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]

Okay... gotcha now.

[deport]

Those people using the TTC will be able to get on and make a 300 mile run at 85 mph.... 3 1/2 hrs... not bad.

Take care.... I'm outta here for the night.....

Don't pass any gasoline taxes as I'm not interested in paying more per gallon for my driving off the TTC....

[TXnMA]

Now please, be a team player.

LOL!!!

I am a team player -- on the opposing team!

And ol' Rabid Rickie P is soon gonna' learn that us [sic] Rural Texans make up one big ol' @$$-kickin' team! '-)

[Figment]

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.


this is a limited access highway, no advantage in having highway frontage

[MeekOneGOP]

Why, thank you ma'am. ;^)

Bump!

[StAnDeliver]

"Where I have problems with misuse of eminent domain is where it is used to redevelop land for private purposes like building shopping centers."

So you approve of a governor using eminent domain to split the nation's second-largest state in half for the express purpose of turning it over to a foreign corporation to build a giant shopping center unneeded, boondoggle tollway; but not only that, but with a contract that will expressly forbid the upgrade (with your tax dollars) of other government-supported shopping centers freeways?

You think anti-NAFTA, limited-government Pattie Boy would support something like this?

[StAnDeliver]

"Heck I don't won't to pay more for all my mileage around Texas most of which will never be on these tollways...."

Part of the new transportation code would allow tolls on any existing road, provided there's a non-toll alternative.

[dennisw]

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

EXACTLY!!!

I don't live in Texas, but off the top of my head this private toll road is an outrageous abdication of government responsibility. There is Gubbermint intrusion in so many areas of life, but where government should be they sell out to some effin' politically connected Spanish road building corporation. Partly to curry favor with Hispanic/Mexican-American voters. For them Spain is La Madre Patria.

This is exceedingly lame, is done by a people with no pride.

[StAnDeliver]

The thing that will end this boondoggle is when Cintra lets for bids in a year on who will have exclusive rights to provide services at the many "convenience centers."

So when YUM! outbids McDonald's (subtextually also Pepsi vs. Coke), when Choice outbids Intercontinental and Carlson and Best Western, that's when the fur will fly. Bet on it.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[BobL]

" I am a team player -- on the opposing team! "

Not opposing me - it was one of my few attempts at sarcasm on this topic. I'm trying to paraphrase the TTC supporters.

Now go out there and kick BU++!!

[palmer]

As far as I am concerned, it is underhanded. I have yet to see any details, any guidelines, anything at all, as to what Perry is giving away to Cintra. Perhaps you know something that others (including the media) doesn't know - and that gives you comfort that the deal is not so bad.

So Bob the Conservative (may we call you Bob the Conservative?) thinks his governer is a crook. Evidence? None, as you admit. But hey, you say, I never attack the governer or any other republican on any other issue. Great. So where are your conservative ideas for the roads? Publicly funded pork barrels like the big dig and Alaska's bridge to nowhere? You say you are in favor of tolls as long as they are "equitable" with the "possible" exception of trucks? That strikes me as socialism.

You are convinced (without presenting evidence) that the governer will grant a back door monopoly to Cintra. Let's say just for the sake of argument that he does not, that parallel roads continue to be maintained (although not expanded). In that specific case, would you be against the private road operator charging tolls according to market principles as opposed to government charging by politics and bureaucracy?

[BobL]

(this is not directed to you, StAn)

Hmmm, let's see.

Now the supporters out there are starting to make me think a bit more, and that can be dangerous to you guys. You may just want to back off, since you've already have the legislation you need, the Constitutional Amendments you need, and the governor you need. You really have no reason to keep trying to sell this idea - you can just shove it down our throats and tell us that we all agreed to it, both directly by approving the Constitutional Amendments (in 2002), and indirectly through our legislature. As long as you keep supporting this, I will come up with new reasons to oppose it - and believe me, the right people are reading these threads.

But, if you keep insisting on trying to support this measure, I will have no reason, but to not back down.


So, here go. Consider this scenario: Cintra builds their new toll road, and it operates pretty much as planned. To start with, they build it with 3 lanes each way, with cars and trucks sharing the same concrete. Tolls, for the sake of argument, are 20 cents per mile for cars, and 50 cents for trucks. The road gets some usage, but not a whole lot.

Cintra then decides that they want to exit private road business. The will sell the road to the highest bidder. (can't happen - we don't know, or at least I don't know - I have seen nothing regarding what Cintra can do or not do with the highway)

A group of trucking companies that are sick of paying 50 cents per mile to drive on Cintra's highway, and also paying high costs to piggy back on trains decide that they will buy the highway.

Since their primary business is shipping as cheap as possible, rather than necessarily maximizing revenue from this one toll road, they decide that they don't want so many cars on their highway - since cars are the cause of something like 80% of the trucking accidents in this country, and are just a royal pain in the butt to truckers. So they decide to charge exactly the same toll for cars and unaffiliated trucks - 50 cents per mile, while letting their trucks travel for free (relatively speaking).

All of a sudden, this new highway becomes nearly a truck-only highway, and all you people who dreamed of sailing along at 90 MPH in your SUVs end up having to save up your money months ahead of time - for that one experience.


Can't happen here. Yea.


