Trans-Texas Corridor

[mikedsjr]

Bravo FB!

[texman]

Ok, I went to the second meeting tonight in Mckinney, and I actually have some good news! I spoke to women who was the environmentalist/urban planner on the TTC Project Team, and she informed me that alot of the big cities (DFW, Austin, San Antonio) want nothing to do with this project unless it has high speed rail apart of the plan and connects to the city centers. She said theirs been alot of opposition from the cities because of the tollway totally by-passing the city (which I can see their point), but have had tremendous support for the rail component. Also she informed me that the TTC(as I said on an earlier post) would be extremly limited access so it doesnt encourage sprawl. The idea would be to have rest stops, located in the center of the of the freeways ( like on the Kansas and Oklahoma turnpikes) with gas stations, and hotels bidding on the location. And another thing, the dates on high speed rail being after 2025 are only conceptual. It really depends on a private bidder, but I don't know how well that would work out.

[RobertB]

The folks behind texastollparty.com, the "People for Efficient Transportation PAC", posted this scathing indictment of Propositions 1 and 9, which will be put before the voters this November. They liken these innocuous-sounding propositions to 2001's Proposition 15 -- the one that allowed TxDOT to use the credit of the State of Texas like an unlimited credit card in the name of "mobility".

I'll need to do more research about Prop 1. It's ostensibly a way of supporting fixed-rail mobility, and I consider that to be a Good Thing. But the 2001 proposal was marketed as a way to build roads in the South Texas colonias, not as a way for TxDOT to go on a statewide expressway building spree. On the other hand, the texastollparty.com site has a decidedly Libertarian stand -- and I'm concerned that a vote against a rail fund to match the road fund may be interpreted (wrongly) as a mandate for asphalt and rubber over steel.

Copied from the North Texas Indy Media Center site.

"Trans Texas Corridor Wolf in sheep's clothing...again"
by Sal Costello - www.TexasTollParty.com Monday, Sep 26 2005, 11:29pm
imacsal@aol.com phone: 5123719926
texas / transportation / op-ed/ analysis


We must STOP the Rick Perry "Tax Wolf" at the next election during early voting and on November 8th.

In 2001 a proposition was placed as a referendum to voters that developed the Texas Mobility Fund. Texans voted for "mobility" and Prop 15 became a constitutional amendment. Only later we found it was the first "Tax Wolf in sheep's clothing".

The ballot language of Proposition 15 did not openly and accurately inform voters that the Perry-motivated special-interest plan would allow the Trans Texas Corridor, or our public highways to be privatized and tolled so corporations can profit from what is already ours.

2005: PROPOSITION 1
Currently, the "Tax Wolf" is "rearing its ugly head" again with the Proposition 1 rail fund. It's a similarly smoke-screen voter trick as was Prop 15, except this time it's after more of our tax dollars by subsidizing private corporations rail. Proposition 1 is an open-ended corporate subsidy scheme --- a blank check. Taxpayers will pay unlimited tax dollars to move private corporation rail lines into Gov. Perry's Trans Texas Corridor, and this after the governor had promised Texans that no public funds would be used.

And, it gets worse. Our state DEBT commitment also will be open-ended, like a credit card with no ceiling, for state bonds that may be issued from this new fund. In a veiled power-play and further by amending the Constitution to authorize the creation of this fund, the state is committing its taxpayers to massive debt for generations. While private special interest corporations profit, taxpaying families will pay more as they will help fund the largest land grab in Texas history --- Perry's Trans Texas Corridor. The Corridor is in direct opposition to the platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

2005: PROPOSITION 9
Proposition 9 allows non-elected, unaccountable Tolling Authority board members extended term limits. Under the proposal, current 2-year term limits would expand to 6 years for appointed members of Perry's Regional Mobility Authorities (RMAs). These new and powerful special interest bureaucracies will have the authority to privatize and toll our public highways, and without urgently needed accountability, they will set the toll rates for roads we've already paid for with tax dollars!

Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn put out a comprehensive scathing report that shows how RMA's create "double taxation without accountability" and how the rampant loose management practices within these new RMA's cost Texas families more of their tax dollars. NOT surprisingly, Strayhorn also found motives of conflicts of interest, favoritism and self-profiteering as board members gave contracts (without bids) to their friends and their own companies. Gov. Perry's RMA boards must be required to abide by the standard provided in the Constitution that limits the terms of members of such boards to two years. The reason for Proposition 9 is to ensure that RMA members will remain pro-toll oriented for the longer period of time, so that the governor and his tolling special interests gain the most from this sleight-of-hand power-play.

The open-ended language of Props 1 and 9 appears to adhere to an integrity standard, but of course they doesn't mention the Trans Texas Corridor, unlimited taxes, lack of accountability and double-tax issues. "Tax Wolves" are NOT what they appear to be. They are NOT open and honest about their intentions; they are riddled with special interest obscurities.

We must STOP the "Tax Wolf" at the next election during early voting and on November 8th. Say NO to Prop 1 & 9. Call our TexasTollParty.com office today at 512.371.9926 to find out how Urban & Rural Texans can work together to help stop the Tax Wolf.

Sal Costello
Sal@TexasTollParty.com
Founder of People for Efficient Transportation Inc.

http://salcostello.blogspot.com/

[columbiasooner]

I am very interested to see how Perry uses the Houston evacuation to pump up the TTC. If done effectively this could be an incredible issue to use in the upcoming election. Lord knows he can't use School Finance.

[saxman66]

I continue to be on the fence about the TTC. One thing is for sure. I will not support it with out the steel rails running along with it. And some points about the texastollparty.com arguements I agree with. Some I don't.

Now I like my Texas land and I think it should be preserved. We're lucky to have this much space, and I think it should be left.

However, I think Perry at least has the right idea, with improving mobility in the state. An important transportation NETWORK including roads, rails, and airways is key. Unfortunately we in America think only one type of transportation option is the best, and don't think about how they all complement each other.

