pineda Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Corridor Watch Bulletin TTC-35 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) ISSUEDThe Federal Highway Administration has now released the Draft EIS for TTC-35 which includes 521 miles of toll road that TxDOT and Cintra Zachry want to see open by 2015. In the path, as it has been narrowed today, are more than one and a half million acres of prime farm land, almost one million people, three major aquifers, more than 8 thousand acres of public park land, and more than 100 acres of federally recognized historic sites. From North to South the Recommended Preferred Corridor Alternative impacts these counties: Cooke, Grayson, Collin, Hunt*, Rockwall, Kaufman, Dallas*, Ellis, Navarro*, Hill, Limestone*, McLennan, Falls, Bell, Williamson, Travis, Bastrop*, Caldwell, Guadalupe, Bexar, Wilson*, Medina, Frio, LaSalle, and Webb. ( * Path could avoid these counties)CorridorWatch.org will provide county-by-county TTC-35 maps in the very near future.TTC-35 April 2006 DEIS Map (4MB): map of Trans-Texas Corridor locationsFull DEIS Document: Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued today re: Trans-Texas CorridorMore analysis and detail from CorriodorWatch coming in the next few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Does it strike anyone as though the routes are rather inefficient?I mean, if it were built around Dallas' east side, then anyone travelling south out of Arlington/Fort Worth is relegated to interstates. If it were built around Fort Worth's west side, then everyone east of Arlington/Dallas is relegated to interstates.Then, from San Antonio to Laredo, the one route will capture almost none of the traffic originating or arriving in San Antonio, while the other is terribly inefficient to travelers trying to bypass San Antonio. How high would the speed limits have to be in order to make up for lost travel time, one way or the other?I like the corridors we have. Why don't we just expand them to accomodate increased traffic loads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirous Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Bah. They should rather expend the effort on getting IH-69 going sooner. Houston needs that more than Texas needs a highway paralleling IH-35. The only section that needs major help is the stretch from San Antonio to Temple, and the TX-130 bypass is already well under construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 DMN take on it:http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...1.188f9738.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I appreciate the (uncommon) forward-thinking planning of these roads. However, I am not sure if the potential impact has been completely assessed. The further these roads are built away from current corridors and populations, the more sprawl will occur, and perhaps current prosperous communities will be abandoned.I am very much for progress, but I think we need to understand (and minimize) ALL of the costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.