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."
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
- 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...)
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
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.
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...
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....
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.