Texas Central Project

[gmac]

15 hours ago, Texasota said:

and out of that we get what might be the most important infrastructure project in the country.

Thanks for having your personal assistant drop by, Drayton.

[Texasota]

Wait, why am I just the assistant? At least give me the dignity of being someone on the board!

[Houston19514]

On 6/18/2021 at 5:16 PM, gmac said:

"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.

Stop posting lies.

[gmac]

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Stop posting lies.

Lies? It's an opinion, like 99% of the other drivel people post on subjects that are contentious.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, gmac said:

Lies? It's an opinion, like 99% of the other drivel people post on subjects that are contentious.

Sorry, no.  It's either stealing or it's not.  In this case, no one is stealing anything and there is zero indication of such.

[gmac]

40 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Sorry, no.  It's either stealing or it's not.  In this case, no one is stealing anything and there is zero indication of such.

I consider eminent domain by a private company to be theft. You don't.

I wish TCR all the worst in their efforts and look forward to a miserable failure of this fairytale project. I promise not to come to y'all's giddy party if this thing actually gets built 🤣

[sapo2367]

Well I for one like trains, hopefully this controversial opinion will stand 🚄

[HouTXRanger]

I just hope everyone so against the rail on the grounds of eminent domain voices their concerns to their representative. After all, there are like a dozen of projects for pipelines and other utility easements in various phases of work right now, not to mention the massive I45 project which is projected to displace even more vulnerable people than the rail. I'm sure they're just as concerned about those uses of eminent domain too.

[mfastx]

Railroads have always been granted eminent domain, this is nothing new or controversial. 

[Houston19514]

16 hours ago, gmac said:

I consider eminent domain by a private company to be theft. You don't.

Perhaps what you are meaning to say is that you wish the law considered all eminent domain by all private companies to be theft.  But that is not the law. The law clearly allows for eminent domain by certain private companies in certain situations; ergo, in those situations, it is, by definition, not theft. This is simply not a matter of opinion.

[Response]

17 hours ago, gmac said:

I consider eminent domain by a private company to be theft. You don't.

I wish TCR all the worst in their efforts and look forward to a miserable failure of this fairytale project. I promise not to come to y'all's giddy party if this thing actually gets built 🤣

Are you Rowdy?

[samagon]

21 hours ago, gmac said:

I consider eminent domain by a private company to be theft. You don't.

I wish TCR all the worst in their efforts and look forward to a miserable failure of this fairytale project. I promise not to come to y'all's giddy party if this thing actually gets built 🤣

do you feel the same for freeways, or any government infrastructure projects?

is it just private companies?

how about railway used for freight? how about pipelines?

CenterPoint isn't a government entity, how about if they need to build a new powerline so that power can reach the new subdivisions out in the Katy Prairie, but in order to do so, they have to buy land from a rancher?

 

[cspwal]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

do you feel the same for freeways, or any government infrastructure projects?

is it just private companies?

how about railway used for freight? how about pipelines?

CenterPoint isn't a government entity, how about if they need to build a new powerline so that power can reach the new subdivisions out in the Katy Prairie, but in order to do so, they have to buy land from a rancher?

 

The argument I always heard for eminent domain power for infrastructure projects is without it, the last person to sell has an incentive to set a ridiculously large price, since a multi-billion dollar railroad/pipeline/road/etc that needs to cross their land or else it fails would have to pay vastly more to buy it.  It's a point on the supply demand curve where supply goes to near 0, demand goes to the maximum of the project, so the price could be whatever number the landowner could wring out of the company building the project.  By making it so they have to sell at a normal price, it enables companies to build infrastructure as opposed to requiring governments to decide on every single piece of infrastructure that needs to be built.

[Luminare]

On 6/18/2021 at 4:08 PM, BeerNut said:

Texas Supreme Court declines to review high-speed rail case, freeing company up to use eminent domain

 

Wait...let me get this straight. Are the courts saying that TCR is in fact...a railroad?! What a shocker.

On 6/20/2021 at 2:33 PM, Houston19514 said:

Sorry, no.  It's either stealing or it's not.  In this case, no one is stealing anything and there is zero indication of such.

If one were to get technical, it is stealing in a sense if one does not wish to make the trade (land for money). What most don't understand is that by virtue of living in Texas you essentially agree to the social contract within Texas (the Texas Constitution, and its laws) and therefore you sign on when you own property that if it comes to a point where someone requires eminent domain on your land then you have to understand that by law its something you will have to agree too. By owning property in that state you have agreed to a contract and whatever laws bind it. Its a law Texans as a people agreed to that in this circumstances baring what eminent domain "technically" is, in this context its a lawful act of the state for the benefit of the greater good. If one doesn't like it, then change the law, right? Thought it would be unfair not to point this out. In a moral sense I can agree with opponents on this, but on the letter of the law you have to side with the state and those who have signed on with the social contract of the state.

