Trans-texas Corridor

[pineda]

Public Meeting brochure

TxDOT will be holding several meetings regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor beginning October 19th throughout several counties in Texas.

This is Governor Rick Perry's 'baby' and it is still extremely controversial for many reasons such as; unnecessary destruction of rural farmland, loss of natural habitat, devaluation of property values and community life, exorbitant costs for what many consider to be redundant roadways, etc.

If you have the opportunity to attend any of these meetings, please do so and report back to this board with your interpretations of what went on.

Priority Corridor map

[MaxConcrete]

Public Meeting brochure

If you have the opportunity to attend any of these meetings, please do so and report back to this board with your interpretations of what went on.

Priority Corridor map

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm working a contract in the I-35 corridor and I will attend a meeting and provide a report. My understanding is that these meetings will be "open house" style with only written public comment. I'm working with others to establish a statewide opposition movement. See my web site

http://www.fireRicWilliamson.com

which has links to other opposition sites, including two in Houston.

http://www.firericwilliamson.com/links.htm

This is a very serious matter, in my opinion. We could see steep tolls on many or most of our existing freeways/interstates to finance the Trans-Texas boondoggle.

[pineda]

I just checked out your website and I LOVED IT! Count me in! I would like to provide a link from your site to one that I'm a member of to stop the Grand Parkway. I'm guessing that you're already in contact with the group opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor. I wonder if Ric or Johnny have seen this site yet....

[pineda]

Anti-tolling site pops up on Web

By:Allen Jones , Managing Editor, 1960 Sun, 10/04/2004

An anti-highway to toll road conversion site has popped up on the World Wide Web and is accusing the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) of a little misdirection when it comes to its conversion proposal for SH 249, near Tomball. A transportation department spokesperson told The Potpourri those accusations are not all that the Web site may tout them to be.

In July, TxDOT officials unveiled a plan to convert existing portions of SH 249 from Beltway 8 to a point near Spring-Cypress Road to a toll road. Money generated would be used to levy bonds to build a bypass to skirt traffic west of Tomball's main intersection of SH 249 and FM 2920. Money would also be used to pay for another project that would extend the highway to Navasota. Feeder lanes would remain open and free to the public along the highway's path.

The project, claim TxDOT officials, is needed to relieve traffic congestion. Those transportation officials have also said tolling may be the only option available to get the projects underway within a relatively short time period. Waiting on traditional funding from the state could take another 20 years since they claim state and federal road money is already scarce.

The TxDOT proposal has come under intense scrutiny from are residents who fear a toll road would hurt business by convincing those who shop the area to take their money to places accessible for free. Others complain the toll road would hurt their personal pocket books by forcing them to pay to use the road simply to go a short distance to the grocery store or to church.

Before the proposal can be approved, it must go before Texas Transportation Commissioners and before Harris County Commissioner's Court for final authorization.

A letter to The Potpourri's editor, from anti-toll road activist Mark Quakenbush, pointed to the Web site Cashtrap.com, claiming the site reveals that although TxDOT officials claim that toll revenue from conversion of SH 249 can only be used for improvement or extension of SH 249, toll revenue may actually be used anywhere inside or outside the county or area served by the toll road authority.

Cashtrap stands for Citizens Against State Highway to Toll Road, and a link on the site to contact the site's publisher listed mquakenbush@yahoo.com. The e-mail address, however, had been deactivated according Yahoo!'s Web server. A phone listing for Quakenbush was not listed.

The Web site points to a discrepancy in a portion of the Texas Transportation Code, Senate Bill 1463, which allows use of the revenue inside or outside the county. According to Quakenbush's letter, SB 1463 was signed by Governor Rick Perry two days before another bill, House Bill 3588, which limits the toll revenue to use on the roadway where it was collected.

"This conflict in the existing code allows room for the tolls collected on SH 249 to be used to build Steve Radack's roads in Katy or Sylvia Garcia's roads in LaPorte," Quakenbush wrote. "Why shouldn't these commissioners vote for SH 249 conversion if they can use our money for their projects? TxDOT's continual reference to HB 3588 instead of the actual Transportation Code allows this misdirection to take place."

TxDOT's Houston division public information officer, Janelle Gbur, said the letter and the Web site seem to be only "half true." Gbur had not seen or heard of the Web site prior to being contacted by The Potpourri, but said everything boils down to one word, "conversion."

She said money collected on the portion of the road proposed for conversion can only be used for maintenance, upgrades or extensions of that road. Funds collected on other portions of the project can be utilized for other road projects "that benefit regional mobility."

"The rules are very specific," Gbur explained. "The portion of SH 249 that is not built yet, that revenue can be reinvested in other infrastructure improvements in the community."

She said legislators asked TxDOT to develop the rules in late 2003 and they were written into the Transpiration Code.

"The converted portion of the highway, tolls can only be used to finance the converted segment and can only be reinvested on that roadway. For the portion of the SH 249 proposal that would extend the road, funds must first be used to retire debt. Surplus can only be applied to complementary road systems that would make it a better toll road. Funding a regional project that may relieve congestion could be justified. But we couldn't ship the money to West Texas, for instance. It would have to benefit the region the toll road is in."

Gbur said there are a number of rumors circulating about the SH 249 proposal. She said that although tolling would allow TxDOT to build the bypass and extension at one time, commuters must keep in mind that the road is three different projects.

"There are a lot of folks that feel compelled to fashion their own interpretation of the Transportation Code and get rumors going in a negative direction," Gbur said.

Quakenbush also claims, in his letter to The Potpourri, that elected officials have also been handing out a little "misdirection."

Hundreds of letters have been written to them stating objections to the impending SH 249 conversion and invariably we are told we should contact the county commissioners who will vote on the issue," he wrote. "Apparently, our legislators believe that once they have voted to allow these conversions to take place, they are no longer responsible."

State Representatives Peggy Hamric (R-District 126) and Corbin Van Arsdale (R-District 130) appeared before Transportation Commissioners Aug. 26, urging the officials to think again about approving the SH 249 proposal. According to Van Arsdale, he is fine with the conversion aspect of the proposal but he thinks it is unfair to spend the funds generated between Beltway 8 and Spring-Cypress Road anything else other than the main lane construction of the bypass. He previously told The Potpourri, "Let Navasota users pay for their own portion."

