http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150227-north-texas-lawmakers-take-aim-at-toll-roads-with-9-bills.ece
Not sure how far these will get towards passing, but this is what the 3 legislators want to do:
QuoteHB 202: Sends half of motor vehicle sales tax to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 203: Sends auto parts sales tax to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 1183: Requires county commissioners courts to approve new toll projects
HB 1834: Requires tolls to be removed once a project is paid off; calls for county commissioner court approval of new toll projects
HB 1835: Prohibits Texas Department of Transportation from adding tolled managed lanes to existing free highways
HB 1836: Sends 10 percent of sales taxes to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 1837: Requires tolls roads to be paid off in 20 years; calls for county commissioner courts to approve the study, design and construction phases of a new toll project
HB 1838: Requires TxDOT to give legislators in 2016 plans for turning existing toll roads into free roadways within 30 years
HB 1734: Requires toll projects to become free roads after construction and financing costs are paid off
They left out the best one, HB 1350 (not filed by one of the three in the story). I'd like if roads started to get de-tolled, but putting them all on TxDOT would be burdensome. 1350 would prohibit surplus revenue, limiting tolls charged to the level needed to meet bond requirements and maintain and operate the road. After the bonds are paid, tolls would be limited to maintenance and operation of the portion of the road for which the tolls are collected. I'd like to see this enacted for all toll roads. I'd like to see some roads de-tolled (preferably the ones I'm most likely to use), but I have reluctance about doing that to all of them. Managed lanes I can tolerate. I think they're a bad solution to a problem with no good solutions (in terms of road building).
I wonder how far off base our lawmakers are with us constituents. I do not mind paying a toll and am sure the countless people I see with toll tags have next to no complaints when it comes to tolls. In fact I have only met a hand few of people against toll roads, and nearly all of those people happened to live where no toll roads are.
While it is true that tolling roads which are effectively bypasses will discourage long distance traffic, a lot of times tolled alternatives are the ugly yet necessary solution for local traffic problems. We need the routes upgraded and provided, yet funding is always the issue. My friends from DFW are all toll tag holders and rave about them. They look forward to future extensions not as road geeks, but as locals looking for increased route options to mitigate congestion. Tolled sections need to be strategically designated, yet not abused for corporate profit.
So I say if it makes commutes shorter, safer, and easier while paying for the road's maintenance and future extensions, I would be happy to pay as opposed to sit in traffic. If you do not want to pay the tolls, simply take the free lanes or frontage roads, or even a longer free road. It's rather simple, so why do the lawmakers feel the need to restrict the means to reduce congestion?
Follow-up article to the one in the first post:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150301-anti-toll-bills-take-aim-at-bureaucracy-in-texas-transportation.ece
If people have no complaints about tolls, then they are obviously so rich that they can afford it. however, there are a lot of people like myself, that cannot afford the asininely high tolls.
Agreed. ^. I have yet to meet a person who has liked the toll roads once they came to Austin. And people I know in the metroplex tollerate them. I wouldn't say any of them love them and are excited to see future expansions. I also am not filthy stinking rich so toll roads are a pain to me. I think if a toll road was in your daily commute, you would dislike them too. SH 130 in Austin costs a butt load to drive and it is so far out and out of the way it is not much of a relief route to I-35. It feels like the state said, "you guys cried for a loop for years and we gave you one. Now shut up." I don't feel like a relief route that is way inconvenient and expensive is very cool at all.
Houston loves using the hardy and grand parkway because you can move. Beltway and west park are evil necessity that are used but hated. Katy tollway is the biggest BS of them all.
If I used a toll road as part of my normal driving, I'd be happy it was there, knowing that any freeway being built there would have been decades later if not for tolls. And I do, and I am. It's part of the cost of living in the suburbs, and if you bought a house in an area served by toll roads and failed to account for the cost of tolls, then that's on you.
I could live with tolls but the roads are expensive and the people you have to call about your bill if there is an error (and there often is) are COMPLETE morons. I ripped my tag off and have never driven on one sense but they STILL tried to bill me twice, once for a car I had sold (they tried to argue they were more powerful than the DMV) and a photo where the wrong license plate got typed in. You can't just not use them and still not deal with them.