On 6/20/2021 at 3:17 PM, gmac said:

I consider eminent domain by a private company to be theft. You don't.

I wish TCR all the worst in their efforts and look forward to a miserable failure of this fairytale project. I promise not to come to y'all's giddy party if this thing actually gets built 🤣

I'm sure there won't ever be a situation where the reverse is true and its something that you want. No that will NEVER EVER happen at all. I don't know, maybe consider the thought.

On 6/21/2021 at 8:20 AM, Houston19514 said:

Perhaps what you are meaning to say is that you wish the law considered all eminent domain by all private companies to be theft.  But that is not the law. The law clearly allows for eminent domain by certain private companies in certain situations; ergo, in those situations, it is, by definition, not theft. This is simply not a matter of opinion.

Agree.

On 6/21/2021 at 12:46 PM, samagon said:

do you feel the same for freeways, or any government infrastructure projects?

is it just private companies?

how about railway used for freight? how about pipelines?

CenterPoint isn't a government entity, how about if they need to build a new powerline so that power can reach the new subdivisions out in the Katy Prairie, but in order to do so, they have to buy land from a rancher?

 

I'm just going to say right now. A waste of breath asking these questions. At this point, this a not about reason, or intellectual honesty, but its simply about presenting a stance which signals "I'm part of this tribe here, and you are part of that tribe. My tribe good. Your tribe bad." This is also why potentially this same person will be for the side of ED for one thing over the other, but its not logically consistent. It doesn't matter. Its a idea that denotes an affiliation with a team or tribe. Its like me trying to argue with a Texas Longhorn that the Texas A&M Aggies are better haha. The merits don't matter in this case, just who thinks they have more power and authority behind their position.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Luminare

[Ross]

It would help if the people who want TCR built no matter what had some empathy for the people who will lose land they didn't want to sell, probably at below market price because that's what usually happens, rather than just saying "F the landowners, me getting to Dallas on rail is more important than their feelings".

[Texasota]

Well that's why the details actually matter. Are people losing their land, or are they losing a portion of it as an easement? Is it on packed earth (and effectively a wall) or a viaduct? Are they receiving fair market value or not? 

Those of us against all or parts of the I-45 expansion are generally opposed to specific impacts on specific communities primarily. Also some of us believe there are just better ways to use billions of dollars to improve local transportation, but that doesn't apply to a privately developed railroad (that I admittedly support conceptually anyway).

[Luminare]

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

Well that's why the details actually matter. Are people losing their land, or are they losing a portion of it as an easement? Is it on packed earth (and effectively a wall) or a viaduct? Are they receiving fair market value or not? 

Those of us against all or parts of the I-45 expansion are generally opposed to specific impacts on specific communities primarily. Also some of us believe there are just better ways to use billions of dollars to improve local transportation, but that doesn't apply to a privately developed railroad (that I admittedly support conceptually anyway).

This is why above I point out its important to try to maintain reasonable consistency in arguments such as this. Its why I'm both for TCR and I-45 Expansion. Both help transit, both use ED, both are billions of dollars in costs, both will take years to finish, both are not perfect but will help move us to a better place. While I do lean more on the side of TCR than I-45 I can also understand the necessity of expanding probably one of the busiest and most important arteries in the city. Will I-45 be more destructive? Maybe? Probably? Will TCR be just as destructive? Maybe? Probably Not? Either way we do have to consider that in the positions of whoever is in the way we have to put ourselves in their shoes and remember that while the rest of us gain they do lose (even if its in the short term). Then again losing property is a double wammy because owning and holding property is one of the easiest ways to secure wealth and is an appreciating asset. Important to keep in mind.

Also remember that your comment "some of us believe there are just better ways to use billions of dollars" is literally mirror version of GMAC's statement. No better or worse. An inverse and mirror imagine. In this thread though TCR reigns as it should as its what this topic is about, but in the I-45 context its the highway that rules. Both sides can (and probably will) ultimately get what they want which is expanded options for transit in whichever they prefer because if Houston is become the top city it is destined to be, all hands need to be on deck.

[ADCS]

19 hours ago, Ross said:

It would help if the people who want TCR built no matter what had some empathy for the people who will lose land they didn't want to sell, probably at below market price because that's what usually happens, rather than just saying "F the landowners, me getting to Dallas on rail is more important than their feelings".

If those folks weren't consistently sabotaging what people in the cities want, with their outsized political influence, maybe, just maybe, their crocodile tears would get through.

