The Candidates on Roads

Dallas Morning News ^ | September 24, 2006 | Dallas Morning News

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

North Texas grows by 150,000 people a year – about the population of Richardson and Rowlett combined. McKinney and Frisco each add 200 newcomers a week.

Keeping pace with the mobility needs of the mushrooming region is a losing proposition if we use only traditional means: state fuel taxes and leveraged federal funds. Yet most positions taken by candidates for governor are unrealistically wed to yesterday's formulas for financing roadways.

Here's the size of the North Texas funding gap over the next 25 years: a nearly $28 billion shortage for new highways and related projects, according to the Regional Transportation Council. (The statewide gap is $86 billion.) The local gap widens to $70 billion when adding the cost of rebuilding worn-out roads.

Various approaches to bridging that gap are in play on state and local levels. A review of where the candidates stand:

...

Intercity turnpikes have a long history in the U.S., yet the governor's proposed Trans Texas Corridor toll network has sparked emotional opposition. Critics key in on the land needed for the road-and-rail project, an objection that could be raised for many vital public improvements; the greater good of uncongested interstates must be served.

Others focus on the likely private partner, a consortium that includes the Spanish company Cintra, one of the world's largest tollway developers. Objections to Cintra ignore this country's traditional openness to foreign investment and potentially rule out the most lucrative corridor contract for the state.

As planned, the corridor's initial San Antonio-to-Dallas link has flaws. A tentative route to the east of the metro area should be scrapped in favor of a proposed "big doughnut" that would provide a crucial outerbelt for North Texas.

Right on the issue: Mr. Perry

Wrong on the issue: Mr. Bell, Mr. Friedman, Ms. Strayhorn, Mr. Werner

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

ping. As though you'd actually read this. (not you, TSR).

[MissAmericanPie]

Are you talking about the proposed loop 9?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, if memory serves me correctly, the idea seems to be to construct the Big Doughnut in place of Loop 9. However, in a video on houstonfreeways.com, the narrator says that the George Bush turnpike was the realization of Loop 9, so maybe the Big Doughnut will just cover the southern portion of the planned Loop 9 corridor, while the northern part of the Doughnut will be virgin territory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You're welcome. :-)

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[wolfcreek]

The question is, do We in Texas want big business, unscrupulous developers and international consortiums to rule the day in this state? We can pave over the whole damn state but, is this, environmentally and culturally, the future We want to leave our children and grandchildren?

[Ben Ficklin]

"big business, unscrupulous developers, international consortiums"

William Jennings Brian couldn't have said it better.

You are just another populist masquerading as a conservative.

[wolfcreek]

You are just another populist masquerading as a conservative.



Are you trying to say I'm claiming to represent the whole of the people? Not at all, I'm just really sick and tired of seeing my state get raped. I don't need any more houses, people, businesses, trucks, trains, roads or automobiles to make my life better. If I'm representing the opinion of others by saying that then, so be it!


(the opinions expressed here are sole property of the posters own mind) IOW: DON'T LABEL ME, Bitch!

[1rudeboy]

Populism aside, one is not likely to fund, build, and operate an estimated $28 billions' worth of roads using small business, socially-conscious developers, and U.S. firms. Well, maybe the last part . . . .

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

bump.

[BobL]

"The question is, do We in Texas want big business, unscrupulous developers and international consortiums to rule the day in this state? We can pave over the whole damn state but, is this, environmentally and culturally, the future We want to leave our children and grandchildren?"

Actually, I wouldn't sweat it if I were you. If Perry has his way, the state will have its existing highways and freeways essentially frozen in time due to non-compete clauses with companies like Cintra, which, in effect, prevent expansion of parallel state highways. So people are left either getting robbed on the private tollways (20 cents, easy, per mile) or simply finding friendlier places to live.

The real fear that you should have is if someone like me should get my way - and have a 25 to 50 cent increase in the gas tax, all to fund the expansion of FREEWAYS. That would bring tremendous growth to the state.

So rest easy, the governor is giving you what you wish - which is why the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are more than happy to stay on the sidelines (they've seen the economic damage caused by unregulated toll roads, and they know they no longer have to worry about growth in Texas, as long as Governor Perry gets his way).

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

My $.02: First of all, I would make sure that all 20 cents per gallon of the state gas tax was dedicated to only roads, and I'd make sure that Texas got a 100% share of its federal gas tax back. Then I'd peg the state gas tax to construction costs (if construction cost goes up 15% the first year, then the gas tax goes from 20 cents to 23 cents per gallon). But that's just my opinion.

[BobL]

Excellent opinion, Tol. The only difference is that I would like to make up some of the spending power that's been lost since 1991 (when the tax was last increased). Otherwise, I'm totally with you, and we'd probably have enough money to build these bypasses as freeways.

I'd even put up a few toll roads, provided that they were government-built and owned, and that iron-clad assurances were made that they would revert to freeways when paid for (as Kentucky did over the past 15 years).

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, I'm willing to bet that if you tried to ram through a 25 to 50 cent increase all at once, you'd never succeed. However, an increase of maybe five cents a year...?

[BobL]

Agreed - 25 to 50 is on the high side. But you might be surprised how reasonable people can be if the increase is clearly earmarked for highways, and nothing else, and is coupled with getting back all of the gas tax money (i.e., get rid of the "education" money, we have the business tax now, after all).

After all, even in a state as highway-unfriendly as Washington, they managed to hang on to a 9.5 cent increase in the gas tax, even after the entire state got a change to vote it down in a referendum. But, again, it was clearly sold for highways - not new trains or other garbage.

On the other hand, if the governor (and his predecessor, for that matter) never tries to increase the tax, or at least index it, its value diminishes big-time over the years, and we're left in the mess we have today in Texas.