Where corridor goes, no one yet knows

Depending on whom you talk to, the Trans Texas Corridor is a daring futuristic plan, the state's most ambitious ever, or it's a money machine and a destructive land grab.

There are no construction contracts for any of the 4,000 miles of car and truck lanes, freight and passenger rail lines and utility lines that are supposed to crisscross Texas by midcentury, just a $3.5 million deal with a private consortium to develop plans for the leg paralleling Interstate 35.

And nobody knows just where the routes would go, though any day now federal officials are expected to release a draft study to narrow options near I-35 to a 10-mile-wide swath.

"That's the $64,000 question," said Mark Maxwell, city manager of Sulphur Springs, east of Dallas. "Where's it going to be? And I don't think anybody has any idea."

It's a question that worries leaders of cities who don't want to lose lucrative traffic flows, and haunts farmers and environmentalists who don't want to see massive tracts of valuable land sliced and swallowed up.

"A huge market would be missed if it didn't come close to San Antonio," said Vic Boyer, director of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, a public-private advocacy group.

Boyer and others want Texas 130 from Georgetown to Seguin finished first, picked up as part of the Trans Texas Corridor and then extended along Interstate 10 and Loop 1604 around Southeast San Antonio to open up traffic for the Toyota plant and KellyUSA.

Leaders in Dallas and Fort Worth, who want the corridor's toll lanes to go through the Metroplex instead of around it, are ready to tangle.

"I hope that they've been listening," Dallas City Councilman Bill Blaydes said. "If not, then we've got a war."

Laredo officials aren't worried the corridor could bypass their city — the nation's largest inland gateway for trade traffic — but they are concerned the project could siphon off money for work on I-35, such as adding truck-only lanes.

"The best route has always been I-35 and connecting streets," Mayor Betty Flores said. "We need to improve those routes all along the way."

Also waiting to cast a critical eye on the 4,000-page draft report are farmers, ranchers and environmental activists.

The 1,200-foot-wide corridor, stretching 600 miles from Mexico to Oklahoma, would gobble up 75,000 acres of land and split up farms, ranches and wildlife areas. Many landowners fret about not having access.

"It wouldn't make this a very pleasant place to live," said Chris Hammel, who owns a 430-acre spread with corn and cattle near Holland in Central Texas.

There also are a plethora of environmental concerns, from the stretch of asphalt's potential impact on migrating wildlife to the effect of changing traffic patterns on air quality.

"The road will be a huge barrier, which means wildlife won't be able to follow their natural route, and it will cross dozens of waterways and wetlands," said Dick Kallerman of the Sierra Club's Austin chapter.

San Antonio resident Bill Barker, a transportation consultant who assists Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas, wonders whether the state will consider impacts of paving over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone or address how the corridor could affect urban sprawl.

"We really need to get a hold of the way we're developing and consuming land in Texas," he said.

Nearly all in the environmental community, though, are at least as curious and distressed about how passenger rail might be treated. For now, high-speed rail from San Antonio to Dallas has been put on the back burner, possibly for decades.

"Do we want to be stuck in traffic or do we want to be speeding past it on rapid rail?" he said.

The draft study will cull 180 options through 77 counties to recommend a 10-mile-wide study area. More than 50 public hearings could be held this summer and a final document issued next year.

After that, an environmental evaluation will be done for each construction project in the corridor.

The draft was first due by the end of last year and then in January. Now Texas Department of Transportation officials are afraid to guess when the Federal Highway Administration will release the report.

"I would say in the next two to four weeks," TxDOT Environmental Manager Doug Booher said after prodding. "I just don't have a good idea."

And nobody knows just where the routes would go, though any day now federal officials are expected to release a draft study to narrow options near I-35 to a 10-mile-wide swath. "That's the $64,000 question," said Mark Maxwell, city manager of Sulphur Springs, east of Dallas. "Where's it going to be? And I don't think anybody has any idea."

Even though it has pretty much been laid out by statements in the last month for those paying attention. I can tell you pretty much where it will go, it will branch eastward from I-35 south of Gainesville, swing around the DFW on the north and east sides between Lake Lavon and Greenville, pass a bit west of Terrell and north of Ennis, and then roughly parallel to the east of I-35 down to northeast of Georgetown. There it will tie into the almost completed Hwy 130 that bypasses Austin to the east, and then continue on north of Lockhart to a connection with I-10 around Seguin. Probably will take 10 years to complete, during which time 2.5 to 3 million more residents will be added to this corridor. The stretch south of there to the Mexican border will be built afterwards, whenever demand justifies it.

