9 ms·

I don’t have an issue with HOT lanes, but I’m not a big fan of the toll roads in Texas. I don’t like that it creates separate classes of infrastructure for cit

I don’t have an issue with HOT lanes, but I’m not a big fan of the toll roads in Texas. I don’t like that it creates separate classes of infrastructure for citizens based on their ability to pay. Even the non-toll highways had an HOT-like lane you paid per-use to drive on that was often significantly faster than the free lanes. It makes a system where I suspect many people won’t want to pay to upgrade the free infrastructure because they don’t use it, and people who can’t afford the daily tolls waste even more time in traffic. The fast pass lane are even worse because they cannibalize lanes that could be used to alleviate general traffic (and were typically sparsely used). The tolls were substantial for some people. $3-$8 a day on toll roads (ie no fast pass lane). At $8 a day, that’d be $40 a week, ~$160/month. That’s nearly 20% of the weekly pre-tax income of someone making Austin’s $22/hr minimum wage.

spwa4 10mo ago
> I don’t like that it creates separate classes of infrastructure for citizens based on their ability to pay. Even the non-toll highways had an HOT-like lane you paid per-use to drive on that was often significantly faster than the free lanes. But ... government income is largely dependent on the rich, and government spending largely benefits the poor. This is what is always forgotten about it. The reason debt is such a thorny issue is that debt really benefited the poor. And over time, so will these toll roads. The reason toll roads benefit the poor is that the rich don't travel anyways, and this gives extra economic options to the poor. A large portion will figure out how to use this extra economic option (because that was thoroughly checked before the bridge was even built, and it wouldn't have been built if the answer wasn't that they would) So both the building of the bridge, and the use of it almost exclusively benefit the poor.
- xboxnolifes 10mo ago
  The rich may travel on the toll roads, but they certainly benefit from those who do.
blauditore 10mo ago
If you want to disincentivize usage of certain things, money is generally the most effective option. Yes, some rich folks won't be bothered, but even fairly low amounts make most people think twice. Too many cars are a problem in many parts of the world, for a number of reasons (noise, smog, traffic jams, or parking space in cities), so nudging people towards alternative usage patterns is worthwhile in my opinion.
- h2zizzle 10mo ago
  Alternatives are the most effective option. Tolls just make laws the rich don't have to obey and conditions they don't have to experience. Aggregate suffering isn't lowered, just shifted to the poor. If you want cars off the road, you tax rich people and build trains and bike lanes, and shut down cynical RTO. Full stop.
  - simondotau 10mo ago
    It’s not that simple. For trains to be a complete solution you need walkable cities, and high density transport-oriented residential construction near stations. This is almost diametrically opposite to parking-oriented cities and sprawling suburbia.
    - LexiMax 10mo ago
      The best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is decades ago. The second best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is now.
      - hopelite 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        lokar 10mo ago
        Localities large and small have been moving towards higher density, walkable and transit oriented development for years now. It's happening, and it works.
jobs_throwaway 10mo ago
Couldn't disagree more. People should be able to pay more for use of better infrastructure. If $3-$8 a day isn't worth it for you, there's a free option that's totally acceptable.
- salawat 10mo ago
  See, here's the thing. Definition of acceptable isn't up to you. It's up to the people who have no other choice but to use it.
  - anon84873628 10mo ago
    Theoretically those people express their opinion via electing representatives. Infrastructure investment and "fixing the potholes" seems to be a common campaign theme.
    - salawat 10mo ago
      It really isn't followed through on as often as you think, and since Citizen's United, the typical candidate tends to chase the donations of people who think tolls are a grand idea. Not so much the rest of the working stiffs. Institutional inertia is a hell of a thing when your working demographic is keeping the retiree's and children's heads above water.
- hopelite 10mo ago
  Maybe the solution is more going over to a fee based on % of one’s net worth. So since you seem to think something like $6 being an acceptable price for someone with a $500 net worth, maybe 1.2% of net worth for each traversal of a segment is appropriate, so you pay maybe $24,000 with every trip down the toll road and Elon musk pays $9.12 billion, while the bottom of the rung working class can pay $6.
  - zhoujianfu 10mo ago
    I think the right solution is charge whatever would maximize revenue, then distribute the revenues evenly among all residents/voters/whomever.
The_President 10mo ago
The fastest highway in the United States is the 85 mph controlled access public-private venture toll road east of Austin. State income tax is not a thing in Texas, and that road would have otherwise not been completed at the price or schedule it was built on without the backing of the private company that built it.
- lokar 10mo ago
  I'm not sure what your point is, can you explain?
  - el_benhameen 10mo ago
    I think the point is that in this case, the choice is between the infrastructure being pay-to-use or just not existing, not between the infrastructure being free and being pay-to-use
    - lokar 10mo ago
      That was my suspicion, but I'm not sure. Obviously, they have other valid options. Raise taxes. Have the state borrow, build, and operate the road as a toll road at cost, etc.
      - el_benhameen 10mo ago
        Sure. I think the point is that in Texas, those are valid but not viable due to politics.
- amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
  Why would you tax people's income to pay for a highway? Fuel taxes and license fees would normally be the way to pay for transportation infrastructure.
  - anonzzzies 10mo ago
    It works well in many (most I know) countries: is fuel+license more common than general (income and fuel and other) taxation ('normally' would imply most do like you say?).

