Talk:Trans-Texas Corridor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics Texas State Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05jul/07.htm good source of info http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/04/wroad04.xml

Contents

[edit] photo of what?

Construction for TTC-35 will likely not begin before 2010; I'm not sure about TTC-69 but it's probably similar. TTC-35 alignment-specific "tier two" planning can't even begin until the process for selecting a general route (4-10 mile wide possible alignment path) is complete, which will be late 2007. I suppose when a photo for SH 130 shows up, it could be captioned as roughly like, "Although the width of its right-of-way is only half that of the planned TTC-35, SH 130, shown here, is expected to be the TTC-35 segment through the Austin area." What might be more useful, however, would be a map of Texas showing the preferred routes, nonphotoness notwithstanding. Deh 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Re: the fact that all of the proposed highways lead to Mexico:

Has anyone asked "WHY are we doing this?"

The answer would be NAFTA, the truck traffic along I-35 has risen dramatically. --Holderca1 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Required land

Since the entire Trans-Texas Corridor will be approximately 4000 miles long and the widest portion of any corridor will 1200 feet (slightly less than 1/4 mile) why is the required land nine times as much as the total area of all the corridors?

I don't know, looking back, the creator of the article put that in there and I can't find any source to back it up. On another note, the priority corridors add up to 4,000 miles, the total of all of the corridors is about 8,000 miles. --Holderca1 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The plans for the TTC are to avoid traffic by avoiding major cities; thereby making the corridor an autobahn of sorts. The land estimates might be being blown-up in the mind due to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.81.99 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
The criticism section of the article currently says, "the system will require about 584,000 acres (2,360 km²) of land." That would mean the right-of-ways would be an average of (584000/640/4000)x5280 = 1204.5 feet wide. But the opening paragraph of the article says that the TTC is proposed to be "a 4,000-mile (6,000 km) network of supercorridors up to 1,200 feet (370 m) wide." That is not consistent. The average cannot be greater than the maximum. Indeed, the TxDOT web site about the TTC says,
Q. What is the public need for such a wide right of way? Why 1,200 feet for these corridors?
A. The width of the corridor will vary depending upon need. Transportation planners struggle every day trying to squeeze more traffic into highway right of way that cannot be practically widened. A key objective in Trans-Texas Corridor planning is to provide future generations with adequate right of way and appropriate bridge designs to allow additional capacity to be built as it is needed. While detailed corridor design is still in the future, it is clear that in many areas the corridor will be narrower... [1]
So it appears that the "584,000 acre" figure is too high.
Also, 4000 miles is 6437 km, not 6000. NCdave (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, 6,000 would be correct, since 4,000 only has one significant figure, the converted value can only have one significant digit. Rounding 6,437 to one significant figure results in 6,000. --Holderca1 talk 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, doing the calculations, 4,000 miles of land at 1,200 feet wide would be 584,000 acres, so I am not sure what the issue is. Not sure where the individual posting above thinks that would be an average. --Holderca1 talk 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
re: 6000 vs. 6437 km -- Why do you believe that the 4,000 number has only one significant digit? You cannot infer that from the fact that the number contains zeros. You are assuming that "4000" means "4.E3" but it can just as easily mean "4.000E3" or "4.00E3" or "4.0E3". NCdave (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you just answered your own question here, you are assuming that 4,000 is an exact value.. You can't just assume it is more precise of a value than it is. Do you have a source that says it is exactly 4,000? Just the whole nature of this project makes it an approximation, they don't know where the corridors will go yet, that is why they are studying 10 mile wide areas for the best location to minimize impact. In the end, the total could very well be 4,345 miles for all we know. --Holderca1 talk 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. 4000 mi seems pretty clearly to be a rough description, not something to be taken literally. 6,400 km suggests too much precision and for all we know 6000 km might be more accurate than 4000 mi. Deh (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
re: the erroneous 584,000 acre figure -- The apparent source for the 584,000 acre figure is a calculation based on the 4000 mile projected length. The person who calculated it assumed that the 4000 mile figure is correct to at least 3 significant digits (since they reported a result to at least three significant digits). They started by calculating the right-of-way acreage per mile for a 1200' wide section of straight roadway. There are exactly 640 acres/sq-mi, and 1 mi = 5280 ft, so a 1 mile by 1200' rectangle contains 145.4545 acres. They rounded this up to 146.0, multiplied by 4000 miles, and arrived at 584,000 acres.
But that is not correct. The rounding introduces a minor error (a 2182 acre overstatement), but that's not my complaint. The major reason that calculation is wrong is that they used the 1200' maximum right-of-way width as if it were an average figure.
Much of the road is projected to use a 1200' right-of-way, but some will use less. Therefore, if the length is 4000 miles, then the acreage used must necessarily be less than (584,000-2182)=581,818 acres.
If the 584,000 acre figure were correct, that would imply an average width of 1204.5'. That follows by simple arithmetic, from the fact that there are 640 acres/sq-mi, and 5280' per mile: 584,000/4000 = 146 acres/mi, and (146/640)x5280 = 1204.500'.
Since there are exactly 640 acres in a square mile, a full 1200' right-of-way for a straight section of road will occupy ((1200/5280)x640) = 145.4545 acres per lineal mile. So if the average width of the right-of-way were 1200.0 feet then the acreage would be 4000 x 145.4545 = 581,818 acres. But 1200' is not the average width, it's the maximum width. The average width must be less than the maximum, so the acreage must therefore be less than 581,818.2 acres.
Now, there are actually also other factors which slightly affect the acreage consumed, as well. But these are minor and/or difficult to calculate. For instance, curved sections of road take slightly more right-of-way acreage than straight sections (increases acreage consumed), but building one new road reduces traffic & expansion demands on parallel roads (decreases acreage consumed).
The fact remains that the 584,000 figure is based on a methodological error: using a maximum width as if it were an average width. NCdave (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't realize the 584,000 figure was a calculation, I thought it was a sourced value. I agree it is an incorrect figure, there is no added value to having it in there. Stating that the corrider length and width should be good enough anyways, gives people a better picture of the amount of land rather than the actual area. --Holderca1 talk 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved rant from article

