Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 3 votes

Southwest/Chisholm Trail Parkway


  • Please log in to reply
383 replies to this topic

Poll: Is the Southwest/Chisholm Trail Parkway really needed? (88 member(s) have cast votes)

Is the Southwest Parkway really needed?

  1. Yes, It's pure pork, but let's build it anyway. (3 votes [3.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.41%

  2. Yes, It's a viable, needed roadway. (39 votes [44.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.32%

  3. No, It's donation to the land developers in SW Tarrant. (14 votes [15.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.91%

  4. No, We should be spending money on other projects/transit. (28 votes [31.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.82%

  5. Undecided. (4 votes [4.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.55%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 12 November 2005 - 12:27 PM

Right now the tolls aren't projected to pay for the highway, let alone for commuter rail.

Looking at making the Johnson County part toll is interesting because, as is pointed out in the article, that's a cheaper part to build. The only way for it to generate enough tolls out there, though, is for northern Johnson County to "develop" like Collin County has, i.e. by lining the tollway route with sprawl. That would be a natural consequence.

Of course, Collin County and northern Dallas County also have employers, something notabley lacking in southern Tarrant or anywhere in Johnson County. So while a lot of the rooftops along the Dallas Tollway are populated by people who live close to work, that percentage would be ZERO along the SW Pkwy. So say "hello" to longer commutes and the associated air quality degredation. Smokey Joe Barton will love this!

#102 Thurman52

Thurman52

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edwards Ranch

Posted 16 November 2005 - 09:40 PM

On the Bellaire/ Arbor Lawn settlement with Overton Woods what is he finall outcome?

I ask b/c in last night's city council they approved earthwork for the Arbor Lawn extentsion as part of the 121 project

http://www.fortworth...date=11/15/2005



#103 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2005 - 07:31 AM

Last I saw the Bellaire extension through Edwards Ranch is to curve southward to intersect Arborlawn. Arborlawn will be made a through street westward to Bryant Irvin and it will intersect SH121T as well.

So Bellaire will remain on the long list of streets that are non-continuous. As opposed to the long list of streets that are continuous but change names along the way.

#104 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 03 December 2005 - 03:18 PM

The groundbreaking for Arborlawn will be held on December 6th. This is the first project relating to the Southwest Parkway to actually get under construction.

This week's Fort Worth Business Press has an article on the start of construction:
http://www.fwbusines...lay.php?id=4170

#105 grow_smart

grow_smart

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Location:FTW Original Town

Posted 03 December 2005 - 07:13 PM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Nov 17 2005, 07:31 AM) View Post

Last I saw the Bellaire extension through Edwards Ranch is to curve southward to intersect Arborlawn. Arborlawn will be made a through street westward to Bryant Irvin and it will intersect SH121T as well.

So Bellaire will remain on the long list of streets that are non-continuous. As opposed to the long list of streets that are continuous but change names along the way.


I believe this alignment option was a compromise with the Overton Woods neighborhood that was made back in 2003. Bellaire was supposed to go through to Bryant Irvin, but the neighborhood was concerned about traffic.

#106 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 03 December 2005 - 08:26 PM

Grow smart, you are correct. The change in routing of those streets was a compromise to the Overton Woods neighborhood. They did not want access to the parkway, but they also did not want Bellaire Drive South to even connect to Bryant Irvin.

This has been the second rerouting of Bellaire Drive South. The original thoroughfare plan of the city called for the street to have a full intersection at Bryant Irvin. The section in Meadows West (South of I-20) was the first portion of the extension of the street completed. Eventually the street was constructed through Benbrook to make the western connection of the proposed intersection with Bryant Irvin. After that part was completed, the residents of Overton Woods persuaded the city to modify the thoroughfare plan to make the extension of Bellaire Drive South from the east to intersect Bryant Irvin further north than the section from the west. If this plan had been constructed, then Bellaire would have jogged at Bryant Irvin.

