Home >
Texas Highwayman Pages > San Antonio Freeway
System > Editorials > Toll Roads
December 13th, 2007
With the ridiculous amount of misinformation being disseminated by
toll opponents, I felt I had to debunk some of the more prolific and egregious myths. So back in July 2007, I began publishing some
editorials here to that end. However, most of my articles were frankly verbose and
started to be repetitive. So, I finally decided to consolidate the main
toll opponent arguments on this page with relatively short answers to each one. But before
I get started, I need to issue this disclaimer for the record: I am not affiliated with TxDOT, the RMA, or any
road-building agency, nor am I affiliated with any contractor or supplier
involved with road construction, design, engineering, or the like, nor am I affiliated with any Chamber of Commerce
or other civic organization. In short, I am solely representing myself and my
words below are my own opinion based on decades of interest,
observation, research, and formal education in roads, traffic, and
transportation and I am not being paid to present these views. I am presently a systems administrator for a
university and hold a BA in urban and regional planning.
Also for the record, I am not "pro-toll" and
I'm not naïve. I realize that tolls are unpopular, and as a road
enthusiast, I'm not thrilled with the idea of tolls either. But I'm a
realist, and I realize that taxes are also unpopular, and as an avid
follower of local highway projects and issues for over 20 years, I have
an understanding of the funding issues surrounding highways to realize
that the only real alternative to tolls is an increase in the gas tax
and an end to Highway Fund diversions. However, the Legislature to date
has taken a laissez-faire approach to solving the highway funding
crisis, and as long as that continues, tolls are about the only option
left to fund major highway improvements.
That said, below are the primary arguments toll opponents make. These points are organized
under a few general
topics and my responses to each point can be read by clicking the small "+" icon next to each statement.
A few of my original issue-specific editorials are listed at the bottom, and I'll add more
items on this page as necessary.
(If you're just looking for
details of the proposed projects, see either the
US 281 Tollway Project,
Loop 1604 Tollway Project, or the general
Tollway System pages.)
General myths about toll roads
"We pay taxes for roads!"
| Yes, everyone pays gas
taxes and vehicle registration fees, the primary sources of funding for
road construction and maintenance. However, the state's gas
tax has not been increased since 1991, and the federal
gas tax has not been increased since 1993. As anyone who has a
simple understanding of economics realizes, inflation since that
time has cut the value of that tax significantly; in fact, it has
cut it by more than 50%. Another way of thinking of it is like
this: could you continue to make ends meet if you were still being
paid what you were making in 1991? Additionally, construction
inflation has been rampant during recent years due to material shortages caused
by the hurricanes of 2005 and rapid economic development in China
and India; federal appropriations for roads have been reduced
substantially in recent years; and
the state Legislature continues to divert a significant portion of
Highway Fund revenues to non-highway expenditures. Finally, in
addition to inflation, the gas tax continues to produce less revenue
per mile driven because of the increasing fuel efficiency of
vehicles. In summary, the existing gas tax buys far less today
than it did in 1991 while costs continue to soar, meaning the existing highway funding system is no
longer adequate to build new roads and improvements, let alone
maintain existing roads, and the situation continues to deteriorate every year. |
| Yes, gross gas tax
receipts are higher today than they were in 1991, the last time the
tax was increased. However, since the gas tax is a flat tax,
inflation has reduced the purchasing power of that tax dramatically
since then. In 1993, $1.5 billion was collected in gas tax
revenues. In 2006, $2.2 billion was collected. However,
because of inflation, that $2.2 billion was worth only $1 billion in
1993 dollars. Additionally, fuel efficiency has increased,
which means motorists can drive more miles per dollar in fuel tax.
So while the number of miles driven by motorists increases, and the
corresponding need for road improvements to handle that additional traffic has
increased, gas tax receipts to pay for those improvements have not
increased accordingly. "A highway full of
hybrids is just as congested as a highway full of 1972 Cadillacs." |
| This sounds like an easy
solution, and indeed one I support exploring,
but the Legislature has continuously refused to do so, even during
their last session in 2007 when toll road opposition was a
centerpiece of the session. No legislator wants to be known
for raising taxes and the price of gas, especially with the
cost of gas what it is nowadays. Even if they
could agree to do so, there is tremendous disagreement on how much
of an increase would be needed. Basic consumer inflation says
an 11 cent increase is the minimum needed to bring the gas tax up to
date. However, that does not account for the increased fuel
efficiency of vehicles, the need to "catch-up" with road projects
that were needed over the past 15 years but could not be built due
to gas tax shortfalls, or the extreme increase in
construction costs, which has vastly exceeded regular consumer
inflation. |
| This also is a great idea, but, as with increasing the gas tax, it's something that
the Legislature has declined to do. First of all, the Texas Constitution dictates that 25% of gas tax revenue be used for
public education. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which would require approval by the voters.
