AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[JAM]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The Mopac lane being 'added' (if it ever gets done) will be an HOT lane - which is a step up from an HOV lane if you're driving a car. Of course, Costello's Band of Liars have to mislead you on this one too.

The original plans were for HOV-only, in other words. Allowing cars with only one person to drive in it if they pay a toll is actually opening it up to more users than planned.

I was under the impressions HOT lanes generally allow only one person in car and adjust toll based on current conditions. HOV lanes require 2 or more people in car, depending on time of day, which is figured by average traffic conditions. i.e. Katy HOV requires 3 people in car at prime rush hour, down to 2 people at other times.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Doesn't matter, of course; it's a stupid design that will fall flat on its face if they're stupid enough to actually build it - since the users have to merge back across 3 or 4 lanes of regular traffic in order to exit, which is going to bring it to a crashing halt.

It looks like there is room as you approach the 183 connector to expand lanes. The HOT/HOV lane could connect with the toll up north if this is the case.

[M1EK]

HOT = HOV + T, "high occupancy OR toll" in most cases. High-occupancy for free (sometimes only pre-approved vehicles like buses; other times any vehicle and enforcement is necessary).

[KevinFromTexas]

Enough, you guys. I've deleted any of the posts that were back and forth bickering directed at each other. It's one thing to debate a subject, even be passionate about it, to even be angry about it. But to direct that anger towards each other is not right. Once posts change from talking about a single subject to being directed at other forum members and are offensive, that's where I draw the line.

[bgrn198]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk or start a fight or anything I just don't like it when someone calls people a liar just because they don't agree with you that's all.

[M1EK]

There's no "agreeing" with facts. The facts are as follows:

1. In 2000, all year long, local media outlets kept hammering the drum of "hey, toll roads are coming! Our first toll roads are coming! Tolls! Tolls! Tolls!"

2. The city of Austin and Travis County were fully aware the 'donations' resulting from the bond elections both had relating to SH45, SH130, Loop1N were going to be for toll roads. The only road seriously discussed as possibly toll-free was SH130, and only early on.

3. Today, Sal Costello's group keeps trying to claim that mayor Watson pushed for money for 'free'ways to be 'illegally diverted to tollways'.

4. That's a lie, plain and simple. The money was always intended to be spent on tollways.

Again, as the other Mike so aptly put it, you can have your own opinion (toll roads are good; toll roads are bad) but you can't have your own facts.

[NormalgeNyus]

Originally Posted by M1EK

There's no "agreeing" with facts. The facts are as follows:

1. In 2000, all year long, local media outlets kept hammering the drum of "hey, toll roads are coming! Our first toll roads are coming! Tolls! Tolls! Tolls!"

2. The city of Austin and Travis County were fully aware the 'donations' resulting from the bond elections both had relating to SH45, SH130, Loop1N were going to be for toll roads. The only road seriously discussed as possibly toll-free was SH130, and only early on.

3. Today, Sal Costello's group keeps trying to claim that mayor Watson pushed for money for 'free'ways to be 'illegally diverted to tollways'.

4. That's a lie, plain and simple. The money was always intended to be spent on tollways.

Again, as the other Mike so aptly put it, you can have your own opinion (toll roads are good; toll roads are bad) but you can't have your own facts.

umm. ain't watson wanting to turn ALL our free express ways like 183 620 all of loop 1 360 290 and 71 in to tollways? there for not giving us the option of not using the tolls? thats what i am getting out of the phase 2 and 3 that they are trying to push down our throats. and in a poll in 2004 93 percent of austinites voted against the tolls. yet watson keeps on pushing them or trying to call them different names like "Managed lanes". And another thing we don't need tolls. we have gotten roads built with out the need for tolls. The built the southern part of mopac that was suppose to be tolled, they built and its now a free road. and comptroller Susan Combs says we have a $10.7 Billion dollar surplus here in Texas. So why are we toll taxing our freeways?. No one has yet to prove why we need toll yet you are quick to call us liars when us and most texans know we don't need tolls nor do we want them.

