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

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.

"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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.