Posted on 02/16/2005 5:03:17 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
The head of the Texas Transportation Commission, Ric Williamson, was interviewed today on KSEV radio in Houston by Dan Patrick from 5-6pm. He is in charge of the Trans Texas Corridor concept and is negotiating contract details with a company called Cintra to build the first corridor after accepting their bid. The corridor would run from Oklahoma to Mexico, roughly paralleling I-35. He answered questions, took calls, and offered new details (at least I haven't seen some of this reported before in the media) on the concept and the first corridor. Below are the points from the interview that I was able to get down.
1) While at some point a landowner might lose their land for ROW acquisition, the TTC concept will offer them perpetual royalty rights as part of the compensation package for their land. In other words, besides fair market value for their land, they and their decendents will get annual payments, just like they would if an oil company negotiated to drill on their land.
2) The concept is an intent to consolidate road, rail, pipeline, electric, communication, and other utility corridors into a single large corridor rather than individual dispersed corridors for each mode, thereby significantly reducing the total amount of land taken for the same capacity. Basically building a few big corridors instead of dozens of smaller ones(not just roads) which would divide up rural areas much more. A one and done future capacity inventory, planning, design, and buildout, rather than piecemeal and somewhat uncoordinated road and varios utilities construction that would be more ineffecient, duplicative, and less synergistic. Planned, but not built until each portion justifies itself.
3) Even if the TTC is not built, a utility corridor 400' wide for water and electric utilities would still have to be built across the state. Thus the TTC will save land by combine this utility corridor with the road corridors, (which will save land by utilizing overlapping easement requirements, shared drainage, etc.)
4) This originally wasn't scheduled to start for another 10-15 years, but they immediately began receiving proposals from private firms. After narrowing down to 3 proposals, it was decided to build now because of the higher value in the bids than expected. They then selected Cintra's bid as the best of the three, and are negotiating contract details.
5) The contract will not include any restrictions on the footprint of I-35 (meaning it can be expanded if deemed necessary or preferable.) Ric Williamson specifically stated that TX could even take the $1.2-1.4 billion payment from Cintra to pay for expanding I-35 if they wish. No restrictions.
6) Cintra puts up the money, assumes all the risk. All financing is private. TXDOT is leasing the build, operation, and maintenance rights to them, but retains ownership(basically just a subcontracting situation.) HNTB is the engineering firm working with the state on this.
7) 1st sections built would be Hillsboro-Georgetown and south of Austin to I-10 east of San Antonio, with the currently under construction Loop 130 filling in the gap. If approved next year, these portions could be finished as early as 2008-2010.
8) First 3 priority corridors are roughly parallel to I-35, to I-45, and to I-20 east from Dallas. If it gets approved, the I-69 corridor would likely also be designed as a TTC corridor. Would run roughly from Texarkana down Hwy 59, around the north side of Houston, and then parallel to the gulf to Mexico. (My addition: one would likely run to the Harlingen/Brownsville area, and one to Laredo, and similarly one would run around the east side of DFW, and one around the west.)
9) The 1200' maximum corridor width was the original expected need when the project was first considered. But after reviewing the concept the maximum ROW width can be reduced to 800-1000'(and less in sections where it is determined that there would never be a need for a particular type of rail or utility.)
10) Pulls hazmat off rail lines and highways that run through the middle of communities and into patrolled TTC corridors, which are easier to protect than multiple dispersed rail lines (many of which are not paralleled by roads and thus far harder to observe and respond to an incident.) (However nothing was said about how to fund the rail portions, which is not a part of the Cintra bid, other than space set aside in the constructed ROW for future use. Also no mention of expected timeline.)
11) TTC has not yet been reviewed by Homeland Security, but the military has stated that it is in favor of high-speed and high-capacity connections from the Gulf ports to interior bases (speeds deployment and repositioning.)