As for ruining the cities, that I kinda agree with because its not going to go through downtown area. As for smaller towns, well most small towns I know don't want a super highway running through them anyways.

So yeah I have no idea what to think about it.

Robert, if you could explain what Prop 1 is and how it has to do with the rail part, please explain. I'm lost. Thanks

Chris

[RobertB]

I'll have to get back with you about the propositions -- I only know enough to be dangerous. One note, though:

As for ruining the cities, that I kinda agree with because its not going to go through downtown area. As for smaller towns, well most small towns I know don't want a super highway running through them anyways.

Take a look at Lexington, Kentucky on this map. They decided to route the Interstates serving the city far outside the city limits (at the time). There's a loop around the town (zoom in a notch and you'll see KY 4), but it's mostly at-grade. As a result, Lexington has all the mobility of an Interstate-served city, with fewer of the drawbacks -- no inner-city neighborhoods split and destroyed by a ribbon of concrete, no historic structures demolished or overshadowed by complex freeway mazes. Lexington's downtown looks like... a downtown, not a series of Interstate feeder roads. The city has its share of traffic problems, and today the south side outside the KY 4 loop is sprawl-central, but lack of direct highway access to the city center has not been a problem in Lexington's growth as a commercial, educational, and cultural center.

The roads proposed for the TTC will enhance their terminal cities by providing "heavy lift" mobility between them. This doesn't require that they enter the city core. In fact, it's better if they don't. Let the city be the city, and let the freeway be the home of "...gas stations. Inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food, tire salons, automobile dealerships, and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see." (Judge Doom, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?).

As for small towns... it probably depends on the town's indigenous revenue stream. If it's high, then the town will rather be left alone. If not, then the sales tax revenue from the Quick E Mart at the exit ramp will look awfully appealing.

[texman]

You know, I really liked the idea for extremly limited access on the TTC to interstates and US/State Highways, but then all the little towns raised hell about it, so there goes trying to limit sprawl.

[Tnekster]

Dallas Business Journal - 12:08 PM CST Wednesday
TxDOT teams up with international group on Trans-Texas Corridor
Margaret Allen
Staff Writer
In a rare endorsement, the Texas Department of Transportation is joining the North America's Supercorridor Coalition Inc., a nonprofit, international organization based in Dallas.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/st...=et59&hbx=e_du

The members of Nasco, founded in 1994, aim to develop the highway infrastructure from Canada through the United States to Mexico, particularly the Trans-Texas Corridor, which would widen and expand Interstate 35 into a mega-trade corridor.

A press release Wednesday from Nasco and TxDOT said the two will work together to ensure development of the TTC, championed by Gov. Rick Perry.

"The Texas Department of Transportation is formalizing its commitment to work closely with Nasco and its local, state and international members as the strongest voice on the continued development of I-35 and Trans-Texas Corridor 35," said Ric Williamson, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission.

"Without question, Nasco has been the single most influential organization, not just in Texas, but the nation, when it comes to the development of I-35," Williamson added. "They also know what it will take to meet the challenges of the next 50 years."

TxDOT will market the I-35 and Trans-Texas Corridor 35 with Nasco to state, national and international audiences, as well as work on common federal priorities, said Amadeo Saenz, TxDOT's assistant executive director for engineering operations.

Saenz said Nasco's leadership has helped TxDOT to understand how a broad transportation corridor benefits all sides.

Saenz and Nasco Executive Director Tiffany Melvin will make presentations on I-35 and TTC-35 at the Northeast Mexico-Texas workshop on logistics for regional competitiveness in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.

Nasco has memoranda of understanding with eight U.S. states and one Canadian province for ongoing cooperation in enhancing the I-35/I-29 and I-94 corridors and major connectors to those highways. Nasco also has signed a letter of intent with the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation of Mexico to develop a plan to monitor the operation of commercial cargo vehicles along I-35 using intelligent transportation systems.

The 20-member Nasco Board of Directors includes eight Texans representing Webb, Bell, Denton and Tarrant counties, Free Trade Alliance San Antonio, EWI Risk Services, the International Bank of Commerce and the international law firm Strasburger & Price.

Nasco's general membership includes Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), Hillwood Properties/Alliance Texas, Love's Country Stores, the City of Midlothian, the City of Gainesville, GrowthNet Trading, and Franco Eleuteri & Associates.

Web sites: www.Nasco-itc.com and www.dot.state.tx.us

mallen@bizjournals.com

[RobertB]

Nasco has memoranda of understanding with eight U.S. states and one Canadian province for ongoing cooperation in enhancing the I-35/I-29 and I-94 corridors and major connectors to those highways. Nasco also has signed a letter of intent with the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation of Mexico to develop a plan to monitor the operation of commercial cargo vehicles along I-35 using intelligent transportation systems.

For the benefit of the non-roadgeeks, I-29 splits from I-35 in Kansas City and heads a bit to the northwest, while I-35 heads a bit northeast. I-94 is an east-west route that parallels I-90 (Chicago-Seattle), but is several hundred miles to its north. It crosses I-35 in Minneapolis/St. Paul, and I-29 in Fargo, North Dakota. Including I-94 helps get a few more of those northern border states on board with the program, I guess.

[tamtagon]

Dallas Business Journal - 12:08 PM CST Wednesday

Margaret Allen
Staff Writer
In a rare endorsement, the Texas Department of Transportation is joining the North America's Supercorridor Coalition Inc., a nonprofit, international organization based in Dallas.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/st...=et59&hbx=e_du


Nasco has memoranda of understanding with eight U.S. states and one Canadian province for ongoing cooperation in enhancing the I-35/I-29 and I-94 corridors and major connectors to those highways. Nasco also has signed a letter of intent with the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation of Mexico to develop a plan to monitor the operation of commercial cargo vehicles along I-35 using intelligent transportation systems.

