Posted on 02/08/2005 5:17:44 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
AUSTIN -- Everything's big in the Lone Star State, but the term "superhighway" barely begins to describe Texas's transportation plan for the 21st century.
Called the Trans-Texas Corridor, it is the most ambitious highway project since the Eisenhower administration introduced the interstate system in the 1950s. The $184 billion, 50-year plan calls for building 4,000 miles of roadways up to a quarter-mile wide. Each corridor would contain six high-speed toll lanes for cars and trucks; six rail lines and easements for petroleum, natural gas and water pipelines, as well as electric, broadband and other telecommunications lines.
With Texas's population expected to double to 50 million in the next few decades and NAFTA-fueled cross-border trade increasing, the new corridor would move people and goods on these mega-highways from the Mexican border to Oklahoma and from the piney woods of East Texas to the El Paso desert. Cars and trucks could zip along at 85 mph. Oil could be piped out of Mexico across the country. Water from the Louisiana border could flow into drought-stricken West Texas. And hazardous materials could be routed out of Houston and Dallas, improving the state's ability to prevent terrorist attacks or other disasters.
The price would be minimal to taxpayers, say state officials, who are seeking private companies to finance, develop, build and maintain the corridor in exchange for the right to charge tolls for half a century.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
Please let me know if you want on or off this list. Thanks.
Is my math wrong here.. But $184b / 50 years /25,000,000 average population is about $174 a year.
I'd much rather this be a standard highway project than the horribly expensive toll they want.
Once a toll is in place it never ends. The highway is paid for, the original builders and users die of old age, and the toll is raised.
To hell with it.
There should be more roads rather than wider roads.
This is EXACTLY what happened in Massachusetts. The Mass Turnpike, a toll road across the entire state, has been paid off for years, but the tollbooths are still there. It's just a source of cushy jobs for political hacks and their friends.
Agreed, but why don't planners see it that way? How much of the traffic on the 'big roads' is people who are actually going in the direction of their destination, and how much is people who are going somewhat out of their way to get to another big road to take them somewhat toward their destination?
For those wanting more roads instead of wider roads, how do you expect to pay for it? That kind of complicates the whole toll road option.
The highway engineers see only what they are funded to see. The funding is from politicians and their public pork powers. Did somebody ever accuse gov't of providing elegant solutions?
Bad idea. It would create an economic choke point. Too much centralization would leave the Trans-Texas Corridor too vulnerable to disruption in the event of an attack by terrorists or a rogue state.
Yes please! Put me on the list - this thing is, by all accounts, swinging just BARELY to the north of my land. And no, I'm not sure I like the idea of more toll roads...
That was the question I was thinking of... why are authorities expecting BIG-time traffic near the Southern border? I can see a link to more globalization, and less nationalism.
It gets worse. Illinois recently jacked the tolls way up. So on the return trip from Minnesota recently all of our commerce went into Wisconsin and northern Michigan. Illinois priced themselves out of our tourism dollars. It wasn't the $5 in hiked tolls, it is the $5 multiplied by millions of cars a week.
Legal, highway robbery. The roads sucked too, BTW.
You're added.
A vision of the game FROGGER comes to mind is this thing close to the border ?
Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike is now the free I-30 between those two cities.
Louisiana - the Sunshine Bridge across the Mississippi was built as a toll bridge and is now free.
The price would be minimal to taxpayers, say state officials, who are seeking private companies to finance, develop, build and maintain the corridor in exchange for the right to charge tolls for half a century.
---
um... why do these state officials need to seek them then? If it would be profitable, why can't these private companies do it themselves, without government?
A vision of the game FROGGER comes to mind is this thing close to the border ?
---
LOL that would be a tough finish! How many lanes and rail tracks do you have to cross to get to the other side?!
Not true. I-30 between Fort Worth and Dallas was a toll road (the D/FW Turnpike) for several decades. It is now a "free" Interstate highway.
The era of "free" highways is over, however. From here on, the cost of new highway construction has to be spread over the user base as well as the taxppaper base. Taxpayers want new roads but scream at the notion of paying for them with higher taxes. The toll road is the only alternative.
Facts:
1. The population of Texas is rapidly expanding.
2. The current highway system is inadequate to handle current traffic loads, much less future traffic.
3. Therefore, new highways must be built.
BUT
1. New highways are highly expensive.
2. Taxpayers are unwilling to pay higher taxes.
3. Therefore, alternative sources of highway funding must be found.
Tolls are the only alternative to higher taxes. TANSTAAFL.
