Trans Texas Corridor could be San Marcos' new neighbor

San Marcos Daily Record ^ | February 4, 2005 | ANITA MILLER

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The time to speak out and ask questions about the Trans Texas Corridor is near.

Residents in Caldwell and Guadalupe counties will get a better understanding of potential impacts to their land usage and future tax revenues next month during Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) public meetings concerning the proposed corridor.

The corridor, as envisioned, would consist of a network of brand-new "transportation routes" that would carry passenger vehicles and large trucks in separate lanes and also provide for railway freight, high-speed commuter rail and "infrastructure" for utilities including water, oil, gas, electricity, broadband and "other telecommunications services," TxDOT says.

The routes would bypass major metropolitan areas and the project would be implemented in phases, beginning with "priority routes," which include a route to run east but largely parallel to Interstate 35.

The roadways would be toll roads, and would require 146 acres of right-of-way for each mile of the envisioned 4,000 miles of corridor. The combined vehicle, rail and utility lines would be 1,200 feet wide.

Overall, the project would result in the taking of 558,000 acres of private lands, according to Corridor Watch, an organization whose premise is "challenging the wisdom of the Trans Texas Corridor."

While landowners would be compensated under eminent domain, acreage taken for the corridor would be removed from county and school district tax rolls.

Officials with TxDOT will meet with Caldwell County residents on March 3 at the Lockhart High School Cafetorium, 1 Lion Country Drive. On March 22, citizens of Guadalupe County can attend a public meeting at the Seguin-Guadalupe County Coliseum, 810 S. Guadalupe St. Both sessions will run from 5 to 8 p.m. and will be held in an "open house" format.

Those in attendance will be able to ask questions as well as provide input and submit comments for the record. Available at the meetings will be the preliminary results of an environmental study that is expected to have narrowed the proposed route to a more or less 10-mile swath.

The round of public meetings is the second concerning the corridor. In the fall of last year, citizens were presented with maps showing a wide area of Texas from the Rio Grande to the Red River. Since then, "corridor alternatives" for the portion of the project to parallel IH-35 have been "refined."

This summer, project planners intend to have completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and following that will be another round of public meetings. The complete EIS, consideration of which will also include a "no build" option, is expected in early 2006. Around the same time, project planners are expected to present the corridor plan to the Federal Highway Administration.

In December, Gov. Rick Perry detailed how the project would be funded. Under a type of contract called a "comprehensive development agreement," which allows the state to hire a private firm to "plan, design, construct, finance, maintain and operate" the corridor, the governor said a Spanish firm has been selected to develop the corridor project.

Cintra-Zachary has said it plans to invest $6 billion by 2010 in the stretch of toll road from San Antonio to Dallas. Under terms of the agreement, the company would also pay the state $1.2 billion to be able to operate the toll road for 50 years. The $1.2 billion could be used by TxDOT for road improvements, high-speed or commuter rail projects.

According to TxDOT, the total project cost could range from $145.2 to $183.5 billion.

Proponents say the network of roads and rail and pipelines would ease traffic congestion in major cities and that given projected growth rates, the corridor is a proactive way of managing the transportation needs of 50 years into the future.

Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic, but could bisect towns and farms. It would also drain communities along IH-35 through lessened traffic and relocation of businesses.

For more information, visit

www.txdot.state.tx.us;

www.keeptexasmoving.com;

and www.corridorwatch.org

[palmer]

It's a leap of faith that true alternatives will exist.

No, they exist now. You are the one with the leap of faith that your governor is a crook. I would only ask (or request) that your refrain from impugning your governor's integrity with your own anonymous ramblings or those from leftist Green party web sites like bicycle austin until you get some less biased sources. And please stop sucking up to the other cynics who spout the same non-specific antiestablishment crap. One posting is enough.

[TXnMA]

Not opposing me - it was one of my few attempts at sarcasm on this topic.

Didn't fool me! We've been on the same side of this one from the get-go, FRiend -- hence the

LOL!!!

TXnMA :-|

[BobL]

A reasonable request. But you nullified it by implying that I am a Green.

