[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Zone COASTAL ZONE informatiOn Center INFORMATION CENTER SEp 17 1974 THIS PRINTING COURTESY OF SENATOR A. R. SCHWARTZ DISTRICT 17 f TRANSPORTATION IN THE COASTAL ZONE iSTAL RESOURCE'S ll@,NAGEMENT PROGRAM (REPRINTS) 213 T3 D69 1970 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38, authored by Senator A. R. Schwartz, and passed by the 61st Texas Legislature, directed the Inter- agency Natural Resources Council to undertake a comprehensive study of coastal resources. This was initiated "In the Division of Planning Coor- dination of the Office of the Governor. Eighteen brief studies constitute part of Phase I, which culminated in 1970. T"he 62nd Legislature, further recognizing the need for continuing studies of the coastal zone, passed Senate Concurrent Resolutions No8. 8 and 9, also authored by Senator Sch--,artz, which provided the Coastal Resources Management Program with further direction. Under the broad guidance of S.C. R. No. 38 and the specific dir ction of S.C.R. No. 8 and S.C.R. No. 9. the Interagency Council on Natu J:R._ sources and the Environment is continuing with the development of of S. Coastal Resources Management Program of Texas. Phase 11 consists 0 ix particular projects which have been defJ%ed and are presently underway: . LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL - Analyze t@e existing legal/institutional structure and determine an array of possible institutional arrangements to insure the proper management of Texas' coastal resources. . BAY AND ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT - Develop a comprehensive set of scientific and technical guidelines for the multipurpose use of estuarine systems. . WASTE MANAGEMENT - Delineate alternative ways, including costs and side effects, of reducing, eliminating, recycling, treating and dis- posing of liquid, solid, and ga seous by-products of society. . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Identify the most likely growth patterns (location and intensity) in the Coastal Zone and delineate their basic requirements in terms of raw materials, energy, manpower and land . TRANSPORTAION - Identify present and future transportatio.; link- ages and delineate the key relationships between land use patterns and transportation corridors. @ . . POWER PLANT SITING --Develop realistic guidelines and identify locational factors for power plants (This effort is applicable to the entire State and not just for the Coastal Zone.). )tile J.@-, TRANSP ORT. ATION IN THE COASTAL ZO@@ Prepared by The Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University John P. Doy te, Project Lead-er 1j) Jack Keese, Director CCI October 1970 C-< for COASTAL RESOURCES KARAGE14ENT PROGRAM INTERAGENCY NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL DIVISION OF PLANNING COORDINATION OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR CONTENT5 I. The Problem Figure I Figure 2 IT. Major Texas Parts Figure 3 III. Water Transportation TV. Super-Draft Water Ports Figure 4 Table A V. Port organization VI. Railroads Table B VII. Higiway Transportation VIII. Air Transportation IX. Pipeline Transportation X. Recreational and Ecological Factors XI. AA2ss Rapid Transit T R A 14 S P 0 R T A T 10 N I N T H E C 0 A S T A L Z 0 N E I. THE PROBLEM Texas' Coastal Zone has never been clearly defined. For the purpose of this exercixe it has been agreed that the.Zone embraces all State of Texas Planning Regions which contain one or more counties bordering on the Gulf of Mexico; see Figure 1. it extends seaward 103-, miles from the coastline. These regions and their included counties, from south to north, are: Lower Rio Grande Valley Cameron Willacy Hidalgo Coastal Bend Kenedy Refugio Brooks Bee Kleberg Live Oak Jim Wells McMullen Duval Nueces San Patricio Golden Cresc Calhoun Jackson Goliad Dewitt Victoria. Lavaca Gulf Coast Matagorda Waller Brazoria Austin Wharton Chambers Fort Bend Liberty Colorado Montgomery Galveston Walker Harris South East Texas Jefferson Orange It is recognized this delineation of the Coastal Zone is subject to challenge and does not agree exactly with the boundaries estab- lished by the Interagency Natural Resources Council in its 1969 Coastal Resources Plan Program Guideline. The.total absence of any clearly defined topographical barrier or other distinguishing characteristic, such as marked agricultural, industrial or population changes as one proceeds inland from the Gulf, forces what may seem to be an arbitrary delineation. The area could be expanded or curtailed, without greatly affecting the planning which should be done. It is strongly recommended, however, that the integrity of Texas Playming Regions be maintained wherever practicaZ in order that this work be in harmony with other pl,anning under the '@goalz for Texas" program. STUDY AREA FIGURE 1 This would require adjustment of the Council guideline. It is alsc recognized, however, that efficient transportation planning must transcend such regional boundaries since by its very nature it does link-up regions. The multiplicity of governmental activities within the Coastal Zone as defined above contributes to the difficulty of comprenens Iive planning for this area and emphasizes the essentiality of strong leadership at State level. In addition to the five planning regiors, containing thirty-five counties, there are twenty-five poinva a7 which liquid and dry comwdities are interchanged between land zr_` water transportation. Eleven of these ports handle more than ninety percent of the total tonnage so interchanged and are in competition with each other to varying degrees. This tradition of competition at local level coupled with the heterogeneity of agricultural and industrial activity and of population densities in the Zone will require the utmost effort to develop the spirit of cooperation necessary to maximize the potential of Texas' Gulf Coast. On the national level transportation demand grows faster than the population (Figure 2). Over a number of years expenditures for transportation in one form or another have accounted for an almost constant twenty percent of our gross national product. A high ratio