# Who receives Texas toll-road money?

Research pilot, October 21, 2026. Financial observation window: FY2023–FY2025. Source records retrieved October 21, 2026; nominal amounts retain each entity’s fiscal calendar.

Texas toll roads are several distinct financial enterprises. A TollTag or EZ TAG bill identifies a collection relationship; it does not identify the owner of every road on the bill or the borrower behind its construction. A road can also remain tolled after an old bond series disappears because current tolls support an entire system, replacement financing, maintenance obligations, or a concession lasting decades.

The strongest quantified finding in this pilot is in Harris County: HCTRA transferred **$961.3 million** to other county funds over FY2023–FY2025. Its audit identifies the purpose as transportation facilities outside the toll system. In FY2025 alone, transfers were **$398.6 million**, compared with **$242.0 million** in the cash-flow statement's principal and interest rows. These amounts do not establish unrestricted spending or a profit distribution to private owners. They document a public toll system financing a broader county transportation network. See the [FY2025 audit, Note 10 and cash flows](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=53), with FY2023 and FY2024 sources in the manifest.

## The entities and roads

| Financial enterprise | Governance, road scope and borrower | Who receives the road's money |
|---|---|---|
| North Texas Tollway System / NTTA | NTTA is a political subdivision under Chapter 366. The System contains Dallas North Tollway, President George Bush Turnpike, Sam Rayburn Tollway, Chisholm Trail Parkway, 360 Tollway, Mountain Creek Lake Bridge, Lewisville Lake Toll Bridge and Addison Airport Toll Tunnel. NTTA issues System revenue bonds. | System trust funds pay operations, preservation, debt and capital needs. Its separate Non-System fund earns compensation from third-party tolling services. TxDOT receives a 20% share of PGBT Eastern Extension tolls under a distinct agreement. |
| Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority | A separate regional authority formed by Travis and Williamson counties, operating under Chapter 370. System assets include 183A, 290 Toll, 71 Toll, 45SW, 183 South and development of 183 North. MoPac Express Lane is a **non-System** enterprise activity, with separate financing. | CTRMA's relevant funds, lenders and operating vendors; MoPac also has CAMPO contribution obligations. The combined Authority figure includes both System and MoPac. |
| Harris County / HCTRA | A department and enterprise fund of Harris County, governed by Commissioners Court. Includes Hardy, Sam Houston Tollway and Ship Channel Bridge, Harris County Westpark, Spur 90A, Tomball and Katy Managed Lanes arrangements. Harris County owes the relevant bond and commercial-paper obligations. | The County's toll fund, financing creditors, contractors and authorized county transportation funds. Interoperability billing also generates revenue for the fund. |
| TxDOT / Central Texas Turnpike System | An enterprise fund of TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission issues CTTS revenue bonds. Includes **SH130 segments 1–4**, SH45 North, SH45 Southeast and the tolled CTTS portion of Loop 1 north of Parmer Lane. | CTTS trust/revenue funds, debt holders and operations. HCTRA now supplies collection services for these TxDOT roads; it does not acquire CTTS ownership merely by sending the bill. |
| SH130 Concession Company LLC | Operates **SH130 segments 5–6**, from the Mustang Ridge/SH45SE area to I-10 near Seguin. Texas owns the roadway and right-of-way; the company holds the concession and its financing obligations. The current company page identifies Strategic Value Partners as majority owner and the federal government as a minority owner. Exact current equity percentages were not acquired. | The concessionaire, subject to required payments to TxDOT, operating costs, financing and reserves before distributions. HCTRA handles billing/payment processing. |

These boundaries come from [NTTA's FY2025 Note 1](https://www.ntta.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/06-25-2026_Digital-Annual-Report_2025.pdf#page=45), [CTRMA's revised FY2025 Note 1](https://www.mobilityauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/FY-2025-CTRMA-Annual-Comprehensive-Financial-Report-revised_LR.pdf#page=34), [HCTRA's Note 1](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=25), [CTTS's audited report](https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/fin/investor/ctts/audited_financial/ctts-afr-fy25.pdf), [TxDOT's current Austin collection table](https://www.txdot.gov/discover/toll-roads-managed-lanes/txdot-toll-roads/austin-area-toll-roads.html) and the [concessionaire's current ownership explanation](https://mysh130.com/about/company/).

