Dr. No and Courtney Niland put an item (Item 11A1) on tomorrow's agenda which would, if passed, scuttle Bike Share in favor of a TxDOT proposal for the money. However, elpasonaturally has learned that Niland will ask for a two week postponement of the item. In the meantime, Mayor Leeser will ask the Transportation Policy Board of the MPO this coming Friday for an up or down vote on Bike Share. (They have already approved it.)
It is obvious that TxDOT does not want to spend the CMAQ money for a bike share program. Some believe that, without TxDOT's cooperation, El Paso will simply lose out on federal money. When it comes to TxDOT, resistance seems futile. Elpasonaturally has also learned that City Council Representative Courtney Niland has said that nobody can go up against TxDOT. "They are the most powerful agency in Texas," she is quoted to have said. Never mind representative democracy where the people elect their policy makers. In the case of TxDOT, elpasonaturally believes that there is one Dictator - Ted Houghton. He has cronies and he hobnobs with others who care not one bit about democracy. (An agency that is so powerful that the people and/or their representatives cannot go up against it should be abolished.)
The big question is why does TxDOT want to scuttle bike share in favor of giving federal money back to the federal government by way of a program that would employ more Border Patrol people in order to speed up bridge times? Who is behind this attempt to divert (steal) funds from one federal program to another?
To begin be sure to read Cindy Ramirez's excellent story in the Times this morning about this latest assault on Bike Share as well as the fact sheet from VeloPaso below that well explains the situation and the debate:
It is obvious that TxDOT does not want to spend the CMAQ money for a bike share program. Some believe that, without TxDOT's cooperation, El Paso will simply lose out on federal money. When it comes to TxDOT, resistance seems futile. Elpasonaturally has also learned that City Council Representative Courtney Niland has said that nobody can go up against TxDOT. "They are the most powerful agency in Texas," she is quoted to have said. Never mind representative democracy where the people elect their policy makers. In the case of TxDOT, elpasonaturally believes that there is one Dictator - Ted Houghton. He has cronies and he hobnobs with others who care not one bit about democracy. (An agency that is so powerful that the people and/or their representatives cannot go up against it should be abolished.)
The big question is why does TxDOT want to scuttle bike share in favor of giving federal money back to the federal government by way of a program that would employ more Border Patrol people in order to speed up bridge times? Who is behind this attempt to divert (steal) funds from one federal program to another?
To begin be sure to read Cindy Ramirez's excellent story in the Times this morning about this latest assault on Bike Share as well as the fact sheet from VeloPaso below that well explains the situation and the debate:
TxDOT wants the money transferred to a program (the P3 Pilot Program) to reduce border crossing wait times. They argue that the bike share program does not meet their emissions reduction threshold. However, TxDOT cannot impose such a threshold. Talk about a cooked up deal. What is TxDOT's interest?
The P3 Pilot Program which funds the Border Patrol has not been nominated and may not even be eligible for CMAQ funds because the Feds do not fund salaries beyond that of statewide bicycle coordinators. An FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) official said that they would have to make an extraordinary case for CMAQ to apply.
Prior to the last MPO meeting, the P3 Program had not been discussed publicly. However Open Records Requests show that it was discussed at a breakfast meeting behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny (how Houghton and his cronies like it). In an August 12, 2013 email from Bob Bielek to a number of officials, he writes: "Why are we complicating this? The discussion prior to the MPO meeting with the Mayor [Leeser of El Paso], Representative Pickett and Mike Medina (Director of EPMPO) was based on deprogramming the bike share program so that those funds could be used in the pilot program to decrease congestion at the bridges. The city would look for funds elsewhere."
By the way, if the goal is to reduce border crossing wait times, then I suggest that there is a means of doing so rather than throwing more federal money at it: transfer half of the border patrol personnel who are currently marching up and down the bridges with sniffing dogs to gate posts so more car lanes can be opened up. I'm a conservative guy who hates to see government waste. I'm also a conservative guy who believes that we the people make decisions and not little dictators and their cronies behind closed doors. The CMAQ money belongs to Bike Share and nothing else. TxDOT should either release the money or be compelled to release the money. If they do not, they should be dismissed and jail time ought to be a consideration.
The P3 Pilot Program which funds the Border Patrol has not been nominated and may not even be eligible for CMAQ funds because the Feds do not fund salaries beyond that of statewide bicycle coordinators. An FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) official said that they would have to make an extraordinary case for CMAQ to apply.
Prior to the last MPO meeting, the P3 Program had not been discussed publicly. However Open Records Requests show that it was discussed at a breakfast meeting behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny (how Houghton and his cronies like it). In an August 12, 2013 email from Bob Bielek to a number of officials, he writes: "Why are we complicating this? The discussion prior to the MPO meeting with the Mayor [Leeser of El Paso], Representative Pickett and Mike Medina (Director of EPMPO) was based on deprogramming the bike share program so that those funds could be used in the pilot program to decrease congestion at the bridges. The city would look for funds elsewhere."
No comments:
Post a Comment