of transportation expenditures is characteristic of the more highly developed nations. While no breakout of these data has been made for the Coastal Zon@@, there is no reason to believe the ratio differs significantly th, in. Projections made b; the Department of Transportation indicate that the United States, in the next ten years, will have to approximately double its present transportation capacity if current trends continue. This does not necessarily mean doubling the physical plant, although some expansion will be required. Better utilization of the transport capplex az a whole, with less a,toidable waste of time, space and other resources resulting from better planning can provide much of the needed capacity. Many phases of transportation have grown without the benefit of system planning. Fortunately, transportation planners have now recognized the need for tying transportation to land use and other developmental planning.' This is nowhere as evident as in highway planning by the Texas Highway Department. Efforts of the Highway Department to maintain smooth flows of traffic as the people of Texas became more mobile permitted occurrence of the inevitable transition from rail to highway travel with a minimum of disrUDted service. Many miles of railroad have been abandoned as they outlive their usefulness. Traffic generation centers have arisen because of income and employ- ment opportunities, with many of these centers having explosive rather than gradual growth characteristics. Naturally, transportation services had to react to the growth of these centers rather than plan for them. A better understanding of the complexities of transportation by the general public as well as public officials whose actions however remotely affect.transportation is essential to the success of future. planning. 3 v Population 1-1147 057' 067 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND 'FIGURE 2 Source: Transportation Institute of America Transportation differs from all other industries in many ways. Unlike, for example, electrical power or telephone service, part of its product is subject to economic regulation (price, points served, etc.) while being in direct competition with unregulated service in the same area. Some of the operators (rail, pipe line) use private way constructed and maintained at private cost while others use , publicly provided way at costs proportional to use (truck, air) and one, inland water, uses tax supported facilities at no cost whatever. Another difference often forgotten is the varying service character- istics of the several carrier modes. To many, transportation of goods is just that whereas, to the user, the difference of time in transit; loss and damage; and other service factors are often more important than price differentials. Despite the personal feelings of railroad presidents, trucking executives and ship operators, transportation is no end in itself. While, as we shall see later, it is more than just a service, as such it exists only to satisfy the needs of its users - a public utility - along with electric power, telephone communication, and the rest. Unlike other public utilities, most of which are regional and local monopolies, transportation companies engage in fierce competition within modes and between modes for the larger portion of their business. The result is, with some execptions, a low rate return on investment which translates into extreme difficulty in generating and attracting essential equity capital. This, in turn, 1@mpedes expansion and modernization. The sole exception to this generality is pipe line transporl-ion which enjoys a unique position in the transport complex. Many of the problems of transportation are blamed upon regulation. It has become fashionable to call for "deregulation," to claim that "free competition'! is the magic button which would provide all the answers (Others often prefer to think of "re-regulation" as being the solution.). Nothing could be more fallacious despite our national dedication to what we choose to call "--free competition." Rightly or wrongly, our infant nation adopted as national policy the concept that a small business is as entitled to freedom from discriminatory treatment by suppliers of goods and services as his larger competitors. Price discrimination by suppliers of transportation was the target of early regulation. Control of maximum transportation prices (rates and fares) resulted. It is important that this was n; action of a paternalistic central government but ori@inated by popular demand at the State level and in the presence of cut-throat competition between carriers. The Federal Government entered the scene only when it became apparent that fragmented economic regulation by individual states was ineffective and destructive of the best interests of our b.udding nation as a whole. We invented regulation by cownssion as an alternative to nationalization of transportation (the railroads), then cournon in most other nations. As newer modes came into general use the rail regulatory pattern was extended to them without adequate analytical thought (Hindsight). Later on, at.a time when our railroads were suffering a wave of bankruptcies and when nationalization was again being advocated, we found ourselves about to lose private enterprise rail transport cin which the national economy then depended, and to a large degree, still does. We found it necessary to.exercise some degree of control over the prevailing intense competition. Control of entry and minimum rates (price) resulted. These provisions also were carried over into regulation of other modes when, beginning in 1935, they were partially regulated. It must be concluded that, in 1970, generalized advocacy of "deregulation" is arrant nonsense. We may change the farm of economic regulation. We might even transfer the job from the regulatory agencies to some more politically responsive body, such as the Department of Justice or the Department of Transportation, though doing so would create a whole new set.of troubles. However, until public service replaces private profit as personal and.corporate motivation and the biblical Golden Rule generally prevails, we