Author: Aren Cambre

Illegal Speed Limits on Future North Texas Tollways

September 15, 2005

Allan Rutter, Executive Director
North Texas Tollway Authority
5900 West Plano Parkway, Ste 100
Plano, Texas 75093

Mr. Rutter,

I read with interest a Sept. 15, 2005 Dallas Morning News article by Tony Hartzel titled “Area toll roads to get pricier.” Part of that article detailed NTTA board discussions about speed limits. I am writing to alert you that the board may be considering illegal speed limits.

Here are key quotes from the article:

One option calls for the new toll roads to have the same rates as other roads. Under another scenario, the higher-cost toll roads could have higher tolls. Those tolls also could be based upon lower speed limits or cost, such as community requests for extra amenities. Consultants say that lower speed limits reduce the number of toll road users, thereby reducing revenue potential.

…

Board members expressed a desire to find a compromise, with most toll roads having the same rate but leaving the option open for higher tolls on certain projects. That most likely would apply to Southwest Parkway and the proposed Trinity Parkway in downtown Dallas, where city leaders have asked for lower speed limits.

(Emphasis added.)

It appears that the NTTA board is considering choosing arbitrary speed limits to satisfy a financial goal. Texas law does not permit the NTTA to choose speed limits in this fashion.

Per section 545.354 of the Texas Transportation Code, Texas Statutes, titled “Authority Of Regional Tollway Authorities To Alter Speed Limits On Turnpike Projects”:

The authority, in conducting the engineering and traffic investigation specified by Subsection (a), shall follow the procedure for establishing speed zones adopted by the Texas Department of Transportation.

This procedure is defined in the Texas Administrative Code Title 43 (Transportation), Part 1 (Texas Department of Transportation), Chapter 25 (Traffic Operations), Subchapter B (Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones). Specifically, rule §25.23 of this procedure requires the speed limit to be set at the 5 MPH increment closest to the 85th percentile speed of passenger vehicles, and variances are only allowed for unusual circumstances such as an above average crash rate, pedestrian traffic, or a lack of shoulders. It is unlawful for the NTTA to establish a speed limit lower than the 85th percentile speed for any other reason, including but not limited to a financial goal, the “design speed” of the roadway, or a desire to placate the whim of a city council.

Simply put, Texas law requires that the posted speed limit be a reflection of the maximum speed used by reasonable drivers.

This policy is further backed up by section 2B.11 of the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. “Substantial compliance” to this manual is a condition for Texas to receive federal highway dollars. This manual is strict in its requirement for the use of the 85th percentile speed, and it clearly requires that no other considerations are to be allowed besides physical characteristics of the roadway or crash records.

As a side point, no new miles of roadway established after 2002 are eligible for Environmental Speed Limits. Per section 545.353, Transportation Code (Authority Of Texas Transportation Commission To Alter Speed Limits), “the commission may not determine or declare, or agree to determine or declare, a prima facie speed limit for environmental purposes on a part of the highway system.” Since the NTTA is bound by statute to use the same speed zoning rules as the Texas Department of Transportation, the NTTA may not enact environmental speed limits on any roadway that did not already have an environmental speed limit before Sept. 1, 2003. (This is due to the effective date of the bill adding this clause to section 545.353. Please see the NCTCOG’s environmental speed limit web site at http://www.dfwinfo.com/trans/env_speed_limits/ for further clarification.) This means that the 5 MPH environmental speed limit reduction currently in effect on the George Bush Turnpike between I-35E and Garland may not be used on the new section of the turnpike between I-35E and I-635. Furthermore, this 5 MPH speed limit reduction may not be part of the speed zoning process on the Dallas North Tollway north of TX 121 or south of Frankford Rd. The 5 MPH speed reduction only applies to roadway segments which had the 5 MPH speed limit reduction before Sept. 1, 2003.

While I enjoy the North Texas Tollway Authority roads, I have observed that currently posted speed limits are almost certainly posted 5-10 MPH below the maximum safe speed that would be determined with a proper speed study. I am alarmed to read the apparent recommendation of even lower speed limits. I hope the Authority refrains from using illegal, arbitrarily low speed limits on future roadways, and I hope the NTTA will consider rechecking speed limits on existing roadways. Every arbitrarily low speed limit on NTTA roads only encourages a dangerous mindset that traffic regulations don’t matter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need clarification of this letter.