12) Talked about cost. Currently in rural areas(15 miles away from urban areas) it costs about $2 million per mile per lane to construct freeway standard roadway in 'greenspace' areas (farms, ranches, or forests.) ROW costs are about $3-6000 per acre. By comparison it averages $26 million per lane to expand roads in urban areas (because of higher land values, more complicated construction to stay within the existing footprint, etc. Layering is 3 times as expensive, which is why they are planning a wide corridor rather than a stacked one.
13) One of the guidelines given to TXDOT for evaluating whether a TTC proposal is justified is that it can't be built unless it offers more congestion relief at a lower cost than building in the existing roadway footprint.
14) We are building toll roads because the current gas tax would only fund 20% of needed road capacity. To eliminate toll roads yet still build all the road required would necessitate a $1/gallon gas tax, 80 cents higher than the current 20 cent/gallon tax. That is why toll projects will finance most new construction and expansion, where feasible.
http://www.ksevradio.com/
No tortilla expressway! No new gas tax! No tolls on roads that have already been paid for!
For your ping list.
I realize that the TTC pings may be getting rather voluminous, but this interview seemed to have a good bit of new info, as opposed to the same stuff repeated in many newspaper articles.
Except they haven't been paid for.
Ping
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/pdfs/TTC-35_Alternatives_Map.pdf
Good reporting.
GOOD STUFF, Diddle!
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
If you want on or off this list, just let me know.
THE UTILITIES SHOULD BE UNDERGROUND. I SAW THE PICTS THE OTHER DAY AND THEY HAD GIANT POWER LINES ALONG THE ROADWAY.
How can anyone be so backward as to put powerlines above ground. If they intend to spend our inheritence on this at least use the money wisely. Ok that's my rant.
How can anyone be so backward as to put powerlines above ground.
That'll really screw with your AM talk radio.
Above ground power lines are a peeve of mine. I don't believe that it is aesthically pleasable. And with the technology today there is very little excuse for them to not be underground.
I'm not sure what the cost would be to put 500 kV lines underground for extended mileage....
As long as it doesn't become a ripoff to Texas residents because it becomes a profit-making machine long after the costs of building it are recouped, it should have an overall economic windfall to the region. I'd like to see a toll-free lane or two incorporated into the intial design. That would keep the pressure on to make it all toll-free at some point in the future.
Trust at your own peril.
I'm not sure why they don't consider US 281 up to just SW of the Metroplex for such a project. It would solve several road congestion problems, as well as providing a much needed link to the great Austin area to SA and a more direct route to the Metroplex from the south...
Fire ants. They damage underground cables and lines. Though I think it ultimately is a cost decision, since burying costs a good deal more and is more difficult to access for maintenance. Also there have been cases of improperly installed or failed buried lines that resulted in electrocution of persons walking above them, and those were with local neighborhood lines, not the massive trunk lines.
Perhaps also they think this corridor is already an eyesore, so aesthetics aren't a high priority? I dunno. Seriously, you should write TXDOT with the suggestion. They are taking public comment right now on the TTC, and that is exactly the kind of feedback they are soliciting. There likely is a comment submission link on the TTC website:
The TTC is an all around bad idea for Texas.
Here are just a few reasons why:
It's designed to generate revenue first and provide transportation second. The Corridor plan is designed to provide transportation funds, more than transportation. Rather than identify specific transportation needs and offer solutions, the Plan defines funding as the need and the Corridor as the solution. Accordingly it's not important where the Corridor is built, as long as it generates revenue.
Potential for tremendous liabilities created by Comprehensive Development Agreements. The Corridor plan is based on design-build-operate-maintain contracts called Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA). While new to Texas, these CDAs have been used in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, China, Malaysia, and Hungry. These contracts often include equity guarantees, debt guarantees, exchange rate guarantees, subordinated loans, shadow toll payments, and minimum revenue guarantees. Most troubling is a class of support called "revenue enhancements" that may limit competition and allow the development of ancillary facilities.