The CSV crosswalk has 31 road, segment or collection-service relationships. It records financial recognition and operating rights separately from title qualifications. Individual parcel deeds were not researched. Two public-public arrangements particularly resist a simple owner label: Sam Rayburn Tollway has an NTTA operating interest and TxDOT reversion; Katy Managed Lanes has a county cost-recovery interest and TxDOT reversion. Those arrangements do not transfer every lane of SH121 or I-10 to the respective toll operator. [TxDOT FY2025 ACFR, Note 20](https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/gov/finance/txdot-acfr-fy25.pdf#page=125).

## Three-year financial panel

Amounts below are **nominal $ millions**. Fiscal year ends differ: NTTA Dec 31; CTRMA Jun 30; CTTS Aug 31; HCTRA Sep 30. These are entity-year accounts, not a single synchronized statewide period.

“Op. cost ex-D&A” is reported operating expense less depreciation/amortization. “Cash obligation lines” sums the cash-flow statement's principal/payments-on-obligations and interest rows. It is **not** a standardized covenant debt-service measure. The debt column is the selected financing **carrying amount**, including applicable premiums and accreted interest, with current portions included; HCTRA also includes commercial paper. Definitions and source qualifications are in `data/DATA_DICTIONARY.md`.

| Entity | FY | Net toll revenue | Op. cost ex-D&A | Cash obligation lines | Financing debt carrying amount | Transfers out |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| NTTA System | 2023 | 1,131.4 | 290.7 | 626.5 | 9,737.7 | — |
| NTTA System | 2024 | 1,198.3 | 353.3 | 694.8 | 9,340.3 | — |
| NTTA System | 2025 | 1,252.9 | 342.3 | 718.0 | 8,854.2 | — |
| CTRMA combined | 2023 | 225.7 | 49.3 | 118.1 | 2,716.1 | — |
| CTRMA combined | 2024 | 238.6 | 63.0 | 125.9 | 2,670.2 | — |
| CTRMA combined | 2025 | 276.4 | 60.0 | 148.9 | 2,613.0 | — |
| Harris County/HCTRA | 2023 | 896.4 | 332.1 | 184.6 | 2,345.8 | 369.3 |
| Harris County/HCTRA | 2024 | 874.5 | 338.5 | 193.6 | 3,176.2 | 193.4 |
| Harris County/HCTRA | 2025 | 1,027.6 | 427.2 | 242.0 | 3,142.9 | 398.6 |
| TxDOT/CTTS | 2023 | 274.2 | 133.9 | 163.1 | 2,875.0 | — |
| TxDOT/CTTS | 2024 | 295.9 | 179.5 | 176.8 | 2,715.6 | — |
| TxDOT/CTTS | 2025 | 311.5 | 167.0 | 160.3 | 2,662.9 | — |

An em dash means no comparable separate observation was entered; it is not zero. CTRMA reports contribution expenses and CTTS reports transfers in, recorded separately in the underlying data. CTRMA's FY2025 cash obligation lines require reconciliation with its HB803 debt service; do not describe the entire $148.9m as payments to bondholders. CTTS's 2023–2024 cash rows include other liabilities; 2025 separates SBITA. HCTRA's cash rows exclude commercial-paper rollover, refunding escrow, leases and subscriptions. NTTA's infrastructure accounting also differs from road depreciation at the other entities, so these cost columns cannot support a clean efficiency ranking.

HCTRA's FY2023 bond-note total includes $11.684m of accrued interest payable. The normalized debt figure above removes it before adding commercial paper; the original reported total and the adjustment remain inspectable in the dataset. This prevents an accounting-presentation change from being treated as a change in borrowing.

