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."
And have been maintained to 1870's standards ever since. The Texas, and US, railways are a disgrace. There are many reasons. The deregulation of trucking had an impact. Air freight had an impact. The consolidation of the rail line companies in the '70s and '80s was not well planned. Federal subsidies for Amtrack hurt the railways. Most states have not addressed the problem.
BS. Could spell it out. That's what they always say when they don't want to do a project. The railroad yard in Fairbanks needs to be moved to the south side of town. The railroad has grown so it is seriously impacting town and needs to be relocated. But they say they don't have the funds for that. Of course they don't, they haven't talked to Ted Stevens yet.
That's true. Most states still treat the railroads as independent corporations with unlimited resources even where the Feds or the State have taken over.
This is part of the problem of decaying infrastructure in the US. We can't just sell the farm and move west like our ancestors did. It's a new ballgame.
He is also Texas' go to man on freight rail.
Ben,
Your link provides an excellent summary. At first glance, it appeared to be academics purporting to know what is best for Texas. If one bothers to read through the lenghty document, it becomes apparent that this is NOT the ravings of a government funded think-tank. From page 42, for our Houston friends:
"It is estimated that diversion of all rail freight to highways in Texas metropolitan areas would
increase traffic congestion (Roadway Congestion Index78) more than 20 percent.79 This would
make Houston the third-most congested urban area in the United States, compared to its actual
ranking of 26th. The impacts in Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio would rank each of these urban
areas in the top ten nationally as well (Table 6). The actual impacts would probably be greater,
because the largest Texas urban areas have higher-than-average freight rail market shares
(below)."
Thanks again,
ARMSF
Iagree with your poings, we the people of Texas need to vote on this.
"Too bad it doesn't run to the coast."
Wow. Ignorance is bliss. Here is a link. Houston does seem to be on the coast!
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/publications/files/ReasonableCorridors_Approved_noPrelim11x17_postPM_150dpi.pdf
Here is an interactive map. A person can smartly turn off different sections. Did you know that Louisiana and Arkansas are also involved? Missisippi is even involved! D@mn that Rick Perry. He even hoodwinked the people in eight other states.
http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/flash/interactive_map/interactive.htm
"Meanwhile, in Mississippi, 12 miles of Interstate 69 will open to traffic at 2 p.m. today connecting Tunica County with Interstate 55 in the northwestern portion of the state. The Commercial Appeal also reports that construction work on Mississippi's portion of the Memphis Outer Beltway (I-269) is expected to begin in the next three years."
http://www.i69info.com/index.html
After the fact, it came to light that the rallies during the town hall meetings over the past year were nothing more than Grandma's traveling campaign circus.
Whatever the public opposition to TTC, it is nothing compared to the opposition to any alternative that no one wants to mention.
Let the voter decide. Does he want the TTC or another $1.50 in gas tax to build the road?
But I guess that's what Texas want. I pretty much figured that we didn't care the day the 1/4 percent sales tax went into effect with the promise that "we'll never, ever have to raise it and it'll generate so much money that we will never had to raise property taxes".
Yep, that sure worked out just like they said and based on 60 years of them urinating on my boot and telling me it's raining I feel just great letting them to get into my pocket so much deeper.
Goobermint lovers must be in hog heaven.
He also has two websites, Demographia and The Public Purpose.
You already had your vote. Just because some people could not understand the words "toll road" and the phrase "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" does not mean that you get a do-over. Take it to the Texas Supreme Court, via your County Commissioners Court. No matter the party affiliation of the Governor. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not follow the law.
Here is another little insight:
"The I-69 corridor starts on the Texas-Mexico border with crossings of the Rio Grande at Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville. The corridors proceed north and east along U.S. 59, U.S. 281, and U.S. 77 to near Victoria, Texas, where they join and follow U.S. 59 northeast to the Houston area.
From the Houston area, Interstate 69 will continue to follow the U.S. 59 corridor north, bypassing Cleveland, Shepherd, Livingston, Lufkin, and Nacogdoches. From the Nacogdoches area, I-69 will continue to the northeast, passing near Carthage and crossing into Louisiana to the east, and then continuing eastward to I-49 around Stonewall.
There are some existing freeway sections, but most of the existing routes along the I-69 corridor through Texas are rural 4-lane expressways. The U.S. 59 bypass of Nacogdoches and Lufkin is being designed to be part of I-69; other local freeway bypasses may be built before the rural segments are upgraded.
Texas' route also includes a freeway spur between I-69 near Nacogdoches and the west side of Texarkana, which presumably would follow U.S. 59's general path. However, it seems unlikely that both this spur and I-49 (between Texarkana and Shreveport) will be built in the forseeable future, and the I-69 spur may eventually be discarded due to this duplication.
During 2002 and 2003, it was decided that Gov. Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor proposal would be the basis for developing Interstate 69 in Texas. Accordingly, the original division of the route into 15 SIUs is being treated as preliminary, and the entire corridor in the state (as well as the connection to national SIU 15 near Shreveport, La.) will be studied using a unified, two-tier Environmental Impact Statement process."
http://www.i69info.com/texas.html
The Legislature anticipated this. Article 3, Section 49-k, (4) (e) is very clear:
The legislature may not dedicate money from the collection of motor vehicle registration fees and taxes on motor fuels and lubricants dedicated by Section 7-a, Article VIII, of this constitution, but it may dedicate money received from other sources that are allocated to the same costs as those dedicated taxes and fees.
There will be NO additional fuel tax, much to the chagrin of the leftists.
No, we need a vote on raising the gas tax $1.50 per gallon.
What?!
Let's have a side by side vote between the TTC and Grandma's and/or Kooky's alternative to the TTC.
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.