Latest on Texas 50 year infrastructure plan

[Anonymous]

Some observations: As far as I know, the railroad infrastructure in this proposal would be open access. BNSF and UP have up to now have reserved judgement. With this latest information (although still scant on the specifics of the railroad sector), what are some thoughts of the members of this forum?

Texas Governor Seeks to Build Megahighways

Wed Dec 29, 2:10 PM ET

By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas - In what sounds like another tall tale told by a Texan, the Lone Star State has embarked on an audacious project to build superhighways so big, so complex, that they will make ordinary interstates look like cowpaths.

The Trans-Texas Corridor project, as envisioned by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2002, would be a 4,000-mile transportation network costing an awesome $175 billion over 50 years, financed mostly if not entirely with private money. The builders would then charge motorists tolls.

But these would not be mere highways. Proving anew that everything's big in Texas, they would be megahighways #8212; corridors 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, even broadband transmission cables.

Supporters say the corridors are needed to handle the expected NAFTA-driven boom in the flow of goods to and from Mexico and to enable freight haulers to bypass heavily populated urban centers on straight-shot highways that cut across the countryside.

The number of corridors and exactly where they would run have yet to be worked out. But the Texas Transportation Commission on Dec. 16 opened negotiations with the Spain-based consortium Cintra to start the first phase of the project, a $7.5 billion, 800-mile corridor that would stretch from Oklahoma to Mexico and run parallel to Interstate 35.

"Some thought the Trans-Texas Corridor was a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never see the light of day," said Perry, who has compared his plan to the interstate highway system started during the Eisenhower administration. "We have seen the future, and it's here today."

But as the plan rumbles along in the fast lane, some have called it a Texas-size boondoggle. Environmentalists are worried about what it will do to the countryside. Ranchers and farmers who stand to lose their land through eminent domain are mobilizing against it. Small towns and big cities alike fear a loss of business when traffic is diverted around them.

Even the governor's own party opposes the plan. The GOP platform drafted at last summer's state convention rejected it because of its effect on property rights.

Perry is undeterred. "I think it will be a model for future infrastructure construction in the world," he predicted.

The tolls would represent a dramatic departure for Texas, which has traditionally relied on federal highway funding from gasoline taxes to build roads. But supporters say the combination of tolls and private money would allow Texas to pour concrete at a rate that would not be possible through gasoline taxes alone.

Texas economist Ray Perryman said the corridors could generate about $135 billion for the state over the 50-year span and lure new industry by offering efficient shipping routes for goods and utilities. "Any time we can do something better, faster and cheaper, it's going to give us an advantage," he said.

The new rail lines could also lower the risk of chemical spills in urban areas, said Perry spokesman Robert Black. "We have hazardous materials running through our city centers because of a rail system that was built 100 years ago," Black said.

For the Oklahoma-Mexico corridor, Cintra plans to spend $6 billion for about 300 miles of four-lane highway from Dallas to San Antonio and give the state an additional $1.2 billion for improvements along the route. In return, Cintra wants to maintain and operate the toll road for 50 years.

Other potential corridors could stretch east-west from Orange to El Paso, and north-south from Amarillo to Laredo.

The Texas Farm Bureau #8212; generally regarded as an ally of Perry, who grew up on a farm in West Texas #8212; opposes the project.

"They're proposing going primarily through farm and ranch lands," said bureau President Kenneth Dierschke, a cotton farmer from San Angelo. "If someone comes in and cuts your property in half, that's no good."

Officials promise property owners will be fairly compensated for any land seized. And a special provision put in for the benefit of rural Texas would allow some to negotiate for a share of the revenue generated by traffic on the corridor.

David Stall, the former city manager of Columbus, a town of about 3,800 along Interstate 10, founded Corridor Watch in opposition to the plan. He predicted an El Paso-to-Orange corridor would divert as much as 25 percent of the traffic off of I-10 and have a "devastating impact" on Columbus.

As for the financing, Stall warned that if the Cintra deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

"There is no free lunch and no free road," he said.
___

On the Net:

Texas Department of Transportation:

www.dot.state.tx.us

www.keeptexasmoving.com

Corridor Watch:

www.corridorwatch.com

[Anonymous]

The upside is people from civilization could cross Texas faster :)

In '97 the Texas State government chartered MegaRail Transportation Systems. They have patented a lightweight, enclosed rubber tire, $5 million per mile system for 125 mph passenger and intermodel service. I think heavy rail should stick to heavy freight but for passengers and fast intermodel freight a lighter cheaper system is much more practical.

It's an interesting concept and they are building a pilot system in Europe, check it out. http://www.megarail.com/

[carnej1]

MEGARAIL has some fascinating ideas and they seem to have a business plan that would let these systems be built with private money(although there would still be some eminent domain issues, etc). They seem to be trying to interest railroads in partnering in these projects, their websites suggests that these guideways could be built over existing RR ROW's(though as I drove to work today up RT.24 N in MA, I realized the problem is dealing with road bridges. A major railroad investing in this could not only take time sensitive freight business(specifically what can't go on stack trains) away from the interstate truckers but partner with passenger agencies to implement high speed rail without messing up their own track capacity. In fact they could increase the total capacity on major routes.

[mudchicken]

But, this is a pet project of highway engineers, not railroaders ...and because of that , the railroaders back off a safe distance. Those proposed "straight-as-a-string" roads might work for trucks, but the grades won't work for trains except out on the plains in some places (causing more R/E to be gobbled-up).[X-)][X-)][X-)]

There has got to be a few old railroad location engineers laughing their butts of upstairs in the great beyond over this.[swg][swg][swg]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

But, this is a pet project of highway engineers, not railroaders ...and because of that , the railroaders back off a safe distance. Those proposed "straight-as-a-string" roads might work for trucks, but the grades won't work for trains except out on the plains in some places (causing more R/E to be gobbled-up).[X-)][X-)][X-)]

There has got to be a few old railroad location engineers laughing their butts of upstairs in the great beyond over this.[swg][swg][swg]

I am willing to reserve judgement until more details are brought forth regarding the rail aspects of this plan. The websites provided little detail.

However, if it is true that the rails would simply follow highway alignments, then that would probably rule out HAL's in deference to high speed passenger/intermodal consists, then the argument becomes whether the latter is a viable usage of railroad technology.

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion that the Trans Texas Corridors plan is a bit too ambitious.... as far as a quarter mile swath of land for the right of way.... It would be too expensive, and as noted above, not necessarily suitable for freight railroads.....

However, I do support the funding mechanism, which is needed for any transportation initiative.... Back in the 1980s the HSR plan was defeated by not having a funding mechanism in place.....

I think it would be better to build new 6 lane parallel freeways for automobiles, and let the old interstate system serve the trucking industry... I also think the rail, pipeline, and power line corridors should fit their needs and be sized as such independent of the freeway corridors....

For example, would it not be better to doube track the railroad tracks in existence now than to invest in a new right of way, and build HSR lines separately?

And its the same with power lines too.... We should build more power lines using the same corridors already.....