Trans-Texas Corridor

[mdunlap1]

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?

Forcibly monopolizing industry and eliminating all competitors... government in action.

And everyone pays.

[warlock55]

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.

He said "many" transportation systems, not "all." Yeesh

[slfunk]

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.

Aceplace, are you always this angry in your replies? Hate to the break the news to you, but while pursuing my architecture degree, I took some classes in urban planning. You will find that my information is backed up in publication written by people like Peter Calthorpe, Bill Hillier and my professor is finally going public with his writing and disertation (Ian MacBurnie). You will find that Peter Calthorpe explains how legislation worked for producing urban growth boundaries in Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, and why it can not work in places like Texas. Last fall I went to a lecture presented at SMU talking about oil and how it will shape the future of our development where the authors themselves gave the lectures (one from Rice University, the other I can't recall). Each one of these people will talk about the same thing I gave a brief summary on. How the suburb came to be, the deteriation of public transit systems such as the trolley lines. This happen in every major city in the US including Dallas. First mass transit started with lines of trolley's being pulled by horses. Once the horse died they use to just leave it on the side of the road. Then the invention of the electric trolley, where in Texas it allowed affluent neighborhoods like Highland Park, Lakewood, River Oaks and many others to flourish.

As for the Dallas trolley line it did not start in the 40's. For example the trolley line along McKinney Avenue was started before 1927. According the operater of the car I was riding last Thursday was orginal to the McKinney line and the car started its service on that line in 1927. The Interurban building use to be the main terminal of trolley lines that serviced what are now the inner suburbs. Yes some of the trolley lines went bankrupt, but that is not what happened to all of them. Many of them where bought up by motor companies, shut down, and paved over to help 'influence' people to shop cars because cars where not that big of a hit yet. McKinney Ave's line was under asphault until they uncovered it starting in the late 1980's opening in 1989. Dart now operates it but that was out of an agreement of the City trying to figure out a way to redevelop McKinney Ave, the trolley line and who would maintain the Trolley line.

So you have not proved your point Aceplace, that being my arguement is invalid. There are always consequences in other areas that don't follow the main stream of thought.

[RobertB]

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.

Here's my take on the cost issue, as discussed in another thread (can't recall which) and on Wikipedia, where mdunlap1's ideological cousin is hard at work. He had added a comment to the DART article that the cost of running the train is "comparable to many cross-country commercial plane flights". I countered (in the talk page) with this:

By the way, the benchmark federal mileage reimbursement, a number intended to take into account both fuel costs and vehicle maintenance expenses, is currently 44.5 cents per mile [ http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/con...contentId=9646 ]. The route in question is about 30 miles long, so each rider who takes the full trip (or pair of riders, one from Westmoreland to Downtown and another from Downtown to Parker Road) is worth $13.35. Just 25 riders at that mileage reimbursement rate would cost $333.75 -- well over the $280 cost of running the train. If the train is full -- seating capacity 72 in each car for a total of 144 [ http://gulliver.trb.org/publications...20VEHICLES.pdf ] -- then the investment of $280 pays back $1,922. That's comparable to a trans-oceanic commerical plane flight.

[AndyIvey]

Imagine if rail was operated much like highways and airports. Government would build and maintain the tracks. Usage fees would cover some of the cost with the rest coming from the general taxpayer. Sound like a flawed system? Consider the possibility that large trucks may not pay their fair share of road maintenance. According to Robert Nichols, as quoted in “Rally to save the rails tries to gain steam at Capitol" (5/6/2001 Dallas Morning News), each fully loaded 18-wheeler does nearly as much damage to a roadway as 9,600 automobiles. Do they pay 9,600 times more taxes? If not, is it right for the average taxpayer to subsidize the trucking industry so goods can be more cheaply moved via 18-wheeler? Someone might argue that fixing this oversight would go a long way towards encouraging rail freight.

[FoUTASportscaster]

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.

Standing O to everything.

[FoUTASportscaster]

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.

Not true. The street car system was shut down by Dallas leadership, citing the need to be a modern city and that meant car development system of freeways. Almost every city had a street car system and almost everyone disbanded theirs at the same time. The major one that didn't, San Fransico, has a legendary street car system.

[RobertB]

Not true. The street car system was shut down by Dallas leadership, citing the need to be a modern city and that meant car development system of freeways. Almost every city had a street car system and almost everyone disbanded theirs at the same time. The major one that didn't, San Fransico, has a legendary street car system.

Fortunately, Dallas has learned its lesson about blindly following the latest urban developent trend, and no longer does silly things just because they make other cities look cool.

(pauses for effect)

Oh, never mind.

(Sorry, off-topic, I'll try to be good now!)

[dfwcre8tive]

Residents resist corridor plans
Trans-Texas project’s cost, foreign firm cause worry
07:18 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 12, 2006
By Lowell Brown / Staff Writer

Plans for a multiuse statewide transportation corridor met with stiff resistance Tuesday night from Denton County residents worried about the project’s cost, environmental impact and involvement of a foreign firm.

More than 200 people attended a Denton public hearing on the Trans-Texas Corridor, a proposed network of transportation routes integrating new and current highways, freight railways and utility rights of way. The corridor, proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation, is designed to reduce congestion on Inter state 35.

The route recommended by TxDOT by passes Denton County, passing northeast of Pilot Point, but an alternative route could traverse northwest Denton County.

The state’s recommended route also largely sidesteps much of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, leading regional officials to lobby for a revised path that includes a loop around the two cities. Denton Mayor Perry McNeill has said he supports the route that includes the loop.

Denton County Commissioner Cynthia White, incoming chairwoman of the Regional Transportation Council, and other area officials said the loop plan would better serve North Texas’ needs. Under that plan, the corridor would cross Denton just north of the I-35 split.

State officials say they plan to work with local governments to incorporate their transportation plans where feasible.

Area residents raised other concerns, including that the corridor would wipe out farmland and damage the environment.

Doug Booher, TxDOT environmental manager, said officials would take environmental factors into consideration before moving forward with the project’s construction.

TxDOT hosted the public hearing at the University of North Texas Gateway Center to gather feedback on the proposed privately built toll road, expected to generally parallel I-35 from the Oklahoma border to Mexico. The hearing was one of 54 TxDOT is holding over five weeks throughout the corridor’s study area.

Residents reviewed maps and chatted with TxDOT officials during an open house, then had the chance to speak publicly. Most of the 16 people who spoke raised concerns about the project, although some weren’t opposed to its concept.

The state would purchase and own the land for the 1,200-foot-wide corridor, but private investment mostly would fund its development. A consortium headed by a Spanish firm, Cintra, and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Corp. plans to construct the first section with private funds and collect toll revenue over 50 years.

Backers say the project would allow for construction of vital infrastructure that taxpayer dollars couldn’t support. But critics worry the state would be taking too much private land and say foreign companies shouldn’t be involved.

Another speaker was independent gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who urged the state to scrap the multibillion-dollar toll road project.

“Rick Perry calls it the Trans-Texas Corridor,” Strayhorn, the state comptroller, said of the governor. “I call it the Trans-Texas Catastrophe, and as governor I will blast it off the books.”

