Skip to comments.How will Texas continue to pay for its highways?
Posted on 06/17/2017 12:54:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Texas is a highway state. This reality stems from the need to meet the mobility demands of both sprawling metropolitan regions and vast rural areas.
Paying for the state's massive system of highways has always been a challenge, however. Estimates from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) put the state's highway expansion and maintenance needs alone at nearly $383 billion by 2040. Existing public funding, projected to be $70 billion over the next decade, will not be able to cover that cost without unprecedented funding increases after 2026.
While Texans are clearly amenable to paying for better roads — two recent state referendums added $2 billion annually to state highway funds — voters and politicians alike have balked at the idea of new toll roads and the public-private partnerships that are often used to facilitate their formation. The recent referenda, for example, explicitly said the new monies would only support projects on free highways.
This trend continued in early May, when the Texas House rejected a bill that would have allowed TxDOT to use public-private partnerships to fund several highway projects. Sixteen such partnerships had been approved under an existing bill set to expire in August. The rejected bill would have allowed an additional six projects to use them and extended the deadline for new projects into the next decade.
The rejection of the bill does not remove the possibility of such partnerships; they can still be approved as standalone projects, but it does make the process more onerous.
And the rejection of the bill at a moment when the federal government has made it clear that public-private partnerships will be a major part of transportation funding in the near term raises concerns that Texas might not be ready to take advantage of new priorities.
Public-private toll roads are not new in Texas, and that's part of the issue. While several public-private projects, such as Dallas's LBJ Expressway and the North Tarrant Express, have been completed and touted as successes, others, such as Highway 130 between Austin and San Antonio, have been massive failures. This mixed success, along with complaints that toll roads represent an inequitable tax on lower-income commuters and put rural areas at a disadvantage, have complicated advancing public-private partnerships in the state.
Since many of Texas' public-private projects revolve around the construction of managed toll lanes aimed at easing congestion in major urban areas, it is worth asking what the vote means for metropolitan mobility. Will the state's lack of a consistent policy on these partnerships prevent Texas metros from improving their mobility systems?
Most likely not, but it does make that effort more complicated.
The public-private option still exists, and several projects are under construction. Additional public-private agreements could be pursued through individual legislative bills, but they would have to be politically palatable and done on a one-off basis. Texas's biannual legislative session also means their approval will take longer. Public toll authorities at the state and county level can still undertake toll projects without these agreements. And TxDOT will also continue to work in the absence of them, but these last two options each stretch the state's transportation funds even thinner.
The debate, though, also presents urban areas with the chance to evaluate how they approach metropolitan transportation on the whole. Perhaps the lack of a clear approach to public-private partnerships and toll road construction can push the state and its urban areas to be even more creative with their existing and planned infrastructure investments. If massive new highways are not financially feasible, and given that the congestion benefits of large highway projects are nearly nonexistent, the more effective use of current infrastructure could be a response.
Public transit authorities like METRO in Houston and DART in Dallas already have expansive suburban park-and-ride systems and express bus systems, and they are working to improve service within their respective territories. Building connections between major activity nodes — connecting people to jobs and amenities — could be a huge boon for overall accessibility. These could also likely be pursued on existing infrastructure.
Strategic transit public-private partnerships could help agencies take on major capital projects or embrace new technologies.
States and municipalities could also reevaluate their approaches to land use and development to encourage denser communities, even in suburban areas. Such shifts could be tailored to encourage a range of transportation modes and help reduce the need for massive highway investments in the future.
Public-private partnerships are clearly an approach to infrastructure development that are here to stay. But their use shouldn't preclude other options, and they are not a panacea to infrastructure woes or financial limitations. Using public-private partnerships strategically and carefully is a must.
And Texas still has the opportunity to do that, despite the recent vote.
Kyle Shelton is a postdoctoral fellow at the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University. This article originally appeared in The Avenue, the blog of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program and was reposted on the Kinder Institute's blog, The Urban Edge.
Lots of ways -end handouts to Illegals and the able-bodied, stop subsidizing abortions, claw back some of remittances like other countries do
Aren’t federal and state gasoline taxes supposed to pay for building and upkeep of highways?
Stop spending on nonessential things.
By the way 20 year cost estimates for road expansion are very likely very wrong.
That’s what they keep telling us when it’s time for them to raise gas taxes.
No toll roads and no selling our freeways to foreign nations for a quick cash fix.
Eckels balked at the notion of ever making Houston’s tollway free after it was paid off (agreed to before his reign) and now he’s behind the publicly funded corporate interests behind high speed rail in the state (obamarail)
Just sell more cars and the roads will take care of themselves.
Quit spending road money on thug mobility systems, bike paths and other silliness. Spend it actually on roads. Toll roads are never the correct answer.
If cities feel that they need toll roads in the their city, provide a free, quick bypass for people passing through so we don’t have to 1) pay for your nonsense 2) can avoid your homies 3) can avoid your congestion. There are no big cities that I seek to go to as a destination. They are just obstacles I have to get through to go someplace else.
How about if we begin by deporting anyone who is in Texas illegally. Seems to me that that would lighten our traffic congestion a lot. Wonder if all the money we pay in gas taxes does, indeed, go to repair and maintenance of our roads or if it goes into the general revenue fund and is used for other purposes like other states seem to do.
Let me guess...the money from gas taxes went to pensions, illegals and slush funds?
Yes, but more and more gas taxes are scuwander on pedestrian facilities, wetlands regulations, water quality, stormwater remediation, invasive species remediation,landscaping, bird house, yes I did just said “bird house”, pocket parks, “traffic calming”, etc.
I’ll only take a toll road on the return trip home from work. That’s only if I have to get home before 1830. Not worth the $6-8 one way cost to go 14-15 mile. Traffic still bottlenecks on the non toll road. At those prices, you can see why
if you use the road, you pay, if you don’t, you don’t.
Those costs will trans-mogrify (wanted to use the accurate “trickle down” but didn’t want to start a pissing match) down to be re-couped from the final user/consumer of the delivered product or service.
Nothing is free, so stop passing it off as a “public benefit” or “common good”. National Highways in the model of Ike’s Autobahn is a luxury we can no longer afford.
If I ride a bike, I’m not paying directly for a highway. When I get things delivered to me, I will incur a fee from the provider that takes a user fee into account.
Developers pay to create access to their property. Builders pay to have mechanicals connected. Road users pay to have roads built.
Live in the middle of no-where? Build your own road and charge users.
Stop asking me to pay for YOUR benefit.
Ban “Blue State” immigrants...
How about stop building roads you can’t afford to maintain!
Federal funding provides a huge portion of new road finance but zero maintenance costs to not only the road but all the accompanying sewer, water, electrical, etc.
Politicians don’t care because they’ll be out of office by the time the bill for their projects hit home and the people are too stupid to know what the deal is, they’ve just been trained to think the solution is more and wider roads.
North Carolina actually has more paved roads than Texas.
They pay for them with high gas taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.