Each raw amount joins a source id and physical PDF page in `financial_observations.csv`; calculated totals have operands in `calculations.csv`. The audited basic statements are the controlling source, with all FY2023–FY2025 originals preserved. The standalone figure summarizes the toll-revenue column:

![Reported toll revenue](charts/01_net_toll_revenue.png)

SH130 Concession Company's annual toll revenue, operating expenses, current debt, debt service, distributions and actual annual TxDOT revenue-share settlements were **not acquired**. All 18 requested year/metric gaps remain explicit null observations. TxDOT's asset valuation or unspent concession cash balance is not an acceptable replacement for private operating revenue.

## What the headline totals conceal

**HCTRA's FY2025 revenue increase is only partly in its road components.** Reported toll revenue grew $153,098,516, or 17.5%. Its 14 road components grew $52,259,706, or 6.0%. Interoperability revenue grew $50,746,894; the administration line improved $50,091,916, including movements in uncollectible administrative-fee allowances and other revenue. Those three changes reconcile exactly. This is an accounting decomposition; pricing, traffic and collection effects still need separate measurement. [FY2025 Schedule 5, PDF p66 / printed p57](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=66).

![HCTRA revenue reconciliation](charts/02_hctra_revenue_bridge.png)

**NTTA's report total is broader than its own-road System.** In FY2025 the System reported $1.2529bn of toll revenue, while the combined report total was $1.3000bn. The $47.1m difference is in the Non-System tolling-service fund. NTTA's TSA models allocate collection risk and compensation differently. Assigning all roads appearing on a TollTag statement to NTTA would mix ownership and service provision. Its PGBT Eastern Extension revenue share is another distinct cash claim: the report says TxDOT received $12.86m in FY2025 and $12.26m in FY2024. [FY2025 statements and Note 1](https://www.ntta.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/06-25-2026_Digital-Annual-Report_2025.pdf#page=42).

**CTTS's FY2025 net toll increase contains an allowance release.** Net toll revenue rose 5.3% to $311.477m. Note 1 describes roughly $272.3m in gross toll revenue plus a roughly $39.2m decrease in its doubtful-account allowance. FY2024 instead reported $323.118m gross less $27.254m of allowances. Total operating revenue fell from $372.071m to $337.636m as back-office fee arrangements changed. The data support an accounting change and a net-revenue increase; they do not support a claim that traffic rose 5.3%. [CTTS FY2025 Note 1](https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/fin/investor/ctts/audited_financial/ctts-afr-fy25.pdf#page=35), [FY2024 statement](https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/division/fin/ctts/2024-central-texas-turnpike-system-annual-financial-report.pdf#page=27).

**The full HCTRA cash bridge explains the financing choice.** Its FY2025 operating activities generated $593.4m. Construction used $315.3m, bond principal and interest $242.0m, and county transfers $398.6m. Net commercial-paper borrowing added $92.34m; other capital-financing movements used $7.04m, and net investing used $31.78m. Together, those movements reduced cash and cash equivalents by **$308.99m**, from $1.3047bn to **$995.75m**. Every line and all four cash-flow sections reconcile exactly. Cash includes restricted balances; this is not a claim that the entire ending balance can be spent freely. [HCTRA FY2025 cash flows, PDF p24](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=24).

![Complete HCTRA cash reconciliation](charts/04_hctra_complete_cash_bridge.png)

**Paying principal does not necessarily reduce total financing by the same amount.** HCTRA retired $96.685m of bond principal in FY2025, while its commercial-paper balance rose $92.340m. Combined bond face principal and commercial paper therefore fell just $4.345m. Its financing carrying amount fell $33.393m because bond-premium amortization also reduced the accounting balance. These are different answers to “how much debt was paid off?” [HCTRA FY2025 Note 6, PDF p36](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=36).