The Federal Highway Administration still must approve the 10-mile-wide study area before the state could decide exactly what property to acquire. The state won’t begin approaching property owners to buy their land until after the environmental impact process is complete, TxDOT spokeswoman Gaby Garcia said.



LOWELL BROWN can be reached at 940-566-6882. His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com .

[freewaytincan]

This is profoundly retarded.

[grantboston]

I know they're hoping the TTC will be the next urban loop, but doesn't the ride of way for the entire thing seem too big to make it a viable loop?

[texman]

From what I've seen in the NCTCOG reports, the reason they want to bring it up south of Arlington is so potential high speed rail can connect with the airport. Plus, if you think about the northern route thats regionally preferred, it could connect with the Dallas North Tollway as the 'urban connector'.

[FoUTASportscaster]

This is just bad news overall. Has Rick Perry done anything good for Texas?

[X Factor]

Yes actually he has...

[FoUTASportscaster]

Details?

[X Factor]

1.Workers’ Compensation Reform
2.Lawsuit Reform
3.Texas Enterprise Fund
4.Emerging Technology Fund

[grantboston]

Don't forget that great hair and the largest tax increase in history! Surely this is the man we want as the longest serving Governor in Texas history!

[RobertB]

I think you guys are looking for this thread: Kinky Friedman for Governor. The TTC does bring up one of the problems with the upcoming election. Four out of five candidates are against the toll plan (well, I'm assuming the Democrat is against it, and it's a foregone conclusion that the Libertarian would be). Unfortunately, if the anti-tollroad vote splits with 30% Kinky, 30% Strayhorn, 4% Democrat, 4% Libertarian, and 32% Perry... we end up with 100% tollroad.

On the other hand, Austin lawmakers may notice if 70-80% of voters go against the toll road. If Perry wins with a bare plurality, he's going to be seriously weakened when it comes to pushing his agenda through the legislature.

Go Kinky!

[freewaytincan]

Don't forget that great hair...

And it is terrific, even more so in person.

[columbiasooner]

COMMENTARY: W GARDNER SELBY

Perry sitting pretty, but there's room for what-if

Consultant Eppstein insists election is over, but . . .

Thursday, July 13, 2006

A pal has divined how Kinky Friedman overtakes others vying for governor: He gets Texans elsewhere to his home and vote.

Pranksterish, sure. Realistic? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Political professionals see GOP Gov. Rick Perry sitting pretty in the aftermath of the spring special session promising cuts in property taxes for higher state taxes.

Republican operative Bryan Eppstein, who is not part of Perry's inner circle, cites voter turnouts and election results since 1988 as indicators that the gubernatorial election is over: Perry wins.

History says that GOP voters solidly outnumber Democrats and that more voters align with the parties than with independents. Barring a seismic surge in turnout (which reached a piddling 36 percent four years ago), the Dept. of Conventional Expectations advises Perry to plan his inauguration.

Eppstein skipped one stone toward Perry's challengers: "Don't spend any of your personal money" on the campaign.

I had asked eight pols not working for the hopefuls to speculate how Friedman, Chris Bell or Carole Keeton Strayhorn might surprise.

They hem-hawed:

Bell wins by staying the tortoise in the race, keeping his shell up and head down. The Democratic nominee and former U.S. House member hopes fireworks set off by other candidates explode in their faces. If Democratic voters stick with him and if fiscal conservatives desert Perry over the new business tax, maybe he edges ahead. The general election is won by whoever leads, regardless of hurdling 50 percent. Like other challengers, though, Bell hunts a wake-up issue reminding voters that he's running.

Strayhorn, the state comptroller running as an independent, suffers from not having a party behind her to reinforce her message. But she could topple Perry if drifting conservatives and tired-of-losing Democrats warm to her zeal, especially if she remains the best-funded challenger (think TV ads). Maybe she vexes Perry in debate or benefits from a scandal not foreseen by Los Pundits. Perry has a record open to critique. But she does, too.

Friedman cannot win, most pundits aver, because voters will tire of/grow squeamish at his parade o' jokes marinated in venom. Yet if he hammers three memorable issues (like George W. Bush, 1994), who knows? The humorist, who draws the attention of the national media simply for cracking wise with a cigar in hand, promises a lively finish, surely fueling a post-election book.

Eppstein sees Perry winning, with Bell probably placing second as most voters stick with the major parties (Libertarian James Werner is also on the ballot).

Eppstein's words: "Even assuming that Strayhorn/Friedman together rally more grass-roots support than (Ross) Perot's very popular '92 presidential campaign (which is questionable), Gov. Perry is still comfortably re-elected."

Canyon-sized caveat: Voters do decide for themselves, and decisions won't solidify until the weeks before the Nov. 7 vote.

Much political fisticuffing to come. Darn well better be a hoot.

wgselby@statesman.com; 445-3644

Find this article at:
link

[warlock55]

I attended the Fort Worth public hearing for the Tier I (environmental) study of the TTC. A few hundred people showed up, and most were firmly against this plan. The only people who said anything at all good about it were local politicians, a representative from the BNSF, and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. Even so, that group all disagreed with the proposed alignment east of Dallas and wanted a huge loop around the entire metro area. I'd say that was a really stupid idea, but the whole thing is so stupid a loop really doesn't make it that much worse.

Planning and consideration of the need for the TTC seems heavily biased towards its construction. Apparently little effort was put into examining the posibility of expanding existing highways and rail lines, and no effort was put into examining the TTC in the context of external factors such as the price of oil, the productivity and value of the agricultural land being destroyed, or the willingness of truckers to pay a high toll when they could drive on other roads for free.

There was a lot of hype about relieving congestion in the metro area, both in terms of highways (well, mostly in terms of highways) and rail. First of all, it makes no sense that a road that runs miles east of Dallas, is going to relieve congestion in the metro area.The only vehicles it removes from the road are whatever percentage of through truckers that would use it to bypass DFW. No commuter has any use for it, and no trucker making a local delivery would have anything to do with it. And as for the loop idea outside the currently developed area...I don't think I need to tell you all what a bad idea that is. It seems like the local politicians and the Regional Transportation Council are trying to make the best of a bad situation (and get some extra transportation money), instead of trying to kill it like most people want.

One last point about the rail aspect of this. Just a few months ago, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution authorizing millions of dollars of public money to be spent upgrading rail lines within Texas. Why hasn't there been any discussion of spending more money there to reduce at-grade crossings and double track lines, and offer incentives to get more trucks of the highways? Rail is MUCH more efficient than highways at transporting goods long distance, both in terms of fuel usage and capacity. Long distance transportation is the only real selling point of the TTC, and even there I would wager that a serious upgrade in freight and passenger rail service would reduce congestion on I-35 to a greater extent, for less money, and for less loss of private land.

Candidate Strayhorn was at the meeting last night, and she called it a boondoggle, and she was exactly right. The powers that be are serious about it though, so if it's going to be put to sleep for good, we are all going to have to raise hell from now all the way through the election in November.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Could this be the nail in the coffin for Perry?