The final change is the one that will be constructed. Arborlawn will curve northward from its current end at International Plaza and will end at Bryant Irvin Road somewhere between Bellaire Drive South and the river. Bellaire Drive South will then be extended from its current end at Overton View Court. The street will be turned southward to end at Arborlawn before that street has the interchange with the Southwest Parkway.

#107 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 12:06 PM

So we have this "groundbreaking" of a minor arterial street and call it part of the tollway project. Rather, it is a developer having the city (us) pay for access into the property to be developed.

Interesting, in that the way to pay for the tollway is not established. The Tollway Authy is proposing to raise tolls in Dallas and Collin Counties but that is meeting with some resistance.

http://www.nbc5i.com...668/detail.html

Oh, did the Star-Telegram forget to mention that? I suppose paying for something that costs $100 million a mile must just seem easy. I suppose the regional cooperation is a given.

But, in the interest of helping that regional cooperation, I propose that FW leadership offer something to Dallas: We'll forget about the Wright Amendment if y'all will help pay for our road!

Right.

rotflmao.gif

#108 chrisalan9

chrisalan9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 12 December 2005 - 12:05 PM

Do you guys really think that SW parkway is going to help traffic in the Hulen/Bryant Irving corridor? I think they need to find a way to get Hulen traffic on 20 West bound w/o having to go to Bryant Irvin & Bryant Irvin traffic on 20 East bound w/o having to go to Hulen. Both of those intersections could be less congested if there was better planning for that area. It would be a whole lot cheaper and more effective to me.

#109 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:47 AM

Several stories of dissent to the east have now appeared as Dallas County Judge Kelleher questions subsidizing the proposed SW Pkwy:
http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13661113.htm

It appears that the future of the tollway authority is threatened. Such things are to be expected when rational folks start looking into absurd proposals.

#110 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:00 AM

For those who prefer a quick, light meal with little substance, the Star-Yellowgram offers this editorial on the reluctance of some municipalities to fund the Southwaste Porkway: All together now



For background, here's 1954's Give Yourself the Green Light, a film advocating the Interstate Highway System. You'll hear familiar arguments and see really cool clothing and cars. [Note: unlike others here, I like having Interstate highways; at some point, though, we have to recognize the problems with trying to solve local and regional transportation issues with this approach. IMHO]

#111 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:38 AM

QUOTE
Southwaste Porkway
rotflmao.gif
I like having interstate highways, too. But the shame is that "transportation planners" have only one tool at their disposal.

#112 hooked

hooked

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:52 AM

Slightly off topic, but I caught part of a story this weekend on NPR about a book or article titled "A Desire Named Streetcar." From what little I heard, I gathered that the author's main argument was that buses are much more efficient than any other form of mass transit. Anybody seen this book/article?

#113 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,315 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 30 January 2006 - 09:58 AM

From the editorial:

"The parkway's price tag is higher because it is being built in a highly urbanized area"

That made me throw up in my mouth just a little.

#114 gdvanc

gdvanc
  • Guests

Posted 01 February 2006 - 01:23 AM

QUOTE(S-T @ Jan 29 2006)
The tollway authority is a regional entity, and its officials should think regionally when it comes to serving the crucial transportation needs of the Fort Worth-Dallas area.


The Dallas county officials threatening to leave the board were elected by the citizens of Dallas county to represent them. I suppose we can debate which side they should take when there is a conflict between the interests of their Dallas county constituents and the Metroplex as a whole.

It is not clear to me how making it easier for people in sparsely populated Cleburne to drive to jobs in downtown Fort Worth is an important benefit to the entire region.

QUOTE(S-T @ Jan 29 2006)
There's no question that the Southwest Parkway is sorely needed to relieve choked traffic conditions on Hulen Street and Bryant Irvin Road, two heavily traveled north-south corridors in southwest Fort Worth.


Incorrect. There is no question that there are choked traffic conditions on Hulen Street and Bryant Irvin road. One can reasonably question, however, whether the tollway will offer anything more than temporary relief, and one can certainly question whether extending it to Cleburne might not actually make things worse.

QUOTE(S-T @ Jan 29 2006)
...[T]he tollway authority should allow revenues from its existing toll roads to help finance future authority construction projects, including the parkway.


