Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

I-35W to be expanded north of Downtown


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:35 AM

Best news in years.

I-35 is going to be expanded to 820 North of Fort Worth.
This Interstate Highway has been a joke for many years. So burdened with traffic that it has become completely ineffectual for travel. I have employees coming to work from the North that would not consider I-35 unless it is a Federal Holiday/before 5am.
It has been quicker to take streets like Henderson and Beach Street. Million stop lights and all.

I would prefer there not be any toll roads involved, but beggars can't be choosey. (It would be like insisting a firefighter use only filtered water to battle a blaze in your living room.) We need lanes. Lots of them.

The expansion of I-35 South of Fort Worth was one of the best transportation successes of my lifetime. Not a day too soon nor a lane too wide.

I have always felt so sorry for some schmuck driving from Austin to Oklahoma North on I-35. They now hate Fort Worth. It is hard to forgive constant gridlock. Nothing gives a worse name to a city. I wish a light rail could be worked into the construction a well. Seems like this would be the time do plan that in as well. But if we get enough lanes, the light rail is much less necessary.

http://www.star-tele...d-north-of.html
www.fortworthview.com

#2 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:48 AM

I'm not a big fan of excessive freeway spending, but it's much easier for me to justify this over southwest parkway. At least this freeway actually goes somewhere (oklahoma city).

Although I have one side note: Forget the schmucks driving to Oklahoma, the real schmucks are the ones commuting back and forth from the middle-of-nowhere mid-cities clogging up the freeway in the first place.

#3 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:49 AM

So glad I'm moving away from the Fossil Creek area. Instead of driving it everyday, I'll drive it only when I see friends. I haven't taken 35 in a long time anyway. I go backroads north of 820 (what few there are, they forgot what a grid was when they designed the roads north of 820), and Main St south of it.

#4 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:13 AM

Best news in years.

I-35 is going to be expanded to 820 North of Fort Worth.
This Interstate Highway has been a joke for many years. So burdened with traffic that it has become completely ineffectual for travel. I have employees coming to work from the North that would not consider I-35 unless it is a Federal Holiday/before 5am.
It has been quicker to take streets like Henderson and Beach Street. Million stop lights and all.

I would prefer there not be any toll roads involved, but beggars can't be choosey. (It would be like insisting a firefighter use only filtered water to battle a blaze in your living room.) We need lanes. Lots of them.

The expansion of I-35 South of Fort Worth was one of the best transportation successes of my lifetime. Not a day too soon nor a lane too wide.


Pretty sure this is old news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q2uO95wjU8

....along with:

Posted Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DXkZ2yCLWA&feature=related

I thought they already stared widening this thing a year ago when I was driving twoards Haltom. Had to be some reason for the construction.


I have always felt so sorry for some schmuck driving from Austin to Oklahoma North on I-35. They now hate Fort Worth. It is hard to forgive constant gridlock. Nothing gives a worse name to a city. I wish a light rail could be worked into the construction a well. Seems like this would be the time do plan that in as well. But if we get enough lanes, the light rail is much less necessary.

http://www.star-tele...d-north-of.html


I can think of a couple....

tcu_sig.png

2hrhp3q.jpg

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#5 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 10:36 AM

Mr. Gordon Dickson, what happens when that answer isn't enough? If it's going to take 6 long years of traffic hell to bring about traffic purgatory, only to bring traffic hell again once all of the sprawl that they are wanting to come to the Alliance/TMS area in the next 10 years, why would we waste that money?

Light rail = less cars.

Lots of cars (2012) = traffic hell (2012)
Even more cars (2022) = traffic hell (2022)

Hope they built the Alliance Town Center far enough away from the highway so that when they expand it again in another 20 years, they don't have to close down the big box businesses or chain restaurants to make way for frontage rd lanes will have to move over.

But then again they could just keep going up.

#6 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,361 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:25 AM

Pretty sure this is old news.