(Of course, the real payoff of the TTC will be the high-speed passenger rail system -- but that's another post.)
Texas has to have new highways. That much is certain. Our only choice is in where, when, and how these new roads will be built and paid for. I have yet to see any other alternatives that can meet the transportation needs of a future Texas without jacking everyone's taxes up in the process. Therefore, my choice is to support the TTC project, and I applaud Governor Perry for his forward-thinking advocacy of this alternative.
In reference to my initial comment, I was just wondering why the Washington Post seems to think this thing will have 12 lanes? As I understood it, the TTC, in its full majesty, would have 4 truck-only lanes and 6 car-only lanes. I was just wondering if negotiators for TTC-35 had revised plans for that segment, and the Post found out. That's all.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Trying to use the same right of way for car traffic and truck traffic makes sense when the combined utilization is below the 'basic' level of capacity. But if capacity needs to be added, it would seem more efficient to add an 'overflow' for cars only than to increase the truck-usable capacity.
On a related note, with airports, does it make more sense to design every runway and every gate to accommodate every type of aircraft, or does it make more sense to have some universal runways and gates and others which are designed for only a subset of available aircraft?
If 80% of the traffic in an airport is planes that are no bigger than a 737, does it make sense to have 6 runways built to accommodate a 777, or would it make more sense to have two that can handle the bigger aircraft and 5 that could only handle the smaller ones?
As I unerstand it, TTC-35 will ultimately extend to the U.S.-Mexican border near Brownsville or thereabouts.
Um, yeah, that one of the reasons the corridor is up to 1/4 mile wide is because they are leaving plenty of room for expansion when needed (which they didn't do originally with I-35, resulting in the need for a TTC.)
Sorry, you didn't just unlock the grand conspiracy...
OFF! POR FAVOR!
Perhaps they need government to agree to non-compete clauses or some other sort of protection before they're willing to invest.
Something to read later.
Done.
They mentioned six rail lines and I don't think that is accurate either......
I didn't say that there was necessarily a grand conspiracy. I just wondered why the Post would think the TTC would have twelve lanes when, as I understood it, plans call for ten lanes. Could just be journalistic ignorance, for all I know.
The state did do a feasibility study in the 80s on shipping water from the mouth of the Mississippi up to the panhandle.
The cost was out of sight.
Better keep digging up numbers, because if the state builds it as a traditional highway project, it will cost quite a bit more. The toll-financing method was chosen because it is cheaper to implement, and capital for construction can be acquired far faster, speeding up the construction schedule for each project.
It is also far, far cheaper for individual taxpayers, because almost all the cost is shifted to those who CHOSE to use it.
Problems with your equation:
The current population of Texas is near 23 million, and is expected to rise to 50 million in 50 years. So the average would be about 36 million, except that the buildout of this project is actually somewhere in the range 50-100 years, not 50 years. It implies that each person will be burdened with the cost, when as I just pointed out the burden rests on those who chose to use it, particularly truckers. Which is good, because approx. 80% of highway damage is caused by truck use, so they should be picking up most of the tab. Didn't read the article, but I wonder if they pointed out that the truck toll rates are right now projected to be about 3-4 times that for autos?
Funny how some here (not speaking specifically about you, I'm not familiar with your views or posting history) who regularly question and notice how the media routinely exaggerates, gets it wrong, and tries to spin each article in the worst light possible when it involves Republicans suddenly take the media's interpretations and figures as gospel when it involves toll roads.
"Cut all that darn pork NOW! (except for the roads I use, my parks, my schools...)" - the cry of the Middle-Class Welfare Warriors
1. That's more expensive
2. That uses up more land (requires more shoulders, drainage, overpasses, instead of shared in fewer corridors with fewer of each per lane mile)
3. More NIMBY's to cry, "You're dividing our lands" more often
Not really. With the wide corridor, a portion of which are set-asides for future expansion, it wouldn't be too difficult to construct shoo-flies to get the roads or rail portions back up and running in days. Meanwhile there already is a good network of alternative roads, that might become very congested for a brief time during repairs, but that's a minor nuisance from an extraordinary event.
Plus pooling the utility and rail lines in the TTC corridors(if that occurs) is actually safer, because you now have many more eyes on the facilities from the public and frequent patrols, its all visible from the roads. Sure terrorists could disguise themselves as maintenance workers, but that problem could be offset by simply requiring that law enforcement be notified in advance of all utility and maintenance work.
I want poured concrete too.