Maybe it should be called the North Texas Amway Authority.

QUOTE(S-T @ Jan 29 2006)
The board-approved policy calls for a base toll rate of 11 cents per mile for all authority roads by 2007 and a 12-cent rate by 2010, up from the current rate of 10 cents.

The Southwest Parkway toll could be set at a higher level to help pay for enhanced bridge designs, noise barriers and extensive landscaping, and to help compensate for a low speed limit of 50 mph. The lower speed would lessen the noise impact on surrounding neighborhoods but also reduce the number of motorists who drive the parkway to save time.

A parkway toll rate as high as 15 to 16 cents per mile might be feasible, but a lower rate is strongly preferable to encourage maximum use of the road. Any rate above the 15- to 16-cent range would be prohibitively high and greatly discourage drivers.


So the goal isn't to have the porkway pay for itself; it is to maximize its usage (perhaps so more people will drive by the new shopping centers they can't wait to build along it).

A rate that would allow the road to pay for more of its own costs of construction and operation would discourage drivers from using it as they select the more fully subsidized existing roadways.

Obviously the roadway isn't reasonably expected to pay for itself or we wouldn't be hearing these "ominous rumblings" from board members of the NTTA.

I love Cleburne and have friends there, but at some point mightn't it be a good idea to not build big fat car pipes (that we admit won't pay for themselves) to rural areas just so more people can more conveniently move farther away from their jobs?

There are valid reasons to move to an area you like even though your commute will be unpleasant. I did. But I don't expect the rest of you to pitch in some of your lunch money to make my drive more bearable. That is apparently what the supporters of the proposed parkway want others to do.

#115 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 01 February 2006 - 06:50 AM

QUOTE
I suppose we can debate which side they should take when there is a conflict between the interests of their Dallas county constituents and the Metroplex as a whole.

It is not clear to me how making it easier for people in sparsely populated Cleburne to drive to jobs in downtown Fort Worth is an important benefit to the entire region.

Considering the air quality implications of encouraging more people to live farther from where they work, I would say the Dallas folks are acting more regionally responsibly than the Porkway Proponents.

What the PPs fail to grasp, or don't care about, is that toll roads provide a market based judgement about the need for a road. If enough people are willing to pay a toll that allows for the road's construction and operation the road is needed. If what it provides does not meet the needs of enough people to raise the money, the road is not needed. The fact that projected tolls will not even cover a minority portion of the road's cost makes the point rather well. But again, the proponents are not interested in economics or facts. And they never have been, which is what has made the debate so difficult. It's like a professor arguing with a spoiled five-year-old. Instead of discussing they stamp their little feet, ignore the real transportation needs of the area, ignore the financial implications, and ignore the air quality impacts. They cry about having to sit through a traffic signal sequence now and then, make up absurd reasons for the road like emergency vehicles being stuck in traffic, which has never happened except in our mayor's imagination. All the time they hope somebody will resue their dreams of enriching a few powerful friends at public expense.


#116 Redshirt

Redshirt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hurlburt Field, FL
  • Interests:I am and always will be a Texas resident. I was born and raised in Fort Worth. Currently, I am in the Air Force working on the CV-22 Osprey, supporting the Fort Worth economy by working on those Bell heliplanes. :) I am currently stationed at Hurlburt Field home of the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Posted 22 February 2006 - 08:57 AM

City buying property for toll road
By MIKE LEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - The city is buying businesses in the path of the future Southwest Parkway and could have all the property in hand by the beginning of next year, officials said Tuesday.

The first phase of the toll road, also known as Texas 121, is expected to stretch 8.1 miles from Interstate 30 near Summit Avenue southwest to Dirks Road near Bryant Irvin Road. A second phase will eventually stretch to Cleburne.

The city bought 143 acres of undeveloped land from the Edwards and Geren families, whose ranch once covered most of what is now southwest Fort Worth. The families donated an additional 43 acres.

Buying the remaining land is touchy because it is home to dozens of established businesses, some of which have been around for decades. City Council members, saying they want to ease the burden on businesses, have approved spending extra money to compensate business owners for relocation costs.