There was one filed today that's somewhat related to this topic. HB 3108 would limit late fees to 6% of the tolls due, with a cap of $100. It would require that a bill be sent within 30 days of the non-payment event. It would require late notices to be sent within 30 days of the missed due date. It would allow a person to contest tolls billed, and would nullify the liability for tolls contested if the authority doesn't respond to the notice of contestation within 20 days. It also provides that an authority that wrongly charges a late fee must refund twice the amount paid by the wrongly-charged party.
Limits to excessive late fees, no more surprise bills from years-ago tolls, the opportunity to challenge a bill, and refunds for wrongful charges. I'm in favor of each one. With the new authority to revoke registration and impound cars, toll enforcement has more teeth. Bearing these new teeth, the toll authorities should be required to eliminate some of their customer abuse practices.
SB 5, not one of the bills mentioned in the original story, along with SJR 5 proposing a constitutional amendment, has passed the senate. The senate version of the bill would transfer vehicle sales tax revenue after the first $2.5 billion to the highway fund. After $2.5 billion is transferred to the highway fund, any additional tax revenue would be split, with 50% to the highway fund, 30% to the general revenue fund, and 20% to schools.
The bill, as currently proposed, would result in the following transfers to the highway fund, according to legislative budget board estimates:
2018: $2,744,415,000
2019: $2,932,468,000
2020: $3,101,510,000
The money transferred would be used only for non-tolled roads and paying certain TxDOT bond debt.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SB00005E.htm (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SB00005E.htm)
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SJ00005E.htm (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SJ00005E.htm)
Quote from: wxfree on March 11, 2015, 08:38:03 PM
SB 5, not one of the bills mentioned in the original story, along with SJR 5 proposing a constitutional amendment, has passed the senate.
SB 5 was passed by the Senate amazing quickly. But there appears to be trouble in the House. This article reports that there is not a companion House bill for Sb5/SJR5, and the House is generally less inclined to increase TxDOT funding.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2015/03/10/texas-house-transportation-budget-much-lower-than.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2015/03/10/texas-house-transportation-budget-much-lower-than.html)
Quote from: wxfree on March 11, 2015, 06:20:54 PM
There was one filed today that's somewhat related to this topic. HB 3108 would limit late fees to 6% of the tolls due, with a cap of $100. It would require that a bill be sent within 30 days of the non-payment event. It would require late notices to be sent within 30 days of the missed due date. It would allow a person to contest tolls billed, and would nullify the liability for tolls contested if the authority doesn't respond to the notice of contestation within 20 days. It also provides that an authority that wrongly charges a late fee must refund twice the amount paid by the wrongly-charged party.
Limits to excessive late fees, no more surprise bills from years-ago tolls, the opportunity to challenge a bill, and refunds for wrongful charges. I'm in favor of each one. With the new authority to revoke registration and impound cars, toll enforcement has more teeth. Bearing these new teeth, the toll authorities should be required to eliminate some of their customer abuse practices.
I am heartily in favor of all of these. I'd like to see them add one provision of some kind that requires at least one 'certified mail' or similar notification.
Most of these bills only prohibit the spending of newly appropriated money on toll roads, which, given TTC's culture, seems a reasonable precaution. A bill today specifically prohibits tolls on one project. It adds a section to Chapter 250, which is a weird chapter for miscellaneous provision related to state highways. It currently has only one section that regulates fences in certain municipalities.
HB 3556 would add another section related to I-635 East (from US 75 to I-30). It would require at least two frontage roads, at least five non-toll main lanes in each direction, and sound walls. It also prohibits use of "discretion in Sections 228.007, 228.008, 228.201, Sec. 224.1541 Transportation Code," which removes the discretion to include toll lanes.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB3556 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB3556)
Quote from: txstateends on February 27, 2015, 05:06:48 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20150227-north-texas-lawmakers-take-aim-at-toll-roads-with-9-bills.ece
Not sure how far these will get towards passing, but this is what the 3 legislators want to do:
QuoteHB 202: Sends half of motor vehicle sales tax to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 203: Sends auto parts sales tax to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 1183: Requires county commissioners courts to approve new toll projects
HB 1834: Requires tolls to be removed once a project is paid off; calls for county commissioner court approval of new toll projects
HB 1835: Prohibits Texas Department of Transportation from adding tolled managed lanes to existing free highways
HB 1836: Sends 10 percent of sales taxes to the state highway fund; prohibits use of funds on toll projects
HB 1837: Requires tolls roads to be paid off in 20 years; calls for county commissioner courts to approve the study, design and construction phases of a new toll project
HB 1838: Requires TxDOT to give legislators in 2016 plans for turning existing toll roads into free roadways within 30 years
HB 1734: Requires toll projects to become free roads after construction and financing costs are paid off
Republicans?!? A stopped clock is right twice a day.
