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

[BobL]

" This kind of rhetoric would seem to be more at home on DU than FR"

I'd tend to agree in most cases with your comment (I knew my comment would touch off some responses). However, when you give what will amount to a right-of-way monopoly to a private company, isn't reasonable to assume that the interest of the State of Texas is nonexistent in their planning? That's basically my point.

[BobL]

"Whether people will pay tolls to travel the roadway is yet to be determined. But the fact that tolls are to be charged doesn't force those that don't want use the roadway to do so."

I think it's clear that we will pay tolls to use this new highway, unless you know of some other plan for paying Cintra.

But your second sentence is technically true, but ask yourself, if Cintra needs to charge, say 20 cents per mile, to make a reasonable profit, do you think that they will leave the state free to do whatever they want with I-35? If so, they could see a $7.2B investment wiped out simply by KBH being elected governor and adding 2 lanes each way to I-35. I cannot see any company leaving themselves exposed like that. Maybe Cintra will be the first - and if so, I'll publicly eat my words here at FR. But for now, I'm going to wait until I see the fine print of the contract before assuming that our (relatively) free interstate system will remain free, functional, and intact.

[Doohickey]

A man in search of a legacy proposes a solution in search of a problem.

[Doohickey]

Okay, I have a question: Whatever happened to railroads? I've always been told that railroad is less expensive and faster for bulk transport of goods on a set schedule than long-haul trucking.

[deport]

I think it's clear that we will pay tolls to use this new highway, unless you know of some other plan for paying Cintra.

---

True..... You misunderstood my other statement... I was trying to indicate that I'm not sure if ppl will pay tolls to travel the roads.... That is what I meant by it's undetermined at this stage... Or unless you know how people will react several years out in the future. I don't.

Companies invest money every day in ventures hoping to make a profit... Some succeed and many fail. Cintra is an international tollway operate but maybe they don't know what they are doing. Tollways exist in proximity to free roads today. Beltway 8 just a few miles outside of Loop 610 as an example. GHWBush Turnpike along side 635.

Executed contracts have clauses and will be adjucated if not honored no matter who is the Gov.

[BobL]

"I was trying to indicate that I'm not sure if ppl will pay tolls to travel the roads.... That is what I meant by it's undetermined at this stage... Or unless you know how people will react several years out in the future. I don't."

I assume you mean "people" by "ppl", if so I could not for the life of me see any other way this road will operate (maybe the state paying the tolls, but I seriously, seriously doubt it). We're hosed.

"Executed contracts have clauses and will be adjudicated if not honored no matter who is the Gov."

My concern is not that the contract is adjudicated correctly, rather it is what's in the contract in the first place. Subway couldn't even get anyone to open a franchise without some type of protection - what will be Cintra's?

[RckyRaCoCo]

heh, heh...was thinking the same thing

[PAR35]

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.

Even if you never drive on the toll roads, you benefit from them. Every car or truck they carry is one less car or truck you have to contend with on the alternate free routes.

[MissAmericanPie]

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.

Yeah, like we "send" goods to Mexico. Jan. 25th is heading right at us as the time to pass the FTAA treaty. If you care about the USofA remaining a sovereign nation get on the phone to your congress critters and senators and promise them a recall if they pass this disaster of a treaty that our fore fathers warned us about.

[PAR35]

I-69 is being extended from Indianopolis to the Mexican border.

" The proposed highway is part of the I-69 Corridor, which will link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. " http://www.i69dotd.com/

"Interstate 69 is a 1,600 mile-long national highway that will ultimately connect Canada to Mexico. I-69 traverses nine states from the Gulf of Mexico and Texas’s Golden Triangle, through the Mississippi Delta, the Midwest, to the industrial north and, finally, to Canada. The I-69 Corridor refers to the general location of the highway as defined by legislation with the stipulation that specific route locations must be determined through additional route location and environmental screening processes.

The purpose of the I-69 Corridor is to improve international and interstate trade in accordance with national and state goals; facilitate economic development in accordance with state, regional, and local policies; and extend the Interstate Highway System consistent with national, state, regional, and local needs."
http://www.i69dotd.com/WhyNewHighway.htm

[BobL]

"Even if you never drive on the toll roads, you benefit from them. Every car or truck they carry is one less car or truck you have to contend with on the alternate free routes."

I know - I do try to think that way. But what you say only applies if those free roads are not left to "wither on the vine" (to pardon an expression).

That's what happened in CA when they let a private company build a toll road down the center of the freeway. The private company extracted a non-compete clause, which meant they had final say over the State improving any parallel road section (within a certain distance). Think about that for a moment. Anyway, CA needed to add a singe lane 3/4 mile long (to a state road) to deal with a really nasty bottleneck, but they were prevented by the private company.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

That, I like.

[Aquinasfan]

Never seen 6 lanes across, except for the New Jersey Turnpike where the road is divided into two parallel 3-lane segments.

[VOA]

bump

[listenhillary]

Nothing like building a concentrated terrorist target.

[BobL]

"Even if you never drive on the toll roads, you benefit from them. Every car or truck they carry is one less car or truck you have to contend with on the alternate free routes."

One other thing - back when I lived in California in the 80s, they did a survey at a freeway on-ramp. The question that they asked was to the effect: "Do you support the proposed subway for Los Angeles, and why". The prevalent answer was "yes, because it will get people off the road". Of course it wouldn't get the respondents off of the road, as their driving outweighed the extra time and inconvenience of taking the train, but it would clear the freeways of those others.

Of course it did not and the project is a giant white elephant. Something like 90% of the few people who do ride the train do so only because their roughly parallel bus lines were eliminated due to the availability of the trains.

I see the same thing with grossly overpriced toll roads. Charge me about 5 cents per mile, as in Florida, the Northeast, or Midwest, I would at least consider the option. Start pushing 20 cents per mile, then I'll only use it in real emergencies, or if I'm somehow forced to use it. I think that one can argue, in the end, that with the toll road option being available, any thought to upgrading freeways is out the window (even if there is no non-compete clause), and the toll road becomes more of a way to lock up huge amounts of land and prevent it from development.

[Ben Ficklin]

"asian freight rerouted thru Mexico"

The new road from the Gulf of California to the SW Tex border will be called La Entrada al Pacifico

[Ben Ficklin]

The Oklahoma Extension

[BobL]

Thanks - we better hope some other states hook up to this, or it will be an even bigger White Elephant than I imagined.

[Ben Ficklin]

"other states hook up"

You can find info on the Ports to Plains Corridor which officialy runs from Denver to Laredo with a spur into Raton. There is a semi-official extension of this that follows US 287 to the Canadian border and some call this the "meat and wheat" corridor.

Consider that anything moving between the western plains of the US/Canada, the Rocky Mountain region, the Pacific NW and The Tex-Mex border, the Port of New Orleans, the soon to be expanded port in Baytown or the proposed deepwater port in Brownsville goes thru Texas.