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

[deport]

The utility industry has used this concept of taking private property to provide product for profit, or maybe a profit... Seems this is moving another leg of the transportation industry into that realm.... Airports usually take a lot of private property that is used by private companies for profit.... Concepts change and the buggy whip goes further out of existence.

[HarryCaul]

Well, this is redeveloping land via eminent domain for private purposes. The road will be operated as a toll road by a private entity.

You can say the public "needs" it, but how is that one bit different from saying the public "needs" a shopping center?

[BobL]

See, I'm not the only who thinks this plan STINKS.

There is a lot of oppostion out there. I would advise those people to sharpen up their arguments, because the TTC's main supporter is about to booted out of the governor's mansion.

Look at the politics here. A Republican governor, who, by all other measures has been a good conservative, is fighting for his political life in the state of TEXAS (not exactly a blue state).

And the reason is: He is shoving this corridor plan down our throats, and, as others have so eloquently expressed, without giving a damm as to what we think.

Every state is entitled to make a mistake when they elect a governor. Tennessee did that with Sundquist (also a Republican) - he promised no income tax, and then promptly tried to shove one down on everyone. We ousted him.

Likewise here in Texas, Perry has attempted (but so far failed), to increase the cost for thousands of people of people just trying to commute to work (by at least a $1,000 per year), by converting a freeway (SH 249) into a toll road, but we stopped him (and he attempted it at least 2 other times last year, but was also stopped).

In fairness to Perry's oversensitive supporters out there, I'm being told that he now doesn't intend to convert our freeways to toll roads (at least for the time being), but I have yet to see that as an official TXDOT policy.

Maybe one of you guys can nudge Perry's shoulder and ask him to officially publish it.

[BobL]

"Airports usually take a lot of private property that is used by private companies for profit.... Concepts change and the buggy whip goes further out of existence."

Back to the old: "Get with it, it's a done deal" line.

NO - we have the right to oppose anything that we don't like - or that is being shoved down our throats. It is (or at least was, before Perry took office), a free country.

And by the way, which major airport are you referring to that is privately owned. The last time that I check, they were government owned (but I could be wrong).

[deport]

And by the way, which major airport are you referring to that is privately owned. The last time that I check, they were government owned (but I could be wrong).

---

Wow you are correct... but most of the companies operating out of them are private companies operating for profit.... or at least an attempt at profit.

The TTC is going to remain a State owned facility and will operated and run for profit by a private company... same concept.

[BobL]

"Well, this is redeveloping land via eminent domain for private purposes. The road will be operated as a toll road by a private entity."

I think that there's a VERY strong constitutional case against this kind of bait and switch. I specifically remember reading editorials in the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a left-wing rag), in the 1980s, questioning the "Urban Redevelopment" that was going on and was using eminent domain.

Hopefully Bush will be able to get a few more conservatives on the Supreme Court. If he does, then they maybe we can shut down this whole concept of seizing private land to give to private companies, and we can have some sanity restored to how we build highways.

[BobL]

"Wow you are correct... but most of the companies operating out of them are private companies operating for profit.... or at least an attempt at profit.

The TTC is going to remain a State owned facility and will operated and run for profit by a private company... same concept."


Thanks, now if I were Diddle, I'd follow you around for months and scream that you lied to everyone. But I'm not. Actually, you appear to have some class.

But seriously, if the lease is for 50+ years, calling it a state-owned enterprise is really a fiction. And, back to airports, I still think that they are truly publicly owned. Yes, there are certainly private companies on the premises (airlines and concessions, for example), but there is not one overreaching, huge company, grabbing at everyone's wallets from the minute that they enter. And also, the ground that the airplanes taxi on, and the runways, are never privately owned, much less the air traffic control system.

[Ben Ficklin]

Raising the gasoline tax? It won't happen.

[Paleo Conservative]

"Wow you are correct... but most of the companies operating out of them are private companies operating for profit.... or at least an attempt at profit.

Lots of right of ways are operated by private companies for a profit. Would you prefer they were run by a government and required huge subsidies?

[Paleo Conservative]

Raising the gasoline tax? It won't happen.

Oh that's a great idea, raising gasoline taxes. Then the feds will just spend it on pork barrel projects like the big dig in Boston. It won't get back to the communities where the taxes are collected.

[Ben Ficklin]

Not the federal tax. Bob wants to raise the state gas tax 20 cents so he can ride for free.

[deport]

Oh that's a great idea, raising gasoline taxes.

