How would you spend $350 million?

[Ross]

No.

Not that we shouldn't have a long-run plan. I'd spend the money to establish easements for future transportation projects so that they are in place long before before rural areas get built up. This would allow current property owners to continue putting their land to productive use (for a while) but would prevent them from building stuff that would only have to be bought back and demolished later...or routed around circuituitously.

These expenditures in the here and now would allow for a more rapid, politically-achievable, and lower-cost implementation of infrastructure in outlying areas on an as-needed basis, going forward.

West Belt between I-10 and 59, and maybe more, was built mostly on ROW that had been owned for years. I remember when they started cutting the trees to build the road in the 80's

[RedScare]

And. . . ??? That is just silly. It is not structured as a loan, so there is no "pay back".

Thank you. I've been stressing this point all day. Not which is better. Not which will make money. Only that they are the same financing mechanism. I appreciate you emphasizing that point for me.

I'm bored. You can have this thread.

[Houston19514]

Thank you. I've been stressing this point all day. Not which is better. Not which will make money. Only that they are the same financing mechanism. I appreciate you emphasizing that point for me.

I'm bored. You can have this thread.

LOL. How thoughtful you to provide us with a demonstration of a couple additional forms of intellectual dishonesty.

[mfastx]

It will be expanded as needed to meet demand, but more demand = more toll revenue to cover the costs of expansion. Beltway 8 has been very profitable for HCTRA, even beyond the costs they've been spending to expand it.

Well why would we need federal funds to pay for something that supposedly will be profitable?

One could argue that if a commuter rail system along 290 was in place decades ago there would be no need to spend billions (of taxpayer money) expanding 290. So putting commuter rail along 290 now might be able to prevent the need to expand 290 again (and therefore spending billions more of taxpayer money) 20-30 years from now.

[ToryGattis]

No. Bad! The benefit of transportation infrastructure is derived from its use, not on account of that it is there.

Regardless of who has shouldered the burden of paying for it, its total cost to society (of whom its users are a part) must be included in an intellectually honest cost-benefit analysis.

(And don't get me wrong, I like toll roads. If I had my way, every freeway and major thoroughfare would be converted to a toll road so as to allow the metropolitan area to enjoy the benefits of congestion pricing. The vast additional revenues being generated would simply replace other forms of taxation dollar-for-dollar.)

Well, flipping that around, if total revenue earned by the investment indicates value to society (i.e. what people are willing to pay reflects how valuable they find it), the toll road swamps out the rail fares.

Agree on total toll road conversion, but it won't happen - the political backlash would be too great.

[ToryGattis]

Well why would we need federal funds to pay for something that supposedly will be profitable?

Good question. The original plan was to let private operators build and run toll roads, but that generated a lot of political backlash. So we're back to the state building them, which puts the taxpayer at greater risk.

[TheNiche]

Well, flipping that around, if total revenue earned by the investment indicates value to society (i.e. what people are willing to pay reflects how valuable they find it), the toll road swamps out the rail fares.

No. Bad! I like saying that to minor local celebrities.

You're forgetting about consumer surplus.

[mikehouston]

I like toll roads, too. I also like trains. Not that what I like matters. What I do NOT like is intellectual dishonesty. And claims that there is a difference between toll roads built with taxpayer money (as opposed to the tolls) and commuter rail also built with taxpayer money (instead of the fares) is intellectually dishonest. Ideology does that to people.

Agreed. I think the main intellectually dishonest assumption here is the idea that a toll road will necessarily be profitable, or that rail will necessarily lose money. I see no inherent reason why rail is destined to lose money, or any inherent reason why tolls would always be profitable. To me, the profit or loss would be based more on 1) quality of service, 2) the necessity of service, and 3) whether the provider of the service cares about profitability (many governments probably don't necessarily care too much if they are running some programs that lose money, as long as they are providing a public good).

Personally, I would much rather see the $350 million go towards local road improvements inside Beltway 8, and rail studies / development of commuter rail options in the Houston area.

Also - just wondering - is the Grand Parkway extension actually projected to be profitable? If Beltway 8 is the only profitable toll road in Houston, then it seems like Grand Parkway would probably not be projected to turn a profit for quite some time.