Corridor could be roadblock for Perry
Plan nettles more than just farmers, but aide dismisses campaign risk

01:52 AM CDT on Monday, July 24, 2006
Associated Press


HILLSBORO, Texas – Leroy Walters has survived many a threat on the farm that has been in his family for 120 years – droughts, hailstorms, tornadoes, grasshoppers. But now he sees a man-made danger: a colossal proposed 600-mile superhighway that would plow across Texas, perhaps cutting through Mr. Walters' milo and corn fields, obliterating family homes and robbing his grandchildren of their land.

"I don't think they're going to want to pay a toll to go across this land," he said. "They want to enjoy it free, as Texans should enjoy it."

That kind of anger among farmers and landowners across Texas could become a political problem for Republican Gov. Rick Perry as he runs for re-election in November.

Mr. Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor in 2002, envisioning a combined toll road and rail system that would whisk traffic from the Oklahoma line to Mexico.

The initial Oklahoma-Mexico stretch would be just the first link in a 4,000-mile, $184 billion transportation network. The corridors would be up to a quarter-mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, and broadband transmission cables.

The exact route for the corridor has not been decided, though it would probably be somewhere within a 10-mile-wide swath running parallel to Interstate 35. Whatever course it takes, many farmers and landowners will lose property to the state. Construction could begin by 2010 after federal approval and selection of the precise route.

The opposition is varied. Some see it as an assault on private property rights; some object to putting the project in foreign hands (the state accepted a proposal by a U.S.-Spanish consortium to build and operate it, although the final construction contract hasn't been signed); and some see the project as an affront to open government because part of a development contract with consortium Cintra-Zachry is secret.

Of Mr. Perry's major opponents – Democrat Chris Bell and independents Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Kinky Friedman – Mrs. Strayhorn has stirred the most fury regarding the corridor.

At campaign stops she calls the plan the "Trans-Texas Catastrophe," a "$184 billion boondoggle" and a "land grab" of historic proportions. She refers to Mr. Perry's appointees on the transportation commission as "highway henchmen." She lets loose with Texas-twanged jabs at the contract with the "foreign" Cintra-Zachry.

"Texans want the Texas Department of Transportation, not the European Department of Transportation," she says, often to loud applause, whoops and hollers.

Cintra-Zachry proposes paying $7.2 billion to build the first segments. For that, it would get to operate the road and collect tolls for years to come. It is part of a growing privatization trend in the United States.

A week ago, Mrs. Strayhorn picked up a $6,500 campaign donation and endorsement in Temple from the Blackland Coalition, a group of anti-corridor farmers.

Coalition chairman Chris Hammel said Texas needs a governor who'll halt the project, start over and do it right. "One man started it with a pen. One person with a different pen could stop it," he said.

Mr. Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, dismissed suggestions that the toll road will hurt the governor's re-election campaign.

"The governor recognizes the concerns that rural Texans have. Remember, he's from rural Texas," Mr. Black said. "But he also believes that you have people out there who are spreading bad information."

Supporters say the corridors are needed to handle the NAFTA-driven boom in the flow of goods to and from Mexico and to handle Texas' growing population.

The state will own the land beneath the corridor and oversee the toll amounts set by Cintra-Zachry, Mr. Black said.

Despite a state attorney general's ruling that the Cintra-Zachry contract be made public, the Perry administration has gone to court to prevent the disclosure of what it says is proprietary information in part of the document. The rest of the contract is available on the Internet.

"We don't know for sure whether this is a concept that we can endorse or not because we have not seen it," complained Mayor Will Lowrance of Hillsboro, 55 miles south of Dallas. "I happen to still believe in the open records law in Texas."

Hill County Judge Kenneth Davis, who, like Mr. Lowrance, is a conservative Democrat supporting Mrs. Strayhorn, added: "If we're going to build a highway in Texas, let's build it with Texas money, not a foreign company's money."

Both leaders dislike the rural route under consideration because it bypasses Hillsboro, where outlet shops and restaurants along I-35 fuel the economy.

They and state Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, promoted a regional plan for the corridor to run three miles east of Hillsboro, instead of the current 15 miles.

Either way, some Texans stand to lose land.

"That's unfortunate," said state Transportation Department spokeswoman Gaby Garcia. "There always will be compensation for any land."

Resident anger percolated through a recent public hearing in Hillsboro, at which a number of speakers saw Mr. Perry as the root of the problem.

Janet Walters said she thinks Mr. Perry eventually will realize that the corridor proposal is a critical campaign issue.

"I don't think Rick Perry will back off until he feels like, 'This is going to cost me the election,' " she said. "Then he'll back off."

[jsoto3]

MP3 podcast of today's interesting discussion of the Trans-Texas Corridor on KERA's "The Talk Show":
LINK

WEDNESDAY, 07.26.06

Topic:
The Trans-Texas Corridor

Guests:
Michael Morris & Linda Stall

Description:
Will the Trans-Texas Corridor improve Texas' economic growth, and help keep Texas drivers safe on I-35? Or is the Corridor project another special interest boondoggle designed to benefit big business in the state? Krys Boyd will discuss the pros and cons of the Trans-Texas Corridor this hour with Michael Morris, Director of Transportation for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and Linda Stall, founder of CorridorWatch.org. You can weigh-in during the show or during the Dallas public hearing tomorrow night at 6:30 pm at the Grauwyler Community Center located at 7780 Harry Hines Blvd.

Events/Appearances:
The final North Texas Public Hearing on the Trans-Texas Corridor will take place tomorrow evening (7/27) at the Grauwyler Community Center located at 7780 Harry Hines Blvd. in Dallas. The open house begins at 5pm and the hearing begins at 6:30pm. Visit www.keeptexasmoving.com or www.corridorwatch.org for more information about the public hearings.

Links:
> Trans-Texas Corridor Public Hearing Schedule
> CorridorWatch.org
> North Central Texas Council of Governments
> Trans-Texas Corridor
> More government issues coverage from KERA's Voter's Voice

[texman]

Thought this was a great op-ed piece on whats wrong the current plan and how high speed rail would be a great alternative.



Trans-Texas alternative
Perry's transportation idea has merit but overlooks key issues

By: Andrew Burleson
Issue date: 7/27/06 Section: Opinion

Texas is facing a significant turning point. Gov. Rick Perry has called for the State to build a massive network of freeways with freight rail, commuter rail, utility lines, communication towers and oil and natural gas pipelines all concentrated into a single route. This massive corridor is intended to meet the future transportation needs of the state, which is expected to increase dramatically in the next 50 years.

Texas highways are already packed with cars and trucks, and gridlock strangles our major cities day and night. While the lofty goals of Perry's transportation program are admirable, the program has been met with opposition. In fact, all of Perry's opponents in the November elections are vehemently opposed to the plan.

Critics suggest that the corridor won't even require trucks to stop for customs at the border, but rather will operate as an "EZ-Tag"-style terminal, tracking shipments to central depots in Kansas before subjecting them to any examination. Of course, the trucks will have to exit the freeway numerous times to stop for gas before they could reach Kansas, and who is going to supervise the trucks there?

