Taking a Toll: An Unfortunate Coincidence
We all know traffic has been getting progressively worse around here. It also just got more expensive. Two toll stories popped up this morning, one not really helping the other.
Apparently, some of the existing toll equipment around town has double-billed drivers 50,000 times since the toll roads were opened in January. The story mentions that there are three trouble spots, but only identifies the westbound center lane at the Lake Creek toll plaza on Texas 45 North. Makes you want more toll roads, doesn’t it?
The good news is that if you don’t use the existing toll roads enough that you’re concerned about this double-billing, you’re going to get your own chance at double-billing in the not too distant future. CAMPO approved the much maligned tolls to five existing roads last night.
The new tolls will make it pretty much impossible to get to the airport from downtown via a highway without paying a toll. As this handy little map shows, they’re going to toll 183 from Springdale Road to 71 and 71 from Riverside to Thornberry. Those of you with more time on your hands than money can take Montopolis (either from Riverside or Ben White) to Burleson to FM 973 to 71 and approach the airport from the east to avoid that toll. I hope the people on Burleson Road are ready for a traffic increase.
Two of the other tolls, 290 between 183 & 130 and 45 between Mopac & 1626 are too far north or south for me to care too much about. It’s not clear to me where the toll at the Y at Oak Hill starts and ends, but that one might catch me on occasion and will certainly catch all of you Dripping Springs people.
Will be interesting to see how the hire car companies at the airport deal with this as well, will add lots of extra admin handing all the claims for people in hire cars who’ve driven through the tolls without having a tag.
Don’t really understand doing the 71 East part, seems punitive and will focus people visiting the area, on the petty tolls and the traffic problems when they are leaving, rather than remembering what a great town Austin still is. After all there is *NO* alternative but road to get to the airport.
Also, on the 183 North part while it is often jammed, you got wonder if the cost of making it tollroad ready will ever get back the cost of putting in the toll collection points. Especially since there are a number of points where you can exit and turn around on the road.
The Statesman did post more detail on the current plan. We’ll be getting some overpasses out of the deal, which will help with congestion. I’m still trying to figure out what “east of Williamson Creek” means for the tolls at the Y at Oak Hill. As long as I can still exit at Monterey Oaks, I can generally avoid that one as well.
Read the explication in the actual story. The toll portion of 71 will be new road with overpasses. There will still be free roads with lights at Riverside and Thornberry. Paying a toll will allow people to skip the lights, but there will still be a free way to get to the airport, without going around the back.
Same with every other place. If there is a free road there now, there will be a free road in the future.
OK. I get not wanting to pay a toll to drive on a road, but the anti-toll crazies are getting out of hand. We DO need better mobility, and if toll roads are the best way to get these lanes funded, then I say bring it on.
You’re right. The first online article that I linked (when I made that masterpiece of a diagram) didn’t go into such detail, but the one that I linked in the comments does show that there will be free frontage roads in addition to the overpasses.
As pointed out in the article, the main argument against is that these have already been paid for with public money and that this amounts to a “double taxation”. There are also allegations that there would be enough money to add the overpasses if it hadn’t been spent on other pet projects of those involved in the decision making.
There continues to be a great deal of confusion and misleading information about the new round of toll roads. First, let me say that I am by no means a supporter of toll roads. However, this argument that existing roads are being tolled, and you won’t be able to go anywhere without paying tolls is just plain wrong.
It is true that tolled lanes will be added to four roads which currently exist. However, free frontage roads will still be available which will allow us to bypass the tolls, and those frontage roads will have traffic signals at the same intersections they do now. That’s not the same thing as tolling existing roads, and it certainly doesn’t mean you’ve got to start thinking of alternate routes to the airport.
There are plenty of reasons to protest these toll roads being shoved down our throats. But pushing these incorrect arguments only serves to undermine the credibility of our protest.
there will still be a free way to get to the airport, without going around the back
Yeah, but I seriously doubt drivers will be able to go 60 east of 183, as they can now, and I’m guessing the free alternative to the low-level interchange at 183 will be two signals at north and southbound 183 frontage roads. Not quite the same as before, and actually a lot worse.
The map is much appreciated, Tim. I may start going that way now, since that way I can avoid the suicide merge from N-bound 183 to E-bound 71.
“As pointed out in the article, the main argument against is that these have already been paid for with public money and that this amounts to a “double taxation””
That argument is a load of crap. Try driving in Central Austin, on major roads which don’t see dime one from the gas tax, and arguing you should therefore be exempt from paying said gas tax, because it’s “double taxation”.
