|
How Not to Regulate Greenhouse Gases by Dr. Robert W. Poole,Jr. On Earth Day, April 16th, the Environmental Protection Agency is widely expected to announce an “endangerment finding” about CO2. That would be a legal declaration, under which EPA would then be required to prepare a proposal to regulate CO2 like other “criteria pollutants” that come out of factories, refineries, dry cleaners . . . and motor vehicles. That may not sound like a big deal on first hearing, but the consequences could be hugely negative for transportation on our highways. It was unclear for a long while whether the EPA had legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). But in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the US Supreme Court held that it does, if it chooses to exercise it. So last fall the Bush EPA put out an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) laying out how it might go about regulating GHG’s under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The comments filed in response to Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318 make for chilling reading. In order to regulate GHGs under the CAA, the EPA must establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO2 and other GHGs. And since the sources of GHGs are global, and concentrations produced today remain in the atmosphere for decades, under the CAA’s “transportation conformity” provisions, the entire country would be a non-attainment zone, and would probably remain there for decades or centuries regardless of what regulatory actions are taken here. That means federal transportation funds would be withheld unless and until states produced implementation plans showing the attainment of conformity—very likely impossible for the next few decades. As the US DOT’s comments made clear, “Such a finding would reach beyond power plants and other installations to include vital transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and transit lines. At a time when our country critically needs to modernize our transportation infrastructure, the NAAQS that the draft rule would establish—and the development of the implementation rules that would follow—could seriously undermine these efforts.” You can read a lot more of the gory details in the docket submission by my former Reason colleague Marlo Lewis, PhD, former staff director of the House Government Affairs subcommittee on national economic growth, natural resources, and regulatory affairs.REPORT) It’s clear to me that using the Clean Air Act in this way would be disastrous for the economy as well as for transportation. It’s the wrong tool to use against GHGs. As I’ve written elsewhere, the least-bad approach is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which would accomplish what a cap-and-trade system aims to do (put a price on emitting CO2) but without either (a) creating huge political gains and losses as various sectors jockey for allocations of free permits or (b) producing windfall revenues to be allocated to politically favored purposes. The transportation community should line up in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, because the alternatives—especially EPA regulation under the CAA—would be so much worse. |
|
GAS TAX INDEXING PLAN DIED!
by Danny Newton 06 MAY 2009 The plan to index the gas tax to the Consummer Price Index is dead for this legislative year according to taxpayer advocate Ben Cunningham at his blog. This makes one wonder if there was another balencing plan somewhere that also died that was being used as a trade off to get the tax. |
|
CITY MISSES DEADLINE... ON WE GO TO COURT OVER THE BUSINESS PARK
by Danny Newton 30 APRIL 2009 The city and the county have rejected the proposed partition made by the owners of the Pyle Property and have ignored the 30 APRIL 2009 deadline for avoiding a trip to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Case is primarily a move to clarify the law with respect to procedures used against the owners in order to bully them into submission in this outrageous eminent domain abuse case. If the city/county should lose this case, there will be a precedent set for other counties wishing to use eminent domain abuse and it will mean that the attorney's fees will have to be paid by the city/county The city and the county have already complained about the dollar amount on the basis that they were unusual. This will not settle the owners petition for a partition of the land rather than taking the money offered by the government. The defendants lawyer has already presented an outline of his case in an earlier court hearing for actual partition by asserting that the law gives preference to this solution over simply buying out the owner. Maybe Bob Anderson, the defendant's attorney, has to charge extra because he is always going up against two attorneys whenever they meet the city and county in court? |
|
WILL THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE GET STIMULUS MONEY?