Over the same three years, the transfer record shows toll funds supporting county transportation outside the toll system:

![HCTRA transfers and debt payments](charts/03_hctra_transfers_and_debt.png)

## Why a paid bond does not automatically mean a free road

1. **A retired series can have replacement debt.** NTTA issued $630.46m of refunding bonds in FY2025 and paid $698.47m to the refunding escrow. Retiring those old securities does not extinguish the new ones. Its remaining FY2025 face/accreted principal was $8.4105bn, compared with $8.8542bn including unamortized premium. Neither number is a quoted buyout price. [NTTA cash flows and Note 5](https://www.ntta.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/06-25-2026_Digital-Annual-Report_2025.pdf#page=43).

2. **A road can support pooled system obligations.** Chapter 366.034 lets an authority combine projects into an operational and financial system and expand it. Section 366.173 governs tolls sufficient for operations, maintenance, debt and reserves. CTRMA has analogous revenue and surplus rules in Chapter 370. Its MoPac carve-out illustrates why even one authority's roads need not share the same indenture. A claim about one old project's construction debt cannot settle the current system's obligations. [Chapter 366](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TN/htm/TN.366.htm), [Chapter 370, §§370.172 and 370.174](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TN/htm/TN.370.htm).

3. **Harris County has a more specific toll-free trigger, with an exception.** Section 284.008(c) provides for state-system transfer and maintenance without tolls when all relevant bonds and interest are paid or sufficient money is set aside with the issuer's consent. Subsection (d) permits an order keeping a project outside that automatic transfer. HCTRA's current Note 1 still describes transfer after all the discussed debt service is paid or funded. That supports a qualified all-obligations test; it does not support automatic toll removal when a particular early series is retired. Confirm the project-specific orders and bond documents before making a stronger claim. [Chapter 284](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TN/htm/TN.284.htm), [HCTRA Note 1](https://auditor.harriscountytx.gov/Portals/auditor/documents/ACFRs/TR%20Final%209-30-25.pdf#page=25).

4. **A concession's clock is contractual.** The original SH130 agreement §2.2 provides a 50-year operating lease, subject to its stated adjustments and earlier termination. Sections 3.1 and 3.7 give the developer toll rights during that term. Refinancing or paying lenders does not itself shorten that contractual term. Ending it early requires addressing the agreement's termination provisions and compensation, not merely counting outstanding bonds. [Executed agreement archive](https://txdot.box.com/s/kz2van6r1tbmwerq3lrh3isobz1bdylv), agreement PDF pp13, 17 and 20 in the preserved archive.

NTTA's FY2025 [HB803 dashboard](https://www.ntta.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/06-26-2026_HB803-Dashboard_2025-.pdf) explicitly makes its 2048 payoff date conditional on no further system financing. CTTS's reported current final debt maturity is 2042; CTRMA's listed bonds extend to 2055; HCTRA's FY2025 maturity table extends to 2054. These dates describe the cited obligations or assumptions. They are not automatic toll-removal promises. TxDOT's SH130 summary uses calendar 2062, while its PPP accounting table uses FY2063; an October 2062 endpoint would lie in FY2063. The executed term and commencement record should control any precise published expiration date.

## SH130: title, concession cash and private financing

The original agreement separates the physical public asset from contractual toll rights. Section 3.7 gives the developer the toll-revenue interest, subject to TxDOT compensation and lenders' security. It also restricts distributions until specified current and delinquent payments, operating costs, debt, handback reserves, taxes and renewal costs have been met. This is a contractual restriction on distributions, not evidence of actual annual shareholder cash received.

Exhibit 7 creates an upfront concession payment and a banded annual revenue share, with year-of-operation thresholds expressed in 2006 dollars and adjusted for CPI. Speed-limit authorizations and written payment elections affect which schedule applies. The original exhibit also addresses refinancing gains under specified pre-opening conditions; it does not establish that TxDOT receives half of every later refinancing gain. Its annual procedure requires a final revenue-share calculation and an audited financial statement within 90 days of year end. These are specific missing records to acquire. [Original agreement and Exhibit 7](https://txdot.box.com/s/kz2van6r1tbmwerq3lrh3isobz1bdylv), exhibit PDF pp1–6 and 13–14.

