Slashdot Mirror
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."
Wow, am I alone in being reminded of the classic Robert Heinlein story The Roads Must Roll?
The Heinlein concordance describes the Diego-Reno Roadtown
(It was a ) Motorized roadway that connected San Diego, California, and Reno, Nevada, on and around which a metropolitan area grew up; its terminal was called Diego Circle. The automated roads themselves were large enough to accommodate restaurants and other businesses, as well as the engineers' offices.
Three Squirrels
On the surface, I was inclined to say that this is a good idea - centralization seems to be the way of the day, and centralizing all these services in one superhighway could work. It'll revitalize the area that the superhighway goes through, much like the trains of the 1800s.
That being said, there is a lot of reluctance to this project. Despite what the governor claims, this most certainly isn't a repeat of the Eisenhower-era Interstate project. It's probably just an opportunity for private corporations to enter the arena of mass transportation.. they would get some sort of rights over the variety of communications means that course through this privately-owned and made superhighways.
The article refers to the use of private tolls to sustain this. Clearly, these investing businesses have done an analysis and realized that they can profit off this - despite its 'whopping' $175 bn price tag.
This project would change the shape of the areas affected. New areas along the 'superhighway', and the areas that didn't get included... It would be interesting to see if this project goes ahead, and if towns then lobby in order to have access to the highway.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
So you are to assume all people who oppose this are liberals? What about the fiscal conservatives who think it is a waste of money?
One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
How many of us give half of a crap about any of the above? How many of us think that everything should stay exactly the same as it was when we were kids, except it never was that way because we're just looking back through a nostalgia filter?
What about the fiscal conservatives
There are no fiscal conservatives in government anymore.
- Transportation routes for hazardous materials must avoid population centers whenever possible. Like... Um... A major highway? The proposed route passes through the heart of the most populated areas
- TTC will help... allowing faster, safer and more reliable movement of people and goods... To Mexico?
creating jobs and attracting businesses that benefit by having access to an efficient transportation network
... To be closer to the hazardous waste routes? - The estimated total cost for the system ranges from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion. Public-private partnerships, which bring funding resources from the private sector, will play a key role in constructing and financing the system. Other options include leasing right of way, toll revenues, and state and federal funds. Leased right of way? Tolls? The Profit Superhighway. Think of who's friends will land those building contracts...
- Will other projects suffer if the Trans-Texas Corridor becomes the top priority?... Maintaining the current highway system will continue to be our top priority. Those are from two seprate things in the FAQ. Incredibly, they are not related. In context, the seem to contradict. I'm betting two seperate people wrote these parts using "priority" as a buzzword. "Need" also has a prominant place in the FAQ.
- The TTC will serve as a new delivery system to many communities across the state. For goods from Mexico? For immigrants from mexico?
I realize that I'm being a bit harsh, but I'm really skeptical of this. The information site actually has very few facts. The focus seems to be commerce rather than quality of life. They use too many "nicey words" to back up their ideas. I'm still pouring through the site trying to keep an open mind for something I think could actually be really useful and cool, but my geek-sense says not to trust it.US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
The real chances of this getting built are pretty close to zero.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Yeah, and I suppose Cintra is paying for the high profile PR campaign and web site for this project, right?
Let me clue you in a little bit about how privatization works: Corporations leverage public resources to guarantee profits at taxpayers' expense with very little oversight. That is, they walk away with bags full of taxpayer dollars and the politicians that let them do it get rewared with cushy jobs also at taxpayer's expense).
If this is such a great money-making idea, why not get a loan from the federal government and make it happen? Tom Delay could certainly bring home that bacon if he wanted to.
This is nothing but a big fucking money grab, son. Yee-haw.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Trucking is much less efficient than rail transportation for long distances. This proposal does at least include freight lines, but it still assumes that a large part of the trade is going to be carried on highways. Shouldn't we be building up the railway system and trying to shift long-distance freight away from trucks to the railways?
