Shove La Jolla into the ocean First...
Posted on 10/08/2007 1:48:03 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Yeah, it’s “just a road in Texas”, that’s what some of them say. But, you can go on some of those websites, talking about it and it will show maps extending from Texas all the way to Canada.
Kansas City is also “excited” about it coming through their area, too. But people in Oklahoma say it can just do a “U-turn right at the Texas border, thank-you!”.
I hope Oklahomans stop it right at the border and kill those plans for running all the way up to Canada.
While all eyes are on Texas and the TTC, Canamex corridor (in AZ.) has sections already built. It will bring goods from Mexico, too.
Somewhere in the desert southwest a train system will connect to Punta Colonet and connect it to an existing rail track. The North-South transportation corridors are happening!
Well lots of international flights are shifting to tradtionally domestic hubs like Atlanta (ATL) and Houston (IAH). The new open skies agreement between the EU and US allowing flights between any two airports in the EU and US. One great improvement is that is supercedes the Bermuda II treaty that restricts which US cities may have nonstop service to London Heathrow (LHR). Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta were specifically banned from having nonstop service to Heathrow in violation of the US Constitution. Also planes like the 787 will decrease the cost of flying internationally from midsize markets.
That means that politics rules ~ it's unlikely a really great beach in New Jersey can be converted into use as a site for port expansion.
Shove La Jolla into the ocean First...
“If the government already OWNS the land, it simply cannot be “taken”. That’s because the government does the taking, and the federal government can take state/municipal owned land only with the permission of the state affected.”
I think many, or most ports are owned by states or cities, and those entities would be the ones to expand existing ports or construct new ones, not the feds.
And the need for new ports in this discussion is primarily on the west coast, not New Jersey.
Expansion can take place in Mexico with little impact on anybody.
The Texas Gulf Coast and LA I’d guess are looking forward to any expansion of the Panama Canal as that will let the larger container vessels into the Gulf. Walmart has already built a 4 million sq. ft. distribution facility in Houston that imports up to 28% of their Asian goods via the Panama Canal on smaller ships with an added 3000 mile shipping distance. But it has cut days off their ontime destination delivery to their retail outlets. The strike at the West Coast ports during the Christmas season of I think 2002 causesd Walmart to rethink their importation system and Houston was the benefactor.
Think Prince Rupert and you’ll find a new facility in British Columbia being built to bring in Asian goods. This is the deepest port on the Continent and the northern rail head of the Canadian rail system. Memphis here we come.
Maybe the construction of competing ports might get the Longshoremen's union to start using barcode scanners. Just a thought.
“The population of Texas, meanwhile, is growing by 1,000 a day, with the current population of 23 million people slated to double by 2040. According to TexDOT, it would be cheaper to build an entirely new route than to expand the current highway outward, which would require buying out many established businesses.”
This part makes sense. Does anyone dispute that?
“The state of Texas should improve its existing north/south highways and forget about the rest. “
Yeah, but building a new highway is cheaper than buying all the land on I-35 in order to expand it. JMHO.
The TTC is way over-engineered and they ought to kick out the Cintra folks... but not all new highways are bad.
“Yeah, but building a new highway is cheaper than buying all the land on I-35 in order to expand it. JMHO.”
But if other ports are developed to handle more of the cargo, there might be no need for that new system. And, if it’s feasible to send more ships through the Panama Canal, there are Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic ports that can handle more, or expand, or possibly build new ports.
It’s absurd to plan huge amounts of cargo bound for the US to come through new Mexican ports and be delivered throughout the US by Mexican truckers.
Everyone doesn’t buy the lowest possible cost is the only value approach. If the American people become involved in this, they’ll want to see US ports handle the cargo and US truckers move it around the country.
"This part makes sense. Does anyone dispute that?"
~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. Most Texas highways run thru rural land, where this is not a consideration -- and the TTC route is already "looped around" the big urban areas where it applies.
“Yep. Most Texas highways run thru rural land, where this is not a consideration — and the TTC route is already “looped around” the big urban areas where it applies.”
I wondered. Where I live there’s plenty of room along the interstates to add lanes, and as you say, the cities are looped with new six or more lane bypasses.
“Most Texas highways run thru rural land”
NOT I-35!! Which is the key bottleneck.
“the TTC route is already “looped around” the big urban areas where it applies.”
yes, that is the point... it is rural because land is cheaper.
NOT I-35!! Which is the key bottleneck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look at a map of all of I-35. My guess is that you live within the urban sprawl of one of our larger cities, and that your "worldview" of I-35 is strongly influenced by your daily commute.
Most of I-35 does, indeed, pass thru rural landscape -- and it has plenty of room to accommodate the only thing that is needed: additional passenger vehice lanes -- made possible by building separate truck lanes.
There definitely should be no ever-widening ROW consumed by idiocy like fenced-in pipelines, power lines, passenger rail, etc., etc. that must be crossed by ever-longer [and more expensive] overpasses on local roads.
Simply moving truck traffic onto separate lanes (or, better, a separate "freight pipeline") designed to handle the overweight traffic and stress would
From an engineering standpoint, nothing in the "corridor" concept makes sense -- except for separate truck lanes.
Example: When was the last time you had to use an overpass to cross over a pipeline -- or under a power line?
“Look at a map of all of I-35. My guess is that you live within the urban sprawl of one of our larger cities, and that your “worldview” of I-35 is strongly influenced by your daily commute.”
I’ve been on I-35 from above Dallas to San Antonio. I dont use any of I35 for daily commute (thank God!)
I know perfectly well the multiple cities, large and small that would make expansion of I-35 an expensive proposition. Not just Austin, where I-35 has about 35 miles from Georgetown to RoundRock to Austin to Buda that is developed, but also Temple, Waco, San Marcos, New Braunfels, and of course San Antonio itself.
What you fail to understand in my point is that even if most of it is rural, you will still need alterante routes to get around the significant amount of urban and outer urban roadway...
So what is the solution?
Well for the San marcos- Austin corridor, it is IH-130, which lays about 10 miles to the east of Austin and connects up at georgetown then down to Seguin. It would cost an enormous sum, easily billions of dollars, to buy out all the 30 miles of businesses along I-35. So IH-130 was a much more cost-effective answer ... now replicate that all along the corridor and what are your choices?
1. Build about 10-12 additional bypasses like IH-130, not very effective but relieves some urban congestion.
2. Expand I-35 even in urban areas at great cost.
3. A parallel highway.
“Most of I-35 does, indeed, pass thru rural landscape — and it has plenty of room to accommodate the only thing that is needed: additional passenger vehice lanes — made possible by building separate truck lanes.”
The problem is that where the extra lanes are really needed, there is no space for expansion. Been there, done that.
the stuff about other infrastructure is another issue. One that, you are right. TTC doesnt need all that extract stuff, it is way over-engineered. I am simply making a point that TxDOT has studied and concluded: Expanding I-35 would cost a lot more and add less capactiy than a separate parallel highway.
They have this Fall thing up there though ~ 14 meter waves ~ comes just about every year ~ just in time for Christmas!
California's Coastal Zone Management Act, plus the Coastal Range and its impact on potential locations for railheads and quays, pretty much wipes out that state as a place where serious expansion can be made.
Then, of course, there are the crazoids in Oregon, and I'm sure they'd rather plough Mexico under than allow a single linear foot of their precious shoreline be used to do anything (/sarc).
This doesn't mean East Coast facilities are not needed ~ they will be ~ but no one is going to build them.
Not sure why the American people want American ports to handle the unloading of ships’ cargo when all that mess can be readily kicked into an adjoining country.
They have this Fall thing up there though ~ 14 meter waves ~ comes just about every year ~ just in time for Christmas!
http://www.cn.ca/specialized/ports_docks/prince_rupert/en_KFPortsPrinceRupert.shtml
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.