I thought they already stared widening this thing a year ago when I was driving twoards Haltom. Had to be some reason for the construction.


Yes, the 820/183/121 portion of North Tarrant Express has been under construction for well over a year. What Brian is talking about is the 35W portion of the project. The announcement that the funding is coming together and that there's an actual timeline for construction was released earlier this week and is not old news.

#7 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:53 AM

Mr. Gordon Dickson, what happens when that answer isn't enough? If it's going to take 6 long years of traffic hell to bring about traffic purgatory, only to bring traffic hell again once all of the sprawl that they are wanting to come to the Alliance/TMS area in the next 10 years, why would we waste that money?



Bingo. This is a perpetual process. By building more lanes, you encourage more driving and more sprawl development which further encourages that driving. This, in turn, makes traffic even worse in the long run and exacerbates our problem. We can't pave our way out of this mess.

We don't build roads because people want to drive. People want to drive because we build the roads (insanely expensive roads, I might add). In order to grow our city with less tax burden, less gridlock, decreased commute times, less oil dependency, and overall higher quality of life we need a fundamental change in Fort Worth. We need to re-think the way our city operates, the way we move from place to place, the way we build, and the way we live. This all starts with our transportation infrastructure.

#8 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:57 PM


Mr. Gordon Dickson, what happens when that answer isn't enough? If it's going to take 6 long years of traffic hell to bring about traffic purgatory, only to bring traffic hell again once all of the sprawl that they are wanting to come to the Alliance/TMS area in the next 10 years, why would we waste that money?



Bingo. This is a perpetual process. By building more lanes, you encourage more driving and more sprawl development which further encourages that driving. This, in turn, makes traffic even worse in the long run and exacerbates our problem. We can't pave our way out of this mess.

We don't build roads because people want to drive. People want to drive because we build the roads (insanely expensive roads, I might add). In order to grow our city with less tax burden, less gridlock, decreased commute times, less oil dependency, and overall higher quality of life we need a fundamental change in Fort Worth. We need to re-think the way our city operates, the way we move from place to place, the way we build, and the way we live. This all starts with our transportation infrastructure.



I understand the basic argument about not building more roads, and about more roads inciting more traffic. But if you people don't think I-35 North should be widened from 4 lanes to 8 lanes, that is being pretty obtuse. If light rail for commuters would solve all our problems, then why is I-35 backed up during off-peak times?

It needs to be 8 lanes.

#9 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:40 PM

[quote name='hannerhan' timestamp='1335466620' post='69738'

It needs to be 8 lanes.
[/quote]

And in 20 years I'm assuming you'll be saying "it needs to be 12 lanes"? And in 40 years, 18?

There was a story I read as a kid, where a excavator began to dig a base for a skyscraper. He dug, dug and dug. Because the it was so deep, he eventually got so deep he couldn't be lifted out, and they had to build the skyscraper over top of him. Luckily for him, when this book was written, coal (what he ran on) was still being used, and so he was turned into the furnace for the building. But the moral is eventually we're going to build where we can't get out.

Certainly it could be expanded. In fact, it could be widened a little bit to help. But it's 8 lanes south of downtown, going north and south. Going north is bottlenecked, but there isn't anything but 8 (and then 6) lanes south of downtown. Yet, it has lots of traffic as well. If 8 lanes helped, wouldn't it help there?

The reality is, it's not a wise way to spend money. It's excessive, and naive to assume that widening is the ONLY way to fix our problem. One of the problems, is the amount of cars on the road.

#10 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:10 PM

And in 20 years I'm assuming you'll be saying "it needs to be 12 lanes"? And in 40 years, 18?


No, just 8. As you mentioned, I-35 South has 8 lanes to the loop. It should be the same for the North section of I-35 as well, to eliminate what is now a major bottleneck.

And I would argue that it IS a good use of money. We can increase the traffic capacity substantially without taking up any more land, we can dramatically reduce traffic jams which helps the air quality and increases the productivity of our workforce, and we get the added bonus of creating a few jobs in the meantime.

