The Super Superhighway
valdean writes "The state of Texas is seeking to build a 4,000-mile megahighway network between Oklahoma and Mexico, called the Trans-Texas Corridor. The highway will be up to a quarter-mile across, and include separate lanes for passenger vehicles, large trucks, freight railways, high-speed commuter railways, and infrastructure for utilities including water lines, oil and gas pipelines, electricity, and broadband. In a recent press release, the governor of Texas said it will 'forever change the way we build roads.' So much for scenic drives."
In terms of the traffic, there are 2 possible outcomes: The highway will sit almost completely unused or it will be a giant parking lot as everyone uses this megaroad to get wherever they're going.
Interesting that there is a capacity to seize land, especially in the United States where the right to property seems so enshrined in your constitution? I'll have to look into this further.
Two words: eminent domain.
The main problem with Interstate 35 here in Texas (which is currently the main highway from Mexico north through Texas) is that it passes directly through San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas/Fort Worth, and all of the surrounding suburban sprawl. The Interstate has doubled as a high volume artery through all of these urban areas, with massive amounts of development surrounding them. Over many years, and accelerating rapidly post-NAFTA, the amount of truck traffic on I35 has caused (or at least been a major contributor to) gridlock in the urban areas.
If the new super highway is planned and executed correctly (i.e. limited development along the route, avoid passing directly through urban areas, etc.), it could do a lot to help traffic problems in the cities. Also, from the conceptual pictures I've seen, it will be safer for both passenger vehicles and trucks, because they will be running on separate sets of lanes with their own entrance/exit ramps, etc.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.-Ecclesiastes 1:9
I read an article about it last week.
Cintra is ponying up all the money for this project. The State of Texas will pay nothing. And gets the ability to take over tolls in 50 years.
It will go south, around the east side of Dallas, and around the east side of Austin.
Tolls are expected to be about what current tolls are, which means (according to the Star Telegram, at least) to drive the whole thing will cost about $40. Seems like a lot, but it isn't - truck drivers have to routinely sit in Dallas/Fort Worth traffic, which probably costs an hour's worth of time. Same with Austin.
I don't particularly feel sorry for the small towns - usually, the town builds up around the road, and once they have several hundred people, drop the speed limit to 45 while going through their town. Thanks, guys. Not.
Oh, and the speed limit's supposed to be 85.
I'm really looking forward to it. For those of you who think this is minor, it's not. The drive from Mexico to Oklahoma is probably 10 hours - DFW is about an hour south from Oklahoma, 3 hours from Austin, and probably 8 from the border. Yes, Texas is big.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
I just learned about this from the Slashdot story, and I'm a Texan right in the path of this monstrosity...
A little Googling around and I found that those opposed to this thing have also organized, and can be found at http://www.corridorwatch.org
I haven't 100% made my mind up on this yet, but the fact that it's a toll road REALLY leaves a bad taste in my mouth, all the new roads being built around here are toll now, and that's a major annoyance of mine.
Anyway, I found that site describing the opposing viewpoint, and figured I'd pass it on...
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
The right to property isn't in the Constitution, but it is in the Declaration of Independance. In the Bill of Rights, the fifth ammendment has this:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Basically, the Founding Fathers knew that people would claim land that the Government would find too useful to pass up. So they put this piece into the Bill of Rights. This is called Eminent Domain. The government decides that it needs a piece of land, determines a fair value for it, and gives you the money, and you have to leave.
Now, this is is probematic on occasion because 'Just Compensation" isn't defined in the constitution, and it is up to the government to decide what is 'just'. You (sometimes) can sue for more money, but it's a real challenge in the courts.
Eminent Domain is something that governments need. The problem is balance.
Zapman
It was a good project -- neither the state nor the county had funds to improve one of the single most congested segments of freeway in the country, and there were no good alternate routes. There was, however, a median, which a private company leased from the state for a nominal fee. They built toll lanes on their own nickel (well, Wall Street bond buyers' nickels) and opened for business. The deal, as they're proposing in Texas, was for the road to be privately run for 30 years and then turned over to the state, which would be able to continue to charge tolls.
