Posted on 11/16/2006 5:20:45 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Roadway may lead to loss of open space, runoff
With the election season past, proponents of the controversial Trans-Texas Corridor proposal weathered their reelection campaigns well, including the corridors original proponent, Gov. Rick Perry.
The largest proposed public works project in Texas history, the corridor will be a series of toll roads, railways and utility lines extending across the state. Many state officials tout the project as the only answer to alleviate trade and traffic concerns resulting from population growth while various citizen groups have criticized the Perry administration and Spanish-based contractor, Cintra-Zachary, for their vague plans for the corridor.
Environmentalists and farmers also worry about the loss of open space and potential ecological consequences, such as runoff.
These fears aren't important in the project's current phase, because they are considered later in construction planning, said Gabby Garcia, Texas Department of Transportation spokeswoman.
"Basically, what we're trying to do now is narrow down our [proposed] area, and that's it," she said.
The Texas Department of Transportation submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement addressing environmental concerns for the specific 10-mile-wide study area the department is considering for the corridor to the Federal Highway Administration. The department is hoping for federal approval by next summer, Garcia said.
The project is so early in its development the department does not know exactly how much land the project will need, she added.
The text of the impact statement shows that no matter how much land is used, it will include a good deal of prime farmland. Prime farmland soils consist of between 37 percent to 47 percent of each the proposed narrowed study areas, according to the statement.
Much of that farmland is in the belt running from the Red River to San Antonio known as the Blackland Prairie. The prairie is valuable for cattle and cash crops such as corn, said James Greenwade, Natural Conservation and Resource Service spokesman with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"It's some of the best crop land we have in Texas for dry-land agriculture," Greenwade said.
Once the land is lost, there's no way of getting it back, and the consequence could be a reduction in valuable cash crops the area produces, said Warren Mayberry, Texas Farm Bureau spokesman.
"No matter how many acres it finally winds up taking, it's very safe to say the corridor will have an impact on agricultural output," Mayberry said.
The decrease could also hurt some farmers, he added.
Pat Henson has had his hands in Texas' soil for over 50 years. He owns and operates a 600-acre farm north of Temple and said he worked as a conservationist with the USDA's Natural Resource and Conservation Service for 35 years.
Henson said he opposes the corridor because of the loss of prime farmland while economic conditions facing farmers become increasingly strained.
"The price of the product we're selling hasn't gone up, but the price of everything we buy has," he said.
In the end, the size of the corridor will have too much impact on the land while not doing much to help the community, Henson said.
"Their thinking is if a little bit does a little good, then a whole lot will do a lot of good," he said. "We don't do that in the farming community."
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
In any case, slowly but surely the development octopus creeps on.
No, it hasn't.
I'm tired of the stupid hysteria about this project.
If you think we have all the roads in Texas we'll EVER need, just say so.
Yes, development is BAD. Gimme the Pony Express over this crap we have to live with like getting from here to there if we want.
Draft SH 130 EIS Reevaluation: Segments 5 and 6 2-4
For the 10-year period between 1987 and 1997, the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agricultural reports a decline in total
agricultural lands for the four counties (Williamson, Travis, Caldwell and Guadalupe)
from approximately 1.8 to 1.7 million acres.4 Today, the NRCS considers roughly
half of the 4-county area (about 1.1 million acres) to be farmable. The NRCS
4 Total agricultural land includes cultivated cropland, noncultivated cropland, pastureland and rangeland. NRCS
reports a total land cover margin of error of approximately 3%.
CSJ: Travis County: 0440-06-007 (Section 16)
Caldwell County: 3583-01-003 (Sections 16, 17)
3583-01-004 (Sections 17, 18)
3583-02-001 (Section 19) Resource Conditions
Guadalupe County: 3583-02-001 (Sections 19, 20) August 2006
Draft SH 130 EIS Reevaluation: Segments 5 and 6 2-5
considers most of this farmable land (about 88%) to be prime and important
farmland.5
According to the Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project (CTSIP, 2004), high
market values are causing farmland and ranchland to be converted to low density
developed uses at an increasing rate, especially in Williamson County. The region
is losing farmland to development radiating out from major roadways in and around
Austin. Market pressures exert a great deal of influence on landowners according
to data from Texas A&M.6 Agricultural production values were merely a fraction of
market values in Williamson and Caldwell Counties, while Travis County showed
more balance between agricultural production value and market value between
1992 and 2001. The conversion of cultivated land to residential/commercial uses
reflects a national trend where total land in farms has declined steadily since 1978,
although the number of (smaller) farms has increased in that time period (US
Census of Agriculture, 2002). According to CTSIP, data from the 2002 Census of
Agriculture indicates that Texas has "hit a new low for the number of acres of
productive farmland, but a new high for the total number of farms."