This isn't about building new roads. It's about improving a crappy road and making it more efficient. Adding lanes to an interior section of freeway like this isn't going to induce urban sprawl...it's just going to reduce traffic problems. I understand the argument, but sometimes feel that the anti-freeway crowd just paints everything with the same brush when it's not appropriate.

#11 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:53 PM


Pretty sure this is old news.

I thought they already stared widening this thing a year ago when I was driving twoards Haltom. Had to be some reason for the construction.


Yes, the 820/183/121 portion of North Tarrant Express has been under construction for well over a year. What Brian is talking about is the 35W portion of the project. The announcement that the funding is coming together and that there's an actual timeline for construction was released earlier this week and is not old news.


Yeah, I know what Brian was talking about. The construction I was refering to wasn't just on 820, it was also along 35W before you got to the loop. I figured they had already started on something.

It's still old news because there was talk of expanding 35 (right along with 820) a couple years ago.


I'll also say that there MUST be more rail and better bus service as well as expansion of freeways...

tcu_sig.png

2hrhp3q.jpg

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#12 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:29 PM

I would support the contention that no freeway construction, new or retrofit, should be undertaken without providing right of way for future rail transit. I also would oppose building any new frontage roads, and when appropriate, dismantle existing frontage roads as they detract from the efficiency of entry and exit ramps to the freeway by clogging up with shoppers at the big box stores that locate there. You can have an effective (if temporary) transportation project, or you can have economic development for major corp[orations, but you really can't have both.

#13 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:09 AM

Adding lanes to an interior section of freeway like this isn't going to induce urban sprawl...it's just going to reduce traffic problems. I understand the argument, but sometimes feel that the anti-freeway crowd just paints everything with the same brush when it's not appropriate.



Widening existing freeways doesn't induce sprawl? I guess it's just a coincidence that this sprawl development on I35W was given the green light the day after this highway received funding:

http://www.star-tele...anned-near.html


And I think you're perception is off in your second statement. The "anti-freeway crowds" recognize the freeway's rightful place and just purpose in society. That is, to connect one city to another. This is why I mentioned in my earlier post that it's much easier for me to justify this than southwest parkway, which is literally a highway to nowhere.

That being said, I often wonder if we would need widening at all if only those who used I35W were using it for its originally intended purpose, which is mainly to travel from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City. It's the people commuting back and forth from the suburbs and exurbs that are causing the traffic.

#14 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 27 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

I-35 north should be widened, as a stop-gap measure for commuters. The posts here also mention travel to and from Oklahoma City. What would really juice up the long stretch from Austin to Oklahoma City, through Fort Worth, would be a non-stop high-speed rail service. Not the current AMTRAK route, which takes mucho hours to go the 389-mile distance one-way with numerous station stops along the way. It’s certainly a more scenic and relaxing trip than by car, but much slower. Then, again, the I-35 bottlenecks make for a slower trip, as well, and more stressful. An express “bullet train” going 200 miles per hour would make the trip in less than two hours and be a pleasant experience.

#15 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:07 AM

I-35 north should be widened, as a stop-gap measure for commuters.


So the taxpayers need to empty their wallets to the tune of 4 BILLION dollars so the commuters can get back and forth from suburbia five minutes faster?


BTW: I agree with you on high speed rail, but the most common argument against rail is the tax cost of public transportation. However, I would argue that the freeway infrastructure is the most expensive of all public transportation. Yet, this never seems to be brought up in conversation, because somehow roads and freeways are not public and aren't paid for by the tax payers? It's never made sense to me. Long story short, I agree with you but this is the perception we're up against. I hope I didn't just open Pandora's box there :)

#16 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:22 PM

Widening existing freeways doesn't induce sprawl? I guess it's just a coincidence that this sprawl development on I35W was given the green light the day after this highway received funding:

http://www.star-tele...anned-near.html


Yes I think that's a coincidence. Those apartments are built for people who work in the Alliance area. If someone works downtown or elsewhere, they aren't going to want to pay for a luxury apartment all the way up at Alliance.