SJR 5 has moved forward, although in amended form, in the house, passing in committee. SB 5 is still waiting. The amended resolution would amend the constitution to require that, annually, $3,000,000,000 of general sales tax revenue, plus 2% of the remaining sales tax revenue, go to TxDOT for non-toll roads. This includes the general sales tax collected under Tax Code Chapter 151 and not the motor vehicle sales tax, which is collected under a different chapter. This version results in somewhat higher transfers to the highway fund, according to Legislative Budget Board estimates, roughly on the order of a half-billion dollars annually.
It isn't done yet, but at least a house committee is showing interest in highway funding.
Tolls mean there is a tolling agency involved. That's bureaucratic overhead. That is also money going toward unneeded bureaucrats (who needs tolls and more bureaucrats, really?) instead of roads. If we need more money for highways and we certainly do, take it out of the general fund and/or increase the gas tax, which can handle any amount plugged in with no real extra expense involved.
The highway system in the end view is a SYSTEM. If I do not drive on your roads and you do not drive on mine, that does not mean these sections exist in isolation, they exist as a SYSTEM. That to me means we fund our roads as a system.
Rick
I'd like to see improved highway funding. Good roads are essential for economic activity and public safety. I'm not a big fan of these accounting gimmicks, though. These billions of dollars taken out of the general fund will reduce funding for something else. You can't make a pie bigger by cutting it differently. I see this step as a step forward because it shows that the political leaders understand the need. It isn't an ideal step, but hopefully understanding the need will eventually lead to the courage to propose a real solution that can fund one need without unfunding another.
Quote from: wxfree on April 29, 2015, 12:04:54 AM
I'd like to see improved highway funding. Good roads are essential for economic activity and public safety. I'm not a big fan of these accounting gimmicks, though. These billions of dollars taken out of the general fund will reduce funding for something else. You can't make a pie bigger by cutting it differently. I see this step as a step forward because it shows that the political leaders understand the need. It isn't an ideal step, but hopefully understanding the need will eventually lead to the courage to propose a real solution that can fund one need without unfunding another.
Some things do need unfunding. Some things need less funding. Some things need more funding. That's a Captain Obvious kind of statement but that's what the budgetary wrangling is all about!
I'm for infrastructure :-)
Rick
I'm surprised more states haven't followed Massachusetts's lead and merged the toll highway administration into the DOT. There's seldom good reason to keep them separate.
I don't mind some toll roads because they wouldn't have been built if not for tolling. The Indian Nation Turnpike is a perfect example.
I think that the idea of a separate toll road agency within state government is a wise idea myself - if properly managed it can be self-supporting and can even be used (if necessary) to help the counties handle their own road construction projects.
I think that the idea of mandating five non-tolled lanes on each carriageway where tolls are located is interesting, though workable only in major metropolitan areas. For other areas, two non-tolled lanes each way may be sufficient, unless a route is specifically dedicated as a tolled route. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and the Kansas Turnpike Authority are great examples of such agencies.
You still have the issue of the toll highway authority requiring separate engineers and maintenance crews, all of which require separate managers, HR departments, payroll staff, and so on. All those salaries add up to literal millions annually very quickly. Even if that's covered by toll revenue, it is still money being spent that doesn't have to be.
If you merge the DOT and the TA you can eliminate a lot of those administrative positions and free up that portion of toll revenue for road maintenance and construction. If it's important for toll money to stay with toll roads, there is no reason that can't be enforced by accounting rules. As it is now, OTA doesn't keep revenue pledged to the turnpike it was collected from–the I-44 turnpikes heavily subsidize the rest of the system. This is a good thing because it allows for
Texas is in a particularly bad situation since there are several agencies with a few toll roads in a small region of the state, and TxDOT already has a toll road division that maintains a few roads too.
I think it makes sense for tolling authorities building urban roads to remain as their own entities. A toll road that primarily serves suburbs of a particular city isn't a big concern to the state DOT, which has the big picture to look at.