 

But this has never been about landowners who don't want to sell - they don't exist (since it's just an easement they're selling - any opposition is negotiating for a better deal). It's the neighbors who are annoyed that they aren't getting a cut of the pie in any sense that are trying to scuttle this. Just petty rural politics.

[Ross]

3 hours ago, ADCS said:

If those folks weren't consistently sabotaging what people in the cities want, with their outsized political influence, maybe, just maybe, their crocodile tears would get through.

 

But this has never been about landowners who don't want to sell - they don't exist (since it's just an easement they're selling - any opposition is negotiating for a better deal). It's the neighbors who are annoyed that they aren't getting a cut of the pie in any sense that are trying to scuttle this. Just petty rural politics.

There are a lot of people in rural areas who don't want to lose any of their property, even if it's just an easement. A friend who has 530 acres near Victoria had to give in and sign the papers for a pipeline easement after his attorney told him that it wasn't worth fighting. So, he now has a 2400 feet long 50 feet wide clear cut easement running diagonally through the most wooded part of his land. He did not want the pipeline, he didn't want the money, he just wanted his land left alone. The pipeline could have changed the route to run along the road, but that might have cost them more, so screw landowners. The construction also destroyed an entire hunting season on the most productive portion of his land, running from mid-November through March.

I don't think you can speak for all of the affected landowners and claim they are just holding out for more money. You don't know them, you have never met them, and you have no clue how the rail might impact them. You just sit there in your chair, holding up a big middle finger to them and their lives, simply because you want your life easier. 

The rail should have been routed along the freeways to minimize impacts on rural areas. After looking at the maps on the project site, it is obvious that their claim that they would use existing power line easements is a lie. Their own maps show them taking right of way adjacent to the power lines, requiring the removal of millions of trees. So much for being green. Here's the alignment  map page https://www.texascentral.com/alignment-maps/

I am not affected by rail. I will never be taking rail to Dallas, since I will continue to drive to get there, which costs far less than any of the proposed fares. If it gets built, and fails, then the investors need to lose every damn dime they put in it. 

[ADCS]

3 hours ago, Ross said:

There are a lot of people in rural areas who don't want to lose any of their property, even if it's just an easement. A friend who has 530 acres near Victoria had to give in and sign the papers for a pipeline easement after his attorney told him that it wasn't worth fighting. So, he now has a 2400 feet long 50 feet wide clear cut easement running diagonally through the most wooded part of his land. He did not want the pipeline, he didn't want the money, he just wanted his land left alone. The pipeline could have changed the route to run along the road, but that might have cost them more, so screw landowners. The construction also destroyed an entire hunting season on the most productive portion of his land, running from mid-November through March.

I don't think you can speak for all of the affected landowners and claim they are just holding out for more money. You don't know them, you have never met them, and you have no clue how the rail might impact them. You just sit there in your chair, holding up a big middle finger to them and their lives, simply because you want your life easier. 

The rail should have been routed along the freeways to minimize impacts on rural areas. After looking at the maps on the project site, it is obvious that their claim that they would use existing power line easements is a lie. Their own maps show them taking right of way adjacent to the power lines, requiring the removal of millions of trees. So much for being green. Here's the alignment  map page https://www.texascentral.com/alignment-maps/

I am not affected by rail. I will never be taking rail to Dallas, since I will continue to drive to get there, which costs far less than any of the proposed fares. If it gets built, and fails, then the investors need to lose every damn dime they put in it. 

Pretty damn presumptuous of what and who I do and do not know, aren't you?

 

And I do hold that middle finger high, because their entire scope of life is that they owe nothing to anyone beyond their own small community. I reject that entirely, and despair that it takes the force of state to bring them around to the folly of that view.

Edited June 26, 2021 by ADCS

[BeerNut]

11 hours ago, Ross said:

The rail should have been routed along the freeways to minimize impacts on rural areas.

In what world would TXDOT restrict themselves for future expansion?

[Ross]

2 hours ago, BeerNut said:

In what world would TXDOT restrict themselves for future expansion?

Definitely an issue to resolve if freeways were used for rail. However, would freeway expansion be necessary if rail was present and taking cars off the road as suggested by the TCR plans? Would using freeway RoW and building on viaduct the entire route still allow for freeway revisions? Would the rent for freeway RoW help the State fund other transportation improvements?

I am not totally opposed to HSR. I am more concerned about the attitudes displayed towards the people in rural areas who will be net losers if the project advances. Treating them as impediments to be stomped on without understanding their feelings and the root of their opposition to losing their land for something that provides them zero benefit is not good. 

[BeerNut]

HSR maximum curve radius at speed are often incompatible with highway RoWs.  Brightline in FL plans to build in RoWs. Their trains will be travelling at less than half the speed and the corridors aren't as developed as I45(I assume that's the one you're talking about).

