Geez, did you get to vote on the inclusion of a toll road the the TxDOT plans for the Katy Freeway Project? Or the Westpark tollroad? Or the proposed Grand Parkway tollroad which is being aggressively pushed by the Harris County Commissioners Court even it goes into Fort Bend county and places toll booths on roads that have already been funded and constructed?

I swear, Robert Eckels won't be happy until I have an EZ tag booth on my freaking driveway.

Charles,

A new toll road would certainly alleviate traffic. Highway expansion has a more mixed record of reducing long-term congestion, and light rail has no serious impact whatsoever, but builting new roads will almost certainly improve regional traffic mobility. It provides an alternate route for cars to take.

So why don't we need a vote on this? Because tollways pay for themselves. Heck, highways mostly pay for themselves. Between gasoline taxes, vehicle registration, et al, there's very little in the way of subsidies to highways. Add a significant user fee to the mix, and the cost to those who don't drive is nill.

Rail, conversely, is almost entirely subsidized by people who don't use the system. The same is true with buses and HOV lanes, but they cost far less and are, most importantly, cost-effective. Rail is not cost-effective and its costs are not internalized, as is true with automobiles. Accordingly, the taxpaying public is owed a direct say in rail construction, but the same cannot necessarily be said of road construction.

I wouldn't mind a vote on this tollway, though. Yet because the tollway will be combined with sound barriers, it will actually be a net benefit for residents who already suffer intense noise from, yes, trains. Homeowners are already suffering and this has the potential to both solve the noise problem and improve mobility. So where's the problem?

I'd like to get to vote on all of these things. However, we do already elect the officials who make these decisions and so indirectly get to vote. As much as I would have preferred to have a vote on the Main Street rail line, I even more prefer to have a vote on Metro changing the funding ratio between Metro and outlying cities. Otherwise I see little incentive for those cities to stay in the Metro structure.

A new toll road would certainly alleviate traffic.

Not really. The traffic alleviation effects of toll roads are brief for the simple reason that toll roads count on a nettlesome level of congestion on alternate routes to make them worth the cost of using them. Eventually these roads become congested as well. See the recent proposal to raise the cost of tolls to alleviate congestion on the Sam Houston Toll Road. And then where are you? Now the alternate routes and the toll roads are congested with even more lanes of traffic dutifully making their contributions to our inane efforts to regain the title of the smoggiest city in America. We may be number 4 right now, but look out LA! We want our title back.

Which brings me to the cost of rail. Agreed-the initial cost of building rail systems is high but many of the benefits including hidden revenue are not calculated into the traditional cost benefit analysis. Proximity to rail stations that are part of an integrated system increases property value, which in turn increases property tax revenue. Need proof? Try searching for a home in D.C. and notice the difference in home prices within a mile of a Metro stop and prices of homes of similar size and at similar distance to downtown. Or better yet head over to Orbitz and explore hotel prices in D.C. or Paris or London. Again the proximity to Metro or Tube stops increases the price (and value) of hotel rooms which, in turn increases sales tax revenue. These benefits are not captured in the simple cost benefit analysis of most rail-bashers.

BTW, your insinuation regarding of the current noise associated with freight trains to tacitly imply a similar noise level of light rail trains is intellectually dishonest and you know it.

Patrick,

Not really. The traffic alleviation effects of toll roads are brief for the simple reason that toll roads count on a nettlesome level of congestion on alternate routes to make them worth the cost of using them. Eventually these roads become congested as well.

As cities grow congestion always gets worse over time, but having more roads ensures that the congestion is less than it would be otherwise. New roads are virtually always a net gain for mobility, even in the long term, because they can and do prove more routes for traffic. It makes no sense to claim otherwise, and I doubt you have any data that says otherwise.

Which brings me to the cost of rail. Agreed-the initial cost of building rail systems is high but many of the benefits including hidden revenue are not calculated into the traditional cost benefit analysis. Proximity to rail stations that are part of an integrated system increases property value, which in turn increases property tax revenue.

It doesn't increase property tax value at significantly as you think (about 12-15% over non-rail areas in Dallas), and in some cases it has no effect at all. So that's a mixed bag. Moreover, there's no reason to believe that Bus Rapid Transit, which is cheaper and faster, wouldn't have a similar impact on property tax revenues. Even improving regular bus service has been held to have 'spurred' development in some cases, and in other cases not at all.

The operating costs of rail in Dallas are about seven times higher than those for express bus service, and that's the type of rail Houston is building. Property tax revenues would have to skyrocket to make so much as a dent in these extraordinary costs.

Need proof? Try searching for a home in D.C. and notice the difference in home prices within a mile of a Metro stop and prices of homes of similar size and at similar distance to downtown.

