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."

129 of 1,005 comments (clear)

  1. Speedy Limit by neoform · · Score: 2, Insightful

    any bets it'll still be something like 65mph..?

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:Speedy Limit by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      The left lane is always the fastest. So chances are very good to have a dedicted "high-speed" lane at the far left side. As long as your car is in good shape, the road is flat/strait, and good weather; driving at 100MPH should not be a problem for most.

      Note: driving 70 to 80 is not uncommon in the Houston area. But if your driving 75Mph and a COP drives by, then you know your driving to slow.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Speedy Limit by damiangerous · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Montana, late 90's. It was the safest period ever on the roads there.

    3. Re:Speedy Limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It looks like the speed limit will be 80 mph.

    4. Re:Speedy Limit by drawfour · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Speedy Limit by Doppler00 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ah I remember those reasonable and prudent signs in Montana. They still had regular speed limit signs in cities, it's just the highways had signs that said "Reasonable and Prudent" and then below that "Trucks: 55" or something like that.

      I wonder if that's because people didn't need to bother looking at their spedometer every few seconds to make sure they were not breaking the law. I would certainly be able to concentrate better driving if I didn't have to glance at my gauges all the time.

    6. Re:Speedy Limit by Atrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having driven on the German Autobahn in a somewhat underpowered Volkswagen, I'm more inclined to believe the safer record of Autobahns is because a significant portion of the driving population is just scared crapless to go on them(!)

      I found being passed by BMW M3s at nearly twice my speed was a little unnerving, and I'm a confident driver.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    7. Re:Speedy Limit by ArticleI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is news to me. Montana has a much lower population density than Texas, especially considering the route the Trans-Texas Corridor would take. This image should illustrate the point. I would like to now say "The Trans-Texas Corridor will have a speed limit."

    8. Re:Speedy Limit by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative
      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?

      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.

      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.

      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
    9. Re:Speedy Limit by smacktits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I too have driven on the Autobahns, but it was in my old car, a 1976 Jensen Interceptor FF, which was certainly not underpowered. If anything, I found that people in slower underpowered cars caused more danger than those of us belting along at 120+mph.

    10. Re:Speedy Limit by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could be more on the money than you realize. The article linked by the previous poster indicated that lane etiquette was far more prevalent when there was no posted speed limit, even though the *average* speed driven didn't increase by that much. This is similar to the behavior on the Autobahn, where the most important law is "slower traffic to the right". When people actually *obey* that law, the risk of traffic accidents is far lower, and the thought of an M3 coming up behind you at 110 mph is enough to make a lot of us keep right ;)

    11. Re:Speedy Limit by drawfour · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you read the state law codes, you will likely find that speed limits are enforced on PUBLIC roads. That posted speed limits are for PUBLIC roads and highways.

      In my state (Washington), all laws use the word "highway". The legal defintion of "highway" is: "Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." This is RCW 46.04.197. Please note the wording. It's the entire width between the boundary lines of every way PUBLICLY MAINTAINED when any part is open to the public for vehicular travel. It must be publicly maintained _and_ open to the public for vehicular travel. If it's privately owned and operated, it's likely privately maintained too. That means it does not fall under jurisdiction of Washington State vehicle laws.

      Furthermore, your assertion that speeds are a safety issue are actually quite irrelevant. There exist private tracks specifically for racing cars. If speed limits were a safety issue, then why aren't these tracks closed down?

    12. Re:Speedy Limit by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are many reasons.

      Actually they aren't any. The original poster was correct. As I said here the Ohio Turnpike Commission, a private non-profit who owns and maintains the Ohio Turnpike, specifically grants the Ohio Highway Patrol the power to enforce the speed limits the OTC has codified. These speed limits are different from those the state has established for its own publicly owned interstates.

      The OTC could tell the Highway Patrol to buzz off and raise speed limit to 125MPH, if it so desired.

    13. Re:Speedy Limit by grunherz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No kidding it's encouraged. It's even in the traffic law books now in most states. And that's the problem. There is no unified traffic law for North America like there is for a lot of the world.

      Just because it's vaguely referred to as the law in a few states and you like it doesn't mean it's the best way to control traffic flow or that it isn't controversial.

      It's a chaotic way for traffic to flow.

      For traffic to flow efficiently, being able to accurately predict what another driver is probably going to do helps keep traffic safe. The middle lane travel lane with two passing options doesn't do this. Add to the fact that most North American drivers forgot that their cars are equipped with turn-signals makes this even worse.

      I haven't been misinformed. I've just seen places where this rule would be considered insane and actually prefer to drive there.

      When there are few exits and fast moving traffic keeping right, is the best way to keep traffic flow moving and avoiding confusion.

      Too many times have I seen traffic bunched up in the left two lanes because there's a line of people squatting in the middle lane because people who learned how to drive correctly won't, with good reason, pass on the right.

      I think this is just another relaxation of the rules to allow incompetent drivers a better environment to drive in at the expense of efficiency.

      The USA.

      Lowest common denominator wins again.

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
  2. Holy crap Ross Perot was right! by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Funny

    this must be that giant sucking sound Ross Perot was referring to.

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    1. Re:Holy crap Ross Perot was right! by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yay. A direct and fast method for immigrating illegal aliens into the middle of the US. All that highway switching was confusing the drivers of those inhumane trucks.

  3. The Roads Must Roll by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The Roads Must Roll by putaro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ummmm...hello? Have you read "The Roads Must Roll"? The road Heinlein described was a suped-up conveyor belt, not a roadway.

    2. Re:The Roads Must Roll by smithmc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ummmm...hello? Have you read "The Roads Must Roll"? The road Heinlein described was a suped-up conveyor belt, not a roadway.

      OK, then how 'bout the fenced-off superduperhighway in Job: A Comedy of Justice? That one was in Texas, even, IIRC.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  4. Pave the Earth! by gorbachev · · Score: 3, Funny

    yiihaaa!

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    1. Re:Pave the Earth! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny
      We believe in a completely Paved Earth.

      Earth is cursed with trees, shrubs, grass, and scurrying creatures. With every breath We act to right this terrible wrong.

      We believe in The Plan (tm).

