Posted on 02/18/2005 9:27:41 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
Not since the Texas High Speed Rail Authority proposed the controversial "bullet train" in the early 1990s has a transportation initiative riled so many landowners. But is the Trans Texas Corridor for real? Or is it merely a concept? Is it a visionary plan for Texas' exploding population and highway congestion, or a train wreck for agriculture? The answer seems to depend on whom you ask.
With that in mind, the Texas Farm Bureau, at its recent Leadership Conference in Austin, held a special session on the Trans Texas Corridor. TFB voting delegates, during the 2004 state convention in San Antonio, adopted policy in opposition to the corridor. The forum gave leaders the opportunity to hear directly from lawmakers. For many attendees, more questions were raised than answered regarding the controversial transportation system, which, if built, will completely transform the state's highways over the next 50 years.
Rep. Mike Krusee (R-Taylor), who coauthored the corridor legislation (HB 3588) with State Sen. Steve Ogden (R-College Station), told Texas Farm Bureau leaders they were confused about the size and scope of the TTC because it had been "misportrayed in artist renderings."
"I'm here to tell you we are not going to build all that stuff," said Krusee, adding that there would be additional hearings on the subject during this legislative session, and "in my office."
Some conferees suggested that Krusee's comments contradicting what had appeared in Texas Department of Transportation news releases, brochures, and on the Trans Texas Corridor's official web site, created a "credibility problem."
It has been reported, discussed in hearings, and stated in various Texas Department of Highways and Trans Texas Corridor news releases, as well as on the official TTC website, that the proposed corridor would create a 4,000-mile network of multimodal corridors for transporting goods and people by car, truck, rail and utility line. Each corridor would have six lanes for cars, four additional lanes for 18-wheel trucks, half a dozen rail lines and a utility zone for moving oil and water, gas and electricity?even broadband data. The projected cost for the mammoth highway system is $183 billion, which would come from private companies who would offer franchises to businesses and collect tolls to pay for it.
Krusee called the Trans Texas Corridor "a concept."
"TxDOT made people aware. Ultimately, they are only allowed to do what the Legislature authorizes," he said.
The Williamson County lawmaker said transportation problems must be addressed because traffic congestion has a direct relationship to the economy. He said he first realized the urgent need to fix choke points on I-35 when Williamson County lost 10,000 Dell Computer jobs to another state because of an inadequate infrastructure to accommodate 800 truckloads of computers that are shipped out daily.
"Basically, our current system has reached the end of its useful life," Krusee observed.
Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, also a session speaker, commended Gov. Rick Perry for his visionary approach towards planning for future transportation needs. Then she proceeded to state her concerns regarding the TTC's impact on her constituents, and her hometown of Brenham, which is right in the corridor's proposed path.
"The width of it bothers me. Look at the width (which by some estimates is a quarter of a mile across)," said Kolkhorst. Kolkhorst, vice chair of the House Rural Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who focus on issues important to rural Texas, cited other worries, such as the amount of acreage involved, access, and accountability, since foreign investors (Spain-based Cintra) have been awarded the initial contract.
"Cintra is going to lend us money. It takes TxDOT too long to build highways. Private contractors can build it a whole lot quicker. That's positive. As for the tolling fee, I'd like for the Commission to have some say over the tolls," she said.
Kolkhorst also questions whether or not the proposed franchises will actually be subject to free market pressures if ingress and egress is controlled. And she questions whether or not the corridor will really be an asset to Texas.
"Are we building a big NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) corridor? Are we making Texas stronger? We must remain fervent and focused on making Texas better, so we can produce something and not just become a service industry. If you study history, you don't give away your seed corn...We need a balance on the amount of land taken out of production," she said.
In an interview during the conference, State Sen. Todd Sta-ples, who chairs the Transportation and Homeland Security committee, like Rep. Krusee, characterized the corridor as a "concept."
"I want to assure everyone that it's more of a concept for the future than a reality today," said Staples, a Republican from Palestine in East Texas. "I think all Texans realize we're in a mobility crisis in this state today. And we have to think long-term on how to solve this crisis we face and the long-term arena. Now, a regional corridor from San Antonio to Dallas has raised some concerns, and rightly so. We're working with private property rights groups like the Texas Farm Bureau to find ways to ensure that landowners are not taken advantage of in this process. We're thinking outside the box on ways that landowners might receive royalties...how landowners could continue to utilize land that's actually not being used for the transportation corridor. We're looking at access issues to ensure that landowners' property is not unfairly divided, and always to ensure that just compensation is provided to those landowners. And we're also looking to see that the formulas for compensation are fair."
Dist. 12 State Rep. Jim McReynolds (R-Lufkin) said the Trans Texas Corridor is "still a dream." McReynolds said his solution for moving traffic in Texas would be to expand the "foot print" of existing highways by building lanes for trucks.
"There are issues with Trans Texas Corridor that give rural members heartburn. We're not sure in terms of `quick take' what that means to us. Our biggest issue is access," said McReynolds, expressing concern that owners whose property is dissected by the corridor might have to drive 30 miles or more to get to the other side unless there is an overpass or underpass. "We've got to weed through those things. Mike Krusee is coming to the Rural Caucus to talk to us about it. Frankly, there's a fear factor. This is a private property ownership state. To some extent that threatens a little. We're not against it. We'd like to move traffic, but we just want to be darn certain that all the pieces come together favorable to everybody."
