Local Mayors, Transportation Planning Board Call for End to Elizabeth River Crossings Tolls

One of the worse fiascoes that former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his Republican cohorts in the Virginia General Assembly have inflicted on Hampton Roads is the "public-private partnership" that granted Elizabeth River Crossings ("ERC") the ability to fleece Hampton Roads commuters with ever increasing tolls in exchange for McDonnell and the Virginia GOP from avoiding tax increases - e.g. an increase in the gasoline tax - to pay for infrastructure that is a governmental responsibility. To call ERC greedy and rapacious is far too kind and their outrageous late fees ultimately forced the state of Virginia to demand reductions in tolls and late fees that quickly totaled in the thousands and thousands of dollars.  Compounding the distress to working class and poor commuters was the DMV's refusal to renew auto registrations until ERC receive its exorbitant demands which subjected commuters to traffic summonses as well. Now, a number of local mayors and members of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Board Commonwealth of Virginia are demanding that the economy crushing tolls be lifted.  Such a move will required action by the Virginia General Assembly.  A piece in Channel 13 News looks at this issue and the need to rescind these tolls that screw the public while enriching private interests.  Here are excerpts: 

Portsmouth Mayor John Rowe said local leaders must find a way to reverse an agreement between Elizabeth River Crossings and the Commonwealth of Virginia before rising toll prices cripple the region's economy.

Rowe, Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander, Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck and five others have formed a committee to study how the state could possibly change or back out of the agreement with ERC.

The committee was formed at a Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization meeting, where the mayors and others voiced concerns about toll prices and other aspects of the agreement. HRTPO director Bob Crum Jr. said he supports the new committee's opinion that something needs to change.

"Those tolls will continue to increase over time, I think the concern is what impact that will have," Crum said. "We need to investigate what options are on the table and work with the state and general assembly to get those things addressed."

Rowe said he feels like local leaders are now recognizing the tolls as a regional issue, and not just a "Portsmouth issue." An Old Dominion University study found Portsmouth lost about $8.8 million each year after the implementation of the tolls in 2015. 

However, Crum and Rowe said any changes would likely need to be made in Richmond via the general assembly. The current agreement was made between the Commonwealth of Virginia and ERC. Crum said it was not signed by the local city governments. 

Elizabeth River Crossings responded to statements from public officials that the contract needs to end. The company said in a statement that it assumed more than $4 billion in costs when it agreed to expand, renovate and maintain the Midtown Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway facilities.
 Crum said another section of the agreement between the state and the ERC is worrying for local governments. Due to a non-compete clause, ERC could claim damages and lost revenue when other transportation projects are completed within the region, requiring the state to pay compensation to ERC.

With the High Rise Bridge expansion underway and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion coming soon, Crum said the board is worried about additional costs or repercussions. He said this understanding provides the new committee additional motivation to find a way to end the current agreement between the state and the ERC.

Trump's Infrastructure Scam

A post yesterday looked at Donald Trump's irresponsible budget proposal.  It also looked at Trump's infrastructure "plan" which amounts to little more than a scam and seeks to privatize much of the task, leaving taxpayers hostage to rapacious private interests.  Here in Hampton Roads Virginia, the Elizabeth Rivers Tunnels scam has demonstrated the greed with which such "public/private" projects enrich the private interests while screwing over the public.  In my view, after defending the nation from hostile outside forces, a main responsibility of government is to provide the roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, etc., that serve the interests of the public and which allow economic growth and prosperity for all, not just certain greed motivated private interests.  As for tolls, they are little more than a way for government to dodge its responsibility to fund and build much needed infrastructure through tax revenues and bind issues. A piece in Fortune looks ate the scam nature of Der Trumpenführer's infrastructure proposal.  An second piece in a column in the New York Times by a Nobel Prize winning economist similarly, calls out Trump's "plan" as a scam.  First, these highlights from Fortune:

Trump’s infrastructure plan hinges on a $100 billion matching grant program for states and cities to launch their own projects, with additional funds coming from a $50 billion rural investment program, along with a few other line items. That’s supposed to entice private companies to come out of the woodwork and rebuild America to the tune of $1.5 trillion.

Just like Mexico won’t pay for a border wall, private investors won’t pay for roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure just because the president says they will. Kicking federal obligations to private companies doesn’t work that way.

Private investors care about only one thing, and that’s maximizing profit. They won’t be drawn to projects that won’t make them enough money, no matter how badly needed the projects are.