The Plan is based on uncertain assumptions. The Corridor plan is predicated on a projection that Texas population growth will continue at a rate of 30,000 new residents a month. The Plan however does not share projection details such as population distribution or how the proposed corridors will serve that population.
Doesn't solve the problem. The singular focus of the Corridor plan is to build corridors that connect regions of the state intentionally bypassing urban centers. Those metropolitan areas are left to deal with their own traffic and mobility problems, including access to the Corridor. Since our large cities are the traffic generators the Corridor will offer little if any relief.
Inefficient transportation plan. A basic transportation principal is that an efficient highway connects two destination points with the shortest and most direct route. The Corridor plan however makes no direct connections to regional traffic generators nor destinations. The result is a longer traffic path, higher construction costs (including land right-of-way acquisition), higher maintenance costs, higher vehicle fuel consumption, more air pollution generation, higher tolls, and longer travel time.
Adverse economic impact. Taking business away from hundreds of Texas communities by limiting traveler access and providing, in its place, State contract concessions that will include gas, food, hotels, stores and more, apparently without limit. This smacks of Nationalizing the state's travel and tourism industry. Relocating businesses won't add to our economy. In fact, it will drive local government costs up by requiring new infrastructure to support them. [more]
Private Interests v. Public Interests. Private investment and partnership sounds like a good idea until you realize that 'their' goal is strictly profit driven (not transportation). Private investment will involve bonds and bondholders who naturally want to protect their money and will insist on terms and conditions that can be contrary to the public good. That leads to the kind of 'bad' deals made in California necessary to keep the private money interested. [more] [privatization white paper]
Loss of local property taxes. The approximately 580,000 acres consumed by the Corridor will become State land taken off county and school district tax rolls. Local taxpayers will absorb the difference. Every mile of Corridor will take approximately 146 acres of land off the tax rolls. And that's before land is added for other corridor developments. And when concession businesses develop on this State land there will be lease payments but there won't be any real property tax growth for the local jurisdictions. [source]
Too much money! We simply can't afford a $184 BILLION Dollar project. It doesn't matter whether it is tolls, fees, or taxes - If they create the debt (public or private), we the citizens of Texas will ultimately pay the tab whatever you call it. Urban centers will pay even more just so they can address their own problems and connect their highways to the Corridor.
Creates a 'soft' terrorism target. This is not the time to put so many critical infrastructure elements in one place. Given the design and placement, the Corridor will be an incredibly soft target, the protection of which would be not only impractical but virtually impossible.
Dividing the State. Nearly one-quarter mile wide corridors will cut Texas up into pieces like the Great Wall of China, making it more difficult to get from one place to another. Many landowners will find that they have the choice of keeping land they can no longer access or sell it to the state.
Turns private land into State land. The Trans Texas Corridor project authorizes the Commission to take private land away from its current owner to lease it for any commercial, industrial or agricultural purpose. More than one-half million acres will become government property used not only for transportation but as State owned rental property in direct competition with private business. [more]
Toll roads represent double taxation. Motorists already pay for highways at the gasoline pump, vehicle registration counter, and at auto supply retailers. They should not have to pay for highways again when they exercise their right to travel on them. [proposition 15, house briefing paper]
Passenger rail hasn't worked anywhere in the world except in dense urban districts — That ain't Trans-Texas pardner! And that's too bad since this is the only forward thinking transportation element in Corridor plan.
Air pollution. A don't fix it, just move it approach. This plan doesn't reduce pollution, it simply pushes vehicle pollution away from the large urban district into rural Texas. what's more, it generates more air pollution since vehicles moving between large cities will travel further with their engines running longer than taking a direct route. Thanks guys!
Likely because it is much further away from Austin, so it would be a good bit more indirect and with fewer users. Also the terrain is more hilly, increasing the construction costs. Getting around the San Antonio metro would add more mileage, and would be tougher to do on the more rugged west side. But 281 is going to be upgraded to 4-lane the entire way. Not sure the timeline, but remember reading that somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.