Excellent!

Dallas is moving into position as a primary fulcrum for North American imports and exports.

[dfwcre8tive]

Trans-Texas Corridor's proposed route to be unveiled
By GORDON DICKSON
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
Texans should know the proposed route of the Trans-Texas Corridor toll road from the Metroplex to San Antonio in three to six weeks, state officials said Wednesday.

An environmental study that began two years ago was supposed to be unveiled to the public last month, but it hit a roadblock after state and federal officials realized some of the documentation was incomplete, said Michael Behrens, executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation.

The 4,000-page study will show the path of the proposed high-speed road within a 10-mile study area. That’s narrow enough for cities between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio to determine whether the route will benefit them economically, and for property owners to know whether their land may be taken.

But before the study can be released, state officials must provide more information about potential “secondary” impacts of the proposed road on economic development, water, air quality and other issues, said Amadeo Saenz, Texas Department of Transportation assistant executive director for engineering operations.

“If we build a road and there is economic development, will the economic development have an impact on the environment? Will it require more utilities? You’ve got to address what impact it might have,” Saenz said Wednesday.

Once the plan is made public, copies will be available at www.keeptexasmoving.org, and at transportation department district offices and libraries statewide.

More than 50 public hearings will be held beginning this May in cities along the corridor route. The agency hopes to submit a final environmental impact statement to the Federal Highway Administration by the end of the year, potentially clearing the way for construction to begin in 2007.

A team led by Madrid-based Cintra and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction has been selected to oversee the construction of the privately funded toll road, which is expected to cost $6 billion.

The Trans-Texas Corridor is Gov. Rick Perry’s plan to build 4,000 miles of toll roads, high-speed rail lines and utilities criss-crossing the state.

But the idea has become a subject of hot statewide debate, and many Texans say they disagree with the concept of paying for roads with tolls. On Thursday, a debate between pro- and anti-toll road forces from San Antonio is scheduled during the monthly Texas Transportation Commission meeting in Austin.

Gordon Dickson, (817) 685-3816
gdickson@star-telegram.com

[jsoto3]

Check out http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/ !

They have a great interactive population map (historic and projected) for the entire state:
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/flash...population.htm

It's mind blowing to imagine the forthcoming population increases in particular counties.

[dfwcre8tive]

Officials zero in on Trans-Texas Corridor path
State expects to soon unveil plan for start of road-rail-utility swath
12:00 AM CST on Thursday, February 23, 2006
By TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News

After two years of study, state officials are close to narrowing down the potential path for the first legs of the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The Texas Department of Transportation has led the ongoing review of a wide swath of land that generally parallels Interstate 35 and runs about 600 miles from Oklahoma to Mexico. Within six weeks, the department expects to unveil a draft environmental report that features a single, 10-mile-wide corridor where the road's first segments could be built.

Public hearings could begin in May. Although the general route could become clear soon, decisions on the final route and the start of construction remain several years away.

Federal officials could approve a final environmental report and the general 10-mile-wide swath by the end of the year. After that, specific projects must be announced and then undergo about two years of federal environmental review before construction can begin. "This is still a work in progress," said state Transportation Department spokeswoman Gaby Garcia.

The study has considered alternatives that would build the corridor on either the east or west side of the North Texas region. Local leaders have been concerned that the corridor could be built far from the urban area, which could draw away business and development. "Those questions about how to access the metroplex are coming into play now but will come into much more detailed discussions at the next level," Ms. Garcia said.

Gov. Rick Perry's vision for the Trans-Texas Corridor is a network of toll roads, utility lines and passenger and freight rail lines that eventually could cross many parts of the state. The toll roads, rail lines and utility lines could be included in a single area up to 1,200 feet wide, or they could be built in separate areas.

In late 2004, the Texas Transportation Commission signed a $7.2 billion development deal with Cintra-Zachry to build the stretch of the corridor from Oklahoma to San Antonio. The state has recently begun work on soliciting proposals for another corridor in East Texas.

E-mail thartzel@dallasnews.com

[CTroyMathis]

Trans-Texas Corridor could cut through Collin
By Amy Morenz, Staff Writer
03/10/2006
Visit: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=528208&rfi=6

Regional planners are considering three Collin County routes as options for the state's proposed Trans-Texas Corridor, which would link Mexico to the Oklahoma border.

The President George Bush Turnpike, Dallas North Tollway and the proposed Collin County Outer Loop are included on a Trans-Texas Corridor study conducted by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. The agency manages the Regional Transportation Council, which allocates federal transportation funds.

The agency developed maps for potential auto, freight and rail traffic. The state will narrow study options for the corridor's future in the next few weeks.

No decisions on narrowing potential paths for the 600-mile corridor from Laredo to the Rio Grande Valley have been made, said Gaby Garcia of the Texas Department of Transportation's Keep Texas Moving program. Officials expect to narrow the potential corridors from the current 50- to 60-mile path to 10 miles wide, she said.

The final route for the state's 50-year plan won't be determined until 2007. The state has been conducting public hearings for two years to determine Trans-Texas Corridor options.

"Suggesting a route suggests an entirely different stage of the game," Garcia said. "Everybody wants to know how it will connect and will it connect at all."

The Trans-Texas Corridor planners envision separate toll lanes for passenger vehicles and large trucks, plus freight railways and high-speed commuter railways routes. Planners have to determine how to minimize right-of way needs for the project, the state's project Web site states. The Trans-Texas Corridor should use existing infrastructure by aligning with existing highways, railways and utility corridors, it adds.

"Local officials should help determine how communities access the Trans-Texas Corridor," it says.

Regional planners are considering ways to connect the Trans-Texas Corridor through the middle of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, including the Dallas North Tollway and the Bush Turnpike, both of which are controlled by the North Texas Tollway Authority, said NTTA spokeswoman Donna Huerta. The NTTA is referring all questions to the North Central Texas Council of Governments.