And even for projects that do materialize, private investors’ need for profit means the costs of building new infrastructure are often passed along in the form of road tolls or other fees—sometimes, these can be exorbitant. This dispels the commonly held myth that privately financed projects are always a better deal for taxpayers. As another corporate giveaway, the plan would encourage putting major public infrastructure (like, say, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) up for sale, and would loosen environmental rules designed to protect local communities.

It came as part of a budget package that would also cut $48 billion in federal funding for other programs and services that won’t be matched by a paltry $20 billion per year in infrastructure investments. Among other things, the president once again called for the total elimination of the Community Development Block Grant program, and major cuts to Amtrak, Superfund environmental cleanups, and other programs. You better believe that Americans would suffer under this plan.

The piece in the Times is similarly harsh and calls out Trump's proposal as a con job.  Here are highlights:

Donald Trump doesn’t give a dam. Or a bridge. Or a road. Or a sewer system. Or any of the other things we talk about when we talk about infrastructure.

But how can that be when he just announced a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan? That’s easy: It’s not a plan, it’s a scam. The $1.5 trillion number is just made up; he’s only proposing federal spending of $200 billion, which is somehow supposed to magically induce a vastly bigger overall increase in infrastructure investment, mainly paid for either by state and local governments (which are not exactly rolling in cash, but whatever) or by the private sector.

And even the $200 billion is essentially fraudulent: The budget proposal announced the same day doesn’t just impose savage cuts on the poor, it includes sharp cuts for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy and other agencies that would be crucially involved in any real infrastructure plan.

One section says that it would “authorize federal divestiture of assets that would be better managed by state, local or private entities.” Translation: We’re going to privatize whatever we can. It’s conceivable that this would be done only in cases where the private sector really would do better, and contracts would be handed out fairly, without a hint of cronyism. And if you believe that, I have a degree from Trump University you might want to buy.

At one level, none of this should be a surprise. The current infrastructure nonplan looks a lot like the sketchy proposal the Trump campaign laid out in 2016, back when he was still pretending to be a different kind of Republican. 

Yet there is something puzzling about Trump’s failure to come up with a remotely plausible infrastructure plan.

First, the economics: America desperately needs to repair and upgrade its deteriorating roads, water systems, power grid and more. . . . massive infrastructure spending would have been an even better idea five years ago. But it’s still something that needs doing.

Where would the money come from? . . . . Despite a modest rise in interest rates, the federal government can still borrow very cheaply: The interest rate on inflation-protected long-term bonds . . . . So borrowing now to pay for essential infrastructure would still be good economics.

And as I said, there would be political advantages, too. If Trump just pushed ahead with a straightforward, conventional public investment plan, he could trumpet the number of workers employed on new projects.

[A]nd another point: Public spending can yield a lot of private profit. An infrastructure program involving real money could be very lucrative for Trump cronies, or for that matter Trump himself. Yes, there are rules that are supposed to prevent that kind of profiteering, but does anyone think those rules would be enforced under current management?

So why isn’t Trump proposing something real?

Part of the answer is that in practice Trump always defers to Republican orthodoxy, and the modern G.O.P. hates any program that might show people that government can work and help people.

But I also suspect that Trump is afraid to try anything substantive. To do public investment successfully, you need leadership and advice from experts. And this administration doesn’t do expertise, in any field. Not only do experts have a nasty habit of telling you things you don’t want to hear, their loyalty is suspect: You never know when their professional ethics might kick in.

So the Trump administration probably couldn’t put together a real infrastructure plan even if it wanted to. And that’s why it didn’t.

Trump's Utterly Irresponsible Budget

For all eight years of the presidency of Barack Obama, Republicans whined and moaned about budget deficits yet now between the Trump tax cuts and the budget deal put in place last week, the federal deficit will explode.  Now, making matters worse, Der Trumpenführer has proposed a budget and an infrastructure plan that would savage domestic programs that literally keep many alive, sell of federal properties to rapacious private interests, and cripple states with infrastructure spending.  Meanwhile, the wealthy get richer and richer.  And under public/private infrastructure programs, corporate interest rape much of the public. Locally, the Elizabeth River Tunnels project - a legacy of the McDonnell administration - has shown just how greedy private interests can be as the poor and working class find themselves burdened with crush tolls and penalties that they will never be able to payoff.  Making matters worse, the Commonwealth of Virginia is criminalizing these financially desperate people by refusing to renew auto registrations and subjecting the financially stressed to criminal fines.  One can only speculate the ugliness of such a program taken nationwide.  America seems headed toward a banana republic status save for having a huge military.  An editorial in the Washington Post looks at the troubling picture.  Here are excerpts:  

FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY is the hallmark of populist governance. Whether ideologically left-wing (Hugo Chávez in Venezuela), right-wing (Juan Perón of Argentina) or in between, populists promise prosperity, dismiss trade-offs as so much elitist naysaying and spend their nations’ savings to make FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY is the hallmark of populist governance. Whether ideologically left-wing (Hugo Chávez in Venezuela), right-wing (Juan Perón of Argentina) or in between, populists promise prosperity, dismiss trade-offs as so much elitist naysaying and spend their nations’ savings to make it happen — at least temporarily. The hangover, economic and political, is always painful.

