Could we see the Trans-Texas Corridor by 2013?

Waco Tribune-Herald ^ | September 29, 2006 | Dan Genz

[RobRoy]

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You're welcome. :-)

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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.

[Diddle E. Squat]

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.

[zeugma]

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'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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The Texas Attorney General (Greg Abbott) has dropped his lawsuit as a result of Cintra-Zachry releasing these documents.

[Ben Ficklin]

You and BobL like to spread the mis-info that I 35 is covered by a non-compete clause. You have not/can not offer anything to back up your assertion.

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

[wolfcreek]

“You cannot draw that kind of conclusion from that document, because it has a disclaimer.”


"We reserve the right to screw you by raising the cost and taking more of your land" "Your Governor said We could"

[wolfcreek]

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)

[BobL]

"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.

[BobL]

LINK PLEASE!!

10 mile buffer - where stated!!

[DaGman]

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.

[Ben Ficklin]

Before we do that, we must tie you up to the whipping post, metaphorically speaking, of course.

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.

[BobL]

"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."

You're the one defending the SECRET contract and trying to make people thinking that, somehow, there ISN'T a non-compete clause - which would be a first for a private highway.

You keep trying to make it about me, but I haven't filed the lawsuits. You need to produce the contract in a way that satisfies not me, but the people who have filed OPEN RECORDS LAWSUITS (Attorney General, Media,Landowners), or explain to the readers out here why Cintra would ever do anything as STUPID as sign a contract WITHOUT a non-compete clause, when the next governor could come into power, maliciously widen I-35 to a 10-lane FREEWAY and sink Cinta and 7 to 9 Billion dollars of their investor money (particularly after Cintra sets their tolls at MONOPOLY RATES). Not to mention that you seem to have no problem with Dan Shelley's antics.

You seem to want us all to believe that Cintra is some kind of Don Juan coming into Texas on a white horse to save us all from having to pay the gas tax. Maybe in your dreams, but they sure as heck didn't do that in Ontario - yet the politicians (and yes, their supporters) LIED about Cintras intentions and what was signed - and you know that.

Obviously I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything (heck, given your trust in Cintra, you're probably paying three quarters of your income on child support - just kidding) - I just want others on this thread to look at both of our arguments and judge for themselves.

[Ben Ficklin]

This thread is dead. For the sake of "dramatic effect", I'll bide my time.