Well, if it's built with private funds and is run by private companies (requiring a toll or a "season pass" or whatever they want to do to pay for it), then why would law enforcement have ANY legal powers to enforce speeds? Police cannot come to my property and make sure that I'm driving at 35mph on my own property. Even if there were agreements in place that allowed the police to travel those roads to enforce speed limits, it would be a CIVIL penalty, as opposed to a CRIMINAL penalty. So failure to pay a "ticket" could result in a civil suit and/or termination of "season passes", but should not allow for termination of licenses or other things.
Of course, additional laws could be passed to get around this, but on the surface, it seems that police should have no legal enforcing power for any speed limits.
UGH,
If its going to be a quater mile wide, couldn't they devote 8-10 feet of it for pedestrians and bicycles? Wouldn't even have to be 8-10 feet of paved road, just 8-10 feet of dirt. What's worse is that they even call this a "Multi-use" roadway. Well hopefully this will keep more cars off the secondary roads to leave more room for bicycles.
Does anyone else thing maybe we're getting a little bit too mobile?
/. readers). Would you prefer every cultural group do things separately? That just takes you back to segregation. I would think consolidation of cultural values would be a positive thing for a country's societal health.
No. I love the versatility that a mobile society gives you. Don't like it somewhere? You can easily go somewhere else. You have so many more options open to you today than you did 50 years ago.
It used to be that travel exposed us to unique local cultures, ideas, and products.
Who's to say it still doesn't. I mean everyone speaks the same language, but as someone who has lived in the north and the south US, I can tell you that the culture is very different.
We watch the same entertainment, we listen to the same songs, we shop in the same chain stores, and we wear the same clothes.
Umm, maybe that's because we are all Americans (at least everyone living in the US, no offense to international
When was the last time you heard someone tell you they wanted to carry on the family tradition of a particular trade.
Not in a while, which again is a good thing IMO. In the old days children were expected to carry on the occupation of their parents. In effect, the course their life would take was determined before they were even born. Today, we've given children the freedom to make their own choices about what they want to do with their lives. How can you be opposed to that? Everyone benefits there as we can all find greater satisfaction in our occupation since it's something we chose rather than something that was forced upon us.
How many college students move back to the small town because its "home"?
I see this more of a social variance that everyone has a different view of, but again it comes down to freedom of choice. If you like the atmosphere of the place you grew up in, the surroundings of your close family and the state of mind that gives you, then moving back home is probably a good choice. If on the other hand (as in my case) you feel disillusioned by all of that and want to pursue your own path, that is your choice to make.
How many of us devoutly carry on our family religions?
Again, what if you don't agree with your family's religion? Are you suggesting we curtail freedom of religion, one of the most basic principles this country was founded on?
Or how many of us think about retirement when we get our first job?
How many of us will choose not to start worrying about tomorrow as soon as we complete every task and instead take time to enjoy all that life has to offer even for a brief period? When you get your first job, you have decades ahead of you. Assuming you have at least some financial sense, it really won't be a problem when the time comes to deal with it.
It really sounds to me like you don't understand the progress that has been made on many of these fronts over the last few decades. I know I would never want to trade this world for the one my parents lived in.
I've driven most of the way across the country several times, myself. You want to talk about tedious driving? Try leaving California on interstate 40 (the same freeway that goes through Texas and Oklahoma)...
Around Needles, CA, there's a stretch of about 100 mile or so, and driving through it at 75MPH I'd swear it takes 12 hours every time.
I wish I knew how the human mind worked. It's not the boring, repetitive scenery, because a long drive through Death Valley has less scenery, and is far less painful.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
These rules are pretty much the same everywhere you go.
The solution is simple to anyone that has given it some thought... When people are driving like idiots around you, and following too close, remove your foot from the gas pedal, and let your car slow to a crawl. This sends a very clear message to anyone who is behind you, and even if they don't back-off right away, they're much less likely to do it again. In addition, it provides greater safety for you, as the small distance between you and the car behind you becomes a safe following distance when you are only going 10MPH or so.
