Posted on 10/22/2006 6:43:23 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
When a close call like last week's train derailment in Beacon Hill happens, the "what if" questions — as in what if a deadly poison had been released near so many homes — soon are followed by questions about what can be done.
But answers to how long it will take to reroute most trains out of San Antonio's core, how much it will cost and where the money will come from don't come easily.
And the best guesses on fixing the problem — a decade or more and billions of dollars — don't help people sleep much better.
"It's a very frightening situation," Mayor Phil Hardberger said. "We must move forward as fast as we can to get these rails out of San Antonio."
About 80 Union Pacific trains a day pass through the city, 50 of which could be rerouted if new tracks and rail yards were built, according to company.
Costs for tracks near Loop 1604 around the South Side and east of Interstate 35 to north of Austin could run $2 billion to $3 billion, said Patrick Marotta, a policy analyst with the Texas Department of Transportation.
"That's if we build it today," he said. "We're not going to build it today."
The first obstacle is money — there isn't any.
Voters last year approved the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund, allowing the state to sell bonds to buy land and build and improve tracks. But the Legislature still needs to put money into it, and TxDOT suggested $200 million a year to back $2 billion in bonds.
"We thought $2 billion would be a good start to begin partnering with local entities and the private sector," said David Casteel, who heads TxDOT's San Antonio office.
Adding taxes to train fuel or freight has been discussed, but industry officials don't like those options, Casteel said.
Finding money could be tough in what likely will be another tight budget when state lawmakers return in January for their regular session.
Existing priorities include efforts to restore cuts made to the Children's Health Insurance Program and address shortages in the state's pension program for retired schoolteachers, said state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio.
Lawmakers also face a growing demand to corral ever-increasing college tuition rates.
"The pressure is unbelievable to ease tuition escalation," Van de Putte said.
Recommended funding for rail relocations won't be known until December, said Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, co-author of the measure that voters approved.
"I'm optimistic," she said. "This is the perfect example of what we need when something like this continues to happen."
Senate Finance Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, and House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, are likely to play big roles determining funding priorities. They didn't return phone calls.
San Antonio will need allies to get money for rail relocations, Van de Putte said.
"It's got to be perceived by my colleagues as more than just a San Antonio or Bexar County problem," she said.
TxDOT says it is more than a San Antonio problem, which ironically leads to another problem — other cities will vie for the same pot of money.
Relocating trains or at least separating rail and road crossings in urban areas, plus improvements to ease rail traffic congestion, would cost a whopping $16 billion, Marotta said.
"The state just can't provide all the necessary funds to relocate rail in communities," said Hope Andrade, a San Antonio resident serving on the five-member Texas Transportation Commission. "The future of anything we do is going to be public-private partnerships."
This is where state officials like to play their Trans-Texas Corridor card.
The Trans-Texas Corridor is a proposed 4,000-mile network of toll lanes, freight and passenger rail lines and utility lines that would criss-cross the state to handle growing international trade and population.
As envisioned, companies would finance most or all of the TTC in return for collecting tolls and user fees for 50 years.
A consortium led by Cintra of Spain and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio is willing to invest $6 billion to build new rail tracks from Dallas to Mexico, with construction starting in five to 10 years.
Rail companies have stated they won't pay to use the tracks unless they profit as well, but state officials say trains able to go 80 mph instead of trundling an average of 25 mph through cities will be a strong selling point.
"We believe in the power of the market," said Ric Williamson, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission.
Bonds from the rail relocation fund and local money could be used to build links to Cintra-Zachry's proposed rail line, Williamson said. So could some of the $2 billion in concession fees from planned TTC toll lanes from San Antonio to Dallas.
Meanwhile, by bundling toll lanes, railways and utility lines together rather than putting them in separate rights of way, less land and money would be needed, he added.
"We have been saying this for four years," he said. "The whole idea is to combine the fixed costs to reduce the cost of each."
But that leads to another problem — a lot of people don't like the corridors.
Critics say companies would profit from tolls, gas stations and restaurants while communities would see their tax bases shrink and economic opportunities sucked away. Also, farmers and ranchers would be forced to give up land for the 1,200-foot-wide swaths, and some farm-to-market highways won't connect to the corridors while other roads won't even cross it.
"It's one of the most contested and intrusive concoctions known to Texans," Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson said. "The cheaper solution is for the railroad to fix the gosh darn tracks and establish procedures that will make for safer operations."
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
Giving Texas Hold 'Em a new meaning
Brief stops off tollways could cost you.
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, October 22, 2006
So, you've gathered up the family to head to Dallas and decided to take those new Loop 1 and Texas 45 North tollways. But right after Parmer Lane, when you've already entered the pay-to-drive portion going north, a little one in the back seat says he's got to go.
Now.
Welcome to Central Texas' new pay toilet program.
The 41 miles of toll road opening in November and December, along with the other 30 miles due to open by the end of 2007, will not have service stations, stores or restaurants in the median, like many toll roads nationwide. So if you want something to eat or drink, or if nature calls, you'll have to exit and then get back on the tollway. And in most cases, that's going to cost you an extra 50 cents if you pay cash for tolls, 45 cents with an electronic toll tag.