      The Plan (tm) is the final word; it brings us the knowledge of the twin pleasures: Speed and Convenience.

      We believe food should be enjoyed.

      "Nutrition" is an aberration of human nature. The juicy Burger and hearty Beer are Our sacrament.

      We believe in the Depletion of scarce natural resources.

      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh.

      We believe in a sky roiling with Smog.

      The color blue should appear nowhere but the paint on Our Hypercars (tm).

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  5. Traffic jams? by dmuth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am curious... will this "super superhigway" have fewer traffic jams or more traffic jams than traditional highways? Sure, there will be more lanes, but if some stupid driver decides to cut across 5 lines of traffic to try and make an exit and causes a 500 car pileup, how badly will traffic be affected?

    Here's something else to think about: rest stops. They'll have to be HUGE. Like shopping malls. That could certainly be interesting.

    1. Re:Traffic jams? by josh3736 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Turnpike rest areas (or "service centers" or whatever) are already like malls. On Ohio's turnpike, you get everything from the Burger King, Starbuck's and gift shops.

      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.

  6. Why? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean.... why? Why would you possibly need such a road? It seems incredibly wasteful to me, and nothing more than someone trying to overcompensate.

    1. Re:Why? by weorthe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The road sounds like it's intended to be the Mississippi River or Transcontinental Railroad of the future. Texas wants to be the nations land port. But with more and more trade coming from China instead of Mexico maybe they should build it east-west instead.

      Sort of just kidding.

      --
      cat * >> sig
    2. Re:Why? by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you could look at it this way: rather than siezing miles of right of way in bits and pieces, owned by dozens of entities, criscrossing the countryside and each requiring access rodes, utilities, etc., for gas, electricity, water, cable, fiber, roads, freight/passenger rail, and busways, just squish 'em into one structure, save space and time, and make that the backbone you can then hang everything else off of.

      The question is, will sound urban planning be used to then maximize the potential of the mega-road to connect communities without disrupting the countryside, or will the road be used instead to facilitate massive sprawl?

      Any implementation of a road that spans a quarter-mile in width is going to need sections that are either elevated or underground, or else you're going to have issues with wildlife and drainage...

    3. Re:Why? by flashgc · · Score: 2, Informative

      First thought.... Texas has several East-West corridors so a North-South corridor would naturally cross them and form a commercial hotspot at each intersection, not to mention the intersections that happen nearest to population centers. We've recently experienced a similar situation (on a much smaller scale) here in http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/oceanhwy/ecity .htmlElizabeth City, NC. Now that the connector to the bypass is open, all sorts of commercial enterprises are lining up to place themselves at that intersection.

      --
      Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
    4. Re:Why? by Megane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because thanks to NAFTA, I-35 is bursting at the seams, especially in Austin. And with the exception of one three-mile section currently under construction, it is now at least six lanes wide all the way from south of San Antonio to far north of Austin, well over 100 miles. That's why the first section of this is already under construction, as a bypass toll road around Austin.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Scenic Texas by thedogcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in Houston. Its flat, its trafficky, humid, the picture perfect example of urban sprawl with no zoning plans (i.e. porn-shop-next-to-a-church-next-to-a-liquor-store) .

    Lets face it. Texas is mostly not an attractive state. Maybe west Texas is a bit more interesting but it is loaded with scary folk. At least Houstonians don't really represent a "Texan".

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    1. Re: Scenic Texas by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


      > the picture perfect example of urban sprawl with no zoning plans (i.e. porn-shop-next-to-a-church-next-to-a-liquor-store)

      That's called the "weekend one-stop".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Scenic Texas by Calvinhood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, get out of Houston. Houston is the ugliest and least pleasant city in the United States. Take a trip to Austin or San Antonio, or hell, just drive up I-45 for an hour, and tell me if you still think Texas is ugly.

  8. Hmm.. some problems with this. by Staplerh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hmm.. some problems with this. by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      That being said, there is a lot of reluctance to this project.

      If you're so opposed to this modern development, why don't you just go live in the middle of nowhere, like out in the plains of... uh.. never mind.

  9. Neato! by BrainDebugged · · Score: 2, Interesting
    -- 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.
    Awesome, but will Linux run on it too?

    Seriously though, this seems like it would be a nightmare to drive on. Having to cross a dozen lanes just to get off would be nerve racking, especially during rush hour. Also is it such a good idea to have oil and gas pipelines on this "SuperHighway" too? What if a a fully loaded 18-Wheeler crashes into them? Or, will these pipelines be below ground? I would hope so.
  10. Re:Soooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not wide enough for the next version Humvee.

  11. Maybe a good idea but it should stop at the border by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean really, don't illegals have an easy enough time getting into the US? This is the blue collar equivalent of stringing a backbone cable to India.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  12. Ten gallon hat, half-pint brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rick Perry's job when George W was governor was to make Dubya look like a genius by comparison. Now he makes Homer Simpson look like a raving genius by comparison. It doesn't matter that Texas schools are in a crisis -- Perry's priority is to get cheap Mexican goods to Oklahoma faster so his buddies will profit.

    1. Re:Ten gallon hat, half-pint brain by mandalayx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually transportation is a need that government fills even more essentially than schools. And if better transportation routes save Texans an hour a day; even a year, then the economic benefit is tremendous.

      And if the road is cost-neutral to government (capital, yes, operating, probably not), and will give the public good things, then what's the problem?

      As an aside, I looked at it as being really stupid at first but I wonder how the rail will be handled. If it is handled well (and toll roads are good because they charge people for the costs they incur) then this could be Very Interesting in a good way.

  13. Ah the Speed Limit by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The speed limit is an interesing thing though that varies with location.

    Here in Atlanta, we have some funny rules about that. It goes like this: If you aren't going at least 10 over then you are a fucking jackass and deserve to be run off the road. That is unless you are in the HOV lane. In that case you better be doing at least 20 over or you are fair game. Also, if you are in a small compact car, then you had better be going a lot faster than the average speed of SUVs on the same road, as they reserve the right to mow you over at any time they choose.

