Trans Texas Corridor could be San Marcos' new neighbor

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

[w6ai5q37b]

The corridor, as envisioned, would consist of a network of brand-new "transportation routes"...

FYI: These "routes" are a.k.a. NAFTA superhighways.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Also regarding the TTC:

Road show

Posted on Sat, Feb. 05, 2005

If you'd like to learn more about a proposed new Texas toll road that would parallel Interstate 35 from the Oklahoma border to Mexico, you'll have a chance at a series of public meetings planned for North Central Texas and other regions.

Meetings in North Central Texas will kick off with one in Dallas on Monday, followed by others Tuesday in Fort Worth and McKinney.

Other meeting locations this month in North Central Texas include Bowie, Cleburne, Denton, Gainesville, Granbury, Hillsboro and Mineral Wells.

Excerpted; the rest is at http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10825741.htm

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

Please let me know if you want on or off the ping list. Thanks.

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

It's probably the most congested Interstate highway in the US. A diversion of some of that traffice would be beneficial.

[isthisnickcool]

Call me jaded but I wonder how many suits in the Texas legislature have been "indirectly "buying up land around this boondoggle expecting to make a few bucks.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

From the article in Post #3:

But what's regrettably not planned for these meetings is an in-depth, informative presentation by Texas Department of Transportation officials on the project -- a presentation that could give a detailed overview of the project, followed by a question-and-answer session in which everyone could jointly participate.

[deport]

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.

---

This is bull..... The TTC isn't going to be bisecting any of these towns or at least not the smaller ones and I doubt any of the larger ones either. I think the purpose it to get it away from the towns and congestion. And the relocation of businesses.... I wonder where they are going? Not to the TTC as it's going to be a limited access roadway thus it won't have the exits/entrances one would see along say IH-35.

[DoughtyOne]

Why should they provide information and an opportunity for questions? We are the knaves. They are the kings. Does that explain it clear enough for you?

I'm LOL but it's no laughing matter. Government officials don't need no stinking questions!

[ken21]

it would be in the public interest if more were known about this.

but television and newspapers abdicated their constitutional roles a long time ago.

[Paleo Conservative]

Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic,

What gets me is that these opponents say the TTC won't decrease congestion in cities but will decrease the number of cutomers of businesses along existing Interstates.

The existing Interstate system in Texas was designed for a state with a population less than 8 million. We now have over 21 million. We'll have 40 million by 2040. Just where do the oppononent of TTC propose to increase the capacity of the highway system in Texas without adding new highways?

[PokeyJoe]

[deport]

What gets me is that these opponents say the TTC won't decrease congestion in cities but will decrease the number of cutomers of businesses along existing Interstates.

---

Consistent group aren't they?.....

[HarryCaul]

What is, though, is the forcible taking of private land, which will then be turned over to a private for-profit entity.

Very, very, very un-Republican.

[Paleo Conservative]

Since when did building a road either public or private not involve government's use of eminent domain to condemn private property? Well maybe the western railroads. But even then the government granted land claimed by American Indians to rail road companies.

[Ben Ficklin]

They are nationally designated High Priority Corridors and there are 45 of them thru-out the US.

The 4 in Texas are

20. US 59 Corridor aka I 69
23. I 35 Corridor
27. Camino Real Corridor that terminates at El Paso
38. Ports to Plains Corridor from Laredo to Denver including US 287 to the Canada border.

NHS High Priority Corridors

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

...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...

As I understand it, Cintra is the Spanish firm, while Zachry is a Texas firm, if I remember correctly.

[HarryCaul]

Lots of things have been done in the past that are bad ideas. Governments forcing land from one private owner to another is one of them.

Just because it was done before doesn't make it ok.

[deport]

What is, though, is the forcible taking of private land, which will then be turned over to a private for-profit entity.

---

Well I guess there are two options..

1. Let the gov't get the property, raise the tax base and bond obligations for 30 yrs or more and slowly build the roads over some long period of time..... or

2. Let the gov't get the same property, contract out the roadway building, operation, etc with a private firm with them providing the funding, not raise the tax base nor issue bonded indebtness.

If you assume the roads are needed then in either case you have the roads and the property taken by the gov't, in one case the tax payers put up the money or in the other case the private entity puts up the money

[Paleo Conservative]

Lots of things have been done in the past that are bad ideas. Governments forcing land from one private owner to another is one of them.

You didn't answer my question. It is impossible to build a road without taking land from someone. You should reread the constitution. The state is allowed to take private property for public uses but must compensate the original owner. There is plenty of precedent for governments to allow private companies to build roads. Where I have problems with misuse of eminent domain is where it is used to redevelop land for private purposes like building shopping centers.