The route will do little to ease congestion in the cities. By looping 30 to 50 miles around every major metropolitan area, passenger vehicles are unlikely to find the corridor very practical. The suggested speed limit of 80 miles per hour is supposed to lure drivers to the alternative route, but how many Texans are going to want to drive an extra hundred miles and pay tolls the entire way just so they can avoid a bit of traffic?

Another problem with the plan is its rail component. Although a comprehensive high-speed rail system would be an economic boon, and being able to take a high speed train from San Antonio or Austin to Dallas could definitely reduce the number of passengers on I-35, it is doubtful that many people would want to drive 50 miles to the train station and rent a car at their destination, when they could just as easily fly or save money driving the whole way.

These challenges render the entire idea of the multi-modal corridor useless. Instead, the state needs to consider a different approach, routing different uses in different directions.

The most promising component of the plan is the freight rail. The freight rail could work as planned, but it would be even more effective if it was coupled with a system of spurs for freight trucks to transfer cargo on the final leg of its journey from an intermodal depot to the destination city. By picking up cargo in Laredo or McAllen and shipping it to Texarkana or Denton, countless freight trucks could be diverted from the interstate. Not only could this save the state a massive amount of money, but less land could be taken. Better, safer service could be provided using less fuel and generating less pollution and noise.

The passenger rail should also go directly to and from city centers. Texas could build high-speed rail networks through the medians of existing freeways, or over abandoned freight and utility lines. Austin and San Antonio have already been planning a connection using old right of way, which is currently underutilized. Coupling this with an investment in local level light rail and commuter trains could generate huge savings, reduce environmental impact and generate thousands of jobs. Not only could this offer rapid service between city centers (new trains can operate as fast as 300 mph) but would also give passengers safer, more affordable ways to travel. With an average of 43,000 Americans dying every year in automobile accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, now is the time to invest in safer transportation modes.

More congestion relief could be provided in the form of smaller regional bypasses, such as Austin's SH-130. That toll road is being built away from the major commuter destinations and will have limited entry and exit points in a deliberate effort to limit development on the bypass. By connecting to I-35 on either side of Austin, but running only slightly east of the city, travelers not intending to stop have a superior option to pass through the most congested parts of the existing freeway, without needing to add significant mileage to their trip.

Finally, to improve connectivity through areas currently underserved by infrastructure, an improved network of state highways ᠬa SH-21 from Bryan to Caldwell could be built with bypasses around the busier towns along the route. Divided roads offer improved safety (which the Texas Department of Transportation claims is their primary concern) without mandating excessive taking of property or cutting off current property owners. Taking the example of SH-6, roads like this can be expanded over time as traffic counts justify increased capacity, rather than sinking billions of dollars into roads, which will be virtually unused for an entire generation.

It's time for the governor to consider a Trans-Texas alternative, investing in multiple modes of transportation but routing them separately to fit the strengths and weaknesses of each transport type.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Good find. I agree with most, however, I still am not happy about the bypass routes, but if this plan were passed over Perry's Pork Project, it would work for me.

[Quiz03]

More congestion relief could be provided in the form of smaller regional bypasses, such as Austin's SH-130. That toll road is being built away from the major commuter destinations and will have limited entry and exit points in a deliberate effort to limit development on the bypass. By connecting to I-35 on either side of Austin, but running only slightly east of the city, travelers not intending to stop have a superior option to pass through the most congested parts of the existing freeway, without needing to add significant mileage to their trip.

Don't ever quote anything from The Battalion again. That rag is only good for the crossword puzzle.

This guy doesn't even know that SH-130 is the toll highway component of the TTC. This ROW may include the other components such as the rail and utility zone, but it will probably be separate through this area. The TTC is supposed to include fewer access points than a normal freeway just like SH-130. In the Tier 1 EIS they've decided that for the most part TTC-35 should be within 10 miles of I-35. It has to go so far afield of DFW because DFW is that big

[warlock55]

Don't ever quote anything from The Battalion again. That rag is only good for the crossword puzzle.

This guy doesn't even know that SH-130 is the toll highway component of the TTC. This ROW may include the other components such as the rail and utility zone, but it will probably be separate through this area. The TTC is supposed to include fewer access points than a normal freeway just like SH-130. In the Tier 1 EIS they've decided that for the most part TTC-35 should be within 10 miles of I-35. It has to go so far afield of DFW because DFW is that big

That doesn't undermine the author's opinion though because without the rest of the TTC it is a strictly local solution for traffic congestion, which could be perfectly reasonable. The TTC as a whole is useless for addressing the problem of traffic congestion in metro areas because most people are commuting within a metro area, instead of between metro areas.

Also, it also makes no sense to build an entirely new highway a few miles away from I-35. I-35 could be expanded for much less cost and by taking much less land. It's still only four lanes wide along most of it. The same strategy could be used for the rail lines - place new rail next to existing rail.

In summary, the TTC is stupid, Stupid, STupid, STUpid, STUPid, STUPId, STUPID!!!

[Quiz03]

How many billions would it cost to expand I-35 from San Antonio to Denton by a minumum of 4 lanes? The ROW, and engineering cost is staggering, but a brand new undeveloped ROW will cost much less. Construction can occur much faster without traffic detours or existing congestion to deal with.

How many counties does SH-130 come through or near as planned? Four at least, is that still local? Is congestion still local when it merges from San Antonio to Austin to Bell County and up to Waco? We don't want I-35 to become another I-95, a perpetual traffic jam. There has to be a secondary roadway to take off the pressure.

Is the TTC, as presently envisioned, the best way to accomplish this? Its hard to say, but in the meantime intercity traffic will only worsen. The many environmental hearings and public meetings are available to question the serious concerns that come with the project and change the parts that need changing.

And that "writer" shouldn't be taken seriously because he "writes" for a rag and he holds up as the solution to the TTC the TTC itself.

[RobertB]

I agree -- if the TTC were needed, it would be better to put it on its own ROW, instead of ripping out everything along I-35 for its behemoth 1/4-mile ROW footprint. Of course, the results for highway-dependent businesses are the same, whether you build 10 miles away or if you delete everything within a quarter mile: obliteration.

Here's a concept, though: build the new TTC, and then replace the "old" highway with intercity high speed rail between city centers. There would be room for the rail lines plus frontage roads for local traffic. But that definitely goes into the "blue-sky" category.

How about this strategy: build all the darned toll roads you want, but write it into law that all tolls must be removed when the construction costs have been paid. No more of the game they're playing now, where DNT travellers south of I-635 pay for a road to Grayson County. No more SH 121 politics -- "let us build our tollway or you can kiss your feeder roads goodbye". If a road is needed, it's needed, so pay for it. If you can't afford it, then maybe you should reconsider whether you need it in the first place.

[warlock55]

How many billions would it cost to expand I-35 from San Antonio to Denton by a minumum of 4 lanes? The ROW, and engineering cost is staggering, but a brand new undeveloped ROW will cost much less. Construction can occur much faster without traffic detours or existing congestion to deal with.

How many counties does SH-130 come through or near as planned? Four at least, is that still local? Is congestion still local when it merges from San Antonio to Austin to Bell County and up to Waco? We don't want I-35 to become another I-95, a perpetual traffic jam. There has to be a secondary roadway to take off the pressure.