[M1EK]

The "Phase II Tollways" are the roadways you're listing (some of them; others such as 620, "loop 1", are arguable). As I posted a while back, a REFUND of prior right-of-way contribution monies will be in the offing if/when these get built as tollways.

The lies referred to are the continuous claim by Costello and his acolytes that the Phase ONE tollways (SH45N, SH130, Loop1N) got contributions from city/county bonds from a 2000 election that were supposedly promised not to be for tollways. Nothing is farther from the truth - everybody knew they were going to be tollways; Costello and his gang are pushing this story now because it fits the narrative they're trying to construct to prevent future tollways from happening.

But whether or not you think phase II tollways are any good, the claim about phase I is still a lie.

[worldcreator]

Originally Posted by M1EK

There's no "agreeing" with facts. The facts are as follows:
1. In 2000, all year long, local media outlets kept hammering the drum of "hey, toll roads are coming! Our first toll roads are coming! Tolls! Tolls! Tolls!"

How would you be able to claim that all voters knew the PROP 1 money would be diverted to pay for toll roads as a "FACT"??? That is merely an OPINION, Homer. Do you understand the difference?? Unless you can read other people's minds, it is in NO way a fact.

Now what actually IS a fact is that the language of PROP 1 made NO mention of tolls whatsoever. THAT fact is clear, as the documentation still exists and one can look it up.

Originally Posted by M1EK

2. The city of Austin and Travis County were fully aware the 'donations' resulting from the bond elections both had relating to SH45, SH130, Loop1N were going to be for toll roads. The only road seriously discussed as possibly toll-free was SH130, and only early on.

Yet they refused to make sure the public would understand these so-called "donations" by wording it as such in the PROP 1 documentation??? And why would they do this??

Originally Posted by M1EK

3. Today, Sal Costello's group keeps trying to claim that mayor Watson pushed for money for 'free'ways to be 'illegally diverted to tollways'.

Here you go again bringing up this guy. I have a sneaking suspicion that he either got you in trouble at your job or is making you feel guilty about some transportation "planning" you participated in. Why keep bringing him up?

Originally Posted by M1EK

4. That's a lie, plain and simple. The money was always intended to be spent on tollways.

Just because YOU knew where the bond money was to be spent, you automatically assume EVERYONE else knew?? And you base this on some random news clips from several months prior that mention toll roads "might" be coming? One clip in particular comes from a pro-toll road website that only people interested in toll roads would ever visit, sorry man but that's really just laughable. Why would the general public go to a website like that anyways, especially since Austin didn't have any toll roads before 2000.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Again, as the other Mike so aptly put it, you can have your own opinion (toll roads are good; toll roads are bad) but you can't have your own facts.

That's right sir, you do NOT have any facts, you just have opinion. The PROP 1 language is out there, read it. That is a fact. Comprende?

[worldcreator]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As I posted a while back, a REFUND of prior right-of-way contribution monies will be in the offing if/when these get built as tollways.

HA HA spoken like a true toll road scammer. The link you posted is just a load of drivel. Who would even be able to collect this "refund", especially with oversight and accountability? What kind of drugs would they have to be ON to give it up?

And who the hell authored it anyways? There is no name anywhere, except the URL has "Kim" in it- which I assume refers to Jennifer Kim, who is now out of office..

Hey man you want to buy some ocean-front real estate in Colorado? Only pennies on the dollar!!

Originally Posted by M1EK

The lies referred to are the continuous claim by Costello and his acolytes that the Phase ONE tollways (SH45N, SH130, Loop1N) got contributions from city/county bonds from a 2000 election that were supposedly promised not to be for tollways. Nothing is farther from the truth - everybody knew they were going to be tollways;

PROP 1's verbiage does NOT include the word TOLL or TTA anywhere. That is fact.

Stating that "everybody knew" the PROP 1 money was for financing toll roads is an opinion.

Where is this "lie" you keep regurgitating???

Originally Posted by M1EK

Costello and his gang are pushing this story now because it fits the narrative they're trying to construct to prevent future tollways from happening.

