[Alberta's Child]

May be I'm wrong about this, but I've been under the impression that the toll road controversy in Texas involves roads that haven't even been built yet. If that's the case, then what's the big deal? Motorists can either pay for the new roads through their fuel taxes, or pay for the roads through the tolls. In either case, they're getting roads tomorrow that aren't there today.

It's also worth noting that tolling a highway on a major trade corridor makes a lot of sense for simple economic/operational reasons -- because it forces users who have both a start and end point outside the region to pay for their use of the system.

[Publius Valerius]

It's also worth noting that tolling a highway on a major trade corridor makes a lot of sense for simple economic/operational reasons -- because it forces users who have both a start and end point outside the region to pay for their use of the system.

Yes, thank you! This is a point that is, for some reason, lost on most people. The Indiana Toll Road, for instance, essentially serves to move truck traffic from New York to Chicago, and despite that these people don't pay Indiana taxes, the road exists almost exclusively for their use. Toll away.

[wolfcreek]

If that's the case, then what's the big deal?


FReepmail ToleranceSucksRocks and get on his ping list. We'll be glad to educate you on how Texans feel about being MESSED with.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

"... but I've been under the impression that the toll road controversy in Texas involves roads that haven't even been built yet."

You're misinformed. The proposals for wholly new toll roads are not opposed for the most part. What really ticks us off in SATx is the heavy-handed way the state is planning to convert major EXISTING roadways to toll roads despite the overwhelming opposition of the people here. These roads have no real alternatives, and they're already paid for! The posting by another Texan shed some light on the subject: in order for the Trans-Texas corridor highway to be profitable, they've got to eliminate the free alternatives to it.

[lentulusgracchus]

It's also worth noting that tolling a highway on a major trade corridor makes a lot of sense for simple economic/operational reasons -- because it forces users who have both a start and end point outside the region to pay for their use of the system.

No, it doesn't make sense if you want mobility. See my last post.

Privatizing/tolling drives operators to seek revenues, not traffic relief. Congestion and lack of alternatives are catnip to toll road owner/operators.

If the NASCO Highway ("Trans-Texas Corridor") is built, it will create a powerful, rich lobby against improvement and maintenance of the existing Interstate system -- which was built with more than narrow commercial and financial considerations in mind. The Interstate system is also a military road system, as well as a civil-emergency road system (however inadequate, as Texas and Louisiana found out when Hurricanes "Katrina" and "Rita" approached in 2005).

Or, to spell it out for you further, the NASCO Highway, and tolling in general, will create a powerful lobby against the public mobility, military, and civil-defense interests. Once established, that financial interest, just like the robber-baron trusts, will wrap itself around the public transportation agenda like an anaconda, in order to protect its interest and maximize its revenue at the expense of all other public agenda interests.

Look at an atlas of the Atlantic states, where all the big toll-road systems are. Are their public freeway systems as extensive, coherent, and complete as they could be? Or do they have gaps and discontinuities, that tend to funnel travelers toward the toll turnpikes? Are those states easy to get around? Their cities well-served by abundant free parkways? Or do their road grids subserve the revenue interests of the turnpike operators?