"Many of these business owners bought land or signed leases at a value that they can't replace," Councilwoman Wendy Davis said during a briefing on the acquisitions.

In all, 59 businesses will be moved and 47 tracts bought. Most of the businesses are near Vickery Boulevard between Summit Avenue and Hulen Street.

Consultants hired by the city have opened an office in the parkway's corridor and have been meeting with landowners, said Mike Weaver, a consultant with Prime Strategies.

The $825 million parkway is a joint project of the city, the Texas Department of Transportation and the North Texas Tollway Authority. Fort Worth is responsible for the right of way for the main lanes, and the Transportation Department is buying the right of way for the two large interchanges at Interstates 30 and 20.

State and federal law require each parcel to be appraised twice before the city makes an offer. Owners who disagree with the city's appraisals can make a counteroffer. The city can also condemn the land under the rules of eminent domain. If that happens, a court-appointed panel will set the land's value and, the owners will have to sell.

Once the city owns the land, it will be responsible for maintaining the land and managing some of the offices and commercial buildings until parkway construction begins.

"We basically become a landlord," Weaver said.

Construction is expected to start in 2008, and the tollway's first section could open in 2010.



Here's a link to the article: City Buying Property for Toll Road

#117 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2006 - 02:23 PM

Today's S-T article http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13932377.htm about the funnel rework provides interesting comparative numbers relative to cost effectiveness: The funnel north of the airport is slated for a redo that will save time for 200-350,000 cars per day at a cost of $762 million. The SW Pkwy will affect approximately 30,000 cars/day at $825 million. The SW Parkway is projected to save 5-6 minutes of travel time compared to exiting routes. I don't know about the funnel project, but I've been in that traffic and I'll bet the time saved is at least equivalent.

So for about the same money, the funnel helps ten times as many drivers save about as much time.

#118 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 23 February 2006 - 09:11 AM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Feb 22 2006, 04:23 PM) View Post

Today's S-T article http://www.dfw.com/m...fw/13932377.htm about the funnel rework provides interesting comparative numbers relative to cost effectiveness: The funnel north of the airport is slated for a redo that will save time for 200-350,000 cars per day at a cost of $762 million. The SW Pkwy will affect approximately 30,000 cars/day at $825 million. The SW Parkway is projected to save 5-6 minutes of travel time compared to exiting routes. I don't know about the funnel project, but I've been in that traffic and I'll bet the time saved is at least equivalent.

So for about the same money, the funnel helps ten times as many drivers save about as much time.


Is that to say that Ft. Worth should wait until 200 - 350,000 people are stuck in traffic every day before it does anything?

#119 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,315 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:38 PM

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Most of the cars going through the funnel are on a commute while the cars clogging SW FW are local traffic. The Porkway will do very little to alleviate the local congestion.

#120 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:26 PM

QUOTE
Is that to say that Ft. Worth should wait until 200 - 350,000 people are stuck in traffic every day before it does anything?

I would be content to wait until those types of numbers show up in a projection. And so far, there is nothing remotely like that predicted for the SW FW area.


#121 Bradleto

Bradleto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 28 February 2006 - 10:59 AM

Greg/Others,

Was there ever any study about the possibility of renovating/adapting/dedicating Vickery to aleviate the traffic concerns of SW Fort Worth? I'd have to look at the proposed pathway for the Southwest Parkway to compare its route, but I have always wondered about Vickery as a viable alternative. It's and old artery but well-positioned to be used as an asset again since it effectively links the two areas together.

Vickery near downtown, well, there's not much there and it's pretty sparse at other stretches as it approaches I-20. If certain streets were closed off to Vickery, for example Hulen, so that Hulen traffic would be forced to maneuver between 20 and 30 on Hulen alone, and perhaps the same thing for the Bryant Irving/Vickery intersection, it seems a sort of dedicated boulevard could be developed, cheaply too, to move traffic quickly between the central city and the southwest area. I recall that Vickery runs all the way down into Benbrook, though I have not driven that portion of the road for many years. I suppose some thought would have to be given regarding how to move the cars onto Vickery from that area down there; then too, a good design to have Vickery feed into Downtown as easily as possible.