And I think you're perception is off in your second statement. The "anti-freeway crowds" recognize the freeway's rightful place and just purpose in society. That is, to connect one city to another. This is why I mentioned in my earlier post that it's much easier for me to justify this than southwest parkway, which is literally a highway to nowhere.

That being said, I often wonder if we would need widening at all if only those who used I35W were using it for its originally intended purpose, which is mainly to travel from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City. It's the people commuting back and forth from the suburbs and exurbs that are causing the traffic.


I don't disagree re: Southwest Parkway, but I do think people underestimate the amount of traffic that just has to be out on the roads in a 1+ million person county. Why is I-35 or North Loop 820 jammed at noon? It certainly isn't because of commuters...there are a lot of trucks and service providers and others who are just out and about, and we need decent freeways to get those people around in an urban location of this scope.

My general thought on the sprawl thing is that I'm all for having good wide/efficient freeways inside and including the loop. If you choose to live well outside of the loop 25 miles from the city center (ie Cleburne), then you shouldn't expect a nice wide highway to take you all the way into town. But if one can't get around the central city without being stuck in traffic nonstop, that becomes a very real economic drain on the local economy.

#17 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:01 PM

When I heard about this I thought it was a good idea, but at the same time I sighed, because it seems like all of the highways are under construction at one time. This work is mostly inside the 820 loop and I believe i read somewhere that I-35 was built in 1958. If so, that stretch has not had capacity improvement in 54 years and I would agree that adding 4 lanes or 100% new capacity is appropriate. I have never driven I-35 through Austin without getting stopped in traffic, or San Antonio for that matter. Waco is iffy too. Now that I-35 is the NAFTA highway you can count on fairly heavy traffic just about anywhere from the Oklahoma border to San Antonio, probably South of there too. That is why I prefer the back roads when I head for the Hill Country.

As for commuters coming from the suburbs causing the traffic, you should get out and check I-35 North of 820 some morning, many more cars headed North to Alliance and then reversed in the afternoon. This looks like a state project, not a city or county project.

#18 brownjd

brownjd

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:40 PM

Here's why I'm okay with southwest parkway and against future federal and state highway expansion.

Tolls.

As long as you get people to pay if they want to commute from the far reaches of the city, they can build all the freeways they want for all I care. But they need to pay for it, directly. No more free lanes.

Right now the rest of us are subsidizing your cheaper lifestyle. Time to pay up. We can't afford you anymore.

#19 Schneider

Schneider

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:43 PM

I'm for the project simply because the current north freeway (and north east freeway) were poorly designed to begin with and couldn't handle moving traffic at 3am properly let alone at rush hour in a city the size of Fort Worth.

Most of the on/off ramps are about 50ft long (maybe slightly exagerated) and several on ramps dump you into the fast lane and for these reasons alone slow traffic to an almost stand still with normal city traffic flows. I feel like if there were well built on/off ramps and 3 lanes going in each direction (north & south) that the freeway would not be the parking lot that it has been for so very long.

The argument that the freeway shouldn't be expanded is just plain silly. I35 is the busiest (or at least one of the busiest) freeways in the state, and two lanes in each direction in the midst of a large city is just not acceptable. Espectially when a large chunk of the travel on that road includes tractor trailors passing through the city moving freight and other cars simply passing through the city on their way to wherever.

I know several folks that live a few hours north of the city that prefer to visit OK City on weekends because of less traffic congestion there and I wonder how many other people pass on FTW as their weekend destination because of crappy freeways and how much revenue is lost because of it.

Anyway, I just hope the project doesn't hit some snag and get delayed another 20 years...

