Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trans Texas Corridor could be San Marcos' new neighbor
San Marcos Daily Record ^ | February 4, 2005 | ANITA MILLER

Posted on 02/05/2005 6:34:20 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The time to speak out and ask questions about the Trans Texas Corridor is near.

Residents in Caldwell and Guadalupe counties will get a better understanding of potential impacts to their land usage and future tax revenues next month during Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) public meetings concerning the proposed corridor.

The corridor, as envisioned, would consist of a network of brand-new "transportation routes" that would carry passenger vehicles and large trucks in separate lanes and also provide for railway freight, high-speed commuter rail and "infrastructure" for utilities including water, oil, gas, electricity, broadband and "other telecommunications services," TxDOT says.

The routes would bypass major metropolitan areas and the project would be implemented in phases, beginning with "priority routes," which include a route to run east but largely parallel to Interstate 35.

The roadways would be toll roads, and would require 146 acres of right-of-way for each mile of the envisioned 4,000 miles of corridor. The combined vehicle, rail and utility lines would be 1,200 feet wide.

Overall, the project would result in the taking of 558,000 acres of private lands, according to Corridor Watch, an organization whose premise is "challenging the wisdom of the Trans Texas Corridor."

While landowners would be compensated under eminent domain, acreage taken for the corridor would be removed from county and school district tax rolls.

Officials with TxDOT will meet with Caldwell County residents on March 3 at the Lockhart High School Cafetorium, 1 Lion Country Drive. On March 22, citizens of Guadalupe County can attend a public meeting at the Seguin-Guadalupe County Coliseum, 810 S. Guadalupe St. Both sessions will run from 5 to 8 p.m. and will be held in an "open house" format.

Those in attendance will be able to ask questions as well as provide input and submit comments for the record. Available at the meetings will be the preliminary results of an environmental study that is expected to have narrowed the proposed route to a more or less 10-mile swath.

The round of public meetings is the second concerning the corridor. In the fall of last year, citizens were presented with maps showing a wide area of Texas from the Rio Grande to the Red River. Since then, "corridor alternatives" for the portion of the project to parallel IH-35 have been "refined."

This summer, project planners intend to have completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and following that will be another round of public meetings. The complete EIS, consideration of which will also include a "no build" option, is expected in early 2006. Around the same time, project planners are expected to present the corridor plan to the Federal Highway Administration.

In December, Gov. Rick Perry detailed how the project would be funded. Under a type of contract called a "comprehensive development agreement," which allows the state to hire a private firm to "plan, design, construct, finance, maintain and operate" the corridor, the governor said a Spanish firm has been selected to develop the corridor project.

Cintra-Zachary has said it plans to invest $6 billion by 2010 in the stretch of toll road from San Antonio to Dallas. Under terms of the agreement, the company would also pay the state $1.2 billion to be able to operate the toll road for 50 years. The $1.2 billion could be used by TxDOT for road improvements, high-speed or commuter rail projects.

According to TxDOT, the total project cost could range from $145.2 to $183.5 billion.

Proponents say the network of roads and rail and pipelines would ease traffic congestion in major cities and that given projected growth rates, the corridor is a proactive way of managing the transportation needs of 50 years into the future.

Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic, but could bisect towns and farms. It would also drain communities along IH-35 through lessened traffic and relocation of businesses.

For more information, visit

www.txdot.state.tx.us;

www.keeptexasmoving.com;

and www.corridorwatch.org


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: boondogle; caldwellcounty; cintrazachry; corridorwatch; guadalupecounty; i35; ih35; kay06; keeptexasmoving; landgrab; meetings; perry4sale; rail; rickperry; ricwilliamson; rinorick; sanmarcos; tollroads; tolls; transtexascorridor; ttc; ttc35; txdot; utilities; utopianscheme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

1 posted on 02/05/2005 6:34:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The corridor, as envisioned, would consist of a network of brand-new "transportation routes"...

FYI: These "routes" are a.k.a. NAFTA superhighways.


2 posted on 02/05/2005 6:38:34 PM PST by w6ai5q37b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Also regarding the TTC:

Road show

Posted on Sat, Feb. 05, 2005

If you'd like to learn more about a proposed new Texas toll road that would parallel Interstate 35 from the Oklahoma border to Mexico, you'll have a chance at a series of public meetings planned for North Central Texas and other regions.

Meetings in North Central Texas will kick off with one in Dallas on Monday, followed by others Tuesday in Fort Worth and McKinney.

Other meeting locations this month in North Central Texas include Bowie, Cleburne, Denton, Gainesville, Granbury, Hillsboro and Mineral Wells.

Excerpted; the rest is at http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10825741.htm

3 posted on 02/05/2005 6:39:06 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD; 185JHP; 1rudeboy; Abcdefg; Alamo-Girl; antivenom; anymouse; B-Chan; barkeep; basil; ...

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!

Please let me know if you want on or off the ping list. Thanks.


4 posted on 02/05/2005 6:41:06 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic, but could bisect towns and farms. It would also drain communities along IH-35 through lessened traffic and relocation of businesses.

