Texas Central Project

[plumber2]

On 5/24/2016 at 4:17 PM, sdotwill84 said:

But howsoever will we move around the city once we get to Austin now that Uber has packed it's bags? 

Aye, Uber is just a flash in the pan.....kind of like the hoola hoop. In a few years no one will be riding Uber. Soo 2016!

[The Pragmatist]

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/spring/news/bullet-train-connecting-houston-to-dallas-to-break-ground/article_1a69270c-529c-59ea-8ea1-97b99b2f8f40.html

 

A little more of what we know, but an article nonetheless.

[BeerNut]

On 5/27/2016 at 6:47 PM, plumber2 said:

Aye, Uber is just a flash in the pan.....kind of like the hoola hoop. In a few years no one will be riding Uber. Soo 2016!

 

It might not be Uber but people will be riding in Johnny Cab in the future.

[BigFootsSocks]

8 hours ago, The Pragmatist said:

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/spring/news/bullet-train-connecting-houston-to-dallas-to-break-ground/article_1a69270c-529c-59ea-8ea1-97b99b2f8f40.html

 

A little more of what we know, but an article nonetheless.

"Article"

 

Was this a sophomore's English class assignment?

[The Pragmatist]

Hey, don't look at me. I didn't write it. I just disseminated it. 

[DNAguy]

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/17/lawmaker-eminent-domain-question-high-speed-rail/comments/

 

Paxton being asked to rule on whether eminent domain can be used for the bullet train.

[cspwal]

Time to buy some land for the railroad

 

http://swamplot.com/land-purchases-beginning-along-proposed-houston-to-dallas-bullet-train-route/2016-08-02/

 

I wonder what their percentage of needed land they'll be able to buy.  If it's only 20%, the stop the train people will have lots of ammo in a legislature fight over eminent domain.

 

If they can get 90% of the land, there's no way the legislature blocks a multi-billion dollar project to help millions of Texans because 4 families don't want to sell.

[plumber2]

I bet if this was the Keystone Pipeline instead of high speed rail, Texas legislature's would be falling all over themselves to introduce bills to push eminent domain efforts to get any holdouts out of the way.  

[Luminare]

Was at the Texas A&M game today and on the video boards outside Kyle Field, the small ones that on the plaza, were showing ads for TCR. Seems they have already started their developing some kind of campaign in aggieland. Thought this was worth mentioning.

[UtterlyUrban]

On August 13, 2016 at 11:22 AM, plumber2 said:

I bet if this was the Keystone Pipeline instead of high speed rail, Texas legislature's would be falling all over themselves to introduce bills to push eminent domain efforts to get any holdouts out of the way.  

True.  In Texas, we have the political will to move hydrocarbons around for the good of private enterprise.  We don't have the same will with rail.  

 

 

[cspwal]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Opponents-of-Houston-Dallas-high-speed-rail-boast-9289815.php

 

Quote

Opponents, however, argued the company is not a railroad because it is neither operating a rail system, nor does it own any tracks or trains.

 

Well, they haven't built the railroad yet.  Seems like a catch-22 - to build a railroad you must prove that you are a railroad by having a railroad

[infinite_jim]

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 4:11 PM, UtterlyUrban said:

True.  In Texas, we have the political will to move hydrocarbons around for the good of private enterprise.  We don't have the same will with rail.  

 

 

That's b/c moving people around amounts to helping labor. Big no no.

[IronTiger]

I'm convinced that the TCR is a long-range con game. When it was first announced they swore up and down it was all privately funded, and now they're asking for state-enforced eminent domain, which bodes poorly for non-governmental involvement. Under the 2005 SC ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London, private property can be taken for eminent domain if it benefits the public somehow (new jobs, economic uplifting, etc.) but that was very controversial on both sides and several states (both red and blue) enacted local laws attempting to limit it. A train could be argued in favor of that, though in areas it will simply run through wouldn't benefit from that, as stations would be miles away and cost a significant amount of money. Highways would work as well because they are accessible to others and do benefit the surrounding area. The Keystone pipeline is a stupid comparison because it takes up even less right of way than rail (which was brought up in the Highway 249 topic) and is an easement, meaning that you can still use land as you normally would but the company has access to maintain it just as any other utility right of way. TCR could argue eminent domain, take a massive chunk of property through legal if unethical means, not build the railroad, and sell off the land (in Kelo vs. City of New London, the developer did go bankrupt before anything was actually built). TCR hasn't revealed a business plan how it's going to operate, how much tickets would cost, or how it's going to be profitable.

