~~~
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...
If a new road is going to be built in Texas, not at my expense, and paid for by the users of that road, then I’m all for it.
Yes, I want the landowners in the path of the roadway to be fairly compensated. I want all reasonable accomodations to be made for it to be as non-disruptive as possible.
But this is a huge state, and there are many places where no structure is even 10 miles close to another.
Again, unless you’re opposed to any new road ever, why not do one in a very thoughtful manner?
If you have a better route for the TTC, let’s see it.
Just say “no” might work for drugs, but it doesn’t work for needed roads.