    Lastly, if you have a hummer, just FUCKING STOP PRETENDING THAT IT WILL HANDLE LIKE A VETTE! You'll sleep better and I promise your manhood won't suffer to much.

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree with these rules. They are just what a majority of the local democracy has decided upon.

    1. Re:Ah the Speed Limit by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you aren't going at least 10 over then you are a fucking jackass and deserve to be run off the road.

      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
    2. Re:Ah the Speed Limit by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you are the source of an accident due to your slowing down a lane of highway traffic, the state trooper on the scene is not going to be amused by your reasoning. That goes double if the highway happens to have a min. speed limit posted

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:Ah the Speed Limit by llefler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After following those simple rules, you will be dead and no longer a problem on the highways.

      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 encourages them to follow even closer. I have seen people driving the speed limit (70mph) on I-29 get tailgated by someone wanting to drive 80+. When the tailgator gets irritated, they move in, sometimes as close as 6 inches. Short of a dead stop, there is no way to make that a safe following distance.

      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.

      This will encourage road rage. Most likely followed by them slamming on their brakes. Thus silencing the horn and extinguishing those bright lights. And possibly you too.

      And there won't be any tickets until after the accident, the reason they do these things is because there are no cops around.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    4. Re:Ah the Speed Limit by nojomofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've hit cars doing stupid shit like you propose. I've had cars hit me BECAUSE someone did stupid shit like you propose. Just get out of the fucking way and let everyone past you, rather than try to decide how everyone else should drive.

      No, troll, you're the problem. You hit them because YOU WERE TAILGATING. If you were following a safe distance behind, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HIT THEM. What if they'd had to slam on their brakes because something was in the lane? You would have hit them. If you rear-end somebody, it is almost always your fault (the only exception that I can think of is if you were just cut off). He has to be able to slow down. If you rear-end him when he just takes his foot off of the gas, what do you think is going to happen if he actually uses his brakes? If other people hit you because you had to slow down, well, that's unfortunate and it's the fault of the person who hit you, not the person in front of you who slowed down, too. Maybe you should have been traveling further behind the car in front of you so that you didn't have to hit the brakes so hard.

      And about the "just get out of the way" comment. If I'm moving 75 in the right-hand lane, and some jackass is in my trunk, how the hell do I get out of the way? You're right that people should be more aware of the speed of the lane that they're in, but there are lots of people out there who think that they should be able to drive 100 MPH in whatever lane they want, and other people need to get out of their way.

  14. Re:Fine and Dandy by Staplerh · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article:

    Officials promise property owners will be fairly compensated for any land seized.

    I suppose they would seize them? Of course, it'd be a lot of different property owners to deal with, rather than just a few farmers.

    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.

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
  15. Strange Reaction by Thunderstruck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone else thing maybe we're getting a little bit too mobile? It used to be that travel exposed us to unique local cultures, ideas, and products. We identified ourselves with our own home turf.

    Now, we seem to be becomming just bland "American" consumers. We watch the same entertainment, we listen to the same songs, we shop in the same chain stores, and we wear the same clothes.

    When was the last time you heard someone tell you they wanted to carry on the family tradition of a particular trade. How many college students move back to the small town because its "home"? How many of us devoutly carry on our family religions? Or how many of us think about retirement when we get our first job?

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Strange Reaction by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Strange Reaction by BrainDebugged · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't think that being as mobile as we are now is become a bad thing. We now have the opportunity to travel to the otherside of the planet in just a few hours for a fairly good price, something not so easy decades ago. People have more options available to them. We aren't necessarily bound to pick a job or a school that's within 100 miles from where we grew up as children. If someone feels they would have better opportunities someplace else they can easily go their and try to live up to their full potential (barring any obligations either physically or to your family).
      How many college students move back to the small town because its "home"?
      I'm from a small town. There aren't many opportunities for me there as a software engineer or really anything past factory worker, salesman, McDonald's chef. So why would I want to go back there when I know I would be happy doing something I love even if it isn't "home"? I'm not trying to attack you, merely saying that I, personally, would not want to find myself trapped in a small town like I've seen so many others. I don't want my abilities to be limited by my location.

      And as far as considering my small town as "home", I don't really. I recognize that it's where I grew up but I don't feel obliged to go back. I consider "home" to be wherever my family may reside. It's not such a bad thing for someone (college student) to want to get away and find their own identity, their own niche in society is it?
    3. Re:Strange Reaction by jgardn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Mobility = Freedom. I want more of it. I want to be able to travel around the world one day. Heck, I want to visit Mars and Jupiter and distant stars one day.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  16. A little overzealous, aren't we? by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Umm... we want to create 4,000 miles of terrorist in Texas target for... what reason, exactly?

    I'm sort of a road geek, so I'll narrate a bit. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Interstates run now, except maybe that trucks and cars use the same lanes of traffic. Fixing that would be a $125 billion project in itself. As for infrastructure... well, here's how things look right now...

    There's a good chunk of fiber running along U.S. 24 (a highway) in Illinois... not an Interstate. There are seven major transmission lines... only one runs along an Interstate for a long while, and that's because it used to be U.S. 51, not I-39. There are at least four major oil lines in the state. They're clearly marked, but I couldn't tell you were they were, except for maybe "Joliet and Chicago". This is because one runs along state highway 83, and another cuts through and under backyards in the western 'burbs. And I see a bunch of refineries right next to I-55. So these two sightings are possibly the same pipe. :-) Railroad follow U.S. routes pretty strictly... except for a few that follow state routes. Oh, and most of the state drags its water out of wells, or the Illinois River / Lake Michigan. That pipe is very much unmarked.

    Besides the fact that I like the idea that at most two of those infrastructures can be taken out at once, I also like that I don't know where everything goes. I can tell you that they go across farms, which doesn't help you at all. Security through obscurity? Sure. But it's pretty effective when the infrastructure is tens / hundreds of miles apart.

    1. Re:A little overzealous, aren't we? by dotwaffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quote: Umm... we want to create 4,000 miles of terrorist in Texas target for... what reason, exactly?

      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 :( Or your Government, but then again, ours is not much better - less business, more laziness.

