Posted on 10/24/2006 10:54:51 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
I once work in the plants along the Housotn Ship Channel, and I will assure you 3 things:
1. If this is built there will be derailments on it.
2. Those derailments will have some of the chemicals I once dealt with, real bad ones. Example TEAL (Tri ethyle aluminum akiles(SP?))
3. And this will close that road going both ways for a day or more.
It is insane to put all your eggs in one basket.
I want to be on your TRANS TEXAS Corridor PING. Is there any way to stop this? I am voting for KINKY, he is the only one who might try to stop it.
Well, yes and no. Suggestions to reroute the freight railroads around San Antonio and Austin predate the TTC. The plan has always been to use the 1604 corridor from SW of San Antonio to Seguin, and it looks like now the TTC will be routed that way (and thus provide means to fund and build it earlier than would be possible with traditional financing.) The pre-TTC plans for bypassing Austin were to use TX130 from Lockhart to Seguin, upgrade existing rail lines east from Lockhart to Red Rock and south from Taylor to Elgin to Bastrop, and then build a new link between north of Bastrop and Red Rock. In fact that option is still on the table because various components may not all use the TTC along the entire route where local variances make sense.
But the TTC is probably the only way to finance such a bypass without requiring a huge infusion of tax dollars.
BTTT
Yes, nasty chemicals are shipped by rail, and will continue, because it is more economical and safer than by road. The question is whether to continue to ship it through the denser middle of cities or reroute most of that traffic through rural or suburban areas where an accident would affect only a fraction of the number of people it would in the middle of a city.
There are miles and miles of rail lines with houses and apartments next to the tracks. Rerouting removes the danger of derailed cars crashing into these nearby buildings. If rerouted along a freeway corridor most derailments would be contained within the buffer zone and concrete barriers would prevent railcars from spilling onto the highway. No buildings to hit, no chance of persons crushed while sleeping in their beds.
Chemicals lose their concentration and toxicity the further away you get from the source. So instead of residences 20-50' from the tracks, they'd be 500+' away, reducing the impact of any blast, and also giving more lead time for evacuations. And again, the number of evacuations required in an X mile radius would be far, far smaller.
3 persons died in their beds outside of San Antonio several years ago, poisoned by a cloud from an overnight derailment that eventually reached their house down the road from the tracks. Since so many now have cell phones, a derailment on a rail line along a highway will be called in to 911 almost immediately. In contrast, some derailments in rural or industrial areas may be delayed in being reported, since the conductor has to walk back up to nearly 2 miles from the engines to see what the problem was. There are many reasons why a train may be forced into a sudden stop that aren't caused by derailments, and most derailments do not involve a hazmat leak, so until someone sees or smells a leak, it won't be reported. Routing along a highway in effect results in constant surveillance.
Again, most derailments don't involve a hazmat leak, fire, or explosion, and many trains don't even carry hazmat cars. Those are pretty much the only circumstances that would close the highway in a rail accident, so the rate of closure would be minimal, with the road closed far more often for highway accidents than any involving rail. Plus reroute corridors will be a consolidation of rail lines and see higher traffic levels, and thus see more frequent maintenance and a lower rate of accidents.
Rerouting rail traffic makes all kinds of sense, the only questions are if the benefits justify the costs and is there a viable way to finance it.
Already done. The Perry administration signed agreements with both major railroads in Texas last year to work together on rail bypass concepts and projects. They've been at the table for awhile now, he's way ahead of ya'll Perry bashers (again.)
Will the trains and pipeline owners being paying a toll to the foreign investors if they are included in the TTC? Do they pay a tax now that the state won't be collecting later?
However, some board members wanted assurances that they wouldn't be endorsing the Trans-Texas Corridor
Because it might be *Political Suicide*??
I know, this is a boondoggle.
You've been added.
bump.
Depends on if a foreign-company or US company offers the highest bid, or if the railroad companies decide to build the bypasses themselves (as a partner with the state.) Of course the railroads have been hesitant to back tolls, but the agreement states that the railroads will pay for the portion that benefits them and the state will pay for the portion that benefits it. If these bypasses are built, there almost surely will be some type of funding mechanism based on use, but the bypasses aren't the railroads' idea, but the state's (or rather the state primarily responding to pressure from local municipalities and counties.) So the RR's are arguing that since they didn't ask for the bypasses, they shouldn't have to pay for them. Hence the agreement that they'll just pay in relation to the benefits they receive (which actually could be substantial, such as increased efficiency, time savings, increased equipment utilization, lowered crew costs, fewer lawsuits, lower insurance costs, lower maintenance costs (fewer miles to operate), ROW sales of the old lines, etc.)
But nothing has been set in stone, because the state and railroads are still doing studies on future demand, capacity, financing options, etc.
Kinky supporters remind me of the Cowboy fans demanding that Tony Romo become the starting QB, primarily because he was 'Anybody but Bledsoe'. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, so they are always demanding change and latching on to the latest option to come down the pike. And of course Romo threw an interception on his first play, threw more, and the Cowboys lost the game.
Kinky will be at best just as effective as Romo was, but hey, you sent a message. Who needs to actually solve problems if they can just send a message?
From what I understand his health care ideas are for those children who qualify for welfare. It is not a blanket socialized medicine for all.
There is no one more against universal health care than I. You just have to look at the British system. Any one with any sense would leave the country if we got Hillary-care!
America better start sending a message to all politicians. The 'politicans' have got us where we are now. They can all be bought.
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.