Looks like funding for the TRV is included in the omnibus bill that has cleared the House. The Star-Telegram states it's an "undetermined" amount. Not sure what that means.
http://www.star-tele...ylink=mainstage
Posted 22 March 2018 - 03:52 PM
Looks like funding for the TRV is included in the omnibus bill that has cleared the House. The Star-Telegram states it's an "undetermined" amount. Not sure what that means.
http://www.star-tele...ylink=mainstage
Posted 29 March 2018 - 04:06 PM
here is a 51 page engineers report... I haven't seen anything new or exciting in here but some interesting numbers some of ya'll might enjoy.
http://www.trwd.com/...anuary-2018.pdf
Posted 05 April 2018 - 10:22 AM
TRV update on the N Main bridge. It will only have 4 V piers vs 8 on White Settlement and Henderson.
http://trinityriverv...th-main-street/
Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:21 PM
TRV update on the N Main bridge. It will only have 4 V piers vs 8 on White Settlement and Henderson.
According to many renderings from this project, including the model in the Star Telegram building this bridge looked significantly different than the others. Like it had some sort of suspension element to it. I'm wondering why there is no mention of it in the article.
Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:44 PM
They were all changed to the V piers. Basically identical.
Posted 05 May 2018 - 06:14 PM
Posted 07 May 2018 - 07:31 AM
TRV/Panther Island. For 66%. Against 34%. That is a overwhelmingly support for this project in my book. Especially for a city wide election for a downtown project.
Posted 07 May 2018 - 08:36 AM
Now if we could just speed them up on those bridges.
Posted 07 May 2018 - 04:02 PM
TRV/Panther Island. For 66%. Against 34%. That is a overwhelmingly support for this project in my book. Especially for a city wide election for a downtown project.
Not to poo-poo your argument, but turnout was a scant 6% of the electorate. I feel that makes it hard to determine the real level of support for the project.
I would agree though, at this time, with as much money as has already been spent, it needs to be finished and we need to wish it the best success.
Posted 07 May 2018 - 04:45 PM
Samples can be indicative of the level of support; so a 2 to1 approval is a landslide, whereas a 51-49 would be considered as soft support.
Posted 07 May 2018 - 05:28 PM
TRV/Panther Island. For 66%. Against 34%. That is a overwhelmingly support for this project in my book. Especially for a city wide election for a downtown project.
Not to poo-poo your argument, but turnout was a scant 6% of the electorate. I feel that makes it hard to determine the real level of support for the project.
I would agree though, at this time, with as much money as has already been spent, it needs to be finished and we need to wish it the best success.
Is 6% turnout surprising to you ? Sometimes bond and even mayoral election can still be lower. http://keranews.org/...rth-study-finds
Posted 08 May 2018 - 06:48 AM
I not an expert on election administration, but seems to me the city might have had a larger voter turnout had the bond propositions been put on the upcoming May 22 runoff election. But mixing them with primary runoffs may not authorized by state election law.
Actually, the city's advantage may be in a low voter turnout on these propositions. The "friends and neighbors" phenomenon.
Posted 08 May 2018 - 04:46 PM
I thought Bud Kennedy said the Water District turnout was 3% (not everyone in Fort Worth is in the district boundaries) of the eligible voters.
This was definitely a victory of apathy or the friends and neighbors phenom. I am unaware of any organized opposition but "Our Community Our Future" pulled in $241,221 in cash and in-kind donations to support the bond issues.
The donors list is a who's who of people and companies that benefit from construction contracts that will be awarded from these bond funds and people and companies that will benefit for other reasons. Dunaway Associates, Huitt Zollars, Kay Granger, Plus Six Engineering, Brown & Gay Engineering, Burns and McDonnell Engineering, Dannenbaum Engineering, Freese and Nicholls, Halff Associates, Kimley Horn & Associates, Panther Acquisition Partners, and the Eppstein Group. Obviously it is their right to participate in electioneering (as affirmed by Citizens United v. FEC ruling). Funny thing, Eppstein is not only a donor, but also the biggest recipient of the money, raking in $152,374.45. He also gets contracts from the TRWD for advertising and marketing as well as running the board members campaigns. Our Fort Worth oligarchs are definitely good and the old reach around.
As a former employee of one of the previously mentioned companies, when a similar election occurred that would fund a project we were working on, yard signs would be found in the break room and we would get words of encouragement from management to make sure we voted. I would not say overwhelming support. I'd say it got through on overwhelming apathy.
That being said, I am in agreement with TXBORNVIKING. Let's get it finished. I'd like to see them hire a competent manager who has experience with these sorts of projects. And I'd like to see the books to see how much money these weekly festivals, floats and amenities are making or costing.
I suppose if we get much further in the weeds on the politics, we'll need to move to the politics forum. LOL.