by Danny Newton 30 APRIL 2009 Several people have told me that they heard that the Fifth Interchange is going to get stimulus money but it seems unlikely that this will happen unless we are still stimulating the economy several years from now. The Fifth Interchange is not shovel ready because it does not have land purchased and it does not have a set of plans. We still don't know what the geometry of the road is going to be. The Diamond or Modified Cloverleaf layout is a closely guarded secret. Only the Modified Cloverleaf design with a connector road to US 70 has a blessing from the Federal Highway Administration but the amount of money available is more consistent with the cheaper low volume diamond interchange that the city/county have shown on some of their planning documents. There is a possibility that the city or the county could come up with some stimulus money that might help with the hidden cost that have not been sprung on the public yet. That would be the matching money required by the Interstate Connector Act of 1965. I have a letter from TDOT that assures me that the Interstate Connector Act will be applied to this interchange. That means at least $15 million, in addition to the $5 million purchase price plus the $14 million dollar infrastructure costs. TDOT has also administratively modified the amount they will assist in the cost of an interchange by limiting the state participation to only $2 million dollars. That won't even pay for a new bridges over the Interstate. The current bridges are a little narrow for the car volumes that they project. |
|
PUTNAM COUNTY AND THE CITY GET DUAL CERTIFICATE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK KANGAROO COURT IGNORES THE FACTS AGAIN. by Danny Newton 6 MAR 2009 A delegation of 18 people plus Representative Henry Fincher and Senator Charlotte Burks converged on the Building Finance Committee of the Department of the Economic and Comunity Development to plead their case for another industrial park in Putnam County. Everyone got to say something positive about the project and the result was that the Certificate of Need was authorized not only for a Business Park but for an Industrial Park. Attorney Bob Anderson, speaking for the Lynch Family, reminded the committee that the current legal action in the state supreme court was still pending and that the only assurance that the most valuable property near what might be the Fifth Interchange would not be in the park was a few city and county resolutions. The attorney for the Lynch family has yet to see confirming paperwork that the battle is really over. More about the meeting later.... |
FIFTH INTERCHANGE TIMELINE
30 SEPT 1988 Herald-Citizen Reports that Vice Mayor Grogan expects Fifth Interchange by the year 2000. Estimate for the interchange is $1 million. The estimated cost of extending Gould drive to the industrial park is $500 thousand.
03 DEC 1998 Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to perform a feasibility study on constructing fifth interchange on I-40 at Mine Lick Creek Road. SPONSOR-JIM SHIPLEY
01 APRIL 1999 The Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to study the Maple Avenue flyover at I-40 as the new Fifth Interchange.
25 OCT 2000 TDOT dates the Interschange Justification Study for Federal Highway Administration Review as part of Corridor J intersection at Mine Lick Creek Road.
20 MAY 2002 Cookeville proposes to move the city limits to the vicinity to surround the Fifth Interchange
21 JUNE 2002 TDOT Advance planning report on the Northern Connector
15 JULY 2003 Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury releases report to the legislature with reccommendations for objective system of project selection.
AUG 2003 Final Report of Independant Investigation Sanctioned by TDOT. Studies selection process of 15 problematic road projects in Tennessee, Mine Lick Creek Road is one of them.
24 FEB 2003 City of Cookeville approves alternate "A" as Phase I Councilman Sam Sallee asks that The Northern Connector be Considered as Phase II.
22 AUG 2005 City of Sparta, in White County, throws in $50,000 for the Highlands Iniative
22 SEPT 2005 Herald-Citizen reports Highlands Initiative Kickoff with $2million.
OCT 2005 State Transportation Improvement Plan Shows Project #71005 "Construct New Interchange at Mine Lick Creek Road" ROW acquisition marked for 2006 and construction marked for 2008. See Adobe Page 41/99. Estimated Cost is $10.3 million.
DECEMBER 2005 TDOT Provides explaination of the Project Evaluation System.
21 JAN 2005 City of Cookeville announces taking an option on property to be in future industrial park. Mayor Doubts that Fifth Interchange will be built. Sam Salee says more industrial properties needed.WARNING! HERLD CITIZEN VERSION OF THE TRUTH
23 MAR 2003 TDOT report reccommends using SR 111, not Mine Lick Creek Road for Corridor J intersection with I-40.
24 MAY 2006 Tennessee Legislature removes protection from land owners when government acts to build roads or build industrial parks. Bill allows transfer of property to private concerns. Charlotte Burkes listed as a sponser.