President Trump’s fiscal record so far is very much in the reckless spirit of such erstwhile Latin American strongmen . . . . no nation can defy the laws of fiscal gravity forever; and the president’s own budget planfor fiscal 2019, issued Monday, demonstrates how the margin for financial error is rapidly diminishing.

Thanks to policies pursued by Mr. Trump and the Republican Congress — a massive tax cut, followed last week by legislation to increase federal spending by about $300 billion over the next two years — it has become impossible for the president to forecast a balanced budget by 2027, as he did last year. Instead, it is projected the deficit would still equal more than 1 percent of total economic output in that year, having swollen well above 4 percent in each year of Mr. Trump’s first term. Even those numbers are wildly optimistic, because his budget proposal assumes, unrealistically, that economic output will expand at about a 2.9 percent annual rate over the next decade and that Congress will reduce non-defense discretionary spending 40 percent in the same period, with programs for low-income people bearing most of the cuts.

[W]ith the economy running at or near full employment, a prudent government would stop priming the pump with tax cuts and spending increases and begin adopting long-term fixes to entitlement programs that drive long-term debt. Every dollar Mr. Trump adds to the debt amid today’s prosperity makes it that much more difficult for a future government to respond to future recessions, wars or natural disasters.

[W]hat we have is the antithesis of functional government, if functional government is defined as the establishment of clear public priorities, combined with reasonable measures to fund them. 

What is most telling to me is that the vast majority of evangelical Christians continue to support Trump even as his policies demonstrate that he views the poor and needy elderly as little more than disposable garbage that should be left to die.  What we are seeing is also the antithesis of the Gospel message that the Republican base bloviates about and then disregards.  

Another GOP Disaster: Virginia Could Pay Up to $2 Billion If Tolls Ruling Stands

Outdated and Inadequate Midtown Tunnel

As if Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonald did not already have enough problems between the ongoing FBI investigation of his cozy relationship with Star Scientific and ripping off taxpayers for personal expenses, a new article in the Virginian Pilot lays out the potential cost to Virginia of the idiotic "public-private" deal struck to build a second tube for the Midtown Tunnel.  By "public-private" the terms in reality means that select private interests get to screw the public with GOP blessing.  It's all part of the Virginia GOP's refusal to raise taxes in a meaningful way to address the state's increasingly inadequate highway system.  With a recent court ruling striking down the McDonald/GOP give away to private interests, all of us may be about to be royally screwed.  Here are story highlights:

Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton painted a bleak financial picture for the state if a May court decision striking down planned tolls for the Midtown and Downtown tunnels is upheld, saying it could cost at least $700 million and potentially jeopardize other toll projects.

Testifying before state legislators Monday, Connaughton estimated that Virginia would be out $706 million in damages and costs incurred if it terminated the $2.1 billion contract with Elizabeth River Crossings to upgrade and operate the tunnels.

And the liability could be much higher if Virginia and its private partners move forward on the project but aren't able to collect tolls.

In that scenario, Connaughton said, Elizabeth River Crossings could pursue annual payments of $169 million for 57 years to recover lost revenue, an amount exceeding $9.6 billion. But it's unlikely Virginia would be on the hook for that much, he said, citing a worst-case figure closer to $2 billion if the state didn't terminate the deal.

Last month, Portsmouth Circuit Judge James A. Cales Jr. ruled that the General Assembly exceeded its authority by giving the state highway department broad power to set toll rates.

Del. Johnny Joannou gave voice to those frustrations Monday. His questions about the real-world impact of the tolls drew applause from audience members.

"You're talking about a lot of money from a lot of citizens. We're not just talking about money the state is putting out," he said, complaining about toll costs coupled with the lack of new capacity on the Downtown Tunnel.

Citing a still-fragile economy, Joannou criticized a deal he said would affect the lives of "a lot of people that are struggling out there to make a living."

The Virginia GOP can worry about micro-managing women's vagina's and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli can obsess over maintaining Virginia's unconstitutional sodomy statute, but these folks cannot exercise leadership in a key area of government: maintaining the state's transportation infrastructure.