Let's face it, you love tollways. You love the fact that a mid-sized city like Austin has 5 tollways and is about to have 5 more (and probably even MORE after that). You love the fact that BOTH of the major routes into the airport will be tolled. You love the new PHASE II patchwork of tolling which slaps toll booths over existing highway ROW in fragmented sections. You especially LOVE that Austin will have far and above the MOST toll road miles for any city of it's size. I mean shouldn't we change the city's slogan at this point?? "Toll Road Capital of the World"??? Forget about live music already!!

[M1EK]

Once again, folks, worldcreator is lying to you.

Every single media outlet had multiple stories about the advent of tollways in central Texas (because these were going to be our first) throughout the year 2000. The reason I've supplied only the Chronicle is that, of the major media outlets, they're the only one that archives that far back for public use for free.

He is lying to you - these were always planned to be tollways; they were publicized heavily as such; and the ballot language was made the way it was for a variety of legal reasons which had nothing to do with hiding the fact that they were to be tollways - because they were shouting from the rooftops that they were going to be tollways.

As for the fact that I used Jennifer Kim's press release to show the Phase II refund plan - Here's one from city staff instead. I thought you'd appreciate Kim's version even more since she's against tollways.

[worldcreator]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Once again, folks, worldcreator is lying to you.

Every single media outlet had multiple stories about the advent of tollways in central Texas (because these were going to be our first) throughout the year 2000. The reason I've supplied only the Chronicle is that, of the major media outlets, they're the only one that archives that far back for public use for free.

"M1EK" - Your immaturity is astounding Homer. Again, it is NOT a lie that the PROP 1 language didn't include the word TOLL anywhere in it. That is a TRUTH, which you apparently can't handle.

Your assertion about "every single media outlet" is just an opinion, NOT fact. Also, WHAT they reported is just your opinion, NOT fact. Also, the entire voting public knowing exactly what PROP 1 would be used for- is your opinion, NOT fact.

Originally Posted by M1EK

He is lying to you - these were always planned to be tollways; they were publicized heavily as such;

Umm is this your defense when you are proven to have NO merit to what you're saying: to just call the other person a liar over and over again? I sure hope you never attempt to practice law. However you would be perfect as a member of CAMPO/CTRMA/TXDOT.

Originally Posted by M1EK

and the ballot language was made the way it was for a variety of legal reasons which had nothing to do with hiding the fact that they were to be tollways - because they were shouting from the rooftops that they were going to be tollways[/b].

Too funny. What are these "variety of legal reasons" you keep repeating like a broken record? I mean seriously, if there were actual legitimate legal reasons, there would be no argument here. Show me some REAL documented proof of these legal reasons and I will be more than happy to concede this debate to you sir.

By the way, where was all this rooftop shouting? In San Antonio??

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for the fact that I used Jennifer Kim's press release to show the Phase II refund plan - Here's one from city staff instead. I thought you'd appreciate Kim's version even more since she's against tollways.

And you can post all the meaningless city council links you want about the alleged refund of tax payer monies but the reality is NONE of us would ever see a dime of this, even if it were to happen. Not to mention that there would most likely be NO accountability as to how and where the money is used. You know it would surely get wasted on non-transportation related projects.

Further more, you miss the entire point of why most Austinites are so pissed off about PHASE II to begin with. It will create an egregiously disproportionate amount of toll roads for a city of this size!!! In addition to giving CAMPO/CTRMA/TXDOT more power to eventually convert MORE existing highways to tollways. Can't you not understand this?!?!?!?

[Mikey711MN]

For the record, here's what the language apparently was...

PROPOSITION 1 - THE ISSUANCE OF $150,000,000 TAX SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO IMPROVE ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS, ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY, PROVIDE FUNDS FOR HIGHWAY AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOP HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES AND RELATED INFRACTRUCTURE, IMPROVE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSTRUCT RELATED DRAINAGE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACQUIRE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THESE PROJECTS; AND THE LEVY OF A TAX SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BONDS

Note the language used above (emphasis added) in contrast to the other verbs for the various parts of the proposition.