NCTCOG developed ideas based on using the current tollway system, said Greg Royster, its principal transportation engineer. It plans are based on "near-term" solutions for auto traffic for the next 10 to 15 years The two NTTA routes would serve auto traffic that already exists, he said.

No figures have been developed on the amount of additional traffic the NTTA's routes would carry or required changes to the two options, he said.

"The original route didn't work for the region because it's investment was way outside and involved a costly transportation infrastructure," Royster said. "We want to bring traffic on existing and planned facilities."

Collin County's proposed Outer Loop is being considered by regional planners to serve long-term needs over 50 years, the Trans-Texas Corridor's. Collin County's proposed Outer Loop would link North Central Expressway to Rockwall County.

County commissioners weren't aware of that idea, said Commissioner Joe Jaynes. He was unaware regional planners were considering NTTA's two routes in Collin County for potential Trans-Texas corridor use.

"They have been talking about an area 1,400 feet wide, I just don't see how that can happen," He said. "I heard rumors and got an e-mail from one constituent, but that doesn't make sense. It would be nice if local elected officials knew something."

Long-time toll road opponent Sharon Overall continues to question the idea of toll roads. Overall campaigned against using tolls to finance construction of State Highway 121 main lanes.

"Tollways are discriminatory to poor and middle class people. They have segregated Plano by income," she said. "Poor people can not afford to live on the west side of town. They all live along U.S. 75. When I was sending out e-mails fighting SH 121 to become a toll road, one person replied that it would make our property values go up. Another was more blunt: He said that it would keep the riff-raff out. Does this sound like economic justice? This sounds like class warfare."

County commissioners will conduct a public hearing on proposed Outer Loop alignments at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the Collin County Courthouse, 210 S. McDonald in McKinney.

[AndyIvey]

I think the source for this article is just a bit off. Sadly, the rail portion of the plan is doomed to follow the utility portion in that neither one will ever happen. Running utilities, rail, and highway through the same corridor would create a great target for terrorists. The plan is just a toll road that will relieve traffic along I-35.

[AndyIvey]

"Tollways are discriminatory to poor and middle class people. They have segregated Plano by income," she said. "Poor people can not afford to live on the west side of town. They all live along U.S. 75. When I was sending out e-mails fighting SH 121 to become a toll road, one person replied that it would make our property values go up. Another was more blunt: He said that it would keep the riff-raff out. Does this sound like economic justice? This sounds like class warfare."

I'm all for the "taxes and tolls dont mix" argument, but I hadn't heard this one. DNT is a great project. It shaves a good 5 minutes off my Wednesday commute to Ojeda's for lunch.

[RobertB]

You have *got* to be kidding me. Excluding Perry's rails-and-infrstructure windowdressing (for reasons other than "the terrorists under the bed will get me!"), the idea of using the DNT as a major route *through* Dallas is an absurdist joke. The road is built to 1950's standards of visibility and access, with a rollercoaster profile and a ROW footprint that looks like a toothpick dropped in a bowl of caviar.

"The original route didn't work for the region because it's investment was way outside and involved a costly transportation infrastructure," Royster said. "We want to bring traffic on existing and planned facilities."

The whole point of the Trans-Texas Corridor was that it would not be built using "existing and planned facilities" -- that instead, it would be an all-new route with rail and utilities, truck-only lanes, and the like. It was designed to be "way outside". Bringing in traffic to existing and planned routes sounds like a plan, but it's not a plan called "The Trans-Texas Corridor".

I smell politics. Perry's support for the TTC is already an albatross. Strayhorn is (rightly!) pointing it out as an example of Perry's lack of real vision, and Kinky and the Democrat have also seized on the issue. But Perry can't drop it, because he shares his predecessor's inability to admit failure. Instead, it looks like he's sending out feelers -- can he repackage the idea, pretend he hasn't already wasted millions of our tax dollars, and come out smelling like a rose? Time will tell... it's a long road to November.

[Lakewooder]

If HP hated the idea of widening Mockingbird by ONE foot, they are just going to love the TTC going up the Tollway!

[jsoto3]

If HP hated the idea of widening Mockingbird by ONE foot, they are just going to love the TTC going up the Tollway!

I think they are only considering alignment with DNT from GBTP to the north. And that's for autos only, not trucks.
See page 3 of linked PDF:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/goods/TTCmaps.pdf

Other info at NCTCOG TTC page:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/goods/ttc/
and
http://search.nctcog.org/search?ie=&...texas+corridor

[AndyIvey]

The whole point of the Trans-Texas Corridor was that it would not be built using "existing and planned facilities" -- that instead, it would be an all-new route with rail and utilities, truck-only lanes, and the like. It was designed to be "way outside". Bringing in traffic to existing and planned routes sounds like a plan, but it's not a plan called "The Trans-Texas Corridor".

Don't forget about the River of Trade Corridor Coalition ( http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-rotcc.htm). They want the TTC as close as possible to I-35. The idea is that the existing businesses along I-35 will wither and die if traffic is diverted to TTC. This can be minimized if the TTC is located in close proximity to I-35.

[RobertB]

Don't forget about the River of Trade Corridor Coalition ( http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-rotcc.htm). They want the TTC as close as possible to I-35. The idea is that the existing businesses along I-35 will wither and die if traffic is diverted to TTC. This can be minimized if the TTC is located in close proximity to I-35.

That's a valid concern, although I don't see how a "put it closer" solution will help. If you keep the TTC concept -- quarter-mile multimodal ROW and all -- then there's not much chance that bringing it closer to the old I-35 will somehow keep anything but the most massive truck stops alive. In fact, it would be even worse news for small gas stations -- if the TTC is 20 miles away, then you'll still have local traffic (Waco-Temple, for example) on I-35. If the TTC is a mile over, then your local traffic will move to it, and they'll get their fuel right there at the new intersection.