There are gross inaccuracies in official statements about the TTC. The first section above states a "1200 foot" wide corridor. Gov. Perry's web site, Priorities - Contention/Reality, states "roughly twice the width of the interstate highway". The Trans Texas Corridor web site, KeepTexasMoving, states in their RAC 1, that "the corridor has a centerline length of approximately 506 miles and an area of approximately 4983 square miles", that is an average width of 9.85 miles. The web site goes on to say, in direct contradiction to the 1200 foot width stated above and the Governor's estimate, that "the corridor proceeds south as a 4 mile wide corridor centered on I 35 just north of Denton, Texas. Here it becomes a ten mile wide corridor...." With inaccuracies of this magnitude, how much faith can be put in the veracity of the other statements made by the proponents of the project.<!- - [2] [3] - -> Original complaints from: User:Wbthomasiii 18:32, 18 January 2007.

The study area will be 10 miles wide,[4] not the road or required ROW. This is actually a fairly standard width for a study area of a long-distance interstate and not out of the ordinary. For example, two possible routes originally considered (decades ago) for Interstate 10 east of Houston were the current alignment through Beaumont and a routing along Texas State Highway 73 to Port Arthur. These routes are more like 15 miles are apart[5] between Beaumont and Port Arthur, yet the interstate ROW in this area is at most 300 ft. wide.[6] Ufwuct 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your link to TxDOT's "myth vs reality" is no longer valid. The study area has grown to 60 miles wide in some places. This is typical of the "facts" TxDOT likes to put out and then take back later.172.162.217.78 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Who cares how wide the study corridor is? --Holderca1 talk 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading?

Additionally the system will require about 9,000 square miles (23,300 km²) of land to be purchased or acquired through the state's assertion of eminent domain. Environmentalists are concerned about the effects of such wide corridors, and private land owners have expressed disgust at the idea that their land may be seized and in turn be sold in exclusive agreements to other developers in order to help pay for the transit links.

Parts of this section sounds to me like a beat up by those opposed to the concept with limited basis in fact. Is it really possible in US or Texan law and has there really been any suggestion that land is going to be purchased via eminent domain and then sold for a profit to developers for redevelopment in whatever way they see fit to finance the project? This is what the above seems to suggest to me. I would have thought land could only be acquired to be used for the corridor and therefore there is no profit going on here. Also siezed hardly seems NPOV to me. Unless I'm mistaken the land will still be bought, even though the agreement of the owner need not be obtained. Siezed suggest no due compensation will be paid ala Mugabe. Something like acquired as we already use is sufficient. Nil Einne 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information

Please stop adding inaccurate information. Statements like "The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a transportation network funded by foreign spanish investors in the planning and early construction stages in the U.S. state of Texas." are completely false considering that only a small portion, (Segments 5 and 6) of SH 130, is being built by Cintra-Zachry. Whether either one will be involved in later projects concerning TTC-10, TTC-35, or TTC-69, etc... is yet to be seen. Most of the entire network is still in the planning phase and no contract has been written yet. Putting a statement like that in the first sentence is very misleading and completely wrong. If you want to address the Cintra involvement, that is best places under the TTC-35 section. --Holderca1 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV criticism

The first two paragraphs are not only without references, but written from a non-neutral point of view. Benandorsqueaks (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I tagged it with {{fact}} a few days ago. I'll get around to cleaning it up when I get a chance. --Holderca1 talk 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combined noise?

Reference [2] (regarding the noise rendering the area surrounding the TTC) is a link to someone's blog, which shows an image of an unsourced document which makes the claim that the combined noise around the TTC will render the area within one mile uninhabitable.

Surely someone's blog isn't an encyclopedic reference. Further, the unsourced document makes a less-than-compelling argument about the noise surrounding the TTC. Does someone have a legitimate source? If not, perhaps we should remove the whole sentence. Mateoee (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I moved it to criticism and placed it in the context of the bizarre circumstances under which it might be valid. However, really the whole article needs a NPOV rewrite. Lordsutch (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The unsourced document shown in the blog entry appears to be a scan of a TTC-35 Tier 1 Commnt that google finds associated with Stewards of the Range. It doesn't take much work to figure out who might have written it, but the comment itself is also not a valid source for the claim; the right thing to do is get ahold of the academic paper, which hopefully the original contributor will be inspired to do. Deh (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)