What should be HOV lanes on Mopac will be Toll Roads (Austin: house, living)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Is there a news link I'm missing here? Because without one its hard to understand what you are complaining about.

If I have to read between the lines of your post, then I have to say....

1. Quit blaming Austin for Texas Highway Department Decision that the City has little control over.

2. Why shouldn't those who benefit from faster commutes, help pay for the associated costs?

3. If you want to pay .30c in gas taxes then maybe if could be free for everyone. Someone has to pay for it. It's either you and I or the rich, pick one.

1. I very specifically blamed TxDot and CAMPO, with a little CMTA thrown in. Typical big government.

2. A lane is being taken away to facilitate this 'shorter commute' for a few.

3. Why is the only choice to 'pay for it'? Traffic moves right now, it's not a standstill. I don't have any obligation to finance anyone's faster commute. No one is FORCED to drive on Mopac.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by achtungpv

Maybe there should be a city income tax for those that work in Austin but don't live in the city so that suburbanites have to help support Austin's infrastructure. I believe St Louis does this.

Perhaps a congestion charge such as London's would do the same: London congestion charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


I don't think the primary goal of the managed lanes is to relieve traffic. If it was, then why is it more expensive to use the HOV lanes during rush hour? The obvious goal here is to make money. According to the Statesman: "The tolls would be higher during peak commuting periods, and when traffic is light, they would be minimal or might disappear entirely." http://www.statesman.com/news/local/mopac-changes-on-the-way-791183.html

It might appear something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[electricninja]

Originally Posted by orbius

Another reason to vote for Bill White if anyone needed another one, he is a vocal critic of Txdot.

That's not even a good enough first reason to vote for Bill White.

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

How about if we avoid the cost of installing toll booths, and just designate the lane for car pools and buses.
The rich can then hire a passenger, which can serve to help decrease the unemployment rate.

What is the thinking behind taking a strip of existing highway, and giving it to the rich? Who came up with this idea? Who authorized this?

What is the thinking behind class warfare and how do people like you get away with it?

You mean to say that making the rich pay the cost of their advantage and then removing them from the other lanes is so horrible?

[Driftwood1]

Quite by chance we have the news dvr'd the night this broke and over breakfast we tried to guess what the "improvement" was. Even with our wildest thoughts on how inept the planning has been around Austin roads this was a shocker. Take a lane away and make the traffic better for those who can pay and worse for those who cant, or wont? And further, why not just designate it a carpool lane like a normal city would? Because they would rather spend your money.

[jobert]

I was incorrect earlier, and quoting from a local news website. Their wording made it sound as if it was a zero-sum situation, and that a lane would be taken away, but according to atxcio's CTRMA link, it looks as though a lane would be added. I do think it's a de facto congestion tax though (albeit small one) and the authorities involved don't want to admit it. I wouldn't be surprised if managed lanes are eventually included in the "Y" at Oak Hill though, being that is the other sprawl "valve" in Austin. They may very well be deliberating on it right now, and holding up construction.

[hoffdano]

I heard an interview last night with a traffic engineer who described how they would ADD a lane.

The "managed lane" is a new lane. So Mopac gains a lane between 2222 and Cesar Chavez. Unfortunately the bottleneck at the lake remains.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

Taxing people who work in Austin, but live outside Austin, is not necessarily going to equate fairly to their use of tax funded city services.

The more I read this thread, the more I wonder if we should not have ALL roads be toll roads.
Pay as we go.

I am slowly moving towards the pay as we go model in general. I think I would still prefer an increase in gasoline taxes because it doesn't require toll booths and a billing infrastructure.

But just like I am getting comfortable with airlines charging for food and baggage - I think consumers might just want to think about "pay as you go." If only airlines would firmly charge more for people who cannot fit in one seat (another topic entirely).

[mimimomx3]

I'm more surprised by the lack of slick PR/Marketing on this project than by the project itself. With all the millions that CAMPO/TxDOT/CMTA/Travis County/COA take in, yo would think they could hire an advertising firm (out of Seattle or SF, naturally) who would package this as the "greenest solution for the greenest city in America!", then proceed to tax the heck out of us. I'm disappointed.

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by electricninja

What is the thinking behind class warfare and how do people like you get away with it?

You mean to say that making the rich pay the cost of their advantage and then removing them from the other lanes is so horrible?

How do you translate my statement into class warfare.
If you read my entire post, you would have noticed it was written when I thought they were taking an existing lane (already paid for by the tax payers), and converting it to a pay-only lane. (As I clearly stated that in the particular post you quoted).
I could just as easily argue that being in favor of this is class warfare, and wonder how you get away with it.
Perhaps class warfare is what we are actually engaging in, your thinking those willing to pay more should get a bigger slice of what the masses already paid for, and my thinking they should not.

[TexasHorseLady]

So, we're going to have narrower lanes so that a toll lane can be added? Didn't we already pay for this road with our taxes? And isn't that going to make the result 4 lanes more hazardous? Whose idea was this, anyway? I want names, not agency names, and accountability.

I have no gripe with toll roads such as SH 130, which was sold to us as a toll road from the get-go (although their promise that all the semis would be taking it and not going through Austin appears to have been just about as successful as could have been expected, and I didn't buy it then) - that's been open and upfront and honest, at least. I DO have a gripe with converting roads that taxpayer money has paid for to toll roads - that's effectively double taxation, and taxation without representation, at that. (I seem to remember there being some objection to that concept sometime in the past.)

Rick Perry has a LOT to answer for. Can't wait until he's gone, gone, gone (as long as he doesn't move on to the White House, because what if a foreign head of state STARED at him? He'd be likely to shoot him and we'd be in WWIII!).