#20 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 28 April 2012 - 09:36 PM

I have always thought that alternative choices of other transportation should be provided in addition to expanding the freeway. With that said, I think this freeway should be expanded, and that is mainly due to its inadequate original design of the lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes.

#21 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:08 AM

Here's why I'm okay with southwest parkway and against future federal and state highway expansion.

Tolls.

As long as you get people to pay if they want to commute from the far reaches of the city, they can build all the freeways they want for all I care. But they need to pay for it, directly. No more free lanes.

Right now the rest of us are subsidizing your cheaper lifestyle. Time to pay up. We can't afford you anymore.



I couldn't agree more.

Although even with toll roads, you have to pay attention to where the start up money comes from. And if it's a government loan, who's paying the interest on that? Admittedly, I don't know what the case is with our local freeway projects, but I'd be curious to find out if anyone on here knows.

#22 Electricron

Electricron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:08 AM

If your main desire is to stop urban sprawl, do so with zoning and land use laws. Attacking urban sprawl by limiting freeway lanes hasn't worked in the past, and will never work in the future. Most of the urban sprawl north of Fort Worth can be attributed to building Alliance Airport and other actions taken by the city to make Alliance profitable.
In my humble opinion, Fort Worth should not have been allowed to build an airport 15 miles north of its existing urban footprint without first building up the local infrastructure (including freeways) to handle the increase demands.

As long as cities continue to allow growth on their outskirts, cities will continue to experience urban sprawl.

#23 brownjd

brownjd

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Berkeley

Posted 02 May 2012 - 10:25 AM

If your main desire is to stop urban sprawl, do so with zoning and land use laws. Attacking urban sprawl by limiting freeway lanes hasn't worked in the past, and will never work in the future. Most of the urban sprawl north of Fort Worth can be attributed to building Alliance Airport and other actions taken by the city to make Alliance profitable.
In my humble opinion, Fort Worth should not have been allowed to build an airport 15 miles north of its existing urban footprint without first building up the local infrastructure (including freeways) to handle the increase demands.

As long as cities continue to allow growth on their outskirts, cities will continue to experience urban sprawl.


I'm fine with sprawl, as long as the negative externalities are baked back in. Tollways accomplish that for me.

#24 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:14 PM

...so we'll be able to pour a LOT more vehicles into downtown in a much shorter period of time, nice.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#25 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:30 AM

...so we'll be able to pour a LOT more vehicles into downtown in a much shorter period of time, nice.


Well maybe. Unless the highways actually function as they are intended, which is to move people away and through the city, not to it.

Either way, Tolls don't do anything for broadening people's ability to travel. If you had a choice between a lane that is tolled and semi-busy, to a stacked up non-tolled lane, you'll take the Toll one every time. Eventually, they'll be stacked just the same (look at Dallas North Tollway, or Sam Rayburn).

All this does is further inconvenience and disguises it as a solution. Certainly widening should happen, but at minimum I'd do it without the Toll lanes, and I'd expand money going to improve something that is paid like Train travel/light rail, and is more profitable.

#26 Russ Graham

Russ Graham

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Ft Worth

Posted 17 July 2012 - 07:58 PM

Not sure if this is the right thread for this story from the Sunday S.T.:

FWTA Builds a Parking Lot At Alliance

The Good: the T plans to provide bus service to a large employment center in Fort Worth, giving me one less thing to complain about.

The Bad: they paid 2/3 of a million dollars for 3.6 acres, in 2009.

The Silly: they waited 3 years to move forward with the project because ... "The city requires you to have landscaping, so we can't build it until we can get a water line out there," T President Dick Ruddell said. Get that man a ticket to Prairie Fest - there are lots of native Texas grasses and wildflowers that wouldn't have needed watering that you could have used... Or ask the city for a variance for the landscaping. Instead, they spent $64,000 running a water line to a parking lot. (That's enough for a couple of bus drivers for the year).

This agency is swimming in money, but lacking in oversight and accountability.

