CWorking for

Accountable Government

 

Home
TTC-69
Waller Co Toll Authority
Toll Roads
Land Issues
Eminent Domain
Actions Taken
Voices
Calendar/Events
Links/Maps
Tools To Use
Archive

Archive

Documents

 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ONCE SAID, “Democracy is two
wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”
“Liberty,” he said, “is a well-armed lamb, contesting the vote.”
 

 

Online References

Misc.

  • We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through congress....Will Rogers

  • The future is purchased by the present.
    _Samuel Johnson

  • +Are Billboards in your future in Waller County & down the road ?

  • +Is Waller County's name soon to be MUD x Three.. oops X FOUR ?? 

TTC-35
 

The Next Wave in Superhighways, or A Big, Fat Texas Boondoggle?

The fight is on over a plan to build vast corridors for cars, trucks, trains — and almost everything else

By CATHY BOOTH; THOMAS HUTTO

5 Dec 2004  TIME MAGAZINE

To see the future of transportation in Texas, you have to drive out to the prairie north of Austin, past the sprawling plants of Dell and Samsung, to the farthest suburbs, where wild grass and cornfields nuzzle up to McMansions with their perfect green lawns. There, giant earthmovers, their wheels taller than a Texan in his boots, are ripping up the gummy, black soil to lay a 49-mile stretch of concrete tollway. State Highway 130, at a cost of $1.5 billion, is the biggest highway project under way in the U.S. today. It is also the first test in concrete for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC)--a radical rethinking of the nation's Eisenhower-era roadways.TTC 35, 69 and priority corridors

The brainchild of Texas' Republican Governor, Rick Perry, the TTC would, if built, completely transform the state's highways over the next 50 years, creating a 4,000-mile network of multimodal corridors for transporting goods and people by car, truck, rail and utility line. Each corridor would have six lanes for cars, four additional lanes for 18-wheel trucks, half a dozen rail lines and a utility zone for moving oil and water, gas and electricity, even broadband data. The corridors could measure up to a quarter of a mile across. The projected cost, at least $183 billion, is more than the original price tag for the entire U.S. interstate system. But Texas, going it alone, is seeking private companies to take on the mammoth job of constructing, financing, operating and maintaining the network. To pay for the roads, developers will rely on a familiar but long-neglected method of financing: tollbooths.

Depending on whom you talk to, the Trans-Texas Corridor is either an innovative solution to the U.S.'s overcrowded highway system or a Texas-size boondoggle. Backers claim that such corridors are needed to divert road and rail traffic — NAFTA truckers driving up from Mexico, railcars of Chinese goods from Western ports, hazardous cargoes of all kinds — from congested urban areas. Buying land for the system now, decades before it's needed, would cut acquisition costs and might entice businesses to relocate inside the corridors. T. Boone Pickens could ship his West Texas water across the state in pipelines through the corridors; oil and gas could be shipped north from Mexico; even high-speed passenger rail lines could become reality. "The Trans-Texas Corridor is not just a road, not just asphalt," says Perry. "It's a vision."

Opponents of the corridor range from environmentalists (the Sierra Club has called it "evil") to the Texas Republican Party, which has urged the legislature to repeal it. Texas, which is losing more land to sprawl than any other state, would need more than 9,000 sq. mi. of right-of-way for the corridors, affecting critical wetlands and pristine prairie lands. The Big Thicket National Preserve, considered "the biological crossroads of North America" for its mix of habitats, was put on the list of most-endangered parks by the National Parks Conservation Association this year, in part because of the threat from the Perry plan.

Environmentalists have found an unlikely ally in traditionally conservative landowners worried about property rights. David Langford, an activist for the Texas Wildlife Association, is organizing farmers and ranchers whose land could be cut in half or condemned by the Trans-Texas Corridor. An early plan for central Texas showed a corridor passing near the homestead Langford's family settled in 1851. With the state's new "quick claim" ability — granted under TTC legislation — his family homestead could be gone in 90 days, he says, transferred to private investors operating the corridor. Though he would be compensated financially, he's still steamed. "I can't believe Rick Perry's grandfather would want his house and ranch taken and turned over to Paris Hilton's family to build a hotel on one of these roads," he says.