Hamric said she didn't think SH 249 would have even been considered for conversion. She said a number of residents in her district have voiced their opposition to the proposal, and added her voice in saying tolling could hurt business.

[MaxConcrete]

I just checked out your website and I LOVED IT!

I wonder if Ric or Johnny have seen this site yet....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad you like it. I hope Williamson has seen it.

The web site is not against the Grand Parkway. In fact, I'm for it. The web site is focused on toll road conversions and the Trans-Texas Corridor. I don't want to see Texas become the toll road capital of the world just so Perry can finance the unneeded Trans-Texas corridor.

[pineda]

I consider the Grand Parkway another unneeded new toll road project whose revenues will also be used to fund other toll road projects, but I still respect your point of view (and your website). Recently, I was reading the transcripts of the TTC and there was some mention by Johnny and Ric of something they had seen recently on "some website" they didn't appreciate. Maybe that was yours!

[pineda]

(According to the following article, what I'm understanding Judge Alan B. Sadler to be saying is: The federal government is still sending us (Texas) the gas tax money; it's just that we're spending it on NAFTA projects in the Valley, the Katy Freeway expansion project (which is already way over cost projections) and the Trans-Texas Corridor (which was supposedly privately funded). So, this is why TxDOT is trying to convert free roads into tollroads, because Governor Rick Perry has set his priorities on a project that will probably never come to fruition anyway? And, how does Montgomery County expect to get reimbursed for their "pass-through" tolling; by drivers, by years, how will it be measured? This article asks more questions than it answers...)

Road bond could total $150 million

By: Burton Speakman , Courier staff 10/12/2004

THE WOODLANDS - County Judge Alan B. Sadler said Monday the bond issue required to build roads throughout Montgomery County under a new mechanism called "pass-through" tolling could total $150 million.

Sadler, speaking at the Monday luncheon of the Commercial Real Estate Association of Montgomery County, said the bond issue is expected to cost between $120 and $150 million, but could be more if Texas 105 east of Conroe is added to the project list.

The bond issue should be on the ballot for voters sometime in 2005, he said.

"Montgomery County is already 7-10 years behind in the construction of new roads," Sadler said. It is also growing by 15,000 to 18,000 residents each year.

The money raised through the new funding mechanism would act as seed money to get local construction projects started that otherwise would not be able to begin for the next 10 years, he said.

Bond funding would pay for projects on FM 1488, FM 1314 and expansions to Airport Road in the first phase, Sadler said. The Texas 105 east project could be added later.

Pass-through tolling was developed as a way to help push projects forward on a local level, since the state and federal government do not have enough highway funds available for all projects, Sadler said. "Pass-through tolls are the only way to create new road projects."

In "pass-through" tolling, local governments provide the funding up front on eligible state road and highway projects; in return, the state pays the county back for the roadways over three to seven years based on traffic counts on the roadways or time, Sadler said.

The method of repayment is still being negotiated.

Sadler expects an agreement with the state will be reached for the pass-through toll program by January 2005.

Money paid back to the county will pay for projects in the second phase of the plan. This includes the Fish Creek Expansion, which is crucial because it will serve as a centrally located alternative to travel north and south through Montgomery County, Sadler said.

Sadler also mentioned FM 2978 and FM 1097 as candidates for the second phase of county projects.

As for the lack of state funding, Sadler said Texas is still getting its share of highway funds from the gas tax, but that money is being sent to other projects throughout the state, he said.

A lot of projects are being done in the Valley along the U.S.-Mexican border that are important to the North American Free Trade Agreement, Sadler said.

In the Houston area, much of the funding is going toward the Katy Freeway and some also is being diverted to Governor Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor.

"Unfortunately this is where our money is going," he said.

"It's either do this (pass-through tolling) or nothing. It's that simple and it's that dire," he said.

"My preference would be to do all the roadwork without toll projects," Sadler said "The problem is the money is not there and probably won't be there for the next 10 years."

Sadler also discussed two other pure toll projects the county is planning.

One is a direct toll route from Texas 242 to Interstate 45 on both sides of the interstate, he said.

Another will be a similar project on Texas 105 in Conroe that will potentially go beyond Loop 336 South to connect motorists to the interstate.

Responding to questions from the audience, Sadler provided updates on other projects as well.

These include Interstate 45, which should be finished to FM 3083 by 2009, with construction taking the interstate to the Walker County line to begin in 2010, he said.

"I think once we have the Interstate finished up to the Walker County line then we'll have it under control," Sadler said.

Grand Parkway also is progressing well, he said.

[adagio]

(According to the following article, what I'm understanding Judge Alan B. Sadler to be saying is: The federal government is still sending us (Texas)  the gas tax money; it's just that we're spending it on NAFTA projects in the Valley, the Katy Freeway expansion project (which is already way over cost projections) and the Trans-Texas Corridor (which was supposedly privately funded). So, this is why TxDOT is trying to convert free roads into tollroads, because Governor Rick Perry has set his priorities on a project that will probably never come to fruition anyway? And, how does Montgomery County expect to get reimbursed for their "pass-through" tolling; by drivers, by years, how will it be measured? This article asks more questions than it answers...) 

Road bond could total $150 million

By: Burton Speakman , Courier staff 10/12/2004

THE WOODLANDS - County Judge Alan B. Sadler said Monday the bond issue required to build roads throughout Montgomery County under a new mechanism called "pass-through" tolling could total $150 million.

Sadler, speaking at the Monday luncheon of the Commercial Real Estate Association of Montgomery County, said the bond issue is expected to cost between $120 and $150 million, but could be more if Texas 105 east of Conroe is added to the project list.

The bond issue should be on the ballot for voters sometime in 2005, he said.

"Montgomery County is already 7-10 years behind in the construction of new roads," Sadler said. It is also growing by 15,000 to 18,000 residents each year. 

The money raised through the new funding mechanism would act as seed money to get local construction projects started that otherwise would not be able to begin for the next 10 years, he said.

Bond funding would pay for projects on FM 1488, FM 1314 and expansions to Airport Road in the first phase, Sadler said. The Texas 105 east project could be added later.

Pass-through tolling was developed as a way to help push projects forward on a local level, since the state and federal government do not have enough highway funds available for all projects, Sadler said. "Pass-through tolls are the only way to create new road projects."

