Posted on 12/29/2006 4:21:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I've heard nothing about a toll road.
You're really into making people pay to drive. So why are you so interested in the subject? What's your agenda?
I'm not sure that anyone elected to office in Austin really planned all this: it appears to be the project of the bureaucrats. We need more letters, calls and emails to the Governor to clean house at TXDot.
The author of this article and many others advocate a toll road built and operated by the state. Under that scenario, the state would have impose a non-compete clause on its self. The state is not going to build a toll road then undermine its profitability by building a free road next to it.
That points to the big problem with a state owned toll road. Political decisions replace business decisions and it is the taxpayer who has to pay for the bad political decision.
This website is excellent for comparing the states' fuel taxes because it includes tax on diesel and includes important comments.
For example, we see that TX has the same tax on gasoline and diesel. OTOH we see that AZ has tax on diesel that is almost 50% higher than gas. Plus, there is an additional 9 cents tax on some classes of diesel vehicles. While there are some passenger cars and light duty trucks in AZ paying this higher fuel tax, we would say that this is mainly a higher tax on commercial/business fuel. Since business passes its costs onto the consumer/taxpayer, the AZ taxpayer is paying for this. This is one way govt hides taxes.
We also need to consider that European diesel technology is now being imported to the US. In the coming years, many AZ drivers will be using diesel with the 50% higher tax.
Red herring. The "State" would be the people. There's no non-compete necessary.
Why build a toll road and a free road side by side. Just build the free road and the taxpayer won't have to pay for building the toll road that no one will use.
But number 1 is very important, so lets discuss it. Before we do let me say that you and Texas Toll Party are being dishonest by not also posting TxDot's response. It probably deserves a thread of its own.
TXDOT response to Michael Stevens/Business Council
TXDOT says Stevens is under estimating the States's obligations and over estimating the revenue from his higher proposed tax. Lets look at each.
Steven's number is 56 bil and TXDOTS number is 86 bil. The 30 bil difference is 8 billion that Stevens says the TXDOT is calculating wrong. If that is the case, Stevens needs to give us/TxDOT some details on that. Otherwise he is just shooting in the dark.
The 22 bil is a shortfall that the cities will have over the period. By now we all know that the feds will not be giving any more money to the State Infrastructue Bank/Texas Mobility Fund. It has to come from the state. Stevens says the state doesn't have to be responsible for this. Out of the other side of his mouth he is saying that the cities should get all the gas tax to pay for their roads. He wants to scrrreeeeew rural Texas.
Now lets look at Steven's tax increase. Will it produce enough money or will the tax have to be higher than what he says.
First, his numbers are predicated on none of the tax increase going to schools. That is a 25% potential short fall right there.
Second, his numbers are predicated on constuction costs going up only 3.4% Given the projected growth in the US and the world/projected growth in demand, plus the uncertainties in the Mideast, Venzuela, Africa, and elsewhere, anyone who advocates using 3.4 % is selling snake oil.
Third, his numbers are predicated on the average auto gas milage as being only 23 mpg in 2030. Stevens acknowledges that 23 mpg is way low and counters by saying that the state can utilize Satellite Tracking Technology to tax Texas drivers.
Maybe he has been bought and paid for???
You know, I seem to remember that even in California gas taxes were about $ 0.50 a gallon. Taxes here in Pennsylvania are somewhat lower.
Now, neither California nor Pennsylvania does a particularly good job on road maintenance, but paying $1 per gallon over what other states charge, or roughly $ 0.05 per mile if your car gets 20mpg, doesn't sound any cheaper than tolls.
I think Texas is one of the best-run state in the union, but something doesn't smell right here.
D
I reread your post. You were right. And I was wrong. <;8^)
Maybe next time I will get the required 8 hours sleep in a day before making a fool out of myself. Instead of doing it all of the time.
ED
bump.
The state gas tax in Texas is 20 cents/gal, of which 5 cents goes to education.
So why would the tax have to go to $1.40 a gallon to support roads?
Or is that just something someone here on the thread made up?
D
We complain about the congestion at Logan Airport in Boston but whenever there is a proposal to build a second airport at nearby Hanscom Field in Bedford (or anywhere else), there is a public outcry against it.
We complain about the traffic congestion but every new highway proposal is squashed. Once, during the early 1970s, I-95 was being built to run right around the outside perimeter of Boston and through the North Shore (Revere, Lynn, etc.) to connect to NH and Maine. But public outcry stopped the project and instead, I-95 was routed through the outer suburbs of Boston via the old "Route 128" which at the time was derisively called the "road to nowhere." Ironically, today, this stretch of I-95 is the heart of the Boston-area economy and people who used to own empty fields and cow pastures along it are multi-millionaires today.
