I stole this from an anti-corridor website. It's really fun to use all the ammuntion they collected against them.
Posted on 02/07/2005 5:59:17 AM PST by HamiltonFan
Getting There: Ben Wear Time to pay attention to Perry's toll roads
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, February 7, 2005
Back when the Trans-Texas Corridor seemed to be only a 4,000-mile, $180 billion gleam in Gov. Rick Perry's eye -- that is, a year ago -- it was easy not to take it seriously.
The Texas Department of Transportation held informational meetings in all 254 Texas counties, and almost nobody came. At the one in Bastrop, there were three
real human beings, plus me and about a half-dozen Transportation Department employees who looked like they'd much rather have been at home with a cold one and their feet up.
A second round of 26 meetings in the spring drew about 30 civilians each, then the third go-round in the fall ginned up 2,891 people. Or about 1 out of every 7,600 Texans.
It's a little embarrassing to admit, but the Austin American-Statesman's transportation reporter was among the 7,599 no-shows.
But everything changed in mid-December, when the Texas Transportation Commission, with Perry on hand looking like a cat who had consumed an entire pet shop of canaries, announced that a consortium led by Spanish toll road builder Cintra was willing to build 300-plus miles of Trans-Texas Corridor, from San Antonio to the Oklahoma border, footing the $6 billion cost alone and throwing another $1.2 billion the state's way.
That instantly reframed the discussion from "What was Rick thinking?!!?" to "Is this superhighway going through my barnyard?" And that gives the next round of 47 public meetings, due to start today in Dallas and
Sherman, considerably more cachet.
Not so much in Central Texas, where, as it turns out, we already have six lanes of Trans-Texas Corridor under construction: Texas 130. What Cintra builds, assuming the Spanish company and the state reach accord on an initial planning contract, would connect to the 49-mile Texas 130 tollway on its south end near Creedmoor and its north end near Georgetown.
But even here, Texas 130 might not be all of the Trans-Texas Corridor we see. As Perry proposed it, the corridor would have six lanes for cars and four for trucks, six rail lines and room for pipelines and electric lines.
So, what are these meetings about? Well, there's a long process under federal law that requires highway builders to take into account environmental, sociological and economic effects in deciding where and what to build. These public meetings are part of the fact-gathering. Transportation Department officials say that what they hear will help them narrow the road's path to a 10-mile-wide corridor.
The Austin meeting is at 5 p.m. Feb. 28 at the East Communities YMCA, 5315 Ed Bluestein Blvd. (U.S. 183).
Right now, the state has a thoroughly baffling map (available at www.keeptexas moving.org, along with a list of the meetings) that shows a tangle of 10-mile-wide snakes going from Oklahoma, circling around or through the Metroplex, going east of Waco, Austin and San Antonio, and then heading to Laredo or the Rio Grande Valley.
If you want to help the state select a snake, you have your chance in the next two months.
Getting There appears Mondays. For questions, tips or story ideas, contact Getting There at 445-3698 or bwear@statesman.com.
You are correct, I-35 is not the country's most congested corridor, however it is significantly congested, and not just at rush hour in Austin. Having lived in Atlanta, DFW, Houston, and the Northeast US, I know what congestion is, and I-35 is up there for intercity freeways. It is worse than I-75 north and south of Atlanta, and in several places comparable to I-95 (which is larger.) Sure there are plenty of urban freeways that are more congested than I-35 as a whole, but that is apples and oranges. And the Dallas-Denton, Dallas-Waxahachie, Ft. Worth-Burleson, and Round Rock-Austin segments are very bad at rush hour and beyond.
Far, far more BS and hyperbole from the anti-TTC NIMBY's, especially on these threads.
If you're not gonna be honest in here, it might be time to leave this argument.
I've been 45 miles south of LA at 8:30 on a Monday night and had all 5 lanes at a standstill. No wrecks, just millions of people trying to get home.
I've traveled I-35 many times and you just are not telling the truth.
You are correct, which is why I used the phrase "since statehood" in my original comment. :-)
I've got another one for you. Try travelling U.S. 59 from Houston to Texarkana and then get back with me on that I-35 crap.
All the inter-city freeways are congested at rush hour all across the country every day.
That is not what this discussion is about. It is about the trans-Texas corridor and I can assure you that I-35 is about as free (of traffic) as a freeway can get out in the country.
I am talking about not having a 10 mile wide highway system. If they can somehow justify having massive passenger car lanes (which I doubt), then they should do it. but to have Trucks, Cars,Trains all in one system is not only a giant scar, but a traffic nightmare.
1) Will funnel more truck traffic onto truck-only lanes and off of rural interstates and local roads, including hazardous materials shipments.
2) Will eventually (whenever they find a way to self-fund the freight rail portions) move freight trains, including those shipping large amounts of hazardous materials, to these corridors and off of the tracks of far more routes that pass directly through small towns and grade crossings. Thus eliminating many of the most dangerous types of railroad/road crossings, the ones without any warning lights and gates that are the majority in Texas and primarily found in rural areas.
3) By consolidating growth into the TTC supercorridors, they will actually take less land than would have eventually been taken by adding the far more numerous new roads and upgrades of existing routes to build the needed same road capacity.