Posted 08 May 2018 - 06:40 PM
I see no need to move this to political forum. But that is Mr. Roberts call. I don't understand the sudden concern by a 6% turnout ? Like this has never happened before ? Yea I wish we had more turnout. But this is typical of bond, school board and even some mayoral elections. It has been like this year in year out. It is what it is. And this is not the first election to have a 6%turnout. And sadly it will not be the last. And we had other elections over the years where some candidates that were pro and against TRV. Most of the pro TRV candidates won.
Heck we have to go back to 1968 when we had a Presidential election that had a 60% turnout. Is that apathy ? Maybe. But if of the 6% that felt strong enough to vote last Saturday. Had voted 66% against and 34% support TRV. I would of said this is a sounding defeat for the TRV project. Your book may be different. But as I said before. This is a overwhelming support for TRV in MY book. You my disagree. Welcome to democracy. As for the 94% who did not vote ? I guess they voted not to vote ? Your guess is good as mine.
Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:20 PM
According the the cumulative election report on county elections department's website, turnout for the water district bond was 4.71% of registered voters in the water district. I'm assuming the other numbers being reported are the product of someone taking total votes and comparing them against a different registered vote total - city of FW or all of Tarrant County.
I agree with not splitting this off to the political forum. The political ramifications of this project are an important part of the discussion. Given the lack of traffic here in general, splitting off topics that have any sort of momentum seems a little shortsighted when the few people posting are doing so maturely.
Posted 08 May 2018 - 07:37 PM
Let's keep this nice. I'm not going to split the topic, but I also won't be afraid to close it. (either temporarily, or permanently)
Posted 09 May 2018 - 06:50 AM
Let's keep this nice. I'm not going to split the topic, but I also won't be afraid to close it. (either temporarily, or permanently)
Agreed. But I think everyone has ben nice. I take no offence to my fellow members who disagree with me. And I respect the opinion they have. And I hope they took no offence of my opinion is about them. Strong opinions on both side yea, but cordial. But as I said before . When a topic is 50/50 is does make for a more active forum. It has been feast or famine lately.
Posted 14 May 2018 - 08:59 PM
Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:06 PM
That's a comment someone posted on Reddit a few days ago.
It's one more reason to be seriously concerned about the structural integrity of these fancy bridges.
-Dylan
Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:31 PM
That's a comment someone posted on Reddit a few days ago.
It's one more reason to be seriously concerned about the structural integrity of these fancy bridges.
They're really not all that "fancy". This should have been cleared years ago...
Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:48 PM
It's way past time to scrap these fancy v-pier bridges and build traditional bridges instead.
They're really not all that "fancy". This should have been cleared years ago...
Well, these unusual bridges aren't normal or run-of-the-mill.
-Dylan
Posted 15 May 2018 - 12:46 AM
Posted 15 May 2018 - 07:48 AM
It's way past time to scrap these fancy v-pier bridges and build traditional bridges instead.....
But of course that should be done. Enough skepticism surrounding their design has been raised as to make going forward with them a knowingly questionable decision.
Wondering whether some ego is at play here.
Posted 15 May 2018 - 09:25 AM
It's way past time to scrap these fancy v-pier bridges and build traditional bridges instead.....
But of course that should be done. Enough skepticism surrounding their design has been raised as to make going forward with them a knowingly questionable decision.
Wondering whether some ego is at play here.
I suspect this may be true on both sides of the issue.
Posted 15 May 2018 - 09:33 AM
These bridges were designed by Bing Thom right? Does anyone know if the firm also did the engineering work or if that was a 3rd party?
Posted 15 May 2018 - 10:26 AM
As I recall, the Bing Thom bridges were arches. These were a newer design.
Posted 21 June 2018 - 02:16 AM
TRWD seeks to increase the size of the the Panther Island TIF
7. Consider Approval of Letter to City of Fort Worth to Extend Trinity River Vision TIF 9 & 9A - Sandy Newby, Director of Finance
Posted 22 June 2018 - 12:52 AM
Screengrabs from a finacial progress report from May. Full report can be seen here.
Timeline of projects. Bridges should be done next two years, but it will be a while before anything else "exciting" is complete after that. Hopefully we see more private developments filling in that time period. Only another decade till it's done ya'll! Count the days!
Posted 22 June 2018 - 07:37 AM
I really wish there were some way to accelerate the time table on this project.
Posted 22 June 2018 - 08:45 AM
Posted 22 June 2018 - 08:51 AM
A purely uneducated guess, but I would imagine that, similar to what's happening with Gateway, work will be done to allow land inside the park to hold floodwater in case of a large flood. Given that the work looks to be quite a bit less expensive than the storage in Gateway, I would say that it's not extensive. Again, just a guess, but I would imagine this doesn't impact anything other than city land or land that the water district already owns.
