TX Transportation Comm. Ric Williamson interviewed on KSEV (new information on Trans-Texas Corridor)

Question.... Who you coping and pasting from?... why not provide a link?

Thanks

It's designed to generate revenue first and provide transportation second. The Corridor plan is designed to provide transportation funds, more than transportation. Rather than identify specific transportation needs and offer solutions, the Plan defines funding as the need and the Corridor as the solution. Accordingly it's not important where the Corridor is built, as long as it generates revenue.

Nice soundbites and spin, but false. The specific transportation need identified was the I-35 corridor, which is often congested even in rural areas, and which the first TTC Corridor will parallel. Your accusation that it doesn't matter where it goes if it makes money is just hyperbole contradicted in your later statements, where you say it isn't needed. How can it make money if there is no demand for it?

Potential for tremendous liabilities created by Comprehensive Development Agreements. The Corridor plan is based on design-build-operate-maintain contracts called Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDA). While new to Texas, these CDAs have been used in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, China, Malaysia, and Hungry. These contracts often include equity guarantees, debt guarantees, exchange rate guarantees, subordinated loans, shadow toll payments, and minimum revenue guarantees. Most troubling is a class of support called "revenue enhancements" that may limit competition and allow the development of ancillary facilities.

Except some of those techniques have already been eliminated based on previous statements of what the state will or will not accept. But good idea to be vigilant and read the fine print, let's hold TXDOT accountable and watch them closely.

Since they are still negotiating the proposed agreement, how can you or I know what is or isn't there, other than by previous public statements? The contract has not been signed, so obviously the details can't be released yet, since they haven't all been agreed upon.

The Plan is based on uncertain assumptions. The Corridor plan is predicated on a projection that Texas population growth will continue at a rate of 30,000 new residents a month. The Plan however does not share projection details such as population distribution or how the proposed corridors will serve that population.

Well there are plenty of places to get population projections, and the consensus among all of them is that Texas is going to grow, the only question is how much, and short of a WMD catastrophe the range is from fast growth to very fast. Even after the economic slowdown DFW is still growing by approx. 140,000 a year, Austin has slowed but is still growing and showing signs of accelerating again, and San Antonio is adding 30,000 per year. The road connects all 3, and that's about 2/3rd's of Texas' population growth. Anyone looking at a map can discern how the TTC will serve them (hint for those in Rio Linda, look at the roads it crosses that head into cities, like I-10, Hwy 71 and 290, Hwy 287 and I-45, etc. People would use those roads to get on and off it.)

Doesn't solve the problem. The singular focus of the Corridor plan is to build corridors that connect regions of the state intentionally bypassing urban centers. Those metropolitan areas are left to deal with their own traffic and mobility problems, including access to the Corridor. Since our large cities are the traffic generators the Corridor will offer little if any relief.

Except taking all the through traffic off congested I-35 in Austin, I-35E and I-35W in DFW. The TTC isn't designed to solve all problems, but it is one part of the solution. There are numerous other projects dealing with urban traffic. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Inefficient transportation plan. A basic transportation principal is that an efficient highway connects two destination points with the shortest and most direct route. The Corridor plan however makes no direct connections to regional traffic generators nor destinations. The result is a longer traffic path, higher construction costs (including land right-of-way acquisition), higher maintenance costs, higher vehicle fuel consumption, more air pollution generation, higher tolls, and longer travel time.

False, it will directly connect to several major roads that come into or out of DFW, Austin, and San Antonio, not to mention other intercity routes. Because of congestion and too high demand on the direct route, indirect routes that have less congestion are often the fastest way between 2 points. For example, when going from DFW to Galveston, I-45 is more direct, but often taking I-610 east to avoid downtown is the faster, but longer route. And vehicles pollute more while idling in congestion than moving at posted speeds.

Adverse economic impact. Taking business away from hundreds of Texas communities by limiting traveler access and providing, in its place, State contract concessions that will include gas, food, hotels, stores and more, apparently without limit. This smacks of Nationalizing the state's travel and tourism industry. Relocating businesses won't add to our economy. In fact, it will drive local government costs up by requiring new infrastructure to support them. [more]

Totally ridiculous baloney. Every one has a choice on whether to use tollways or the existing free alternatives. "Nationalizing the state's travel and tourism industry" is such silly squawking, sounds like a Pelosi scare rant.

But why are you worried? Didn't you just claim that this doesn't serve any need? Thus no one will use it, so no business lost, and plenty of new business on the already congested existing roads, right?

Private Interests v. Public Interests. Private investment and partnership sounds like a good idea until you realize that 'their' goal is strictly profit driven (not transportation). Private investment will involve bonds and bondholders who naturally want to protect their money and will insist on terms and conditions that can be contrary to the public good. That leads to the kind of 'bad' deals made in California necessary to keep the private money interested. [more] [privatization white paper]

Ooh, the evil privatization. So based on your above statements privatization is a bad idea for education, Amtrak, and the postal service? Is that your stance?

Loss of local property taxes. The approximately 580,000 acres consumed by the Corridor will become State land taken off county and school district tax rolls. Local taxpayers will absorb the difference. Every mile of Corridor will take approximately 146 acres of land off the tax rolls. And that's before land is added for other corridor developments. And when concession businesses develop on this State land there will be lease payments but there won't be any real property tax growth for the local jurisdictions. [source]

Finally, a legitimate issue. The loss of local property taxes for rural jurisdictions that often can least afford it is a real issue. Don't know yet how TXDOT plans to address this, but perhaps some type of offset is a legitimate use of the $1.2-$1.4 concession payment Cintra is making to the state.

