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."
this must be that giant sucking sound Ross Perot was referring to.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
Wow, am I alone in being reminded of the classic Robert Heinlein story The Roads Must Roll?
The Heinlein concordance describes the Diego-Reno Roadtown
(It was a ) Motorized roadway that connected San Diego, California, and Reno, Nevada, on and around which a metropolitan area grew up; its terminal was called Diego Circle. The automated roads themselves were large enough to accommodate restaurants and other businesses, as well as the engineers' offices.
Three Squirrels
On the surface, I was inclined to say that this is a good idea - centralization seems to be the way of the day, and centralizing all these services in one superhighway could work. It'll revitalize the area that the superhighway goes through, much like the trains of the 1800s.
That being said, there is a lot of reluctance to this project. Despite what the governor claims, this most certainly isn't a repeat of the Eisenhower-era Interstate project. It's probably just an opportunity for private corporations to enter the arena of mass transportation.. they would get some sort of rights over the variety of communications means that course through this privately-owned and made superhighways.
The article refers to the use of private tolls to sustain this. Clearly, these investing businesses have done an analysis and realized that they can profit off this - despite its 'whopping' $175 bn price tag.
This project would change the shape of the areas affected. New areas along the 'superhighway', and the areas that didn't get included... It would be interesting to see if this project goes ahead, and if towns then lobby in order to have access to the highway.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
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.
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.
> 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
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.
Montana, late 90's. It was the safest period ever on the roads there.
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.
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
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?
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!
- Transportation routes for hazardous materials must avoid population centers whenever possible. Like... Um... A major highway? The proposed route passes through the heart of the most populated areas
- TTC will help... allowing faster, safer and more reliable movement of people and goods... To Mexico?
creating jobs and attracting businesses that benefit by having access to an efficient transportation network
... To be closer to the hazardous waste routes? - The estimated total cost for the system ranges from $145.2 billion to $183.5 billion. Public-private partnerships, which bring funding resources from the private sector, will play a key role in constructing and financing the system. Other options include leasing right of way, toll revenues, and state and federal funds. Leased right of way? Tolls? The Profit Superhighway. Think of who's friends will land those building contracts...
- Will other projects suffer if the Trans-Texas Corridor becomes the top priority?... Maintaining the current highway system will continue to be our top priority. Those are from two seprate things in the FAQ. Incredibly, they are not related. In context, the seem to contradict. I'm betting two seperate people wrote these parts using "priority" as a buzzword. "Need" also has a prominant place in the FAQ.
- The TTC will serve as a new delivery system to many communities across the state. For goods from Mexico? For immigrants from mexico?
I realize that I'm being a bit harsh, but I'm really skeptical of this. The information site actually has very few facts. The focus seems to be commerce rather than quality of life. They use too many "nicey words" to back up their ideas. I'm still pouring through the site trying to keep an open mind for something I think could actually be really useful and cool, but my geek-sense says not to trust it.US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
The real chances of this getting built are pretty close to zero.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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
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.
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
Trucking is much less efficient than rail transportation for long distances. This proposal does at least include freight lines, but it still assumes that a large part of the trade is going to be carried on highways. Shouldn't we be building up the railway system and trying to shift long-distance freight away from trucks to the railways?
Well, if it's built with private funds and is run by private companies (requiring a toll or a "season pass" or whatever they want to do to pay for it), then why would law enforcement have ANY legal powers to enforce speeds? Police cannot come to my property and make sure that I'm driving at 35mph on my own property. Even if there were agreements in place that allowed the police to travel those roads to enforce speed limits, it would be a CIVIL penalty, as opposed to a CRIMINAL penalty. So failure to pay a "ticket" could result in a civil suit and/or termination of "season passes", but should not allow for termination of licenses or other things.
Of course, additional laws could be passed to get around this, but on the surface, it seems that police should have no legal enforcing power for any speed limits.
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
>> What's wrong with Interstates?
:-) but I have to wonder what historically significant neighborhoods will be bulldozed to make this interstate happen.
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
OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
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.
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.
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
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
It was a good project -- neither the state nor the county had funds to improve one of the single most congested segments of freeway in the country, and there were no good alternate routes. There was, however, a median, which a private company leased from the state for a nominal fee. They built toll lanes on their own nickel (well, Wall Street bond buyers' nickels) and opened for business. The deal, as they're proposing in Texas, was for the road to be privately run for 30 years and then turned over to the state, which would be able to continue to charge tolls.
The road's been open for less than a decade and although it's been a big success in terms added traffic capacity, there are some lessons no one expected:
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
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.
Does anyone else thing maybe we're getting a little bit too mobile?
/. readers). Would you prefer every cultural group do things separately? That just takes you back to segregation. I would think consolidation of cultural values would be a positive thing for a country's societal health.
No. I love the versatility that a mobile society gives you. Don't like it somewhere? You can easily go somewhere else. You have so many more options open to you today than you did 50 years ago.
It used to be that travel exposed us to unique local cultures, ideas, and products.
Who's to say it still doesn't. I mean everyone speaks the same language, but as someone who has lived in the north and the south US, I can tell you that the culture is very different.
We watch the same entertainment, we listen to the same songs, we shop in the same chain stores, and we wear the same clothes.
Umm, maybe that's because we are all Americans (at least everyone living in the US, no offense to international
When was the last time you heard someone tell you they wanted to carry on the family tradition of a particular trade.
