TXDOT Making Cuts, But Not To Toll Roads

"I think without toll financing, the highway just doesn't get built,"

That's very very unlikely (true in SH130's case, but not for any other of the toll roads). There's substantial commuting demand out there _today_ which even a responsible highway department would want to do something for.

And you're VASTLY underestimating the amount of extra sprawl-subsidy that a free highway produces compared to a tollway. When people are shopping for houses, they rarely see rush hour traffic, and the cost of gas they spent to get to/from is the last thing on their mind, but they sure as hell will notice the real estate agent taking them through tollbooths.

I'd argue that the Fix290 proposal isn't going to go anywhere because there are so many new developments going up around Dripping Springs. For some reason, in the past two years, it seems like five or six master-planned communities have opened right off of 290 (such as Belterra and Highpointe).

Most of the people that live there will have at least one member of the household that commutes into Austin, as I don't think there are very many jobs in Dripping Springs that would pay well enough for those houses.

All of those people are going to want a fly-over, US 183 type highway to zip them onto Mopac, Loop 360, Ben White, or Lamar to get to the job centers. The Oak Hill locals are going to want the parkway (as would I), but I don't think they are going to be a powerful enough political constituency. I certainly hope they are.

I wonder if the explosion of development happened because of the announcement of the road expansion at the Y? The area is an enormous bottleneck, and will only get worse as those master-planned communities grow.

The subsidy is larger if you compare a highway financed by a combination of taxes and tolls to a highway financed only with taxes, but I don't think that is the relevant comparison. I think without toll financing, the highway just doesn't get built, or a smaller, cheaper highway gets built, for about the same price as the tax component of the tolled highway. If that is the case, then the amount of the subsidy is the same whether the highway is tolled or not. However, the beneficiaries are different - the toll highway primarily benefits people to whom the toll is not a material factor, while an un-tolled highway benefits everyone that uses it (to the extent that you believe the ability to drive on a highway is a benefit).

Also, I would submit that the costs of a highway are only partially represented by the taxes paid for it. The pollution, destruction of the landscape, negative implications for land use, etc. are all substantial additional costs that are borne by everyone, not just toll road users.

Shilli, the subsidy is dramatically larger overall for the freeway, period. That's the important thing, whether it's Sal Costello in his Expedition or somebody in an Escalade - neither one deserves a subsidy from an East Austinite.

I'm just saying that as long as we are providing a subsidy, it should benefit everyone, not just the wealthy. I agree that it would be better to eliminate the subsidy.

Also, although I think the equitable argument is valid, my main beef with toll roads is that they provide additional financing for highway construction, and I would like to see fewer highways constructed. My perception is that TXDOT would like to build as many highways as it can. They seek as much funding as possible from the legislature and the voters. I would like to stop them there. Instead, they get additional financing from toll road operators, which allows them to build additional highways.

I recognize that there is an alternate explanation that TXDOT decides how many highways it wants to build, and then seeks funding from the legislature and, failing that, toll road operators. I reject that explanation on the basis that if TXDOT actually has a limit on the number and width of highways it would like to build, that number is so far above the realm of possibility that it may as well be infinite.

I don't know what the amount of the subsidy will be per mile when you add in gas taxes. But I don't agree that as long as we're providing a partial subsidy, we might as well provide it for free. By that logic, the government should pay all home mortgage interest, since some people can't afford even partially subsidized mortgages. The equitable thing to do is simply to eliminate the subsidy.

There is a lot of risk in these long-term toll road contracts. One is the political risk that all the belly aching over tolls will cause TxDOT to sabotage the roads with a bunch of free alternatives. That risk has to be managed somehow. Guaranteeing revenues, with profit sharing over a certain rate of return, is better than a no-compete clause. (I think TxDOT has used both.)

Free roads and toll roads both subsidize Hummer-driving hill country homeowners. Free roads also subsidize Kia-driving $100,000 house suburbanites that can't afford to pay tolls. Part of the reason congestion would be as bad as ever on a free road is that it would be used by both Kias and Hummers. Toll roads don't pay for themselves - a huge percentage of the funding comes from taxes, as do the payments required in case the toll-road operators don't make their guaranteed profits. As long as the government is subsidizing suburbia, I see no reason why only Hummer drivers and not Kia drivers should be subsidized.

Shilli, no: (1) it's the free road, not the toll road, that is a subsidy for Hummer-driving hill country homeowners; (2) while I definitely prefer Fix290's parkway to TxDOT's highway in the sky, a free parkway would be a disaster -- congestion would be as bad as ever; (3) in a tight budget, the only roads that ought to be built are roads that (more or less) pay for themselves.

Btw, free, congested roads just benefit those with spare time to sit stuck in traffic.