People want more prisons built but nobody wants them build in their town which means that we are building them along median strips of highways.
People complain about I-93 running through Boston and because nobody wanted more highway lanes built above ground, we wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money simply sinking the highway underground while adding little or no highway capacity so the drive through the city is as congested as ever only now you get no picturesque view. Just ugly tunnel where you get no radio reception.
As I pointed out in another reply, no one can predict what the actual costs are going to be. Some will try to minimize the cost and some will try to exaggerate the cost.
The issue is, will the costs be paid by a user fee or will the costs be socialized. Also an issue is, will the state use tolls as another/additional funding mechanism to build/maintain free roads.
Either you, or one of the other pro-road-fee people, recently made the point that turnpike fees collect money from people passing through the state, not just state citizens. Higher diesel costs do the same, because the costs will be spread to other states.
Even though Tx and Az gas taxes are the same, I would still gladly pay more fuel tax in order to prevent toll roads. The design of toll roads damages business, concentrates development in cities (because of the lack of on-ramps in remote towns), and generally depresses the economy.
The people are going to pay for the roads they drive on one way or another. Paying via fuel taxes is the most fair method I can think of. It pays for both local roads and highways, rather than doubling up with fuel taxes *and* tolls on major highways. It charges more for people with larger vehicles, which wear roads more than light vehicles.
There are very few things that are best done by government, and because roads are a natural monopoly that will never have competition, libertarian ideas of tolls are not a good idea. This country was built in the last 75 years almost exclusively on good free roads. There's no reason to fix what isn't broken.
As for roads being a natural monopoly best run by govt, there is nothing in the TTC PPP that negates the State's ownership or ultimate authority over the road.
As for which may be best, it would appear that what has happened on roads in other parts of the world contradicts you. The fact that many, many states are headed in the same direction as Texas contradicts you. The fact that many in AZ see the writing on the wall contradicts you.
What is it about "fuel taxes" that you don't understand? Even third parties out of state paying for truck transport are "using" the road, and should pay for them through fuel taxes.
As for roads being a natural monopoly best run by govt, there is nothing in the TTC PPP that negates the State's ownership or ultimate authority over the road.
The non-compete clauses forbid the government from building roads that will compete with the private toll road operators. It will obviously be left up to a court to decide what free road "competes" with the toll road. What you favor is turning over road decisions to a foreign private corporation and the courts. Just brilliant.
The fact that many, many states are headed in the same direction as Texas contradicts you.
No. It merely means they're buying into the same sales pitch that Texas is buying. With billions of dollars at stake, if you don't think there's some selling and lobbying going on by companies that think they'll make money from this, you're nuts.
The fact that many in AZ see the writing on the wall contradicts you.
See above. And I seriously doubt there will be toll roads here. There were proposals to make the new section of the Santan FREEway a toll road, but they were shouted down within days.
The primary difference between Tx and Az on this issue is that money making here is primarily done via growth, and toll roads sap growth. While Tx has larger established cities where money making is via raising the value of existing development. Therefore free roads help money making here, while constricting travel, and thus holding people close to inner cities, makes money in Tx.
I'm glad I live here. Toll roads and the jammed up cities they spawn suck.
The question should be why, if it's profitable for anyone to build a toll road while maintaining the free routes - as we are told is required by law - why not have the State (The People) do it?
I grew up going from Dallas to Fort Worth (or to the "suburbs" between, especially to Six Flags Over Texas) on the Toll Road because that was the best route. But sometimes we went the slower, more round-about ways for reasons Daddy didn't tell us. But now, the old toll road is free.
Toll Roads are one way to back loans. That's why States ("The People") use them. This scheme is a long term sale or lease - I'm not sure - to an entrepeneur. For unclear reasons.
Road decisions aren't being turned over to the private sector. That is all covered in the contract.
All these other states, including AZ, face the same problem. Strong opposition to raising the gas tax. You mention that you "shouted down" a proposal to toll a road. That is universal. But, when it comes down to a choice between tolling and taxing, the anti-tax group will "shout down" louder than the anti-toll group.
I'm not opposed to a rising gas tax. It is obvious that construction costs and MPG ratings are rising. I know that our interstates are worn out and have high maintenance and repair costs. I recognize that there has to be free roads built and the cities are having a hard time financing their local needs. I even think the "new construction" tax for local roads being used in AZ is a good idea. Real estate developer Stevens will oppose that.
But, wherever possible, it will always be better to impose user fees rather than taxes
Given the wide opposition to tax increases, there is nothing wrong with using toll money to finance/subsidize free roads.
Finally let me say, you continue to base part of your argument on something you dreamed up. That toll roads impede progress. Nobody believes that.
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.