Property rights infringement was the leading concern among lawmakers interviewed. Dist. 11 Sen. Mike Jackson (R-Shore Acres), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, made a strong statement.
"We must make sure we don't go too far in allowing the government the ability to come in and condemn land. We don't need to let the government go crazy and take people's property for the Trans Texas Corridor right-of-way," said Jackson, whose district lies southeast of Houston.
Jackson emphasized the importance of addressing potential problems, such as access, in the developmental stage. Like Krusee, he said the TTC plan includes a number of proposals which are not set in concrete.
"If we keep attuned to exactly what's going on with the highway department, I think we can make some changes there so we do not overrun property owners' rights," he said.
State Rep. David Swinford (R-Dumas) said landowners had every right to be concerned.
"That bill gave unprecedented power to the transportation system. It negated some of the things about property rights our forefathers fought and died for," said Swinford, a Republican who represents Dist. 87.
The Panhandle lawmaker said the Legislature must be very careful, if the TTC goes forward, to ensure adequate landowner protections.
"It's not just a rural Texas issue. It's an issue of Texans," said Swinford. "I think you'll find that urban people will be just as upset about the loss of property rights as rural people will be, and I think they will be very helpful to us. It's not to say it (the Trans Texas Corridor) is not a great idea and all that, but we need to make sure we have property protections."
Dist. 53 Rep. Harvey Hilderbran (R-Kerrville), who represents a large swath through the Texas Hill Country and west, voiced yet another concern.
"I'm hearing more about the Trans Texas Corridor as it relates to infrastructure in the right-of-way," said Hilderbran. "I knew there was going to be some utility and telecommunications, that the State was going to try to do the same thing as the cities do, and charge a franchise and basically require where those lines go and things like that. I was aware of that last session. What I was not aware of, and what we've got to protect ourselves against, is to use that as a distribution system for water, to take water away from agriculture in rural areas and move it to population centers."
Hilderbran, a member of the Natural Resources Committee with oversight with respect to water, is working with Rep. Robby Cook (D-Eagle Lake) on a bill that would require any public entity, such as TxDOT, to comply with the rules of local underground water districts.
"That's not the case right now," Hilderbran noted. "Under this bill, if they decide to mine water, and we need to let them have a well field, they must comply with local regulations and get a permit. That will put a stop to a lot of that."
Rep. Rick Hardcastle (R-Vernon), chairman of the Agriculture and Livestock Committee who also serves with Hilderbran on the Natural Resources Committee, made some cogent points regarding TTC investor participation. Said Hardcastle, "One of our arguments is if you're going to condemn my farm and put an eight-lane highway down the middle and then turn around and lease out the median to a fast food restaurant, why are we being cut out of being able to own that fast-food restaurant?"
Hardcastle said a statute already in place for a landowner to collect tolls as one of the investors needs more specificity, and he will work towards that end. On a final note, Hardcastle said the corridor did not bode well for the future of Texas agriculture.
"The Trans Texas Corridor is one of the scariest things on the horizon for agricultural landowners. It can be a great thing for the future of Texas, no doubt, and is probably needed since we're 10 to 15 years behind on highways, but it can also be the largest wreck production agriculture's been through in the last 100 years," he said.
In Part II, some landowners located in the likely path of the proposed Trans Texas Corridor will have their say.
No, honestly I didn't. I may be stubborn, but I have no problem admitting it if I misunderstood or am just flat wrong.
Questions remain, though.
HOW will we make sure foreign truck maintain a safe level of operation?
HOW does the state justify allowing a monopoly to be created for the benefit of a PRIVATE company?
WHAT kind of safeguards are there to make sure the company doesn't try to financially rape the public?
Most importantly, IS this what the people WANT, or is it just legal contortions for the benefit of the government?
Any and all questions from every resident in this state need need to be addressed before they even APPROACH that piece of paper with a pen!
Oh my, then I must immediately apologize for accusing you of intentionally lying. I didn't realize that you thought they were going to take the entire wide-lined areas. If that were actually the case, I would be leading not only the fight against the idea, but a call for impeachment! So sorry for my vitriole, now your concern becomes totally understandable.
Let me cover a few basics, to make sure we are all on the same page. There is a concept to build about a dozen corridors across the state over a 50 year period. The one parallel to I-35 is the first under study, and likely the only one that would be built in the next 8-10 years. Currently TXDOT is in the planning process and still negotiating the terms with the winning bidder to build this, Cintra. When that negotiation is complete, the terms will be announced, but as I understand it, that still doesn't mean the project is 100% going to take place, as there are state and federal requirements still to be met.