In "pass-through" tolling, local governments provide the funding up front on eligible state road and highway projects; in return, the state pays the county back for the roadways over three to seven years based on traffic counts on the roadways or time, Sadler said.

The method of repayment is still being negotiated.

Sadler expects an agreement with the state will be reached for the pass-through toll program by January 2005.

Money paid back to the county will pay for projects in the second phase of the plan. This includes the Fish Creek Expansion, which is crucial because it will serve as a centrally located alternative to travel north and south through Montgomery County, Sadler said.

Sadler also mentioned FM 2978 and FM 1097 as candidates for the second phase of county projects.

As for the lack of state funding, Sadler said Texas is still getting its share of highway funds from the gas tax, but that money is being sent to other projects throughout the state, he said.

A lot of projects are being done in the Valley along the U.S.-Mexican border that are important to the North American Free Trade Agreement, Sadler said.

In the Houston area, much of the funding is going toward the Katy Freeway and some also is being diverted to Governor Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor. 

"Unfortunately this is where our money is going," he said.

"It's either do this (pass-through tolling) or nothing. It's that simple and it's that dire," he said.

"My preference would be to do all the roadwork without toll projects," Sadler said "The problem is the money is not there and probably won't be there for the next 10 years."

Sadler also discussed two other pure toll projects the county is planning.

One is a direct toll route from Texas 242 to Interstate 45 on both sides of the interstate, he said.

Another will be a similar project on Texas 105 in Conroe that will potentially go beyond Loop 336 South to connect motorists to the interstate.

Responding to questions from the audience, Sadler provided updates on other projects as well.

These include Interstate 45, which should be finished to FM 3083 by 2009, with construction taking the interstate to the Walker County line to begin in 2010, he said.

"I think once we have the Interstate finished up to the Walker County line then we'll have it under control," Sadler said.

Grand Parkway also is progressing well, he said. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is Sadler talking about the Grand Parkway that is slated to go into Harris County or the Grand Parkway project that residents of Spring would like to see go up to Montgomery County?

[MaxConcrete]

(According to the following article, what I'm understanding Judge Alan B. Sadler to be saying is: The federal government is still sending us (Texas)  the gas tax money; it's just that we're spending it on NAFTA projects in the Valley, the Katy Freeway expansion project (which is already way over cost projections) and the Trans-Texas Corridor (which was supposedly privately funded). So, this is why TxDOT is trying to convert free roads into tollroads, because Governor Rick Perry has set his priorities on a project that will probably never come to fruition anyway? And, how does Montgomery County expect to get reimbursed for their "pass-through" tolling; by drivers, by years, how will it be measured? This article asks more questions than it answers...) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pass-through tolling is really just a strange way of saying that localities are issuing bonds that will be paid back by the state. No tolls involved. I think Governor Perry and his henchman on the transportation love tolling so much that they want to call everything a toll, even if it doesn't appear to be a toll in the traditional sense. On the other hand, Perry wants to toll existing freeways which could be one source of revenue to pay the "pass-through" tolls. After all, you can't toll highways that are not limited access so those Mongomery county highways can't be tolled.

In terms of funding, Houston has been getting more than its "fair" share the last two years and this year, mainly due to the Katy Freeway project. However, Houston was underfunded for nearly all of the 1990s so this is payback time. Some state money is going to the Valley, but the Katy Freeway is dwarfing everything else going on in the state except for the toll road program in Austin. The Katy freeway is a money hog, so to speak.

Trans-Texas corridor is not consuming big amounts of money yet. I would guess that the expenditure so far has been in the tens of millions. If and when any Trans-Texas corridor is actually built, watch out for tolling of existing rural interstates. There's no way the Trans-Texas corridor is even remotely viable unless you divert a big percentage of the traffic off existing interstates. In fact, I calculated that a Houston-Dallas corridor would generate about 4.6% of its cost in tolls per year if you diverted ALL the traffic off I-45 and charged a stiff $20 toll. See http://www.firericwilliamson.com/trans_texas_case_study.htm

Of course, there's absolutely no need for the capacity and the corridor would result in a grossly underutilized resource.

The article talks about tolling direct connection ramps to SH 242 and highway 105. This would be a first in Houston. I think something similar is planned in north San Antonio.

[editor]

I'm in favor of anything that takes some of the traffic off of I-45. But I guess you have a point -- do we need that much capacity? Maybe they could make it like in New Jersey where it's cars on the Garden State Parkway and trucks on the New Jersey Turnpike, which parallel each other across the northern part of the state. Both are toll roads.

[pineda]

"Trans-Texas corridor is not consuming big amounts of money yet. I would guess that the expenditure so far has been in the tens of millions."

Max Concrete- Is this even close to being an accurate statement?

[pineda]

"Is Sadler talking about the Grand Parkway that is slated to go into Harris County or the Grand Parkway project that residents of Spring would like to see go up to Montgomery County?"

Adagio- This is one and the same, of course, but I do appreciate your humor!

[MaxConcrete]

"Trans-Texas corridor is not consuming big amounts of money yet. I would guess that the expenditure so far has been in the tens of millions."

Max Concrete- Is this even close to being an accurate statement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I stated, it is a guess. But everything so far is just planning and studies, and the process has been underway for only 2 years. The serious money starts to flow when construction begins.

If you have information to indicate my guess of tens of millions is inaccurate, I would be glad to be corrected.

[pineda]

Max Concrete-

I guess your idea of "big amounts of money" and mine are vastly different.

[DaTrain]

I'm in favor of anything that takes some of the traffic off of I-45. But I guess you have a point -- do we need that much capacity? Maybe they could make it like in New Jersey where it's cars on the Garden State Parkway and trucks on the New Jersey Turnpike, which parallel each other across the northern part of the state. Both are toll roads.

Or like Chicago's Dan Ryan Expressway: 14 lanes broken down into 3 local exit lanes and 4 continous express lanes into downtown in each direction.