Sounds like a slam-dunk, but the big hitch is this: if that source of funding for schools is eliminated, it will have to be made-up
somewhere else, such as an increase in property or sales taxes. Additionally, about 10% of the Highway Fund is spent by the
Legislature on uses other than highway construction and maintenance, primarily as funding for the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). Again, ending that funding source would mean having to make it up from elsewhere. |
| Bonds are being used
already. The state has issued over $4.6 billion in Mobility
Bonds since 2003, and voters recently approved the issuance of $6 billion more. However,
bonds are a band-aid solution because they have to be paid back with future
gas tax revenue, which means that those revenues won't be around for future
needs. Toll roads will also be built with bonds, but those bonds
will be paid back from toll revenues, not tax revenues, thus
allowing those future tax revenues to be available for future needs. |
| While at one point there
were plans to contract construction and operation of the 281 and
1604 tollways to a private consortium that included at least one
foreign company, this is no longer the case. In Bexar County,
the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (ARMA), a public agency, will own and operate
toll roads. |
|
This will not be the case in Bexar County. The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (ARMA), the public agency that will own
and operate local toll roads, has no legal authority or ability to prevent TxDOT, the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, or any
other agency from building or improving their roads or to penalize them for doing so.
|
This is a famous Terri Hall-ism, and it's flat-out wrong.
Roads and road improvements are not paid for until they're actually
built. So yes,
taxes built 281 and 1604 and continue to fund their maintenance. But those roads are now
obsolete and need major improvements, and taxes have not paid for
those improvements.
It's like if I buy a car and pay it off and that car finally breaks down and
I need a new car, should I get the new car for free just because I already
paid for a car? Of course not.
The taxes that we do
pay are what is paying for the over $1 billion in toll-free highway
projects in Bexar County right now. However, there are still
many more necessary projects in San Antonio (such as 281 and 1604) and statewide for which funding is not available due to the
devaluation of the gas tax caused by inflation, receding federal appropriations, and a Legislature that continues to divert money from the
Highway Fund to non-highway uses. In short, the current funding system has been stretched as far as it can go, and until those issues are fixed,
tolling remains one of the last ways available to TxDOT to fund big projects.
Finally, there are many instances of things we pay
taxes to subsidize, then have to pay again to actually use.
For example, you must pay a fare to ride public transportation, even
though gas and sales taxes help to pay for it. You also must
pay to park at a parking meter, even though those same taxes paid
for the street on which they're located. Many state and local
parks require a fee to use, even though taxes go to support them as
well. Taxes are used to support state universities, but
students still pay tuition and fees to attend. The list goes
on, yet toll opponents do not complain about those as being
"double-taxation". |
| First of all,
taxes did not pay for every foot of right-of-way in Texas. Over the
years, the state has received many donations of right-of-way and has
obtained right-of-way by transfer from other governments, inheritance from pervious governments and
original
land grants. That said, even if the state had paid top dollar
for all the right-of-way to be used by toll roads, the toll roads
are going to use right-of-way that is currently unused, so there is
no loss to the taxpayers. Also, using existing right-of-way
will reduce the cost to build the toll road and, therefore, will
help to keep the cost (toll) to use the road down. Finally, if
any additional right-of-way is needed, it will be paid for by bonds
backed by future toll revenue, not by taxes. |
|
Tolls are not a tax. A tax is something you are required to
pay regardless of whether or not you use the services funded by that
tax. With a toll, you have a choice as to
whether or not to pay it by choosing whether or not to drive on a toll
road. Tolls are no more a tax than bus fare is. |
Actually, tolls to enter
central London, known as the Congestion Charge, have substantially
reduced congestion there, so much so that many other cities,
including New York, are considering implementing similar tolls.