Posted 22 June 2018 - 01:39 PM
I really wish there were some way to accelerate the time table on this project.
Step one: cancel plans to build fancy v-pier bridges of questionable structural integrity!
Engineers have raised concerns over their structural integrity, and supposedly, can't figure out how to build them.
-Dylan
Posted 22 June 2018 - 02:09 PM
I really wish there were some way to accelerate the time table on this project.
Step one: cancel plans to build fancy v-pier bridges of questionable structural integrity!
Engineers have raised concerns over their structural integrity, and supposedly, can't figure out how to build them.
I don't think that matters since it's the utilities that will take up most the time on this project...
Posted 21 July 2018 - 04:14 PM
Anyone else concerned about the lack of any new private development announcements? So far all we've got is Encore and that was announced two years. Perhaps still just too early for things to kinda really get going?
Posted 21 July 2018 - 05:38 PM
I think it is too early. I'm sure the developers want to see water in the diversion channel before they move dirt. I'm betting it will be close to 10 years before any major development is started.
Posted 21 July 2018 - 06:09 PM
Anyone else concerned about the lack of any new private development announcements? So far all we've got is Encore and that was announced two years. Perhaps still just too early for things to kinda really get going?
I think it is too early. I'm sure the developers want to see water in the diversion channel before they move dirt. I'm betting it will be close to 10 years before any major development is started.
A bit of nervous optimism but until the "Fat Lady" sings, Panther Island is highly likely to be still in play as an option within the North Texas' bid for Amazon HQ2. TRV is not leaking any information if it has any, but it has really gone silent...hmmm?
Sometimes no news can be good news.
Posted 22 July 2018 - 11:19 AM
So you're saying that the finalist designation for Dallas means Fort Worth? I doubt it.
To coin a Trumpian phrase, "I believe in would or maybe it wouldn't".
However, it is pretty clear that Dallas is certainly borrowing upon the world class cultural assets of Fort Worth as a part of its selling point. Once you co opt the Fort Worth art museums as your own, then yes, you no longer need to consider Fort Worth as a finalist, and why would you?
https://www.dallasne...-figure-heavily
Posted 22 July 2018 - 11:21 AM
Does anyone know if Betsy Price ever went to Seattle to pitch Fort Worth to Amazon, the way Dallas did? Just curious.
Adrian
Posted 22 July 2018 - 11:25 AM
Does anyone know if Betsy Price ever went to Seattle to pitch Fort Worth to Amazon, the way Dallas did? Just curious.
If you mean the way that Mayor Rawlings (Dallas) flew out to Seattle, then no! There is nothing that I am aware which reported that Price may a personal visit to Seattle; perhaps she called but there is not a new bulletin about that either.
Price believes in the approach of letting Dallas lead the way; its almost patriarchal in appearance.
Posted 23 July 2018 - 03:50 PM
Posted 23 July 2018 - 04:04 PM
Bridges delayed, again.
http://amp.star-tele...impression=true
"construction has been moving at a brisker pace since early last year."
a brisker pace since last year, yet we have ANOTHER year of delay? What gives?
also,this isn't very inspiring
the initial bridge contract was for $65.5 million, but “the total cost of the project is still being determined.”
I've not been convinced this project is the best use of $1Billion+, especially if a large goal is economic development. I think there could have been more worthy project with a similar goal that could have been completed in less time.... HOWEVER, as far along as the project we, we must demand it be completed in a timely and efficient manner.
It seems to me serious questions need to be asked about the projects leadership that has continually allowed things to go over budget and long on time.
Posted 23 July 2018 - 07:03 PM
It seems to me serious questions need to be asked about the projects leadership that has continually allowed things to go over budget and long on time.
Nepotism run amuck.
Posted 23 July 2018 - 07:42 PM
The bridges (cosmetically... I can't stress that enough) are the LEAST important thing about this project.
Why did anyone feel the need for "signature bridges" here in the first place? Let Dallas blow their money on stuff like that.
Panther Island
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Seco Ventures properties on Panther IslandStarted by Austin55, 31 Jan 2024 Panther Island |
|
|||
Projects and New Construction →
Ideas and Suggestions for Projects →
Caravan of Dreams revival... in the TXU Power PlantStarted by Jeriat, 20 Jan 2021 TXU, Power Plant, Music Hall and 3 more... |
|
|||
Planning →
City Issues →
Poll
First "Uptown" to BE "Uptown"Started by Jeriat, 15 May 2017 Near Southside, West 7th and 5 more... |
|
|||
Panther Island
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Encore Panther Island (Proposed 5 Stories - 233,198 S.F.)Started by renamerusk, 20 Oct 2016 Panther Island |
|
|||
Downtown
Projects and New Construction →
Commercial →
Hilton Hotel Annex SoldStarted by John T Roberts, 23 Sep 2014 Downtown, Redevelopment |
|
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users