[pineda]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEXAS CORRIDORS

Huge toll proposals in Texas

Texas DOT is looking at huge toll proposals for its "IH-35 High Priority Trans Texas Corridor" (35TTC). It involves 1,000km (600mi) of highway on new alignment north-south across the state from Denison at US-59 on the Oklahoma border to the Rio Grande River an the Mexican border crossings at McAllen/Reynosa in the south. the route parallels I-35 to its east by distances ranging between 10km and 60km. In its central section 35TTC will incorporate the TX-130 tollroad currently under construction on the eastern fringe of the Austin capital area. It incorporates in its southern portion near the Gulf of Mexico a part of the planned I-69 and on the eastern fringe of the Dallas area what has been called proposed I-37.

An I-35 study a couple of years ago by Wilbur Smith Assoc (WSA) for FHWA and six states of the stretch Laredo TX to Duluth MN concluded: "In nearly every urban area segment, the future year (2025) traffic needs cannot be met by lane additions in the existing right-of-way. In this alternative, additional needs are met by providing additional lanes through some combination of urban area relief routes on new location, or elevated/depressed sections on existing I-35." (pS-4)

35TTC responds to that by providing additional capacity in open country beyond the eastern fringe of development near Dallas, Waco, Austin and San Antonio.

Projections done in the WSA study showed that two-thirds of the 2523km (1568mi) or 1700km (1050mi) will need extra lanes. In Texas I-35 is 810km (504mi) long measuring just one of the twin I-35 routes through Dallas (I-35E). The separate I-35W through Fort Worth adds another 132km (80mi). The I-35 study outlined a plan to spend $10.9b (96$s), so pro-rated at $4.3m/km ($6.9m/mi) the Texas portion (37%) would cost roughly $4b. WSA estimated the present value of benefits at nearly twice the costs at discount rates higher than those now in use, so the project should be able to generate major toll revenues.

The study projected truck volumes for 2025 of 9.9k/day Dallas to Oklahoma City, 9.3k Dallas-Waco, 14.6k Waco-Austin, 18.1k Austin-San Antonio, and 4.3k San Antonio-Laredo at the Mexican border. All vehicle projections were 42k, 41k, 69k, 82k and 12.4k. (Table S-03, pS-8)

"Options to consider include provisions for larger truck sizes and weights as well as the option of special lanes for trucks. The location for these lanes can be a separate facility near I-35 or special truck lanes within the I-35 right-of-way." (pS-8)

TXDOT made a formal request for proposals late summer - due Sept 23. This followed an unsolicited proposal from Fluor Corp, the inveterate filer of private sector toll proposals last November. State law required TXDOT to seek competing proposals. But TXDOT took the Fluor proposal as an example of why it needed expanded powers - which it got in HB-3588. Russell calls it "the most revolutionary transport legislation to come out of anywhere in the last 40 or 50 years."

He says: "It gives us all of the authority and all of the power we need on a state level to move forward on the Trans-Texas Corridor, plus some."

TXDOT says its "current vision" is that the successful group will become "a long-term partner with TxDOT, helping the agency develop the Project on a multi-modal, multi-facility basis over the short-term, mid-term and long-term. The successful Proposer will be expected to create and manage a successfully phased development of the Project in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan."

Russell says he hopes to sign the contract or CDA for 35TCC by late 2004. It is aiming to complete a Tier 1 enviro permit by Nov 2004. That will involve going from a mile-wide (1610m) possible right of way to "couple of thousand feet" (610m) or about double the final 366m (1200ft) reservation. They aim for a federal record of decision (ROD) or acceptance of the envrio permitting before the contract is finalized.

John Bourne has been hired by TXDOT as project manager and to lead the 35TTC engineering effort on the state side. His record includes a senior position on the I-15 reconstruction project through the center of the Salt Lake City area.

Trans Texas Corridors (TTCs) are the brainchild of the current Texas governor Rick Perry. As described by him they were seen as 7,000km (4,000mi) total length and 366m (1200ft) wide crisscrossing the state north-south and east-west willynilly. Perry saw them as all providing for separate roadways for light vehicles and trucks, as well as new rail lines, local and express, oil and gas pipelines, electric lines and roadside commerce. In fact what will go in them will be what can be funded.

The Texas Turnpike Division of TXDOT managed to finesse the idea into something more financeable by proposing priorities and a staging of projects. The most urgent go first, and the most important elements are built first. Also the need to raise private capital puts some market discipline on the grandiose early concept, by focussing on projects and components that can earn net revenues.

Phillip Russell head of the Turnpike Division of TXDOT who is in charge of implementation of TTCs says he thinks the I-69 TTC (69TTC) will be the next corridor to go. "In a couple of years" he has predicted it will be "teed up." 69TTC shares with the 35TTC the first leg from MCAllen along US-281 about halfway north to San Antonio, where it turns northeast passing close by Houston on that area's northwest fringe (using the Grand Parkway perhaps?), then proceeding north to meet I-30 at the AR, LA borders near Texarkana. There has long been planning for a new so-called NAFTA Highway, sometimes designated I-69 on this route continuing up the Mississippi valley joining existing I-69 in Indianapolis. It is intended to make for a higher standard and more direct connection Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Indianapolis, Shreveport, Houston, McAllen, Mexico.

69TTC in Texas is about 1530km (950mi) in length, but excluding the far southern segment that is shares with 35TTC it is 1280km (795mi).

Legislation giving TXDOT the powers to build TTCs came into effect only this summer. Within a month the Turnpike Division had followed through and issued the request for competing proposals.

TXDOT has enormous flexibility. It can perform operations itself, or have a third party do operations either under its management, or under the contractor's, or have some mixture. It is still working out rules that will allow the proposers to reorganize in order to gain extra needed skills and capital up to the point at which a Detailed Proposal is submitted. In addition TXDOT can procure some parts of a CDA or contract project by conventional design-build-bid processes in parallel with developing the private contract. Shortlisted proposers are eligible to compete for such pieces of the project. TXDOT has complete control over the timetable, being able to run the process as quickly or as slowly as it wishes.

It may pay unsuccessful bidders in order to encourage bids. Bidders waive proprietary rights to the ideas in their bids, but TXDOT promises to retain some parts of the proposals confidential .

good idea from one person is not something to be discussed with another team. We will keep that -- those ideas confidential.

"We do have to reserve the right on general items and points of clarification -- being able to distribute those, post those on the web, and answer very broad-based general questions that will benefit and will be information needed by all participants," says Russell. "Under the legislation that was passed in House Bill 3588 we will retain the rights to the ideas that are submitted in detailed proposals. That's what the compensation is about."