Not in a while, which again is a good thing IMO. In the old days children were expected to carry on the occupation of their parents. In effect, the course their life would take was determined before they were even born. Today, we've given children the freedom to make their own choices about what they want to do with their lives. How can you be opposed to that? Everyone benefits there as we can all find greater satisfaction in our occupation since it's something we chose rather than something that was forced upon us.
How many college students move back to the small town because its "home"?
I see this more of a social variance that everyone has a different view of, but again it comes down to freedom of choice. If you like the atmosphere of the place you grew up in, the surroundings of your close family and the state of mind that gives you, then moving back home is probably a good choice. If on the other hand (as in my case) you feel disillusioned by all of that and want to pursue your own path, that is your choice to make.
How many of us devoutly carry on our family religions?
Again, what if you don't agree with your family's religion? Are you suggesting we curtail freedom of religion, one of the most basic principles this country was founded on?
Or how many of us think about retirement when we get our first job?
How many of us will choose not to start worrying about tomorrow as soon as we complete every task and instead take time to enjoy all that life has to offer even for a brief period? When you get your first job, you have decades ahead of you. Assuming you have at least some financial sense, it really won't be a problem when the time comes to deal with it.
It really sounds to me like you don't understand the progress that has been made on many of these fronts over the last few decades. I know I would never want to trade this world for the one my parents lived in.
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...
There are many reasons.
The land rights upon which the freeway rests is still actually owned by the government.
A speed limit is a safety issue, which doesn't start or stop on public property.
Bull. Far too many people have NO idea where criminal law ends, and civil law starts. Even if it was privately-owned land, that doesn't mean laws broken on it are civil, rather than criminal. Shoplifting happens on private property, and involving private property, but it's still a criminal offense. Police have raided the homes of Cable-Modem uncappers, and arrested them on criminal charges. Don't pretend to be a lawyer, when you don't know what you are talking about.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
From what I've seen of Harrisonburg, VA, when they were building the Justice building, the formula for "just compensation" is actually rather easy.
When the city has 3 times the parking it will need in the next 20 years, and city council members have just contracted to sell more empty lots to the city as parking, and the purchase price was $15,000: just compensation is $120k. When the property is a thriving restaurant located in hte heart of downtown (specifically the Old Virginia Ham Cafe, now nonexistant), and the replacement/relocation cost runs about $250k, just compensation is $10k.
This is the essence of emminent domain, as far as I can tell: I take what you have in the name of my power. In practical application, it doesn't sound to me any different than carjacking.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Quote: Umm... we want to create 4,000 miles of terrorist in Texas target for... what reason, exactly?
:( Or your Government, but then again, ours is not much better - less business, more laziness.
Remark: This is the exact fscking reason why most Brits hate (and I mean HATE) America (not necessarily Americans, we actually like Americans, just really can't stand the country's politics). You want to build a 4000 mile long road that would solve your traffic issues (if you managed somehow to increase the capacity of the exits) and instead of complaining about real issues like how other towns would suffer because of less traffic, and the MASSIVE environmental concerns, you decide to look at... THE TERRORISM ASPECT??? FOR FSCKS SAKE!
Ok, let's pretend I'm Al Qaida. I (or rather, we) want to do most damage to America that I/We can. So we attack a couple of buildings. Kill a couple thousand people. Everybody scared. For this reason they're exactly the same as people like Timothy McVeigh (or however he spells it). What was pure genius (and I don't support them, but this was a brilliant plan) is that they actually got the American people to worry. To sacrifice their own dreams because of terrorism. Everything now has to be thought of now as a potential terrorist target, that you are at war with some very illusive people that may strike at any time. RUBBISH!
Here in the UK, we've been the subject of terror-attacks for the best part of 40 years, with the whole Northern Ireland thing. We don't care about Al Qaida or the IRA or whoever else. We just get on with it (mostly, there are a few jerks out there) and build our millenium domes, our Space Museums, our Olympic bids, our whatever. Sure, we're making ourselves targets, but the fact is that we are not going to be disuaded by some ponce who hates our way of live. We are living our lives, and there's not a lot that can be done to prevent us from doing that. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Weapons of Mass Distraction more like. Notice that in Iraq, the American's get the vast majority of the blame for being insurgents, the British and other countries there are fairly immune to that rap. Not just because there are less of us, but because we respect them, we do our best to accomodate, to leave them alone when we can. Someday, you'll see things our way. The way a lot of your own country do. Let US stand for United States of America, not Unfriendly States of Afraid.
And finally, just to re-iterate. I don't hate Americans, I just can't stand the way you do business
"If the new super highway is planned and executed correctly (i.e. limited development along the route, avoid passing directly through urban areas, etc.), it could do a lot to help traffic problems in the cities."
It won't happen. EVER. Building more roads will eventually lead to more traffic. Period. Sure, it may help in the short term.
But, how do you prevent development along the route? If it is an ideal travel route, then it would be good to have warehouses/industrial areas. Okay, need exits. More exits mean more businesses (more profit if toll road....) Those businesses need employees. Build houses (or people commute). More businesses to cater to employees (gas stations, stores, restaurants....). Pretty soon you have a city around each exit.
Well, now we have congestion around those exits, need new exits (private businesses rarely have problems getting them if they can get the money....) Rinse, lather, repeat.
If you build a convenient route, you will get growth. The only way to prevent it, is to reduce its usefulness. A rather large catch-22....
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
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.