Local politicians are mobilizing too. The TTC legislation, passed after eight hours of debate, in June 2003, drew little attention until Republican activist David Stall, a former city manager of Columbus, in East Texas, discovered a notice for hearings buried in the ads for gravel and road-material bids. He was "horrified" to discover that the corridor, as a limited-access turnpike, would steal business his town gets from travelers. Today public officials from six counties along the corridor route have joined his grass-roots group, CorridorWatch, to oppose the TTC. "There is no legislative oversight, no elected officials overseeing the contracts to build and operate these toll roads," Stall complains.

But the worst ruckus broke out in Austin last summer, when commuters realized that the "innovative" financing authorized by the Trans-Texas legislation meant they would start paying tolls. Traditionally, highways have been financed by gasoline-tax revenues. But that money now barely covers road maintenance, much less new construction, and raising gas taxes is as politically unpalatable in Texas as it is everywhere else. The state, for the first time, can go into debt by issuing bonds for new roads. Although those bonds can be paid back by a number of possible revenue sources (such as steeper fines for drunken driving), Texas policy now is to look first at tolling for all new highway projects.

What's more, the TTC legislation allows existing roads, not just new ones, to be converted to tollways. "They can take any highway anywhere, anytime, and put a tollbooth there," says Sal Costello, whose group, AustinTollParty, argues that putting tollbooths on roads already paid for with gas taxes amounts to "double taxation" of commuters. The political outcry is having an effect. After Austin approved eight new toll projects for roads and bridges, a recall campaign was launched against the Democratic mayor and two city councilmen. "It's been a true grass prairie fire," says Brewster McCracken, one of the city councilmen targeted. He's now against conversions.

Congress in the 1950s expressly rejected tolls as a way of financing the nation's interstate highways. But the Bush Administration, faced with an aging freeway system and a lack of money for building and maintenance, is rethinking the idea. Mary E. Peters, head of the Federal Highway Administration, has called Perry's TTC plan a "bold concept." President Bush has threatened to veto any increase in the nation's 18.4¢ gasoline tax and has expressed support for tolls on interstate highways. Other states, such as California, Missouri and Minnesota, are closely watching the Texas toll experiment.

Perry, a farm boy from West Texas who studied animal science at Texas A&M University, sees the Trans-Texas Corridor as a way to make his mark by tackling the state's growing congestion. Urban rush-hour drivers were stuck in traffic for an average of 46 hr. in 2002, nearly triple the time in 1982, according to a study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute. Increasingly, tolls are seen as a way to reduce traffic. "We simply can't afford to build our way out of traffic congestion, so we have to better manage it," says Michael Replogle, transportation director of Environmental Defense, a nonprofit group that advocates "time-of-day tolling": tolls that would take effect during rush hours to discourage driving at peak times.

The Trans-Texas Corridor has won accolades from conservatives like Wendell Cox, transportation guru at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who hails it as "the first serious innovative thinking in transportation in a half-century." Texas economist Ray Perryman estimates that the TTC could generate $135 billion in annual personal income for Texans and nearly 2.2 million jobs. But not everyone accepts his projection of $13 billion a year in revenues from the corridors. Kara Kockelman at the University of Texas' Center for Transportation Research warns that NAFTA-generated trade could decline and unforeseen crises, like the terrorist attacks in 2001, could affect travel. The state has had to buy back its first private toll road — promoted by a former Democratic candidate for Governor, Tony Sanchez — for $20 million.

None of that has stopped an array of private companies from trying to get a piece of the new Texas road-building boom. Sometime in December, the Texas Transportation Commission, a five-member board appointed by the Governor, will award a $24 billion contract to develop proposals for the TTC's first multimodal corridor — a 600-mile stretch from Mexico to Oklahoma needed for NAFTA trucking and rail. In the running are three consortiums, one headed by the California-based Fluor Corp., another that includes Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary and a third headed by the Spanish tollway operator Cintra. Fluor got into the game early. It submitted an unsolicited bid for work on the Trans-Texas Corridor in early 2002, before there was even an approved state plan. "Our work on SH 130 is considered the TTC's precursor," says Fluor vice president Steve Dobbs.