I think some of attitudes expressed are just another manifestation continuing divide between rural and urban areas.  Personally I have no property on proposed route but the one family I do know is excited about the possibility of selling.  As discussed earlier in this thread I think the people that wouldn't mind selling are staying quiet because it's such an emotional issue.   If my friend's parents didn't tell them till I brought it up...

I wonder how much the people in this area care about the train...

[ADCS]

On 6/26/2021 at 9:21 AM, BeerNut said:

HSR maximum curve radius at speed are often incompatible with highway RoWs.  Brightline in FL plans to build in RoWs. Their trains will be travelling at less than half the speed and the corridors aren't as developed as I45(I assume that's the one you're talking about).

I think some of attitudes expressed are just another manifestation continuing divide between rural and urban areas.  Personally I have no property on proposed route but the one family I do know is excited about the possibility of selling.  As discussed earlier in this thread I think the people that wouldn't mind selling are staying quiet because it's such an emotional issue.   If my friend's parents didn't tell them till I brought it up...

I wonder how much the people in this area care about the train...

Ding ding ding. The *neighbors* want to stick it to the folks in the big cities, or try to wrench concessions from TSR. The people on the route are getting way more than fair-market value for what's essentially pastureland. The cries of "the poor rural landowners" are almost entirely disingenuous.

[Ross]

3 hours ago, ADCS said:

Ding ding ding. The *neighbors* want to stick it to the folks in the big cities, or try to wrench concessions from TSR. The people on the route are getting way more than fair-market value for what's essentially pastureland. The cries of "the poor rural landowners" are almost entirely disingenuous.

Some of those folks don't want money. They just want their land to be left alone. Given a choice, they wouldn't sell, even if offered millions per acre. There's nothing wrong with that, either. They will ultimately lose, but at least we can try to understand why they feel the way they do. They are not all mercenary jerks looking for more money.

[Andrew Ewert]

14 hours ago, Ross said:

Some of those folks don't want money. They just want their land to be left alone. Given a choice, they wouldn't sell, even if offered millions per acre. There's nothing wrong with that, either. They will ultimately lose, but at least we can try to understand why they feel the way they do. They are not all mercenary jerks looking for more money.

If in fact those people do exist, that's just not a compelling argument for me. A few hundred or a thousand people hamstringing a process that could make life better for hundreds of thousands or a million, not to mention the environment... that just reads as selfish. I'm not asking them to be thrilled about it, and I'm not saying that some of them won't be net losers in all of this (I think the business owners along I-45 stand to lose more in the long term than the landowners along the route). I just really chafe at the idea that anyone should wield wildly outsize influence like that. Especially when we're talking about people whose land is there only by luck of the draw.

[samagon]

On 6/25/2021 at 1:39 PM, Luminare said:

Also remember that your comment "some of us believe there are just better ways to use billions of dollars" is literally mirror version of GMAC's statement. No better or worse. An inverse and mirror imagine. In this thread though TCR reigns as it should as its what this topic is about, but in the I-45 context its the highway that rules. Both sides can (and probably will) ultimately get what they want which is expanded options for transit in whichever they prefer because if Houston is become the top city it is destined to be, all hands need to be on deck.

a key difference though...

TCR is a private company, while they might borrow money, they intend on paying it back with money raised through ticket sales.

the i45 rebuild is being covered by TXDot, while they will borrow money also, that's where the similarity ends, because the bonds used to pay for this will be paid for with taxes collected, either gas tax, or other taxes.

from the point of view of ED, yes, they are both going to end up taking land from people who don't want to have their land taken. that sucks, and hopefully the taking doesn't disrupt too much.

[BeerNut]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

a key difference though...

TCR is a private company, while they might borrow money, they intend on paying it back with money raised through ticket sales.

the i45 rebuild is being covered by TXDot, while they will borrow money also, that's where the similarity ends, because the bonds used to pay for this will be paid for with taxes collected, either gas tax, or other taxes.

from the point of view of ED, yes, they are both going to end up taking land from people who don't want to have their land taken. that sucks, and hopefully the taking doesn't disrupt too much.

People keep focusing just on the ticket sales but I believe there is also development component to this project. 

[HouKev]

Video posted this month from WeBuild, the company contracted for construction.

https://texashighspeedrail.webuildgroup.com/en

 

[cougarpad]

20 hours ago, BeerNut said:

People keep focusing just on the ticket sales but I believe there is also development component to this project. 

That is a biggie that people dont understand when they think of this project. At the Houston Station you will have rental space for business, plus hotels and restaurants most certainly will want to build around the station. It not just jobs for the rail itself but in a much braoder view the jobs and commerce that will be created around each station. That station out by Bryan will most certainly see a positive impact when it comes to new business and increase in commerce.