  17. Humm by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

    In John Keegan's "Fields of Battles", a military history of wars in North America, he talks about coming to the United States in the 1950s for the first time and how refreshing it was to be in a place as big as the United States and have it be a single culture. From the Northeast to the South to the Great Plains, he says, there are some differences, but you knew it was a unified culture by how much alike everything is.

  18. Re:Fine and Dandy by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  19. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by NeoChaosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:Soooo... by Ranger96 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  21. Perry has seen the future? by vanboy · · Score: 5, Funny
    "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."
    He must not have seen Back to the Future. Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.
  22. Sounds like a great idea!! by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It will make for an excellent target^H^H^H^H^H^H transportation method. -Osama

  23. Environmental Impact Study? by DanMc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is 1 sentence in the article about environmental impact. I'd say this is huge, and I'm not normally one to gripe about environmental issues unless I'm trying to impress a girl.

    "Environmentalists are worried..." How is any animal going to cross this thing? Most animals won't go under an underpass a half mile long, and the only underpasses are likely to be for crossing traffic anyway.

  24. Re:Just one more reason by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trust me on this one Andy, the feeling is mutual.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  25. Some more details... by mbourgon · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Some more details... by nysus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Some more details... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So am I to understand that the Private Company building this will not use the Ememint Domain powers of the State to force people to sell them their property at below market values?

  26. Re:Soooo... by akgunkel · · Score: 4, Funny

    I live in Texas... People who haven't been here can't understand a phrase like "big as Texas." Going from El Paso to DFW via the interstate is like crossing interstellar space in the STS!

    Instead of the TTC we need Trans-Warp Conduits!

  27. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about the fiscal conservatives

    There are no fiscal conservatives in government anymore.

  28. What are they not saying? by BrynM · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The site promoting this is trying to be too many things to too many demographics with far too much feel-good speak...
    • 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...)
    1. Re:What are they not saying? by vidnet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The focus seems to be commerce rather than quality of life.

      In the USA?! *gasp*

  29. And It Will Be Built By Flying Monkeys! by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All this rhetoric sounds fairly familiar. That's because about ten years ago Texas formed a "High Speed Rail Commission" to study THAT proposal. The end result was that a lot of bureaucrats got very fat salaries to study the proposal while it withered on the vine. This is an even more grandiose boondoggle, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same special interests behind it. (Note that this is from a .com address, not a .gov address.) The funding and interest from the public at large simply aren't there. Right now there's a semi-revolt brewing over plans to turn highways previously constructed and paid for with bond money into toll roads. (I'm all for making new highways toll roads to pay for their construction, but screw double taxation.)

    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/

  30. Super High(UP)ways by SmoothDime · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think this is great for transportation in general. This is a huge step in changing the way we think about highways and freeways. We need find better ways to relieve traffic jams and one of the most obvious is more lanes.

    You may say it costs more but that cost will be paid back 100-fold in terms of delivering people to their destination more quickly. People in New York, Boston, LA and other major cities usually don't think twice about driving a car to work cause there's too much traffic.

    Looking to the future I think you'll see these super highways stretching across much of the country and even high into the sky. If it where over some large city they'd be really high up and there'd be offramps to today's freeways.

    1. Re:Super High(UP)ways by Anubis350 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
  31. And for those who don't think this is so great... by Serk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  32. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aren't conservatives (in theory) -against- such massive projects unless a real need can be shown? Or are you just one of these who likes to throw around "liberal" like it's a swear word instead of an opposing philosophy?

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  33. Re:Fine and Dandy by SpacePunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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."

    No need to look. There's no such thing as 'property rights' in the United States. Generally citizens 'rent' land from the local municpalities in the form of taxes. Don't pay your taxes, lose your land. Those that run traditional protection rackets should be proud.

  34. Re:Soooo... by HanzoSpam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought GW was a Massachusetts boy who moved south? A Pseudo-Texan, if you will.

    Actually, he's from New Haven, Connecticut.

    Don't let the Texas drawl fool you, they don't come any more Yankee than the Bush family.

    That's a Rockefeller Republican if ever I saw one.

    --

    Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
  35. Re:Fine and Dandy by Zapman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  36. Why build more roads for long-haul transportation? by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  37. A wild Berlin Wall by TimmyDee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Huge is almost an understatement. Current freeways are nearly insurmountable barriers to wildlife movement. This would be a complete atrocity.

    If anyone is looking for a somewhat similar study done on man-made barriers, take a look into wildlife studies done in Australia on the dingo-proof fence. Kangaroo densities on the dingo-proofed side are staggeringly high while very normal on the dingo-populated side. This may seem well and good, but such an imbalance will inevitably lead to a population overshoot that will bring kangaroos deeper into urban areas and be a breeding ground for a host of diseases (think chronic wasting disease in deer in the Midwest).

    The Trans Texas highway is sure to have an equally large impact, if not larger. It'll be like the Berlin wall for wildlife.

    --
    Per Square Mile, a blog about density
  38. Improper transfer of wealth. by zerofoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article suggests that the highway will be built with private funds, and the "operators" of the highway will charge tolls to recover their investment.

    One assumes that the "recovery" of the investment will net a positive return on investment - PROFIT.

    The article also states that some people stand to lose their property under "eminent domain" laws.

    The logical conclusion of this: The government is seizing private property and making it available for use by the private sector. This seems like an improper transfer of wealth.

    Eminent domain laws were designed to allow a government to seize property for the benefit of it's constituents. These laws were not intended for the benefit of a few "shareholders".

    Investors in this highway should beware of warping this law. The next property seized and given away might be their own.

    -ted

    1. Re:Improper transfer of wealth. by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is that the major railroads (in the US) were built in the 19th century primarily on public land. The railroads were rewarded for building the track by grants of land adjacent to the rail lines. It's possible that eminent domain was used to some extent within the big cities, but for the most part the land along the tracks only came to be privately owned as a result of the construction of the railroads. It wasn't taken by eminent domain.

  39. Re:Everything's bigger in Texas! by thomasdelbert · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should start with a certain ranch in Crawford.

    - Thomas;

    --
    ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
  40. Re:Soooo... by mingrassia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >> What's wrong with Interstates?