The toll issue could come back to haunt the Governor, who is up for re-election in 2006. Perry's hefty donations from construction firms have been noted by public watchdogs. Since 1997, he has received more than $1 million from highway interests, according to reports filed with the Texas ethics commission. Two Republican rivals — Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn — have opposed the tolling of existing roads. Perry now says he, too, is against conversions, but notes that those decisions are up to local authorities.

Meanwhile, in the town of Hutto, north of Austin, the construction on State Highway 130 is a sign of things to come. Farmers no longer gather at the cotton gin, but the town's first national chain, Home Depot, has moved in. Mayor Mike Ackerman drives by the construction site every day on his way to work and is sanguine about the changing face of his town. "Anything we can do to get traffic moving north and south, we need to do," he says. The question is whether the rest of Texas agrees with him.

With reporting by Hilary Hylton/Austin

  

Picture Files

 
 

SHADOW TOLLING

 

Shadow tolling is an adaptation of the traditional real toll Design Build Fund Operate (DBFO) model, where public sector project sponsors pay “tolls” rather than motorists. With shadow tolling models, a concession is awarded to a private contractor who has then the responsibility to design, build, finance and operate a designated road section for an agreed period of time. The term "shadow tolling" is used, as there are no tolling points and users pay no fees. Instead, the sponsoring public agencies make payments to the concessionaire based on traffic volumes and service levels.

Most, but not all, shadow toll projects involved upgrades of existing roads. This is an important attraction for private contractors: historic traffic data reduce traffic risk and the need to depend on possibly inaccurate forecasts for revenue projections. With shadow toll arrangements, the private partner arranges independent financing by leveraging its own equity and the future shadow toll revenues pledged by the sponsoring agency. The private partner operates and maintains the shadow toll road for a pre-determined concession period, during which time it recovers costs and earns a reasonable return on its investment. At the end of that term, the shadow toll payments end and responsibility for maintaining the road would revert to the owner.

 

 

NOTE: This information was taken from the San Antonio Toll Party's  website which is dedicated to educating & informing citizens and organizing citizen action.  The SA group is battling the developments in progress in Texas government to "make policy" without benefit of public consideration, approval, or assessed need.  LINK: www.satollparty.com       

Glossary of Toll Terms

The Language of Traffic The ability to understand the Language of Traffic is necessary for those who wish to engage in rigorous, productive discussions of transportation impacts and policies. For purposes of this article, the Language of Traffic is the terms and definitions that transportation professionals use to analyze, project and describe traffic. At times, this technical terminology can seem like a totally different language. Read more…

CDA – Comprehensive Development Agreement, public –private partnerships that amount to selling ownership of our public assets to private, even foreign, companies for up to 50 years (and longer based on the Texas Transportation Commission's December agenda). Private companies negotiate for the control of toll rates and the non-toll lanes(to slow speed limits or increase time at traffic signals) to ensure they make enough profit from the toll roads. It isn’t enough for these highway interests to just bid to build the roads, now they want to control them and exclusively profit off of the taxpayers for up to 50 years per contract WITHOUT COMPETITION!

Cintra – A Spanish-based consortium who was awarded the first leg of the Trans Texas Corridor that parallels I-35 and the bid to build the San Antonio toll starter system on 281 and Loop 1604. Partners with Zachry. Cintra recently purchased a Houston-based construction company, Webber Group, in order to appear more “American” for future highway bids.

Macquarie 1604 Partnership - Second company to throw hat in the ring to bid to build our toll starter system. They apparently have partnered with Cintra in the past on the Ontario Toll Project disaster up in Canada. Read about their standard operating procedures using secret public-private partnerships like Cintra to gain a monopoly on our public highways for up to 99 years here.

MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization - established by the federal government to guide where federal gas tax dollars get allocated locally. The Federal Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its predecessor [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)], established the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for San Antonio-Bexar County. TEA-21 states that the MPO should have local elected officials, representatives of major transit authorities, airports, rail and ports and appropriate state officials.

