Proposed I-69 truly mammoth (TEXAS)

The Associated Press ^ | an. 01, 2005 | Jim Vertuno

[Dubya]

AUSTIN - In what sounds like another tall tale told by a Texan, the Lone Star State has embarked on an audacious project to build superhighways so big, so complex, that they will make ordinary interstates look like cow paths. The Trans-Texas Corridor project, as envisioned by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2002, would be a 4,000-mile transportation network costing $175 billion over 50 years, financed mostly if not entirely with private money. The builders would charge motorists tolls.

But these would not be mere highways. They would be megahighways -- corridors up to a quarter-mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, even broadband transmission cables.

Supporters say the corridors are needed to handle the expected NAFTA-driven boom in the flow of goods to and from Mexico and to enable freight haulers to bypass urban centers on straight-shot highways that cut across the countryside.

The number of corridors and exactly where they would run have yet to be worked out for the proposed I-69. But the Texas Transportation Commission opened negotiations Dec. 16 with the Spain-based consortium Cintra to start the first phase of the project, a $7.5 billion, 800-mile corridor that would stretch from Oklahoma to Mexico and run parallel to Interstate 35.

"Some thought the Trans-Texas Corridor was a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never see the light of day," said Perry, who has compared his plan to the interstate highway system, which was started during the Eisenhower administration.

But as the plan rumbles along in the fast lane, some have called it a Texas-size boondoggle. Environmentalists are worried about what it will do to the countryside. Ranchers and farmers who stand to lose their land through eminent domain are mobilizing against it. Small towns and big cities fear a loss of business when traffic is diverted around them.

Even the governor's own party opposes the plan. The GOP platform drafted at last summer's state convention rejected it because of its effect on property rights.

Perry is undeterred. "I think it will be a model for future infrastructure construction in the world," he predicted.

The tolls would represent a dramatic departure for Texas, which has traditionally relied on federal highway funding from gasoline taxes to build roads. But supporters say the combination of tolls and private money would allow Texas to pour concrete at a rate that would not be possible through gasoline taxes alone. ONLINE: ww.dot.state.tx.us www.keeptexasmoving.com www.corridorwatch.com

[SouthTexas]

If you need bigger roads connecting Houston, SA, and D/FtW, feel free, build them. We don't have that congestion down here, nor do we need massive fixes.

I do go to the race in Ft.Worth once a year and I go straight up 77.

[doc30]

Sounds just like Florida.

[BobL]

If I could spare 15 to 20 cents per mile to give to this company (about $5,000 per year, for my family, based on present driving requirements), then I would agree with your viewpoint. Unfortunately, I pay more than that now in property taxes, so I'm not that lucky.

[RobbyS]

Back when they were first planning I-35, someone suggested that they route it east of Austin, but that got shot down. Now I avoid Austin when I go from DFW to San Antonio.

[RobbyS]

The Metroplex has one big thing going for it. Plenty of water from artifcial lakes.

[BobL]

" As I said many years ago, the only benefit Texas will see out of Nafta is one hell of a freeway, at OUR expense."

I would reword your above statement as follows "As I said many years ago, the punishment Texas will see out of Nafta is one hell of a toll road, at OUR expense."

There are a heck of a lot of property owners who don't mind a freeway, but will fight to death against this scheme. When your right of way is 1200 feet wide, even a simple overcrossing becomes expensive and will cut off land owners.

[BobL]

" Yeah! What do these private investors think they're doing? Everyone knows that only the government can do things right."

I'll put up the Interstate system against against the hodgepodge of freeways and toll roads that preceded it. Our government does not have a very good track record on big projects, but it has done some things right.

[BobL]

" Yeah! What do these private investors think they're doing? Everyone knows that only the government can do things right."

Also keep in mind that this company is not exactly the Peace Corps - meaning that they do have their own agenda - which is profits (generally a good thing, but not in this case). They couldn't give a darn about the people of Texas

How to earn the profits: Become a monopoly and minimize your competition. That's done by closing off alternatives that can draw traffic away from them. I have no doubt once the fine print of this agreement is released (with those pesky details), we'll see that Perry totally sold out his voters.

[Tall_Texan]

Are they calling it I-69 because it will suck at both ends?

[Dan from Michigan]

How can I-69 run paraell to I-35?