The road's been open for less than a decade and although it's been a big success in terms added traffic capacity, there are some lessons no one expected:
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
perhaps we should be considering better mass transit instead of finding new ways to allow people to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs around? I live in NYC and most people take the subway unless they absolutely have to drive (particulary in manhattan, no-one wants to drive in manhattan). It much more efficient than building more roads, pollutes less, etc. Many people here don't own crs (my grandmother and grandfather didnt for example). The answer to all this traffic isnt more raods, its more and better mass transit.
for those of you who havent had the forune of seeing a truly good mass transit system in action, let me put it this way: There is pretty much no-where in NYC that one cant get to on the train, 2 bucks will get you anywhere in the city, and you dont have the stress of sitting in traffic. Oh, and the subway's open 24/7/365 so no need to worry about not being able to get home. For the few places that the subway isnt useful, there are the buses, still more eficient than cars. For getting out to long island there's the LIRR and for upstate there's metro-north. The path and NJTransit connect in NJ. So yeah, more public transportation, not more cars.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
There are many reasons.
The land rights upon which the freeway rests is still actually owned by the government.
A speed limit is a safety issue, which doesn't start or stop on public property.
Bull. Far too many people have NO idea where criminal law ends, and civil law starts. Even if it was privately-owned land, that doesn't mean laws broken on it are civil, rather than criminal. Shoplifting happens on private property, and involving private property, but it's still a criminal offense. Police have raided the homes of Cable-Modem uncappers, and arrested them on criminal charges. Don't pretend to be a lawyer, when you don't know what you are talking about.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
From what I've seen of Harrisonburg, VA, when they were building the Justice building, the formula for "just compensation" is actually rather easy.
When the city has 3 times the parking it will need in the next 20 years, and city council members have just contracted to sell more empty lots to the city as parking, and the purchase price was $15,000: just compensation is $120k. When the property is a thriving restaurant located in hte heart of downtown (specifically the Old Virginia Ham Cafe, now nonexistant), and the replacement/relocation cost runs about $250k, just compensation is $10k.
This is the essence of emminent domain, as far as I can tell: I take what you have in the name of my power. In practical application, it doesn't sound to me any different than carjacking.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I think they'd run it the way the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel is run. That is, you first contract with the state for the rights, and for jurisdiction of a special court district.
Once you have done that, then you have legal jurisdiction though no highway.
Then, you put out bonds, just as any city does (there's your private investment). Once the bonds are out, then you build the highway. Finally, you set up toll gates or whatnot to pay back the money to the investors.
Along the way (for the CBBT) as I remember, the CBBT did default on its bonds, making them technically worthless for about 3 years, but let the investors know "do not part with these, because we're going to repay them." After something like 3 years, they had managed to restructure their debt, and went back to full repayment. Finally, they paid everything off, and then within 5 years were back building another lane.
Current cost per 17-mile trip? $8.50 per vehicle axle. People still find it to be worthwhile, because it cuts out 350 miles of round trip. However, I'm not so sure that the same could be said for a mega highway.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Actually it all depends on the initial planning. The whole point to the current design is to drastically limit the number of connecting ramps. The current design calls for designated rest-gas stops that only have access on and off the freeway lanes, no connections for local traffic, and ramps leading to other, existing freeways for access into the current commercial and industrial centers. Basically it would come up on the west side of say, DFW and to actually go into the metroplex, you would have to exit onto IH-20 or IH-30 to then get into town.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
I can only assume by your comment that you disagree with the poster. You actually beleive terrorism is something we should really be concerned about...
You're thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a foreign terrorist.
You're tens of thousands of times more likely to be killed by preventable disease than a foreign terrorist.
You are thousands of times more likely to be murdered by a common criminal than killed by foreign terrorism.
Here in the US, you're more likely to be killed by lightning, falling off your roof, the flu, tripping on the sidewalk, just about anything you can think of that regularly kills people is more dangerous that foreign terrorists.
Yet when someone points out how ridiculous it is that we US citizens spend all this money to avoid the tiny risk of terrorism, you take it personally? Sometimes the truth hurts, suck it up.
Bottom line, if you live in the US and are honestly concerned about terrorism, you're either a coward or a fool. Take your pick.