Edited September 27, 2016 by IronTiger

[cspwal]

Is Kelo style eminent domain legal here in Texas?  

[IronTiger]

1 minute ago, cspwal said:

Is Kelo style eminent domain legal here in Texas?  

Eminent domain is fairly easy to get in Texas. In the late 1990s (pre Kelo), North Star Mall took out a small (non-blighted, at least originally...they may have declared it blighted) neighborhood for an expansion of their premises, and Cowboys Stadium (post Kelo) also used eminent domain to get rid of holdouts on the property they wanted to acquire. Googling shows that there's no eminent domain laws passed in Texas as a reaction to Kelo.

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3874791.html

http://ij.org/action-post/foul-ball-ten-cities-that-used-eminent-domain-for-sports-stadiums/

[cspwal]

Yay legal document!

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/GV/htm/GV.2206.htm

 

Quote

Sec. 2206.001
(b)  A governmental or private entity may not take private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking:
    (2)  is for a public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a particular private party;

 

So this could mean eminent domain on a closed loop railroad would be a no-no 

but the next section 

 

Quote

(c)  This section does not affect the authority of an entity authorized by law to take private property through the use of eminent domain for:
    (1)  transportation projects, including, but not limited to, railroads, airports, or public roads or highways;

 

So the question is, what is a railroad?

I'd argue a high speed train line counts.

I think the main issue is the last time a new railroad was built, it was the best means of travel, and a station could be setup easily as a sign on the track.  

[IronTiger]

26 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Eminent domain is fairly easy to get in Texas. In the late 1990s (pre Kelo), North Star Mall took out a small (non-blighted, at least originally...they may have declared it blighted) neighborhood for an expansion of their premises, and Cowboys Stadium (post Kelo) also used eminent domain to get rid of holdouts on the property they wanted to acquire. Googling shows that there's no eminent domain laws passed in Texas as a reaction to Kelo.

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3874791.html

http://ij.org/action-post/foul-ball-ten-cities-that-used-eminent-domain-for-sports-stadiums/

Doi, didn't read (from the article) [due to the quoting system, only the first paragraph is actually the quote and I'm sorry for the vertical floating link]

 

Quote

 

But only a few did anything meaningful. Texas’ dog and pony show resulted in a 2009 constitutional amendment that inhibited the government’s ability to take property and transfer it to private entities in most cases, but it did nothing to deter the many private entities that have the power of eminent domain in Texas from abusing it.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/article3874791.html#storylink=cpy

 

This leaves the option open that the TCR can work through loopholes and completely screw over property owners and taxpayers, for what it's worth. Again, that's just my opinion and before anyone begins any angry rebuttals, I'd like to remind you that at one time Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC seemed like a fine way to invest money.

Edited September 27, 2016 by IronTiger

[cspwal]

See here I was hoping the floating vertical text was a secret message

[SkylineView]

Does anyone understand how this issue has not already been resolved by (what I assume to be) the VAST body of legal work and precedent around oil and gas pipelines?  Pipelines are owned by public and private companies [or more broadly, "non-government profit-minded entities"] , delivering product inside and outside the state of Texas.  While they are generally below grade, some cross state and federal highways (and rivers) above grade, and you generally can't build anything on the property above them.  

 

I assume there is some text somewhere that has classified that moving oil and gas is acceptable for reason of eminent domain, but moving people is not?  Is this the issue?

[mollusk]

The idea that "you can't use eminent domain to build this railroad because it's not a railroad yet" is one of those things that sounds good if you're not really paying attention but are actually ridiculous. The circular argument is a logical fallacy that frequently appeals to those have both an agenda and an aversion to (or absence of) facts.  By definition, eminent domain is a tool that allows you to build a project.  Likewise, a tool that allows a project developer to fill in the gaps in the land acquisition by determining a price to be paid to the holdouts after due process (which means that price often ends up determined as the result of a court proceeding) is a far cry from government funding of the project.

[Luminare]

Exactly. People only associate Eminent Domain with the government because the government is who use it the most! But that doesn't mean that only government can use it or that it was invented by them. Its merely a tool used by all.