I guess what I am thinking is we sort of have the "run" between the two areas already in place so all we would need to develop would be the interfaces at each end.

For Fort Worth residents, a renovated Vickery seems a possibility; a little tougher for our neighbors to the south, no doubt.

A local attorney told me a few years ago that when 287 was being promoted to citizens, it was then suggested that the majority of benefits would accrue to Fort Worth when, in fact, it has been South Arlington and Mansfield benefiting the most and by a very wide margin.

So, if my idea doesn't float, I wonder for those of us not inclined to support the Southwest Parkway, are there some legitimate alternative a lot less expensive?

Cheers! Brad

#122 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:10 AM

Totally agreed on VICKERY. It already exists and runs the path along the intended Parkway. Just needs widening.

Wonder why nobody has ever thought about it? dry.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#123 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 28 February 2006 - 12:24 PM

You are confusing the goals of transportation with development.

The Porkway is about development: Edwards Ranch, the joint Edwards-Geren holdings, the Bass property in far southwest Tarrant and north-central Johnson County, etc.

A Vickery improvement would help transportation but would not develop anything. The Porkway only cuts 5 minutes of travel between Cityview and downtown over existing routes, so how much real transportation is involved?

But to answer the question about Vickery: no, that alternative was not studied.

#124 Bradleto

Bradleto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:35 PM

Greg, most likely for sure... that Vickery run doesn't pass through the right properties. I'll have to take a look at it on Google Earth, measure it, and consider a decent boulevard speed of, say, 45 mph... my guess is if it was widened and sort of dedicated to commuters from the SW Fort Worth area, they could jump on Vickery, without Hulen and Bryant Irvin adding traffic to it, and zoom downtown in a matter of minutes.

Riverside Drive on the north end of downtown is another run-down artery that feeds into west Fort Worth... looks like Hell, and might be a future candidate for fast tracking folks from the far west side of town as it develops.

Brad

#125 Bradleto

Bradleto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:55 PM

Greg/All,

I used the measurement device found in Google Earth to measure Vickery from where it intersects with Main St. south of Downtown FW and the intersection at SW Blvd. That distance, in a point to point straight line, is 6.70 miles. Extending farther down to the I20/Vickery intersect is 8.79 miles, again, as the crow flies.

At 45 mph and using an 8 mile figure, once commuters got on a revamped Vickery, they'd be in downtown in 10.67 minutes. Not bad if all we had to do is develop feeders to get them on and off Vickery on both ends. Hulen, Bryant Irvin and Montgomery traffic don't really need access to Viclery, so closing down unnecessary intersections would do the trick to remove stops and starts and let the traffic flow freely.

Again, from an untrained eye, much of the land bordering along Vickery seems, at best, underutilized, and a lot of it is wide open on the train track side.

Expand it to 6 lanes and let her rip. Brad

#126 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:02 PM

I'm pretty sure there were some studies done on using Vickery. I'm not sure if the plans included going all the way out West, but I did see some drawings of some changes that were going to happen to it between Henderson and Main. This was maybe 3-5 years ago. It was to be straightened out and connect across Henderson.

Erik France


#127 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:12 PM

This is all I could find on the Vickery proposal. This is from a Fort Worth South Newsletter. As far as I know, it's dead too.

QUOTE
Vickery - The agreement between Texas Department of Transportation and the City to rebuild Vickery was signed in 1996. At that time
the construction letting date was January 2000. That date has now been adjusted to January 2004. The project calls for the construction
of a new roadway between the I-30 access/egress ramps at Henderson and the current alignment of Vickery at Hemphill Street, and the
reconstruction of the existing street between Hemphill and S. Main Street. The causes for delay are many, but primarily it’s due to the
historical preservation aspect (Jennings tunnel) of the environmental impact study. The EIS is now due to be finished in January 2003.
With this aspect completed, the alignment can be confirmed and the 10 remaining parcels of right-of-way land can be purchased. The
City’s 50% share of the cost is an approved capital improvement program item, although cost overruns are the City’s responsibility.