Pass Through Financing - Also known as shadow tolling in the toll road industry. A local entity, like a city and/or county, pays for the road project and the Department of Transportation pays the local entities back based on the number of cars that “pass through” equipment which counts the number of cars (basically like tolling). The problem with this approach is that local gvernment has to use its tax money, like property tax, to pay for improvements to STATE highways. We already pay numerous fees for highways, not the least of which is the gas tax. This is another way the State is abdicating its role and responsibility to build and maintain our State highways.

Prop 15 - Mobility Fund/Toll Equity Act of 2001 that appeared on the November 6, 2001 ballot: “The constitutional amendment creating the Texas Mobility Fund and authorizing grants and loans of money and issuance of obligations for financing the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, operation, and expansion of state highways, turnpikes, toll roads, toll bridges, and other mobility projects.” The voters passed this with 67% of the vote, and it was sold to them as allowing TxDOT to borrow future gas tax revenues in order to speed up highway projects (versus simply pay as you go funding). Nowhere is a toll only mandate mentioned in that proposition.

Prop 1- PASSED Nov 8, 2005 - Prop 1 passed on November 8. We need to be alert and watching the Legislature for selling bonds to subsidize profitable private rail companies at our expense. The Prop 1 rail fund was the same voter trick as Prop 15 from 2001, except this time it’s about the public subsidizing rail.Prop 1 allows an open ended corporate subsidy. Taxpayers will pay unlimited tax dollars to move private corporation rail lines into the Trans Texas Corridor after Gov. Perry promised no public funds would be used.The state DEBT commitment would also be open-ended, with no limit on the amount of state bonds that could be issued from this new fund. By amending the Constitution to authorize the creation of this fund, the state will commit itself to massive debt for generations. Private corporations will profit from this taxpayer giveaway that help the controversial Trans Texas Corridor move forward. See TxDOT’s own admission that their rail plan includes the Trans Texas Corridor (see page 3 of actual document, page 7 of PDF).The railroad industry no longer is state-regulated, and state government should not involve itself in that industry’s investment decisions.__The ballot language does not advise the voter of the that it’s a special interest fund that the taxpayer pays for and private corporations profit from. It is a blank check and unlimited debt. We’ll be monitoring this in the Legislature!

Prop 9 - DEFEATED on Nov 8 ballot - Proposition 9 would have allowed unelected, unaccountable Tolling Authority board members to have extended term limits. Current 2 year term limits would have expanded to 6 years for Regional Mobility Authorities. These appointed people are allowed to privatize and toll our freeways - they will set the toll rates for roads we’ve already paid for.A two-year term of office requires more frequent assessments of the board members job performance. Six-year terms are not necessary to carry out the functions of the authority since the staff or employees of an authority would do so regardless of the length of the directors’ terms.Comptroller of Texas has reported the RMAs create “Double taxation without accountability”, and that the RMA’s loose management practices cost all Texans more. NOT surprisingly, Comptroller also found favoritism and self-enrichment as board members gave contracts (without bids) to their friends and their own companies. RMA boards will now be required to abide by the standard provided in the Constitution that limits the terms of members of such boards to two years.

RMA – Regional Mobility Authorities, unelected mini-TxDOT’s established by the Legislature in HB 3588. Each county commissioner appoints one member, the county judge appoints 3 members, and the Governor appoints the Chair. The essentially manage toll projects, collect tolls, and arrange for the sale of bonds for road projects.

HB 3588 passed in the 2003 legislative session - Law that established the Trans Texas Corridor, proliferation of toll roads, RMAs, and the transfer of highway funds from the general revenue fund into a mobility fund that TxDOT can allocate at will for useless things like “reviewing” a private contract (or CDA) for a year. The Alamo RMA took advantage of these funds to do just that to the tune of $1 million! So much for tolls speeding up highway projects!

HB 2702 Omnibus Highway Bill from 2005 legislative session - Elected officials hide behind this saying, “it prohibits the conversion of existing highways into tollways without a vote of the people.” But it has so many loopholes, it’s useless against highway robbery, and, in fact, empowers the Transportation Commission with sole discretion over converting existing highways into tollways.

Zachry American Infrastructure – San Antonio-based construction company who was awarded the first leg of the Trans Texas Corridor that parallels I-35 and the bid to build the San Antonio toll starter system on 281 and Loop 1604. Partners with Cintra.