Actually no, these cities want the TTC to bypass them, just not too far out. Unlike in the '50's, they now have numerous freeways/tollways that would connect to the TTC so they wouldn't loose access, but do want through traffic removed their congested urban roads where possible. Ft. Worth and Dallas are competing for whether the TTC passes closest to their city (east or west of DFW), but they aren't seeking for it to run through their cities.
Because it would be prohibitively expensive for the private companies to do so without eminent domain, which they don't have. A handful of landholders could hold out for exhorbitant prices. So the state acquires the ROW through E.D., then basically leases the land out to a toll firm concessionaire, who can raise funds faster and construct more efficiently (both in time and cost.) Private firms have been wanting to do so for years, but were restricted by state law.
Sorry, I misread the tone of your statement. As you probably have noticed(!) there have been a lot of hyperbole and conspiracy accusations thrown around on these threads.
Yeah, that was in the conceptual drawing to illustrate all potential uses. Much, and perhaps all, of the TTC-35 will never have commuter rail tracks, no high-speed rail tracks for some portions and perhaps none at all, and some portions may never have freight rail tracks, or may have 4 freight rail tracks, etc. Same for various types of utilities. It is a flexible corridor concept that will likely be a good bit narrower than the 1/4 mile maximum in many locations.
Because at some point you have to use the power of eminent domain. There are some hardheads out there, not to mention Sierra Club types who would buy land in front of the proposed route, just to stop it or extort it for millions of dollars.
What a great idea! Now a million illegals per day can move through Tejas without stepping on one another's heels. Could be Texas is giving them a way to move through quickly without getting tired and settling by the roadside
Btw, here's a crucial little bit from the article:
The project's reliance on tolls would mean a significant shift in how road construction is paid for and might not easily translate to such states as Ohio, Washington and Indiana that recently decided a gasoline tax increase to pay for highway construction was more palatable than creating more toll roads.Congratulations, OH, WA and IN: your price of butter went up by just that much more than it had to. Someone else can brain this one better than I, but it seems to me that a general tax is always more expensive than a targeted one, even when it comes to the price of butter.
Your math is wrong. The population of Texas in 50 years will be 40-50 million. It is already over 21 million. Your average should be 30 to 37.5 million. Also, you aren't including the time value of money in your calculations.
Just a guess, but I bet desalination plants eventually solve much of our water problems in Texas. Perry has fast-tracked some research into it, plants are already online in Florida and other parts of the world, and the costs are projected to come down significantly in the near future. Use desalination for Houston's supply, and perhaps you could divert Lake Livingston water to DFW, a shorter distance than the muddy Mississippi.
Or maybe even simpler would be a pipeline from a desal. plant in the Corpus/Aransas Pass area to the edge of the Edwards Aquifer around San Antonio/New Braunfels. Use it to recharge the aquifer when it gets low, and then run a string of pipelines the shortest distance from one aquifer to another up to Dallas. Believe it or not Phoenix is in good shape with its water resources, because they acquire rights and have stored away underground massive amounts of water with their CAP project. Perhaps that could be replicated here. Already there are private companies talking about pipeline projects to meet future Texas water needs (though I'm sure some here will demand the state build the pipelines at twice the cost, good consistent conservatives that they are...) Heck, if they could work out a funding agreement with other states, they could even extend the acquifer leapfrogging pipelines to the Ogalla aquifer, that feeds agriculture all up and down the plains (but last I read was still being drawn down faster than the replenishing rate.), which might fund such a project.
Thanks..... I was thinking it was something less than six... I agree that commuter rail most like won't be a part of the overall project at least in the near term. The concept will require additional connecting commuter lines to get the people into the metro areas as the TTC will be many miles from the cities.
You're added.
There you go again, with false and misleading hyperbole. I really want to be nice to you, but I just cannot stand dishonesty.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this TTC-35 is a $6.3 billion dollar project. The profit margin is likely less than a billion. A Cintra-led consortium won the bidding process for the TTC-35 project only, they'll have to bid again for any other TTC corridor, and I-69 is the only one under study right now, and that contract may or may not be divided into separate projects on each side of Houston. Not to mention that one of the partners (of several) in Cintra consortium is Texas-based Zachry. Cintra is the lead firm, but they'll subcontract out much of the process. So 'billions of dollars' are not going to be sent to Spain.
How will the toll road help us? By lowering construction costs, speeding up construction, and shifting the costs from all Texans to those that choose use the road, especially trucks, who do much of the damage to roads and thus should pick up most of the costs. More roads for fewer tax dollars, and no tax increase. So the net effect is it is cheaper for every Texan, except for those who to chose to use the toll road regularly (more than the occasional vacation or business trip.)
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.