august948 Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 9 hours ago, gmac said: I think I'll get together with a few friends and run a railway right through your living room. You surely wouldn't object to that, would you? It would be progress, after all! Can you do it about 100 yards from my living room down Richmond to Eldridge? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 9 hours ago, gmac said: But the point is, you're taking their property for a private entity. Whether it's land or a building doesn't matter. Now if TCR was willing to pony up $100 million an acre, I'm sure people who are currently opposed might listen. Their property is not being taken, it is a forced sale of an easement. So it's more like if I forced you to sell me your house at HCAD appraised value so I could build a railway there, but you would still own the land if my railroad failed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 18 hours ago, gmac said: I think I'll get together with a few friends and run a railway right through your living room. You surely wouldn't object to that, would you? It would be progress, after all! Absolutely, we need proper rail transit in this city. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X.R. Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 (edited) 21 hours ago, Texasota said: Asked a question gmac already sorta answered. What it clearly comes down to is that most people agree with the concept of acquiring private property for the purpose of infrastructure projects *if* those projects are worth it. We just can't agree on which projects are worth it and which ones are "boondoggles" (or actively destructive to communities, the environment, etc). I appreciate you kind of honing in on the central question. But I don't even think we need to go to the "if the project is worth it" part. I would assume everyone is happy since this is like a Texas politician's dream because before Biden/Major Pete it had minimal gov't support, they bought most of the land themselves, and the attorneys I know that have worked on this indicate that they are prideful about the private (rather than public) aspect of this. Its a private company that is going to set rates according to a market that they create. This is the type of capitalistic wet dream Texas loves. Like I mentioned before, I know a handful of people who have farms along this route that purposefully bought land they knew this company would have to buy just so they could sell it to this company. Other than those 13 or so landowners who are probably just butt-hurt about not buying more land to sell to this company, I honestly can't understand why anyone else would be against this. That lawsuit is trash, btw. The remedies can't even stop construction, lulz. Edited May 6, 2021 by X.R. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 I think some people also see trains as a threat to their lifestyle. If trains get built all over the place then maybe they'll start taking away my right to drive directly to and from every single place I go. Also bike lanes. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big E Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 17 hours ago, gmac said: But the point is, you're taking their property for a private entity. Whether it's land or a building doesn't matter. Now if TCR was willing to pony up $100 million an acre, I'm sure people who are currently opposed might listen. What @cspwal said. This is a rail easement. Nobody's land is being taken here. Hell, most of the people opposing this project are probably just salty they didn't have more land to sell to make more money. This won't even disrupt the property around it, since it will be built on a viaduct that will allow everything from vehicles to animals to pass completely unimpeded underneath. No property owner loses on this deal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerNut Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 My friend's parents are still hoping this goes through so get out of their farm for above market rates. TCR offered to buy their entire property. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Big E said: What @cspwal said. This is a rail easement. Nobody's land is being taken here. Hell, most of the people opposing this project are probably just salty they didn't have more land to sell to make more money. This won't even disrupt the property around it, since it will be built on a viaduct that will allow everything from vehicles to animals to pass completely unimpeded underneath. No property owner loses on this deal. It won't be built on a viaduct, but on a berm with occasional cut throughs for animals and such, so many properties will be cut in half by a 20 foot high(or whatever it is) pile of dirt. I can understand why some people would be opposed. There are also people who just flat out do not want to move from land that's been in their family for generations, or has other non-monetary value. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big E Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 (edited) On 5/6/2021 at 7:03 PM, Ross said: It won't be built on a viaduct, but on a berm with occasional cut throughs for animals and such, so many properties will be cut in half by a 20 foot high(or whatever it is) pile of dirt. I can understand why some people would be opposed. There are also people who just flat out do not want to move from land that's been in their family for generations, or has other non-monetary value. Except NOBODY IS MOVING. As you said, there will be cuts in the berm for things to pass through. Its no more disruptive than your average railway. In fact, because of the cuts in the berm, it will probably be less disruptive. It will definitely be less disruptive than a highway or road. There is no real reason, no good reason to oppose this, at all. Edited May 10, 2021 by Big E 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Ewert Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 On 5/6/2021 at 12:17 PM, Texasota said: I think some people also see trains as a threat to their lifestyle. If trains get built all over the place then maybe they'll start taking away my right to drive directly to and from every single place I go. Also bike lanes. Okay but that's not like a real thing that will happen, so it's not a fear I feel like I should have to take seriously lol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials last week: Carlos Aguilar (TCR): https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Aguilar Testimony.pdf Yep, they want to glom as much cash from the taxpayers as possible. Change of tune from their original proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 1 hour ago, gmac said: Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials last week: Carlos Aguilar (TCR): https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Aguilar Testimony.pdf Yep, they want to glom as much cash from the taxpayers as possible. Change of tune from their original proposal. Lot of corporate/government blather and overstatement. Not surprising in this kind of document. What exactly, though, are they asking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 Curiously, they characterize the route as "Houston to North Texas". Not Houston to Dallas or DFW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 12 hours ago, august948 said: Curiously, they characterize the route as "Houston to North Texas". Not Houston to Dallas or DFW. That’s what the folks up north have started calling themselves. 12 hours ago, august948 said: Lot of corporate/government blather and overstatement. Not surprising in this kind of document. What exactly, though, are they asking for? They are asking for access to a loan program, which allows lower-interest financing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Houston19514 said: That’s what the folks up north have started calling themselves. I'm inclined to think of anything north of Waxahachie as southern Oklahoma. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Ewert Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 On 5/25/2021 at 6:51 PM, gmac said: Yep, they want to glom as much cash from the taxpayers as possible. Change of tune from their original proposal. Libertarian ideals always go out the door when it comes time to charge the tax man instead of paying him. That said, I couldn't care less. It's a great use of tax dollars, and whatever costume we have to put on it to get it over the finish line is fine by me. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 7 hours ago, Andrew Ewert said: Libertarian ideals always go out the door when it comes time to charge the tax man instead of paying him. That said, I couldn't care less. It's a great use of tax dollars, and whatever costume we have to put on it to get it over the finish line is fine by me. Glad to know you're also fully backing the I-45 construction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 9 hours ago, gmac said: Glad to know you're also fully backing the I-45 construction! how are the two projects even relatable? one is mass transit that is wanting access to loans one is another freeway widening project that has no intention of paying any of the money back 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Ewert Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 11 hours ago, gmac said: Glad to know you're also fully backing the I-45 construction! I said "great use of tax dollars" lol 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big E Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 23 hours ago, gmac said: Glad to know you're also fully backing the I-45 construction! While I actually have no problem with the I-45 project and even support certain aspects of it, that is in no way comparable to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 On 5/26/2021 at 8:57 AM, Houston19514 said: They are asking for access to a loan program, which allows lower-interest financing. So I don't see a big deal with this. Loaning taxpayer money that gets paid back in order to get infrastructure projects built seems like it's a win-win for the company and the public. Private entities can usually do things more efficiently than government agencies. Are they proposing to borrow the money and then have the debt cancelled? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 (edited) On 6/3/2021 at 8:35 AM, samagon said: how are the two projects even relatable? one is mass transit that is wanting access to loans one is another freeway widening project that has no intention of paying any of the money back Pardon me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge from prior research most highway projects are funded mostly by bond money which is raised, and then is paid back over a few decades. The money that doesn't have to be paid back is if you get grants from the Feds for certain projects or interstates (because interstates are federal). TCR will most certainly see most of its funding from private backers, but honestly would it really be that bad if they borrowed money through the form of government bonds? I don't see that as a bad thing. I've kind of lessoned my tone on this over the years as I've generally become more pragmatic. If you have the opportunity to dip into a resource of money which is at your disposal for said purpose then take it, and handle the problems with it down the road. Would it be great if it was all private money. You bet. Could that still happen? You bet. Does it absolutely need to happen for this to be a success or is it practical? No. Edited June 4, 2021 by Luminare 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) On 6/4/2021 at 4:10 PM, Luminare said: Pardon me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge from prior research most highway projects are funded mostly by bond money which is raised, and then is paid back over a few decades. The money that doesn't have to be paid back is if you get grants from the Feds for certain projects or interstates (because interstates are federal). TCR will most certainly see most of its funding from private backers, but honestly would it really be that bad if they borrowed money through the form of government bonds? I don't see that as a bad thing. I've kind of lessoned my tone on this over the years as I've generally become more pragmatic. If you have the opportunity to dip into a resource of money which is at your disposal for said purpose then take it, and handle the problems with it down the road. Would it be great if it was all private money. You bet. Could that still happen? You bet. Does it absolutely need to happen for this to be a success or is it practical? No. in order to pay for something, you do need cash in hand. so yes, there is a bond that is sold, which for the purposes of this discussion, it is the same as a loan (the difference between a loan and a bond is that the bond can be traded). so yes, they are both borrowing money that need to be paid back. the thing is, the government pays for their loan by collecting taxes, where this company will pay back their loan the same way any other company does, which is by selling products. Edited June 7, 2021 by samagon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texan Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 https://communityimpact.com/houston/cy-fair/transportation/2021/06/15/texas-central-signs-16b-construction-contract-for-high-speed-rail-project/ $16 billion contract signed with Webuild (former Salini Impregilo) for the design and construction of Texas Central's high speed railway. No word on financing from what I've seen so this just seems to be an updated version of the $14 billion design-build contract signed a couple years ago. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 1 hour ago, texan said: https://communityimpact.com/houston/cy-fair/transportation/2021/06/15/texas-central-signs-16b-construction-contract-for-high-speed-rail-project/ $16 billion contract signed with Webuild (former Salini Impregilo) for the design and construction of Texas Central's high speed railway. No word on financing from what I've seen so this just seems to be an updated version of the $14 billion design-build contract signed a couple years ago. Apologies to Wimpy... "I'll gladly pay you in 2100 for a railroad you build in 2021" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 It's cool to see this project alongside other international rail projects on Webuild's website: https://www.webuildgroup.com/en/projects/sustainable-mobility/webuild-s-railways It's very refreshing to see the kinds of partners Texas Central is working with - partners that operate at international standards. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcal Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 Quote Officials said in an email to Community Impact Newspaper they are progressing toward construction daily, and they anticipate construction will start in late 2021 or early 2022. Learn more at www.texascentral.com. Hrmmm. I mean, I haven't held my breath on any aspect of this project so far, and I'm not gonna start on this date, either. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerNut Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 Texas Supreme Court declines to review high-speed rail case, freeing company up to use eminent domain Quote The Texas Supreme Court denied the review of a case June 18 that was part of a legal challenge first launched by landowners Jim and Barbara Miles in 2016. The decision frees up Texas Central to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire tracts of land needed to construct the project. “The Court’s denial of review should put an end to over five years of contentious litigation and clear the path for Texas Central to bring the high-speed train to Texas,” Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar said in a statement. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 "Let's go steal us some land!" BTW, you can save all the hoohah about fair market price, blah blah blah. This is yet another billionaire boondoggle taking things from others and laughing all the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Texasota Posted June 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted June 19, 2021 and out of that we get what might be the most important infrastructure project in the country. 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.