The trend in declining agricultural lands mirrors a corresponding increase in urban
lands within the 4-county area between 1992 and 1997. In this 5-year period,
urban land within Williamson County increased by nearly 40 percent; within Travis
County, urban land increased by approximately 26 percent. In the more rural
counties of Caldwell and Guadalupe, urban land increased by approximately 13
percent and 33 percent, respectively.7
Both population and housing have grown exponentially in Travis County for 60
years. Growth in other Central Texas counties began noticeably increasing in 1980.
Both population and housing growth rates in Williamson County have led the
region, but the density of the new growth has yet to reach the density Travis
County reached in the 1970’s. Between 1990 and 2000, less than 10 percent of
new development in the region occurred in already developed areas (i.e., infill or
redevelopment). The CTSIP graphed housing per acre for central Texas counties
from 1940 to 2000. In 1940, Caldwell, Williamson and Travis all had densities less
than 0.05, meaning less than one dwelling for 20 acres. By 1980, Travis had a
density of 0.30, or one dwelling for every 3.3 acres, while the other counties still
had densities of less than 0.05. By 2000, Travis County was up to 0.5, or one
5 Pers. Comm. James Greenwade, NRCS Temple TX, 5/1/2006.
6 Texas A&M Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Department’s Land Information System.
7 National Resources Inventory (NRI) data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US
Department of Agriculture.
CSJ: Travis County: 0440-06-007 (Section 16)
Caldwell County: 3583-01-003 (Sections 16, 17)
3583-01-004 (Sections 17, 18)
3583-02-001 (Section 19) Resource Conditions
Guadalupe County: 3583-02-001 (Sections 19, 20) August 2006
8 Hicks & Company, 2006.
http://www.centraltexasturnpike.org/pdf/SH%20130%20Segment%205%20and%206%20Reevaluation%20-%20Draft%20Volume%202%20of%202%20(Part%202)%20(August%202006).pdf
This will become a giant wall/barrier, bisecting the State of Texas.
Composed of 8 lane, super highway, side roads, power lines, pipelines, railroad lines, it will be super wide, and super hard to cross. Just how much will a single overpass cost?
It will cost so much that there will be very few of them.
Ten miles is the width of the study area. The width will be further narrowed down to 1/4 mile for the final alignment.
The environMENTAL groups want us all to ride bicycles, take buses and trains, or walk to get around. Believe me, I used to read stuff from the WorldWatch Institute. All these nitpicking lawsuits serve that overarching goal; they aren't really about particulates or more auto exhaust, IMO. If motor vehicles were perfectly clean at the tailpipe, I bet you they would still probably think driving autos and building roads is a waste of resources.
These idiots should all move to Europe.
Me like buggy whips.
I dunno. We manage to cross rivers, freeways, and anything else we need to anyplace we want.
Maybe we ought to build one spur of the TTC along the border. We'd instantly get the Tom Tancredo gang onboard since this thing is being portrayed as the Berlin Wall.
I have watched acre after acre, be developed,paved, built on,what was once farm and ranch land, turned into subdivision, after subdivision,corner parcels turned into parking lots and strip malls, and the traffic just gets worse,then of course the lots, the houses bought by people from CA,MA,NY,and they change everything, they moved here for FREEDOM. But What do they try to do?,outlaw,smoking ,drinking,personal responsibilty,(oh ) They bring in big brother (Like traffic stops on holidays,JUST IN CASE SOME STUPID FOOL WAS DRINKING ON THE 4TH,on a lake,PLEASE, Most of us do!!!!Am I an Enviromentalist,Yes !! A'M I a wacko , No!
ping
Thanks for the ping!
You're welcome. :-)
BTTT
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.