Sincerely,

Aren Cambre

Bush Not Responsible For Katrina SNAFUs

The Katrina response is full of SNAFUs—inadequate flood protection, poor preparedness, poor communications, and slow response. You can’t pin this on one person, and nobody should resign over this.

The problem is systemic.

Disaster response procedures do not come with each elected official official. They are refined over decades. They are the legacy of many mayorships, governorships, and presidencies. Pointing fingers will delegitimize those with the most experience.

The problem is also scale. No amount of preparedness exercises can guarantee flawless execution in the largest natural disaster to ever hit the US.

Yes, the response was bad. New Orleans, Louisiana, and FEMA must improve. New Orleans and Louisiana should have more planning than just “corral the poor and wait for the feds.” The feds should have reacted more quickly.

On a side node, some buffoons, apparently fueled by sites like Daily Kos, are even going so far as to cite recent federal budget cuts as the direct cause of the flooding. (This nutty viewpoint has even infected Wikipedia.)

One of their “facts” against the Bush administration is that work on the Hammond Highway Bridge over the 17th St. Canal caused the breach. Of course, they disregard the fact that this project was initiated in prior president’s administration. Plus, look at the picture to the right. It shows that completed bridge at the top. Further down, several houses south of the bridge, is the levee break. The link is at best vague.

All of you Daily Kos-reading “let’s-not-let-facts-get-in-the-way-of-our-anti-Bush-crusade” types, give me a break! Your silly arguments completely dissolve in the face of intractable questions like:

  • Is levee protection of a specific locality a proper federal issue?
  • Why is Louisiana apparently a beggar for critical projects, unable to act on its own? If the state cannot be economically viable and safe on its own, does it deserve to be rewarded with pork barrel projects like free levees?
  • Louisiana couldn’t have made up any of the recent annual shortfalls, which at its worst was $16.1 million in 2005, for a “critical” project?
  • Even if the money was paid in full, would the levees have been completed today?
  • When has any local authority, especially in the 3nd most corrupt state in the United States, ever been honest with true needs? Just because only x% of the requested money was spent, does that mean that only a similar percent of the truly needed projects were able to be completed?
  • Why solely blame the president when Congress is who creates and passes budgets? With the loss of the short-lived line item veto, the only legal authority the president has in the budgetary process is signing the budget bills.

The New Orleans levee system has been underfunded and incomplete for decades. It was supposed to be finished in 1975 (search for 1965). It is just coincidental that the consequences of the underfunding hit during the Bush administration. (Check out this funny weirdo who believes that Katrina was directly manipulated by something called the Woodpecker Grid. This nitwit is the weather anchor for a Idaho TV station. Is Idaho really that desperate?)

So far I have found nothing convincing to suggest that the current levee system could have been reasonably completed by August 2005 without an unprecedented and unusual windfall from the feds. But even if the current levee system was fully completed, it was not designed to withstand a storm like Katrina. The current levee system was inadequate for any hurricane over category 3.

It is true that there has been talk of upgrading to a levee system that can withstand category 5 storms. However, estimates say this will cost $2.5 billion (I probably should have said “at least”; when do big federal projects every stay within budget?) and would have taken decades to complete. (another link) It is silly to blame the lack of a category 5 buffer on any recent budget actions.

Another charge is that wetlands destruction caused this flooding. There’s a grain of truth in this. Every 2.7 miles of wetlands absorb about 1 foot of storm surge (link). And the cheery-eyed optimists, citing that wetlands are quickly rejuvenated (true), also use this to blame the Bush Administration.

Huh?

Let’s not forget some important things:

Furthermore, the official plan to restore Louisiana wetlands is called Coast 2050. Hmm, “2050”: does that imply a project that will take a while to complete? As in you can’t pin wetlands loss on Bush?

Don’t summarily blame individuals for this crisis. The response procedures were created and refined over many presidential administrations. I don’t think it’s reasonable to criticize any of these individuals simply because they didn’t effect profound, revolutionary changes before this event. However, they know better now. We need to hold their asses to the grindstone until radical improvements come out.

And you liberal weenies, quit selfishly using this tragedy to further your own agenda. That’s just nauseating.

Questioning the rebuilding of New Orleans

House Speaker Dennis Hastert had the sense to question spending federal dollars to rebuild New Orleans. Good for him! Congress should debate this.

New Orleans is inherently defective. The land naturally sinks, but the Mississippi used counter this by regularly flooding and depositing silt. Now that the Mississippi is totally leveed off, the silt just flows into the gulf. New Orleans sinks without stopping.