---

Sounds like a democrat idea to me......

Why raise taxes or increase bonded indebtedness when you have a private company putting up the funding for the right to try and make a profit?....

[BobL]

"Raising the gasoline tax? It won't happen."

It may not. But it should be an option - and it should be tried. When I lived in California in the 1980s we voted to raise the gasoline tax by 9 cents per gallon (over 5 years), that's close to 20 cents in today's dollars (a bit less, probably - but a huge amount of new money for TXDOT).

I just can't take dismissing that option out of hand, as was done by Perry. Now if Perry loses, and, say Kay becomes our next governor, there's a good chance that she might level with the voters and tell them why an increase in the gas tax is a good idea, and make it clear that it is directed at highways. And the fact that Perry would have been defeated in the Primary, mainly because of his TTC scheme, would give her a lot of clout.

What I can't take from Perry is that he closed out the option without even trying.

[BobL]

"Lots of right of ways are operated by private companies for a profit. Would you prefer they were run by a government and required huge subsidies?"

I know of heavily subsidized rail corridors. I do not know of subsidized toll roads. If you are referring to a FREEWAY being operated by private company, and thus charging the government, I have no issue with that, if it can be done more cheaply than the government trying to run it.

In that case, there would be no profit motive to screw the drivers of Texas, as Perry is now setting up with Cintra.

[Ben Ficklin]

Perry would have nothing to do with raising the gas tax, except to veto it. The legislature will not pass a 20 cent increase.

Lets go thru this again. 20 cents won't be adequate.

MPG will continue to rise, diminishing the number of gallons to tax. The special interests in Austin will bleed the revenues generated.

[Paleo Conservative]

Not the federal tax. Bob wants to raise the state gas tax 20 cents so he can ride for free.

I guess he's also hoping the highways get built around the places he goes. South Texas has always gotten short changed. Every time there is a budget crunch, South Texas projects get delayed in favor or projects elsewhere. Corpus Christi was ten years late getting connected to the Interstate highway system. We still don't have a controlled access highway all the way from Corpus to Houston. I'd rather have toll roads that can get built quickly and provide alternative to having to go all the way to San Antonio and Austin when I want to travel to Dallas or Fort Worth. BobL just wants any expansion limited to existing highways.

[BobL]

"Not the federal tax. Bob wants to raise the state gas tax 20 cents so he can ride for free."

No, I wouldn't call it "ride for free", rather I would call it everyone paying their fair share.

In other words, if you want to drive in Texas, on any road, highway or not, you pay the same per mile. The problem that I have with toll roads (of any type) is they charge drivers 10 Times as much as surface streets, and they sure as heck do not cost 10 times per vehicle-mile to build. In other words, these toll roads are grabbing money only from certain people, while giving other people (you know, the ones clogging up our traffic lights and surface streets) a free ride.

And on that note - I have no problem with a per-mile tolling scheme, provided the following is meant:

1) I applies to all public roads, highways and streets
2) Every penny collected is put back into roads. If there is more money than needed for upkeep and expansion (which is very likely), the tolls are reduced.
3) REAL privacy protection is used - so no one can track you, either real-time, or in the future.
4) All tolling is equitable, without regard to time of day, or vehicle (possible exception for large trucks).

This, in my opinion, would be a perfect way to finance highways. Unfortunately I don't believe that it will ever happen, so I'm stuck with the gas tax as being the next best thing.

[Ben Ficklin]

"as Perry is now setting up with Cintra"

More mis-info.

There were three bidders. Cintra is the apparent winner

[deport]

We still don't have a controlled access highway all the way from Corpus to Houston

---

If South America becomes the player it may then at some point in the future you'll have controlled access roads headed towards the heartland of America. At least you have a four lane hwy most of the way now which bypasses a lot of the little towns.

[BobL]

"Sounds like a democrat idea to me...... "

Look, I haven't called you or anyone else a Nazi or a Fascist (although the idea of government teaming with private corporations kinda of sounds like...), so don't do something worse and call me a DEMOCRAT.

That is the bottom of the pit. It's one thing to commit genocide, it's an entirely different matter to be called something as demeaning as a Democrat.

Anyway, the last time I checked, there were a heck of a lot of Republicans who liked freeways, and fully understood that they were paid for by gas taxes. Aside from a few people here at FR, I'm having a VERY difficult time finding people who want to pay 20 CENTS PER MILE (or more) to drive on any highway.