spwa4 10mo ago

> I don’t like that it creates separate classes of infrastructure for citizens based on their ability to pay. Even the non-toll highways had an HOT-like lane you paid per-use to drive on that was often significantly faster than the free lanes. But ... government income is largely dependent on the rich, and government spending largely benefits the poor. This is what is always forgotten about it. The reason debt is such a thorny issue is that debt really benefited the poor. And over time, so will these toll roads. The reason toll roads benefit the poor is that the rich don't travel anyways, and this gives extra economic options to the poor. A large portion will figure out how to use this extra economic option (because that was thoroughly checked before the bridge was even built, and it wouldn't have been built if the answer wasn't that they would) So both the building of the bridge, and the use of it almost exclusively benefit the poor.

xboxnolifes 10mo ago
The rich may travel on the toll roads, but they certainly benefit from those who do.

blauditore 10mo ago

If you want to disincentivize usage of certain things, money is generally the most effective option. Yes, some rich folks won't be bothered, but even fairly low amounts make most people think twice. Too many cars are a problem in many parts of the world, for a number of reasons (noise, smog, traffic jams, or parking space in cities), so nudging people towards alternative usage patterns is worthwhile in my opinion.

h2zizzle 10mo ago
Alternatives are the most effective option. Tolls just make laws the rich don't have to obey and conditions they don't have to experience. Aggregate suffering isn't lowered, just shifted to the poor. If you want cars off the road, you tax rich people and build trains and bike lanes, and shut down cynical RTO. Full stop.
- simondotau 10mo ago
  It’s not that simple. For trains to be a complete solution you need walkable cities, and high density transport-oriented residential construction near stations. This is almost diametrically opposite to parking-oriented cities and sprawling suburbia.
  - LexiMax 10mo ago
    The best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is decades ago. The second best time for a city to invest in making their city walkable and public-transportation-able is now.
    - hopelite 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - lokar 10mo ago
        Localities large and small have been moving towards higher density, walkable and transit oriented development for years now. It's happening, and it works.

jobs_throwaway 10mo ago

Couldn't disagree more. People should be able to pay more for use of better infrastructure. If $3-$8 a day isn't worth it for you, there's a free option that's totally acceptable.

salawat 10mo ago
See, here's the thing. Definition of acceptable isn't up to you. It's up to the people who have no other choice but to use it.
- anon84873628 10mo ago
  Theoretically those people express their opinion via electing representatives. Infrastructure investment and "fixing the potholes" seems to be a common campaign theme.
  - salawat 10mo ago
    It really isn't followed through on as often as you think, and since Citizen's United, the typical candidate tends to chase the donations of people who think tolls are a grand idea. Not so much the rest of the working stiffs. Institutional inertia is a hell of a thing when your working demographic is keeping the retiree's and children's heads above water.
hopelite 10mo ago
Maybe the solution is more going over to a fee based on % of one’s net worth. So since you seem to think something like $6 being an acceptable price for someone with a $500 net worth, maybe 1.2% of net worth for each traversal of a segment is appropriate, so you pay maybe $24,000 with every trip down the toll road and Elon musk pays $9.12 billion, while the bottom of the rung working class can pay $6.
- zhoujianfu 10mo ago
  I think the right solution is charge whatever would maximize revenue, then distribute the revenues evenly among all residents/voters/whomever.

The_President 10mo ago

The fastest highway in the United States is the 85 mph controlled access public-private venture toll road east of Austin. State income tax is not a thing in Texas, and that road would have otherwise not been completed at the price or schedule it was built on without the backing of the private company that built it.

lokar 10mo ago
I'm not sure what your point is, can you explain?
- el_benhameen 10mo ago
  I think the point is that in this case, the choice is between the infrastructure being pay-to-use or just not existing, not between the infrastructure being free and being pay-to-use
  - lokar 10mo ago
    That was my suspicion, but I'm not sure. Obviously, they have other valid options. Raise taxes. Have the state borrow, build, and operate the road as a toll road at cost, etc.
    - el_benhameen 10mo ago
      Sure. I think the point is that in Texas, those are valid but not viable due to politics.
amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
Why would you tax people's income to pay for a highway? Fuel taxes and license fees would normally be the way to pay for transportation infrastructure.
- anonzzzies 10mo ago
  It works well in many (most I know) countries: is fuel+license more common than general (income and fuel and other) taxation ('normally' would imply most do like you say?).