I will continue to ramble until my questions get answered. There are a lot of people out there supporting the governor, and you guys are welcome to put up any information that shows the people of Texas are being protected. I haven't seen any (yet), so I'm a bit cynical.

As to whether the governor is a crook - it's clear with that Shelley guy that something stinks in Austin. You are welcome to ignore the cronism coming out of the governor's office, but some of us don't like it. As far as I know, he's still working for the governor - so I'll let others on this thread decide whether we have an honest governor.


http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/004685.html


If you don't like what I write, don't read it. I will not be silenced just because you disagree with me.

[BobL]

I didn't think that I did - let's keep up the good work. I think we've asked a lot of questions that the opposition cannot answer.

[palmer]

you guys are welcome to put up any information that shows the people of Texas are being protected. I haven't seen any (yet), so I'm a bit cynical.

You will be more convincing to put up your own, but I agree it works both ways. And I don't want to imply you are a Green but I don't have much choice if you post links to websites that support the Green party. The fact that leftist bicylists in Austin disagree with toll roads is not a useful argument in this forum so expect a little criticism for that.

[BobL]

"You will be more convincing to put up your own"

I'm not trying to make the case for these roads being in the interests of Texans, so it's really up to the supporters to show how we're being protected, given the disasterous results in California and Ontario.


"The fact that leftist bicyclists in Austin disagree with toll roads is not a useful argument in this forum so expect a little criticism for that."

Yea, I agree, there is limited info available on your opponents in these types of discussions - so calling me a Green based on a link is somewhat reasonable. But seriously, do you think that anyone who craves freeways like myself would have anything to do with bicyclists? I'm mainly opposing this plan because of what consider a sellout of a precious Texas resource, it's rights of ways, to a private company that has no interests in looking out for us. Secondarily, I hate toll roads, especially when the charge the rates that we're already paying in Texas (10 to 20 cents per mile), versus around 5 cents per mile in the Northeast and Midwest. As I've said, I have no objection to highway expansion, or new highways. In fact, the first thing I'd like to see is an I-10 bypass north of San Antonio, since that stupid dip that I-10 makes is a pain in the butt. I'm happy to finance any improvements with a gas tax increase, since that spreads the burden on to everyone that drives, and encourages people and trucks to stay off of surface streets. I would even be ok with a mileage tax, providing a bunch of protections relating to privacy and equitably are maintained. On the other hand, if I were a Green, I would seriously consider supporting Cintra's plan. Because overpriced toll roads (versus freeways) virtually assure the postponing of any new development for years, if not decades, along those corridors.

But if you read some of my rantings about Muslims (in November and December, mainly in response to the killing of Theo Van Gogh in Holland), and consider the ritual killing of the Christian family in New Jersey, suspected to be by Muslims (in response to web postings by the father), I've basically cornered myself into have to maintain my anonymity, just for security purposes.

[BobL]

Just a bit more. There has been some Clintonian-type usage of the English language in some of this discussion. This next example I'll use, and I honestly don't think you meant to sound Clintonian, but it can be read that way. The two examples after that, I think are deliberate Clintonian-style statements...

(from Post 101)
BobL: "It's a leap of faith that true alternatives will exist."

Palmer: "No, they exist now."

What could make this Clintonian in style (although I am convinced you did not intend it) is that you are taking the present case, and projecting it to the future, with no knowledge of what degree of monopolistic protection will be given to Cintra (that've you've disclosed, at least - and again, I'm not trying to impugn you, I'm just covering my bases, in case you have more info). In other words my concern is about the future, not the present. You may well wind up being right, but there's been no evidence produced (that I've seen) to support that outcome.


The next statement (not by you), in my strong opinion, was intended to deceive. It went something like this (on a different thread):

"There are NO plans to convert any existing free lanes of traffic to tolling"

This may be true now, but certainly wasn't true at least twice last year, when attempts were made to impose tolling on SH 249 (Houston area), and I-10 near El Paso. There was a somewhat similar situation in Austin where tolling was proposed to be added to a stretch of freeway that was nearly completed and fully financed. All three were stopped - but it clearly indicated a plan to toll at least some of our existing freeways.