Erik France


#128 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:51 PM

QUOTE(ghughes @ Feb 28 2006, 12:24 PM) View Post

You are confusing the goals of transportation with development.

The Porkway is about development: Edwards Ranch, the joint Edwards-Geren holdings, the Bass property in far southwest Tarrant and north-central Johnson County, etc.

A Vickery improvement would help transportation but would not develop anything. The Porkway only cuts 5 minutes of travel between Cityview and downtown over existing routes, so how much real transportation is involved?

But to answer the question about Vickery: no, that alternative was not studied.



What's to stop Vickery from a good redevelopming. Would cost less to accomplish and be that more accessible for FW'ians. If thousands of folks choose to live in the boonies, then they should pay for their own path. This SW Parkway will definitiely NOT increase exposure into those parts, just more traffic back towards here. This Vickery way could be a pretty big deal if done right. Landscaped medians, widen lanes, bike routes, improved sidewalks and possible light rail or trolley. It could end being like a PCH 1 or Sepulveda Blvd. out in L.A. I'd rather see Vickery developed than big boxes off of this SW monstrosity.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#129 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:34 AM

I agree with you, safly. Unfortunately the logic of who stands to benefit from the Porkway trumps the advantages of other approaches.

#130 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 01 March 2006 - 11:27 AM

If EVERYONE is saying that DTFW is the place to build and live or THE TREND, well then why are we bothering with looking to develop out in tha STICKS?

Speaking of sticks, gotta go roundup my annual fish sticks for Ash Wed and Lent.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#131 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 01 March 2006 - 12:02 PM

QUOTE
If EVERYONE is saying that DTFW is the place to build and live or THE TREND, well then why are we bothering with looking to develop out in tha STICKS?

Reminds me of an old poem (with apologies to those offended):
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic,
And so am I.


#132 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 01 March 2006 - 12:07 PM

QUOTE(safly @ Mar 1 2006, 11:27 AM) View Post

If EVERYONE is saying that DTFW is the place to build and live or THE TREND, well then why are we bothering with looking to develop out in tha STICKS?


Well, obviously, because developers are wanting space to build things that rival the staggering beauty of Cityview! throwupen.gif

#133 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 01 March 2006 - 07:39 PM

You are sooo right. Who in the HECK would want to live out in them parts and find the multi- billion dollar need to make a quick drive to FW? Maybe 40K people or so. GENIUSES!

This is CRAPOLA! sleep.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#134 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 01 March 2006 - 10:39 PM

QUOTE(safly @ Mar 1 2006, 11:27 AM) View Post

If EVERYONE is saying that DTFW is the place to build and live or THE TREND, well then why are we bothering with looking to develop out in tha STICKS?

Hey, if you want to give all us families who DO live in the "sticks" enough money and space to live in downtown Fort Worth, I'm sure a bunch of us would be pretty happy to move there...but since I'm guessing that even you don't have that kind of money, we're stuck out here with the rest of our hard working, middle-class, 3+ children buddies. When downtown stops only catering to the wealthy singles and couples of the world, they let's talk about "why in the HECK" people would want to live out in these Godforsaken sticks you speak of.

Although...it would be a good trade off to give these 800 million dollars to all the residents of SWFW who do want to live somewhere more convenient and pleasant...sure it would only cover about 800 families, but why not? rolleyes.gif

#135 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:32 AM

sleep.gif cry.gif


I didn't say GODFORSAKEN.

Love the last part of your post. Funny, but could POSSIBLY work. biggrin.gif

Developers would see it as a solution to help offset the cost incurred on a "notable DOWNPAYMENT" for your new DTFW digs. No need to develop or create the SWFW, more people choose to live in DTFW and surrounding areas. This will stir more DTFW development, market levels to a wide variety of clientele. All is good.

Let's say $800 million divided by 10- 50K? How does that sound? This can be part of some lottery program for FW. Can you imagine when the word gets out about this program. "Boomtown" would be understating the description of FW then. I say we do this every local election year in July. 1 ticket per household (of tenant/owner) per district of FW.

