Texas is in the planning stages of a massive series of toll roads throughout the state.

Texas Supersize highways
Good idea, bad, why?
Is this the wave of the future?
Do other country's have any plans similar?
What else can be done to ease transportation, and protect the environment?

I have no problem with toll roads...but some disagreements with how they are implemented. Consider the basic premise behind toll roads. It is that roads should be funded by those who use them. No problem with that. However, then how do you explain the fact that the NTTA (North Texas Toll Authority) specifies that tolls shall continue to be collected on ALL toll roads as long as funds are needed anywhere in the system. In essence, this means that if you are driving on an existing toll road, after a while you are paying tolls so that another toll road can be built somewhere else, and so on, and so on. The North Texas Tollway was paid for years ago...why then should those who drive on it be required to pay for other toll roads, somewhere else, that they might never even drive on once? This is clearly but another governmental power grab. If a toll road is really needed, it can easily be paid for by its own toll system. If it can't, then it clearly doesn't have enough of a need. Once its construction is paid for, then the reason for its toll goes away, and the toll should follow. One might argue that the money is necessary for maintenance. What do you suppose the ratio of construction costs/maintenance is? Clearly, if the toll was collecting enough funds to pay for construction...maintenance is insignificant, and could easily be rolled into the construction costs as a required contract (ie...include x years of maintenance in the construction costs). Then, once the construction has been paid for, maintenance is similarly covered, and the tolls can be removed.

Seems pretty simple. Unfortunately, the government beast is loath to ever remove any of its revenue mechanisms....whether they're justified or not.

Toll roads have their place. I don't particularly care for them as a driver, but then who does? As a citizen, they have merit.



I agree with your point about money on toll roads going to other road, but I take issue with the above quote. The reason is because roads are never fully paid for. Roads need to be maintained, and the most used roads need to be even more maintenance. Of course, the toll could be lowered to the level needed for that maintenance, but the need for funds never completely goes away. Otherwise, I am in coplete agreement that the money generated should go directly to that road.

I grew up in New Jersey, where the only efficient way to get from one end of the state to the other was a toll road, and you can't cross the water to NY or PA without a toll as well. I can accept this, if the money is collected to keep the road or bridge in good repair. I can even accept a certain percentage above that break even amount to save for future expansion, and unforseen problems in the future(like hurricane damage and the like). But I draw the line on the money being funneled off to the general revenue.

Generally speaking, people are "sold" the concept of toll roads on the idea that the tolls will enable this transportation expansion to become a reality without increased Taxes and the like. Yet, it seems that time and time again, before the ink on that deal is even dry, politicians start taking funds from the tolls to pay for other parts of the government.

Now I live in Missouri, and the state has no toll roads at all (unless there is one I am unaware of), yet we have a good transportation infrastructure, and we are expanding it regularly. So it is not like it is impossible to do. But I would support toll roads in my state if they were new roads or expansions that eased traffic or created a more direct route from one place to another.

I woulds support a toll road, but only if the toll legislation had a sunset clause so that the people could address it in the future, and it also included ironclad provisions to prevent toll money from going anywhere else but that road, or a trust fund for that road.

Unless of course it was honestly presented to the people as money that will go into the general revenue. If that is the case, and the majority supported it, then I would have no issue with it. It is the lying to the public and the political spin / manipulations that I have the biggest problem with.

I don't think toll roads should be used to build new roads. Building a new road, or even highway interchange, typically raises property values around that location. If it's actually a useful road vs. a West Virginia Highway to Nowhere, it raises value more than the cost of the road. Taxes on this increased value should be used to pay for the road. To refrain from being onerous, these taxes should not be assessed against the price of buildings, etc., only the increased price on the lot.

On the other hand, when roads regularly reach saturation point, the people, as owner of the road, should do what any reasonable owner of a high-demand product would do: charge price for admission. In fact, keep raising the prices until traffic flows, perhaps with different charges for each hour of the day. Use this revenue to pay for the road, and REDUCE taxes elsewhere.

Of course, I can hear the whining now: "I paid for this road with my taxes when it was built, I should be able to drive for free on it whenever I want". Try buying a share of Ford with that, and ask to use one of their new Mustangs. I'd be more receptive to ensuring that the revenue from that road was used to reduce income taxes or other taxes.

Good idea, bad, why?
Is this the wave of the future?
The Texas project (like everything else in Texas, I guess) is on rather a grand scale. The article goes on to say that building this “supertollway” would divert traffic from communities along the existing highway, which in turn would reduce revenues. I can also understand the ranchers’ point of view (140 acres of ranchland per MILE??? ). I’m no highway planner, but this project does seem to have a hint of pie-in-the-sky about it. Why not start with something a little less…oh, I don’t know, huge? Maybe work on a public transportation system to relieve traffic on existing highways? These kinds of projects are notorious for going way, WAY over budget, taking much longer to complete, and generally turning out less than profitable.

Do other country's have any plans similar?
What else can be done to ease transportation, and protect the environment?

I don't know about other countries, but Southern California has a few toll roads, all of them in Orange County. They were all hugely expensive, and not very profitable.


This particular project (Eastern Toll Road) has environmental implications as well. The powers-that-be want to run it directly through some of the only pristine coastline left in Southern California –San Onofre State Beach, which includes the Trestles surf areas and San Mateo Creek, one of the few natural waterways in this area. There is no way a busy toll road won’t have a catastrophic effect on the environment. Cal Coast

Personally, I don’t think toll roads are the answer. I believe the focus should be on public transportation/rail systems and controlling urban sprawl.