TXDOT reserves the right to not proceed with any of the bids, or PQSs. All the selection criteria are laid out in admirable detail, suggesting the process is fair, open, and competitive. Weighting is experience 20%, the plan 50% and financing 30%. Procedures for protesting the contract award are laid down.

In the I-35HPTCC federal highway funds are being sought as part of the financing, so federal rules must be accommodated. TXDOT says it reserves the right to amend its procedures to satisfy the feds. It also has to abide by leftist state law providing preferences for "disadvantaged" and "historically underutilized" businesses - always fertile ground for frontpersons and other carpetbaggers.

HDR and HNTB are described as ineligible to propose for TTCs. Bad boys, they disgraced themselves through multiple acts, and flagrant examples of... working for TXDOT as consultants.

TEXISH: TXDOT is developing a whole heap of gobbledegook phrases and acronyms to replace simple english words. Proposers bid with a PQS or Proposal and Qualification Submittal (Texish for submission). They love them "al" suffixes. As well as submittals there are transmittals. Submittals must always contain a transmittal, known elsewhere as a cover letter. Next stage is an outline proposal or a Conceptual Project Development Plan or CPDP. The CPFP is about Financing. A contract is not a contract for TXDOT but a Comprehensive Development Agreement, a CDA. The word Development there is misleading actually since CDAs can cover way more than development - financing, tolls, maintenance, operations, turnback condition, and more. TXDOT's bidders are Proposers, not only when courting TXDOT, but after the nuptials too, when normal usage would call them contractors. Indeed as contractors they are Proposers for the duration of the contr... CDA. Perpetual Proposers it seems. PPs?

SEMANTICS: There's a semantic imagination gap at TXDOT. Misleadingly identified with I-35 the planned new highway nowhere touches that existing road and it will not be an interstate but a state designated highway. It duplicates existing I-35 but is to be located 10km and 60km to the interstate's east and makes different connections each end. While I-35 hits the Rio Grande at Laredo and Mexico's H-85 the proposed North-South TTC hits the border river well downstream and connects with Mexico's Highways 40 and 97. In Oklahoma I-35 connects with the interstate of the same designation. This new highway deserves a name of its own. Since it originates in McAllen it is the Mac-TTC. TRnews 2003-09-20

[pineda]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/15/2004

Texas proposing massive new highway system

By Kent Demaret , Managing Editor, HCN

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison addressed the Greater Houston Partnership Dec. 3 to discuss the future of transportation in Texas. What she described is of such significance that it requires a historical overture to provide some much needed perspective.

In the closing months of World War II, as the allies closed the rope around the throat of the Nazi empire, the leading general from the U.S. was often puzzled. The latest and best intelligence would show the strongest bulk of the German armies would often be many hundreds of miles away from his planned "weak" attack point. Yet time after time the opposing troops would be fiercely in place and fully supplied as the allied forced would advance across no-man's land.

Armchair generals play with imagined strategies. Real generals are consumed with the untainted rewards and consequences of logistics. How could the enemy, he wondered, move so many experienced troops, so much of their deadly equipment, from trucks and artillery to massive tanks, so much of their support from food to ammunition, so far, so quickly, so formidably?

And then he remembered the autobahns---the networks of sturdy highways (some several feet thick in places) that Hitler had laced his country with in the 1930s, long before the war.

That's how the Germans were able to move as they did, he realized.

A few years later, the American general became the American President, Dwight Eisenhower.

One of his first major acts was to persuade congress to install the American version of the autobahn, but almost exclusively for civilian use unless war once again raised its ugly presence.

For many years, the nation became a frenzy of highway construction. Since it passed through or near all major states, all the members of Congress were delighted to be of extra service to their voters. It brought jobs, and construction money, and though smaller bypassed towns didn't develop flushed with new growth, the larger communities and cities exploded with expansion. A nation that had been connected largely by two-lane, tutlebacked roadways sprouted new, wide, concrete roads. Ever-heavier truck traffic began to force railroads to compete for freight and speed. New economic sectors were born. It was a political and economic win-win situation. The U.S. became laced with interlocking systems of interstate highways. The north-South highways would carry odd numbers, such as I-45. The East-West highways would be numbered in an even fashion, such as the coast-to-coast I-10.

And Uncle Sam would pay for most of it all.

The states and other munipalities would have to take care of future maintenance, with some federal assistance available.

Apprehensive that assorted local governmental bodies would outrageously reach out for additional profit from a system that was built by tax dollars, Congress wisely forbid any toll operations, not only by the federal government, but by states, counties or any municipalities. Otherwise, they reasoned, the nation would become a hodgepodge of accumulative, costly toll access and exit demands. As shipping costs would rise, so would the costs of goods.

All that was about half a century ago.

Leaping forward, the state government is now proposing a 4000-mile system within Texas that would dwarf President Eisenhower's vision. For one thing, with a price tag estimated at $183 billion, it would cost more than the entire national interstate system did originally. Called the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), it was the brainchild of myriad business interests that smell big profits, and Republican Governor Rick Perry.

As envisioned, it would carry goods and people along six lanes for cars, another four lanes for 18-wheelers, and have enough space left over on the sides to carry pipelines for everything from oil and gas to water and chemicals. There would also be rail traffic, from high-speed passenger trains to slowcoach freight haulers. The four corridors pumped up by the planners, would measure up to a quarter-mile across.

How would it all be paid for?

Why by tolls, of course, say the planners, who know the state doesn't have the spare cash for such an undertaking. They hope to sell bonds on Wall Street to investors (guaranteed by toll revenues)---and hopefully get some federal money to get it all jump-started.

It promises to provoke a big fight.

Time Magazine, pointing out that a 49-mile stretch in the Austin area (called State Highway 130), reaching toward a route similar to that now served by I-35, already is, at a cost of $1.5 billion, the biggest highway project underway anywhere in the nation. The Time questioning headline on the story is, appropriately, "The Next Wave in Superhighways, or a Big Fat Texas Boondoggle?"

The backers believe that the roadways are necessary additions to the state because of expected vastly increased traffic from Mexico, thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A similar corridor to be referred to as I-69 is planned to run through the East Texas area, at times parallel to I-59, and on the edge of the endangered (as the federal environmental authorities) Big Thicket National Park. Another corridor, if built, would run from the El Paso area to the Texas border to the east, much as I-10 now operates on a far lesser scale.