will continue to have transportation regulation in some form, by some agency of government, at both State and Federal levels. The real task is to stop fighting windmills, study the fundamentals, decide what we want and why, then make it work. Decision making is not the proper function of planners or analysts, who can and should, however, provide the decision makers with the factors essential to an informed decision. II. MAJOR TEXAS PORTS One of the major factors accounting for the dynamic growth of the Gulf Coast area in Texas has been the development of deep water ports. Of the 25 points shipping and receiving dry@and liquid commodities along the Texas Coast, 11 ports annually handle more than 90 percent of the total tonnage shipped. Figure 3 gives the name of the 11 major parts in the Texas Coastal Zone and indicates the approximate relative size and location of each port. These 11 Texas ports accounted for over 168 million short tons of cargo shipped during 1967. With over 58.3 million tons, Houston led all other Texas ports in volume for this time period. Beaumont, Corpus Christi and Port Arthur ranked 2nd, 3rd and 4th after Houston with 31.0 million tons, 23.4 million tons and 23.1 million tons, respectively. Figure 4 shows the types of cargoes handled by the major ports in Texas during 1967. Table A shows the general chararteristi 'cs ef the 11 major ports on the Texas Gulf Coast for 1967, including domestic and foreign shipments, channel depths, accommodations and other facilities available to shippers. Consistent with the total volume handled, the Port of Houston leads in all categories relating to domestic and foreign shipments. 6 ORANGE BEAU40NT PORT ARTHLIR HOUSTON TUAS CITY G&VESTON FREEPORT PORT LAVACA POINT COMFORT CORPUS CHRISTI FIGURE I MAJOR PORTS IN THE TEXAS COASTAL ZONE LA.Y PORT ISABEL BRaftVI U.E With the rapid development of superships and supertankers, those Texas ports unable to accommodate super draft vessels due to channel limitations now fear they face an immense and crucial challenge to their economic future. Partial solutions to these gigantic ships are available through containerizationand Lighter-Aboard Ship (LASH) concepts. Full resolution of the supership problem to allow major Texas ports to maintain orderly growth patterns may only occur through the establishment of offshore terminals in deeper waters 'to accommodate such superships, or alternative arrangements. Specific problems of such facilities are addressed in Section IV, "Super Draft Water Ports." 111. WATER TRANSPORTAT-10N The comparatively recent advent of so-called superships has served to focus attention on these craft and their port facility requirements almost to the exclusion of older, more conventional shipping. There can be no question that planning of needed facilities is a matter of extreme urgency if Texas is to retain her place in water transportation. It must be remembered, however, that to date these ships are planned for specific commodities over specific trade routes. It must also not be forgotten that Texas' water borne traffic is presently carried in shallow draft vessels and conventional ocean shipping. In 1968, barge traffic operating on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway handled 63.3 millionshort tons of freight. This is practically all domestic freight moving directly to/from origin/consignee facilities and as such it does not go thru port, authority or private terminal facilities. Thus, most of it would never be candidate traffic for superships. Planning for water transportation in the Coastal Zone must, of necessity, start with analysis in depth of existing traffic flow patterns by commodity, origin, d@stination and volume and the application thereto of pro- jections of change resulting not only from technological development but from such.factors as user preference and identifiable changes in the commodity mix, its origins and destinations. Up until now, we've relied almostentirely upon inputs from the modes themselves, with limited guidance from organizations such as the Federal Maritime Administration, and now the time may have arrived that we should broaden and include other related considerations. A number of these factors depend on other than transportation inputs. 17. SYPER-DRAFT WATER PORTS As used in this section, super-draft should be understood to mean channel, docking and loading facilities capable of accommodating superships as these may develop. At present drafts of*40-80 feet are being considered. 8 Port Dry Cargoes Liquid Cargoes (Grains, Cotton, Sulphur) (Petroleum and Chemical Products) Orange 38/6 Beaumont Port Arthur Sabine 'Pass Houston .37% Texas City Galveston 95% Freeport 24% Corpus Christi 31% Magi 19aw M Port Isabel Brow nsville 0 10 20 30 40 50 .60 70 80 90 100 Percent TYPES OF CARGOES HANDLED BY THE MAJOR TEXAS PORTS IN 1967 FIGURE 4 Source: Industrial Economics Research. Division Texas A&M 9 TABLE A GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR PORTS ON THE TEXAS GULF COAST S H I P P1 E N T S* -CHANNEL A C C 0 M M 0 D A T 1 0 N S DEPTH TRANSIT SHEDS OPEN DOCKS DOMESTIC FOREIGN RECEIPTS SHIPMENTS IMPORT EXPORT TOTAL (FEET) (SQUARE FEET) (SQUARE FEET) Houston 9,432 35,092 3,632 10,149 58,305 40 3,532,625-* N.A. Beaumont 8,963 18,733 48 3,257 31,001 34 349,000 235,000 Corpus Christi 3,004 14,815 3,021 2,634 23,474 40 508 000 N.A. Port Arthur 7,971 12,729 114 2,291 231,105 36 108,000 360,000 Texas City 8,547 7,245 54 276 -16,122 40 N.A. 40,000 Brownsville 313 1,989 1,900 857 5,059 38 100,000 N.A. Port Lavaca Point Comfort 590 934 3,090 101 4,735 36 N.A. 15,000 Freeport 1,566 1,542 91 993 4,192 36 156,720 N.A. Galveston 316 86 200 2,064 2,666 36 4,484,952 929,100 Orange 833 576, 2 143 1,554 30 285,350 41 4010 Port Isabel 42 307 2 3 354 38 52,000 50,000 In thousands of short tons -1967 Includes 1,616,004 square feet enclosed and 1,916,621 square feet open area N.A. Not Available Note: Houston has recently announced plans for major port construction in the Barbour's Cut area. SOURCE: Respective Port Authorities directly from IERn report. The eleven major water ports of Texas are understood to be exploring the advantagesof off-shore terminals for