When drivers get back on the tollway, they are still going to go through a main plaza for the express lanes and pay the same toll they would have paid had they not made a stop, on top of the extra entrance fee.
Rest stops in the median, which don't require drivers to exit, "are typical in long-haul toll roads like the (proposed) Trans-Texas Corridor, where there is nothing nearby," said Gaby Garcia, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Transportation's turnpike division.
But the three roads opening Nov. 1 and in December — an extension of MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1), Texas 45 North and Texas 130 — are essentially urban roads. The Loop 1 toll road will be just over three miles long, and Texas 45 North will be 13 miles from end to end. Texas 130 will be about 29 miles to begin with, 49 miles by the end of next year.
Generally, turnpike officials say, the toll points on entrance and exit ramps as well as on the express lanes are situated to assure that there are no free trips.
But there are a few places where you will be able to exit and then re-enter without paying an extra toll on a ramp.
That's true, for instance, at the points where Texas 130 crosses U.S. 290 and Texas 71, as well as at the confluence of Loop 1 and Texas 45 North. As it happens, at least two of those spots (U.S. 290 and the Loop 1/Texas 45 North intersection) are adjacent to developed areas that would have convenience stores and the like.
Most of the 21 places along Texas 130 where drivers will be able to exit, however, are on county and farm-to-market roads that have little or no development and thus little opportunity to address sudden needs.
Junior will just have to wait.
These people can take their envirowhacko corridors and preserves and put 'em where the sun don't shine...
BTTT
This is a huge bad idea for a large nuber of reasons.
bump.
The rail relocation or the TTC? And whichever it is, it always helps to list some actual reasons.
texas bump
Texas has over 10,000+ miles of track, five of the seven US/Mexico rail border crossings, and ranks in the top five in most categories of rail traffic/tonnage, etc. A couple of information sites are as follows.
Railroad Industry -- Railroads and States
Texas Rail System Plan .. Note figure 2.1
I've got a question:
Did that railway through Beacon Hill just appear overnight, or was it perhaps already there when the current residents moved in?
This sounds an awful lot like the goofballs who build a house near an airport then complain about the noise and demand runway closures.
"This is a huge bad idea for a large nuber of reasons."
Here is a "nuber" of reasons that it is good and valid, according to the Texas Constitution-
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000300-49-o00.html
"SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail
relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and
issuance of obligations for financing the relocation,
rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities."
______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House
I certify that H.J.R. No. 54 was passed by the House on April
25, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 107, Nays 24, 1 present, not
voting.
______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House
I certify that H.J.R. No. 54 was passed by the Senate on May
25, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays 0.
______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
RECEIVED: _____________________
Date
_____________________
Secretary of State"
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/HJ00054F.htm
You seem to resent the will of the voters, and our elected legislature. And please present 1 legislative fact supporting your stance.
Here a a few good reasons from the text of the Texas Constitution-
"(b) The Texas rail relocation and improvement fund is
created in the state treasury. The fund shall be administered by
the commission to provide a method of financing the relocation and
improvement of privately and publicly owned passenger and freight
rail facilities for the purposes of:
(1) relieving congestion on public highways;
(2) enhancing public safety;
(3) improving air quality; or
(4) expanding economic opportunity.
It did. Twice. On November 6, 2001 WE approved SJR-16 which is now a Texas Constitutional amendment. Specifically Article 3, Section 49-k. The link has been provided, yet here is some of the text:
(b) The Texas Mobility Fund is created in the state treasury and shall be administered by the commission as a revolving fund to provide a method of financing the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, and expansion of state highways, including costs of any necessary design and costs of acquisition of rights-of-way, as determined by the commission in accordance with standards and procedures established by law.
(c) Money in the fund may also be used to provide participation by the state in the payment of a portion of the costs of constructing and providing publicly owned toll roads and other public transportation projects in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations established by law.
On November 8, 2005 Texans also overwhelmingly approved HJR 54 from the 79th Legislature. It was phrased ""The constitutional amendment creating the Texas rail relocation and improvement fund and authorizing grants of money and issuance of obligations for financing the relocation, rehabilitation, and expansion of rail facilities."
This became Article 3, Section 49-o of the Texas Constitution.
By your own admission, the Governorship of the State of Texas is a "weak" position. The Legislature, and the voters have amendmended the Constitution to improve our infrastructure. There has been NO challenge presented to the Texas Supreme Court. Each County Commissioners Court has the ability to act. The fact that not one CCC has fought this should be noted. Your stance is obstructionist, and in complete defiance to the will of the Legislature and the voters. I dare call it a socialist stance.
This needs to be put to a vote. And I do agree there is nto goo option in this election. But I am agains Gov Goodhair because he:
1. He lied to me about tax saving (blatant and unforgivable, I do not like being played)
2. TTC land grab
3. New higher taxes
Rails have been there since 1870s.
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.