Is the TTC, as presently envisioned, the best way to accomplish this? Its hard to say, but in the meantime intercity traffic will only worsen. The many environmental hearings and public meetings are available to question the serious concerns that come with the project and change the parts that need changing.

And that "writer" shouldn't be taken seriously because he "writes" for a rag and he holds up as the solution to the TTC the TTC itself.

I'll tell you why it would not cost much less: lawsuits.Lawsuits involving eminent domain. The more land you take, the more litigation there is going to be.There goes the speed argument too.

I'm not saying the TTC couldn't temporaily reduce traffic congestion between cities. My problem is twofold. First, it is promoted as being a means of reducing traffic within metro areas themselves. Not gonna happen because of commuting patterns I previously mentioned. Second, it is promoted as being a long-term solution. Building more roads is never a long term solution, because of everything from induced demand to resulting developmental patterns to the rising cost of gasoline. The TTC is a 20th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. We need to get serious about rebuilding the nation's freight rail capacity and investing in new mass transit solutions, along with encouraging development and commerce that relies less on the automobile. If all the TTC money was spent along those lines, we could come up with a real longterm solution.

[Quiz03]

Realistically the freight rail compnent should be the most exciting part for fans of rail transit. If freight moves to a new ROW it would leave the old ROW available for intercity rail. A ROW that actually goes through downtowns. The original passenger rail idea of the TTC of dedicated rail only within the corridor was a bad idea. Passenger rail needs to completely go in its ROW to downtowns or if it goes in and out of the TTC ROW it needs to hit the downtowns of cities large enough to support reasonable passenger traffic.

As for speed, I was talking about when construction could legally start. Eminent Domain proceedings have to be finished before construction can begin. The cost of Eminent Domain legal costs will be a drop in the bucket compared to the acquistition costs of the TTC, let alone the cost of acquiring more I-35 ROW. Construction can happen a lot faster when there isn't traffic to deal with or people around. Besides, the TTC won't even begin to be built for years, there is plenty of time to negotiate ROW acquisition.

The reason given for why tolls will never be removed is maintenance costs. There are fewer available construction funds because of the maintenance costs of the existing highway system. I don't like paying tolls either, but its a way to keep vehicle miles down and reduce pollution. If not for toll revenue there is no TTC money to use on other pie in the sky solutions.

[warlock55]

As for speed, I was talking about when construction could legally start. Eminent Domain proceedings have to be finished before construction can begin. The cost of Eminent Domain legal costs will be a drop in the bucket compared to the acquistition costs of the TTC, let alone the cost of acquiring more I-35 ROW. Construction can happen a lot faster when there isn't traffic to deal with or people around. Besides, the TTC won't even begin to be built for years, there is plenty of time to negotiate ROW acquisition.

I think the acquisition costs are going to be sky-high, and involve many eminent domain cases, simply because most people do not want it to be built. It would definitely be cheaper and easier to acquire land for two additional lanes on I-35 than build an entirely new highway.

[Quiz03]

You're trying to make it sound like every single land owner will fight the taking with every available means. That will be the minority, it always is when dealing with eminent domain. If there are really intransigent land owners the TTC can be routed around them, I-35 land acquisition can't be routed any intransigent land owners. This is a transportation project clearly constitutional so the only argument is price. Undeveloped farmland is cheaper than commercial structures. The areas around I-35 will have an enormously larger number of parcels to deal with, and each parcel will cost about the same in legal costs. Besides commercial land owners have more money to fund legal battles.
.

[Tnekster]

Who is going to drive on this new tollroad? Your leaving Dallas going to Austin so your going to do what? Drive out of your way to get to the TTC and pass over I-35 which is free? Let me drive out of my way so I can pay tolls AND sky-high fuel costs. If we are just building this tollroad for the truck traffic coming out of Laredo then I think it's a waste of money. This road does not pass close enough to any city to make it worth driving out of your way to utilize and trucking firms face the same issue. Do I use the TTC which adds additional costs to my trip or do I ride I-35?

[tamtagon]

^I like the idea of a self-sufficient separate highway system for through-traffic cargo trucks; the fewer big rigs on city highways the better.

[warlock55]

You're trying to make it sound like every single land owner will fight the taking with every available means. That will be the minority, it always is when dealing with eminent domain. If there are really intransigent land owners the TTC can be routed around them, I-35 land acquisition can't be routed any intransigent land owners. This is a transportation project clearly constitutional so the only argument is price. Undeveloped farmland is cheaper than commercial structures. The areas around I-35 will have an enormously larger number of parcels to deal with, and each parcel will cost about the same in legal costs. Besides commercial land owners have more money to fund legal battles.
.

Public opinion is running against the TTC, and since the toll road is going to be operated by a private company, it's going to be challenged in court if it's approved. No doubt about it. Public comments have been overwhelmingly negative so far, and I have heard ranchers and farmers associations, plus other groups representing property rights groups, come down strongly against the TTC. It's going to be a fight. Perry needs to listen to Texans and just give up on it.

[Tnekster]

^I like the idea of a self-sufficient separate highway system for through-traffic cargo trucks; the fewer big rigs on city highways the better.

But will there be enough truck traffic on this new "self sufficient" road to justify the cost? I guess my point is that not all truck traffic will use it and the public use is a wild card so will it really be self sufficient?

[frankchitown]

You're trying to make it sound like every single land owner will fight the taking with every available means. That will be the minority, it always is when dealing with eminent domain. If there are really intransigent land owners the TTC can be routed around them, I-35 land acquisition can't be routed any intransigent land owners. This is a transportation project clearly constitutional so the only argument is price. Undeveloped farmland is cheaper than commercial structures. The areas around I-35 will have an enormously larger number of parcels to deal with, and each parcel will cost about the same in legal costs. Besides commercial land owners have more money to fund legal battles.
.

Take a look at some of the local online newspapers along the proposed routes for the TTC. You'll find that those small communities are well informed and ready to fight tooth and nail to prevent the TTC from bisecting their counties. Countywide meetings with state representatives are being held all along the proposed route, even on the less likely route proposed west of I-35. There is much more debate and passion involved in the rural areas because these people have much more to lose than the cities being bypassed, and they have strong pride in their untainted scenic environs. Mainly, they don't want their serene rural landscape ruined by the construction, pollution, and traffic. This isnt just the landowners but entire communities involved. And these landowners aren't all poor slackjawed yokels who'll be sitting on their porches waiting for the bulldozers to come..many are very wealthy and own thousands of acres of land which have been in their family for generations. They have the means and the drive to fight the TTC.

This is from the Clifton Record, a small town on the west side of the plan..its a good snapshot of what the general consensus is in these rural communities. What kind of an impact will this create? I'm not sure, but the majority of these people are part of the red-blooded American, conservative Christian, family values Republican voting bloc...but they're going to vote for whoever opposes the TTC...its certainly their hot button issue this november.

