I-69 Meeting Held in Lufkin

KTRE-TV ^ | September 15, 2006 | Ramonica R. Jones

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas met in East Texas Friday. The board of directors hosted its monthly meeting in Lufkin. Progress on the project is moving along.

In a few years, the interstate will become an international trade corridor directly connecting Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The first phase of the project will begin at the end of the year.

Anne Culver, executive director for Alliance for I-69 Texas, said, "You'll start to greatly see exactly the shape of the Trans Texas Corridor I-69 and then there will be another set of environmental studies done about a year after that. At that point, construction will begin where construction is necessary for the corridor to come to interstate standards."

Since the alliance was organized, Congress has designated Interstate 69 as a high priority corridor and has dedicated more than $50 million to the development of I-69 in Texas.

[deport]

I wonder how this is going to affect lufkins growth... We've been boomin over the years.

---

Still a lot of expansions up that way.... It won't be long before 175 is four laned between Lufkin and I-20 thus another good route for commerce to traverse. US 69 between Beaumont [I-10] and Lufkin is getting upgrades every year. A lot more of US 59 north of Houston has been four laned on towards Livingston and maybe beyond.

Walmart has their Houston Bayport Container terminal up and running to which they expect to receive upwards of 28% of their container imports through. These goods have to move North, East and West out of Houston.

[1rudeboy]

I fail to see why you'd expect a private firm put up approx. $12 billion of its own money (instead of money from your pocket, or from people who have no intention of using the road in the first place) and not expect some sort of promise not to get screwed by a succeeding Administration.

[BobL]

I don't. I agree with you - WE'RE SCREWED.

If we'd just raise the gas tax a bit, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[1rudeboy]

So now we've arrived at the crux of the issue. Exactly why is a universal tax paid by everyone in the State, even those living hundreds of miles away from the project, preferable to an initial private investment funded by user-fees?

[BobL]

Because EVERYONE drives on state highways - other than farm vehicles, which are exempt from the gas tax.

Maybe there is one or two people in West Texas that get around on county roads, if so, I'd support increasing the gas tax 0.10 cents per gallon (i.e., 1 penny for every 10 gallons) to compensate them.

If we all drive on state roads, we should all pay the same - or roughly the same.

Ask yourself why people who take the time to get off of surface streets and not tie up traffic lights and other intersections should get shafted big-time in tolls - while those that drive light-to-light should essentially get a free ride.

It goes both ways...

[1rudeboy]

If we all drive on state roads, we should all pay the same - or roughly the same.

Here's your mistake. Why should someone on the west side of the state pay for the road on the east side of the state?

As far as the notion that folks traveling on surface streets are getting a "free ride" in any way? Hogwash.

[Ben Ficklin]

When you make your statement, "I prefer to pay a gas tax", what you are really saying is that you want me and many, many others to pay a gas tax to subsidize your ride.

[1rudeboy]

I beginning to get curious as to when and how the "typical" conservative viewpoint shifted from a general belief that the private sector can perform certain functions better than the public sector, to a sort of "one size fits all, we're all in the same boat so let's all pay" sense of entitlement (is that the right word here?).

[BobL]

"I wonder how this is going to affect lufkins growth... "

One little tidbit here in Houston. Take the story of the Grand Parkway (a highway that will ring Houston some 30 miles in radius - far outside of anything existing).

Originally, the Grand Parkway was to be a freeway. At that time the landowners along with route, which are the major developers, offered to literally to give the necessary land to the state for FREE. They knew what it would mean to the value of the rest of the land.

Well, roughly 8 to 10 years ago, some brain surgeon in Austin decided that the Grand Parkway would now be a TOLL ROAD. And you can guess the rest of the story. The developers rescinded their offer and told the state that they would now have to BUY the land from them - as they knew full-well of the lockdown effect that toll roads bring.

An interesting story in that when you look at it in purely financial terms, the dumbest thing that the state can do is build toll roads. In addition to cost of the road, you now have to add the cost of the land, and cost of the toll collection, the cost of the lock-down effect, along with the profit margin (monopoly levels, in the case of Texas).

Like I say, if I were rich, I'd love to have a road system to myself with fast speed limits and priced out of the reach of the little people - but I'm not rich - I just want to be left alone to drive and not be financially raped.

[BobL]

"Why should someone on the west side of the state pay for the road on the east side of the state?"

Because we on the East side pay for those state highways on the West side (as there a lot of highway miles, but very few people) - and it's worked fine for 50 years. In the end, we drive - we pay.

The onus should be on you guys to explain to the country why we should jettison the freeway system and go to a big-brother tolling system.

[BobL]

"When you make your statement, "I prefer to pay a gas tax", what you are really saying is that you want me and many, many others to pay a gas tax to subsidize your ride."

If you had any clue how many miles I drive per year, you'd see that I'm paying for your ride instead.

But to paraphrase what your side like to say, if you don't like the gas tax, you can always take the bus.

[1rudeboy]

The onus should be on you guys to explain to the country why we should jettison the freeway system and go to a big-brother tolling system.

Because the privatization of non-essential governmental services is a conservative belief that goes back to the founding of the movement, whereas blind defense of and belief in big(ger) government and taxes as the solution to a problem is not. There.

[Ben Ficklin]

So that's what it is. You drive enough miles that you think you are entitled to a discount? Wrooooooooonnnnnnnnngggggggg again.

The more you drive, the more you pay. Or, in my case, the less I drive, the less I pay.

[BobL]

"non-essential governmental services"

Well, I'm done here.

You are certainly welcome to consider transportation as non-essential, but, aside from maybe a few survivalists in Northern Idaho that hunt for their own food, I'd be willing to wager that most others consider it as essential as national defense.

So long...

[Ben Ficklin]

There is a difference between conservatism and populism.

[1rudeboy]

Well, I'm done here.

Sure you are. LOL

I see the "national security" canard has arrived on the stage. Anyone care to explain how the building/maintenance/operation of a road affects ours? Are the Spaniards going to mine the on-ramps?

[1rudeboy]

“Demagoguery beats data in making public policy.”
Dick Armey (R-TX, ret.)

"When all else fails, argue national security."
1rudeboy

[Ainast]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! /darth vader

[Ainast]

I know they sure are upgrading 59 from corrigan towards lufkin like crazy. Its made me late to college more than once. Then again, maybe I should get up more than an hour before class starts lol.

[RipSawyer]

Bill Clinton motto: I-69-U2?