The problem isn't where it's to be built. It'll have the same problems whether you build it a mile from I-35 or a hundred miles away. The problem is whether it should be built at all. And with its advocates already shedding the trains, utilities, and trucks in an effort to mollycoddle local politicos, there's even less reason for the TTC project than ever.

[AndyIvey]

Other than how the TTC is funded, my biggest gripe is the lack of a serious rail component. The entire state has neglected rail. Why not take advanatge of the shortage of truck drivers and invest in an alternative to highways?

[Lakewooder]

You've gotta wonder which palms are getting greased and which wallets are being filled on this deal...

[FoUTASportscaster]

This whole deal stinks!

[Lakewooder]

Trans-Texas Corridor may stay close to I-35

02:42 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 4, 2006
By TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News


A coordinated network of toll roads, rail lines and utility lines should be built on or very near one of the main concrete arteries of Texas commerce, according to a new report and study released Tuesday.

And Texas Transportation officials have chosen “a study area” connected with Interstate 35 as the preferred route for the so-called Trans-Texas Corridor.

Also Online
Maps and more information
(TxDOT)

Recommended area for the Trans-Texas Corridor (.pdf)
Ric Williamson, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, said the gigantic public works project will help ease terrible traffic congestion on I-35 as population continues to grow.

“The Interstate 35 corridor is the single-most important economic generator in the state of Texas,” Mr. Williamson said. “We would not have pursued this solution if we were not convinced that this is the best solution and the only solution.”

The draft environmental report, which was more than a year in the making, narrows the corridor’s potential location to a 10-mile-wide study area that, in part, clips the southeast corner of Dallas County, runs just east of Lake Ray Hubbard and winds through much of Rockwall County.

Local leaders throughout the state - and particularly in North Texas - had often expressed worries that the study area would be too far away from urban areas, draw new development away cities and increase traffic in rural areas.

“We are somewhat pleased with what was presented this morning but we feel it still falls a long way short,” said Dallas City Council Member Bill Blaydes.

Additionally, Dallas County Commissioners Ken Mayfield and Maurine Dickey said they felt excluded from the process that resulted in the preferred route that was unveiled Tuesday.

Out of a dozen possible alternatives, the proposed study area unveiled Tuesday would run the closest to the existing I-35.

“The Trans-Texas Corridor was never envisioned to go through communities. It was envisioned to run near or beside urban areas,” said Doug Booher, the environmental manager for the Texas Department of Transportation’s turnpike division.

As proposed in the report, the corridor will run 521 miles from the Red River to the Rio Grande. In areas where roads, rail and utility lines are built together, the corridor will be 800 to 1,200 feet wide.

“Are we able to put a 1,200-foot corridor through the middle of Dallas? The answer would be no,” Mr. Booher said. “But that doesn’t mean the Trans-Texas Corridor will not ultimately connect to Dallas-Fort Worth, because it absolutely has to.”

Several other alternatives still under consideration would take the corridor west of Fort Worth. However, traffic patterns and interstate shipping demands show a larger demand for new roads and rail lines east of Dallas, state officials and project developers say.

One of the future steps for the corridor is to determine how to connect the main corridor route with urban areas. State officials say that North Texas leaders have come up with very good ideas for those road and rail connections - including the proposed construction of toll roads along a southern State Highway 360 extension and Loop 9 in southern Dallas County.

Those state officials say they will listen closely to North Texas leaders during the project’s next planning stage.

The 4,300-page draft environmental report represents a significant but early step in the long process that could lead to construction on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The public will have its say on the corridor this summer, when the Texas Department of Transportation holds more than 50 public hearings on the draft report. A report outlining the final study area is expected in mid-2007.

After the 10-mile-wide study area is finalized, the state then may begin environmental reviews of specific projects. To build the toll roads from San Antonio to Dallas, for example, is expected to involve about six separate projects.

In general, detailed reviews of those projects can take an average of almost four years to complete, Mr. Booher said.

Gov. Rick Perry first announced plans for the Trans-Texas Corridor in 2002 as a way to solve the state’s increasing highway congestion woes. The project has at times drawn opposition from the Texas Farm Bureau and from three of Mr. Perry’s opponents in this fall’s gubernatorial election.

In late 2004, the state signed a $3.5 million project development agreement with Cintra-Zachry, a partnership between a toll-road construction firm from Spain and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Corp.

According to the state transportation department, the corridor plans will not interfere with existing plans to widen I-35 throughout the state. Texas has 24 separate construction projects planned for I-35 at a total value of $1.46 billion, not including projects where work already has started.

One of the subplots in Tuesday’s report was the competition for the project along the Texas border. State officials had considered both Brownsville and Laredo for the project’s southern terminus.

“When you look at those routes from a traffic perspective, those that ended in the Valley did not do as good a job of meeting the goal of handling traffic as did Laredo,” Mr. Booher said.

The plan calls for the route to follow I-35 to Laredo, where it could connect with other transportation projects in Mexico. The state also strongly considered another route that would have been built on new land from San Antonio to Laredo.

“That’s what tipped the scales in favor of this route,” said Mr. Booher. “It was the opportunity to look much more closely at existing infrastructure.”


E-mail thartzel@dallasnews.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.1d51651.html

[RobertB]

The updated map shows a route that hugs the eastern side of the Dallas area, cutting through Rockwall County -- an area that is rapidly becoming too dense for a 1/4-mile corridor. The route south of there, in northern Kaufman County, has a lot of planned development, though you could thread it past Forney and Crandall if you started Advance Aquisition soon (see this link for a reference to TxDOT's borderline-shady "advance aquisition" policy).

Assuming the plan itself is viable (a bit of a stretch in this election year), I don't see anything that makes the roadgeek in me jump up and say "that's unpossible!" I just don't see the proposal surviving the early days of either the Friedman or the Strayhorn administration.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Ric Williamson, chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, said the gigantic public works project will help ease terrible traffic congestion on I-35 as population continues to grow.