    Hearing people make comments like this always reminds me of Robert Moses and the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway and the Cross-Bronx Expressway.

    Most people don't stop to think about the destruction that occurs when building a highway. Indeed interstates are necessary, but they are often planned with little concern for historic preservation or the neighborhoods that they devastate.

    Think for a moment if Robert Moses would have been successful in building the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Imagine a NYC with no Greenwich Village, Soho, or Chinatown as we know it today.

    Granted we are talking about Texas :-) but I have to wonder what historically significant neighborhoods will be bulldozed to make this interstate happen.

    --
    OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
  41. what about human powered? by MikeyO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:what about human powered? by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I noticed that the 6 replies (at this time) to your posting were negative on this idea, while not ONE of them took into consideration that perhaps, just maybe, single-person ultralight vehicles may come into use in the future and share the right-of-way with the currently-planned monstrosity that caters only to equally monstrous vehicles. Such ultralights would require their own lanes, essentially like bike paths do now.

      That's American thinking in a nutshell: cars, cars, trucks, cars ... and oh by the way, did we mention cars? Everybody will drive cars, anywhere they go ... FOREVER.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  42. Texas: making bad ideas bigger! by WarPresident · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there were a Pave the Earth Society, I would nominate the geniuses behind this plan.

    Is combining utilities distribution, mass transit, freight railways, commuting traffic, long-haul hazardous waste traffic, and oil and gas pipelines into one, easy to attack target a good idea?

    --
    Here come da fudge!
  43. True... by abb3w · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And His Imperial Majesty, Norton I, by Grace of God Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico, ordered a bridge be built across San Francisco bay more or less where the Bay Bridge now runs... which just shows interesting lunatics sometimes have interesting ideas. =)

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  44. So much for scenic drives? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Excuse me, but how many of you have driven through northern Texas and Oklahoma?

    I have, and there a darn good reason why the abbeviation for Oklahoma is "OK" and not "GREAT".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So much for scenic drives? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  45. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does this contradict conservative principles?

    It requires government intervention for eminent domain. People will lose their homes over this. Has it been clearly demonstrated that this highway is for the greater good or is it just for greater profit? I'd be fucking pissed off if someone threw me out of my home for $0.50 on the dollar for a highway no one wanted.

    --
    -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  46. Been involved with this before, on a smaller scale by gregwbrooks · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was involved with the 91 Express Lanes, the first toll road in the world that was fully automated (no toll booths) and privately financed.

    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:

    • No franchise agreement is so bulletproof that it can survive long-term, organized political pressure. Today, the Express Lanes are owned by the regional transportation authority. Why? Because politicians didn't like the fact that they didn't own the road and couldn't use it as a political football. So, a region that didn't have money to build it in the first place found the money to create a new ownership entity and buy the road back from its private-sector owners. (Who made a nice profit along the way.)
    • There's huge market potential for "open sourcing" traffic and tolling models. No company is going to pursue a project like the Texas one -- or even the merely $125 million Express Lanes effort -- by simply opening up their own pocketbook. Most of the money comes from bonds sold against future toll revenues, and the buyers of those bonds want rock-solid tolling and revenue estimates. Several companies do this, but even the best ones (like these guys make spectacularly expensive mistakes AND get away with using proprietary, "black-box" methodologies. Wall Street is always going to like expensive consultants; if some academics, geeks and economists could provide an open model that Wall Street could test against, there would be money to be made -- and fewer mistakes.
    • There are years and years when things can get easily fsck'd up before construction ever starts. Once you get a road like this open, everyone loves it -- even people who swear they'll never use it benefit because the new facility takes traffic off of existing roads. But long before you get to that point, it's not an exaggeraton to say that every neighborhood group, ambitious city council member or lawyer looking for tort income will come after you.


    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
  47. Interstate 69 by brolewis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only one who noticed along side this proposed mega-highway is a proposal for Interstate I-69? I can already see a rash of sign thefts occuring as soon as they are put up.

    --
    A little learning never hurt anyone.
    1. Re:Interstate 69 by metalligoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      I-69 exists!

      What you might find far more interesting is the work needed to keep the sign up at I-75's Exit 69, Big Beaver Road, in Troy, Michigan.

      Here's a website trying to make some money from the spectacle...

  48. Ok I'll take this - Consider your logic here by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone else thing maybe we're getting a little bit too mobile?

    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 /. 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.

    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.

  49. Re:Soooo... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been plenty of other places, and Texas is big. It's bigger than any European country. I used to live in Austin, and it's an 8-hour drive to the nearest state line. From where I live in China, you can get to almost everywhere worth going in a 12-hour drive. The state's highways are excellent and free, and an immediate drop in quality is always experienced when leaving Texas. Can't speak for the German highways, though.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  50. Re:Soooo... by niktesla · · Score: 2, Insightful
    He may not have been born here, but he's a Texan now. Texans stick to their guns (except for all those hippies in Austin - hey I'm an Aggie, so I can't cut them any slack;) ), especially when the going gets tough. I'm pround to be a Texan and have a President who is too. If you don't think he's Texan, then just read this - he handled it like a Texan would.

    To get back on topic, I'm not so sure we need this mega highway, although it would help crossing Texas a bit. I'm generally a supporter of Gov. Perry (after all he is a fellow Aggie:)), but I think he has bitten off too much with this plan. Anyhow, that's my $0.02.

    --
    I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
  51. Re:Soooo... by deimtee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There used to be a station (that's a ranch to you yanks) in West Australia that actually was bigger than Texas. Pity it got broken up a few years ago as it was fun pointing it out to texans.

    --
    I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  52. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm conservative and I oppose it because I think it's wrong. They're going to declare eminent domain so that a private company can build a money machine with no plans on turning it back over to the government which represents the people whose property was extracted.

    Plus I'm a little put off by the mention of broadband transmission cable. The U.S. uses something like 1/10th of the bandwidth created during the .com boom, so what good are broadband transmission cables besides as a buzz words? Texas already gets FTTP in many places. Any more bandwidth and the MPAA is likely to sue them.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
  53. Re:Soooo... by Zaphod_Beebleburp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem isn't with the interstates, it's with the drivers. I-35 isn't the only interstate with congestion problems. I-5 & I-95 are perfect examples. The concept of an interstate running through or around major cities(via beltways) has come and gone. Unfortunately, the only solution to date is to make them wider. It's the bigger pipe mentality, not enough fits through so just build a bigger one. It solves the problem temporarily, but 10-15 yrs down the road we'll encounter the same problem.