Bosque County Says ‘NO!’ To Corridor

By David Anderson
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
CLIFTON — An estimated 400-plus packed the Clifton High School cafetorium Wednesday evening to issue a resounding “no thanks” to the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 running through Bosque County. An open house and public hearing hosted by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission ran into unanimous opposition locally, and citizens almost as strongly opposed the entire project statewide.
TxDOT Turnpike Division Project Manager Jack Heiss served as the evening’s moderator, and presented an overview of the project. However, the citizens who testified at the hearing seemed to already be well-educated on the subject.
Bosque County Judge Cole Word opened the public testimony by reading a resolution passed last year by Bosque County Commissioners’ Court. Word emphasized the court still opposes the project, whether it comes through the county or not.
Verlie Edwards, chief of staff for District 58 State Rep. Rob Orr, spoke for the legislator, urging TxDOT to “listen closely, and slow down the process so all options are explored.” From there, the elected officials gave way to speakers from the general public, who one by one pled for the project’s elimination.
“No one has been able to give me a list of benefits of the corridor to Bosque County. I don’t believe it exists,” John Faubion said to applause from the crowd.
John Campbell asked anyone in the crowd of over 400 who supports the project to identify themselves, if they weren’t too afraid to.
No one stood, to laughter from the crowd.
As to the alternative route that could slice Bosque County in half, many pointed to the effects it would have on the landscape.
“Our rolling wooded hills, valleys, the abundant wildlife, the fertile soils. The attractions that brought the settlers here in 1854 remain the very essence of the county today,” Walt Lewis said.
“We’re known as the Top of the Hill Country,” Morgan Mayor Pro-Tem Keith Vandiver said. “Bringing the corridor through here would mean blasting the tops of many of our mesas. We don’t want to become known as the Flat-Top of the Hill Country.”
Jamie Finstad wanted to know what the state believes is “just compensation” for taking land and memories that has been in his family for 150 years.
“I wonder where all the wildlife that’s being displaced will go, and I wonder why we’re all in such a hurry,” Finstad continued.
“If we give it up (the land) now, it’s gone forever, and they’ll just want more later on,” Carl Aspen said.
“We haven’t adjusted yet to the second stop light in our county,” Judge Word jokingly remarked. “We’re not for one inch of the Trans-Texas Corridor in Bosque County. If we wanted to live in the Metroplex, we’d move there. We don’t want the Metroplex brought here.”
Several spoke to the corruption they believe underlies the Trans-Texas Corridor, and the lack of legislative action to end the project.
“Do you believe in communism or dictatorships? That’s what we appear to be headed for,” Sam Wells told the panel receiving the comments. “I hope TxDOT feels like General Custer, because the public is like Sitting Bull’s tribe, and we’ll do what we need to stop this. We won’t stand for somebody taking our land.”
“I’m appalled the state legislature has not stopped this. Our legislators have yet again turned a blind eye to the needs of this district,” said former Clifton Mayor W. Leon Smith.
“It gives me heartburn to think we’ll build a toll road and send the money to a company in Spain,” said David Pieper, adding that the state is diverting billions of dollars that should be earmarked for transportation improvements to other uses.
“This is not progress,” said Martha West. “It’s prostitution of our great state, and with filthy money.”
Aspen, who said he spoke with a TxDOT official before the public hearing, was not surprised at a comment he received.
“He told me, ‘We don’t want to hear, “Not in my back yard.”’
“Of course, he also told me the corridor won’t affect him where he lives,” Aspen added.
Many testifying suggested that, if the infrastructure is built, the name should be changed. Suggestions ranged from “The Corridor of Regret,” to the “Trans-Texas Horror-Door,” to “Ben Dover.”
Other concerns centered on the facilities being outdated before they are finished, especially considering quantum leaps in technology from year to year.
“It’s like trying to build a better manual typewriter,” Smith told the commission.
While many of those who spoke addressed generations of families that have lived in the county who will lose land should the corridor be brought through, others told of being proud transplants to the county, including Ron Harmon, Les Bowers, and David Anderson.
One by one, most of those testifying put the onus on the state’s legislators. Many said it was past time to send them comments. Most said it was time to send them home by voting them out in the next election.
“House Bill 3588 passed, effectively, unanimously, so they all need to go,” said Linda Curtis, founder of Independent Texans. “We need to get organized, and tell them where to put this corridor.”
Harmon agreed, saying Texas needs to get rid of any politician who supports or does not specifically oppose the TTC.
TxDOT’s officials remained after the public hearing to answer questions, but most of the crowd began filing out of the cafetorium as the public testimonies came to end, apparently having heard enough

.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Wow, that's powerful.

[Quiz03]

Takings of someone's land is tragic for the person affected but necessary for the greater good. I'm sure there would be a lot more support in rural areas if the TTC included frontage roads and an exit every couple of miles, but that degrades the utility of the Trans-Texas Corridor. Its not supposed to stop at every small town that barely has a gas station, it is there to move freight, people, and utilities between the urban areas of Texas.

What is the alternative for congestion along I-35? Expanding I-35 through urban areas is hugely expensive and very time-consuming in the piece meal way that it is done. With population growth the new lanes will be used by local travelers and through traffic is again left where it began. Then you would have to go through the whole process of ROW acquisition, NEPA, design, and build. But a new corridor will be expandable by its very nature.

Some people may be intimidated by its size, well everything is bigger in Texas. People comparing Cintra-Zachry to the swell of illegal immigration need to get their head out of their ass, because they are very different issues. Of course it makes sense that at this very early stage the affected landowners are more vocal about the project than the people who will benefit. Taking someone's land 10 years from now is much more direct of an impact than providing adequate infrastructure for trade, telecommunications, water, and other necessities for the next 100 years.

[FoUTASportscaster]

What is the alternative for congestion along I-35?

Uh, rail? We have the ability now to have passenger rail of 300 MPH velocity or greater.
Here's a story that could be helpful in the debate

America's Oil Use in Ten to Twelve Years
An Overlooked, Practical, and Affordable Approach Using Mature Existing Technology


Commentary by Alan S. Drake
May 2006



NOTE: This is the third commentary in our series Electrification 101 – a discussion aimed at informing transportation professionals, decisionmakers, and the public at large of the value and advantages of electrifying transportation operations, and the electrification of public transport systems in particular. The following essay is a slightly edited version of a summary position paper disseminated by the author at a recent Peak Oil conference in Washington, DC. Alan S. Drake, a former accountant, is an engineer, and professional researcher based in New Orleans.



Step One – Electrify US Freight Rail Lines and Shift Freight to Rail

The Russians finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, in 2002 and electrified to the Arctic Ocean port of Murmansk several months ago. Almost all of Japan and the continental European Union (EU) have already electrified their railroads – so there are no technical limitations. Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy) and have no delays for refueling.

The United States used 19.8 million barrels of oil per day in 2002 with two-thirds for transportation. (Today, consumption is about 20.7 million barrels per day.) Railroads carried 27.8% of total US ton-miles with 220,000 barrels per day whilst trucks carried 32.1% of total ton-miles with 2,070,000 barrels per day (2002 data). Clearly, railroads are 8 times more energy efficient than heavy trucks and also are more labor-efficient.