4) Same for utilities.
5) Possibly the same for rail.
6) If you don't live in a narrow 1/4 mile strip from Oklahoma to Mexico, or from Texarkana to S. Texas, this absolutely will not affect your land whatsoever for many years to come. There are more than 260,000 square miles in Texas, the 2 currently planned corridors will only affect less than 250 square miles. Take out the urban areas (5% of land in Texas), and you still have only 250 square miles affected out of 247,000+. So only 1 in 999 square miles of rural Texas land will be affected.
Even if (and that is the key word, 'if') the entire proposed network in the concept map for buildout over the next 50-100 years is constructed, it will affect less than 1,000 square miles of Texas. At worst, 1 of every 249 square miles of affected, 248 of every 249 square miles of rural land UNTOUCHED. And that buildout will not be reached based strictly on demand, but would only be completely built if RURAL legislators demand it as pork.
The 2000 census and projections show the eastern half of the state with large growth while the western half as barely stable with many areas falling in population.Consequently, each area's needs for roads are entirely different.
Why should west Texas pay for east Texas roads?
Why should Texans pay for a large amount of freight moving to and from the rest of the nation, Mexico, Canada, and the hemisphere. It is just not road vehicle freight crossing the border, but also what is/will be entering/exiting the ports. And it is not just the Texas ports, a significant of freight to/from the Port of New Orleans and other gulf ports will pass thru Texas.
Well one of your fellow opponents of the TTC just said that I-35 isn't that congested, and implied that Atlanta and California were far worse. The Atlanta reference (and likely the CA one) implied urban congestion, so I distinguished between the two. And fact of the matter is I-35 has both rural and urban congestion on significant portions of it. Taking some of the through auto and truck traffic off the urban portions by using the TTC does affect the urban congestion(though it certainly doesn't eliminate it) so it is relevant.
...and I can assure you that I-35 is about as free (of traffic) as a freeway can get out in the country.
Baloney. Hillsboro-Belton usually gets various levels of congestion Thursday-Sunday evening, Sunday afternoon, and any time during the week if there are accidents, which happen at a significantly higher rate than average because much of that stretch is over capacity. And it gets worse every year. DFW, Austin, and San Antonio are growing at a rate that every 6 years the equivalent of another metro Austin is added to the population along the corridor. You claim that Hwy 59 Texarkana-Houston is more congested than I-35, that is only because much of the former is not a freeway capacity roadway, which is why I-69 is being planned. Both corridors need capacity improvements, which is why these are the 2 corridors currently being planned for TTC routes. All the others are simply concepts at this time (and will be for awhile.)
Well then I have good news (and it has nothing to do with Geico!) No one is talking about or ever going to build a 10-mile wide anything. What is being planned are corridors that would be at most 1/4 mile wide.
When you hear talk in the media about a 10-mile wide corridor, that is actually only the refined study areas in which the final route decision of a 1/4 mile wide(maximum) route will be chosen from. The TTC just released a map of the refined study areas with several 10-mile wide study area corridors, only one of which will be chosen. Then within that one a 1/4 mile final route will be selected and acquired, while the 9 and 3/4 mile width of the study area will be left alone.
Here's the website with more info and explanation:
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/
Here's a list of meetings where you can ask questions(and I encourage everyone who can to attend and ask questions):
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/pdfs/TTC-35_Public_Meetings.pdf
Here's a link to the map of the TTC-35 corridor alternatives, which are approximately 10 miles wide study areas (the actual selected single corridor will be at most 1/4 mile wide):
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/pdfs/TTC-35_Alternatives_Map.pdf
The Port of Houston is the second largest post (traffic wise) in the U.S. I have no problem with a WELL RESEARCHED AND THOUGHTOUT plan. but when I hear the disscussion of this plan it appears to be some sort of thrown together quick fix. (not time wise)
The dredging of the Port of Brownsville into a deepwater port appears to be beyond the concept/planning stages. It will be not only a Texas port but significant for the maquilladoras and also Monterray.
As the US pacific ports become more congested, the relief valve will be deepwater ports on the Mexican coast in the Gulf of California. Most of this freight will pass thru Texas.
Only in the concept stages, the road is known as La Entrada al Pacifico and enters Texas at Ojinagua, crossing I10 and I20 ending where it intersects the Ports to Plains Corridor aka the Meat and Wheat Corridor.
Also only in the concept stages is the cross continent, northern Mexico container rail that terminates at the Port Of Brownsville.
Both La Entrada and the rail line will bring mucho freighto thru Texas.
Everyone needs to understand that Texas is/will be the Crossroads of the Americas.
Texas was already a state in 1850. It entered the union in December 1845.
I stole this from an anti-corridor website. It's really fun to use all the ammuntion they collected against them.
Would you please paste the La Entrada map onto this thread so everyone can see where the green road out there in the trans-pecos is headed to.
Done.
that's funny!
but not-so-funny too.
i suppose it's going to be like a lot of stuff. as the world economies "harmonize" to use an old word of the 1990s globalists, some people in this country will get richer and some poorer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.