So let's build more highways, so we can do this again when those get congested.

“The Interstate 35 corridor is the single-most important economic generator in the state of Texas,” Mr. Williamson said.

I'm not sure about that.

“We would not have pursued this solution if we were not convinced that this is the best solution and the only solution.”

Rail only with passenger and freight only seems like it would get a lot of cars and trucks off the road.

Local leaders throughout the state - and particularly in North Texas - had often expressed worries that the study area would be too far away from urban areas, draw new development away cities and increase traffic in rural areas.

“We are somewhat pleased with what was presented this morning but we feel it still falls a long way short,” said Dallas City Council Member Bill Blaydes.

That's exactly what it will do and is why they should be concerned. This things will take so much traffic away from I-35 in the city that the new corridor will sprout development and the old corridor will start to decay. That's what freeways do.

“The Trans-Texas Corridor was never envisioned to go through communities. It was envisioned to run near or beside urban areas,” said Doug Booher, the environmental manager for the Texas Department of Transportation’s turnpike division.

We already have freeways that do that.

Gov. Rick Perry first announced plans for the Trans-Texas Corridor in 2002 as a way to solve the state’s increasing highway congestion woes. The project has at times drawn opposition from the Texas Farm Bureau and from three of Mr. Perry’s opponents in this fall’s gubernatorial election.

Good, I hope this means that Perry won't be elected and one who does will shut it down.

In late 2004, the state signed a $3.5 million project development agreement with Cintra-Zachry, a partnership between a toll-road construction firm from Spain and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Corp.

Think the powers-that-be signed this deal to make sure it goes through?

According to the state transportation department, the corridor plans will not interfere with existing plans to widen I-35 throughout the state. Texas has 24 separate construction projects planned for I-35 at a total value of $1.46 billion, not including projects where work already has started.

Well that's good. We'll add another freeway that will take traffic off another freeway that will be widen, while we still don't access the possibility of rail. Seems like a good policy.

[AndyIvey]

I'm leary of the rail portion of the TTC, but what I have seen to date sounds good. This is a big change from how UP/BNSF usually operate. I hope TXDOT has already received their support.

[frankchitown]

There was a paragraph left out of the beginning of the article...

The 4,300-page draft environmental report represents a significant early step in a long process that could lead to construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor. At the earliest, a toll road or freight rail line could open in about 10 years. State highway officials and the project's private developers do not have any plans to build passenger rail lines in the foreseeable future.

[AndyIvey]

I'm all for passenger rail, but we'll see an immediate impact from a freight rail line. Passenger rail comes at a greater risk.

[RobertB]

I'm all for passenger rail, but we'll see an immediate impact from a freight rail line. Passenger rail comes at a greater risk.

Well, to be entirely accurate, we won't see an immediate impact from freight, because the beneificiaries of the freight lines are the shippers and distributors who rely on them. The impact will be indirect, and most folks won't even notice the reduced freight traffic on the UP line through town.

Passenger rail, by contrast, will have an immediately visible impact, because people will ride it. Or not, if you're pessimistic about it, in which case it'll be all over the news right away.

The question of which one will have the greater real impact, of course, may be another matter altogether. Just keep in mind that perception may not match reality.

[jsoto3]

CBS 11 report 01
CBS 11 report 02

[Geaux Tigers]

Posted on Sat, Apr. 29, 2006



N. Texas pushes big loop option

By GORDON DICKSON
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

North Texas leaders want a giant outer loop around the Metroplex for cars, trucks and trains, rather than allowing the state to build a toll road bypassing the area.

The proposed loop could be about 200 miles long -- nearly triple the length of the Capital Beltway in Washington -- based upon conceptual drawings by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Motorists who use the loop would likely pay tolls.

It's being pitched by North Texas leaders as an alternative to the Trans-Texas Corridor, a privately funded toll road that, according to preliminary plans, would steer automobile traffic well east or west of the Metroplex. Area leaders worry that such a bypass would pull jobs away from the urban core and into the countryside.

Tarrant County politicians and business leaders, who until now have been careful not to speak too critically of Trans-Texas, say they are ready to conduct a vocal campaign against the plans unless changes are made that reflect the local preference for a mega-loop. The change came earlier this month, after state officials unveiled drawings still showing that Trans-Texas route as a Dallas-Fort Worth bypass.

"We don't want to leapfrog undeveloped areas and create pockets of problems," Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley said. "That's just not acceptable, and not worth it to us. We want to be organized in our growth."

The proposed loop would wrap around Fort Worth, Dallas, Denton, Mansfield and more than 100 other cities in Tarrant, Wise, Denton, Collin and Dallas counties. It would tie into existing roads.

As for Trans-Texas, the Texas Department of Transportation will conduct more than 50 public hearings statewide this summer, so residents can learn about the plan to criss-cross the state with toll roads and high-speed rail lines. The most likely scenario is that Trans-Texas would be built east of the Metroplex, although an alternate route west of the area is still an option.

There is still time to change the Trans-Texas study area and bring the toll roads closer to the heart of the Metroplex, Transportation Department spokeswoman Gabriela Garcia said.

"Right now, the question is, how do you connect Oklahoma to Mexico," Garcia said, adding that the first of a two-tier environmental study will continue through mid-2007. "We really want to connect to the city centers. We just can't do it yet. Patience at this point is still key. Give us time to get through tier one and answer all those questions, and then we'll work on ... the justification for moving it further north or south."

An outer loop isn't really a new idea. Plans to build a Loop 9 around the greater Dallas area go back to the 1950s and are still in the region's long-term plans.

But until now, planners didn't think that another circular road would be needed until the mid-21st century.

That began to change four years ago with Trans-Texas, Gov. Rick Perry's plan to criss-cross the state with a network of superwide toll roads, rail lines and utility corridors.

The first component of Trans-Texas, a $6 billion leg from San Antonio to North Texas, is being planned by private consortium Cintra Zachry.