In the era of cheap oil and the ascendancy of interstate highways, US railroads cut back capacity and ceded much cargo to trucking. Today, intermodal shipments (local trucking and long distance rail via containers or roll on/roll off) are growing rapidly, but this trend must be accelerated! Electrifying railroads and transferring half of the ton-miles of trucks to rail should save 6.3% of US oil consumption.

US railroads have pointed to property taxes as a major reason that they did not electrify (no taxes on their diesel, property taxes on electrification). Simply exempting any rail line that electrifies from property taxes under the Interstate Commerce clause will help to rapidly electrify many rail lines. Expanding capacity (adding tracks) and adding more intermodal transfer points will be more economically attractive without the burden of property taxes.

Removing property taxes on railroads would take the "thumb off the scale" in the economic competition between rail and trucks. Local jurisdictions that lose more than a certain percentage in tax revenue might have the excess compensated by the Federal government for 25 years, each year decreasing by 4%.

Step Two – Increase Urban Rail Federal Funding

In 1970, 4% of Washington, DC commuters used city buses to get to work. Today about 40% use public transit. The difference is the 106 miles of Washington Metro. Washington Metro saves a half-billion gallons of gasoline per year directly, with at least as much more from changes in urban and suburban development patterns.

Miami has passed a new half-cent sales tax to build a 103-mile system of elevated "Subway in the Sky" over 25 years. The author has been told that 90% of the population will be within 3 miles of a station and over half within 2 miles. A reasonable number will be within walking and easy bicycling distance. An online map can be seen as follows (note that dark brown lines represent 2016+ plans):

http://www.miamidade.gov/trafficrelief/RailMap.htm

Why will it take 25 years to build a system that will transform Miami as Washington and San Francisco have been transformed, saving billions of gallons of gasoline?

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding has declined from 80% for "New Start" rail projects to 50%, thereby dramatically slowing this energy-saving project and many others. Restoring that funding ratio to 80% (or better yet, 85% or 90% for the best projects and 75% for marginal projects, thus providing two funding paths for cities to chose from) will speed existing plans in Miami, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Francisco-Bay Area of California, Washington, DC, Portland, New Orleans, New York City, Los Angeles, Charlotte, Sacramento, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, Atlanta, and many other metropolitan areas.

An explosion in urban rail, from streetcars in small cities to larger light rail transit (LRT) in larger cities and rail rapid transit in the largest cities with regional passenger rail ("commuter rail") everywhere is very likely with better federal funding. Today, there is a growing pent-up demand for the very limited federal matching funds now available. This pent-up demand can be tapped to build massive, permanent oil savings quickly.

An explosion in urban rail, from streetcars in small cities to larger light rail transit (LRT) in larger Budget space could come from reductions in federal highway funding and reallocations of those revenues, or as a supplement for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), funded by growing federal oil lease royalities. New urban rail of all types, built in cities large and small, could add up to the fuel-saving equivalent of a dozen Washington Metros. This would save 4% of US oil use (6% of transportation oil use). New electric mass transit will benefit the US much more than new highways.

Step Three – Promote Electric Trolley Buses

Electric trolley buses are cheaper and lighter, they last much longer, they are pollution-free, and are quiet, smooth (much less jerky) and more attractive to passengers than fossil-fuel buses. They obviously require overhead wires and electrical infrastructure. Four US cities currently operate electric trolley buses and a fifth will soon.

Hybrid buses, with minor engineering changes, can operate part-time as electric trolley buses and off-wire for part of their routes. This mixed use would significantly reduce their diesel fuel consumption.

The FTA currently funds 80% of bus replacement costs on a twelve-year cycle. Many experts feel that 15 years would be more appropriate. Perhaps FTA could fund fossil-fuel replacement buses on a 13.5 year cycle at 75% and trolley buses (with their electrical infrastructure) at 90%. Again, re-allocation of federal highway aid, or a fraction of increased federal oil royalities, could easily pay for this.

Step Four – Promote More Transportation Bicycling

Simple steps, such as more bike racks in city downtowns, would make bicycle commuting easier. Streets with excess capacity could have one traffic lane converted to two bike lanes. This is a city-by-city effort, with differences in every locale. So a national program is less effective, other than making it patriotic to bicycle to work, school and shopping and promoting bike racks at urban rail stops or allowing bicycles to be carried on transit vehicles.

Step Five – Create a Strategic Railcar Reserve to Supplement and Extend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Suppose, as one of several possible future scenarios, that an Islamic Republic of Arabia replaces Saudi Arabia and the new Islamic Republic exports only enough oil (at elevated prices) to buy food and other essentials (no longer having to support 6,000 princes in luxury). The United States would face a severe and prolonged oil supply interruption.

It is likely that the US government would immediately institute a variety of oil conservation measures; these could include a 50-mph speed limit, 4-day work week, limited sports events, restricted air travel, etc. The nation would also immediately start draining the SPR. Demand for electrified urban rail would swamp the capacity of every system in the country. Freight railroads and Amtrak would also likely be overwhelmed. Once the SPR is half-drained, perhaps in two or three months, even more severe oil demand restrictions would be required, such as rationing.

Every urban rail system, and almost every line, could handle more passengers if they had more rolling stock. Their capacity is limited in other ways as well (platform length, park & ride lots, bicycle racks, etc.), but rolling stock is almost always the first limiting factor. Likewise, certain types of rail cars would be the first limiting factor on our freight railroads. So a Strategic Railcar Reserve (SRR) would allow existing urban rail lines to carry more passengers, and more railcars would allow more freight to be shifted from trucks, thus reducing US oil demand in another dimension and allowing the SPR to last a few days longer. Once the SPR is exhausted, the SRR (and all the steps above) would still be benefiting the nation.

Buying more railcars would be cheaper and better than buying more oil for the SPR. Rail cars are made in the USA, their benefit will last much longer than extra barrels of oil, they can be used and not disappear in even minor oil supply interruptions, and they are cheaper, per barrel saved, than $75 oil.

Every US urban rail system should estimate its likely demand in the case of an oil supply interruption and what would be required to handle this demand at 60% of crush load. In some cases, soon-to-be-retired cars could be mothballed, but new cars will be required for the SRR in most cases. They could be mothballed or added to the operational reserve.

Conclusions

Transportation use of electricity (all subways, light rail, Amtrak's NEC) in 2004 was 0.19% of all electricity used in the USA. As previously noted, new urban rail of all types, built in cities large and small, could add up to the fuel-saving equivalent of a dozen Washington Metros, and would save 4% of US oil use (6% of transportation oil use). The higher efficiency of rail vs. rubber tires (8:1) and electric motors vs. diesel engines (3:1) means that the freight electrification goals of Step 1 will take slightly more than 1% of US electricity. Ten years is more than adequate time to build new power plants if any are needed. New wind turbine generation will exceed new transportation demand in future years.

These proposals and overlooked steps will complement the more widely discussed steps of more fuel-efficient cars, ethanol substitution, and other measures. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive. And the steps outlined above can be started immediately with plans already in process; they require no new technology, and will have a significant impact in the medium term.