    The mentality of "my time is more important than yours'" has caused an increasing number of accidents on our interstates which in turn leads to backups. A North American Autobahn system would be better in my opinion and treat it the same way. A high cost license that offers the benefits of more competent and attentive drivers.

    Better drivers fix traffic problems faster than safer vehicles and wider highways. Yes, the left lane is the passing lane. Make in car Navigation systems only operate while the vehicle is in park, as well as cell phones.

  54. Move back... home? by Ghostgate · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many college students move back to the small town because its "home"?

    This is Slashdot! How many of us ever LEFT?

  55. corrupt :Rick Perry by dj_virto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the same Rick Perry that was elected as an 'aw shucks' farmer to be agriculture commissioner then turned around and gave Archer Daniel Midland the right to grade all Texas peanuts, including their own, pissing off the otherwise republicna voting farmers aware enough to notice. Of course guess who effectively paid for his campaign? Corruption goes beyond ideology. It's pretty much always bad. The republican base seems to be mainly people like these farmers and ranchers, who are vulnerable to a flag draped propoganda machine such as the republicans have skillfully builr. They're vulnerable because they're uninformed, and it works out beautifully, because they don't even notice most of the time when their beloved 'conservatives' turn around and suck their lifeblood. I often think it is a lucky holdover from a more sensible era that we haven't privatized the roads. Then stuff like this comes along, and I start to get really scared for the future. If the Rick Perrys of the world really get what they want, and pull off the propaganda to support it too.. we're really f*cked for sure.

  56. Re:Soooo... by Lucidwray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  57. Re:Speedy Limit or Incomplete Statistics... by innerweb · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The data provided is interesting, but not useful in the context provided. Sure, on those roads (with what traffic density?), a small drop in the fatality rate occured. What other events or changes happened at the same time (weather, cars being used, ...)? Is it possible that this shows nothing other than some people do not pay attention to what they are doing unless they feel they are at risk somehow (driving fast)? Does this demonstrate that the roads were suddenly less travelled as others were more afraid of driving on them?

    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.
  58. Emminent Domain being used for private profit... by innerweb · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What I really see here is a way for companies to use emminent domain to pull a railroad robber baron move. The government has a right to grab citizens' land for its use if it provides compensation that is appropriate....

    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.
  59. Re:Not really - No, really by j_w_d · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have read comparisons, years ago now, between Heinlein's rolling roads idea and the big interstates. It isn't that unreasonable when you consider the "road cities" and the larger linear belts of development that appear along major freeways. The freeway conception is more efficient than the rolling roads could possibly be. However, the role of futureist and forecasting doesn't necessarily demand technological accuracy.

    The peculiar society that develops along interstate corridors is complex and a distinct subset of our society at large. Enough so that epidemiological studies are beginning to be concerned about the poor understanding we have of that subsector and its roles in the spread of infectious and sexually transmitted diseases to name just two points.

    If you have ever stepped in to a Flying J or similar establishment, there are number of distinct and interesting aspects about the stores, the conversations, and even the technology available. Conversations reveal interesting relationships that are maintained through truck-stop contacts. You hear things like, "Hey, So-and-so! Say, when was the last we ran into each other? Wasn't it outside Portland? ... Oh yeah, Seattle, that's ... No, no, it was Victoria in B.C. I saw the ...es in Portland. They were heading this way. Have you seen them?" These may take place between long-distance truck drivers and truck driving couples, couples living in motor homes, and other denizens of the stops such as itenerant prostitutes.

    While Heinlein blew the technology, he recognized the economic necessity and social consequences of the giant interstates. Which, really, is more than you can say for the characters who hand out the Golden Fleece awards and similar trendily uninformed criticisms that may or may not pick out the sillyness in research and more often than not demonstrate the judge's remarkable lack of imagination.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  60. Re:Soooo... by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...avoid passing directly through urban areas...

    It would be good to divert some of the traffic on I-35 (E and W through DFW, Austin, and San Antonio). But for the TTC to succeed, connection to current activity centers have to be provided. Here's why.

    The TTC (TransTexas Corridor) was first proposed by Gov. "Good-hair" Rick Perry in the spring of 2002. Since then, TxDOT has funded a number of studies at TTI (the A&M transportation wing), CTR (the UT Austin transportation wing) and CTS (the UT Arlington transportation wing) re. the TTC. Here are some very interesting quotes from a document from one such study (the report is under review for publication?):

    ...

    There are a couple of reasons why high-speed freight systems may be non-starters for the TTC.

    First, the current generation of high-speed rail and maglev systems are not designed to handle bulky freight (the tracks are not designed to sustain the forces created by heavy freight without deviating from their strict tolerance, and the power requirements to move heavy freight at high speeds makes the system prohibitively expensive.)

    Second, new markets may emerge in the future that would stimulate the demand for high-speed freight service, but currently in Texas there does not appear to be a mass market for such a service. Significantly, both BNSF and UP currently seem to prefer to "wait-and-evaluate" before venturing into the high-speed freight business.
    ...

    The TransTexas Corridor (TTC) is a timely initiative that can help alleviate mobility, and congestion issues of the future. However, the planning, alignment and design of such a system has to be approached with caution. If certain underlying principles are ignored, and future interactions of the existing transportation system with the new system not incorporated at the planning stage, the new system will create more problems than it is likely to solve.

    First, if the TTC does not provide direct and fast connections between existing centers of activities, there will be very few initial users who would be willing to pay a toll and travel along the TTC. After all, why would a user pay a toll to travel to and from places where there are no trip attractions or productions? This will likely result in much lower initial revenues from tolls, and impede the development of new activity centers along the TTC.

    Second, when the new centers of activity do eventually develop along the TTC, they will certainly start to interact with the old (existing) centers of activity in our urban areas. If there are no proactively planned connections between the new and old centers of activities, it is highly likely that the existing transportation infrastructure will not be able to serve the future demands placed on it, leading to unintended congestion and loss of mobility.
    ....

