BIKE: Re: The "road lobby"

[Mike Dahmus]

Patrick Goetz wrote:

> Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>>
>> - I DO believe that if the tolling of these roads is overturned, that 
>> the local politicians in Travis County and Austin will do what they 
>> did in 1998 and 2000 and put forward a bond package to sweeten the 
>> deal to TXDOT to get the roads built quicker, just as Round Rock and 
>> Williamson County recently did. This will exceed the old "we're just 
>> contributing for our share of right-of-way costs" gambit, as Round 
>> Rock and Williamson County already have done. Those bonds will then 
>> be repaid over 30 years by local property and sales taxes, as all 
>> such bonds are.
>>
>
> Quick Comment:  Even with 1000 miles of additional toll road lanes in 
> the 2030 transportation plan, The CAMPO 2030 budget relies heavily on 
> local bond initiatives in order to appear solvent -- something on the 
> order of 20 billion dollars per 4 year bond cycle (Roger has the exact 
> numbers -- I'm quoting from memory).  In other words, they have toll 
> roads and are STILL asking for a maximal amout of bond sweetener in 
> order to make the numbers work out, so this could NOT be invoked as an 
> alternative to toll roads.

Really? Is there a state law restricting bond indebtedness? I say again: 
Round Rock and Williamson County JUST DID what I think Austin and Travis 
County will do, if McCracken and Daugherty get their way. If it were 
impossible to do so, one would think our friends to the north wouldn't 
have been able to get it done.

> You can be sure that the pols already considered this option (do it 
> all with bonds) before calling for a toll road plan that has already 
> exposed the rather nasty underbelly of corruption, land speculation, 
> and cronyism to an extent never before seen in these parts.

It's not "do it all with bonds", it's couched as "use bond money to 
leverage TXDOT's shrinking gas tax dollars to make sure we get the roads 
instead of our competition in Dallas, Houston, etc".

> I simply can't understand why we're debating whether it makes more 
> sense to spray lighter fluid or kerosene on our house while it is in 
> the process of burning to the ground, an apt analogy for the toll road 
> debate in progress.  Simple answer:  don't buy or spray either:  go 
> get a water hose or two and pray that you didn't start too late to 
> prevent disaster.  

Your analogy sucks.

In this case, you know damn well what my preference would be if I were czar:

1. Don't built those highways at all
[...]
999. Build them as toll roads
1000. Build them as free roads

The problem is that for 85% of the voting population out there, #1 is 
simply not on their radar screen. The hard-core SOS guys, yes. But 
everybody else thinks we need these roads either way. Period.

So in the real world, we're left with choosing between #999 and #1000 on 
that list. The key difference is that in #1000, we can guarantee that 
suburbanites will pay nearly nothing to drive on these roads, and that 
urbanites will pay a big chunk of the bill via property and sales taxes. 
With #999, we guarantee that suburbanites will pay a big chunk of change 
to drive on these roads, and that urbanites might be left holding part 
of the bag if the finances don't hold up, leaving us still slightly 
better off than in #1000.

You guys can argue all you want that the Route #1000 train bearing down 
on you shouldn't be there, and that you're just being a cowardly 
appeaser if you jump off the tracks rather than hold your ground. Good 
luck with that.

- MD