Backers say money could not only be made from tolls, but by rented access to pipelines and other utilities along the right-of-way.

One obstacle is that the backers, several hundred of whom call themselves "the Alliance for I-69 Texas," gathered at the InterContinental Houston Hotel to hear and hopefully persuade the senior senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, to join their cause as they attempt to have several federal laws changed---all of which are necessary to make the plan click. As a lobbying group that will eventually descend on Washington, they will surely have some clout, representing large amounts of money, as they do.

But the clout against them-and the plan-promises to be formidable, too.

They have openly expressed a desire to change environmental laws so they can proceed more rapidly and with less interference than usual. That along will set the "Greens" a-march.

To get the House or Representatives to change assorted bills that will amount to nullifying some old rules, they will have to garner a sizable majority of congressional members who, if not hostile towards the Lone State State for their own reasons, have nothing to gain, and many votes to lose.

Though the state legislature has already passed laws giving authorities "quick claim" powers to seize needed properties (which will raised increasing howls as old homesteads are taken away) and negotiate the price later (contrary to previous practices), and to allow the deficit financing that was impossible under the old constitution (thus making it possible to sell bonds), the federal hurdles promise not to be so easily surmounted.

Sen. Hutchison didn't speak of the plans during her address to the group at the hotel luncheon, focusing instead on the millions she has raised for health and education in the state. She spoke of her aim of Texas becoming a "top tier" state in those categories, with participating universities who would received federal grants for their efforts (the top-tier system is often cited as the main reason California receives out-of-proportion federal money).

Sen. Hutchison, a veteran politician, long ago learned to play her cards "close to the vest." It has been rumored that there might be some dislike between her and the governor, and she has been rumored as a possible candidate to run against him, even though they are from the same Republican political party. In truth, a senator receives much more money and holds vastly more power than a Texas governor, who can control neither budget nor agendas from his office. Sen. Hutchison would have to be a fool to make herself a lame duck by announcing such plans right now, even if she had them. And she is not a fool by any means. Some pols wonder if she's sending the present governor a 'watch yourself, Bub!" warning.

The supportive gathering aside, the senator, dressed in a light pink suit, made it clear to the 1960 Sun that she can certainly become an obstacle to the plan--and will.

"I simply can't support tolls for roads that are built with the people's money," she declared firmly. Citing gridlocks along I-45 and other roadways, she said the leading lights in the state "need to see where the problems are."

[H-Town Man]

That's a good article. Continue to post these, Pineda. Here's rooting for Hutchison.

[pineda]

> Subject: CorridorWatch.org Member NEWS (12.20.04)

> >

> > CORRIDORWATCH.org WELCOMES MEMBERS FROM 100 COUNTIES!

> > ====================================================

> >

> > HAVE YOU HEARD THE NEWS? WINNER: CINTRA; LOSER: ALL TEXANS

> >

> > On Thursday, December 16, 2004, our Transportation Commission approved a

> proposal offered by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte

> (Cintra).

> >

> > Cintra has proposed constructing 316-miles of four-lane toll roads from

> near Dallas to near San Antonio roughly paralleling IH-35 (although not

> anywhere near the Interstate). Cintra offers to pay the entire $6 billion

> development cost, plus give TxDOT another $1.2 billion to provide

> connections to the TTC-35 toll roads. The complete terms of the proposal

are

> however SECRET and will not be available for public review until AFTER the

> contract has been signed.

> >

> > Cintra suggests that the one-way toll on their new road will range

> somewhere between $31.60 to $63.20 for a passenger car and considerably

more

> for heavy trucks.

> >

> > The Commission has directed TxDOT to complete discussions and finalize a

> comprehensive development agreement (CDA) with Cintra to plan, develop,

> acquire, design, construct, finance, maintain, and operate the TTC-35

> project for the next 50-years.

> >

> > RING-RING-RING. HELLO. THIS IS YOUR WAKE-UP CALL !

> >

> > A number of politicians and officials have dismissed concerns over the

> Trans-Texas Corridor because they didn't believe that TxDOT could afford

the

> project; or, that additional legislative actions would be required; or,

that

> TxDOT wouldn't find a private partner who could or would put up the

> incredible amount of money needed.

> >

> > Guess what, they were wrong! This is their wake-up call. The Trans-Texas

> Corridor didn't just go way, it's here and it's very real. If they don't

act

> now they won't be able to regain control. (Learn what's happening in

Ontario

> with Cintra. Keep reading.)

> >

> > IS IT TOO LATE TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS?

> >

> > Absolutely not! NO. What they did Thursday was agree to agree to agree.

> This is however the first step. In 60 days or so they'll sign a $3.5

million

> deal with Cintra to negotiate the CDA. Yes, that's right, we are going to

> pay them up to $3.5 million to draft the next contract.

> >

> > The good news (and that's in short supply) is that it will take another

12

> to 18 months to negotiate the CDA. During that period the 79th Legislature

> will meet and have the opportunity to kill the Trans-Texas Corridor. If

they

> do the right thing and change the law to protect the citizens of Texas, a

> TTC-35 CDA will never get signed.

> >

> > We need legislative change; and, it has to HAPPEN THIS SESSION.

> >

> > MOVING FAST, TOO FAST! ALREADY LOOKING TO TTC-69.

> >

> > Commissioner Johnson calls the proposal a major stepping-stone toward

the

> development of I-69. "It amounts to a blueprint for building I-69," he

said.

> >

> > MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

> >

> > Who wants TTC-35? Not Dallas, they want IH-35 expanded. Not Austin,

> they've got SH-130 coming. Not Houston, Laredo, El Paso or Lubbock. Not

> rural Texas. Not small towns and communities that will be by-passed. Not

> farmers and ranchers. Not the trucking industry.

> >

> > (Hint: Certain politicians, an empire building Commission, and a few

> transportation consultants, financial advisors, and highway contractors.)

> >

> > Before the law changed last year voters always approved toll roads. How

is

> it that our state has taken such a dramatic shift in public policy, one

that

> will make Texas the nation's leader in toll roads and taking of private

land

> for corporate exploitation? When did our government have that conversation

> with us, the people? When did we take the decision making power out of the

> hands of the people and place it exclusively in the hands of the

government?