Well something very similar (I know, I know, not the same) did happen in Europe. Over there they sold out their air traffic control system to a private bidder. You know who the bidder was. It was a bunch of airlines. You know what the first thing that those airlines did was. They essentially shutdown non-commercial air travel (i.e., small planes), by charging them horrific rates. You see those small planes just got in their way.

In this country, the FAA still owns the air traffic control system and is prevented, by law, from doing what happened in Europe.

Now, I'm not saying whether that's good for this country, overall, or not. I'm just saying to anyone who says it can't happen here: WHY NOT. Who's to stop Cintra?

There is already talk of fleet discounts (from some insider, can't remember in this case). Once those discounts are in place, the money has to be recovered from somewhere (i.e., private cars and independent trucks). What does that mean - the non-discounted people, who may wind up being charged a lot more than 20/50 cents per mile could be pushed off into our crippled freeways.

Can't happen here - PROVE IT. But I can prove it will never happen with a gas tax, or a per-mile tolling (with the controls that I mentioned earlier).

[BobL]

"You are convinced (without presenting evidence) that the governer will grant a back door monopoly to Cintra. Let's say just for the sake of argument that he does not, that parallel roads continue to be maintained (although not expanded)."

You kind of trip on yourself on this segment. If I-35 cannot be expanded for 50+ years, then Cintra clearly has been provided monopolistic protections. I'll respond to the rest in my next posting.

[BobL]

"Great. So where are your conservative ideas for the roads?"

It's not possible. You cannot have a free market with roads, unless you have no monopolistic protections at all. But if that's the case, Cintra, and no one else will build (since no one would put their money at such high risk).

It's simply not possible. To have a truly free market on intercity ground transportation, you would have to allow Cintra to build their highway (again without protections) - but, for the sake of argument they still go forward with it.

Now, for the market to be truly free. A second company, say Bectel (sp.), decides that the market supports a second roadway, parallel and close to Cintra's roadway. Bectel would have to be given the same eminent domain power that were used to allow Cintra to build their highway. In other words, some of the poor property owners may have a second toll road cut through their land. This would then have to be repeated (or allowed to be repeated) several more times -
then you have a true free market.

Since I cannot see that ever being done, and there is nowhere in world where it's ever been attempted, I'm will to go out on a limb and say that a true free market is not possible in this case.


By the way, it does exist for air transport. That's what allowed Southwest to become the largest passenger carrier in the US, it just cannot be done on the surface. So given that, I choose to support the next best thing - an equitable roadway system.

[BobL]

"So Bob the Conservative (may we call you Bob the Conservative?) thinks his governer is a crook. Evidence? None, as you admit."

You're right, since I haven't seen the contract with Cintra (it's being negotiated in secret). I also haven't seen any hard-stops on the part of the governor - you know lines in the sand, that would protect Texans (such as maximum toll rates, and rate increases, for example). Maybe they're out there, but they are not being disclosed. So yea - I am suspicious when a politician says: "Trust me".


But there is some very smelly stuff regarding one of the key players who now works for Perry. Seems, he was a Cintra lobbyist just a few months prior. Doesn't prove anything - and it's possible he got into a car wreck in those intervening months and lost all memories of working for Cintra - but it does stink.

[DaGman]

"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."

You're not jaded. You've lived in Texas long enough to know.

[BobL]

"Publicly funded pork barrels like the big dig and Alaska's bridge to nowhere? "

As to pure pork. I'm really not aware of that much happening at the state level (certainly nothing that big in Texas). But you are right, at the federal level it can be ugly. But I still trust an open process.

[palmer]

Now, for the market to be truly free. A second company, say Bectel (sp.), decides that the market supports a second roadway, parallel and close to Cintra's roadway. Bectel would have to be given the same eminent domain power that were used to allow Cintra to build their highway.

Thanks for the straw man. I gave you an example in another thread of a real world private toll road. Not Texas sized of course, just 14 miles through Loudoun County Virginia. There's plenty of incentive to keep the parallel roads up to snuff since they support a number of rapidly growing commercial outlets. The same will be true in Texas, the alternative roads will support alternative commercial and political interests and they will get their share of funding.

But you didn't answer my question. What is wrong with a single private toll road setting the toll rates given that there already are and will continue to be publicly funded alternative roads?

[BobL]

"But you didn't answer my question. What is wrong with a single private toll road setting the toll rates given that there already are and will continue to be publicly funded alternative roads?"

It's a leap of faith that true alternatives will exist. We simply do no know the extent of the protections being offered to Cintra.

And, yes, I could be full of it, and our governor outsmarted Cintra, and got a very good highway for a cheap price. But Cintra's record elsewhere shows that they are very shrewed negotiators, with a lot of experience, and I seriously doubt that any governor in Texas, from any political party, can go toe to toe with them in secret negotiations.

As to your example, keep in mind that highway was a disaster at the beginning, and nearly went (or did go) bankrupt in 1996. But, overall, why couldn't the road have been built by the government (and thus no corporate entity siphoning toll money out of the state - or even out of the country) - and no monopolistic protections - an the possibility of it becoming a freeway (in my lifetime - as happened in Kentucky).

After all in, the Houston area, the counties were just as capable of building overpriced toll roads as any private company.