North Texas is no stranger to loops. In Tarrant County, there is Loop 820. In the Dallas area, there's Loop 12, LBJ Freeway and the President George Bush Turnpike.

Each was added as the Metroplex grew outward.

Not unlike an arborist determines a tree's age by counting the rings in its trunk, a motorist can learn about a region's traffic history by observing its highway loops.

[drycreek]

Please God no.

[FoUTASportscaster]

It's being pitched by North Texas leaders as an alternative to the Trans-Texas Corridor, a privately funded toll road that, according to preliminary plans, would steer automobile traffic well east or west of the Metroplex. Area leaders worry that such a bypass would pull jobs away from the urban core and into the countryside.

Oh, you mean like outer loops do?

[mdunlap1]

"We don't want to leapfrog undeveloped areas and create pockets of problems," Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley said. "That's just not acceptable, and not worth it to us. We want to be organized in our growth."

That's a nice way of saying that he hates anything that might in any way minimize his existing power over other people.

[AndyIvey]

Regionally, loops have been constructed to successfully deal with the traffic generated by urban sprawl in cities like Houston. While the intersection of 610 and 59 has been rated as the worst in the nation (a problem only for thousands of commuters and the poor engineer that put it on his resume), the idea as a whole has been successful. The construction of a loop outside the metroplex would not only relieve future traffic problems, but also provide a vital connection to the TTC. We can debate if, should, and where the TTC might be built, but we need to think about the possibility that it is going to happen. Building the TTC without planning a metroplex connector would be disastrous.

[Geaux Tigers]

Rather than build an outer loop, I'd prefer that money be spent on widening and expanding our current freeway network. Let's face it, the DFW region is growing and is expected to be pushing the 8.5 million mark in population by 2020. Historically speaking, the vast majority of that population growth is going to be in the suburbs. All of those people are going to need more roads, freeways, tollways, and bridges because although light rail is a successful and great alternative to driving, people are still going to want and need to drive their cars. Our current network is almost at capacity now and many freeways are well behind our current population in their design (114 in Las Colinas and 35W in northern Tarrant County, this means you). Why not go ahead and start planning now for the future?

[slfunk]

Rather than build an outer loop, I'd prefer that money be spent on widening and expanding our current freeway network..... Why not go ahead and start planning now for the future?

Exactly. This thing is really getting to be out of hand. Why can't we work with what we have and build on top of it? Why worry ourselves with buying more right-of-ways, spending tax payer's money, and letting our existing freeways fall to the waste side for Perry's 'pork' project? The only good thing about the Texas Trans-corridor is the rail which is the last thing to be built in the project if ever.

The more you look at it I just can't help but wonder how successful this will be. I am sure this will be a great benefit to truck drivers, and those people that will use it to travel through Texas. As gas prices continue to rise, I can't help but think more people will turn to air for travel since we don't have the option of rail in this state. In turn taking away customers that would help finance this project. Those in the know of energy, (my brother for example) is forecasting 6-7 dollar gas pricing within five years and 4 dollars/gal peaks typically next year.

I personally think we should push the rail component and work with our existing freeways. Unfortently at the voting booths the ballots stated this thing as being money funded for highway improvements, not the Texas Trans Corridor last fall. Its ashame, IMHO that we can not keep up with maintence on our existing freeways so as TEXANS we feel we should build new ones. Heard recently the statistic that in Texas it costs 17 dollars per linear foot to keep up with highway maintence. Texas only spends 14 dollars per linear foot.

[AndyIvey]

I agree with slfunk’s post except for the fact that expanding existing highways will also require the acquisition of right-of-way. The difference is that the loop would cut through rural areas while widening an urban corridor would displace productive businesses. As for cost, I do not think the taxpayers would find highway widening easier on their wallets. One could argue return on investment, but the cost of widening could rival that of new construction. Finally, constructing new roads does not automatically result in decreased maintenance for existing highways. This is especially true if the new road is built and maintained 100% by bonds to be repaid by tolls. Barring an increaee in taxes, maintenance only loses out to new construction when they both come from the same budget. Please note that this maintenance vs. construction budget fight applies to new highways as well as the expansion of existing ones.

As for rail, we need a show of support from UP and BNSF. As it stands, we do not know if they are onboard. If they are not, this is a big waste of time. TXDOT does not have much of a track record on this subject.

[RobertB]

As for rail, we need a show of support from UP and BNSF. As it stands, we do not know if they are onboard. If they are not, this is a big waste of time. TXDOT does not have much of a track record on this subject.

I doubt the rail companies have any faith that the TTC will come to pass. Both Kinky and Carole have it in their sights. UP and BNSF would be foolish to say anything more than "wow, nice map" until after November.

[warlock55]

The difference is that the loop would cut through rural areas while widening an urban corridor would displace productive businesses.

What about productive agricultural businesses?

I think the whole idea is shortsighted ( I was going to write stupid, but shortsighted sounds much more diplomatic *g*). Eventually gas will get so expensive that a comprehensive alternative to road transportation will be needed, and implemented. Smart money would be on improving rail capacity. Rail freight traffic has increased tremendously the past few years and keeps growing. Easing that congestion would take pressure off the highways and do it in a way that's likely to be sustainable for decades to come.

[FoUTASportscaster]

All outer loops (well, freeways for that matter) have done is degrade the urban core and promote suburban sprawl. Look at the companies that leave the CBD to the 635 buisness area, so they can be closer to their workers and customers. And as gas continues to rise, the further out we develop and people buy the cheaper houses on the fringes, this process will speed up. This is happening today along the PGB Turnpike and DNT in Frisco. How many companies have relocated to Plano and Las Colinas in the last decade or two?