> >

> > Ask every legislator who among their constituents has cried out and

> demanded the Trans-Texas Corridor? The TTC isn't the only solution to

> congestion and tolls aren't the only solution to funding. Who are they

> representing, the Governor or the voters in their district? As a voter you

> should ask your Lt. Governor, Senator and Representative these questions.

> (Their address are listed below)

> >

> > Why are we rushing head-long into a 50-year agreement that will give a

> foreign corporation the state's power to take private land so they can

> construct and operate for-profit toll roads, rail and a utility corridor

> enterprise?

> >

> > Why are we willing to allow the state to take our land for someone else

> who will use it to profit by charging us tolls and rent?

> >

> > Why would Cintra expend $7.2 billion on this project? Because they see a

> golden opportunity to make a profit. A lot of profit. And from whom will

> they extract that profit? You! Directly from anyone who pays a toll.

> Indirectly from anyone who buys goods or services that paid a toll to get

to

> market. And that's just the toll element, what else is in the agreement?

> Where will the Cintra profits go? Madrid?

> >

> > IS CINTRA A GOOD PRIVATE PARTNER?

> >

> > A lot of people and officials in Canada don't think so. Just last month

> the Brampton Guardian reported on list of nightmare problems with tolls on

> their 407 ETR toll road. The Minister of Finance says fixing the problems

> isn't easy because of the "air-tight contract" negotiated by the previous

> Ontario government. He also remarked that under the 99-year lease, 407

Group

> (Cintra) is "all but exempt from paying property taxes." He also remarks,

> "the Ontario government is severely limited in its power to change

> anything." "The lease, he added, also gives the company tremendous power

to

> increase tolls and administrative charges, provided it satisfies certain

> conditions."

> >

> > Will Texas come to regret our CDA, our own "air-tight contract?"

> >

> > The Canadian experience also demonstrates that the goal of taking truck

> traffic off the parallel route and relieving congestion has failed. The

> Ontario official says that trucks are not using the toll road because it

has

> the highest truck tolls in North America!

> >

> > http://www.northpeel.com/br/news/story/238...p-2756782c.html

> >

> > More about their bad deal:

> > http://www.comer.org/2004/funeral.htm

> >

> > Two months ago the City of Chicago leased Cintra their Chicago Skyway

toll

> road for 99-years in return for a cash payment of $1.82 billion. Toll

rates

> will go up on January 1, 2005! Not everyone is so easy to sell out. Four

> years ago local government and business interests shot down Cintra's offer

> for a 99-year lease of the Niagara Falls International Airport.

> >

> > BOTTOM LINE

> >

> > We are working hard to spread the word and stop the insanity of this

> project.

> >

> > Taking private land for lease to a company that will use our land to

> generate a profit by charging us tolls and rent is offensive. It should be

> illegal. With some help from our elected officials it can be made illegal

> and stopped cold in its tracks.

> >

> > PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO EVERYONE IN TEXAS.

> >

> > PLEASE WRITE A LETTER TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND SEND ANOTHER LETTER

> TO YOUR STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE TODAY!

> >

> > Don't know who your representatives are? Check Here:

> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm

> >

> > MAILING ADDRESSES:

> >

> > The Honorable David Dewhurst

> > Lt. Governor's Office

> > PO Box 12068

> > Austin, Texas 78711-2068

> >

> > The Honorable (your Senator's name)

> > Texas Senate

> > PO Box 12068

> > Austin, TX 78711-2068

> >

> > The Honorable (your Representative's name)

> > Texas House of Representatives

> > PO Box 2910

> > Austin, TX 78768-2910

> >

> > THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN AND INTEREST

> >

> > CorridorWatch.org

[westguy]

This is only tangentially related to this topic, but I was watching something about San Diego's Balboa Park. It's such a beautiful a well-preserved park even though it's in the middle of a major sprawling city. Memorial Park isn't even in the CBD and it has a major freeway running through. Now the county wants to run a toll road through it. Stupid.

[tamtagon]

I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this transportation solution, but generally disagree with the direction it seems to be taking.

The state should reduce the congestion in the cities by buildling Texas-weather-friendly public transportation, separating the cargo traffic from passenger traffic from all highway commuter routes, and build a third intrastate travel option - highspeed rail - to connect the biggest cities. An mirror of the highways we have now is just asking for trouble.

This project should have two missions - allow free and easy movement around the state, and to reduce pollution. The state is NOT providing a plan to make it convenient for people to get out of their cars.

[pineda]

The part that worries me the most about the Cintra deal is the amount of control Cintra will have over this project, as in total control.

We made so many serious mistakes in the writing and executing of the NAFTA agreement, I thought the legislators had learned their lessons not to give total control of our public roads over to private interests, but evidently the private interests and their money encourage our politicians to look the other way.

We all know and have heard about the lack of money for the Texas transportation system, but is this really the answer? Instead of creative financing from American banks, we are now shopping our transportation systems to foreigners?

Governor Perry is looking less and less and less like a man we should be supporting as our Governor, and more and more like a total sell-out. If Kay Bailey Hutchison or Carole Keeton Strayhorn announce their candidacy for Governor, I just hope it's not to late to undue what Governor Rick Perry has already done.

In talking with Perry's office, they like to tout the fact that the Trans-Texas Corridor/I-69 will take heavy truck traffic off the roads that light duty trucks and cars travel. However, they also agree that you cannot force the drivers of tractor trailers originating in Mexico or Canada to use tolled highways. You cannot say you want them to use TTC/I-69 because of safety concerns, unless you also agree to suspend the payment of tolls by these trucks. That's one of the main problems with the NAFTA. It is the promotion of free trade without restrictions. You cannot force them to pay tolls. So, you build this toll road, you tell them they have to use it. They throw down the NAFTA card and say that you can't make them pay tolls. You don't want them on the roads with passenger car traffic because you know that they are dangerous trucks loaded with who knows what, so you exempt them from paying tolls. Now, you have a toll road that no one will use. Now what?

New Trans-Texas Corridor website

Cintra announcement

[N Judah]

That SH 130 near Austin is hilarious. It's supposed to be a way for trucks etc. to circumvent Austin's traffic, but in the long run it will just become surrounded by suburban development and they will be back to square one.