[ricco67]

Agreed. I think the main intellectually dishonest assumption here is the idea that a toll road will necessarily be profitable, or that rail will necessarily lose money. I see no inherent reason why rail is destined to lose money, or any inherent reason why tolls would always be profitable. To me, the profit or loss would be based more on 1) quality of service, 2) the necessity of service, and 3) whether the provider of the service cares about profitability (many governments probably don't necessarily care too much if they are running some programs that lose money, as long as they are providing a public good).

Personally, I would much rather see the $350 million go towards local road improvements inside Beltway 8, and rail studies / development of commuter rail options in the Houston area.

Also - just wondering - is the Grand Parkway extension actually projected to be profitable? If Beltway 8 is the only profitable toll road in Houston, then it seems like Grand Parkway would probably not be projected to turn a profit for quite some time.

It has always been my assumption that any infrastructure project is destined to loose money. The "job" of infrastructure is to provide a service (be it freeways, sewage, transportation) that is needed by people in that general area.

This is probably why people constantly whine about people spending money on a variety of projects as a waste of money.

[WAZ]

I was reading through the Chronicle and there was an article linking to a survey asking for opinions of how you use funds for the Grand Parkway expansion. I didn't see this elsewhere, but please merge if this is already a topic.

http://www.houstonto...nd-350-million/

An excerpt:

"Let’s say you found $350 million and wanted to do a great transportation project for the Houston region. Would you build a 400-foot-wide 15-mile segment of new highway across the Katy Prairie where almost no one lives or works in order to enable a lot of new sprawl development? Or would you build new commuter rail service on the tracks paralleling US 290 to serve nearly a million people today?"

There is also contact information for TxDOT officials and information on a public meeting on transportation improvements.

My answer: Buses. Right now, it's pretty easy to get an express bus from almost anywhere in Houston to Downtown. But if you're trying to get somewhere other than downtown, it's a lot more difficult. We could fix that.

[TheNiche]

It has always been my assumption that any infrastructure project is destined to loose money. The "job" of infrastructure is to provide a service (be it freeways, sewage, transportation) that is needed by people in that general area.

This is probably why people constantly whine about people spending money on a variety of projects as a waste of money.

Not so. Infrastructure is often a natural monopoly, regulated or made public only because it would be a ridiculously profitable cash cow if one unregulated entity controlled it.

Think about the crappy customer service that you get from Centerpoint Energy or the City's water department...pretty much "because they can." There's no alternative for the consumer, thus no need for them to try harder. Now imagine if they had control of pricing, too!

Now consider that roads are different from a sewer system. There are alternative routes. Lots of them. And although toll roads perform just okay on average at present, that's only because free alternatives are extremely difficult to compete with. If all freeways and major thoroughfares were toll roads, their revenue streams sold to the highest bidder (along with an operating contract to provide for repair, maintenance, and landscaping obligations, among others) and a right to add capacity to the easement if they believe it profitable, can you imagine the amount of construction that would be under way? I have to think that not only would our freeway congestion be eliminated within a matter of ten or fifteen years, but so would our surface street snags. And meanwhile, by selling these rights, our state and local taxing entities would have the funding to offset general taxation or pay for unfunded obligations.

Public tranportation is another matter. I'm fairly confident that privatization of roadways would ease congestion to such an extent as that transit potentials would be adversely impacted. What's left are people so poor that they cannot afford a car...which studies seem to indicate are made less poor if you just give them bare-bones economy cars rather than transit (the problem with transit being that employers don't consider it reliable transportation and that most employers are not convenient to transit).

[samagon]

Personally, I see 290 as being super sucky, it has been for over 10 years, give an alternate and will people use it? IDK, if the GP is built will people decide to go live in that area when gas prices will likely never go down again? are houses really that cheap out there to offset the cost of commuting, even if it is to the energy corridor?

Big difference: the toll road pays for itself and may even generate a profit, the rail line is all loss.

I'm glad someone here can see into the future!