I-69 runs from Port Huron MI to Indianapolis.

[SteelTrap]

None of this would be necessary if they would just figure out how to make that damn personal jet pack thing-a-ma-jig work! What? No jet packs? Well then my second coice would be.....

Bring back Ike and make him Project Manager in Chief!

http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956:

In February 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) designated the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States." (Other "wonders" include the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Darn, and the Panama Canal.) The interstate system has often been called "the greatest public works project in history." It not only linked the nation, but it boosted productivity and helped sustain a more than tenfold increase in the gross national product since the start of the program in 1956.

His first realization of the value of good highways occurred in 1919, when he participated in the U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. During World War 11, Gen. Eisenhower saw Germany's advantages as a result of the autobahn network, also noting the enhanced mobility of the Allies when they fought their way into Germany. These experiences shaped Eisenhower's views on highways. "The old convoy," he said, "had started me thinking about good, two-lane highways, but Germany had made me see the wisdom of broader ribbons across the land." When President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in January 1953, the states had completed 10,327 kin of system improvements at a cost of $955 million. Only 24 percent of interstate roadway was adequate for present traffic.

The 1956 act called for uniform interstate design standards to accommodate traffic forecast in 20 years). Two lane segments, as well as at-grade intersections, were permitted on lightly traveled segments. (However, legislation passed in 1966 required all parts of the interstate highway system to be at least four lanes with no at-grade intersections regardless of traffic volume.) On June 26, 1956, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 89 to 1. That same day, the house approved the bill by a voice vote. In August 1957, the numbering scheme for the interstate highways was announced and the red, white, and blue interstate shield was unveiled. Many of the states had submitted proposals for the shield, but the final version was a combination of designs submitted by Missouri and Texas.

[BobL]

"Are they calling it I-69 because it will suck at both ends?"

Now, you know the rules here on FR. But seriously, the north end of I-69 (in Mich and Indiana) is an excellent freeway, I've driven it many times. It's only our luck in having Perry as governor at this end that almost assures it will be useless to most Texans (technically, I guess we could use it, but only by paying through the teeth).

[Dan from Michigan]

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I didn't know it was a planned extension of the same I-69 in my state.

[BobL]

"Bring back Ike and make him Project Manager in Chief!"

Great posting. We could EASILY afford to upgrade the system to meet current needs and it would be much cheaper (in a relative sense) than it cost to build back then. But when you've got a gas tax that can't even index to inflation and a psycho governor, we get this result in Texas.

I love this state, but unless this plan is stopped, I'm out of here once I can get a job transfer.

(and to you Texas toll road lovers, don't get your hopes up, I'll still be researching and commenting on Texas)

[Dan from Michigan]

But seriously, the north end of I-69 (in Mich and Indiana) is an excellent freeway, I've driven it many times.

I agree, although it's easier since it doesn't hit our two big cities(Detroit/Grand Rapids). In Michigan, the only 100,000+ cities that I-69 hits are Lansing and Flint, and most of the big Lansing traffic goes on US-127 or I96. Most of the big Flint traffic goes on I-75 or US-23.

Makes things much easier.

[SteelTrap]

As a native Texan, they'll take my toll tax when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Wanna know how much I despise toll roads? I work in Plano and I drive the service road, with all the lights, every day just to keep from donating to the Man. I got my fill of toll raods when I lived in New Jersey, California and, yes, even my beloved Oklahoma.

I have no problem with tolls as long as there is an expiration date. It is the idea of taxation without representation or taxes redirected to non-road related expenditures that sticks in my craw. Who says it isn't important to vote in local elections?

[endthematrix]

Any thought that it's raising the general welfare of Texas and the Nation?

[endthematrix]

HA! Will you be here all week?

[BobL]

"As a native Texan, they'll take my toll tax when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

Amen - but the supports are the people that see the freeways falling behind in capacity and no other solution being seriously proposed. My guess is that they have the several thousand dollars available to spend on the toll roads, so they are dead-set in favor. Unfortunately they also have a lot of political power.

If I had the financial means to ignore my transponder bill - and needed to travel on clogged freeways, I would be tempted to be with them.

I've been called everything short of a Communist on this website because of opposition to Perry's plan, so it's nice to hear from you (and I know that there are many, many, others like you).

[HarryCaul]

So pay for it with public funds, and keep private profit out of it.