BTW, if you'll reread the top of this thread, the maximum corridor width has been reduced to 800-1000 feet, so the acres per mile would be in the 97-121 range.

Too much money! We simply can't afford a $184 BILLION Dollar project. It doesn't matter whether it is tolls, fees, or taxes - If they create the debt (public or private), we the citizens of Texas will ultimately pay the tab whatever you call it. Urban centers will pay even more just so they can address their own problems and connect their highways to the Corridor.

False. It has been previously stated and repeated that the developer is assuming ALL the risk of the construction bonds. But even if the worst happened, the firm defaulted, and the state did decide to take over and assume the operational debts, they'll get a cutrate price on the road, since the investers who fronted the money will have already paid for most of it. Plus the $184 billion figure is only a buildout cost. If any portion fails, the remainder won't get built, so even if the state later negotiates an agreement where they assume the risk on a corridor, at most they would be out the cost of that corridor (a few billion at most). Sounds like just another argument to throw out and scare those who don't know the details, regardless of the truth. Just like Congressional Democrats, throw out a bunch of falsehoods and hyperbole and see what sticks.

Creates a 'soft' terrorism target. This is not the time to put so many critical infrastructure elements in one place. Given the design and placement, the Corridor will be an incredibly soft target, the protection of which would be not only impractical but virtually impossible.

False. Actually this reduces points of vulnerability, in that hazmat shipments (both road and rail) are moved from numerous routes through communities onto a few corridors which are more easily patrolled. Which is another reason to circumvent urban areas rather than run through them. The TTC enhances safety. There is no way to terrorist proof roadways and rail lines, but at least this plan moves the biggest targets to areas away from concentrated populations.

Dividing the State. Nearly one-quarter mile wide corridors will cut Texas up into pieces like the Great Wall of China, making it more difficult to get from one place to another. Many landowners will find that they have the choice of keeping land they can no longer access or sell it to the state.

Did you even read this article before posting? (or more likely cut-n-pasting)

That was already addressed, but I'll try again.The TTC will result in less division from a few consolidated corridors than the same capacity in dozens or hundreds of separate road and utility corridors. Take a piece of paper and draw 4 lines that crisscross. Then take a piece of paper and draw 40 lines that crisscross. Which paper is divided up more?

Turns private land into State land. The Trans Texas Corridor project authorizes the Commission to take private land away from its current owner to lease it for any commercial, industrial or agricultural purpose. More than one-half million acres will become government property used not only for transportation but as State owned rental property in direct competition with private business. [more]

A degree of validity, but as usual overwhelmed by activist hyperbole. Every new road built turns some land into state land. Are you saying we shouldn't build any more roads? Adding the same road capacity to the existing I-35 would also require takings by eminent domain, except that it would involve more landowners and much higher costs.

Toll roads represent double taxation. Motorists already pay for highways at the gasoline pump, vehicle registration counter, and at auto supply retailers. They should not have to pay for highways again when they exercise their right to travel on them. [proposition 15, house briefing paper]

I empathize with that sentiment, but there just isn't enough gas tax to build the roads that are needed. There already is a long waiting list of road projects where the demand justifies construction, but which are awaiting funds.

Passenger rail hasn't worked anywhere in the world except in dense urban districts — That ain't Trans-Texas pardner! And that's too bad since this is the only forward thinking transportation element in Corridor plan.

Actually the entire plan is forward thinking. Agree that passenger rail isn't economically justified, but it is wise to set aside ROW in case it does become either viable in the next 100 years.

Air pollution. A don't fix it, just move it approach. This plan doesn't reduce pollution, it simply pushes vehicle pollution away from the large urban district into rural Texas. what's more, it generates more air pollution since vehicles moving between large cities will travel further with their engines running longer than taking a direct route.

Just another argument to throw out to see what sticks.

Thanks guys!

You're welcome.

Whew! That's enough refuting myths and hysteria for me, someone else can take over.

That's why I asked ol' Watson who it was posting for.... This is its first post with a sign of date of Aug. 5, 2004. Guess it was just waiting for the correct topic to surface and you seemed to have been the provider.....

Thanks for the ping!

Pro TTC Ping!

This is a pro Trans-Texas Corridor ping list.

Please let me know by Freepmail if you want on or off the list.

That is a good point, regarding the costs with the hills. I just thought it was odd it had not even been considered as an option. I mean, one of the proposed routes looks like it goes half way to 45! That is not exactly "easy" for Austin to get to... but the hills issue would be a valid concern, though it would make for a pretty drive...

Those involved, Perry who would not know what to order for a dinner if he had to pay for it. TXDOT who builds their projects backwards so the funding is not cut and leave a road incomplete.
The person that sold Perry that running gas and power lines up the route would be cheap, we are talking billions.

This puppy smells so bad it is difficult to gain a breath of air.

I am a long term Republican, but this is not right.

The person that sold Perry that running gas and power lines up the route would be cheap, we are talking billions.

I doubt if it would cost billions, but those would be built by the companies who utilize them, not the taxpayer.

BTTT!!!!!!

there's no doubt in my mind that it needs to be built.

but i question the secrecy.

and why there wasn't more public involvement in the letting of the contracts.

now that the contracts are let, the state wants to involve the public.

also, i'd prefer a gasoline hike to pay for the roads.

Although I can't say for sure at a glance, it looks like Corridor Watch to me.

Maybe, I didn't go check but it was from some site opposing the TTC. My question was really trying to get him to own up to his post and at least provide a link if he's going to cut/paste stuff .... He signed up 8/5/04 and this is/was his only post todate....