29 JUNE 2006 Putnam County loans Cookeville $2,452,685 for their share of the Business Park.
14 DEC 2006 TDOT Signs the Environmental Assessment FHWA concures later on 18 APRIL 2008. The connecting road is to have a design speed of 70 MPH and 250 foot wide controlled access right-of-way.
05 JUNE 2006 Tennessee Governor signs bill limiting the ability of the state, county and city to condemn property. PDF FILE HERE
16 JAN 2007 County Commission votes to listen to Mrs Lynch's side of the story and votes down condemnation request.
05 FEB 2007 Center Hill Regional Planning Meeting votes on transportation projects
06 MARCH 2007 TDOT Holds a public Meeting on the Fifth Interchange
29 JUNE 2007 $5 million transferred out of Putnam county Debt Service Fund to by 400 Acre Business Park.
01 NOV 2007 Condemnation of Pyle Property on the City Council Agenda. The vote was unanimous.
12 NOV 2007 The County Planning Commission in a voice vote decides to condemn the Pyle Property.
13 NOV 2007 The Cookeville Chamber of Commerce Refused Tour Editor Access to Engineering Report on the Highland Business Park.
14 NOV 2007 The Chamber of Commerce called a little after 5 PM to advise the Tour Editor that they had prepared a copy of the report that is being used to justify the condemdation of the Pyle Property and that it would be available at the front desk.
12 FEB 2008 The Sheriff Served Mrs. Lynch a summons this morning to initiate the condemnation process on her land.
17 MAR 2008 The City and the County ammend their condemnation suit. This will push back the court date into April 2008.
17 MAR 2008 The Herald-Citizen quotes TDOT spokesperson Jenifer Osborne Flynn as saying that the Fifth Interchange and the Northern Connector are "non related." This suggests that the useless road attached to the interchange can be built later.
18 APRIL 2008 Federal Highway Adnistration, Charles J O'Neil, signs Finding of No Signifigant Impact Statement For Mine Lick Creek Interchange Road And Northern Connector Road.
25 APRIL 2008 THE LYNCH FAMILY ANNOUNCE THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM LEGAL ACTION TO PRESS THEIR OUTRAGEOUS EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE UPON THE LYNCH FAMILY
01 MAY 2008 TDOT puts up a partial electronic copy on their web site of the FONSI. This describes the staged construction of the connecting road from two to four lane but on a four lane right-of-way.
08 MAY 2008 The Lynch Family files a petition for Partition in Kind in Circuit Court. Attorneys ask for legal costs and damages.
09 MAY 2008 Herald-Citizen prints Finding of No Signifigant Impact or FONSI claiming that the Northern Connector and the Fifth Interchange are Connected.
18 JUNE 2008 The City Attorney suddenly discovers that he has to go on vaction on the same day that the City and County are scheduled in court to continue their campaign of eminent domain abuse. The Judge rescheduled the next court date to 21 JULY 08.
03 JUL 2008 City announces on the radio that they are paying $16 million to the Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation to compensate them for land annexed in the past few years.
21 JUL 2008 Judge Turnbull permits the city and the county to witdraw from their previous motion to withdraw from the suit. The judge further suggests that the two parties settle the matter out of court in a judicial confrence in November. The Judge allows further delay, until next year for the city and the county to obtain a Certificate of Public Purpose.
03 OCT 2008 The Herald Citizen reported that The city of Cookeville and Putnam County are seeking a certificate of public purpose and necessity from the state Building Finance Committee of the Tennessee Board of Economic Growth. The Cookeville City Council approved a resolution authorizing City Manager Jim Shipley to apply for the certificate during its meeting Thursday.
09 OCT 2008 the Cookeville City Council applies to the Building Finance Committee of the Tennessee Board of Economic Growth for a certificate of public purpose and necessity for the proposed Highlands Business Park."
14 OCT 2008 County Planning Commission approves petition for Certificate of Public Purpose and Necessity at the regular meeting. Kim Blaylock announces that the Business Park is on a "Fast Track." Linda Owens was denied chance to speak at the County Commission Meeting.
23 OCT 2008 The Lynch Family Attorney, Bob Anderson's Appeal to alter the discretionary finding by Judge Turnbull earlier in the year was denied. The Judge also denied a request that the money held in escrow be held in an interest bearing account.