While I'm a bit more particular than the average bear, the designated use of the phrase "provide funds for highway and roadway construction" vis-a-vis something along the lines of "construct highways and roadways" is a notable one and, in my humble opinion, fully supports the bonds issued as a down payment for future road-building. As it turned out, those bonds were issued to be repaid by toll revenues, not tax revenues as is a more traditional arrangement.

worldcreator, with all due respect, you've spent ample time harping on M1EK and lamenting these funds' use towards a single project that, as I argued earlier, would've done literally bupkis towards any transportation improvement, and all while offering no alternative suggestions of your own in terms of how either you would have or the politicians should have handled this sum of money.

The conversation has gone nowhere.

The bottom line is that the politicians, for whatever reasons and agenda that they may have had, decided to use the prop 1 money as a down payment towards a much bigger project with the consequence of requiring users to pay-as-they-go. From what I can ascertain, the above language fully supports this use.

[M1EK]

Mikey711, I don't think you're getting the point of what he's trying to do - you can rally know-nothings with the call "they stole our money to build tollways!", as Costello has proven amply.

He's not trying to have a policy discussion; he's lying, plain and simple; this isn't a simple disagreement as I've shown via the only media outlet that archives that far back that everybody knew they were going to be tollways.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I don't think you're getting the point of what he's trying to do

You got that right.

I guess I was trying to respond that, from an outsider's perspective, the language of the prop still holds. No, it didn't say that tollways would be constructed, but no, it didn't say that anything would be constructed...just that funds would be available to do so and/or funds to support said construction, e.g. purchasing ROW, would be available.

If people felt/feel duped by this, I guess my only response is that I'm sorry they feel that way. In worldcreator's case, I tend to agree with you...he's just trying to stir the pot to drum up opposition to "Phase II".

I have my own opinions on the freeway-to-tollway rally cry, but I'll save that for later in the thread, I guess.

[bgrn198]

Yeah worldcreater and about half of the city of Austin don't agree with the toll roads M1EK just wants to call people liars and attack them when they don't agree with him. Calling us liars and posting the same thing 12 times isn't going to change what we think about it.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

You got that right.

I guess I was trying to respond that, from an outsider's perspective, the language of the prop still holds. No, it didn't say that tollways would be constructed, but no, it didn't say that anything would be constructed...just that funds would be available to do so and/or funds to support said construction, e.g. purchasing ROW, would be available.

You have to admit, though, that's pretty misleading wording. It clearly wants the average person to read:

PROPOSITION 1 - THE ISSUANCE OF $150,000,000 TAX SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO IMPROVE ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS, ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY, PROVIDE FUNDS FOR HIGHWAY AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOP HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES AND RELATED INFRACTRUCTURE, IMPROVE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSTRUCT RELATED DRAINAGE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACQUIRE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THESE PROJECTS; AND THE LEVY OF A TAX SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BONDS

Regardless of what they heard all over the media, when they got into the actual ballot box, who would vote against fixing intersections? Remember at that time how bad the I35/Ben White intersection was. And while the $150Mil was not the money to build any roads, or really anything (that part can be easily understood) there is the implication that $150Mil was for the support of several things mentioned specifically (like HOV lanes) and one thing mentioned overly vague (highway and roadway construction = toll roads).

So perhaps many propositions are worded equally misleading, but I had forgotten just how blatant that one was IF it's primary purpose was to authorize toll roads.

[M1EK]

Once again, making claims that aren't true when you know them not to be true is lying. And that's what bgrn and worldcreator are doing.

It was all over every single media outlet for months and months before the election that we were creating a new tollway system. It was huge news. You'd have to have been living under a rock to have missed it.

[alexjon]

Austin-American Statesman has archives, M1EK. You could go back and grab a few stories about the election.

[M1EK]

Yeah, if I want to pay - but you can pretty much tell what would happen.

"Oh, sure, you found TWO stories that talked about tolls. What if I didn't read the Statesman that day or the Chronicle that other day?"

[M1EK]

Here's a start though:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch...ange=2001,2007

One of the top two hits had this blurb:

Last week, the Austin City Council approved a $150 million ... proposed state toll-road projects -- the MoPac Boulevard extension, Texas 45 and Texas 130. ...

from the Statesman, August 23, 2000.