When someone cuts you off, or is otherwise driving like an idiot, trying to get in-front of you, simply turn on your bright lights, and place your hand on the horn. Continue both until this person is no longer in-front of you. This has not only discourages people from doing such stupid things in the future, it has the added benefit of telling any police in the area exactly which vehicle deserves to be ticketed the most, and they usually oblige (even moreso when you also stop and give the officer a detailed acount of what you saw, and contact information in the event it goes to court).
It's likely other people will notice what you are doing, and do the same when they are in the same situation. However, that is not required. After following these rules for just a few months, you will personally have made a huge difference in your local traffic patterns. Yes, when you personally discourage a handful of idiots, the effect spreads. Other people don't see idiots doing such stupid things anymore, so they also don't think of doing them. It's a snowball effect.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Lets not glance over the fact that this highway is a privately funded TOLL ROAD. This article seems to skim right over that fact.
financed mostly if not entirely with private money
What that means boys and girls is that our b@$t@%d Governor Rick Perry is being backed by a very large group of construction companies (Cintra) and has 'selected' a proposal that will net him the most brownie points with a large company after he leaves office.
The cooperation with the State of Texas just means that now the state can use its power to deems the land it needs as 'Blighted Land' and take control of it much easier with less court battles.
Im not sure how many slashdotters have recently taken a drive down I-35 from Dallas to San Antonio (the path this highway will parallel) , but it is a perfectly normal highway, only congested at 5:00pm in San Antonio and Dallas. 'Urban Gridlock' is not the reason to build 350 miles of new highway across Texas. (build bypass highways that 'bypass' the urban areas (all two of them)).
A drive from Oklahoma to Mexico down I-35 goes alot like this:
3 hours of 80mph boredom, 10 mins of city 65mph traffic, 4 hours of 80mph boredom, 10 mins of city 65mph traffic,5 hours of 80mph boredom, 10 mins of city 65mph traffic,Mexico.
This is nothing more than a megacorp trying to make a buck over the next 50 years. (Not that there's anything wrong with that). But the State of Texas doesn't have a whole lot to do with this other than personal politics.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Just like marketing that shows two out of three dentists use brand A, incomplete numbers are not real as research is not completely valid if the environment it draws from is not studied completely.
This goes with the researcher at Harvard who concluded that Milk potentially reduces the chances of diabetes by studying two groups of kids. One drank more milk and one drank much less to none. The more milk drinking group had less diabetes than the less milk drinking group. But, in the research, there was no reference to what the less milk drinking group was drinking. Maybe water, you think? Probably not, probably heavily sugared drinks (but, we will never know since the researcher did not bother to find out). By neglecting this important aspect of his/her research, the information is not useful. All it suggests is that something that was different between the two groups contributed to diabetes in the less milk drinking group. It does not demonstrate that drinking milk potentially prevents diabetes any more than the numbers from Montana demonstrate that a lack of speed limit prevents or lowers fatal accidents.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I am uncertain that this idea of grabbing the land and then allowing a company to basically make the profits from these displaced inviduals land is a healthy step in the right direction. True, modern roads are paved by private contractors in most cases (that I am aware of), but they do not own the land, nor can private enterprise restrict access to the lands grabbed by the government for the public's use (AKAIK - please correct me if you know of any examples otherwise). I am not certain if the land for toll roads has been grabbed the same way as this suggests. And that 50 year contract is way over the top! About 45 years over the top.
If the company really wants to make this happen and they are wanting to do this with private enterprise, then the company needs to be the one that convinces the landowners to move or give up land (by providing truthfuly appropriate compensation) and the company should not turn to the state for anything but zoning approval (or other required approvals to build and maintain this system.) It could be a great thing to have a large transport system like this, but... One must always be careful of what doors one opens for potential abuse, as they are very hard to close.