14 NOV 2008 Centerhill RPO moves Fifth Interchange back down to 2011/2012 time frame after voting 11 projects ahead of it in 2010. Project Manager states that this was at the request of local officials.
17 NOV 2008 The county Commission agan refused Linda Owens a spokesperson for Mrs Lynch and the family to address the county commission or accept a written summary of her intended remarks. A resolution to issue general Obligation bonds was passed for the county portion of the $14.28 million of infrastructure costs.
20 NOV 2008 The Cookeville City Council approved a resolution to move forward with a PILOT program of tax incentives and to issue General Obligation Bonds to fund the $7.2 portion of the work in the Business Park. The City Council voted to pay the consultants for their work on water, sewer, gas and road design in the new park.
03 DEC 2008 The city of Cookeville let it be know publicly that contacts with TDOT have been made that suggest that use of connector road that was approved by FHWA and shown to the public in the public meetings could be elimiminated and instead, they wanted a road built by the city and the county to be considered as the connector road. The connector road in the original design was originally designed as a four lane that was part of the Corridor J project. It also was a fragment of a half loop around Cookeville that went from SR111, south of Cookeville to SR111 North of Cookeville.
8 DEC 2008 Recently elected state Representative Henry Fincher criticizes the City of Cookeville for lobbying TDOT to alter the plan for the Fifth Interchange.
27 JAN 2009 City of Cookeville and County Officials request secret meeting with the Department of Economic and Communbity Development to discuss their application for a Certificate of Need.
05 MARCH 2009 Cookeville and Putnam County gets certificate for an industrial park and a business park for a reduced footprint of about 290 acres. This excludes land under contention because of the partition and condemnation suits.
30 APRIL 2009 Deadline for City/County to respond or withdraw from suit passes. State Supreme Court to hear the case and make a decision, possibly in six months.
03 JUNE 2009 Tennessee Supreme Court hears Eminent Domain Abuse case concerning the government land grab at the Fifth Interchange. . RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
CONTACT YOUR TENNESSEE
STATE TRANSPORATION OFFICIALS
House Committee on Transportation
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HARMON, CHAIRMAN
District 37 — Sequatchie, Van Buren, Grundy and Marion Counties
Phone (423) 949-5100
Fax (615) 253-0264
Phone (615) 741-6849
CONTACT:Sandy Sain
REPRESENTATIVE VINCE DEAN, VICE CHAIR
District 30 — Part of Hamilton County
Phone (615) 741-1934
Fax (615) 253-0271
CONTACT: Joan Achuff
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE FRALEY, SECRETARY
District 39 — Franklin, Moore, and part of Lincoln Counties
Phone (615) 741-8695
Fax (615) 741-5759
CONTACT: Stephanie Peterson
REPRESENATIVE JUDY BARKER
District 77 — Obion, Lake and part of Dyer Counties
Phone: (615) 741-0718
Contact: Audrey Jenkins
REPRESENATIVE TY COBB
District 64 — Part of Maury County
Phone: (615) 741-3005
CONTACT: Connie Phelps
REPRESENTATIVE HENRY FINCHER
District 42 — Part of Putnam County
Phone (615) 741-1875
Contact: Jennifer Murphy
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FLOYD
District 27 — Part of Hamilton County
Phone (615) 741-2746
Fax (615) 253-0304
Contact: Cheryl Goodson
REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW HILL
Phone: 615-741-2251
District 7 — Part of Washington County
Contact: Carol Burroughs
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIP JOHNSON
District 78 — Cheatham and part of Montgomery and Williamson Counties
Phone (615) 741-7477
Contact: Celeste Thomas
REPRESENTATIVE JIMMY MATLOCK
District 21 — Parts of Loudon and Monroe Counties
Phone (615) 741-3736
Contact: Brenda Moore
REPRESENTATIVE BARRETT RICH
Phone: (615) 741-6890
District 94 — Fayette and parts of Hardeman and Tipton Counties
CONTACT: B. L. Rhodes
REPRESENTATIVE TONY SHIPLEY
District 2 — Part of Sullivan County
Phone: (615) 741-2886
CONTACT: B. L. Rhodes
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN C. TIDWELLDistrict 74 — Houston, Humphreys, Perry, and parts of Hickman and Maury Counties
Phone (931) 535-2619
Phone (615) 741-7098
Fax (615) 741-4324
Contact: Debra Webb
REPRESENTATIVE BEN WEST Rep. Ben West Jr. D-HermitageDistrict 60 — Part of Davidson County
Phone (615) 889-0801
Phone (615) 741-6959
Fax (615) 253-0331
Contact: Mary Adair
You can find all bills, fiscal notes, bill histories and co-sponsors, U.S. mail legislative and district office addresses and streaming video of committee and subcommittee meetings HERE
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSSENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSAll legislators may be reached at 1-800-449-8366, then enter the last five digits of their nashville office phone number listed below.
