Trans Texas Corridor: Visionary concept or a train wreck for agriculture?

Texas Agriculture ^ | February 18 , 2005 | Lana Robinson

[ken21]

you rang?

[MamaTexan]

If a big enough stink is raised, some "accommodations" would certainly be made.

I'd really rather not do the environ-weenie route.

After my initial embarrassing assumptions earlier today, I've spent a good deal of today reading up on it.

I still don't like it.

One thing I haven't found is whether or not this beast will be coming up for a vote, or will the people be bypassed?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

One thing I haven't found is whether or not this beast will be coming up for a vote, or will the people be bypassed?

Depends on whether they think it would pass ;-)

[ken21]

#39

[Diddle E. Squat]

And I've seen it debated here ad nauseum

Goodness gracious, ain't that the truth! I'm about ready to retire from defending the concept...

Besides, I know & admire Sir Diddly too much to argue with him on something he feels so strongly about. ; )

Aw shucks, now you've gone and made me feel even worse on a thread where I've already jumped to the wrong conclusion and rudely made a fool of myself! Seriously though, if you ever feel like posting the things you see wrong with this idea, please do, cause you know I highly respect and value your insights.

Hopefully in the next few months we'll get a good bit more info as the contract negotiations are completed and published, and the actually preferred route is defined (in a year.)

[Diddle E. Squat]

What happend to republicans being the party of limited government?

Letting private companies build roads instead of the state doing it with tax funds is clearly limiting gov't.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Living in the state of Texas I can tell you that not very many people, outside of those who have a direct monetary or governmental stake in this project, want it to happen.

Interesting, because I've met plenty of Texans, who have no vested interest other than driving in the traffic, who are open to or in favor of some or all of the idea. I don't think anyone can anecdotally get a true read on the public opinion on this thing, at least not right now. Too many varied opinions and not enough info yet.

[FactsMatter]

Only if you ignore the people with guns forcing you to sell your private property so a private company can use it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

As opposed to the people with guns forcing you to sell your private property so the state can use it for the same exact use?

The only difference here is that the state is subcontracting out the roadbuilding, operating, and maintenance contract to a single company as a package instead of some of it in individual packages. The state will still own the roadway. But instead of spending taxpayer dollars to build, the state will let a private company spend investor dollars and then charge a toll to recoup their investment.

[BobL]

"#39"

Good points, what'cha getting at?

[ken21]

i'm for building freeways.

the population is going to increase. trade will increase.

my problem, as i stated on threads you were on before, is that i don't like toll roads.

also, i don't like the secrecy. the secrecy leads me to believe that the tax payers are being hoodwinked.

i would be in favor of more citizen input, of legislative involvement, and an increase in gasoline taxes to fund the freeways.

finally, life will not be the same after freeways are built. that's the point of #39. been there, done that.

[BobL]

You sound very reasonable to me (unlike some others).

I think you'd agree that the best way to deal with adding capacity is to widen existing freeways, perhaps even building truck freeways alongside - but not cutting new paths through the farms. I spent the weekend driving between Dallas and Austin, just to see what everyone has been screaming about.

From what I can tell, at least for the Cintra route, there is plenty of room to widen this freeway (I-35), with the exception of a several miles in central Austin, and a few tight areas in Waco and Temple. Yes, it is old, and at least several bridges would have to be replaced, but it's not impossible to do, if you really want to.

The sections that are now 2-lanes can easily make 3-lanes, without any disturbance - just by using the center median strip. They can even be made 4 lanes by slightly reconfiguring the feeder roads. It's really no big deal (unless you're a Perry propagandist intent on having Texas taxpayers finance vacation condos on the French Riviera). The part in Austin will be bypassed the toll road already under construction, so the only thing left there is for the state to buy it (the toll road) outright, so trucks can travel it for free - that will take care of Austin.

Once you get to 4 lanes each way on that route, then you're pretty well set for the next 30 or so years, so you'll have time to intelligently plan for future growth. One option may indeed be for the Cintra route, but with a high degree of over-crossings, and a relatively narrow ROW, so you minimize the impact as much as possible - but that can still be decades in the future.

Right now, get that run up to 4 lanes.

[BobL]

Yo Facts,

I'm the arch-enemy of these guys, but I'll defend their right to post what they want. I missed reaching this thread in a timely manner (I was researching I-35 between Dallas and Austin last week - my conclusions will be shared later), or I would have posted by canned response to this TTC plan - which is vicious. This gives the many others who may live outside of Texas, or who are not up to speed on this plan (sellout, IMO) a chance to decide for themselves. So far, Paleo, and the rest, have not criticized me for posting my response (which is rather lengthy, and growing), so I'll defend their right to post their information (even if I consider it to be propaganda).

Do a search on me and you'll find my many postings opposing this plan.

[ken21]

bump de bump.