Portion of HB 2702 that addresses converting existing highways into toll roads – SECTION 2.36. Chapter 228, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subchapter E to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER E. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DETERMINATION; CONVERSION OF NONTOLLED STATE HIGHWAY Sec. 228.201. LIMITATION ON TOLL FACILITY DESIGNATION. Except as provided by Section 228.2015, the department may not operate a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project, and may not transfer a highway or segment to another entity for operation as a toll project, unless: (1) the commission by order designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the contract to construct the highway or segment was awarded; (2) the highway or segment was open to traffic as a turnpike project on or before September 1, 2005; (3) the project was designated as a toll project in a plan or program of a metropolitan planning organization on or before September 1, 2005; (4) the highway or segment is reconstructed so that the number of nontolled lanes on the highway or segment is greater than or equal to the number in existence before the reconstruction; (5) a facility is constructed adjacent to the highway or segment so that the number of nontolled lanes on the converted highway or segment and the adjacent facility together is greater than or equal to the number in existence on the converted highway or segment before the conversion; or (6) the commission converts the highway or segment to a toll facility by: (A) making the determination required by Section 228.202; (B) conducting the hearing required by Section 228.203; and (C) obtaining county and voter approval as required by Sections 228.207 and 228.208. Sec. 228.2015. LIMITATION TRANSITION. (a) Notwithstanding Section 228.201, the department may operate a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway as a toll project if: (1) a construction contract was awarded for the highway or segment before September 1, 2005; (2) the highway or segment had not at any time before September 1, 2005, been open to traffic; and (3) the commission designated the highway or segment as a toll project before the earlier of: (A) the date the highway or segment is opened to traffic; or (B) September 1, 2005. (b) This section expires September 1, 2006. SECTION 2.37. Section 362.0041, Transportation Code, is transferred to Subchapter E, Chapter 228, Transportation Code, redesignated as Sections 228.202-228.208, and amended to read as follows: Sec. 228.202 [362.0041 ]. COMMISSION DETERMINATION [CONVERSION OF PROJECTS ]. The [(a) Except as provided in Subsections (d) and (g), the ] commission may by order convert a nontolled state highway or a segment of a nontolled state highway [the free state highway system ] to a toll project [facility ] if it determines that the conversion will improve overall mobility in the region or is the most feasible and economic means to accomplish necessary expansion, improvements, or extensions to that segment of the state highway system. Sec. 228.203. PUBLIC HEARING. [(b) ] Prior to converting a state highway or a segment of a[the ] state highway [ system ] under this subchapter [section ], the commission shall conduct a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments from interested persons concerning the proposed conversion [transfer ]. Notice of the hearing shall be published in the Texas Register, one or more newspapers of general circulation, and a newspaper, if any, published in the county or counties in which the involved highway is located. Sec. 228.204. RULES. [(c) ] The commission shall adopt rules implementing this subchapter [section ], including criteria and guidelines for the approval of a conversion of a highway. Sec. 228.205. QUEEN ISABELLA CAUSEWAY. [(d) ] The commission may not convert the Queen Isabella Causeway in Cameron County to a toll project [facility ]. Sec. 228.206. TOLL REVENUE. [(e) Subchapter G, Chapter 361, applies to a highway converted to a toll facility under this section. [(f) ] Toll revenue collected under this section:
(1) shall be deposited in the state highway fund;
(2) may be used by the department to finance the improvement, extension, expansion, or operation of the converted segment of highway and may not be collected except for those purposes; and (3) is exempt from the application of Section 403.095, Government Code. Sec. 228.207. COUNTY AND VOTER APPROVAL. [(g) ] The commission may only convert a state highway or a segment of a[the ] state highway [ system ] under this subchapter [section ] if the conversion is approved by : (1) the commissioners court of each county within which the highway or segment is located ; and (2) the qualified voters who vote in an election under Section 228.208 and who reside in the limits of: (A) a county if any part of the highway or segment to be converted is located in an unincorporated area of the county; or (B) a municipality in which the highway or segment to be converted is wholly located .Sec. 228.208. ELECTION TO APPROVE CONVERSION. (a) If notified by the department of the proposed conversion of a highway or segment under this subchapter, and after approval of the conversion by the appropriate commissioners courts as required by Section 228.207(1), the commissioners court of each county described by Section 228.207(2)(A) or the governing body of a municipality described by Section 228.207(2)(B), as applicable, shall call an election for the approval or disapproval of the conversion. (b) If a county or municipality orders an election, the county or municipality shall publish notice of the election in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county or municipality at least once each week for three consecutive weeks, with the first publication occurring at least 21 days before the date of the election. (c) An order or resolution ordering an election and the election notice required by Subsection (b) must show, in addition to the requirements of the Election Code, the location of each polling place and the hours that the polls will be open. (d) The proposition submitted in the election must distinctly state the highway or segment proposed to be converted and the limits of that highway or segment. (e) At an election ordered under this section, the ballots shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The conversion of (highway) from (beginning location) to (ending location) to a toll project.” (f) A proposed conversion is approved only if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast. (g) A notice of the election and a certified copy of the order canvassing the election results shall be sent to the commission.

