BIKE: Slusher's latest take on toll roads

[Roger Baker]

[It doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows on some 
issues does it?  The truth is that heavy tolling of existing roads is 
probably necessary to guarantee a revenue stream enough to sweeten up 
the total ambitious toll road package for building new roads enough to 
keep the bond houses happy, which lenders meanwhile are surely frowning 
at the local toll road controversy.  Making Austin the toll road 
capital of the world is turning out to be hard to do.

The bond houses are being asked to finance many expanded roads serving 
areas with political clout associated with sprawl land development 
speculation. Like Cedar Park and Leander along US 183 A, beyond 620, 
with this project trying to get its own federal TIFIA loan for  about 
$60 million, this being seen (my interpretation) as a sort of federal 
pork loan financial protection by the bond houses before they are 
willing to step in as outside lenders of their own money for tax-exempt 
municipal revenue bonds. (This road serves the area out where, just 
coincidentally, CTRMA's chair Robert Tesch, a Perry appointee, has an 
interest in a business park).  -- Roger]







M E M O R A N D U M


To:		CAMPO Board Members

From:		Austin City Council Member Daryl Slusher

Date:	September 3, 2004

Re:	Toll Roads

Since the CAMPO vote to approve toll roads on July 12, a vote on which 
I dissented, many citizens have asked what is the next move or what is 
the alternative. Today I want to offer an alternative approach in the 
spirit of helping to heal a divisive issue on our community. I look 
forward to discussion heading into the September 13 meeting.

I was pleased yesterday to see some slight movement when Council Member 
Brewster McCracken, speaking in the Austin American-Statesman, said he 
would no longer support tolling of roads that are already under 
construction.

I welcome that change in position, but don’t believe it goes far 
enough. In my view, a more important and effective change would be to 
support reversal of the toll road vote at the September 13 CAMPO 
meeting.

Simply dropping the roads that are under construction raises a number 
of other questions and/or leaves questions unanswered. Also the switch 
does nothing to address the disastrous environmental impacts of the 
toll road plan.

Here is how I suggest that we proceed. The first step would be to 
reverse the vote for the toll road package taken on July 12.

Then CAMPO should reconsider the toll road issue as part of 
deliberations on the 2030 long-range plan – a process that is already 
in progress.

One thing that makes this a sound approach is that there has been a lot 
of activity on the state and federal level since the CAMPO vote. 
Governor Rick Perry’s office has emphasized that toll roads are a 
“local decision.” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has said she does not 
favor tolling existing roads and thinks the transition to tolls in 
Texas is moving too rapidly. Other state officials are recommending 
changes. Some changes could occur during the months when CAMPO is 
considering the 2030 plan or soon thereafter.

I believe we should reverse the July 12 vote, go to TxDOT as a united 
community, and say our local toll plan – consistent with Senator 
Hutchison’s position – is to toll new roads: SH 130, SH 183A, and SH 45 
North. We should request, as a united community, our fair share of tax 
dollars back for transportation in our region.

I also think that those of us who oppose the toll plan must acknowledge 
that not tolling as many roads means there won’t be as much money for 
road construction. This will likely be true even if the state were to 
make changes in its approach to funding roads. There would still 
probably not be enough funds to build all the roads in the current 
CAMPO plan or toll plan. Consequently some road expansions will have to 
be scaled back or not take place at all. Also, many citizens agree that 
some of the expansions should not take place, at least not to the 
degree called for in the toll road plan.

For example, simply dropping roads already under construction from the 
toll plan leaves in place the designation of Loop 360 as “tollway 4,” 
an eight-lane highway – two toll lanes in each direction and two free 
lanes in each direction. It also leaves in place the potential doubling 
in size of SH 45 South as well as the abandonment of negotiated 
environmental protections on this road over the heart of the Edwards 
Aquifer Recharge Zone (Barton Springs segment).

Loop 360 is currently four lanes and was listed in the CAMPO plan prior 
to July 12 as expanding to six lanes in the future. As previously 
mentioned, the toll road vote changed that to eight lanes with four 
tolled. Yet a huge portion of citizens along that road clearly do not 
want it transformed into a toll road and, from the input I have 
received, many neighbors don’t want the road widened at all – certainly 
not into an eight-lane highway. In fact at the July 12 CAMPO meeting 
when neighbors were told that 360 would stay the same unless it was 
tolled the cheered loudly.

The proposed expansion would seriously damage the scenic beauty of the 
area, hurt the character of surrounding neighborhoods, encroach on City 
parkland and preserves, and risk serious pollution of waterways – in 
particular Twin Falls and Sculpture Falls along the Barton Creek 
Greenbelt. The estimated cost to do this would range from $550 million 
to $1 billion according to figures provided by the Central Texas 
Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA).

My suggestion would be to leave Loop 360 at four lanes and explore 
selective work or widening at intersections to eliminate stoplights 
without eight lanes or massive flyovers. At the very least the 
designation in the long range plan should be returned to six lanes.

This not only avoids environmental damage, but it also saves 
considerable funds, around one-fourth of the total $2.2 billion cost 
for the toll road plan.

On SH 45 South I propose going back to the voter approved plan prior to 
July 12. I do not support this road at all and believe it is damaging 
to the aquifer, but it was approved by voters and thus I do not oppose 
it being built. I do think, however, that the environmental protections 
that were negotiated are essential.
	
In closing I want to comment on a fundamental principle involving 
governance. In announcing his change in position Council Member 
McCracken said that a no vote on July 12 (which seven of us took) was 
“irresponsible.” At the same time he explained that he voted yes 
because he wanted to secure road money which TxDOT had said was only 
available if there was a yes vote on the toll plan.

Now, he maintains that this funding is secured (though other local 
elected officials say that is not so certain) and thus feels free to 
change his position on the toll roads. To me what’s irresponsible here 
is to accept public funds from another level of government based on one 
premise, then once those funds are in hand, renege on the principles 
under which that money was taken. I do not want anyone to think that a 
City Council or CAMPO majority would make votes based on false 
pretenses. To me that is an inappropriate way to operate in governing.

I offer the alternatives above for discussion and welcome feedback from 
colleagues. I believe that they help heal a divisive issue in our 
community, provide needed time for discussion of such a huge issue, and 
save public funds while at the same time avoiding damage to the 
environment and scenic beauty of the region.


Thank you,

Daryl Slusher


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7879 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20040904/53ec5c5b/attachment.bin