In all fairness, if this proceeds, then the people whose land is being grabbed definately deserve a stake in the company that is to derive the profits from the current landowners' land. In truth, this probably ought not happen the way it is being thought up in the first place.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
cost:
$175 billion over 50 years
"could" return:
$130 billion over 50 years (plus the nebulous "could generate new business")
So obviously this is a good thing.
In any event, I live in Texas now, and grew up in Alaksa. Do I count?
Alaskans like to say how you could split Alaska up in two, and make Texas the *third* biggest state ...
Of course, unlike Alaska, in Texas, you actually drive places. I lived 15 years in Anchorage, Alaska, and never once made it to the second biggest city in the state, Fairbanks, even though it's only 200 miles away. But yet, after living in Austin, Texas for 20 years, I've driven to Dallas, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio, Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona and beyond.
Driving from city to city is just a much bigger thing in Texas than Alaska. Sure, people do drive around the state in Alaska, of course. But not anywhere near as often as they do it in Texas.
Texas could definately benefit from some huge roads like they're proposing. Of course, the government is becoming toll-road-happy lately -- for example they want to make many of the existing major roads in Austin into toll roads. Needless to say, we're not happy about this ...
Quote: Umm... we want to create 4,000 miles of terrorist in Texas target for... what reason, exactly?
:( Or your Government, but then again, ours is not much better - less business, more laziness.
Remark: This is the exact fscking reason why most Brits hate (and I mean HATE) America (not necessarily Americans, we actually like Americans, just really can't stand the country's politics). You want to build a 4000 mile long road that would solve your traffic issues (if you managed somehow to increase the capacity of the exits) and instead of complaining about real issues like how other towns would suffer because of less traffic, and the MASSIVE environmental concerns, you decide to look at... THE TERRORISM ASPECT??? FOR FSCKS SAKE!
Ok, let's pretend I'm Al Qaida. I (or rather, we) want to do most damage to America that I/We can. So we attack a couple of buildings. Kill a couple thousand people. Everybody scared. For this reason they're exactly the same as people like Timothy McVeigh (or however he spells it). What was pure genius (and I don't support them, but this was a brilliant plan) is that they actually got the American people to worry. To sacrifice their own dreams because of terrorism. Everything now has to be thought of now as a potential terrorist target, that you are at war with some very illusive people that may strike at any time. RUBBISH!
Here in the UK, we've been the subject of terror-attacks for the best part of 40 years, with the whole Northern Ireland thing. We don't care about Al Qaida or the IRA or whoever else. We just get on with it (mostly, there are a few jerks out there) and build our millenium domes, our Space Museums, our Olympic bids, our whatever. Sure, we're making ourselves targets, but the fact is that we are not going to be disuaded by some ponce who hates our way of live. We are living our lives, and there's not a lot that can be done to prevent us from doing that. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weapons of Mass Distraction more like. Notice that in Iraq, the American's get the vast majority of the blame for being insurgents, the British and other countries there are fairly immune to that rap. Not just because there are less of us, but because we respect them, we do our best to accomodate, to leave them alone when we can. Someday, you'll see things our way. The way a lot of your own country do. Let US stand for United States of America, not Unfriendly States of Afraid.
And finally, just to re-iterate. I don't hate Americans, I just can't stand the way you do business
"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."
It won't happen. EVER. Building more roads will eventually lead to more traffic. Period. Sure, it may help in the short term.
But, how do you prevent development along the route? If it is an ideal travel route, then it would be good to have warehouses/industrial areas. Okay, need exits. More exits mean more businesses (more profit if toll road....) Those businesses need employees. Build houses (or people commute). More businesses to cater to employees (gas stations, stores, restaurants....). Pretty soon you have a city around each exit.
Well, now we have congestion around those exits, need new exits (private businesses rarely have problems getting them if they can get the money....) Rinse, lather, repeat.
If you build a convenient route, you will get growth. The only way to prevent it, is to reduce its usefulness. A rather large catch-22....