Nice try. D.C.'s Metro is funded overwhelmingly by federal grants because Congressmen want transportation for their staffers, and the agency is still hideously cost-ineffective and has been gradually losing ridership for some time. If you believe that property taxes are making up for these costs in any considerable way, I've got a bridge in Florida to sell you.

These benefits are not captured in the simple cost benefit analysis of most rail-bashers.

...Because they aren't considerable or even consistant. Look at Portland. They're actually having to offer property tax forgiveness just to get people to build along rail lines. Then look at Minneapolis, where light rail is expected to necessitate property tax increases.

BTW, your insinuation regarding of the current noise associated with freight trains to tacitly imply a similar noise level of light rail trains is intellectually dishonest and you know it.

Um... I never said that light rail and freight trains had similar noise levels, although they do both have noise problems that must be mitigated. But the reason why we should oppose light rail in particular is because it simply doesn't work. No matter how much you want it to, it just doesn't work.

As cities grow congestion always gets worse over time, but having more roads ensures that the congestion is less than it would be otherwise.

I assume that you concede the point that toll roads depend on congestion for their viability? And if that is true, then it would seem foolish to rely on a mechanism that relies on congestion to solve congestion.

New roads are a temporary, low bang for the buck way to increase mobility because they always get more congested and require more expansion. Of course, this leads to the eventuality that property and businesses are condemned under eminent domain laws in order to build those new roads. Ironically, many of these businesses spring up as result of previous iterations of the road only to be consumed in the endless feeding of the concrete beast.

It doesn't increase property tax value at significantly as you think (about 12-15% over non-rail areas in Dallas), and in some cases it has no effect at all. So that's a mixed bag.

12-15% over non-rail areas? Would you take an investment that outperformed it's peers by 12-15%? I would.

Moreover, there's no reason to believe that Bus Rapid Transit, which is cheaper and faster, wouldn't have a similar impact on property tax revenues.

With no data for support, I am not willing agree this is the necessarily the case. I would tend to think that it may have a similar impact on preperty taxes but to a lesser extent.

Even improving regular bus service has been held to have 'spurred' development in some cases, and in other cases not at all.

Maybe, but bus does not equal rail.

Patrick: Need proof? Try searching for a home in D.C. and notice the difference in home prices within a mile of a Metro stop and prices of homes of similar size and at similar distance to downtown.

Owen: Nice try. D.C.'s Metro is funded overwhelmingly by federal grants because Congressmen want transportation for their staffers, and the agency is still hideously cost-ineffective and has been gradually losing ridership for some time.

Nice try, as well. The point I raised was that proximity to rail in the DC area raised the value of homes and consequently property tax revenue. It had nothing to do with the sources of funding for building the DC Metro line. You're talking cause, I'm talking effect.

BTW for the record, I never asserted that the increases in property tax revenues would offset the cost of rail. I simply point out that there are fiscal benefits that are not often addressed during this debate.

Um... I never said that light rail and freight trains had similar noise levels, although they do both have noise problems that must be mitigated.

And I never said you said that. I did, however, say that you insinuated a similarity which you did.

But the reason why we should oppose light rail in particular is because it simply doesn't work. No matter how much you want it to, it just doesn't work.

Hmmm. Paris, London, Tokyo, New York, Chicago, Seoul, Moscow, Washington DC - some of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world all have rail systems that do work as part of their transit plans. I've ridden trains in all of them wouldn't hesitate to do it again.

You know what doesn't work? Trying to solve traffic problems solely by building new roads. That has been Houston's answer to traffic congestion for years, no, decades. My father got finally fed up with Houston traffic and moved away...in 1974. Here it is 30 years later and it is still the number one concern of Houston residents.

Our traffic fixes have been akin to patching a leaky roof. It works for a while but after a little bit, the roof begins to leak again. But instead of fixing the roof, we throw on another patch. We're being penny wise and pound foolish. It's not cheap, but it's time to buy a new roof.

BTW, Owen, congratulations on your gradutation from Rice. What are you planning to do next, more school or the rat race? Good luck, either way.

I grew up in Chicago, and was about 20 years old when the interstates went through in the early '60s. I remember driving them 250mi to Madison, WI, and 500mi on to St Paul/Minneapolis, MN. I was the only car I would see for very long periods of time. Sometimes hours. In either direction. These days, all these roads are crowded with frustrated, road rage type drivers. I also made ample use of Chi's extensive public transport, including its light and heavy rail. I only drove in the city for errands, but all my routine stuff was via public transport. And I would look out the windows at all the jam I was passing by. It never makes any difference how wide you make a road, it will soon fill up, and you are right back where you started, but now with even more cars stuck. Public transport is the hot setup.