We should focus our resources on maintainence at the moment. While we are doing this, density needs to step to the forefront. Density has no bearing on freeway congestion, as is evident in Uptown. Freeways also have less importance in a denser society, as land for development is more key. People who embrace the urban culture in DTD or Uptown can walk or use the bus, trolley or train to get where they are going. We can combat the flight of companies to the fringes by making the core and surrounding areas denser. That means owner-occupied multi-family housing, City Council. The more people in the core, the less likely companies flock away. When and if this happens, the current freeways have less of an importance, therefore less of a need to expand them.

Also freeways take up huge amounts of land. In Dallas alone, the freeways take up around 6 square miles of land. I shudder to think what that number is for the region. That is land that isn't generating tax revenue and instead, cost a huge amount of money to maintain. We don't need to add more to that.

[mdunlap1]

Eventually gas will get so expensive that a comprehensive alternative to road transportation will be needed, and implemented. Smart money would be on improving rail capacity.

A light rail trip from Plano to west Oak Cliff costs $280. The same trip in a car costs about $5-$10.

Gas is going to have to get a whole lot more expensive (like ~50 times more expensive, fwiw) for it to be as expensive as light rail systems are.

[tamtagon]

A light rail trip from Plano to west Oak Cliff costs $280. The same trip in a car costs about $5-$10.

I'm thinking you left out some of the math.

Tony Hartzel
01:59 PM CDT on Sunday, April 30, 2006

Take the cost of each light-rail trip as an example of the budget considerations. One trip in a three-car train on the red line from Plano to west Oak Cliff costs at least $280 for things like operator salary, electricity and vehicle maintenance.

Each rail car seats 76 people and can hold a maximum of about 84 standing passengers.

Check this math, 'cuz I'm not really sure it's accurate. I'm just looking at trip cost another way.

Like, the $5-10 for the car trip, is that just the cost of gas? If so, you should add the cost of owning and operating the car. I'm not sure how you would want to handle the cost of the roadways, traffic police etc. Lets just low-ball the cumulative cost of the car trip at $15. We'll include three carpoolers (and one driver) in the car to get a per person trip cost of 3.75. Not going to bother including the cost to keep idle the cars potentially owned by the passengers.

Then, we have $280 to run a three-car train. Assume each train car is half full and that gives us 114 total passengers. That puts the per person cost at $2.45, or about 35% less.

[mdunlap1]

I'm thinking you left out some of the math.

OK, I see. My bad. I thought the number was an average per passenger.

[AndyIvey]

My wife and I found it quite easy to purchase our first home in the heart of Dallas as opposed to Allen or Frisco. I think the reasons people live outside of Dallas are numerous and this issue is far more complex than simply the mixing of cheap land and new highways. We could practically stop urban sprawl by refusing to build or expand highways. However, we do not have the right or ability to do so. As long as a demand exists to build out, a supply will follow. That includes highways, championed by legislatures outside our control, and homes, occupied by a population Dallas cannot tax. The solution is to increase the demand for urban housing instead of attempting to control supply in suburban areas.

[slfunk]

As long as a demand exists to build out, a supply will follow. That includes highways, championed by legislatures outside our control, and homes, occupied by a population Dallas cannot tax. The solution is to increase the demand for urban housing instead of attempting to control supply in suburban areas.

True. It is also written in history that there was never a big demand until developers started finding cheaper means of developing thus 'controlling' what the American public wanted. These same developers along with motor companies bought up the private trolley lines and rail lines in the urban cores paved over thus eliminating many transportation systems in existance forcing people to walk or buy a car. Then the invention of the freeway shortly after WWII and what has come to be known as the suburban neighborhood. The modern day suburban city has only been around for less then 80 years and due to developers and motor companies making a buck. Thus influencing people that they "need" a big house, big yard, and a car. Making people believe the only way to acheive the good quality of life is to live in the burbs. Today that two seater car has turned into a pick up truck, suburban and they even tried the excursion. Talk about control, its already happened once before. So for the betterment of society we should look at more smart growth and not encourage irresponsible growth.

It is also true that legally we can not stop these "highway" projects and create some sort of urban growth boundry because Texas government continues to be reactionary on these type of issues with the notion "we are untouchable" to the problems every one else has. States like Utah, Washington, New York, and now even California see the model of building today is unsustainable and are taking proactive steps to stop or considerably slow down urban sprawl. This Texas Trans Corridor project would never be considered in these states present day or even 10-15 years ago. But look to the 1980's and it would have been a different problem.

True they will have to still increase right of way along current highway systems to do something similar like the Texas Transcorridor, but not nearly as much as to start from scratch. We also have under utilized or abandoned rail right of ways that already link all major cities in Texas. Just many of them are owned by the original companies or by the state but are not used because there is no profit there. They have gone into disrepair. The point is the right of ways in large part are already there, just have to be redeveloped. That would save the tax payers millions of dollars rather then dragging this through court for eminent domain.

We are increasing urban housing slowly because in Dallas its a relative (to modern day population) new concept. But we are making big strides we need to work on diversity of housing not the next super highway monstrosity.

[aceplace]

These same developers along with motor companies bought up the private trolley lines and rail lines in the urban cores paved over thus eliminating many transportation systems in existance forcing people to walk or buy a car.

The original Dallas Transit System in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's was not purchased by developers, nor was it purchased by oil companies or auto manufacturers. In fact, it existed as an independent business until it was absorbed by the DART system.

How do you explain the fact that Dallas streetcar lines withered on the vine and were eventually abandoned? You claim that it must have happened due to predatory behavior by developers, auto manufacturers, and oil companies, or it wouldn't have happened at all.

You have committed a very stupid rhetorical blunder... basing your argument on a generalization that can be refuted by just one contrary example... better luck next time.

[AndyIvey]

I think slfunk touched on a good point in that our funding mechanism si flawed. Why must we construct HOV lanes to avoid losing funds? The land could be better used for rail or to lessen the footprint of the highway itself. On one hand we have a massive highway being constructed with both tax dollars and tolls... on the other we have construction for the sake of construction.