Posted on 09/29/2006 6:32:20 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Drivers willing to pay to leave Interstate 35 in the dust could have an alternative as early as the summer of 2013.
For 15 cents a mile, drivers could cruise the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor for nearly 100 miles, from Hillsboro to the north Austin suburbs. The rest of the 370-mile corridor could be running in 2017, the report said.
That is according to a new 1,600-page master plan for the tollway, railroad and utility corridor that the firm Cintra-Zachry developed as it prepares to build the controversial project.
The report said the company’s investment will increase by $3.5 billion, construction could begin in five years, and the McLennan County portion could be operational two years later. However, Texas Department of Transportation officials noted its route, timeline and toll estimates are all likely to be revised as the project goes forward.
“(The master plan) does not set the route, it does not set the toll rate, it does not authorize construction,” agency spokesman Randall Dillard said. “It lays out a public-private partnership on how we could develop TTC 35.”
However, the route Cintra-Zachry used demands attention because it differs significantly from the official, preliminary 10-mile-wide area the state reviewed this summer in 54 public hearings.
The builder’s version feeds almost directly into Dallas/Fort Worth, then loops around to the east, while the official route veers east as early as McLennan County and takes a more gradual arc around the Metroplex.
If the route changes to look more like the builder’s option, it could benefit Hillsboro, where the economy is pinned to Interstate 35 traffic.
“I cannot be tempted to wax eloquent about this map and say, ‘They’re listening to us, we’re having an impact,’ ” Hillsboro Mayor Will Lowrance said. “You cannot draw that kind of conclusion from that document, because it has a disclaimer.”
No matter which route is used, the corridor could influence the travel budgets and traffic for Texas vacations and long commutes.
Drivers filling up at the Czech Stop along I-35 in West greeted the proposal as good news for chronic congestion but bad news for their wallets.
“Whoa, that would increase the cost of my trip to Oklahoma by about $40 each way,” said Barbara Meek, 50, of Austin. “I hope other people decide to pay the tolls and I-35 clears up.”
Motorcycle riders Carol Fowler, of Granite Shoals, and Cheryl McClelland, of Mansfield, support the plan to divert traffic from I-35 and improve safety.
“Absolutely. It’ll get people off the interstate,” McClelland said.
Jim Pangman, 70, grew up on the East Coast system of toll roads long before moving to San Antonio and said Texas drivers will make due.
“User fees make sense,” Pangman said. “They’re going to need to do something.”
Willingness to pay
Because passenger vehicles pay 15.2 cents per mile and truck drivers pay 58.5 cents per mile, the whole plan relies on travelers and freight companies being willing to pay the toll, said Dillard, the Texas Department of Transportation spokesman.
“Yes, the public would be willing to pay a reasonable toll, and they would be willing to do that to bypass the congestion on I-35,” he said. “And (Cintra-Zachry) are willing to invest a considerable amount of money based on that.”
When the road opens, the master plan anticipates 24,000 drivers will use the new road between Hillsboro and Temple each day. Daily usage may climb to 148,000 by 2060, even as tolls rise above $1 per mile, the report said.
The building company includes Cintra, a Spanish firm, and Zachry, a Texas outfit. Cintra-Zachry is expected to invest $8.8 billion to construct the road and pay another $1.9 billion to the state for the opportunity to build the project. That costs about $3.5 billion more than the project was expected to run two years ago.
The company then will have the rights to the tolls for 50 years, and by then, the road could be generating billions of dollars each year.
The proposed roadway has been one of Gov. Rick Perry’s signature issues, promising to relieve traffic and meet the exploding demand for freight along a corridor serving four of the state’s six largest cities.
Traffic in most sections of Interstate 35 is already at the maximum capacity, and plans to add another lane outside of Waco over the next few years will not meet that demand, traffic experts have said.
All three prominent gubernatorial challengers have fiercely opposed the project, calling it a boondoggle and a catastrophe.
McLennan County commissioners, the Texas Farm Bureau and others have opposed the plan, saying it will swallow thousands of square miles of prime farmland, divide ranches and cut small towns off from nearby cities.
“Texans didn’t get a chance to vote on this, it’s just getting rammed down our throats,” said Rick Wegwerth, leader of the Waco anti-corridor group, DERAIL.
But Texas Department of Transportation spokeswoman Gabby Garcia said more than 6,000 Texans have weighed in on the proposal already this year, and their suggestions are critical to the review process.
Soliciting more opinion
Ken Roberts, a Texas Department of Transportation spokesman based in Waco, said the agency will solicit more public opinion next year. The current proposed route runs within a 10-mile section of McLennan County, bordering Interstate 35 to the east, and could be wider than a quarter-mile in places.
Due to the long process of buying land for the route, Roberts said he doesn’t think the master plan’s timeline is feasible.
“To say that we’re going to have something operational by 2013 is hardly the case,” Roberts said. “It will not happen overnight.”
Sorry. My perspective is from washington state. You have also opened a can of worms regarding the actual allocation of the gas tax dollars that I don't have the time right now to discuss, much as I would like to.
Thanks for the ping!
You're welcome. :-)
Next time try reading the article that you are replying to. It is about what was in the previously secret portion that was just released.
I checked the pdf document. These people really are projecting revenues for 2060 based on $1.06/mile for cars and $4.06/mile for trucks based on some tables, but then, based on another table, they're using $0.125/mile for cars and $0.48/mile for trucks. The latter table with the lower rates is used for financial analysis.
That $1.06 sounds awfully high, perhaps that is an ending figure based on 54 years of X inflation?
And I have strong doubts that they can start at $.15 per mile for autos, other than in the DFW and Austin areas where there would be a potential for a large number of commuters. The primary funder is probably going to be the trucks, as there are a zillion ways of regs, laws, or incentives that can be used to encourage (require) truck use. Some good, some bad.
I've seen several claims that they've released "everything", yet we have folks suing to get copies of the documents as signed so we can find out what kind of non-compete clauses they've managed to get put into this contract.
The the reality is that I35 is outside of the 10 mile buffer zone/non-compete zone.
The reality is that if the state wants to build a project within the buffer zone that is detrimental to Cintra, the state can build a project within the buffer zone that benefits Cintra and use it as an offset
The 183-A toll road is 11 miles long and will cost $2 and only 4.5 miles are being tolled to start with. That's quite a bit more than 15 cents. It's being built by Zachery.
All these estimates are just that, estimates (for suckers)
"All these estimates are just that, estimates (for suckers)"
TOTALLY. There's nothing binding about 15 cents per mile. The only thing that counts is the contract wording. Yes, some people on this thread may think of Spaniards as dumb (you know whats), but I don't. I think that they're very shrewd businessmen that know how to roll a corrupt governor.
So Texas pays through the teeth, for the next 60 years or so - long after Perry buys his yacht.
LINK PLEASE!!
10 mile buffer - where stated!!
The TCC will never be built. And damn sure won't be up and running by 13. They'll never work through the courts in time to do it.
You are the one who asserts that there is a non-compete clause that would prevent any work on I35. You are the one who must back that up. Give me a link to prove that or quit lying about it.
This thread is dead. For the sake of "dramatic effect", I'll bide my time.
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.