[MaxConcrete]

That SH 130 near Austin is hilarious.  It's supposed to be a way for trucks etc. to circumvent Austin's traffic, but in the long run it will just become surrounded by suburban development and they will be back to square one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you've been out to the construction zone of SH 45 (north) and SH 130, you'll see that the development is happening now, not in the long run. In fact, there is an astounding amount of new development in that area.

The only way SH 130 will be even remotely financially viable is if the corridor is heavily urbanized and it picks up substantial commuter traffic. My expectation is that urbanization will focus on the section north of SH 45, between Pflugerville and Georgetown. Traffic will take SH 130 and then connect to SH 45 going to Austin. I think SH 45 is going to be the cash cow for CTRMA and will probably help bail out SH 130.

[pineda]

The information shown below was found while searching Cintra.

This was written in espanol and is now translated, which is why it sounds funky.

One thing that was in bold letters in the original, but for some reason not now when it's translated is further down where it mentions "no need to summon for public aid".

Does this mean also no public comments, no public hearings, no public involvement for a major transportation project that will cross Texas from Mexico to Oklahoma? Private dollars to a foreign company, that is slick, TTC! That's one great way to shut out that darn, pesky public that keeps showing up en masse to any of the Trans-Texas Corridor meetings. THAT IS SO SNEAKY!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arch obtains in Texas the greater contract of its history

Arch has adjudged the contract to develop during next the 50 years the infrastructure plan of the State of Texas (the United States), the denominated Trans Texas Corridor, that will suppose a global investment of between 29,000 and 36,700 million dollars (between 21,641 and 27,400 million euros), informed the company today.

Europe Press

17/12/2004 (08:30h.)

Arch begins to appear after adjudging the contract of Texas Corridor

The branch of concession of freeways of Ferrovial ( FER.MC ) becomes partner strategic of the Department of Transport of the State of Texas thus to design and to plan the development of the greater infrastructure plan promoted in the country.

Arch has obtained the contract through a partnership of which it controls 85% , whereas Zachry, second greater texana constructor, has 15% rest. They complete advisers, like engineering Earth Tech, the consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers and JP Morgan.

By virtue of the contract, it will have to design in next the twelve months a plan director to define different infrastructures to make in next the 50 years in this North American State, as well as the formulas or optimal systems of financing for each project.

The society has already identified seven first projects of concessions that it anticipates to promote in the short term, between 2005 and 2010, with an investment of 7,300 million dollars (5,447 million euros). At least five of them, all of them valued freeways and in 6.000 million dollars (4,477 million euros) will be executed by Arch.

In addition, the contract recognizes the right of Arch to adjudge itself directly , with no need to summon previous public aid, the execution of the projects of concession of freeways that considers more opportune.

TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR.

The Trans Texas Corridor will suppose the construction of a runner of wide multimodal transport of 360 meters and 1,300 kilometers in length that will connect the border of Mexico in the low Grande River with the State of Oklahoma, to the North of Scythes.

The future infrastructure will include the construction of freeways, with different tracks for light and heavy traffic, as well as a railroad of load and high speed, in addition to highways on watch and conductions of services such as gas conduction, electricity, telecommunications and potable water, among others.

The layout, at the moment object of economic and environmental study, is almost parallel to the interstate freeway existing I-35 of San Antonio, and the freeways I-37 and Sr-281 to the South of San Antonio, whose saturation presents/displays, according to Arch, a "serious impediment" to the development of the State.

OFFICE OF FERROVIAL IN AUSTIN.

Arch, that was released the past in Stock market 27 of October, informed in an official notice into which it will establish an office in Austin from which it will work with the Department of Transports of the State of Texas in the design and planning of the plan.

As far as the works of construction of the concessions managed by Arch in the runner, they will be the responsibility of Ferrovial and Zachry to 50%.

Arch is the only Spanish company that has competed by this contract, by which also two international partnerships led by Fluorine Enterprises-Parson Brinckerhoff and Hensel Phelps-Skanska bid up.

President of Ferrovial and Cintra, Rafael of the Pine, emphasized in an official notice which the operation "reinforces" the long term presence of the company "in a high-priority market like the United States", in which recently one took control of a freeway in Chicago, besides "to demonstrate the capacity to compete in the most demanding markets".

"the project opens in addition a new dimension for our company, to not only work as strategic partner of a State in the design and planning of one of the more important runners of intermodal transport for the economic growth of the United States, but because the contract grants preferred rights to us in the awarding of projects of concession with an investment of great spread", he emphasized Of the Pine.

At the present time, Arch manages a total of 17 concessions of toll freeways that add more than 1,600 kilometers in length distributed in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Chile, the United States and Canada. In addition, it explodes more than 200,000 seats of parking in 125 cities of Spain, Andorra and Puerto Rico.

Grupo T-Online.

[MidtownCoog]

Early plans for the project have envisioned concrete and rail corridors snaking across the state and stretching as wide as 1,200 feet in some areas, with enough room for cars, trucks, trains, pipelines and utility cables.

Now why in the world do we really need to have all this mess right next to each other?

One train derailment, and the entire corridor could be shut down.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/2963205

[MidtownCoog]

And what about this?

If drivers were tolled between 10 cents and 20 cents a mile, rates similar to Texas tollways already in use, driving 300 miles would cost $30 to $60 each way.

[ssullivan]

And what about this?

If things get that bad I'm sure it will be a boom for intra-state air travel. At those toll levels a flight to Dallas would become cheaper than driving there.

[MidtownCoog]

And now this:

Perry aide worked for corridor firm

02:09 AM CST on Wednesday, December 29, 2004

By PETE SLOVER and TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN

[pineda]

Video Excerpts from 12/16/04 TTC meeting in Austin

If you know next to nothing about how the Texas Transportation Commission works and for some strange reason you now have the desire to know more, you're in luck! The three video clips from the 12/16/04 TTC meeting will walk you through three items; how much it costs to build a road in Texas, how the TTC decided which proposals they liked best (hint: Fluor lost BIG time!), and how the TTC has basically handed over the keys to the kingdom in a 99-year lease to Cintra, a company from Spain, to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, a huge corridor that will literally slice the state of Texas into two halves from Mexico to Oklahoma.