    One of the philosophical goals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was to end the modal fragmentation of transportation in the US. The practical goal was to provide seamless connectivity between different modes. This was the vision of intermodal transportation. ISTEA also introduced the concept of multimodal transportation, which required that travelers be provided a choice between at least two modes of transportation to get to their destination.

    With its combination of high-speed mass transportation (rail or maglev) and highway corridors, the TTC does well in terms of multimodalism.

    However, by not providing direct links to the hubs of other modes of transportation, i.e., connections to airports and urban transit services, the current proposed alignment of the TTC gets a failing grade on the intermodal scorecard.

    The airline industry (particularly American, Continental, and Southwest Airlines) should be encouraged to become partners in the high-speed mass transportation of passen

  61. Re:Soooo... by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

    well, I should have learned how to use the tag apparently...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  62. Texas Arithmetic by serutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  63. Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: by mandalayx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well public real estate will be used for private purposes. through eminent domain.

    also costs of building supporting infrastructure around the road will be substantial.

    opportunity cost of 1/4 wide swath of land will be high, esp if it goes through large cities and uses prime real estate.

    overall driving may go up as more drivers use roads, then use public roads to get to final destination. more demand for public roads. those costs go up. less demand for (potentially) more efficient public transport systems.

    more and more indirect costs..

  64. Re:Fine and Dandy by MickLinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  65. How it works by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  66. Re:I used to live in Austin, and it's an 8-hour dr by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    where's an Alaskan when you need one?
    Dunno ... perhaps Alaska?

    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 ...

  67. Future Fuel Availability by aking137 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll no doubt get modded down to a (-1, Flamebait) for daring to suggest that the future may not be as rosy as we all wish, but have the relevant people taken peak oil into consideration when making such plans? It just seems a little ill thought out to be building new roads on such a scale if they aren't going to be of much use in another 15-20 years time.

    See 1 2 3 4 5 or just Google for peak oil.

  68. Re:Soooo... by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 2, Informative
    Wow...you have your facts all wrong...

    OK, his facts are wrong, but the numbers are right:
    Texas = 268,601 sq. miles
    France = 543 965 km^2
    Germany = 357 023 km^2

    --
    Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
  69. Re:Soooo... by tigress · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been plenty of other places, and Texas is big. It's bigger than any European country.

    Texas: 678,054 sq km.
    Russia: 17,075,200 sq km.

  70. Re:Soooo... by winwar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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....

  71. Re:Soooo... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 2, Informative

    not true
    texas:695673 km2 (268,601 sq miles)
    france:547030 km2
    germany: 357 021 km2
    Just one way to classify them, by surface area ;-). I know where to find the best cheese, wine, food- where to drive the fastest and where to find ZZ Top

  72. Re:Maybe a good idea but it should stop at the bor by Presidential · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sadly, you got points for being Funny when in fact that was incredibly Insightful.

    I work in a tech industry where oh-so-many of my phone calls terminate in India. There, "Jeff" or "George" tries his damndest to communicate with me over language and culture barriers. He's also got to contend with my hearing loss, which makes it doubly difficult for me to understand English if it has a substantial Indian accent.

    Now lets take the work crews here in Texas. Look real closely at new home constructions. Show me the blue collared fellow who ISN'T Mexican.

    Globalization will occur regardless of any efforts to deflect or delay it. I believe it is inevitable with so many factors weighing in: populations grow more dense, cultures begin to meld together, borders become less relevant, etc. However, in the here-and-now, we find lots of legitimate citizens, who would pay taxes if they could, out of work due to cheaper available labor from India (in the example of telephone centers) and Mexico.

    The argument against that point is that these unemployed Americans can always improve their lot in life with education. Righto. I'll just wheel up to the local university and take out a couple student loans to pay for this improvement. What? I don't qualify? Too much outstanding debt already? I'm only 33!

    Okay, build the damn road already. If nothing else, it will greatly reduce traffic on 35.

    --
    Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
  73. Won't anyone think of the armadillos.... by winwar · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, I think there is an easier and cheaper way to get rid of animals than making them run a quarter mile freeway gauntlet....

    If you don't like them, just shoot them :)

    Then again, maybe my "Flattened Fauna" book would come in handy....

  74. Re:In Soviet Russia by alzoron · · Score: 2, Funny

    The people of Jupiter would like to point out that our planet is bigger than yours. Take that Earthlings.

  75. Eminent Domain by Theseus192 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing that galls me about this plan is they're talking about using Eminent Domain to appropriate people's land, and then hand that land over to a private company (a foreign owned one no less). Yes, the government can force people to sell land for public use but till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and such - not private development.

    How much do you want to bet the developer is going to recoup their $175 billion investment by snatching up a 10-mile wide swath of what is now farm and ranch land, but will later be prime commercial real estate - and every possible access point to the superhighway - if this plan goes through.

    --
    If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? - Will Rogers
    1. Re:Eminent Domain by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      till recently that has meant state parks, military bases, and...

      And roads...

      In Connecticut about 40 years ago, before the I-84 and I-91 interchange in downtown Hartford, the state used eminent domain to take a strip of land that stretched from New Britain to West Hartford then south to Wethersfield (about 20 miles through densely populated citys) to build a road. They built most of the road, but it was never opened because it ran close to a neighborhood who's residents managed to win a lawsuit claiming the traffic would cause air polution that would make their neighborhood unliveable. The land and completed road sat growing weeds until a few years ago when they converted a section of it into the state Rte. 9 extension. In that case they used eminent doman to take land from hundreds of people for pretty much no good reason at all. In many cases this was in the form of just taking people's back yards and leaving them with a house on almost no land that faced an abandoned roadway. Nice, huh?

  76. Trains by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can see the NAFTA trade angle. But a highway isn't the solution, not without a lot of cost on individual self-propelled transport containers (ie. TRUCKS) . The solution is clearly rail. Intermodal transportation (http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm) is vastly cheaper than the archaic system these guys are suggesting. Containers come on trucks, then go on via train. When they get near an urban center for delivery, they get put on a truck body.

