Trans-Texas Corridor (NAU Superhighway?) - Lou Dobbs says Factcheck is wrong

[charrison]

I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

Obviously the answer is "enough." The people don't want it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

Obviously the answer is "enough." The people don't want it.

Yeah, but how much of that is as a result of first hand knowledge and how much is a result of things like Lou Dobbs laying on the FUD? Enough propaganda, correctly done, can create the appearance of a populist movement...which will eventually get enough real support to create an actual populist movement. It doesn't always follow that this must mean the story is true.

Edit: To put things in perspective, what percentage of people believed Iraq was behind 9/11? I'm not too impressed with what people can be conned into believing.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

the point of this highway system, in particular, is to bypass pretty much every town and city it can. it's part of the reason why so much (agricultural) land is being considered as possible routes, and why merely upgrading the current through-way may not be the best idea. it's trying not to bulldoze people's houses and trying to relieve the highways that currently go through cities and towns.

now, if the major highway bypasses a town, it could mean somewhat depopulated towns or towns moving by osmosis in toward the highway. certainly that has happened in the past (though, depopulation shouldn't be nearly as bad as it was back when railroad or buggy was the only option, and it may not even happen at all).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

the point of this highway system, in particular, is to bypass pretty much every town and city it can. it's part of the reason why so much (agricultural) land is being considered as possible routes, and why merely upgrading the current through-way may not be the best idea. it's trying not to bulldoze people's houses and trying to relieve the highways that currently go through cities and towns.

now, if the major highway bypasses a town, it could mean somewhat depopulated towns or towns moving by osmosis in toward the highway. certainly that has happened in the past (though, depopulation shouldn't be nearly as bad as it was back when railroad or buggy was the only option, and it may not even happen at all).

That was an original design goal of the current US highway system. To bypass as much as possible and have very few on/off ramps. That of course got shot down, so now there is plenty of sprawl along every mile of interstate in the US.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

the point of this highway system, in particular, is to bypass pretty much every town and city it can. it's part of the reason why so much (agricultural) land is being considered as possible routes, and why merely upgrading the current through-way may not be the best idea. it's trying not to bulldoze people's houses and trying to relieve the highways that currently go through cities and towns.

now, if the major highway bypasses a town, it could mean somewhat depopulated towns or towns moving by osmosis in toward the highway. certainly that has happened in the past (though, depopulation shouldn't be nearly as bad as it was back when railroad or buggy was the only option, and it may not even happen at all).

That was an original design goal of the current US highway system. To bypass as much as possible and have very few on/off ramps. That of course got shot down, so now there is plenty of sprawl along every mile of interstate in the US.

Not to mention the fact that the interstate is used as a MAJOR rush hour route in almost every major city in the country. This is alright out west where "major cities" are something that happens ever 500 miles and that aren't that major in any case. But in a lot of areas, this basically means that using the interstate for its intended purpose is extremely frustrating. There's nothing that spoils a beautiful cross country drive faster than getting stuck in huge traffic snarl trying to, for example, take I-95 through DC. The fact that there is literally no way to bypass most major cities is a huge flaw in the interstate system, especially in terms of commercial trucking.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

the point of this highway system, in particular, is to bypass pretty much every town and city it can. it's part of the reason why so much (agricultural) land is being considered as possible routes, and why merely upgrading the current through-way may not be the best idea. it's trying not to bulldoze people's houses and trying to relieve the highways that currently go through cities and towns.

now, if the major highway bypasses a town, it could mean somewhat depopulated towns or towns moving by osmosis in toward the highway. certainly that has happened in the past (though, depopulation shouldn't be nearly as bad as it was back when railroad or buggy was the only option, and it may not even happen at all).

That was an original design goal of the current US highway system. To bypass as much as possible and have very few on/off ramps. That of course got shot down, so now there is plenty of sprawl along every mile of interstate in the US.

Not to mention the fact that the interstate is used as a MAJOR rush hour route in almost every major city in the country. This is alright out west where "major cities" are something that happens ever 500 miles and that aren't that major in any case. But in a lot of areas, this basically means that using the interstate for its intended purpose is extremely frustrating. There's nothing that spoils a beautiful cross country drive faster than getting stuck in huge traffic snarl trying to, for example, take I-95 through DC. The fact that there is literally no way to bypass most major cities is a huge flaw in the interstate system, especially in terms of commercial trucking.

This is the reason that a toll road is being built around austin right now and there are alot of people that cant wait for it to be done. Austin traffic sucks uses i-35 for one its main city arteries.

 

[glugglug]

It is legal to shoot trespassers in Texas, correct?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I dunno, people being forced from their homes? Their towns no longer existing?

And how many people does that really cover? You people make it sound like highways are built by plotting a path through the old historic neighborhood of every city between destinations. Do you have any actual FACTS relating to how many people might be affected by this alleged highway, or just "OMG, think of the children" sort of responses?

it affects EVERYBODY, not only with the land being taken from citizens for a foreign company but also the BILLIONS of tax dollars spent to build it. Oh and its also a toll road so even though you paid for it you have to pay to use it.