Spending $910 million tax dollars to shift our freeways to tollways is offensive. NO CITY IN THE COUNTRY HAS SHIFTED IT’S PUBLIC HIGHWAYS TO TOLLWAYS. These are not convetional toll roads
Learn more here:
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/
It’s a shame that you didn’t update your article with the accurate facts as soon as you found them. Because the truth is that currently free roads won’t become toll roads. No current highway capacity will be tolled in the future. Only new construction will be tolled and if you don’t want to pay a toll you may continue to drive on the same roads that you do now. Sal Costello is shameless and sadly misguided.
First, I did update the information in the comments. Don’t get holier-than-thou with me. If you don’t like the way it was done, go write your own blog post about it.
Second, I know Sal’s not the voice of reason on this debate or at least that his style tends to take away from his message, misguided or not. I personally don’t buy the “double taxation” argument either. Even if the land’s already been paid for, the money to build the new overpasses to handle increased traffic has to come from somewhere.
Third, I think it’s valid to question why we need to fund the overpasses with tolls if we traditionally haven’t funded them that way and I agree that the debate hasn’t been framed in the proper context.
Since he’s my state rep and I generally agree with him, I’d like to know why Eddie Rodriguez voted against the plan. What are the reasons for the other three dissenters?
Mills is the only one mentioned in any depth. He says he thinks the money’s there for at least some roads, but “TXDOT just isn’t going to do it”. Why not?
“Third, I think it’s valid to question why we need to fund the overpasses with tolls if we traditionally haven’t funded them that way and I agree that the debate hasn’t been framed in the proper context.”
Because the anti-tollers won a small victory last time around on the definition difference between “you’ll still have free lanes on which to drive” and “those lanes will have a bunch more stoplights than they used to have”. Places where mainlanes of (currently free) US183 have overpasses will now have free frontage overpasses (or traffic from free/toll will combine) because of that.
Not that I bought it, but that’s basically what happened.
Also, the general distaste for tolls from those who otherwise lean Republican is just precious. The economic model being used for “free”ways is the Soviet one: supply a good for free, and then deal with scarcity via long lines. The capitalist (i.e. US) model would be to let the market clear via pricing. Tolls are a step in that direction (variable tolls would be even better).
The whiners from the ‘burbs are just upset that the gravy train is carrying a bit less gravy than it used to. Even with these toll roads, city folk are still subsidizing Circle C, of course, just not quite as much.
The economic model being used for “free”ways is the Soviet one: supply a good for free, and then deal with scarcity via long lines.
But isn’t the major anti-toll argument that freeways are not free? That’s why there’s a gas tax already, yes?
Snowed In,
That’s a very poor argument. I’ve covered it before many times, but here’s a good summary:
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html
The gas tax that the suburban driver pays doesn’t come remotely close to paying those bills – the difference is made up for by urban drivers (who are much less likely to use gas-tax-funded roadways) and by the general fund (property/sales tax ‘donations’).
And none of that is relevant to the market-clearing issue, of course. When supply can’t keep up with demand, the logical response is for price to be the market-clearing mechanism, no matter how the supply was funded in the first place, unless you’re more a fan of the Soviet method.
Mike,
Your point is taken…there is an inequity in that suburbanites seemingly get more for their gas tax money. (I won’t get into a discussion of whether there are inequities in the other direction right now.) But is paying tolls in perpetuity the best way to address this particular inequity?
(We could also address why, for example, Austin requested the dropping of SL 275 between 183 and Williamson Creek from the state highway system…that’s something I’ve wanted to know for a while, since it seemed as if cities such as Austin were depriving themselves of TxDOT money in doing that.)
While we’re on the subject, the Statesman wasn’t terribly helpful in explaining whether Sarah Eckhardt’s amendments survived…can someone fill me in?
To clarify, I think you should correct any misstatement on the original post itself, not within the comments. Not doing so allows people who play fast and loose with facts, like Sal Costello, to take advantage of your own misstatements by continuing to cite your original article as support for their positions.
Regarding 183 east of 35…About 8 years ago the MPO decided that one of their highest priorities was to create a faster way for people to drive to the airport. It’s too bad there wasn’t a toll road option at the time. That highway just doesn’t carry the traffic that other area roads do. But then Senator Barrientos wanted something east of 35, and so it was…The funds to go all the way to the airport with a freeway wasn’ t there. And now, IMO, it’s a big cluster f*** and adding the toll option now could make it even worse. Hopefully they’ll have some decent planners working on it. Because traffic flow is going to be a b**** to handle.
Anybody who cites a post by me as fact without checking up for themselves is an idiot.
Do some of you people not value your time?
Did any of you take economics?
If I can get through the Y at Oak Hill with ease, I’ll pay for it! Those I know that live north use the toll roads frequently and I’ve heard good things about them. I don’t think that anyone I know has been double-billed, but this seems like a kink that can be worked out now that they are aware of it. Now if there was a toll road to get east-west across central Austin, I’d pay to use it as well.
The toll roads are nicer roads that save time so you can make more money. I’ll pay for that!