It's probably the most congested Interstate highway in the US. A diversion of some of that traffice would be beneficial.

5 posted on 02/05/2005 6:41:52 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Call me jaded but I wonder how many suits in the Texas legislature have been "indirectly "buying up land around this boondoggle expecting to make a few bucks.


6 posted on 02/05/2005 6:43:21 PM PST by isthisnickcool (Denny Crane: "I look to two things: First to God and then to Fox News.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
From the article in Post #3:

But what's regrettably not planned for these meetings is an in-depth, informative presentation by Texas Department of Transportation officials on the project -- a presentation that could give a detailed overview of the project, followed by a question-and-answer session in which everyone could jointly participate.

7 posted on 02/05/2005 6:44:38 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic, but could bisect towns and farms. It would also drain communities along IH-35 through lessened traffic and relocation of businesses.


This is bull..... The TTC isn't going to be bisecting any of these towns or at least not the smaller ones and I doubt any of the larger ones either. I think the purpose it to get it away from the towns and congestion. And the relocation of businesses.... I wonder where they are going? Not to the TTC as it's going to be a limited access roadway thus it won't have the exits/entrances one would see along say IH-35.
8 posted on 02/05/2005 6:53:53 PM PST by deport (There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Why should they provide information and an opportunity for questions? We are the knaves. They are the kings. Does that explain it clear enough for you?

I'm LOL but it's no laughing matter. Government officials don't need no stinking questions!


9 posted on 02/05/2005 6:55:58 PM PST by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

it would be in the public interest if more were known about this.

but television and newspapers abdicated their constitutional roles a long time ago.


10 posted on 02/05/2005 6:56:28 PM PST by ken21 (most news today is either stupid or evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
Opponents argue that the corridor would not ease major metropolitan traffic,

What gets me is that these opponents say the TTC won't decrease congestion in cities but will decrease the number of cutomers of businesses along existing Interstates.

The existing Interstate system in Texas was designed for a state with a population less than 8 million. We now have over 21 million. We'll have 40 million by 2040. Just where do the oppononent of TTC propose to increase the capacity of the highway system in Texas without adding new highways?

11 posted on 02/05/2005 7:00:23 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

12 posted on 02/05/2005 7:02:07 PM PST by PokeyJoe (Unvarnished Truth - Your Mileage May Vary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
What gets me is that these opponents say the TTC won't decrease congestion in cities but will decrease the number of cutomers of businesses along existing Interstates.


Consistent group aren't they?.....
13 posted on 02/05/2005 7:06:06 PM PST by deport (There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What is, though, is the forcible taking of private land, which will then be turned over to a private for-profit entity.

Very, very, very un-Republican.


14 posted on 02/05/2005 7:12:21 PM PST by HarryCaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul

Since when did building a road either public or private not involve government's use of eminent domain to condemn private property? Well maybe the western railroads. But even then the government granted land claimed by American Indians to rail road companies.


15 posted on 02/05/2005 7:16:19 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: w6ai5q37b
They are nationally designated High Priority Corridors and there are 45 of them thru-out the US.

The 4 in Texas are

20. US 59 Corridor aka I 69
23. I 35 Corridor
27. Camino Real Corridor that terminates at El Paso
38. Ports to Plains Corridor from Laredo to Denver including US 287 to the Canada border.

NHS High Priority Corridors

16 posted on 02/05/2005 7:19:15 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul
...the corridor, the governor said a Spanish firm has been selected to develop the corridor project.

Cintra-Zachary has said it plans to invest $6 billion by 2010 in the stretch of toll road from San Antonio to Dallas...

As I understand it, Cintra is the Spanish firm, while Zachry is a Texas firm, if I remember correctly.

17 posted on 02/05/2005 7:20:07 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Lots of things have been done in the past that are bad ideas. Governments forcing land from one private owner to another is one of them.

Just because it was done before doesn't make it ok.


18 posted on 02/05/2005 7:22:32 PM PST by HarryCaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul

What is, though, is the forcible taking of private land, which will then be turned over to a private for-profit entity.



Well I guess there are two options..

1. Let the gov't get the property, raise the tax base and bond obligations for 30 yrs or more and slowly build the roads over some long period of time..... or

2. Let the gov't get the same property, contract out the roadway building, operation, etc with a private firm with them providing the funding, not raise the tax base nor issue bonded indebtness.

If you assume the roads are needed then in either case you have the roads and the property taken by the gov't, in one case the tax payers put up the money or in the other case the private entity puts up the money


19 posted on 02/05/2005 7:30:28 PM PST by deport (There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul; deport; MeekOneGOP
Lots of things have been done in the past that are bad ideas. Governments forcing land from one private owner to another is one of them.

You didn't answer my question. It is impossible to build a road without taking land from someone. You should reread the constitution. The state is allowed to take private property for public uses but must compensate the original owner. There is plenty of precedent for governments to allow private companies to build roads. Where I have problems with misuse of eminent domain is where it is used to redevelop land for private purposes like building shopping centers.

20 posted on 02/05/2005 7:32:28 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson