enoch said this was the only way to insure a pro-active, rather than reactive stance.
Mr. Enoch stated that DART has been sensitive to fact that any potential Bill must provide adequate funds to actually build the system. He asked if anyone had done an analysis of how much revenue the amended fees, Mobility Improvement changed from $60 to $30, Driver's License changed from $24 to $15, and Counties given an option as to how much gasoline tax would be assessed ($.02 to $0.10), as proposed by Senator Carona, would have actually generated if S. B. 855 would have, in fact, passed into law.
Mr. Pratt replied, according to COG's (Council of Government's) calculations, the amended fees/tax would have not produced nearly enough funds: approximately $385M (annually) would have been needed and the amended Bill, had it passed into law, would not have produced anything near that amount.
Mr. Enoch re-emphasized the need for DART to be cautious in what it asks Austin to approve, making certain that whatever action is requested, if approved, will actually produce enough funds to "build something".