Any lawyers on board to help draft this resoultion? Anyone without an "ethic bone" in their body? Anyone?
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#136 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 15 March 2006 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE
A recent study by North Texas Tollway Authority reported that tolls paid on Southwest Parkway will for many years cover less than half the authority’s costs to build it, partly because the road will be designed for a 50 mph speed limit...


Officials seek to make up difference for Southwest Parkway

Ugh. This is the first time I noticed this. Why is the parkway only designed for 50 mph? Is this some compromise to local neighborhoods to reduce noise levels or is it a compromise to reduce the cost of right-of-way acquisition by allowing for tighter curves and shorter sight distance or is it a compromise on sanity.

Oh but to own land in Southwest Tarrant County.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#137 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,315 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:04 PM

*snicker*

Look at that. Trying to make sense out of anything to do with the Porkway. Silly.

#138 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE
Why is the parkway only designed for 50 mph? Is this some compromise to local neighborhoods to reduce noise levels or is it a compromise to reduce the cost of right-of-way acquisition by allowing for tighter curves and shorter sight distance or is it a compromise on sanity.
Actually it's a nod to what a "parkway" is. In the original sense, a parkway linked parks. Or it presented a drive through a park. In later years the word became corrupted to the point of having no meaning beyond a good word to add to a road's name, similar to the loss of meaning for "drive" or "boulevard."

One of the shocking wakeup calls for many was the fact that, with the addition of the tollway authority into the project, the pleasant concept of a parkway became transformed into the look and feel of a superhighway. That was hardly what had been conceived over the years.

So the 50 mph design speed was the reaction by the design committee to bring the project back to its roots as a parkway. Unfortunately they failed to ban heavy trucks from it. But much of what the original opposition targeted was accomplished through the lowered design speed proposed.

#139 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts

Posted 16 March 2006 - 12:16 PM

The reason for the ight costs to build was to satisfy all the complaining that the neighborhhoods had on this project.

It still might get coverted back to a tollway with highway speeds and really the neighborhoods can do little but fight a losing legal battle.

I'll be shocked if it gets built as it is currently proposed and the funding issues.

#140 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 16 March 2006 - 03:50 PM

Even at highway speeds the road will not attract enough users to get the tollway authority into the black on this deal. That's why the tollway authority has never even been paying half the cost of the Porkway. TxDOT (i.e. state tax dollars), Federal Funds (i.e. more tax dollars) and Fort Worth (yup, still more tax dollars) will cover well over half the cost.

If it's ever built, that is.

Funny thing is, if we did away with the interchanges at I-30 and I-20 ($300 million from TxDOT for both) and the added costs of making it a toll road (facilities, etc), the city and federal funding could probably build a very nice six-lane boulevard that would carry all the projected traffic very well.

#141 EricTCU

EricTCU

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Location:Stuck in a Cityview shopping center parking lot
  • Interests:May 3051 Odessa Avenue rest in peace.<br /><br />And a curse, I say, a curse upon those TCU administrators for destroying the house so many of us called home. And for what, 16 parking spaces?? A CURSE!

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:24 AM

Parkway or not, Bryant Irvin @ I-20 and Hulen @ I-20 need RELIEF!

Should the plan fall apart, is there or will there be a contengent conjestion relief plan for City View??

#142 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2006 - 10:18 AM

All eggs are currently in the one basket, although the empty space would be available for alternatives if we ever admitted that the Porkway is dead..

The real issue for Hulen and B-I is the pathetic interchange designs with I-20. You will note that both arterials flow very well except at those specific locations. Adding the ability for arterial through traffic to flow past I-20 (i.e. another level) would take care of things. There might be some other alternatives as well. But the overall capacities of Hulen and Bryant Irvin are adequate right now. Adding another arterial in parallel would help matters along, too. And that could be done for a lot less money (and time).

#143 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 17 March 2006 - 11:20 AM

I agree. The TXDoT layouts were horrendous. It just needs some tweaking here or there to make a HUGE difference. Not some PORK.