That said, in San Antonio, tolls are not being touted
as the mechanism to reduce congestion, but rather as the mechanism
to finance a number of major road improvements that will help to
ease congestion. |
|
This is a blatant fallacy. Nobody claims that a toll road or a
series of toll roads can or will solve all congestion issues.
Rather, they are one component in an overall strategy. If the
toll roads weren't there, then all the traffic that uses those toll
roads would instead be on other roadways. So the question to
ask is this: how much worse would the congestion in Houston
and Dallas be if those toll roads weren't there? |
| Texans voted to give the
state the option to build toll roads in 2001. The ballot
referendum clearly included the words "toll road", "toll bridge",
and "turnpike". |
Myths about the US 281 toll project
"The original project was
already paid-for!"
First of all, remember that roads are not paid-for until they are
actually built. That said, while public documents from around 2000 show that the original
project to extend the freeway on US 281 from Sonterra to Stone Oak was
"funded", laypeople don't understand that highway funding (and
government funding in general) is a very peculiar beast. A "funded"
project in transportation parlance means that TxDOT and/or the MPO
have identified a time in the future when projected revenues from
all applicable sources should be available to pay for a specific
project, and they earmark that expected revenue for that project.
But that doesn't mean they actually have the money in-hand and
have put it in an account just for that project, only that they
expect to have it at a certain point in the future. Lots of
things can happen between the time a project is "funded" and
when it's actually let for contract. For instance, the expected
revenue may not materialize (which is what we're seeing right now
with several projects due to the federal highway funding pull-back); another project may
take priority and the funding is reallocated to it; the planned project
may increase in cost because of inflation or engineering changes and, thus, the
actual revenue is insufficient to fund it; or the project may be
sidetracked for a while to allow for engineering changes, which can
be caused by any number of things (the world is not static after all.)
So the "funded" nomenclature is really just a simple way of saying
"we plan to be able to pay for it during this timeframe." It's
like if I budget to go on a big vacation a year from now because I know that my
income will be sufficient between now and then to save-up to pay for it. But what
happens if I have to buy a new car instead, or if I lose my job? Life
is dynamic, and sometimes even the best laid plans get changed.
Furthermore, the original
project, from Sonterra to Stone Oak, had MPO funding of $43 million,
but the lowest bid for the project was $78 million. With that
kind of funding deficit, TxDOT had two choices-- abandon the project
indefinitely or borrow funding from other projects to get
construction started with the promise of payback from toll revenues. |
|
At a few intersections in north Bexar County (like at Bulverde and
at Borgfeld),
yes, for the short-term, overpasses would be a viable solution. But for the section
of 281 from Sonterra to north of Stone Oak, overpasses alone are not a solution.
The intersections there are too close together such that the overpasses, with their approaches, would
start to run together. Furthermore, there are too many driveways in that area that would still need access.
With the overpasses so close together, those driveways would have to connect to access roads instead.
At that point, you have a full-fledged expressway. Indeed that's what's needed and that has always been TxDOT's plan
for that area. Several public documents from 1999 and 2001 show that, and there was nearly no opposition to that plan.
The current tollway plan is essentially that same plan! Some modifications have been made to provide additional
lanes for the planned interchange at 1604 (no such interchange was envisioned back in those days),
but otherwise the only difference between that plan and today's plan
is that the new expressway lanes would be tolled. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same plan as before.
Additionally, those same plans in 2001 showed that TxDOT planned on extending the freeway in phases all the way to
FM 306 in Comal County. Given the delays in starting construction and the explosion in growth north of Stone Oak,
TxDOT and ARMA have now decided to build the expressway all the way
to Borgfeld. Again, it's same basic design as previously proposed, except
that the new expressway lanes would be tolled.
|
| Totally false.
There was never an "overpass-only" plan. As mentioned in the
previous point, TxDOT has always planned to build a freeway on 281
from 1604 into Comal County, and the existing toll road plan is
essentially that same plan, with a few extra lanes added on the
approach to Loop 1604 for a future interchange there that was not
envisioned in the original plan. The first phase of that plan
called for building the freeway segment from 1604 to north of Stone
Oak and constructing a single overpass at Borgfeld as a short-term
fix until the freeway was extended to there. In 2001, TxDOT estimated
that it would cost $96 million to build the freeway from 1604 to
Comal County, but that was for construction costs only and did not
include right-of-way (over $100 million), engineering costs, and the
cost for the changes made to accommodate the 1604 interchange.