Taking these steps will positively affect US oil supplies faster than drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), produce at least twice as much oil savings as ANWR will produce at its peak, and never deplete (Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is producing at approximately 20% of its peak, Washington Metro hits a new peak in oil saved every year). So, if one supports drilling in ANWR, these steps are even better. It is simply not logical to support drilling and not support these steps. And if one opposes drilling in ANWR, then these steps are a larger, faster, longer-lasting, and environmentally positive substitute.

It is worth noting that four American cities – Washington DC, New Orleans, Oakland and East St. Louis – could benefit from more urban rail, mainly streetcars and larger light rail, but cannot afford even 10% matching funds. Two of these cities, Washington DC and New Orleans, are of particularly prominent national significance and international stature.

Washington, DC's Department of Transportation (DOT) has a plan for 40 miles of streetcars in the District, while the author helped develop a 35-mile plan for streetcars in New Orleans. It would benefit the nation as a whole (in reduced gasoline use and international exposure, and as a learning tool for other cities) to fully fund streetcar systems in these cities. One goal of such a program should be reducing the cost of building streetcar lines.

The author has also written a supplement to the Department of Energy Hirsch Report on Planning for Peak Oil that covers a vital point that the original report overlooked. It is available at:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm

Sometimes good public policy is good politics. Reducing US oil consumption, reducing greenhouse gases, improving the US economy, reducing congestion, providing transportation alternatives, and reducing the number of 18-wheel trucks on the highways should be both good public policy and good politics!


Light Rail Now! website
URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Updated 2006/05/30

[freewaytincan]

I like how people always talk about bike commuting as if it's the greatest idea ever. Clearly, they have never felt the scorching dry heat of Phoenix or the disgusting climate of Houston. Standing outside for five minutes down here you look like you jumped in a pool. And that's if you're in the shade. I like cycling as much (actually it's a lot more) as the next guy, but come on. Cycling to commute only works north of the Mason-Dixon line.

[warlock55]

Of course it makes sense that at this very early stage the affected landowners are more vocal about the project than the people who will benefit. Taking someone's land 10 years from now is much more direct of an impact than providing adequate infrastructure for trade, telecommunications, water, and other necessities for the next 100 years.

To say a giant highway is the infrastructure solution for the next 100 years is... :eek2:

I don't know who benefits from this craziness other than Cintra-Zachry, who gets to charge Texans to drive on a highway they already paid to construct. I guess Perry benefits too somehow...probably through campaign contributions. I haven't heard anyone else coming forward saying this the best, or even the simplest or easiest solution. It is being pushed ahead by people with an agenda, regardless of what most Texans want.

It certainly can't be argued definitively that this project is for the greater good either. There certainly isn't any great moral or social imperative behind it that overrules the mass opposition to it.

[Geaux Tigers]

Ladies and Gentlemen...we have a new name for the outer loop. I give you: The Doughnut!


Posted on Fri, Aug. 25, 2006



Commission favors loop around D-FW

By Gordon Dickson
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

AUSTIN - A proposed toll road that would encircle Dallas-Fort Worth has a new nickname: the Doughnut.

Texas Transportation Commission members passed out Krispy Kreme doughnuts Thursday to symbolize their support for the outer loop, which would be built in segments from 2011 to 2030 as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor.

They also celebrated the commission's approval Thursday of a new road-building partnership among Metroplex cities and counties, the North Texas Tollway Authority and the state. The partnership would also work with any companies wishing to build private toll roads in the area.

"We are committed to the Doughnut," commission Chairman Ric Williamson declared, raising a pastry to about 30 visiting North Texans.

Dozens of boxes of doughnuts were brought into the meeting and passed to speakers and the audience. They were courtesy of Gov. Rick Perry, Williamson said.

Perry came out in support of the Metroplex's outer loop plan earlier this month. Several people referred to its doughnut shape, and the nickname stuck like wet sugar.

Metroplex leaders asked that Trans-Texas be built close to Metroplex roads, rather than going east of Dallas and bypassing the metro area.

Part of the loop would fit snugly around Tarrant County, following Johnson County's Farm Road 917 to the south and the Parker County line to the west.

The federal environmental review on the proposed route is expected to be completed in the next few years.

North Texas' support for Trans-Texas stood out during 54 hearings statewide this summer. Most of the nearly 3,000 Texans who spoke or submitted comments about the project were against it.

Planning for the 210-mile loop must start now, said Michael Morris, transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments. "We think this right of way must be acquired as soon as possible," Morris said, adding that the longer the wait, the more expensive and developed the land will be.

To show support for local control of roads, commissioners stepped down from their dais and held Thursday's meeting at a conference table, sitting with Regional Transportation Council members.

Commissioners approved a plan that allows Metroplex leaders to solve road problems with a consensus of agencies -- including the RTC, the tollway authority and state officials.

As part of the new power-sharing deal, the Plano-based tollway authority has agreed to build several projects, including Southwest Parkway in Fort Worth, and an extension of Texas 121 to Cleburne.

Meanwhile, the Texas Department of Transportation has agreed to seek private-sector development agreements on projects such as Grapevine Funnel toll lanes, Texas 161 in Grand Prairie and Texas 121 in Collin County.

Future work will be decided by the RTC, whose members include the Transportation Department and the tollway authority.

One interesting example may be Texas 121 south of Fort Worth, which state officials say could generate $625 million for future road projects if built as a private toll road.

The tollway authority has dibs on that project, but under the new deal, it must specify how much excess revenue will be paid to the RTC.

MAP: The Doughnut. STAR-TELEGRAM/TIM BEDISON

[slfunk]

So 2030 expected completion of the outer loop. 24 years from now. Wondering how much car usage will be used between cities by then or if it will change to air traffic mostly. How much of this thing will actually get built and if I will even be living in Texas by then..... I'll be in my mid fifties by then. This whole project is a joke.

[warlock55]

North Texas' support for Trans-Texas stood out during 54 hearings statewide this summer. Most of the nearly 3,000 Texans who spoke or submitted comments about the project were against it.

What they should say is North Texas elected officials' support stands out. It's no more popular with the average citizen around here than it is anywhere else in the state. The TTC is such a bizzare project because it keeps moving soley on political inertia, without any actual public support.

[texastrill]

Did i hear some time ago that 360 would be connected to the TTC?

[tamtagon]

This whole project is a joke.

There's no question in my mind that the state needs separate transportaion infrastructure for people and cargo, but, ya, this project is a joke.

[slfunk]

There's no question in my mind that the state needs separate transportaion infrastructure for people and cargo, but, ya, this project is a joke.

Totally agree with you. Not really understanding why there seems to be this need for a whole new system and why not work with redeveloping what we have.

[RobertB]

From a political perspective, the donut proposal is genius. Nobody ever got voted out of office for bringing a road to their district. The more pork you put in the barrel, the more politicians will line up for their share.

Of course, as I noted above, the original intent of the TTC was to completely bypass the cities. That idea has been laughed off the stage, so Perry has been reduced to the usual pork-based pandering. Kinky, Carole, the Democrat, and even the Libertarian are going to have Perry's head on a platter over his political chameleonship -- but only Kinky (and I guess the Libertarian, too) can honestly say that he's not bought-and-paid-for just as throughly.