And finally you have this statement by Ric Williamson last year. If you ask a hundred people what this means, you'll get the same answer - conversion of the majority of freeways to toll roads:

"in your lifetime most existing roads will have tolls"

There is nothing Clintonian about that statement, but some toll roads supporters are saying that it is Clintonian, in the sense that he is saying that most existing roads will have "added lanes which are tolled". Sorry, but I just buy that as the meaning of the above statement. I think that this was simply an honest statement from a man totally out of touch with reality.

[palmer]

That's a nice bit of interpretation you got going there. I am guilty of projection and perhaps Clinton-speak. But you must surely realize that your accusations that the governor is giving away monopolistic protection are projective and phrased in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner. We don't know how much the governor has beaten his wife, but we certainly know that we can't trust him to protect her. He is just a politician after all.

[w6ai5q37b]

Copyright 2004 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
March 30, 2004, Tuesday, BC cycle
Federal highway officials approve state's I-69 route
MARK JEWELL, Associated Press Writer


Indiana's plan to extend Interstate 69 through the southwestern part of the state on a route partly cutting across roadless terrain has the federal government's endorsement.

However, construction work could be at least a couple years away, and funding questions remain. The Indiana segment is part of a larger project to create a "NAFTA Superhighway" linking Canada and Mexico. The interstate begins in Port Huron, Mich. and is proposed to run southwest through Brownsville, Texas.

In approving the route, the Federal Highway Administration followed the state's lead in turning aside complaints that upgrading existing roads would be less expensive and reduce the environmental cost.

The decision announced Monday was required to bring the long-delayed project closer to construction, but more environmental studies are needed before road work can begin.

The federal agency signed off on the route announced in January 2003 by the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon. It was one of the shortest and most expensive routes the state considered for the 142-mile extension from Indianapolis to Evansville.

Many critics have questioned whether money can be found to complete a project the Indiana Department of Transportation estimates will to cost about $1.78 billion and take eight to 14 years to build.

The federal government is expected to pick up 80 percent of the tab, with state gas taxes covering the remainder. State officials have talked since the 1940s about building a highway linking Indianapolis with Evansville, the state's third-largest city.

"This means a lot for southwest Indiana and all the state of Indiana," Gov. Joe Kernan said. "This is a project that has been under discussion forever, it seems."

Kernan announced the federal government's approval in news conferences in Evansville and Washington, a city of about 11,000 that is on the I-69 route about 60 miles to the north.

Robert F. Tally Jr. of the Federal Highway Administration told a standing-room-only audience of more than 100 in Evansville that the route picked by the state struck a balance between economic and environmental concerns.

Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan, a Democrat who has opposed the project primarily because of its costs, criticized the federal decision.

"It's further evidence that the project is being directed at a federal and state level much more than being determined by local government," he said.

With federal approval of the highway's corridor in hand, officials will begin determining a more precise path - called a final alignment - considering geographic and other obstacles.

That phase will be broken into six highway sections, with separate environmental impact statements prepared in advance of hearings. Approval of the alignment could take up to three years.

"The process is, and will continue to be, one that is very public," Kernan said.

The extension "will serve as an economic development engine for all of southwest Indiana," Kernan said. "Job growth is sure to follow its path."

The route takes the Indiana 37 corridor from Indianapolis south past Martinsville and Bloomington, then southwest to near Washington and then roughly follows Indiana 57 to Interstate 64 north of Evansville. The highway will connect mostly rural counties primarily served by winding, two-lane roads.

Environmentalists and others have warned that the highway's construction will destroy or harm farmland and forests, taint groundwater and hurt sensitive cave ecosystems. They also suggest it would spur little economic development.

Opponents of the state's route have in many cases supported using the four-lane U.S. 41 north from Evansville to Terre Haute and then east to Indianapolis on I-70.

Terre Haute Mayor Kevin Burke on Monday expressed disappointment, but not surprise, at the federal decision.