Yeah, sort of like the intellectual dishonesty of pretending there is no difference between toll roads built with taxpayer money (that will be paid back by collecting tolls) and commuter rail also built with taxpayer money (but will almost certainly never collect enough fares to cover operating costs, let alone construction and capital investment).

I think you have to calculate worth based on the number of users. if it is brought to you by the state, EVERYONE pays regardless of what happens after the fact. so how much use do people get out of it?

[samagon]

can we use the 350 mil on this?

[pderry11]

can we use the 350 mil on this?

Dallas is putting a deck over Woodall Rodgers, so I don't see why Houston couldn't do the same with 288.

[ricco67]

Dallas is putting a deck over Woodall Rodgers, so I don't see why Houston couldn't do the same with 288.

Near the interchange, I quite agree. Would make for some interesting views below.

I'd like to see the construction plans on how to do it. It would be an engineer's nightmare to complete.

[TheNiche]

I think you have to calculate worth based on the number of users. if it is brought to you by the state, EVERYONE pays regardless of what happens after the fact. so how much use do people get out of it?

Well, according to HCTRA's FY 2010 financial statements, their annual traffic count is 371,245,774 vehicles. Figuring for multi-occupant vehicles (let's assume 1.8 people on average), that's 668,242,393 rider-equivalents. Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $367,269,810. So that's $0.55 per rider-equivalent.

METRO's FY 2010 financial statements indicate a ridership of 81,158,905. This is counted in actual persons, so there is no adjustment factor. (It includes persons riding METRO buses on HCTRA toll roads for free.) Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $874,000,000. So that's $10.77 per rider.

Indeed, there are additional costs associated with wear and tear on the vehicle and mileage. The IRS rate is about $0.55/mile. If the average user of an HCTRA toll road travels 19 miles, that makes up the difference between HCTRA and METRO. However...that's the length of the entire Westpark Toll Road (including the portion in Fort Bend County, not operated by HCTRA). Most commuters don't use impossibly-long toll roads from end-to-end; for an average 19-mile trip to take place, half of them would have to use an entire toll road end-to-end and then use another toll road for a significant distance. It's just not plausible.

I'd figure that METRO is about half as cost-effective per rider in order to offer service that is a fraction as timely and that is more subject to unpredictable factors such as weather conditions.

[august948]

Well, according to HCTRA's FY 2010 financial statements, their annual traffic count is 371,245,774 vehicles. Figuring for multi-occupant vehicles (let's assume 1.8 people on average), that's 668,242,393 rider-equivalents. Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $367,269,810. So that's $0.55 per rider-equivalent.

METRO's FY 2010 financial statements indicate a ridership of 81,158,905. This is counted in actual persons, so there is no adjustment factor. (It includes persons riding METRO buses on HCTRA toll roads for free.) Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $874,000,000. So that's $10.77 per rider.

Indeed, there are additional costs associated with wear and tear on the vehicle and mileage. The IRS rate is about $0.55/mile. If the average user of an HCTRA toll road travels 19 miles, that makes up the difference between HCTRA and METRO. However...that's the length of the entire Westpark Toll Road (including the portion in Fort Bend County, not operated by HCTRA). Most commuters don't use impossibly-long toll roads from end-to-end; for an average 19-mile trip to take place, half of them would have to use an entire toll road end-to-end and then use another toll road for a significant distance. It's just not plausible.

I'd figure that METRO is about half as cost-effective per rider in order to offer service that is a fraction as timely and that is more subject to unpredictable factors such as weather conditions.

I think you need to calculate the IRS rate of $0.55/mile on all vehicle miles driven on HCTRA toll roads annually and divide that by the rider-equivalents to get the wear and tear costs. Based on the annual traffic count and the calculated rider-equivalent that works out to about $0.30/average mile driven. If we use the 19 mile average trip (which I agree is probably too high) that only generates and additional annual cost of $5.70 per rider-equivalent.

[samagon]

Well, according to HCTRA's FY 2010 financial statements, their annual traffic count is 371,245,774 vehicles. Figuring for multi-occupant vehicles (let's assume 1.8 people on average), that's 668,242,393 rider-equivalents. Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $367,269,810. So that's $0.55 per rider-equivalent.