SENATOR JIM TRACY, CHAIRMANDistrict 16 — Bedford, Moore, and part of Rutherford Counties
Phone 615-741-1066
Fax 615-741-2255
CONTACTS: Christina Barber Warren Wells, Research Analyst
SENATOR STEVE SOUTHERLAND, VICE CHAIRDistrict 1 — Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, and Unicoi Counties
Phone (615) 741-3851
Fax (615) 253-0330
CONTACTS: Carolyn Newman Loudene Gee, Research Analyst
SENATOR TIM BARNES,SECRETARYDistrict 22 — Cheatham, Houston, and Montgomery Counties
Phone: (931) 648-9400
Phone: (615) 741-2374
Fax: (615) 253-0193
CONTACT: Megan Callis
SENATOR MAE BEAVERSDistrict 17 - Cannon, Clay, DeKalb,Macon,Smith, part of Sumner, Trousdale and Wilson County
Phone: 615-741-2421
Staff Contact: Patti Saliba, Alexander McVeagh, Research Analyst
SENATOR ANDY BERKEDistrict 10 - Parts of Hamilton and Marion County Counties
Phone (615) 741-6682
Staff Contact: Sam Neel
SENATOR LOWE FINNEYDistrict 27 - Madison, Gibson, and Carroll Counties
Phone (615) 741-1810
Contact:Lynette Morris
District 26 — Chester, Crockett, Fayette, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, McNairy, and Wayne Counties
Phone (615) 741-2368
Staff Contact: Linda Klingman Nathan James, Research Analyst
SENATOR DOUG JACKSON - D - Dickson
District 25 - Dickson, Giles, Hickman, Humphreys, Lawrence, and Lewis counties
Phone (615) 741-4499
Fax (615) 741-8745
Staff Contacts: Kim Baldwin
SENATOR KEN YAGERDistrict 12 — Campbell, Fentress, Morgan, Rhea, Roane, and Scott Counties
Phone (615) 741-1449
Fax (615) 253-0237
Staff Contacts: Zach Bates
YOU MIGHT HAVE A USELESS ROAD IF...
1. The road cost more money than it could ever hope to generate in taxes in a lifetime.
2. The local Chamber of Commerce says it will be good for the economy
3. The Chamber of Commerce organizes a pilgrimage to the Governor's office to tell him that everyone wants it.
4. The local paper tells everybody that if you don't want it your are a NIMBY
5. The local Chamber of Commerce is telling everyone that we have to do this because everyone else is doing it too.
6. The local Chamber of Commerce is claiming that we have to do this to get ahead of everyone else who isn't doing it.
7. TDOT says that it will cure the traffic problems.
8. TDOT says it won't cure the traffic problems.
9. The Chamber of Commerce claims that it will be good for the quality of life.
10. The Chamber of Commerce says it will help get the next factory
11. Your State Representative just thinks you are against it because of a pre-existing oppositional character flaw.
12. The Chamber of Commerce is in secret negotiations with the next whiz-bang company that only needs this road to make the whole deal come together.
13. TDOT is building a four-lane road when a two-lane would still have a high life cycle service level.
14. TDOT is building a road that will damage your business but does not go through your business. (No blood, No foul)
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
web counter