[IronTiger]

6 hours ago, SkylineView said:

Does anyone understand how this issue has not already been resolved by (what I assume to be) the VAST body of legal work and precedent around oil and gas pipelines?  Pipelines are owned by public and private companies [or more broadly, "non-government profit-minded entities"] , delivering product inside and outside the state of Texas.  While they are generally below grade, some cross state and federal highways (and rivers) above grade, and you generally can't build anything on the property above them.  

 

I assume there is some text somewhere that has classified that moving oil and gas is acceptable for reason of eminent domain, but moving people is not?  Is this the issue?

You can't build anything on a pipeline easement but you can access it and use it like anything else. Drive on it, let cattle go free on it, let grass grow on it, with the only caveat that there's no permanent structures on it and whoever owns can do tree trimming (or whatever) for maintenance. But we're not talking a clear-cut area with some power poles above or flags marking a buried pipeline, we're talking about basically a permanent no-go area 100 feet wide at the very least. The same applies to highways.

[mollusk]

8 hours ago, IronTiger said:

But we're not talking a clear-cut area with some power poles above or flags marking a buried pipeline, we're talking about basically a permanent no-go area 100 feet wide at the very least. The same applies to highways.

 

Actually, no.  The right of way will be 100' at most, and the entire railway will be elevated with viaducts to allow livestock movement and when crossing roads.

[IronTiger]

1 hour ago, mollusk said:

 

Actually, no.  The right of way will be 100' at most, and the entire railway will be elevated with viaducts to allow livestock movement and when crossing roads.

I haven't had my coffee yet, but the official website says that there will be "plenty of overpasses and underpasses to keep people moving". I don't see anything on the official website that says it will be elevated the entire way. "Texas Central will work closely with landowners and communities on ways to safeguard their ability to farm, ranch, commute and generally go about their lives. We are committed to finding land-use solutions that work for everyone," implies that they would want as few elevated/depressed areas as possible, which makes good business sense but is a far cry from being elevated the entire way. I'm also thinking that the 100' right of way is *not* the maximum but the minimum. They go on talking about how it will try to share space with power/other transportation right of ways, but they also say that "can be deployed with a very narrow footprint (approximately 100 ft. wide), including security fencing". The Project page also says....

THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED

ABOUT 100 FEET

That’s the width of the Texas Central track, about the size of an average Farm to Market road.

The track will run along existing rights-of-way...

 

/////

They refer to that as the "width of the track" not "width of the right of way" or "width of the easement". I can assume that the "width of the track" is something as pictured on their website in what I presume is Europe through otherwise unpopulated farmland, and not a single train being 100 feet wide (or something). But still, why that? Either Texas Central is getting "right of way" and "width of the actual system" confused or they're deliberately skewing numbers to make it look like they'll need less land than they actually do. Either scenario is disingenuous.

 

 

[ADCS]

IT, if you really care about the answers to those questions, go to the meeting tonight. Bring them up. There will be engineers there to help with those details.

 

However, I think you'll find it most effective if you're not trying to force your opinion on the project's experts.

[SkylineView]

I wasn't trying to twist a knife, but was just interested how, specifically, this issue has not already been resolved (up or down).

 

The site access issue is one I had not considered.  I'm assuming there's also something about nuisance (since the trains make noise).  BNSF is for-profit though... I assume they've had to build green-field rail in the last 50 years.

[mfastx]

Hasn't it been understood since day 1 that they would have to use eminent domain for some portions of folks weren't willing to sell?  Not sure why this is being discussed. 

[BigFootsSocks]

Their FB page (which btw, is horribly inefficient at "getting the word out" since FB is the worst) mentioned that "after listening to landowners and their concerns, the line will be elevated for most of the route"

 

So the issue of it being a "Great Wall of Texas" seems to have dwindled a bit.

[UtterlyUrban]

9 hours ago, BigFootsSocks said:

Their FB page (which btw, is horribly inefficient at "getting the word out" since FB is the worst) mentioned that "after listening to landowners and their concerns, the line will be elevated for most of the route"

 

So the issue of it being a "Great Wall of Texas" seems to have dwindled a bit.

Wow! This is really interesting.  Conceptually in reminds me of some of the HSR lines I have been on in China..... much of them are elevated ..... for  hundreds of miles.....

[Luminare]

*please erase this post* thanks

Edited October 2, 2016 by Luminare