Tollway operator defaulting? (Austin, Round Rock, Pflugerville: bankrupt, subdivision, tax)

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

I fear the powers that be might be tempted to dip into the general revenue fund to shore up the Cintra roads. Gas taxes and tolls are the best way to pay for roads b/c they are directly tied to the amount of driving one does while property and sales taxes have no such correlation.

And yes it does cost ~$30 for a big rig to use the toll road but there is good reason for this. A 60,000 to 80,000 lb vehicle does substantially more damage to roadways and bridges than most people's 2,500 to 6,000 lb. car or truck.

But 130 was built and sold to us specifically to get the trucks bypassing Austin via I-35. $30 is crazy and that was supposed to attract the 18 wheelers ?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

They will hand the project completion off to another contractor - probably the next bidder. It'll delay it for a while of course.

Not quite..from my link (Hurt is TxDOT):

"It will be the responsibility of a bonding company to bring on a replacement and finish the job, which was to have been done by December. How long a delay will this cause? “Couldn’t even make an educated guess,” Hurt said."

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

But 130 was built and sold to us specifically to get the trucks bypassing Austin via I-35. $30 is crazy and that was supposed to attract the 18 wheelers ?

I'm not aware of the number crunching that went into it but highways are expensive: right of way acquisition, environmental studies, utility relocation, engineering all happen before building is even started.

And $30 for someone getting to work is one thing but $30 as a business expense measured against the wages of the driver and the cost of diesel may be justifiable. But yes it has been disappointing the take rate of trucks on SH 130. I guess that's why that swapping tolls between IH-35 and SH 130 idea got such a good reception.

I think the bond people are trying to be optimistic for SH 130 seeing increased volumes in the coming years so it can justify it's existence. That and the completion down to IH-10 could increase flow dramatically.

[S6Sputnik]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

And $30 for someone getting to work is one thing but $30 as a business expense measured against the wages of the driver and the cost of diesel may be justifiable.

$30 could also be the difference between making money and not, profit margins are usually quite slim. Also keep in mind that the drive is about 18 miles longer and at 9 MPG or less the extra fuel cost easily adds another $10 or so, plus Google says it takes 10 extra minutes to drive 130 vs 35, so the question is really, why would someone pay $50 more to drive 18 miles farther and wast an extra 10 minutes to do so...They will not!

[Trainwreck20]

plus Google says it takes 10 extra minutes to drive 130 vs 35

heh, not during rush hour - 130 is much faster then, I am pretty sure. Also, in rush hour, you will get much better mpg on 130 than in downtown traffic.

[tfresca]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

heh, not during rush hour - 130 is much faster then, I am pretty sure. Also, in rush hour, you will get much better mpg on 130 than in downtown traffic.

I imagine the speed would burn gas faster. Rush hour traffic has you idling most of the time. Says the guy with a 1 hour commute when UT is in session.

[Trainwreck20]

I imagine the speed would burn gas faster. Rush hour traffic has you idling most of the time. Says the guy with a 1 hour commute when UT is in session.

Ummm...really? Yeah, it burns gas faster, but less of it per mile, as in miles per gallon. Most cars 'cruise' most efficiently at the low end of their top gear, which is about 50 or so mph these days, I would guess. However, acceleration (and deceleration) are killers on gas mileage. Anytime you hit your brakes, you are shedding lost work in the form of heat.....

I have not done the math, but it is quite possible that the $30 is break even (or near so) for trucks driving through/past Austin during rush hour.

[Jennibc]

If the trucks aren't using it, it's time to lower the toll and see what price will bring them on. As long as the $ they charge covers a little bit beyond the increased maintenance because of 18 wheel usage, they will be better off. It's clear that the economic model the planners were relying on is flawed.

[HappyTexan]

Last year the toll for 18 wheelers was $26 and they weren't using it.

Truck relief on I-35? Maybe a little
"I-35 still has more than 20 times as many big rigs on it as Texas 130. Texas Department of Transportation officials, in a Getting There column several months ago, said they could legally lower truck tolls but weren't actively pursuing it. Now they are."

Here's an oldie but goodie going back to 1998.
TX-130 TX-45 Loop-1 EXt US-183A Zachry-HNTB propose Austin-San Antonio pike | TOLLROADSnews

Recall that the plans for 130 had it going the MoKan route. But subdivisions sprung up along that easement and during the hearings there was much outcry and 130 kept getting moved further east. I recall articles saying the further east it goes the less traffic will be on it because there is a point where it's too far out of the way.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Last year the toll for 18 wheelers was $26 and they weren't using it.

Truck relief on I-35? Maybe a little
"I-35 still has more than 20 times as many big rigs on it as Texas 130. Texas Department of Transportation officials, in a Getting There column several months ago, said they could legally lower truck tolls but weren't actively pursuing it. Now they are."

Here's an oldie but goodie going back to 1998.
TX-130 TX-45 Loop-1 EXt US-183A Zachry-HNTB propose Austin-San Antonio pike | TOLLROADSnews

Recall that the plans for 130 had it going the MoKan route. But subdivisions sprung up along that easement and during the hearings there was much outcry and 130 kept getting moved further east. I recall articles saying the further east it goes the less traffic will be on it because there is a point where it's too far out of the way.

Pardon me for the hijack, but the media-created fiction that was "MoKan" has always bugged me.

There never was any such animal. The Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad was always called the "Katy".

For some reason, media ignoramuses back in the '80s corrupted the many decades old nickname.

Not an attack on HappyTexan, just trying to straighten out a misnomer.