Entering BI or Hulen from opposite bounds of I-20 and 820 in that area just make you crazy sometimes, especially if you don't travel there often. You end up having to cut people off to get over a lane, or be cut off.

Happy St. Patties Day! Looking NOT to get CUTOFF at a DTFW bar tonight. rollwink.gif
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#144 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 17 March 2006 - 12:04 PM

When does the crusade begin for a boulevard instead of a tollway?

#145 redzeep

redzeep

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Interests:Real Estate

Posted 22 March 2006 - 08:32 AM

EDWARDS FAMILY DEVELOPS LAST CITY RANCH PARCELS
FORT WORTH (star-telegram.com) – Land once part of a busy cattle ranch founded by Lemuel Edwards in 1848 is finally going to be developed. The Edwards family continues to control the land and was not ready to develop the wooded 1,000-acre property, centrally located in Fort Worth, until issues about road rights-of-way were settled.
Now that the location of the proposed Southwest Parkway is known, work will begin. The Cassco Land Co., which is a family-owned company run by Crawford Edwards, will build a three-phase project that will include luxury homes, parkland and shopping and office centers. The property consists of several large tracts between Bryant Irvin Rd. and Hulen St. and from Vickery Blvd. to south of I-20.
Cassco said it saved the best land for last. The development is along 2.25 miles of the Clear Fork of the Trinity River. The company donated 43 acres and sold 143 acres to the city for the highway project. That leaves 850 acres for development.



A gift to developers was my vote.

#146 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 22 March 2006 - 09:05 AM

QUOTE
A gift to developers was my vote.


...

QUOTE
The company (Cassco) donated 43 acres


And at least one developer reciprocated...

#147 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 22 March 2006 - 09:33 AM

Speaking of PORKway.

I just now saw our very own Rep. Granger on a FOX News channel interview. She was shown in front of the N side of the RS campus. And guessing by today's weather, I am sure she was in front of a prop.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com

#148 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 March 2006 - 06:21 PM

QUOTE(EricTCU @ Mar 17 2006, 11:24 AM) View Post

Parkway or not, Bryant Irvin @ I-20 and Hulen @ I-20 need RELIEF!

Should the plan fall apart, is there or will there be a contengent conjestion relief plan for City View??



How far does the northbound traffic on Bryant Irvin and on Hulen back up on an average morning commute?
(i.e. to what street or in front of what building are there usually cars stopped for more than a few seconds?)

thanks

#149 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 22 March 2006 - 06:31 PM

QUOTE(Buck @ Mar 17 2006, 02:04 PM) View Post

When does the crusade begin for a boulevard instead of a tollway?


I think a long time ago. I believe the idea is to provide a redundant path to Bryant Irvin and Hulen, but to do so in a way that minimizes disruption to the center parts of the city (visually, acoustically, and environmentally). A high speed road would have greater negative impacts in all three of those categories. Most consituents of the center city appeared to oppose the construction of a radial artery that enables longer commutes to farther-out bedroom communities, and to any high speed road that would destroy the remaining visual integrity of our open spaces along the Trinity River.

As you can tell the need for the new road is questionable. Understandably there is conjestion at certain points around I-20, however many people seriously question the logic of constructing an entire, brand new road to alleviate a few saturation points.... especially when history indicates that such new capacity does not solve such problems, but rather only temporarily alleviates them.

The problem is that most people don't follow this stuff that closely, and they are, understandably, compelled to voice support for any drastic measure to solve their frustrating wait in traffic - without really understanding or really caring about the long-term costs (both direct and indirect economic and social costs of extending our city out even farther and losing rural land out toward Glen Rose to new suburban tract-housing)

#150 safly

safly

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ALAMO!
  • Interests:Restaurants. Golf. Garlic. FIESTA. Beer ME.

Posted 22 March 2006 - 11:41 PM

I'd HATE for Glen Rose to become a suburbia of any city. Gorgeous hill country topography just absolutely dominates the area, unlike Tarrant.
COWTOWN! Get your TIP ON!
www.iheartfw.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users