It's a question that worries leaders of cities who don't want to lose lucrative traffic flows,

Tough, we don't want to be stuck in their urban traffic jams. I-35 isn't short of traffic or patrons.

and haunts farmers and environmentalists who don't want to see massive tracts of valuable land sliced and swallowed up.

Very few will be affected, once the final plan is out (that plan will come after this one that is about to be released, which for now only narrows it down to a 10-mile wide corridor of study.)

"A huge market would be missed if it didn't come close to San Antonio," said Vic Boyer, director of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, a public-private advocacy group.

Just moaning and angling for pork, the road will connect to I-10 which runs right into San Antonio.

More angling for pork, that rough route will probably happen eventually when traffic develops to justify it, but for now I-410 in that area isn't congested and won't be for a while.

Leaders in Dallas and Fort Worth, who want the corridor's toll lanes to go through the Metroplex instead of around it, are ready to tangle.

Yeah, routing pass-thru traffic through urban Ft. Worth and Dallas via the I-35's worked so well. Ft. Worth just exanded I-35W to the south, and it already is their most congested freeway. I-35E is clogged from Denton to Waxahachie. The whole idea is to bypass the urban areas to free up capacity on the urban roads. This is just positioning to grab pork dollars to speed up urban projects. Not to mention that it is a hell of a lot more expensive to add the same capacity through urban areas than to route around it, and in fact bringing all modes through the city is virtually impossible. It is all about angling for a portion of the $1.2 billion the company is paying the state.

"I hope that they've been listening," Dallas City Councilman Bill Blaydes said. "If not, then we've got a war."

Another pork cry, from perhaps the most corrupt municipal body in the state. What's the last count on how many Dallas councilmen are currently under investigation by the FBI?

This project is about building truck only lanes in that corridor, but on a parallel rural path.

"The best route has always been I-35 and connecting streets," Mayor Betty Flores said. "We need to improve those routes all along the way."

More positioning, anyone who has ever been to Laredo knows how ridiculous that sounds. The city's border crossing is horribly crowded with hours long waits, while the one a few miles to the west is underutilized. Common sense says to tie in the TTC to the west border crossing. Stupid to pay top dollar to wipe out homes and businesses when it can be built a few miles to the west through arid scrub brush and grazing land.

Also waiting to cast a critical eye on the 4,000-page draft report are farmers, ranchers and environmental activists. The 1,200-foot-wide corridor,

Old data from the intial concept, which has been refined and now except nearly all the route will be 800' wide max, and in many stretches narrower, depending on how many components are required. This info was released more than 6-months ago, but the myth persists, especially since 1200' sounds more scary. Nevermind the facts.

stretching 600 miles from Mexico to Oklahoma, would gobble up 75,000 acres of land and split up farms, ranches and wildlife areas.

Very few will actually be affected.

Many landowners fret about not having access. "It wouldn't make this a very pleasant place to live," said Chris Hammel, who owns a 430-acre spread with corn and cattle near Holland in Central Texas.

And yet somehow they have miraculously survived I-35. And odds are it won't even go through or border his property.

There also are a plethora of environmental concerns, from the stretch of asphalt's potential impact on migrating wildlife to the effect of changing traffic patterns on air quality. "The road will be a huge barrier, which means wildlife won't be able to follow their natural route, and it will cross dozens of waterways and wetlands," said Dick Kallerman of the Sierra Club's Austin chapter.

As it is with all the existing freeways we already have. Yet somehow nature has survived. Think about it, every time a road crosses a creek there is a corridor crossing for critters. And there will be more provisions than previously used to provide animal corridors.

A rather odd statement, considering that none of the possible corridors cross the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, and that map has been out a year. Just another dishonest activist trying to confuse the public.

"We really need to get a hold of the way we're developing and consuming land in Texas," he said.

Revealing his true colors, he bitches about any growth and any road project.

Why should it be built if it isn't economically viable and the demand isn't there? At least this road will preserve ROW that will lower the threshhold of viability and reduce development costs should passenger rail ever become in demand. But this isn't really about that, it is just another bitching point by opponents. Throw everything out and see what sticks.

Tom Smith of Public Citizen says more vehicle lanes could be a foolish and costly endeavor now that oil seems to be getting scarcer and prices are shooting up. He's keenly interested in getting the focus back on rail. "Do we want to be stuck in traffic or do we want to be speeding past it on rapid rail?" he said.

More liberal BS.

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.