The prospect of shutting down New Orleans is fearsome. Shutting it down could decimate Louisiana’s tax base. But the question must be asked.

American taxpayers deserve a fair hearing on this issue.

Predictably, Louisiana’s marginally competent governor demanded an apology.

New Orleans

Hurricane Katrina has stirred up a lot of emotions and thoughts.


I am profoundly sorry for what the residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida went through. It doesn’t make the news as much, but entire Mississippi and Alabama towns and neighborhoods were completely wiped off the map.

I am extremely disappointed with the human filth that is terrorizing those stuck in New Orleans. It’s OK to loot to provide for basic needs when there is no other way. However, it’s felonious to steal luxuries like TVs, used cars, DVDs, drugs, jewelry, designer clothing, and so on, and it’s especially pathetic that New Orleans cops were caught in the act at the Garden District Walmart.

I am glad that many parts of New Orleans were not flooded. Look at this aerial photograph. Where the streets turn black, they are flooded. Much of the best stuff is not flooded: Garden District, Audubon Park, Tulane University, the St. Charles Avenue corridor, the French Quarter, and a lot of downtown.

Before you call me elitist, think of what this means. Billions of dollars are going to pour into that city to rebuild it. What parts will get the most attention? What part needed the most attention in the first place? The parts that got the most flood damage. It is fortunate that the main tourist areas are intact: it keeps a key economic engine alive.

I am disappointed that shutting down most of New Orleans isn’t on the table. Even if it is rebuilt, New Orleans will remain a disaster waiting to happen. Abandoning large swaths of the city should be considered to avert another disaster.

I think the New Orleans mayor is an idiot. He comes across as a dope, and he whines like a spoiled brat when things don’t happen exactly as he demands.

I think the media has done a terrible job. Pictures have been extremely slow getting out. News stories have been rife with bogus information. All major news outlets seem to keep showing the same AP photos again and again and again, and it takes an incredibly long time to get new photos out. There is little excuse for this except for poor preparedness. The New Orleans Times-Picayune is the best news source so far. Drudge Report has been especially obnoxious. Matt Drudge keeps linking day old articles as if they are breaking news.

I am really tired of conspiracy theorists who say that high gas prices are due to some mythical oligarchy jacking up prices. Gas prices were already high because of high demand, political instability, and inadequate refining capacity. Now that a chunk of US refining and production capacity is offline for who knows how long, gas prices are naturally increasing. The oil and gas industry is one of the most transparent industries out there. High school economics fully explains the price situation. There’s no conspiracy!

I am glad we visited New Orleans last June!

When Will I Get Another Nova? (and Why I Don’t Like SUVs)

Lately the loss of my Nova has been getting to me. Not as in emotional breakdowns, but in the sense that a big part of me is gone, and I want it back.

What do I want back? Do I want that exact Nova? If not, what do I want? Do I have an unreasonable desire? Let’s look at these questions individually.

Oh, if you want to see what prompted me to write this, scroll to the bottom of this essay.

Do I want that exact Nova?

One person I know firmly believes that I want my exact same Nova back. I think he says this because of all the family history in this car. (See the bottom of my crash story.)

Sure, it was fun to show that car to people who knew me many years ago. One time I went to a town where I used to live over 20 years ago. A few people recognized the car before they recognized me. That is neat. Also, I would never have gotten into old cars as a hobby, especially Novas, had this Nova not been a family hand-me-down when I turned 17.

However, this isn’t why I enjoyed that Nova so much.

Until that Nova became “mine,” it was just a piece of junk, the “other” car, the car I never wanted to be in. The paint was never right, it burned and leaked lots of oil, the A/C never worked that well, etc.

Thanks to a fortunate situation, I had full access to body shop and engine shop during the summers while I was attending SMU. I got a good deal of free, expert labor in the body restoration. I also had access to a Volvo shop in Dallas for my last year of college and almost three years afterwards. With all those resources, and help from friends and family members, I was able to transform that car into a different beast. A worn out, oil burning rust bucket turned into a pretty nice classic car. It wasn’t the same old family car anymore.

When I was driving the Nova, I rarely thought about its family connections.  What I thought about, and enjoyed, were the things I had done to the car. I enjoyed being able to drive the result of my “craftsmanship” (if you can call it craftsmanship!), and a car that was built mostly to my specifications. Few people in this world can say that.

I was proud that I restored the Nova differently than how almost everyone else does similar generation Novas. Most people rip out the air conditioning. Most people shoehorn as much horsepower as possible into their engines even if that makes the car barely idle and the mechanicals wear out quickly. Most people race at drag strips. Most people toss stock wheels and bench seats. Most people paint their car popular colors.

There’s nothing per se with what these people do with their Novas, but it’s not what I wanted. I kept the A/C running well, and I even made it run better than it ever had when I was growing up. I put in more horsepower, but I was careful to keep the car tame enough to be a practical daily driver. Heck, I took it on several long vacations. I almost never raced it, I kept the stock wheels, I refurbished my bench seat, and I repainted it back to the original, dorky “aqua blue poly.” I set the car up to handle much better than stock. I know because I recently drove three bone stock, low mileage Novas (1, 2, no link for 3). Nothing was wrong with them, but I was amazed at how poorly they drove compared to my Nova.

Do I “need” that exact Nova? Do I have some irrational attachment that couldn’t be replaced with a similar car? No, and no. I do not need that exact car. I enjoyed it because of what I had made it, not because I have to have that exact car. It is gone, and I can accept that. But what do I want? That leads me to the next question.

What do I want?

When I wrecked the Nova, I saw this as an opportunity to get into another kind of old car. But the more I looked at other cars, the less enthused I got. Other cars just don’t “float my boat” like a Nova.

I also toyed with the idea of getting a newer car. The problem is that the ones that do “float my boat,” such as the newer Pontiac GTO, are too expensive. Sure, I would love to get a 2004 GTO with a 6 speed manual. Because the 2004 models have 50 less horsepower than the 2005s, they have depreciated a lot: you can get ones with only 5,000 miles for about $10K under what the owner paid for them a year ago. They are a pretty good deal. Plus, they can get over 25 MPG on the highway. However, I cannot justify the cost of one of those cars.

So that leads me back to Novas. They excite me, and they are far more affordable than even a 2004 GTO, as long as I stay with the ’74 model year or newer. (I don’t like the seat belts in ‘73s, and ‘72s and earlier are too expensive.)

As earlier stated, I had my Nova set up almost exactly as I wanted it. I know that I can enjoy another Nova that is set up similarly. But a problem with most Novas is, as mentioned above, few are restored well because they weren’t intended to be driven much. Sure, they may have a rebuilt engine with fancy chromed parts, but woefully little was done to restore the suspension, brakes, interior, A/C, or other key parts that make the car tolerable on anything but occasional weekend cruising. So it would take a good deal of work to bring most of them up to snuff.

That leads to another problem: I have more commitments than I did 10 years ago. While I can take on an occasional major project, and while I can handle day-to-day maintenance, I don’t have the time or free cash to blow on another restoration project. Plus, I probably need to sell my Monte Carlo if I was to get another Nova. So this means that, to make me satisfied and to be workable, I would need a really sharp, good condition Nova, something that may be considered to be too nice to be a daily driver.

Here are my exact specifications:

  • Reasonably priced.
  • ’74–’79 Chevrolet Nova or GM corporate twin (but NOT the awful-looking Pontiac Ventura/Phoenix or Buick Apollo/Skylarks from ’75-’79).
  • V8 engine, preferably a 350, and preferably set up as close to the GM 350 HO crate engine as possible.
  • Stock wheels, at least 14”x7” or larger, with quality tires.
  • All mechanicals recently replaced with new parts or rebuilt.
  • Rebuilt suspension and steering, or superb condition original.
  • Working A/C, or intact A/C system that won’t need major parts scavenging to make work. (I am licensed to do A/C work, and I have access to the right tools to correctly set up an automotive A/C system. It’s surprisingly easy.)
  • Body rot or rust holes are a serious negative. Car bodies rust from the inside, so if you’re seeing pinholes, the metal behind the pinholes is completely gone. I will probably pass up any car with body rot.
  • A reasonable quality paint job in a reasonably attractive color (puke green is a serious negative). If repainted, must see evidence that body rot was handled properly.
  • Clean, functional, reasonably attractive interior.
  • Disc front brakes (’74 had front drums standard; front disc was optional; front disc was standard in ’75 and up).
  • I can do 2 door or 4 door. 4 doors are much less expensive than 2 doors, but few people keep or restore 4 door Novas, so good 4 doors are hard to come by.

I can tolerate some deviances from these specs (except for “reasonably priced”), but the more deviance, the less likely I can take on the car. For example, I had to pass up on a really nice 65,000 mile ’74 Nova at a reasonable price in February because almost everything was the original 31 year old stuff.

To date, I have only found one car that is a near perfect match for all these specifications. I’m gently trying to convince the guy that if he will come down to a fair asking price, then it will be sold immediately. His price is why his car has been on the market for 14 months and counting.

Do I Have An Unreasonable Desire?

(Warning: in the following section I write very judgmental statements about SUVs. If you have a truck or SUV, and you’re not totally secure about your decision to own it, you may want to skip this section.)

This question has been weighing on me.

I don’t like SUVs, and I disagree with the logic used to justify owning them. SUVs provide little true utility to the average owner, and whatever utility they do provide is either rarely used or could be provided far more efficiently with a car or minivan.

How many miles are put on SUVs doing anything more than carrying 1 person to and from work? Few. How many SUVs are capable of doing the “sport-utility” portion of “SUV”, like going off road or hauling heavy loads? Very few. Even those that can do the “sport-utility” stuff, how many miles are put on them for “sport-utility” purposes? Almost none. (Look at SUVs in used car lots. They are too clean to do much utility stuff.) How many SUVs provide a practical advantage over equivalent minivans or sedans? Almost none. How many SUVs have extra gas guzzling heft and girth for no purpose other than to appear bigger than they really are? Almost every last one.

With the lack of practical reasons to purchase an SUV, it’s hard to say that very many private SUV owners really need an SUV. It’s almost as if many SUV owners own an SUV just because they want to look a certain way or are just following “herd mentality.”  Why else would someone choose a vehicle that is more costly to operate, much more costly to purchase (SUVs have high profit margins—less bang for your buck), has vastly inferior handling and are less safe (SUV passengers are still more likely to die in crashes in large part because of how incompetently SUVs handle), and provides a far less comfortable ride? (The absolute worst-handling vehicle I have ever driven is a Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer Edition, and the most jarring ride I have experienced is a Honda CRV.)

To me, SUVs seem like the epitome of pointless spending in the name of having a particular appearance. Don’t believe me? Go count how many urban SUVs sport decorative cattle guards and other nonfunctional, useless crap. I believe that for the vast majority of owners, SUVs’ scant added utility doesn’t even hold a shadow their high costs and large disadvantages.

So that leads me to questioning why I want a Nova. I already have a decent car. It’s comfortable, it gets relatively good gas mileage, and it is fine for taking me to and from work. Do I want a Nova just for appearances? Am I rushing to a bad decision, using the same bad logic that justifies the purchase of an SUV?

I think—I hope—the answer is a solid NO. Sure, appearance is part of the benefit. I can’t deny that. But it is only a small part, and I hope that people who know me would agree that I am not too concerned about what others think of what I do. For me, owning and operating a Nova is a major lifestyle decision, it is a learning experience, it is a source of enjoyment, it is keeping a part of history alive, it is something other than simply “purchasing an appearance.” Also, true, while a Nova will consume more gas than my current car, I have calculated that the cost of increased gas consumption is almost evenly outweighed by the depreciation I currently experience on the Monte Carlo, even at $2.80 per gallon. A Nova won’t depreciate, especially when it annually gets less than a third of the average miles that normal people put on their cars. So I guess I have a satisfactory answer to this question. I am not doing it for the SUV fake out factor.

Where Do I Go From Here?

Putting my thoughts into writing leads me to think it’s OK for me to want a reasonably priced Nova.

What Prompted Me To Write This?

Since I wrecked my Nova, I have been watching Collector Car Trader Online, a division of AutoTrader, for Novas. I have seen an ad for this Belton, TX ’74 Nova over the past few weeks:

Also, I earlier mentioned that I found out where my Nova is. It’s at the Little Valley Auto Ranch junkyard in Belton, TX.

Coincidentally, my old Nova and that red Nova are at the same facility. I talked with the junkyard’s owner, and he said that some of my Nova’s parts are in this red car. My Nova’s crate engine is in storage for one of his future projects. The owner told me a few more things about this red Nova, and I am not sure it is the right car for me. It has some body rot, the interior is supposedly pretty ragged, and he was not able to vouch for the quality of its restoration. Plus if you look carefully, you’ll see that the front left fender is bashed in a little, so it needs immediate work. I have a feeling that parts of my driver’s side door may be on this car.

I don’t think I want this car, but finding out all this info stirred up these thoughts.