Good idea, bad, why?
Leave it to Texas to conceive of a plan to conceive of a plan to build an incredible amount of highway and ignore their existing (and very good) interstate system.

I lived in Texas for 23 years in a combination of Houston/Dallas/Austin/College Station and I'd say this is a bad idea for a few reasons:
1) It is an incredibly ambitious project with huge potential to drag on forever and go way over budget. Texas or any state for that matter can scarely manage local highway projects without going over budget. I'm not sure why anyone thinks this would be any different.

2) It absolutely does not make sense (nor is it cost effective) to build a parallel system of highways when you have a perfectly good (and excellent in many areas) system of highways that run across the state. The money would be better spent expanding the current interstate system and/or repairing sections of it and/or redesigning sections of it due to population growth.

3) This project, while it'll be great for highway contractors, will hurt many of the smaller to medium sized towns that dot the interstate system in Texas. There are many towns that in large part rely on business from truckers and cars buying gas, and eating at restaurants, tourists stopping by in "historic" districts and even cops setting up speed traps to stay afloat. By building a parallel system even if they are used equally you'll have an effect on the population and business in these towns.

4) One of the main things they cite in the article is how bad that I-35 is from Dallas to San Antonio. The thing that they don't mention, which any Texan that lives in those areas should know, is that I-35 is horrible solely because there are long stretches of it under heavy construction that go down to one lane and greatly reduce the speed. These areas have been under construction for as long as I can remember. This not only causes traffic to slow but it causes accidents which further slows and blocks traffic. I-35 in general is only 2 to 3 lanes on either side in most places other than the heavy construction areas.

So in short, if they'd spend a chunk of this money expediting the construction projects and considering some lane widening projects the problem would be solved - no new toll based interestate required.

The other interstates and state highways move perfectly. I frequently commuted from Houston to Dallas, and from Dallas to parts of East Texas with no problems. Traffic of course builds up near major cities but if the concern is for shipping and trucking they need to time their runs to not correspond with rush hour and they will be fine - Texas isn't like LA where it is stop and go no matter whether it is 5pm on Friday or 2 am on Sunday morning - traffic in all the major cities is for the most part completely predictable.

This is clearly one of those backroom deals that is being hashed out between politicians and contractors and doesn't have the interests of the state or the people in mind.

Is this the wave of the future?
No, this is a boondoggle. The wave of the future is public transit and projects like DART in Dallas need to be greatly expanded and in the case of cities like Houston, San Antonio and Austin, started. Of course they not only carry infrastructure cost but cultural barriers need to be broken down. When I lived in Texas I never considered car pooling and even if the grocery store was two blocks away I'd jump in the car and drive. It was also inconceivable that if you were meeting a group of friends somewhere you'd stop by and pick them up and car pool, you'd all drive separately. Here in San Francisco where public transit actually works, I sometimes go 6 weeks without touching my car, and if it is within 8 blocks I walk, otherwise I take public transit.

San Francisco is a little unique in this regard because of the layout of the city, the culture and the parking problems. However, projects like the MTA in Los Angeles offer a good template for big cities in the rest of the nation. Even things like DART where you might drive part of the way to park and catch a train are an improvement, it'd just be great if DART actually went places that people worked and lived, but it is still growing.

Fuel costs will continue to increase and with the penchant for driving gas guzzling SUVs and trucks in Texas that will start to get prohibitively expensive for some.

I put this out to see what others are thinking of. I wish some of the European members would give their insight into this matter as well.

Here in NE Ohio we have the Ohio Turnpike and it's been around for decades and the tolls were 'temporary' yeah right, I know when will it end. We also have a pretty good public transit system in Cleveland.

But I have been thinking that since we have severe budget problems that funding the roadways directly might and I say might be a method of revenue.

1) Good idea, bad, why?
2) Is this the wave of the future?
3) Do other country's have any plans similar?
4) What else can be done to ease transportation, and protect the environment?

1) It would depend on the level of toll. The toll (should) cover the costs of construction and maintenance and (hopefully) something to cover environmental damage IF you can convert that into monetary terms easily. Roads are something that (generally) are subsidised by the state - so that the many pay for the construction and upkeep (not to mention bearing the brunt of environmental impacts) of something that only a few (comparitively) benefit from. I think there is a definite economic rationale behind toll raods in general. As it pertains to Texas, I could not say....

2) Generally the West is adopting an increasing number of 'market' mechanisms to deal with issues such as road congestion, environmental damage etc and moving away from having the state organise everything. So, yes, I see this as the wave of the future...

3) Germany operates such a system on autobahns for heavy lorries and coaches (which cause a comparitively large amount of damage to roads and environment compared to cars). Switzerland has road tolls for all private vehicles. The UK has a privately owned toll motorway (highway) bypassing the M6 and a second is being planned to connect Manchester and Brimingham.

4) London recently adopted a congestion charge, whereby private vehicles entering the centre of London paid a charge. This resulted in greatly reducing congestion levels in the centre of London (which used to be extremely congested) and the money raised is then used to subsidise public transport instead. (They got their math wrong initially, so did not raise as much money as they expected, but otherwise it has been a huge success).