What I categorically reject is the notion that the massive, one size-fits-none "include everything but barge canals and bridle paths" multi-mode corridor is the correct answer for most of Texas (if for anywhere in Texas). In fact, I insist that the TTC "corridor" as proposed is not a design but, is, rather, a political scheme.

The Corridor would actually concentrate the things which generally require eminent domain into a small strip of land.

You'd have to explain to me what that's not good.

Assuming we need more roads in the future, and your answer implies that you accept that premise, then why not do it intelligently?

Assuming we need more roads in the future, and your answer implies that you accept that premise, then why not do it intelligently?

~~~

I do advocate doing it intelligently, but the proposed corridor layout is one of the least intelligent concepts I have seen in a lifetime of engineering.

For example, the cost of overpasses (to cross that closed-in corridor) increases by ~$3,000 per foot of corridor width -- and that is for every simple, two-lane crossover that is built. Enclosing services that are not needed or do not belong in a closed-in highway-grade ROW ("right-of-way") not only requires far more land to be taken, but it greatly multiplies the cost of providing crossovers.

Each of the "services" shown in that kludge of a multi-service corridor has different gradient requirements. Power lines, for example, can go cross-country 'most anywhere -- and, after they are built, the land beneath them can still be used for purposes like livestock grazing. Case in point: our electric co-op's highline crosses our place; I keep the ROW mowed, and it is one of our favorite places for picnics and kids' birthday parties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please point out to me on a map one place where you have to use an expensive overpass to merely go under a power line or over a pipeline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And railroads have more stringent gradient requirements than do trucks -- and trucks are more grade-sensitive than POVs. And High-Speed Passenger Rrail is even far more roadbed-gradient sensitive than all of the above. (Not to mention that HSPR is useless as teats on a boar hog anywhere in rural [which is most of] Texas...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~

IOW, simply drawing all those things together on a sheet of paper does not make them successful occupants of a single corridor ROW.

I have put many engineering hours (you have seen some of my graphics here on FR) analyzing the TTC and proposing workable alternatives. I repeat:

"In fact, I insist that the TTC "corridor" as proposed is not a design but, is, rather, a political scheme"

and...

"WTH have you done (besides yak here on FR) to help the problem? "