Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amendment would move trains from major roads
News 8 Austin ^ | October 25, 2005 | Hermelinda Vargas

Posted on 10/28/2005 2:40:57 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Freight rail lines running in the middle of major roads will be a thing of the past, if voters approve Proposition 1. Proposition 1 would amend the Texas Constitution to create a Rail Relocation Fund to be used by the Texas Department of Transportation and regional mobility authorities.

Early voting began Monday for the Tuesday, Nov. 8 election.

Essentially, Proposition 1 is asking voters if they want to spend taxpayer money and taxpayer credit to move rail lines like the one in the middle of MoPac.

Round Rock Rep. Mike Krusee supports the idea.

"For a long time, a goal of ours, especially here in Austin, has been to move Union Pacific off their tracks. So, that the tracks could be used both for commuter rail and to add addition lanes onto MoPac," Krusee said.

Supporters of Prop. 1, say the move will improve safety by reducing the threat of hazardous materials running through traffic. They also say moving freight rails to a better location will allow Union Pacific and others to expand and take in more business, in turn reducing the number of transport trucks on the road.

That argument doesn't move Sal Costello with the anti-toll group People for Efficient Transportation.

Costello is actively campaigning against both Propositions 1 and 9. He calls No. 1 "corporate welfare."

It's not that he opposes moving freight rail away from urban centers.

"The main problem with 1 is that it's not capped. There is no limit set. So there's unlimited tax dollars in debt are created on the backs of taxpayers to move private corporations' rail," Costello said.

Krusee disagrees.

"It is the furthest thing from corporate welfare. And the governor has already signed an agreement with the railroads that says, 'We are not going to give you corporate welfare. This is about a public benefit, getting trucks off the road, getting more right of way. It is not about helping your company. If it benefits your company in any way, you have to pay for it," Krusee said.

That may be the case, but ultimately the financial responsibility would fall on state taxpayers.

One of Prop. 1's main sponsors says the risk is necessary.

"The reason the state needs to be involved in this, is because their really is no incentive a lot of times for the railroads to relocate these lines," Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine, said.

Now, it's up to voters to decide if the plan will go forward or derail.

Lawmakers pushing for Proposition 1 say it has nothing to do with the mega-transportation project known as the Trans Texas Corridor. And yet, Prop. 1 would facilitate many of the projects that fall under that plan.

Opponents of the amendment say it's a sneaky way to get voter approval.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: austin; corporatewelfare; debt; mikekrusee; mopac; pet; proposition1; railroads; salcostello; texas; transtexascorridor; ttc; txdot; unionpacific
And the dirty little secret about 1, according to Redbob, is that the rail relocation fund will apparently draw money away from the highway fund. Of course, since Texas appears to be intent on building toll roads, maybe they won't need that money for highway construction.
1 posted on 10/28/2005 2:40:59 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TxDOT; 1066AD; 185JHP; Abcdefg; Alamo-Girl; antivenom; anymouse; AprilfromTexas; B-Chan; barkeep; ..

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!


2 posted on 10/28/2005 2:41:41 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! --kellynla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


3 posted on 10/28/2005 2:42:17 PM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Who in the Texas government owns a percentage or stock in a railroad or steel foundry for new rails?


4 posted on 10/28/2005 2:43:31 PM PDT by Centurion2000 ((Aubrey, Tx) --- America, we get the best government corporations can buy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Freight rail lines running in the middle of major roads will be a thing of the past, if voters approve Proposition 1.

Don't ya just love when the writer reveals in his/her/its first sentence that they don't know a thing about what they are talking about? Many of these proposed relocations would build freight rail lines to the middle of new road projects, combining several types of infrastructure with high negative impacts into a single ROW.

The lack of a cap is a real problem.

5 posted on 10/28/2005 2:45:43 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat (SonofaBuckner Qualls and Lidge, king and queen of Choke City, USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat

It will likely move rail lines out of high-value commercial areas and into residential areas.


6 posted on 10/28/2005 3:15:55 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
It will likely move rail lines out of high-value commercial areas and into residential areas.

Not exactly. It would also move them out of most residential areas. The plans I've heard about would use a few of the existing lines for freight service to still access the cities, but most of the traffic would be moved to bypasses well outside the urban areas. Those would run through rural or very low-density residential areas(multi-acre ranchettes or larger), because otherwise the cost and political opposition rapidly rises. They really want to avoid taking any more houses than necessary, for a variety of reasons.

7 posted on 10/28/2005 3:24:19 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat (SonofaBuckner Qualls and Lidge, king and queen of Choke City, USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
We believe government should not encroach upon the private property rights unless there is an eminent public need. Eminent domain for public use is a necessary power. Eminent domain for private use is a great threat. said Perry.

And since this is for the greater good of the public, that lovely eminent domain bill Perry signed Monday won't be a problem, huh?
8 posted on 10/28/2005 6:08:45 PM PDT by texas_mrs (The left are the enablers of terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 10/28/2005 8:19:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Voting no on props one and nine.

http://www.texastollparty.com

http://www.corridorwatch.com


10 posted on 10/28/2005 9:36:38 PM PDT by MarshallDillon (VOTE "NO" ON PROPS 1 & 9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You're welcome. :-)


11 posted on 10/29/2005 1:09:16 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! --kellynla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This is a "lets all chip in and help pay for El Paso to move their train switching yards out of high value downtown to increase city tax revenues from the resulting high rise developments" bill. Sorry El Paso, fix your own mess and keep your hands out of the rest of Texans' wallets.


12 posted on 10/29/2005 8:42:28 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Highway construction is a subsidy for trucking firms. If those big rigs had to pay for the damage they do to highways, they couldn't stay in business.


13 posted on 10/29/2005 8:45:35 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I guess they don't pay fuel and licensing taxes to keep pay for road construction, huh?


14 posted on 10/30/2005 10:44:39 AM PST by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

Not enough. The interstates were designed to bear the weight of tank carriers. The truckers benefit from this, because if these roads only had to handle lighter vehicles--like the trucks of the '50s-- they would cost a lot less to build and maintain.


15 posted on 10/30/2005 12:06:33 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson