Posted on 04/13/2008 5:44:54 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Despite the uproar over the state's proposal to build Trans-Texas Corridor 69 through East Texas, Lufkin's mayor says he supports the highway — as long as it follows the path of the current U.S. Highway 59.
The Trans Texas Corridor/I-69 project is a statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that will incorporate existing and new highways, railways and utility right-of-ways. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed road can go online to www.keeptexasmoving.com. TxDOT has expanded its public comment period for TTC-69 to Friday, April 18.
Gov. Rick Perry appointed Gorden, along with 17 other Texans, to an I-69 Corridor Advisory Committee. The committee meets for the first time in Austin the week after next.
"This is an opportunity for Lufkin to have a say in the allocation of significant resources that will impact our part of the state for many generations," said Mayor Jack Gorden. "It's going to take a while longer, but I believe the Texas Legislature and the governor's office realize that up through this part of the state, it needs to stick to the existing 59 route. And that's going to speed up the process."
The committee members will advise TxDOT on I-69 Corridor plans. Gorden and others on the committee will study and prepare reports on the impact of an I-69 corridor on the economy, politics, society and population. They will also report on the use of existing, new and upgraded facilities; road and rail solutions; and financing options, according to a press release.
"Our goal is to enhance the public dialogue and meaningfully involve more Texans in transportation decisions," Texas Transportation Commission Chair Hope Andrade stated in a press release. "These committees will have an important seat at the table as we work together to shape the future of transportation in our state."
Gorden said he supports the move toward expanding existing highways.
"We need to try not to mistreat the landowners," Gorden said, "but we desperately need the highway. This part of Texas has more people living at or below the poverty level than any other part of Texas other than the valley. The north-south interstate coming through here will do as much to raise the standard of living for people in this area than any other project."
CORPUS CHRISTI — Those who want to comment on the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor 69, aka Interstate 69, have one more week to do it.
The deadline for submitting comment to the Texas Department of Transportation on I-69's draft environmental impact statement, originally March 19, was extended to April 18.
A copy of the statement is available at ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/projects/i69/deis_overview.aspx.
The corridor is a planned 1,600-mile national highway connecting Mexico, the United States and Canada. Eight states are involved in the project.
In Texas, I-69 will be developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. The initial study area is roughly 650 miles long.
I-69's Texas portion includes a corridor from Texarkana to Houston, then Victoria, where it could branch out to Laredo, McAllen and/or Brownsville via State Highway 44 and U.S. highways 281 and 77. Corpus Christi-area public officials anticipate a huge economic impact from the project, depending on the routes it uses.
Many public comments received thus far recommend the Department of Transportation focus on using existing highways first with new corridors as a secondary option.
A final environmental impact statement is expected in late 2008. If a preferred corridor is selected, additional environmental studies will be needed to narrow the final alignment.
Public comment about the proposed draft environmental impact statement for the Trans-Texas Corridor 69, or I-69, can be submitted:
Via e-mail at ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/comments_questions/comments_i69.aspx
Via mail to:
I-69/TTC
P.O. Box 14428
Austin, TX 78761
The impact statement can be viewed by visiting ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/projects/i69/deis_overview.aspx.
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
Could you please take the garbage out of the title? Thanks.
I take US 59 a couple of times a year from Texarkana to Houston. It keeps getting improved. It is a welcome drive instead of the interstates.
Thanks. :-)
This whole I-69 road deal is a scam.
Sure thing ;)
Two Texas mayors boughtmand paid for...Poor Texans! Poor U.S.! TTC has GOT to be stopped. It’s part of the New World Order and it’s coming NOW! Texans were supposed to stand up to Perry and the globalists, and they punted.
59. 69 is gonna be major different. Same path different owners and tolls
[ they want to create the all new terrain I-69 extension from Evansville to Indy. ]
I have never seen that the proposed TX-Canada corredor will go through Indiana. Current hwy 59 is the proposed route and it goes up to Iowa and Minnesota.
I-69 exists in Indiana from Indy through Ft. Wayne and on into Michigan to Canada. They want to continue it from Indy southwest to Evansville. From there down to Texas. Just another route on the NAFTA superhighway to Canada. The fast track for Illegals, and drugs and cheap Chinese imports (via mexican ports).
Welcome to the NAU.
US Hwy 59 may as well be an interstate now from Houston to almost Livingston. It already has most of the attributes; divided four lanes with fewer crossings at grade, bypasses around the larger small communities, and wide shoulders. The traffic north of Livingston, particularly in the little towns, is a mess on Friday afternoons going north and Sunday afternoons going south. Bypasses around these little towns is at best a mixed blessing for the locals, but something needs to be done to alleviate the congestion. IMHO an I-69 would go a long way in solving some of the problems. Nothing will be done without creating some manner of grievance for somebody, though.
I see nothing on that map referring to I-69.
That would be corridor 18. And like I said, I-69 exists now, in Indiana and Michigan as depicted by the RED (from the middle of Indiana through Michigan to Toronto). As it stands right now, I-69 ends at I-465 on the NE corner of the city. They want to extend it from Indy, SW down to Evansville. The toe part of the state, and then from there south to the tip of Texas as indicated by the map.
I-69
See that red line running from down in the valley of Tx and going northeast into MI? It is marked with a 18 in a circle. That priority corridor 16 which is I-69. Here is a complete listing of the priority corridors. Go down to #18 and it will give you the states etc it traverses. Click on the link and you’ll get additional info.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/hipricorridors/hpcorqk.html
If limiting the development of roads helped economies grow by keeping out imports, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War, and Africa would be an economic super power.
That priority corridor 16 which is I-69.
s/b
That is priority corridor 18 which is I-69
Sorry for the mistake..
Huh, not a dang one in IL...strange for this socialist state.
Looks like they couldn’t cross the state line........ Very strange....
Then you know to avoid the notorious speed traps in the small towns just northeast of Houston.
Houston is becoming one, too -- the mayor is hard-up for fine money and grinding on the police for fines.
The mayor of Laredo may or may not realize that if I-69 simply replaces US 59, the effect will be to toll one of the major routes serving his town, the one that leads to the East Coast, and transfer it to private, foreign ownership.
Missouri, too.
BTTT
I don't know about the rest of the country but, in Texas, the N/S interstates have divided communities social/economically. The *other side of the tracks* if you will.
Then you know to avoid the notorious speed traps in the small towns just northeast of Houston.
I used to travel that route fairly frequently some 30-35 years ago. Driving up through those piney woods, especially at night was a real treat.
And YES I remember those speed traps. When I first moved down there I got nailed twice the same night on a drive back to Chi-town in my car that still had IL plates. The first time, just north of Cleveland, the cop was really nice and did me the favor of just writing a "warning" ticket. Somewhat further up the road, between Lufkin and 'doches, I got nailed again. Again, the cop was very nice, as he told me he was sorry, but there were no such things a "warning" tickets in Texas. I damn near whupped out the one I had in my pocket to prove him wrong ... but decided against it.
I was hauled into the courthouse in Nacogdoches about midnight and they dialed up a JP at home to give me a trial by telephone. After being escorted to an all-night convenience store to buy a money order for $50 + $2 tax (they would not accept cash), I was released.
Gotta wonder if this fool has even seen the proposals. There will be very few exit and entrances. on this foreign tollway. Perhaps he would be better off encouraging local entrepreneurship than getting behind this unwanted boondoggle.
You have to wonder if some of the local opposition to the proposed I-69 is not predicated on the fact that a toll road would pretty well cut revenue from all those speed traps. In the future, to travel from Houston to Northeast Texas, you will pay either Boss Hogg on the old road or George Soros on the toll road for the privilege.
http://ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/comments_questions/comments_i69.aspx
Illegal drugs get shipped pretty efficiently on existing tranportation systems. Foreign trucks should be required to meet US standards to drive on all US highways. The design of the TTC should make roads safer, because trucks will be separated from cars on their own right of way. It is impossible to build roads without the use of eminent domain. The use of Eminent domain requires paying land owners the fair market value of their property. It isn't "forfeiture".
“It isn’t “forfeiture”.”
It is if the person/family doesn’t want to sell. It is if they have to drive 50 miles to access their property.
You want imports...buy them over the NET.
Do you think that all the rights of ways for the roads you use were entirely obtained voluntarily? Do you really think a multi-billion dollar highway should have to be diverted 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 miles out of the way at a cost of $10 millon a mile or more, just because one land owner in the optimal path of a highway doesn’t want to sell? Are the rights of land owners along the path of proposed transportation rights of way the only thing that matter to you? The state and federal government have always had the right of eminent domain for good reasons.
I’m glad they chose the route they did in Indiana. The area it runs through is isolated without any good roads to get there. It will help the economy for the people who live there. One of the reasons they chose this route is because it runs near Crane Naval Base.
ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/comments_questions/comments_i69.aspx
And that way, they'll somehow get to the user's address over the internet???
ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/comments_questions/comments_i69.aspx
>>Foreign trucks should be required to meet US standards to drive on all US highways.<<
The US Congress voted to stop allowing a NAFTA-related Mexican truck program, because the DOT ignored safety requirements, but US DOT ignores congress. Unfortunately, what “should be” is irrelevant to those who see the US not as a sovereign nation, but as a colony subservient to international control. I think trade is a good thing, but projects that look like NAU infrastructure need more airing out.
The sneakiness of the TTC project (reminds me of the amnesty bill last year) worries me and many other Texans. The 2004 Texas Republican Party platform calls for the the repeal of the TTC. My 2008 county Republican convention voted to have a voter referendum on repealing the TTC legislation.
Care to speculate on whether illegal aliens would be working on the TTC (if it goes forward)? I’ll take a wild guess and say yes.
Texas has the 4 fastest growing metro areas in the US. The need for surface transportation between those cities and across the state isn’t going to be met by mererly incremntally expanding the existing highways. I-35 can’t be expanded to more than 3 lanes each direction without either really expensive elevated lanes from south of San Antonio all the way to Hillsboro or acquiring lots of expensive rights of way on already developed land next to the existing I-35 right of way. It’s cheaper to build a whole new highway on a new undeveloped right of way than trying to expand the existing highway beyond 3 lanes each direction. The TTC also has rights of way for high speed freight rail adjacent to the highway right of way that will be completely double tracked and grade separated from one state border to the other. This will allow much greater use of rail to transport goods within Texas and relieve some of the burden on our highways.
And why should foreign workers and investors get the contracts?
I am not opposed to better highways, but I don’t like the sneaky way they are trying to proceed.
BTTT
To the extent of these projects, the terms, participants, their absurd size and locations, YES. Will of the people and all that. Just because the Neo-Liberals want it doesn't make it pertinent. If it were one road through unpopulated portions of West Texas, there might be more acceptance. Taking away valuable farm and ranch land from the folks who originally settled Texas will never fly. COME AND TAKE IT!
QUE!
It seems to me that some politicians and business people are willing to sell this country to the highest bidder. Even some FReepers seem convinced that US citizens are not fit to hold a job.
A farmer could make more money this by selling his land, but how will he feed his kids next year?
No, that's not OK, Bill. The USA is a special place and the world needs us.
What’s absurd about the size of the TTC project? In 50 years, the population of Texas will be about 50 million people. Having room for multiple modes of transportation in each corridor decreases the need to disrupt multiple sets of land owners for each type of transportation. Texas has the 4 fastest growing metro areas in the country, and three of them are located on one Interstate highway. Taking 30 years to upgrade one Interstate by 50% isn’t going to cut it. It’s cheaper to build new higways on entirely new right of way than to try to upgrade exising ones to the capacities that will be needed.
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.