BIKE: The "road lobby"

[Mike Dahmus]

On 06:26 AM 3/6/2005 -0600, Librik or Babich wrote:
>Mike Dahmus shrieked:

Just wanted to see that. The self-congratulatory patronization is really 
working well for you.

> > Here's what's going to happen if Roger's ilk convinces the environmental
> > bloc to continue their unholy alliance with the suburban road warriors
> > like McCracken and Daugherty:
> >
> > 1. We tell TXDOT we don't want toll roads.
> > 2. TXDOT says we need to kick in a bunch more money to get them built free.
> > 3. We float another huge local bond package to do it (just like we did
> > for local 'contributions' for SH 45, SH 130, and US 183A).
> > 4. The roads get built, as free highways.
> > 5. Those bonds are paid back by property and sales taxes, which
> > disproportionately hit central Austinites, and especially penalize
> > people who don't or only infrequently drive.
>
>Points 1 and 2 sound like a reasonable chain of events. It is even believable
>that 3 can follow from 2. But before we consider 4 a fait accompli, should we
>not wonder why TXDoT is even willing to go through all this divisive toll road
>stuff if it were actually so easy for them to do it the old fashioned way, 
>even
>if all those suburbanites will back them in it?
>
>Maybe they do not really think they could get away with selling such bonds

Right here is where you fell off the tracks. It wouldn't be TXDOT selling 
the bonds; it would be Austin and Travis County selling the bonds, just 
like we did in 1998 and 2000; and just like Williamson County and Round 
Rock did more recently.

In the future, if you're going to argue with me from such a lofty position 
of implied moral superiority, please keep it short (like Fred did), or have 
your facts straight.

>because the bankers and brokers who would be putting up the money might know
>the risks of this kind of venture, considering our energy prospects.

Yes; highway building is already coming to a screeching halt all over the 
country as we speak.

>Some of you know about this better than I, but, again, if it would be so easy
>for TXDoT to fund these roads without the tolls, why are they bothering to try
>selling them as toll roads?

Because your operating assumption that "TXDOT could fund the roads without 
tolls" rests on the premise that "TXDOT will fund all the roads itself". As 
Round Rock and Williamson have most recently showed, TXDOT is really 
enjoying extracting additional local 'contributions' for 'free gas-tax 
funded roadways'.

>Maybe we can actually beat these roads, toll or otherwise, if that is what we
>want.
>
>But, then again, appeasement and capitulation are viable options, and we can
>remember how such cool heads prevailed in Europe back in the 1930's.

Cool. A Nazi reference. THAT'S SURE TO WIN YOU THE MORAL HIGH GROUND! Good one!

If you think you can beat these roads in their free form, you're not as 
intelligent as I thought you were. In the real world, one can often lose a 
war by trying too hard to win every single battle, even those which are 
lost causes from the beginning.

For those who are still tempted to believe the folks stuck inside the 
center-city echo chamber, I highly recommend watching Channel 6 coverage of 
yesterday's city council meeting. It was crystal clear that Brewster 
McCracken was pushing for the toll review not to stop the toll roads, but 
to make them, instead, free roads.


Mike Dahmus
mdahmus