 

 

Public Private Partnerships

Any discussion about the Trans Texas Corridor must include a discussion about Public Private Partnerships.  There is a lot of debate and discussion in Austin, and other state capitols, about new applications for this tool long used by government entities.  Public Private Partnerships are designed to allow a government entity working with a private partner to provide a service to its citizens that it cannot necessarily afford to provide itself.  For example, many communities privatize their trash collection, or the operation of their hospitals, saving the community from large overhead costs.  These are common uses of the Public Private Partnership tool.  CorridorWatch.org and other grass roots groups have expressed concern that overuse of the Public Private Partnership method will result in higher costs of goods and services when the private sector profit is combined with existing taxes and tolls.

Long Term, High Dollar

Recently, long term, high dollar agreements have been executed for the long term lease of transportation infrastructure in Indiana, Illinois and Ontario, Canada.  Enticed by large up-front payments from the private concessionaire, state agencies have entered into long term lease agreements for the operation of existing toll facilities.  Subsequent evaluation of these agreements reveals that those government entities may have sold themselves, and their citizens, short.  In the case of the Indiana Toll Road, the concessionaire will see a return of their initial investment earlier than originally thought, and the 50 years of revenue stream which would have previously been utilized by State and local elected officials, will instead be the profit of a private concessionaire.  In the United States such long term leases are considered effective ownership by the IRS.

Not Just for Transportation

Public Private Partnerships are not limited to transportation assets.  All classes of public assets are under consideration: ports, penal systems, hospitals, educational facilities, airports parking facilities, water treatment facilities and waterways, to name a few. In a list recently provided to New Jersey Governor John Corzine, UBS identified several investment opportunities worthy of consideration including the lottery, development rights at state transit stations, the state fiber-optic network and, surprisingly, naming rights to public facilities!

Pros and Cons

While the use and type of Public Private Partnerships are being expanded and explored, in the case of 50 year agreements their long term affect is largely unknown.  The advantages often touted include transferring the financial risk to the private partner, up-front payments, different bonding requirements, and more flexibility with bond proceeds.  But government entities utilizing these PPP agreements need to be aware of certain risks.  Recent reports raise concerns about unreasonable toll increases, long term contracts in excess of 50 years, loss of revenue and “non-compete”, or “competition limiting” clauses which limit future public development of infrastructure.

Oversight and Peer Agency Review

Before any government agency or entity is authorized to enter into a binding agreement, in excess of a determined dollar figure, the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal received from a qualified Public Private Partner and the terms, length and benefit of the agreement need to be evaluated by a designated state agency, using an established criteria, and approved by the Legislature.

For example, the recent Texas State Auditor’s report on the Trans Texas Corridor recommended that such agreements with a dollar value in excess of $350 million dollars be reviewed by the Attorney General’s office. To protect the interests of Texans, peer agency review and legislative oversight must be a required element of the Public Private Partnership process.

 

 

 

 

Status Reports

  • Status Reports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home | TTC-69 | Waller Co Toll Authority | Toll Roads | Land Issues | Eminent Domain | Actions Taken | Voices | Calendar/Events | Links/Maps | Tools To Use | Archive

Last updated: 06/02/08.