Those issues, along with the dramatic increase in construction
costs since then, account for the vast majority of the difference between the
original estimate and today's estimate of $475 million; toll
collection equipment and initial operations account for a little
less than 10% of
the overall cost. |
While it is true that the existing lanes along 281 will be shifted outward and will become
the toll-free access roads for the new tolled expressway lanes, this is not really a
demotion of those lanes. First of all, the existing highway north of Sonterra is not an expressway, it is a
surface-level divided highway, much like Bandera Road is outside 410.
Access roads are also surface-level divided highways; they just
happen to have a really wide median with a freeway in it. Secondly, the existing
US 281 has signalized intersections. To be exact, there are three
of them between Sonterra and Stone Oak. The new toll-free lanes will
also have three signalized intersections between Sonterra and Stone Oak, and one of those intersections (at Redland) will
actually have a toll-free flyover to bypass it, much like the access
road flyover bypass on Loop 410 at San Pedro. This means that
through traffic on the toll-free lanes will only have two
signalized intersections on that stretch-- one less than they have
today (the signal at Encino Rio will be eliminated.) Finally, the existing roadway
has two or three lanes in each direction, and the new toll-free lanes
would generally have three lanes in each direction with additional
turn lanes and turnarounds at intersections. All of this means
that the toll-free lanes after construction will be of equal or
better quantity and quality as those today. Additionally,
with many people opting to use the new tolled lanes, the level on congestion on the toll-free lanes will be reduced.
To see an animated graphic that shows how the existing lanes would be shifted to make way for the new tollway, see the
US 281 North Tollway Project page.
|
|
US 281 north of 1604 is a regular divided-highway, just like Bandera Road is outside Loop 410. Contrary to what some people think, a divided highway is not a freeway, but rather is
a "surface" road, most of which of course do have traffic signals. Over the past 15 years, development
and traffic have exploded along 281 outside 1604 and, as a result, traffic signals have become necessary at many intersections simply because of traffic volumes and safety issues. A few
years ago, there were several fatal accidents on 281 at Borgfeld and
Marshall Roads, and the residents living around there begged and
demanded TxDOT to put in traffic signals. TxDOT was resistant at first, citing the
interruption and delay to 281 mainline traffic, but traffic studies
eventually showed that those signals were warranted. Now,
everyone wants to complain about those same signals that they all
begged for before. |
|
This is simply not true. First of all, as noted in the topic
above, TxDOT is only adding signals where traffic and safety issues
warrant it.
As for signal timing, the signal most people complain about (281 at Evans) is not even managed by TxDOT, but instead is operated by the City of San Antonio. That intersection is quite busy, with heavy
inflows onto 281 from both directions on Evans. As such, green times on Evans have had to be increased to
accommodate that traffic. For the record, traffic counts on 281 south of Evans are about 50% higher than those north
of Evans, showing just how much traffic Evans dumps onto 281.
|
Myths about the Loop 1604 toll project
"The existing lanes will be downgraded to access roads!"
It depends on which segment of 1604 we're talking about. On the stretch of 1604 that's already an expressway (roughly Bandera Rd. to FM 78),
the four existing expressway lanes will remain as toll-free
expressway lanes and four new barrier-separated, tolled express lanes will be built
in the median between them. Only those new lanes will be tolled. On the other sections of 1604, where there
is currently no expressway, the new expressway lanes will be tolled while the existing lanes will be shifted outward and will remain
toll-free. For my discussion of that scenario, see the answer to this same point for US 281 above.
To see an animated graphic that shows how the existing 1604 lanes would be shifted to make way for the new tollway, see the
Loop 1604 North Expansion Project page.
|
| Yes, this is the plan.
However, this is not unusual. When extra lanes were added on US 281 from Hildebrand to Basse and from Bitters to 1604 several years ago, all the lanes
there were narrowed to 10 feet to make room for the additional lanes
without having to add additional pavement. Nobody noticed that narrowing,
and there has been no increase in accidents or congestion as a
result. |
Other issue-specific toll road editorials
Back to editorials
|