"We don't intend to use what limited resources we have as a municipality to fight this," Burke said.

Critics suggested the project's cost raises doubts about whether it will ever be built.

"It's taken INDOT 14 years to reach this point, and it will take an eternity to convince Hoosiers to raise gas taxes to pay for this boondoggle," said Andy Knott of the Hoosier Environmental Council.

On the Net:

I-69 Official Web site: www.i69indyevn.org

I-69 opponents: www.commonsensei69.org

[Paleo Conservative]

I never said I was opposed to NAFTA.

[BobL]

"That's a nice bit of interpretation you got going there. I am guilty of projection and perhaps Clinton-speak."

NO - you are not guilty of intentional Clintonian speak (projection - yes - and it's understandable here), I was only noting that it could come across as Clinton-speak. Actually, I was looking for a post to respond to on that topic (Clinton-speak), and then I saw that language, and couldn't ignore it.


"But you must surely realize that your accusations that the governor is giving away monopolistic protection are projective and phrased in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner."

They're not just accusations without justification. There is a quote, by Williamson (I think), and I'm trying to find the thread, where he says something to the effect of: "yea, it's certainly possible that Cintra will get protections".

Now if you couple that with the protections given to the SH 91 toll lanes in California (different company), along with the same type of protections that Cintra was given in Canada, wouldn't you agree that being suspicious of what the governor is committing this state to over the next 50+ years is reasonable. Especially when there's been posted nothing to the contrary.


(p.s., I don't think Williamson is the sharpest knife in the drawer, when it comes to being a point-man for Perry)

[lodwick]

This is the most outrageous scam ever proposed in TX.

Hopefully, we will be able to get a RICO indictment against the perps here.

[BobL]

I'm still trying to find the specific quote, but here is a piece of a very good article that also describes the experiences in Canada and California, when private companies get free reign. I do base my suspicions on real events:


"Some even negotiate noncompete clauses into contracts so that governments cannot expand other freeways that might take business away from toll roads.

Just how much power Cintra will have is being negotiated behind closed doors in Austin. State officials say that within weeks they expect to sign a contract, known as a comprehensive development agreement, identifying Madrid, Spain-based Cintra as the lead agency, along with San Antonio's Zachry Construction Corp. and other minority partners. "


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329336/posts

[BobL]

Found it:

Here's a quote...

"Talking about Cintra and TxDOT’s future expansion of I-35 Chairman Williamson said at the press conference, - - - we fully expect that there will be limitations on our ability, at some point in the future, to compete with the road he is going to spend his money on and pay us for. We believe that profit is a decent and honorable pursuit and that for him to pay his franchise taxes in Texas, he's going to have to generate some profits. We're not afraid of that. He offers to take us out of the risk business in offering an alternative corridor parallel to 35, and he offers us cash in exchange for that."


Heck, he's more certain of it than even me.

Here's the link - it was Williamson.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/transcom/transcripts/1204.htm

It's there, just do a search on that page for a few of the words.

[DoughtyOne]

This will wind up an eminent domain nightmare. And for what? So that U.S. jobs can be farmed out at an ever increasing rate.

This is the wholesale slaughter of U.S. jobs in the making.

[DoughtyOne]

This sucker has been talked about for a long time. It's been in the works since NAFTA. It's just one more reason why globalists have a warm fuzzy feeling when thinking of NAFTA and the FTAA. I believe U.S. citizens should tell the federal government to take this plan and shove it.

[TXnMA]

I think we've asked a lot of questions that the opposition cannot answer.

Here's one question I'd like to have the TTC advocates answer:

Can you name one good thing the TTC, as proposed, will do for rural Texas?

[dennisw]

http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/4037/index.php

Isn't interstate 65 a an almost complete North-South route from Canada to Mexico

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I'll go to the one in Seguin. Yall help me with some good questions.

Ask them why they aren't giving you a full-scale presentation on what they're doing so far. Ask why the agreement between Cintra and Perry is being kept secret until signed. Just a suggestion.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I checked the link. It's up now.