Plunged as we are into another legislative session, let’s take a moment to ponder toll roads. And I really mean ponder: This isn’t an editorial in favor or against; I’m really not even current with the issues or the facts. But it’s been impossible to miss the debate. People are filled with outrage, seemingly furious at the thought of paying tolls. We get letters stating little more than “I’m opposed to toll roads,” as though that either frames the issue or displays any surprising courage. There are strange alliances and stranger bedfellows among developers, longtime environmentalists, conservatives, transportation activists, commuters, and rightly outraged members of neighborhood groups, lightly sprinkled with low-rent demagogues. The noise gets to you. The real issues and the real goals seem ever more confused, and this lack of clarity seems not only deliberate but desired. We are told that polls show 93% of the people are against toll roads. No surprise there, though one might have a passing interest in exactly how the question was worded.
Some thoughts:
Texans hate tolls. They hate them deep down, not simply because of the cost, but because – both as a reality (the concrete presence of toll booths) and an idea – they represent a violation, an intrusion of the state. Metaphorically, they are an unavoidable restriction on open spaces, an idea that eats away at a Texan’s core. I’m not being facetious. I grew up in the East, with toll roads. They seemed no big deal. Elected officials tell me they have never seen as intense a civilian response to anything as they’ve seen in the opposition to toll roads: letters, e-mails, opinion petitions, recall petitions, and people speaking out at public meetings – all passionately opposed to toll roads.
Although there is only a handful of toll road advocates, the opposition consists of many broadly defined groups:
• Some are against new roads and against tolls because they are opposed to almost anything new, or anything the government does. They think both the roads and the tolls are bad ideas.
• Some are against roads, so they’ve come out against tolls. Sometimes these are neighborhoods who simply don’t want new roads running through them or feeding into them. Sometimes they are environmentalists or anti-growth activists or anti-sprawl, pro-urban-density advocates who see the campaign against tolls as a way of building political alliances, maximizing electoral power, and achieving their goals.
Now, in the “which comes first” – new roads or sprawl – debate, I fall on the wrong side of many of these folks. Sprawl happens. Not building roads only makes it worse. Carefully planning and building roads can drive growth in the most ecologically desirable directions.
Short-term thwarting of road campaigns can have bad long-term effects. Not building roads before they are needed, but waiting instead until long afterward, can mobilize a commuter populace into voting for any and all road projects.
Now, given some of the other positions held by those who are opposed to roads (such as environmentalists, pay-as-you-go advocates, those against any government subsidies) but who have signed on to the anti-toll campaign (in order to exploit it for political advantage), the same people should actually be supporting tolls. But interest in short-term political gains seems the driving consideration. Campaigning on issues that are a camouflaged way to the real goal is dishonorable. And it will backfire.
• There are those who want roads but don’t want tolls. So: how to pay for them? Now, some are already paid for, or it appears they will be soon. There are two issues here:
1) The term “paid for” is often a budget sleight of hand. Currently, the state is not taking in the revenue it needs to operate. The state has, therefore, cut back on services. Now, some see this as a triumph: Shrinking government is all to the good. Ponder (our theme) the recent proposed infusion of more than $300 million that Gov. Perry wants to pump into Child Protective Services. Something like this has to be done because the CPS track record is so abysmal, and the anecdotal evidence heartbreaking. But the reality is that the state doesn’t have enough money, which means now other areas of social service will be even more grievously underfunded. The problem with Child Protective Services to begin with isn’t a corrupt staff or inhumane administration; it is a lack of funding. This is because the Texas political leadership promises no new taxes and aims at cutting those that now exist. At the same time, they keep promising more quality, which implies additional spending without additional revenue – and therefore constant budgetary sleight of hand to keep things moving.
2) But even if that road money is solid and dedicated, what about upkeep, cost overruns, and additional roads? “There is no such thing as a free lunch” used to be a core Republican idea; now it isn’t. Think about this; no politician or civil servant in Texas has ever wakened, smelled the fresh coffee, sucked in the morning air, and thought, “Gosh, tolls on Texas roads – that’s a beautiful idea, and the voters will love it.” They’re not stupid. They wouldn’t have proposed tolls if there were other convenient ways to pay for new roads and the upkeep on old ones.
For many, the preferred funding method is the same as for any program they support: Government should stop spending on all the social and other programs that it’s wasting money on and use it for roads. This “money the government wastes” is wonderful stuff because, with no explanation of exactly which budget items the legendary “waste” comes from, it can be used to fund anything. Through the last few campaigns, we’ve elected Republicans who ran on the platform of cutting taxes but improving every vital service of the state. They’re even talking of cutting the property taxes at the same time they’re discussing school finance reform. Now, I realize everyone would like to pay fewer taxes and get better services, but is that practical? We’re finding out right now, with a lot more information on the way.
But how do we pay for new roads? For real? Someone suggested raising the gasoline tax, which I think will prove to be a really popular idea in Texas (there’s a reality TV show in that campaign). Many advocate more bond issues: As we are leaving most of the other bills our government is currently accumulating for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to pay, why not roads?
The hypocrisy of the common voter, and I mean all of us, is worth noting. Any public figure speaking out in favor of toll roads is attacked. Now, we are all champions of gutsy politicians who will stand up and, no matter how unpopular it is, speak the truth. But what we really like is “gutsy politicians who will stand up and, no matter how unpopular it is, speak the truth” that only we believe – that is, those who speak the truths we want to hear spoken. Dare they speak an unpopular truth, we won’t simply disagree with them; we’ll start a recall campaign.
Those who have spoken out for toll roads have been accused of all sorts of horrible motives and crooked deals, without a shred of persuasive evidence being offered. I guess folks figure that the only way anyone would support toll roads is if he or she had been corrupted.
Instead, right or wrong, toll advocates are demonstrating real courage and remarkable guts. If you doubt that, witness the disorderly retreat of politicians, on all sides, from supporting tolls.
The cowardly politicians are those who tell the people what they want to hear: that you can build roads and not have to pay. These moral cowards are applauded as champions. The messengers, those who point out that we don’t have the funds or the future income to build new roads and maintain old ones that we need, are attacked.
The bottom line is: How do you pay for roads? Some point out that when the roads are paid for, the tolls continue. We’re supposed to think this is because of greedy legislators who love to spend your money. Actually, it’s because we’ve been so aggressively anti-tax that our government can’t fund even the services it does provide; since they can’t levy new taxes, they’ll take money from anywhere. Any revenue-generating state fee is being squeezed for every penny it can produce.
(A quick aside. We had all better hope that most smokers don’t die or, God forbid, give up smoking, as it seems we’re planning on financing the next century of government functions and civil social services out of their habit. Now, that’s sophisticated financial planning.)
When it comes to roads, think of what the annual cost must be for basic maintenance and major repairs – forget the price tag on building new ones.
Being anti-tolls without offering viable solutions is easy. It’s the consequences of everyone caving to that position which may well prove expensive. 
This article appears in January 21 • 2005.