And yet in other cities toll roads meeting that description are administered by the state, such as I-355 and the Creek Turnpike (OK-351).
State DOT, not state. All the toll and regional mobility authorities in Texas are subdivisions of the state. They just each focus on their own region. ISTHA is basically the Illinois equivalent of one of them - they may be a state agency, but everything they operate is in and around Chicago. OTA has a couple urban turnpikes, but the vast majority of their mileage is rural. And Oklahoma only has 2 metro areas, where Texas has a dozen or so. And wasn't OTA basically forced into building one of the Tulsa turnpikes in order to keep the people there from bitching too much about OKC getting all the roads? I seem to remember reading something about that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 09, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
And yet in other cities toll roads meeting that description are administered by the state, such as I-355 and the Creek Turnpike (OK-351).
The toll section of I-355 is managed by ISTHA, not IDOT.
EDIT:Dang, too slow tonight.
I was of the impression that the regional toll authorities were county or metro council-of-goverments type operations. If they are all state agencies It seems even more interesting that they would be separate.
Quote from: dfwmapper on May 10, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
And wasn't OTA basically forced into building one of the Tulsa turnpikes in order to keep the people there from bitching too much about OKC getting all the roads? I seem to remember reading something about that.
No, the situation you're thinking about was the Chickasaw. OTA wanted to build the Creek and Kilpatrick, but rural legislators wouldn't support the bond package without additional rural mileage. The Cherokee was included in this package, but was generally seen as fulfilling a real need as it bypassed a dangerous section of OK-33. The Chickasaw, however, was seen as an unfortunate side-effect of the political process, which is why it was cut back to two lanes and doesn't meet either of its planned termini.
RMAs are not state agencies, but are local governments. A regional mobility authority or regional tollway authority (NTTA) is a political subdivision of the state. This is the same thing as a city or county or school district (school districts are independent in Texas). It's a local arm of state government with limited territorial jurisdiction, as opposed to a department of state government, like TxDOT. Mobility and tollway authorities have jurisdiction over the roadways they own the same way cities and counties have jurisdiction within their boundaries.
NTTA was formed because all of the old Texas Turnpike Authority's assets were in the Dallas area after they sold the Houston bridge to the Houston toll authority. People around here didn't want the toll money (all from the Dallas area) going to a statewide authority in Austin to disappear. NTTA was formed to take over the assets and take control over the toll money. NTTA did really well, building roads and keeping toll rates low, until they were financially sodomized by TxDOT in the Sam Rayburn deal.
RMAs, on the other hand, were intended to relieve TxDOT (the legislation that established NTTA rolled the Texas Turnpike Authority into TxDOT) of the financial burden of building toll roads, with regional authorities paying for them with toll revenue). But this was a disaster. RMAs are better at spending hundreds of millions of dollars on administration and studies than building roads, which often require state assistance.
I really think NTTA and HCTRA have done pretty well. They have sizeable road systems and reasonably warrant their own administrations. The only RMA that's showing real promise is in Austin where TxDOT is competing in the toll road business. The two big toll authorities in Texas show potential for efficiency and seem to have systems worthy of separate administration, similar to smaller states' turnpike authorities.
On the whole, I have to believe that proper accounting can separate toll road money from general highway money. And I believe it's better to fund highways as a system and not as individual sources of revenue. But once we account for the incredible stupidity of the people we elect to make decisions, I suspect that having separate authorities of sufficient size has the potential to increase efficiency, and that eliminating authorities that don't merit existence is also efficient.
CRRMA (El Paso) has done a fair bit of work as well, including some completed tolled express lanes on Loop 375, more in the works, and adding several (free) direct connectors at the Loop 375/I-10 interchange, plus kicking in extra funding for other TxDOT projects.
Admittedly, I'm no expert on what goes on in Texas, but it definitely would seem more efficient to have the DOT in charge of all roads, but the political problems are that the drivers are afraid that their toll money would be pushed to other projects that won't benefit them.
A key example is the use of the toll revenue to fund other highways or mass transit projects.
So if there was any credibility and proper accounting, the drivers in Dallas can be assured that their NTTA toll revenue is spent on NTTA toll roads only, then there would not be a need for a separate agency. But apparently, this is not practical.
Have any of the anti-toll bills been successful? Or is it too soon to tell?