The Super Superhighway 1005
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."
Soooo... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Soooo... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 sta
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Soooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Re:Soooo... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Soooo... (Score:4, Funny)
Instead of the TTC we need Trans-Warp Conduits!
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Soooo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Funny)
Texas: 678,054 sq km.
Russia: 17,075,200 sq km.
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Informative)
Now, whether the relationship between Russia and Europe is more akin to Macedonia and Greece or Epirus and Greece is your business.
Re:I used to live in Austin, and it's an 8-hour dr (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ...
Re:Soooo... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hearing people make comments like this always reminds me of Robert Moses and the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway [wikipedia.org] and the Cross-Bronx Expressway [wikipedia.org].
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 [wikipedia.org] would have been successful in building the Lower Manhattan Expressway. Imagine [pbs.org] a NYC with no Greenwich Village, Soho, or Chinatown as we know it today.
Granted we are talking about Texas
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Speedy Limit (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah the Speed Limit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ah the Speed Limit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ah the Speed Limit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah the Speed Limit (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ah the Speed Limit (Score:3, 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 s
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wa.gov]. Please note the wording. It's the entire wi
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually they aren't any. The original poster was correct. As I said here [slashdot.org] 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.
How it works (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:5, Interesting)
I found being passed by BMW M3s at nearly twice my speed was a little unnerving, and I'm a confident driver.
Re:Speedy Limit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Speedy Limit or Incomplete Statistics... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Holy crap Ross Perot was right! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy crap Ross Perot was right! (Score:3, Funny)
The Roads Must Roll (Score:5, Insightful)
The Heinlein concordance [heinleinsociety.org] 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.
True... (Score:3, 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. =)
Re:The Roads Must Roll (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Roads Must Roll (Score:3, 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.
Re:Not really - No, really (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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.
Pave the Earth! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pave the Earth! (Score:3, Funny)
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 vess
Fine and Dandy (Score:2)
Re:Fine and Dandy (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Fine and Dandy (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: eminent domain.
Re:Fine and Dandy (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:Fine and Dandy (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Fine and Dandy (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Traffic jams? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's something else to think about: rest stops. They'll have to be HUGE. Like shopping malls. That could certainly be interesting.
Re:Traffic jams? (Score:5, Informative)
In terms of the traffic, there are 2 possible outcomes: The highway will sit almost completely unused [google.com] or it will be a giant parking lot as everyone uses this megaroad to get wherever they're going.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Scenic Texas (Score:2, Interesting)
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".
Re: Scenic Texas (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".
Hmm.. some problems with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm.. some problems with this. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Eminent Domain (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.
Re:Eminent Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Perry has seen the future? (Score:5, Funny)
Some more details... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Some more details... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some more details... (Score:3, Interesting)
What are they not saying? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Transportation routes for hazardous materials must avoid population centers whenever possible. Like... Um... A major highway? The proposed route [keeptexasmoving.com] passes through the heart of the most populated [keeptexasmoving.com] 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 [keeptexasmoving.com], 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.Re:What are they not saying? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the USA?! *gasp*
And It Will Be Built By Flying Monkeys! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real chances of this getting built are pretty close to zero.
And for those who don't think this is so great... (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Why build more roads for long-haul transportation? (Score:5, 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?
Rail is markedly less expensive (Score:3, 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 meth
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Improper transfer of wealth. (Score:3, 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.
what about human powered? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:what about human powered? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's American thinking in a nutshell: cars, cars, trucks, cars
So much for scenic drives? (Score:5, Funny)
I have, and there a darn good reason why the abbeviation for Oklahoma is "OK" and not "GREAT".
Re:So much for scenic drives? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Been involved with this before, on a smaller scale (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Interstate 69 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interstate 69 (Score:5, Funny)
I-69 [state-ends.com] 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... [getoffonbigbeaver.com]
Emminent Domain being used for private profit... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Texas Arithmetic (Score:4, Insightful)
$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.
Future Fuel Availability (Score:3, Insightful)
See 1 [oilcrash.com] 2 [runningonempty.org] 3 [oildepletion.org] 4 [hubbertpeak.com] 5 [odac-info.org] or just Google for peak oil [google.com].
Won't anyone think of the armadillos.... (Score:3, Funny)
If you don't like them, just shoot them
Then again, maybe my "Flattened Fauna" book would come in handy....
Trains (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: (Score:4, Insightful)
There are no fiscal conservatives in government anymore.
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Five words for stupid people who are opposed: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Strange Reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strange Reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok I'll take this - Consider your logic here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Strange Reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
Move back... home? (Score:3, Funny)
This is Slashdot! How many of us ever LEFT?
Re:Just one more reason (Score:3, Interesting)
A wild Berlin Wall (Score:3, Interesting)
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 overshoo
Re:Everything's bigger in Texas! (Score:3, Funny)
- Thomas;
Re:Super High(UP)ways (Score:4, Informative)
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.
corrupt :Rick Perry (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ten gallon hat, half-pint brain (Score:3, Informative)
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 bec
Re:A little overzealous, aren't we? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Terrorism isn't even worth one minute of concern. (Score:5, Informative)
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.