The amendment history changes how this should be measured. **Amendment 17, effective August 22, 2016, expressly includes toll revenue accrued or earned during the fiscal year even when the developer has not yet received the cash.** Its replacement clause also addresses interest on the state's undistributed share. An estimate based only on cash collections could therefore use the wrong revenue base. Amendment 21, dated June 28, 2017, separately specifies a $392,110.69 additional concession payment and a further payment tied to a $510,000 sales-tax letter-of-credit balance and a Comptroller ruling. These are contractual amounts or formulas; this pilot has not verified their settlement. They must not be added to TxDOT's $143.5m historical aggregate without a reconciliation. [Official amendment archive](https://txdot.box.com/s/81j8ff8c516zojkr535p7ktey9jc6t6j), Amendment 17 PDF p1 and Amendment 21 PDF pp3–4.

The archive contains amendments 1–23; No.23 is dated October 29, 2018. It changes technical reporting deadlines and toll-audit reporting, while No.22 changes renewal-work reporting. Those requirements are distinct from Exhibit 7's financial-statement and annual settlement procedure. The review ledger in `docs/LEGAL_REVIEW.md` distinguishes pages read from attachments retained for future review. No representation is made that the downloaded archive includes every later agreement, election or side letter.

TxDOT's FY2025 ACFR reports $143.5m in aggregate historical upfront payments and $10.829m in its concession-related cash-in-treasury balance. The second figure is a point-in-time unspent balance involving concession-related receipts. It is not FY2025 toll revenue or the year's revenue-share payment. The same note reports the state-owned concession asset and deferred inflows; those accounting values are not private debt. [TxDOT Note 20, PDF pp126–127](https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/library/reports/gov/finance/txdot-acfr-fy25.pdf#page=126).

Section 4.2 of the original agreement does not obligate TxDOT to pay the developer's debt service. It preserves specified lender obligations and termination compensation that can be measured partly by outstanding debt. Describing that as a blanket absence of public exposure would erase an express exception. Likewise, the company's present federal minority ownership means public participation cannot be analyzed solely by asking whether Texas guarantees private bank debt.

## Evidence quality, interpretation and next work

**Observed:** the entity boundaries, basic-statement figures, component schedules, transfer amounts, original contractual cash rights and the cited current company ownership description. The calculations reproduce from retained sources, with source IDs, units, pages, retrieval times and hashes.

**Inference:** system financing and term-based concession rights explain why retiring a selected series need not end tolling. HCTRA's transfers and statutory authority demonstrate a broader transportation-finance purpose. These observations do not establish that any particular toll is optimally priced, that an authority is inefficient, or that consolidation would save a quantified amount.

**Source differences retained:** CTRMA's revised FY2025 basic statement reports $124,990,708 operating expense; its MD&A reports about $134.991m, incorporating the $10m CAMPO contribution that the basic statement puts in nonoperating expense. The cash-flow reconciliation total differs from its direct operating-cash section by $125,190. Its HB803 debt service of $107.205m differs from the cash-flow obligation/interest sum of $148.942m. The road schedule's MoPac allocation differs from the basic statement, and combined road totals differ by $1 in FY2023 and FY2025. These are recorded rather than harmonized by assumption.

**Exact remaining acquisition steps:** obtain SH130's FY2023–FY2025 audited annual financial statements, preliminary/final revenue-share calculations, payments/refunds and dispute records; its speed-limit payment election; current funding/refinancing agreements and current equity ownership schedule. The original concession requires delivery of several of these records to TxDOT. `docs/NEXT_ACQUISITION.md` contains an unsent scoped request. Also obtain the HCTRA project-specific §284.008(d) orders, recipient/project ledger for the $961.3m transfers, CTRMA's reconciliation explanations, and any exact historical promise or payoff claim intended for the article.

The bounded pilot is complete for three annual periods across the four selected public reporting systems. It is not a statewide inventory: Grand Parkway, Fort Bend, other RMAs, international bridges and the full set of private TEXpress concessions require separate acquisition. The remaining-records template has not been sent.