Collin County Has 300,000 More People. Apparently, the Roads Didn't Get the Memo.
There is something rather peculiar about the way we handle growth in North Texas. We celebrate every new subdivision, boast about our booming economy and welcome thousands of new residents with the enthusiasm of a hotel manager who has just discovered that every room is booked. Then, when all these people venture outside their homes and attempt to go somewhere, we seem genuinely astonished that the roads are full.
This is particularly noticeable in Collin County, where the population has grown from 1,064,465 in 2020 to an estimated 1,370,069 in January 2026. That’s more than 305,000 additional people in less than six years. Last year alone, another 64,703 arrived, more than in any other county in North Central Texas. In other words, we’ve effectively added the population of a respectable small city in twelve months, and we appear to expect everyone to squeeze through the same intersections that were troublesome five years ago.
And this brings us to Propositions B and C, which would authorize bonds for roads, bridges, parks and open space. Predictably, because both involve borrowing money that taxpayers must eventually repay, some people will regard them with the sort of horror normally reserved for discovering a rattlesnake in the downstairs toilet.
Now, I understand the reluctance. Nobody enjoys paying more taxes, particularly when governments have demonstrated an almost supernatural ability to spend enormous sums of money without producing anything that seems remotely useful. But there is a difference between wasting money and spending it on something that plainly needs doing.
Take Proposition B. It would authorize $475 million for non-tolled roads and bridges. That’s an enormous amount of money, certainly, but we’re talking about a county containing nearly 1.4 million people, not a village where the principal transportation problem is someone’s tractor blocking the road outside the post office.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave Texas roads a C- in its 2025 infrastructure report. It identified congestion, population growth, safety and inadequate long-term funding as continuing concerns. And anyone who has attempted to navigate the rapidly developing parts of Celina, Princeton, Prosper or McKinney will know that these aren’t merely theoretical problems dreamed up by engineers to justify another conference in a nice hotel.
Of course, building more roads is not automatically the answer to every transportation problem. Simply adding lanes until the entire county resembles an airport runway would be an extraordinarily stupid way to plan a community. What matters is building sensible connections, maintaining existing infrastructure and ensuring that roads and bridges can actually serve the places being developed. The point is that all of this requires planning, and planning requires money. Preferably before another 300,000 people turn up.
Proposition C, meanwhile, would authorize $6 million for parks and open space. Compared with the road proposal, this is practically loose change found down the back of the county sofa. Yet it addresses something equally important: the fact that once land has been developed, getting it back is rather difficult.
We seem perfectly capable of understanding that growing communities need houses, supermarkets and enormous parking lots. But suggest that residents might also appreciate somewhere with trees, walking trails and a little grass, and suddenly public spending becomes an existential threat to civilization. Texas parks also received a C- from the ASCE, which noted growing recreational demand, aging facilities and funding shortages. And unlike a pothole, which can be repaired, an opportunity to preserve open land may disappear permanently beneath somebody’s new kitchen.
There is, naturally, a legitimate question about the cost. Both propositions are identified as tax increases, and voters should examine that obligation carefully. County officials must demonstrate that the projects are necessary, appropriately selected and responsibly managed. A bond authorization is not permission to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at whichever contractor happens to have the nicest PowerPoint presentation.
But the alternative deserves just as much scrutiny. Rejecting a bond does not cause population growth to reverse. It doesn’t repair a bridge, improve an intersection or preserve an acre of land. It simply postpones decisions while construction costs, development pressures and the number of people depending on existing infrastructure continue to increase.
And that’s the fundamental absurdity here. We have spent years encouraging people and businesses to move to Collin County, benefiting from the economic activity and development that accompany them. Yet now that they’re here, we’re apparently supposed to act surprised that accommodating them costs money.
Nobody is suggesting that every proposed road is brilliant or that every government expenditure deserves applause. But there comes a point when refusing to invest in infrastructure stops being fiscal responsibility and becomes an expensive form of wishful thinking.
Collin County has already grown. The question is whether we’re prepared to build a county that actually works for the people who live in it.
Vote FOR Proposition B and Proposition C.
Sources: North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2026 Population Estimates; American Society of Civil Engineers, 2025 Texas Infrastructure Report Card and 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.