the accommodation of superships. While each c-C theee ports notu_--_-!y oee;,s t:,@ =r_2- the supership traffic, tkeye 5eems to be no rrcsent el;@_@ volume will justij@y cxperi@tzve of p ub tc one or, at fwst, two facilit@e_- o this nature @r -,he -3xaa _:@Z07. Onthe upper Texas coast, a casual inspection of greater water depths seems to indicate that the Port of Freeport is nearest to 60-foot and greater depth in the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 6.5 miles as com- pared to 23 miles off Galveston and 38 miles off Sabine Pass). See Figure 5. However, distance from shore to deep water -'& @y - @ e a,:.,: the only sufficient criteria to locate such facilities. In fact, in the final analysis, it may be relatively zie7@mpo@@tamt. Considerable additional research would seem to be in order to determine priorities, cost factors and economies of scale for the location and construction of an offshore terminal. it would seem that our area should be with Louisiana and AZabamu rather than ;re@@-een -@_Xao port cities. It has been suggested that only strong St_-te Z6@zcersll-: can avoid wasteful expenditures by premature construction not justified by predictable demand. Others believe the converse: namely that the local entities through the effects of their competition will provide sufficient leadership and arrive at an "optimal" solution. All possible alternatives should be thoroughly explored. It could be that comprehensive planning might indicate construction of a new port or development of a smaller existing facility favorably located in relation to the ten - fifteen fathom depth contours more costly construction and maintenance at an existing port having wider reaches of shallow water. The solution here has not, at this time, been determined; in fact, the various groups studying the many trade-offs involved in this complex problem are still identifying parameters and relevant factors. Present channel depths of major Texas ports reveal 40-foot channel depths available at the ports of Houston, Corpus Christi and Texas City. The ports' of Galveston and Corpus Christi are in the process of developing 45-foot channels for deeper-draft ships. Noteworthy is the new proposed Barbours Cut port facility for the Houston area which is to be operating by 1972. With a channel depth of 40-feet, the Houston port authorities apparently feel such a channel depth will be sufficient to accomodate most general cargo carriers for the near future. The concept of developing a super-draft port in a less developed region has many interesting aspects. For example, it could result in population dispersion or decentralization - an occurrence which many ,;nciolo@4sts bel`eve desirable; but conv@r-ely,.'@ such an action caused adverse economic effects of the older areas this would be most undesirable. And, certainly not least, many co.@qseroa-ionists would be upset at the idea. of industrial development moving inio a'new area. The total benefit/cost analysis must, of course, include the costs of interfacing with land, barge and, possibly, air transport. The effect of port location on super-ship turn-around time will be of vital importance in attracting this traffic. Because of the present inter-part competition, such rational evaluation will almostcertainly have to come from some other source than the existing local port authorities, unless of course, their existing attitudes change as they realize that the Texas Gulf Coast is engaged with all the rest of the nation in a fierce struggle for much of the developmental.enter- prises which will follow the super-draft facilities. In order to successfully pluck this "national plum" an unprecedented amount of- inter-port cooperation may be necessary; however, there is no reason to b,@ieve that the'.existing organizations will fail to met the challenge. V. PORT ORGANIZATION There seems to belittle uniformity throughoutAmerica among the organizations formed to p ,romote and/or operate ports. They all, however, seem to have one thing in co7mwn--to do-everything possible to increase the tonnage handled by the individual port as a means of promoting growth.of the port city. Some have taxing authority withoutdirect accountability to the electorate upon whom the tax burden falls'. Some, such as the.Port of New York Authority, operate or otherwise control transportation.facilities not directly related.to any Water port function. So far as is known, none of them is charged. with overall responsibility for land use compatibility with any set of comprehensive-regional objectives. None is charged with relating 'growth ambitions to other social or economic.goals. Until recently this single-minded devotion to bigness was considered acceptable or @Yen desirable. Todmj, there is considerable doubt that sheer growth is, in all cases, the proper target. There is a rising certainty that the actions of any sizeable community cannot fail to impact other communities, some of which may, by older standards, seem quite distant from the action, under a separate local political jurisdiction, and with no readily available means of effective protest. Embarking upon a program of Coastal Zone de@elopment .-Texas may well profit in -the long run by clearly defining.the desired relation.- ship of the Zone to the rest of the State and the creation-of govern- mental machinery by which compatible development may be fostered and, if need be, insured while maintaining a reasonable balance be 'tween individual rights and the public interest. For example, some industries such as mining or oil and sulphur extraction must exist where nature has placed the resources. Salt water fisheries, as well as recreation, depend upon natural factors, as.does agricultural . ' production which must be suited to the soil and climate available. On the other hand, a number of activities unrelated to the Gulf have locatedin the coastal counties and there may be some doubt that th6se, in the long run, will contribute to the overall desirability of Texas as a place to work and live. To the extent such activities are 12 unnecessarily exposed to wind and water damage t@ev may prove an economic liability to the State and the :;ation.. Note the combine,-, implication of the attached clippings. The Chief of the National Hurricane Center told President Nixon's Disaster Preparedness Conference, "I am.enormously concerned with develoDment of high density populations right at the shore Ilines." (Figure 5) Guidance of Coastal Zone develoPment will be, @n any event, a and clear of c.;'1`1-ct-1-,--@,. it will not be accomplished by uncoordinated efforts of private enterprise nor by competitive strife between the cities and counties of the Zone. Meaningful State leadership is definitely needed to show the way, to encourage cooperative effort and to insure compatibility wit@ the overall Goals for Texas. Several courses of action appear to oe possible, though each most certainly will have its merits/liabilities, and thus attract a strong crowd of either followers or opponents. They include the following "possib]L@' candidates: One action might be for the Legislature to create a - xas Part Coamission empowered to approve or reject all private and public port construction and modification; to act for the State in relation to Federal port and water transport programs; and further, charged with developing port objectives in relation to Coastal Zone and Texas objectives and insuring compatibility of port projects therewith. Such a Commission: would providt full time specialized attention to Texas' important port activity as a valuable. adjunct to and in no conflict with the overall function of the Interagency Natural Resources Council (of which it would be a member.). Texas ports, collectively, would gain a voice in government which they do not now possess. The existing port organizations might join together in some type of organilzatiqp strong@@r t;ian T@4. Such a federation would iiave the "final say' about the expansion or modification of their own facilities when it came to major matters in which the whole region was competing with another major section of the United States. Yet on minor things, inter-port competition would still exist. A strong inter-Agenc,, might be developed. Here the port organizations would join with other transportation-related groups indeveloping a State/regional. approach. Under the influence of the unbiased non-port mombers, possibly a good, workaL`e plan could De deve',Gpe@`. Yet another possibility - though most feel it is both infeasible and impractical - would be a However; such a monster would almost certainly create more problems than it would solve. 13 As stated under Water Transportation, it is important that concentration on deep water Coastal Zone ports not obscure the present and potentia Z value of inland water ports and shallow-draft @jater transport. Development of the LASH (lighter-aboard-ship) and off-shore terminal concepts will enhance the already high value of these facilities. Inland ports should be within the scope of the responsibility of whatever organization(s) that evolve. V1. RAILROADS It is a rather common fallacy to believe all the railroads of America are dead or dying because of the publicity attending rail passenger discontinuances and the financial troubles.of some railroads. While it is true that, except for the war years, the railroad share of intercity freight - the bread and butter - has declined steadily from 62.3% in 1939 to 41.0% in 1969, this is only part of the story. Such relative decline was to have been expected as alternative transportation developed. Once this share was close to 100%. The other side of the coin is that, in absolute ton-miles carried, the railroads have, in thirty years, gone from 339 biZZion ton-miles in Z939 to an all time record high of 780 billion in 1969. It can confidently be expected that railroads will continue to play a vital role in the industrial future of the Coastal Zone.although their role in passenger transportation is most doubtful. The Coastal Zone is served by a comprehensive rail network (see map). The eleven major ports, accounting for the 1ion's share of ocean tonnage, benefit from competitive rail service as follows: (also, see Table B) Port City Number of Railroads (1) Beaumont 4 Brownsville 2 (4) Corpus Christi 3 Freeport, I Galveston 6 Houston 6 Orange 2 (2) Port Arthur 2 14 Port City Number of Railroads (li Port Lavaca-Point Comfort I Port Isabel I Texas City 6 (3) (1) Not including local belt or terminal companies. (2) By connection with port owned railroad. (3) By connection with terminal railroad. (4) Plus Mexican National RR. All of these railroads connect with the interior directly or by interchange. The most direct coastwise rail transport from Brownsville to Beaumont and intermediate points is over the trackage of two parallel railroads, Southern Pacific and Missouri Pacific. Development of the Coastal Zone as an interface between inland points and ocean transportation will continue to depend to a large degree on the efficiency of railtransportation. A ke-, @_-_-tor in this efficiency are the railroad yards, modernizat@on of L;h,,ch require substantial capital expendituTes. Traditionally, these improvements and choice of location have been left to the private initiative of the rail roads whi ch has resulted in total overcapacity at some locations , undercapacity at otn@rs, and general failure to achieve the full potential of interchange, with minimum delay and cost incident thereto. Any sound developmental plan for the Coastal Zone should require treatment of the rail network as a whole--designed to best satisfy the total zone rail transport requirements in the most efficient manner. Strategic location of modern yards, operated as joint undertakings by the using railroads and with appropriate governmental financial assistance could possibly advance the regional economy. Incident to this concept, obsolete rail terminal facilities in localities unsuited to present and projected metropolitan needs should be encouraged to relocate. As ship capacity grows and as port facilities are developed, consideration should be given by port planners to provision of faciZitie6 to handle unit-train movements as the -,an-' -;-!ater The economics inherent in this comparatively recent @evelopment in rail transportation of such commodities as grain should not be over- looked. Because of anti-trust and economic considerations, strong leader- ship on the part of the State or other overall regional governmental authority will be required. Should Coastal Zone development entail construction of port facilities at a new location or material augmen- tation at old locations such leadership will be indispensable to insure coordination with land use planning. 15 TABLE B RAILROADS SERVING MAJOR TEXAS PORTS PORT Beaumont Kansas City Southern; Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe; Missouri Pacific; and Southern Pacific. Brownsville Missouri Pacific; Southern Pacific; and National Railways of Mexico. Corpus Christi Missouri Pacific; Southern Pacific; and Texas Mexican Railway. Freeport Missouri Pacific. Galveston Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe; Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific; Fort Worth and Denver; M-K-T; Missouri Pacific; and Southern Pacific. Houston M-K-T; Missouri Pacific; Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe; Southern Pacific; Fort Worth-Denver; and Rock Island Lines. Orange The port owns 1.6 miles of trackage to provide rail transportation to the Missouri Pacific and the Southern Pacific. Port Arthur Kansas City Southern and Southern Pacific. Port Lavaca- Point Comfort Point Comfort and Northern Railroad. Port Isabel .,No railroads,serve the port at the present time. Texas City I.exas City. Terminal Railway Company has daily connections to the Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe; Missouri Pacific; M-K-T; Southern Pacific; Rock Island; and Fort Worth and Denver Railroads. VII. HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION Highway transportation is, of course, the most visible forr of transport to everyone. Because of the personal relationship between people, automobiles and highway traffic it is the first transportation mode in the minds of nearly all. Nevertheless, highway translort is but one part of what should be a balanced system designed to best satisfy the needs of all users--both as to service characteristics and as to cost. As is true with most parts of Texas, the Coastal Zone 'Is served by a network of exce',tent highways. With the exception of the Beaumont- Houston-Galveston triangle, however, little of this network is now constructed to Interstate standards. If development of the Coastal Zone is to be a matter of priority, efforts to expedite @?ons-,ylo7-1,r 0: an "Interstate quality" highway from Brownsville to Houston axe indicated despite the fact that existing traffic volumes may not seem to justify the expenditures at this time. The developmental effect of better transportation is of major interest to this area. In addition to local drayage and other unregulated motor transport the eleven major port cities are served by regulated intrastate and interstate motor common carriers as follows: Port City Number of Carriers Beaumont 13 Brownsville N.A. Corpus Christi 7 Freeport 4 Galveston 10 Houston 34 Orange 9 Port Arthur 7 Port Lavaca Point Comfort 3 Port Isabel 2 Texas City 2 17 Incident to planning for highway development, the space requirements and location of highway terminal facilities, and truck-rail, truck-water and truck-air interchange facilities for, both unitized and non-unitized cargo should be provided for. The important aspect of the transportation interface should no longer be left to chance or the uncoordinated actions of individual interests. VIII. AIR TRANSPORTATION Interstate common carrier air transportation of both passengers and cargo originating or terminating in the Coastal Zone presently requires routing through Houston Intercontinental Airport and, usually, inter- change at that point. This condition will prevail for an indefinite period. Some exploration of an air cargo center primarily oriented toward transporation.of perishables, generally South and East of San Antonio, has been initiated but, to date, no proposals have been formulated. The Texas Aeronautics Commission is engaged in long range planning for intrastate air transportation and facilities. This planning process could be a model for Coastal Zone transportation planning which, in any case, must be closely coordinated therewith. This would seem to be a factor favoring establishment of a Texas Interagency Transportation council to assist the Governor in performing his statutory responsibil- ities for overall planning in Texas. At some future date, coincident with material expansion of the all-cargo air carrier fleet (possibly 1980) an air cargo center on the Houston-Galveston axis will probably be requir@d to relieve air space congestion at Houston Intercontinental. It is not too soon to set aside land required for such a facility. The Location should be carefully coordinated with the main routes of surface transport. _ The Texas Air Transportation Plan, now in early developmental stage, should be carefully reviewed in connection with Coastal Zone planning. IX. PIPE LINE TRANSPORTATION The unique operating and ownership characteristics of pipe line transportation set this mode apart from all otherforms of transport, although in the movement of some commodities pipe lines are highly competitive with other forms of surface transport. Portions of the Coastal Zone are a maze of interstate, intrastate, gathering and inter-plant pipe lines carrying petroleum products, natural gas and chemicals. It has been said with apparent justification that there is no single public or private agency having readily available 18 full knowledge of the location and activi-,i@s of all Texas pire T@ree. If true, this is a situat,;on which shcui_' -'-,3 speediC,Z@ ccrrect-ed :7- 5@:Zte level for reasons of safety as well as eo,)nor-,cs. In addition to transportation of liquids and gasses by pipe line, other commodities are now being moved in this manner. As technollogy permits and demand justifies, there is every reason to expect this form of transportation to increase. Coastal Zone, and all other regional planning in Texas, should keep abreast of these changes and inteqrate them into the planning process. It is a foregone conclusion that new port development and augmentation of existing facilities; on-shore or off-shore, will require adjustment of the pipe line complex which, as stated elsewhiere in this commentary, must depend on comprehensive,,in-depth commodity flow analysis. Once again, uncoordinated actions by individual inttFres-,S_ public or private, can be expected to maximize cost and impede the attainment of overall Texas objectives. X. RECREATIONAL AND ECOLOGICAT PACTCR5 In addition to being an important factor in Texas' economic development, the Gulf Coast is, perhaps, the major playground for all Texans and a valuable attraction for out-of-state visitors. The amount of coasta, space available for this purpose and for preservation of wildlife is steadily shrinking. A Texas Interagency Transportation Council, such as the-one mentioned under AIR TRANSPORTATION, could be most valuable here. It could, through proper coordination with the already existing Natural Resources Council, allow for the compati-ble, complimentary development of transportation systems and natural resources. There are comparatively minor industrial traffic demands generated by this use. Of greatest importance, major industrial transportation centers are, to a large degree, incompatible with recreation and the preservation of natural attractions. The close relationship between ease of transportation and recreational development is too well known to require detailed comment. Land use planning should carefully weigh the impacts of industrial development upon other objectives for this area in order to avoid costly mistakes so often committed in the past. In this case, lard-use planning and the resulting decisions should precede transportation planning. Consideration should be given Statewide as well as 1@cal im'pacts, since conflicts of intp@@t are mc,.t likely to mccur in this area. 19 Texas Gram7h FaLlNrems To�d Dir. R.L. SkTabanak, hall of core In. he feels the census counli@ tht are Inertaits! ng and Houston alone hold one he no"' Department of bureau did a va,y good j-O. really had to pack Ilia people third of the people." Sociology and Aq:Ii,O1OTa,,y at me atl,jb-,ted the over Lba',ius, they make up for Skrabanek said he, saw.no To' as A&M. told Extensm "timntes to anticipated h other 2-3 of the counties lans increases in rural p pol't an workers Tuesday the pop@latm pOpulatic. grall"Lli that d1d,'t they added a bair million new but fell it would terrain abut of Tex , is 1. leasing faster Occur. "We dicin '! gm 'as much people." the same. "We now have GG t aa,' at 60 d counties in Texas which bate h n the Unit it States or valid b ween ID and 19@O 23 we Skrabarick illustrated ensity population. did between IEK and he by contrasting Dallas County mom deaths than lorth an- Do% Rl@b-,@ spo.e at the said. which has 1,500 people par nua Ily,11 he added. He felt th,,, State ExtmMen Corf ance .,We have simply had a square mile to Loving County this meant that the older pconle ba.g held an otimpas this'" furtb@r S du!,na in the birth which has one person per four am being left behMe iehen He sto!: " a mal@- a ,t a irat,@, krahaaek expl.il?J. "I sqa.,c miles. then mignt i city a to 'he pare! fL_L!: trieei 0 h;p 'he don It want to overplay the w)'d "As a general role, the Dr. W. KI-dy Upham of ahe eld Antbm count bettor nalyre @Iowdown' became we ale still s, alle the to- the more Soclolog Pat "y theiry !%" -" data. griajoll at a very rapid rate," like],,, it is to be Ittsing in department jold the agents h-, cou'"'s qcr@ "Th St@@ , 11 growing he added. popolati on and the bigger the to filterpre mortality mles, at a-r" the Sklatianck pointed outtO the to,,a the more likely it is to. fertility rates,,hetc. And Ft. world in gene.ral and r.... i., group of county agents that the be gro%ving," Skrabanek said. Cop!laod, 0 @ e same &part- 1, incroa 'i' a' aam population of Texas is v&Fy He said that three'out of four ment, "pained ethnic group cap., all," be said,"n uq@veqly diitributed. -pso out Texans live in the 23 Standard trends. a Skrab,irek admitted he was of every three counties 10A Metropolitan SLatistical Areas of The convention will corimue one of y who an- population during 1960 70," he Texas. "Five of these areas hold through Friday with speeches "a -a- 0 .i,.' hi her census colmls, said. over one balli of the state's and w rkshnps for the Extension gI POpa,,, he but said that as he results have "Those one third Of the s id, "altd Dallas agents. Hurricane Danger Chief Calls I Evacuation Route JGAMI (AP) - Expanding western states that Hurricane population, along the warm I Cella, , which ravaged Corpus wraither coasts of the Atlantic I Christi, Tex., Aug. 3, was "a and Gulf states could becomalmet-olcigelal emigana which "sitting ducks for disaster" un.!will give forecasters and build- less escape routes are prqvided@ing engineers something to thiak from tropical storms, says Lhe!about for yem." chief of the National Hurricanet The highest gusts registered Center. by the Weather Bureau hit 161 miles per hour, Simpson said "A burri in the near fia, I 'bo can say how high they battle cauldckmille 20,VA or 30,000.1Br 50,0@1 1 ctually we e? They might have eve.,people unless we been 40 per cent higher. hav sound planning " Dr. Re bi erteH. Simpson told PresidentII, Simpson said it was the first Nixon's fou-Ith repona]! DisastTr, ome o6n record th I the major roa a ! Prepuedness Conference Tues-@dorae . from a hurricane was day. by gusts rather than sm- ,,I am enormously conea-Med "@BuZinngd%agrneers have told with development `Ius through the,years that they ty:Rul@,Iml,@I, ri of high @e7amidesip for sustained winds and ,..@I,a lin icl.tb@. we do not bother about gut loads@" 'riaI ofiSimpson said. ek in people by hatedredt; thousands eand fail to provide es-1 "We can mamuore these so& cape rout' , we will be sittiqg@tamad winds but there Is no ducks for disaster one of these imwh means of predicting guoit days-" "in Simpson said D:d, Cmmlt'- mj.!_ia aprion as. ". Of signifig of our building struc- .mbra,mbig population and!tures," he said. _ poor plarinug. if a major harriciin;e of Stia ,ml, be @.i ,251,0@11 F2 21.1 th pe,pleijammed between U.S. 1 7 @ B @c@, to .", Rity -rld hs,.,, ally ti-a,ne @a 'hic" to uralal to CO?JNT,"'( KifCH -,N "A very high percentage Of these peop:a would be dro,,vacd Closed for Vacation or killed by flying debris," he WML RE -OPIIH sa it. TUESDAY AUG. J25th Simpson to!d disaster Officials from 12 S3.thern and S.iiih- XI. 14ASS RAPID TRANSIT' The mechanics of moving a large number of people speedily and in relative comfort presents a major problen in and around any major urban area. Conflicts arise from the unbalanc ed distri7 bution of demand over time, arising from the A'M and PM "rusn" hours. This creates many problems including delays, frustrations., accidents, and injuries, and provides headaches for both the urban trip-maker and the urban transportation administrator. There appears to be four alternative ways to alleviatet@e problem: Rescheduling of some-trip-makers Rerouting of some trip-makpre Increasing the size (capacitu) cf @;-.e Increasing the movement capa!@izi-@, for larger passenger loads per Each of these has its pros and cons. Unfort,,jnately, polari- zation has developed between proponents of the tc major alter- nate means; "rail transit" vs "highway transit. Each, of course, has both its merits and its limitations. However, Wh4le rail transit has its place in certain highly congested areas with population densities in excess of 20,000 perC:'ns -r-*r oquare mize, it most certainly is NOT the answer to all or even most of our present problems, "Rubber-tired" or highway-based mass transit systems present a different picture, for a variety of reasons. The maximum population density in Texas is 3,528 persons per square mile and this occurs only in one very small Irea. For the major Texas cities, this maximum density is on the order of less than 2,800 persons Der square mile. Also, national trends even in the urbar indicate a strong move toward dispersion rarhE@r conceptra- tion. (While the final result remains to be seen, there is considerable speculation that San Francisco's BART will not be able to support itself by bringing commuters from the relatively settled suburban rotrunitie,.) The highway-oriented system can respond to rapid reZoca- tions of demand generationlattractil@-. In Taken in part from j Systern to PaciZitalt, --,,e @@=id Transit on Urban Preewa ya by Texas Transportation Inst`t4z.@, 21 our rapidly changing country this shou ld be a paramount consideration. (New York City provides an'excellent example how shift in demand causes the abandonment of rail systems. At one time rails connected Harlem with the textile/garment district; then as that industry moved south, the area needed stevedores which came from a different section of the city. These rail-oriented facilities have since been abandoned and removed since they could not respond to changes.) The costs of such systems are much less, since in most cases existing freetoays would form the backbone of such rubber-tired transit systems. Also, they provide valuable transportation linkages in non-peaking hours - and who wants to wait two hours for a train at 1:30 A. M.! Our existing and proposed network of excellent highways, freeways, and other roadways, is capable of handling our present and projected surface passenger loads. On the other hand, anyone who commutes daily through the freeway rush-hour can't help but wonder that if, for the particular problem of going to work, a better mousetrap is possible. Also, he may be inclined to ponder the massive amount of natural resources being expended by all the 5-passenger automobiles - each with one occupant - that sit motion- less on the 4-lane concrete path below him; he may even begin to think about the.cost of h.is 2nd or 3rd car. If any type of mass rapid.transit system is to succeed, it must attract and capture this individual. For it todo so, it must equal or excel the automobile in the following ways: Convenience, Comfort, Cost, Spe ed, and Security. Only if a system Meets these criteria will it gain public accep- tance. (The present shuttle-bus system at the University of Texas at Austin campus is a perfe 'ct example of amass system providing an alternative more palatable than driving in a very specific situation.) At present, and well into the future, the only possible solution, if we are to consider the mass transit alternative, appears to be the rubber-tired, highway-oriented version. Such a system, utilizine existing structures and maintaining a maximum degree of flexibility, might relieve the congestion in the most urbanized areas. These routes -,L4st exist for the movement of goods and services even if there was no passenger demand. In speaking of mass transit systems, people often forget that the @streets and roads must exist for the local movement of non-human 22 cargo anyway. However, for the present, the is far and away the best solution to existing probleirs. Before any rash decisions are made, much more consideration f t,-- ilternalies will be needed. This is only one part of tne ::--%! transportation system for the Gulf Coast and it should be co7s'Jered in any planning efforts. 7 23 CI STUDIES COMPLETED BY THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INCLUDE: Marine Affairs in Texas: A Higher Education Report Agricult,ire in the Coastal Zone Notes on the Texas Gulf-Coast as a Tourism-Recreation Region Minerals and Mining Interagency Relations Affecting the Coastal Zone Historical and Cultural Features The Climate and Physiography of the Texas Coastal Zone Financial Institutions in the Coastal Zone The Status of Public Health in the Texas Coastal Zone Inventor-,, of Waste Sources in the Coastal Zone Land-Use Patterns in the Texas Coastal Zone Electric Power in the Coastal zone Cand Ownership Patterns OceanograpMic Report for Coastal Zone Study The Wildlife Resources of Coastal Texas Transportation in the Coastal Zone A Water Inventory of the Texas Coastal Zone Special Reports ABOVE STUDIES ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH: Coastal'Resources Management Program Division of Planning Coordination Office of the Governor Austin, Texas 78711 ZONE INFORMAyloN -CENTERK LOCATIOAMAP L Y GA L VES SAY RIS Asr 8 AZORIA SAY WES r BAY MATAGORDA LAV.4CA MATAGORDA BAY BAY CALHOM CPO k ISAN ANTONIO 1If C-OR-A NO ,%BAY DISTRICT 17 ll@@l Lill ll@l @@li