 

[Linux23]

So wait. They're going to use taxpayer dollars, and then once the system opens, there are going to be tolls every couple of miles with the rates set by the private company. With the cost of fuel and now with multiple tolls, it may be cheaper to take the airplane.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Linux23
So wait. They're going to use taxpayer dollars, and then once the system opens, there are going to be tolls every couple of miles with the rates set by the private company. With the cost of fuel and now with multiple tolls, it may be cheaper to take the airplane.

From what I understand this toll road is going to be largely funding by the company building it. They will cover the cost in exchange for a long term lease to maintain and collect tolls.

And dont worry, if they make it too expensive no one will take and they will lose the money the used to build it. I am quite doubtful that will happen.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.lincolnnewsmessenger.com/detail/84695.html

Oklahoma is looking good, I applaud them for this.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lincolnnewsmessenger.com/detail/84695.html

Oklahoma is looking good, I applaud them for this.

Sadly, they are already re-routing it through Arkansas including very near Bentonville Headquarters of Wal-Mart which I'm sure is also somehow involved in the funding of all this.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I don't know the full ins and outs, but as always if the government attempts to force anyone to move or lose their personal property then it's wrong. Should anyone who is being bullied choose to resist I would fully support them. As always I hope there can be a peaceful resolution, but if not then I hope the government realizes that anything that happens as a result is 100% on them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lincolnnewsmessenger.com/detail/84695.html

Oklahoma is looking good, I applaud them for this.

Sadly, they are already re-routing it through Arkansas including very near Bentonville Headquarters of Wal-Mart which I'm sure is also somehow involved in the funding of all this.

Interesting.

 

[ElFenix]

last week texdot canned its plan for using a completely separate route for the trans texas corridor around houston and up through east texas. it's now going to improve existing right of way (US 59) in piecemeal fashion.

 

[tweaker2]

Texans in this thread, do you guys have referendum and state constitutional conventions to address these issues?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Texans in this thread, do you guys have referendum and state constitutional conventions to address these issues?

referendums yes, conventions no.

we have more referendums than anyone except alabama, maybe.

basically everyone but the governor hates the TTC. but we recognize that the roadways need upgrading. so we'll probably be content with expanding existing roadways.

i think building the I-69 bypass around houston east of katy is a mistake. grand parkway won't be able to handle that traffic, and it defeats the whole purpose of a bypass to put it through a booming suburban area.

and if I-69 takes the west loop we're just retarded. that road was just rebuilt and can't handle the traffic on it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I don't know the full ins and outs, but as always if the government attempts to force anyone to move or lose their personal property then it's wrong. Should anyone who is being bullied choose to resist I would fully support them. As always I hope there can be a peaceful resolution, but if not then I hope the government realizes that anything that happens as a result is 100% on them.

So is it your position that eminent domain is and always has been a power the government should not have, in any situation, regardless of the use for which the property is to be taken?

 

[Robor]

Meh, I wish they would have taken my land/condo. Instead they extended what was a dead end road and now there's about 50x the traffic. Peace and quiet turned into loud harleys, fart pipes, and boom-boom systems all day and night.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sadly, they are already re-routing it through Arkansas including very near Bentonville Headquarters of Wal-Mart which I'm sure is also somehow involved in the funding of all this.

Interesting.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

Dave's totally unsupported, paranoid musings are interesting . . . from a psychiatric viewpoint.

May I suggest counseling?

Your long journey this electoral season through the Lovely Land of Paul has apparently left you stranded on a barren little island where McCowen pulls some totally unspported statement completely out of his ass and you immediately start bobbing your head in eager interest.

Does this at all frighten or embarrass you?

It should.

:shocked:

 

[xochi]

Originally posted by: charrison
I just fail to see why people have problems with just the idea of transit system that would connect us to our two largest trading partners. While the politics and financing seem to be obvious issue, they do seem to take a major backseat to the idea of such a project.

I agree, this should ease congestion on I-35 and increase trade with Mexico and Canada. I Texas used to have some of the best highways in the US, not anymore. I am not fan of Rick Perry but from my point of view it seems like a win win to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Sadly, they are already re-routing it through Arkansas including very near Bentonville Headquarters of Wal-Mart which I'm sure is also somehow involved in the funding of all this.

Interesting.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

Dave's totally unsupported, paranoid musings are interesting . . . from a psychiatric viewpoint.

May I suggest counseling?

Your long journey this electoral season through the Lovely Land of Paul has apparently left you stranded on a barren little island where McCowen pulls some totally unspported statement completely out of his ass and you immediately start bobbing your head in eager interest.

Does this at all frighten or embarrass you?

It should.

:shocked:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Actually what I found interesting is the re-routing of the road through AR (it's just around the corner from me, and where my grandparents reside).

And BTW, Dave said of Paul, "just another Republican from Texas."