Right now TXDOT (as required by law) is taking public comment on routing options, of which there are several 1-mile wide study corridors, as seen on the map in my previous link. None of these have been graded yet based on a list of criteria (cost, amount of disruption, proximity to urban markets, estimated use, etc.) That will happen later, at which point one option will be chosen as the preferred alternative, an actual 800-1000' wide ROW route will be proposed, and all that will again be put forward for public comment, but with more extensive question and answer meetings. Then there is more steps in the approval process, but I don't know the details about that. Earliest it would be approved is next year, and the earliest the first portions would be finished (Hillsobro to a connection with I-10 east of San Antonio) is 2009-10.
As to foreign truck safety, that is really a separate issue that affects all roads. I was (and still am) against the allowance of Mexican trucks up here, even realizing that the stated reason was because it was in a treaty where we got tradeoffs from Mexico conceivably of more value. Bad idea.
The monopoly issue is a concern, let's read the fine print when the actual contract is negotiated and released. My guess is that there will be caps on the toll rates that can be charged, unless demand is so high that raising rates is necessary to limit use so as to maintain traffic flow at the posted speeds(as has been used on other tollways, since the idea is you pay a premium to avoid congestion and get there faster.)
As to what the people want, I can only speak for myself. I was originally against toll roads, but having read up on them, I now think this is a good idea, because the alternatives are either:
1) Don't build, but since we are going to keep rapidly growing in population then we will become as congested as the Northeast, DC area, California, etc.
2) Build as freeways, which would require a large gas tax increase (from 20 cents to nearly a dollar, even if we cancel the portion of the gas tax that funds schools) because there are already road projects that have been delayed for years because of limited funds
3) Build as freeways, but no gas tax increase, meaning it would take nearly 3-4 times as long to build the needed capacity
4) Allow toll financing, so a private company would pay for the road and take the risk of default, but get it built sooner
You raise valid concerns. I'd urge you to research both sides, both for and against, because for me the more I learned, the more I think it is a very good idea.
Here's some more info from an interview on Dan Patrick's KSEV radio show a few days ago with Transportation Commish Ric Williamson about the TTC, perhaps it might start to answer some questions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344806/posts
LOL!
Let's face it, you hang around FR long enough, you can get a little *gun-shy*!
I, too apologize for my... well... panic attack. :)
I'm still not that sure about it.
Another big concern being how much freeway access will there be for the folks who don't 'volunteer' to pay the toll/tax?
But I will check up on it.
Thanks for the link.
Diddle E. Squat seems to have gotten things straightened out, so I won't pile on at this point.
There are some legitimate concerns with the whole corredor idea, but it won't be as bad as you initially feared.
HOW does the state justify allowing a monopoly to be created for the benefit of a PRIVATE company?
You pay for your ride, I'll pay for mine.
Interesting that New England is left entirely out of the picture...
Hell, I've even used DFW Airport as a toll road.
I'm doing this for nothing. All I did was collect links and pictures that had been posted on previous TTC threads and consolidate them into text files that I can copy and paste into a reply box on Free Republic. The files take up only 5 KB total on my hard drive, and they take just a few seconds to copy, paste, and post.
LOL Well, ya definitely got a leg up on me with the shortcut thing!
I can see why, though - not a bad idea. : )
Then why the hit and run style of posting?
shusssssssh...... don't let them find out we are getting free tolls for the ten years after completion... gotta have some bennies for all the promotional work don'tcha see.
Also, quite a few of the graphics I post are hosted on anti-TTC websites.
Believe it or not some people may not have seen any of the previous threads on Free Republic about the TTC. I'm just trying to make it easier to find the information that has previously been posted on these threads.
Don't feel obligated to explain your posting history to a 2 day old newbie and his forty questions... jmo of course
The environmentalists, if sufficiently motivated, could easily delay or disrupt the I 35 portion of the corridor. There happens to be an endangered species found in that area, the Houston Toad.
If a big enough stink is raised, some "accommodations" would certainly be made.
"There are issues with Trans Texas Corridor that give rural members heartburn. "
these are legitimate issues to be raised.
i grew up on a farm and witnessed the effect of an interstate highway on our neighborhood. some things that happened:
1. there were arguments between farmers over whose land was purchased and at what price. one farmer held out for an absurd asking price and the state merely rerouted the freeway.
2. the state used "divide and rule" techniques to dismantle groups of farmers from causing problems at public meetings.
3. the state purchased soil for building the overpasses and freeway from farmers. our neighbor sold too much and destroyed the farm. my father sold clay soil underneath the good soil insisting that they remove the topsoil and replace it, which they did with no ill effects.
4. the biggest impact was socially on our neighborhood. friends on the other side of the freeway had to drive long distances to visit. gradually visits became longer and longer until friendships dissolved.
many of the farm women embraced the freeways and formed new relationships and got jobs in the city.
the end result was that people that some people we knew well before the freeway, we no longer knew. they had become strangers.
5. crime reared its head. we never locked our doors or cars and trucks until the freeway came. also, there were always people stranded with broken down vehicles that needed to use a phone. i never was comfortable with people walking onto the farm from the freeway. some wanted gas, some money, etc.
this has lessened with the advent of cell phones.
6. the state up graded our freeway from asphalt to concrete. you can NOT hear yourself think within 2 city blocks of a concrete freeway.
it's not the same place after the freeway's built. that's "progress".
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.