Gary Mauro, What Are You Smoking?

Now, I’ve got to admit, I’m a fan of former Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro. But, when I clicked on his op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman yesterday, I had to ask myself, “whatcha smokin’, Gary??” Here’s why:

The Trans Texas Corridor is a prime example of an innovative solution and deserves very serious consideration.
[...]

Addressing the challenges of population growth is important, and it is refreshing to see Texas Department of Transportation officials thinking creatively about possible solutions such as the Trans Texas Corridor. It could pave the way to Texas’ future.

After I picked myself off the floor, treated the head wound I got when my head smacked into my desk when I fell out of my chair, and drank half a glass of Dr. Pepper to calm my nerves, I realized that Mauro’s piece is part of a much larger picture of debate on the Trans Texas Corridor—one I or other bloggers do not address much because, quite frankly, it’s much easier to tell you what a disaster the corridor will be.

After all, talking aboud family farms being destroyed is much more interesting than the other minutia.

So, here’s an attempt to distill (or at least broaden) the debate a bit, with some help from Gary Mauro’s op-ed.

First off, some background. I remember back in 2002 when Perry unveiled his Trans Texas Corridor. In fact, I believe he had one of the unveiling meetings in Tyler, but that’s beside the point.

At that time, I actually remember a number of Democrats (who shall henceforth and forevermore remain nameless) who thought the Trans Texas Corridor was a totally bitchin’ idea.

And, if Democrats had maintained a majority in the Texas House and more commanding numbers in the Texas Senate, it probably would have been reigned in, been done in a transparent fashion without the CINTRA/Zachary mess, and perhaps without as much loss of farmland and property in Central Texas.

But, that’s not how it happened. Is the Trans Texas Corridor innovative and forward thinking? You could say that, but all of the problems associated with it outweigh by far its future benefits which, I suspect, will not be seen in my lifetime (and I’m a relatively young man).

But, Mauro’s op-ed drives home another point: Texas remains a state that is very much in conflict with itself in terms of rural population versus urban population.

It’s not that rural people aren’t progressive and don’t want innovative solutions to their transportation problems. They do; they just don’t want those solutions to sully their way of life and destroy their family farms.

Many urban citizens, however, don’t have the same units of signification (for lack of a better phrase). If, for three or four generations, the most land anyone in your family has owned is less than a half acre and surrounded by patches of grass and concrete and is less than a mile from a major highway, you view things differently. And, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s the natural order of things.

One of the things Gary Mauro wrote about the TTC is probably a good soundbite for what some urban Texans think about the project:

By providing a statewide network of transportation, this multimodal system could allow for much faster and safer transportation of people and freight. It could relieve congested roadways. It could improve air quality by reducing emissions, and provide a safer, more reliable utility transmission system. It could keep hazardous materials out of populated areas. It could expand economic growth and develop new markets and jobs. And it could help Texans quickly get out of harm’s way in the case of an approaching flood or other disaster. Can you imagine how helpful this system would have been for many of our fellow Texans on the Gulf Coast trying to escape the dangers of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita?

However, the exact converse of that statement is why many rural Texans don’t want the Trans Texas Corridor. They don’t want the congestion funneled through their counties, don’t want the emissions transferred from urban population centers to their neck of the woods, and probably don’t want their counties “urbanized” by the economic growth that the TTC might bring.

To be quite honest, both the TTC opponents and the TTC supporters make valid points.

Nevertheless, I would still side with the Anti-TTC opponents. Until we have some transparency, are able to mitigate the loss of rural lands, and are able to scale down this project so it isn’t the mammoth beheamoth it is now, I don’t support it.

I believe, as Gary Mauro does, that it is nice to see officials thinking creatively about transportation solutions.

However, with all of the bright minds we have in the Lone Star State, I think a more creative, less costly, more friendly solution could be devised. And, until it is, I’m not in favor of the TTC.

But, I am glad to see Gary Mauro back in the headlines, and, as always, raising the level of discourse.