METRO's FY 2010 financial statements indicate a ridership of 81,158,905. This is counted in actual persons, so there is no adjustment factor. (It includes persons riding METRO buses on HCTRA toll roads for free.) Their operating expenses plus non-operating expenses plus contributions were $874,000,000. So that's $10.77 per rider.

Indeed, there are additional costs associated with wear and tear on the vehicle and mileage. The IRS rate is about $0.55/mile. If the average user of an HCTRA toll road travels 19 miles, that makes up the difference between HCTRA and METRO. However...that's the length of the entire Westpark Toll Road (including the portion in Fort Bend County, not operated by HCTRA). Most commuters don't use impossibly-long toll roads from end-to-end; for an average 19-mile trip to take place, half of them would have to use an entire toll road end-to-end and then use another toll road for a significant distance. It's just not plausible.

I'd figure that METRO is about half as cost-effective per rider in order to offer service that is a fraction as timely and that is more subject to unpredictable factors such as weather conditions.

Nice, but I guess where I was going was, sure there will be people who are positively impacted by this new segment of the GP, but what would the impact be to people who travel 290 if there were commuter rail? Not just people who would decide to take the rail, but people who would have to sit 30 less minutes in traffic as a result of the relief given by having less cars on the road.

that is benefit that isn't measured in dollars, unfortunately, and without doing proper studies, we could only guess based on the performance of similar systems in other cities.

[TheNiche]

Nice, but I guess where I was going was, sure there will be people who are positively impacted by this new segment of the GP, but what would the impact be to people who travel 290 if there were commuter rail? Not just people who would decide to take the rail, but people who would have to sit 30 less minutes in traffic as a result of the relief given by having less cars on the road.

that is benefit that isn't measured in dollars, unfortunately, and without doing proper studies, we could only guess based on the performance of similar systems in other cities.

Okay, well go look up MARTA's financials and do the same calculations. Let's see how that works out. You might also look at Census data for Atlanta indicating the typical distance between home and work and the time spent commuting.

[RedScare]

The average occupancy per vehicle is probably 50% high. A survey of downtown commuters showed 80% of commuters using private vehicles drove alone. Assuming the carpoolers average 3 persons per carpool, the average occupancy would be in the neighborhood of 1.15-1.2 occupants per vehicle. Considering that the toll roads do not serve high density employment centers (at least not on the scale of downtown), and further, there are no bus or park & ride services on the toll roads, this seems a reasonable number to use. This would drop the average trip length to around 13 miles. Given that Westpark is 19 miles long, Hardy is 21 miles, and the stretch of Sam Houston between I-10 and I-45 is 21 miles, it is possible that the average trip approaches that length, though I still believe that 13 miles is a little on the high side. However, the numbers are much closer than the estimate given by Niche.

[TheNiche]

The average occupancy per vehicle is probably 50% high. A survey of downtown commuters showed 80% of commuters using private vehicles drove alone. Assuming the carpoolers average 3 persons per carpool, the average occupancy would be in the neighborhood of 1.15-1.2 occupants per vehicle. Considering that the toll roads do not serve high density employment centers (at least not on the scale of downtown), and further, there are no bus or park & ride services on the toll roads, this seems a reasonable number to use. This would drop the average trip length to around 13 miles. Given that Westpark is 19 miles long, Hardy is 21 miles, and the stretch of Sam Houston between I-10 and I-45 is 21 miles, it is possible that the average trip approaches that length, though I still believe that 13 miles is a little on the high side. However, the numbers are much closer than the estimate given by Niche.

I really think that it is more likely that the average trip on toll roads is much less than it seems at first blush. The same downtown survey you cited found indicated that the average distance commuted by single-occupant vehicles was about 17 miles. Some of that is miles-traveled downtown, some of that is on free highways, some of that is (possibly) toll roads, and some of that is the surface streets closer to home. Realistically, I think that we're talking about a single-digit average trip length on HCTRA infrastructure.

I'd also point out that non-commute trips are not accounted for in any of our data and that they have a higher propensity to include multi-occupant carloads.