TexasCHLforum.com

I didn't think any local PD could patrol the turnpikes. I thought was the sole domain of the Troopers. I don't think I've ever seen any LEOs except Troopers patrolling a turnpike.

C-dub wrote:I didn't think any local PD could patrol the turnpikes. I thought was the sole domain of the Troopers. I don't think I've ever seen any LEOs except Troopers patrolling a turnpike.

Local LEOs can patrol it, but most cities seem to choose not to. Maybe because of the heavy DPS presence. I've seen Garland PD most often on their part of George Bush. I've also seen Carrollton PD on George Bush, but it's been a while.

BrianSW99 wrote:The NTTA pays DPS to patrol the tollways. I don't remember how much it was, but it wasn't a small amount. I read that in a news story a while back when tollway speed limits were previously in the news.

Brian

While this isn't directly related to NTTA, down in Austin DPS is no longer paid to monitor SH 130. Apparently they wanted more money, and declined to renew their previous contract since they didn't get it. As such, the SO, (and in theory the PD for the few small portions that are in the city), are responsible for enforcement. Interesting how he State gets money for enforcement, and when they decide it's not enough, the local agencies have to take over and do it for 'free' without any funding for more troops in those areas.

Madbull,

I don't think the cities are doing ti for free either. I was talking with a friend who is on Mustang Ridge PD and he was telling me the city had a contract and got paid for patrolling the toll roads in their area. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember it being just under $485,000. I don't know how long that was for.

I was surprised since I had never heard of any PD being paid to patrol a highway, even the toll roads. It raises some interesting questions about whether or not the traffic laws actually apply on those roads.

DFWTT,

I understood that the foreign company (Cintas or something like that I think, a Spanish company) only had a lease for the section of 130 from Austin to Seguin. The rest is controlled by the local metropolitan transit authorities in each area. The lease raises some interesting questions based on where our traffic laws apply. The transportation Code says it only applies on publicly maintained roads. The lease calls for the company to maintain the road as well as build it. This could be a very interesting defense in a court case over a ticket, especially if the ticket leads to something else and makes it worth fighting.

Wow, that's a decent sum for that small little stretch. I know Cedar Park PD used to get paid to run traffic up on 183A, but I don't know if they still do. It was my understanding that the County wasn't getting any money for our section of SH 130 or SH 45. (Of course, that's not to say that the County isn't getting money out of a deal, and just withholding it from the SO putting it into the General Fund instead). Grrrrrr

I see the Carrollton PD on the piece of the George Bush I travel. Once in a great while, I will see a State Trooper, but it really is pretty rare.

srothstein wrote:Madbull,

I don't think the cities are doing ti for free either. I was talking with a friend who is on Mustang Ridge PD and he was telling me the city had a contract and got paid for patrolling the toll roads in their area. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember it being just under $485,000. I don't know how long that was for.

I was surprised since I had never heard of any PD being paid to patrol a highway, even the toll roads. It raises some interesting questions about whether or not the traffic laws actually apply on those roads.

DFWTT,

I understood that the foreign company (Cintas or something like that I think, a Spanish company) only had a lease for the section of 130 from Austin to Seguin. The rest is controlled by the local metropolitan transit authorities in each area. The lease raises some interesting questions based on where our traffic laws apply. The transportation Code says it only applies on publicly maintained roads. The lease calls for the company to maintain the road as well as build it. This could be a very interesting defense in a court case over a ticket, especially if the ticket leads to something else and makes it worth fighting.

What about stretches of I35E (and other roads) where you see signs indicating Private Maintenance?

I wondered about those signs when I first saw one north of Waco (IIRC). I am not sure exactly what they mean and how it applies. If a county contracts with a private company to do the maintenance, is is privately or publicly maintained? Does it make a difference if it is just a maintenance contract with the county saying what work is done or if the contract is just a blank job that says maintain the highway?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I think the lease of the land with the permission to charge a fee for our use of it and they make a profit makes it privately maintained. I would concede that the county hiring a contractor instead of county employees may not have the same effect. But it is a legal question that I think should be answered.