    Much less labor, much less fuel consumption. Much less cost for individual carrier equipment. (Can someone else comment on the cost of rail vs. highway maintenance?)

    If this is a way to make NAFTA better for everyone, they need to scrap the highway (or at least scale it back to very little) and run rails. If it's a way to generate tariffs on transport, well, rails do that, too.

    But they wouldn't need 175 billion dollars for it. If they want to spend that kind of money, they should think about running rail lines through Texas (using some of the rails already there), building over and underpasses for existing rails in and around cities all over the country, running lines around cities to avoid marshalling yards (with their speed restrictions) and building efficient Intermodal systems in smaller towns (there are already such systems in the big ones).

    But that would just mean investing in a rail company instead of press-releasing and creating a whole new way of thinking about roads, etc.

  77. Re:Soooo... by FLEB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, helped along by eminent domain.

    --
    Information wants to be free.
    Entertainment wants to be paid.
    You just want to be cheap.
  78. Re:Soooo... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Informative


    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
  79. Re:Smells of the Texas Supercollider Project by cblguy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Anyone remember the TxSSC that they were going to build in Waxahachie back in the early '90s? That was a huge undertaking that fell through pretty quickly as a pork barrel project. Big plans, big dreams, lots of smoke and mirrors, and poof... nothing happens.

    I live along the I35 corridor, about a mile and a half from I35, actually, in Waco. Traffic is OK on most days. But Friday evening, and holidays, it's gridlock. I hate it on Fridays & holidays.

    This sounds like just another dream project. I don't think they'll really do anything. I'd bet they'll just keep trying to widen I35. After all, the orange barrel is the state bird of Texas, and they seem to flock all over I35.

  80. Re:Soooo... by CK2004PA · · Score: 2, Funny
    " Texas doesn't claim to be the biggest place on earth. But, it's big, cattle ranch or no."

    Yes but the size of your heads are even larger.

    --
    "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"-Adolf Hitler or George W Bush?
  81. Terrorism isn't even worth one minute of concern. by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  82. Re:Soooo... by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amen and halleluja! I am sick to death of paying exhorbitant taxes to pay for the indoctrination (not "education" anymore) of other parent's kids. I worked may ass off (still do), bought property, built a house, paid for it, and then the government punishes me by taxing my ass off. I am sick of property taxes and income taxes. The only fair tax is a sales tax. Offtopic? I do not see how, considering all preceding comments. Nonethless, I bet a post hole against a panful of cornbread it gets modded so. We'll see.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  83. Re:Soooo... by Snowdog668 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Well, keep it reasonable...and for God's sake, cut the toll when the project was done...Once paid for..they should go away."

    That's what they told us in Illinois all those decades ago. The tolls were going to be temporary. I live about 15 miles from the Wisconsin border and it currently costs me $2 just in tolls to get there and back. .25 each to get on and off the tollway, .75 each way at the toll just south of the border. In addition, tomorrow the tolls double as part of the plan to force everyone onto IPass. If you go onto IPass tolls stay at their current level, prepare to pay double if you don't. What do we get for it? One of the worst highway systems in the country (Illinois was rated in the bottom five states by the American Trucker Magazine annual survey the last time I checked, a couple of years ago).

    Believe me, once government gets their mitts on a tax it never goes away.

    --
    I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
  84. Re:Soooo... by LPetrazickis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Russia straddles both continents. The dividing line goes through the Ural mountains. Most of the population is on the European side.

    Now, whether the relationship between Russia and Europe is more akin to Macedonia and Greece or Epirus and Greece is your business.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  85. Re:Soooo... by igny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you been to Alaska?

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  86. Rail is markedly less expensive by KMSelf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fresh fruit and produce probably does move by truck (and you pay for it), but your boxed and canned goods move by rail. Spoilage in Del Monte tomato sauce is pretty low. There's a running joke about oatmeal running by slurry pipe (well, in some circles....).

    Basically, you've got a hierarchy of shipping rates, most to least expensive being air, expedited ground (FedEx, UPS), local drayage, long-haul trucking, rail, barge, bulk maritime, and pipeline. The difference in cost very marked. The slower methods are best suited to bulk goods where it doesn't particularly matter what specific item you get, just how much (crude oil, grain, coal, lumber).

    Costs are based on both fuel and labor costs. Rail crews run about 6 per train (IIRC), a 110 unit train can carry 400+ 40' containers (more in "SixPac" and related specialized configurations). The same load on trucks requires 200 drivers. A barge equals about 15 rail cars or 60 trucks. And a large container ship will handle thousands of containers. Comparative fuel requirements: 1 gallon gets you about 60 ton-miles by truck, 200 ton-miles by train, and 515 ton-miles by barge. Source.

    That link includes a calculator so you can compare fuel costs. Assuming 1000 tons, 1000 miles, and $1.50/gal fuel costs. truck works out to $25,338, rail to $7,426, barge to $2,918. That excludes labor and capital costs, as well as insurance (cost of covering damaged shipments is a considerable expense).

    In the early 1990s, Mid-Western droughts lead to historically low water levels on the Mississippi. One consequence was a tremendous increase in rail traffic as loads which would once have moved by barge went by rail. Great if you were a railroad, not so good for shippers and farmer.

    The big development of the past three decades has been "intermodal" transport. Shipping containers to you and me. A container is filled at the factory in China, trucked to a rail point, trained to a shipyard, shipped to a US port, railed to a local delivery point, and trucked to local destination.

    In practice, runs of < 300 miles tend to be cost-effective for truck, anything more, rail, and if a navigable waterway exists, ship.

    Last I looked into it (about 15 years back) there were expedited intermodal cross-country tarrifs for 7-14 day delivery. Perhaps not "JIT", but useful for those who figure a rolling warehouse is useful (and railroads had to fight for years to get their boxcars back on time). Did a college research paper on the Japanese fresh broccoli market. That was crop from Salinas Valley, California, via refrigerated intermodal transport, to Japan, across 8,000 miles of ocean, in 14 days. Feasibly. Pretty impressive.

    Not a railroader, but I've known a few pretty well.

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?