I-69 The NAFTA interstate

[jsanchez]

Highways only receive half of their funding from fuel and user taxes, the rest comes from income, property, sales taxes etc. Railroads subsidize highways by paying the same taxes on diesel fuel as trucks and autos, Union Pacific pays more diesel fuel taxes than any other corporation in the United States, yet gets none of this money back. Privately owned interstate highways would level the playing field it works in most of the world why not the USA?

[Anonymous]

Taxpayers drain? Try again , the highway trust fund which is from fuel tax collected (user fee)in several BILLION to the positive side (about 40 B) and like social security is used to cover other shortfalls , interesting enuough is many rail projects(including on class 1 RR's) are given grants from highway generated taxes , whereas the rail dosen't even contribute to the fund

[Anonymous]

I'd be inclined to agree with you...But After years of trying to prioritize the extension of I-69 in Indiana (where the route spawned),..the mere fact that the project's impetus has now switched to Texas speaks loads about the democratic process.

[Anonymous]

Texas already has divided 4 lanes along this route, although not controlled access. I am of the opinion we take the $6 billion and build the high speed rail Texas triangle.

[Anonymous]

I have, and I would rather drive down US 281. But if I have to get to Austin or San Antonio, I would rather take the slow Texas Eagle. It is cheaper than driving the distance, but Amtrak has played a dirty trick on the Eagle, no more dining car service south of Fort Worth.....

[Anonymous]

They are actally going through with it all e'hhhhh?

Thats just wonderful!!

The people of Southern Indiana were pressing hardest of all to get I-69 extended south of Indianapolis, for years. Couldn't buy the governments interest. "A road to nowhere" came the reply.

So, over the years, many variations were tried, to get the Gov't to re-consider.....Memphis?......Little Rock?....Shreveport?....all failing to garner any interest.


How interesting that moving more jobs to Mexico finally caught someones fancy.

Can't blame Texas, they are probably praying that the "migration wave" will start "overshooting" them, any ol' time now.

Whats funny is how ever since Mexico became the destination, the people of Southern Indiana, once offering any number of good paths that I-69 should take, all of asudden have no lands that can be spared, and the path has been adjusted way westward to follow the existing roadbed of US 41

the message is clear: N.I.M.B.Y.....

[Modelcar]

...Interesting money figures for Highway and rail constructions. And of course If I-69 is constructed the surge of trucks north and south will increase once again. Interstates are now so saturated with trucks it is no longer a pleasure to travel on them in many areas with our passenger cars. In effect we're building these Interstates for providing the trucks to continue to take over this means of transportation. An improved rail ribbon north and south in the same general area could separate this traffic flow. Do we really want a faster way to bring Mexican products up here to actually remove more jobs in America...

QM

[Anonymous]

Try driving I-35 anywhere in Texas--NAFTA's Chisholm trail.

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth fella's, I-69 is complete here in Michigan, has been for years. Starting at Port Huron, it exits the state near Angola, Indiana. There is, however far more truck traffic on the east-west I-94, running between Detroit and Chicago.
Todd C.

[mudchicken]

Dirty Little Secret:

(1) In the 1960's most state highway departments changed their names to "transportation departments"....

(2) Pull out a roster of your state's "transportation department". Count the number (real or imagined- college degree does not equate to being railroad qualified)of "qualified" railroad personel on staff...The number is most likely between zero and single digits....


(3) Care to wager how many "transportation departments" should change (but won't) their names back to "highway department" (or "Trucking Lobby pushover"),

OR, who is going to win on a budget issue truck vs. train???

Just a thought.

[jsanchez]

The U.S should follow the current trend of the majority of new expressways being built in the world and let private enterprise pay and build it If Communist China has privately owned and maintained expressway, why doesn't the supposedly capitalist USA. It would remove the interstates from being a taxpayer drain to being a profit generator. They also could be built a lot faster and cheaper than the bureaucratic nightmare that is currently involved. China is building 30,00o miles plus of privately owned limited access highways along with tens of thousands of miles of new highspeed and conventional railroads. THe NAFTA highway is the epitome of what is wrong with our transportation highway welfare system.

[Anonymous]

At the Texas DOT web site I learned that the 955 miles of four lane interstate I-69 through Texas will cost $6 billion, some 90% of which is to be paid by the federal government.
This figure is for Texas, and does not include the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Inidana. I-69 is the new interstate being built over the next 15 years to funnel the NAFTA truck traffic to the northern states of America and to Canada.

Not to long ago TGV was interested in the same news article at the Texas DOT website in building a high speed rail network for the Texas triangle, some 730 miles linking Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio during the 1990s for $4.4 billion. Both numbers average around $6 million per mile.

Notice that rural 4 lane interstates are much cheaper to build than 8 or more lanes of urban interstates (freeways). The ongoing construction of the Texas high 5 interchange of Hwy 75 and I-635 in north Dallas will cost $262 million (for less than a mile), and the reconstruction of 9 miles of I-635 between I-35E and Hwy 75 will cost $1.45 billion. The average for this 9 miles stretch of interstate highway is $161 million per mile.

So when people attempt to tell you that high speed rail is expensive, give them these numbers:
urban freeways costs $161 million per mile, and high speed rail costs $6 million per mile.