#27 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:11 PM

This agency [the T] is swimming in money, but lacking in oversight and accountability.


Could not agree with you more.

#28 downtowndweller

downtowndweller

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:76102

Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:48 PM

I agree as well. I think the Mayor calling them out a couple of months ago is just the beginning of a major change for the FWTA.

#29 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 July 2012 - 10:11 PM

I agree as well. I think the Mayor calling them out a couple of months ago is just the beginning of a major change for the FWTA.


So do I. By the way, welcome to the Forum.

Keep Fort Worth folksy.

#30 Electricron

Electricron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 11:37 PM

I agree as well. I think the Mayor calling them out a couple of months ago is just the beginning of a major change for the FWTA.

I'll assume the city council and mayor have a major influence over who sits on the FWTA Board. If the mayor doesn't approve on what the FWTA is doing, the mayor should appoint some new FWTA Board members and retire some others.

A story totally unrelated to FWTA, but a story that explains what I'm suggesting. Hershey Foods Board was seriously considering selling out to Nestle a few years ago. The largest stockholder of Hershey Foods stock was the orphanage established by old man Hershey himself. So, the Orphanage Board, seeking to divest more of its holdings, was about to approve the sell. Many graduates of the orphanage called the Pennsylvania Governor to stop the sell, suggesting that's not what old man Hershey would want. While the Governor had no power over Hershey Foods, he did have the power to appoint the Orphanage Board, and replaced every one of them. With a new Board established at the orphanage, it didn't take long for it to replace the Board of Hershey Foods. End of the story is that Hershey Foods is still in business making profits earning income for the orphanage.

Whereas the FWTA Board can act independently, it can be greatly influenced by the city council. Appointments to the FWTA Board can be change by the city council.

#31 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:18 AM

The latest news on north I35W expansion is in this Gordon Dickson article in the Star-Telegram.
Evidently, a public-private partnership is involved.

http://www.star-tele...ch-deal-to.html

#32 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea North

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:27 AM

That is not surprising since pretty much every highway expansion project for the past 10+ years has been done the same way. That's why all the new highways are toll roads or include toll lanes. This project actually has one of the shortest lease terms that I have seen. Usually the term is for 75 years.

While no one likes their taxes to go up, a big reason for all the toll roads is we pay $0.20 per gallon state tax and that hasn't changed since 1991. There was an article in the Star Telegram recently and they stated that that $0.20 from 1991 now buys us $0.08 worth of road work. Had the tax been indexed to inflation, we should be paying $0.34 per gallon today.

It's no wonder the state can't keep up with road and bridge maintenance and we have to lease our new highways to private companies.

#33 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,019 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:54 AM

Let's see how it works out.

I just got back from Orlando and virtually all their limited access highways are toll roads. They are pretty well maintained. Then again, I was paying $2 to go 10 miles, which would get old if that was my daily commute. (I think the Toll Tag customers in Texas get a discount?)
My blog: Doohickie

#34 youngalum

youngalum

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:39 AM

Let's see how it works out.

I just got back from Orlando and virtually all their limited access highways are toll roads. They are pretty well maintained. Then again, I was paying $2 to go 10 miles, which would get old if that was my daily commute. (I think the Toll Tag customers in Texas get a discount?)

Yes, but not much. For example, on 121 Toll Road in Northern Dallas County/Southern Collin County, some places the toll is $.75 and with a toll tag it is like $.65.

#35 Joshw

Joshw

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Location:North Fort Worth

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:39 PM

Glad I'm planning on moving away from Far North Fort Worth. I don't want to be anywhere near that traffic.

#36 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:18 AM

Contracts let for construction of I-35W(N) from Downtown to Alliance; no provision for commuter/light rail ROW. I sometimes get tired of the unimaginative names for freeways in Fort Worth, and the reluctance to use names that have been given. With the exception of MLK (US 287, try to have a parade there), Loop I-820 (Jim Wright - never referenced) and Airport Freeway (SH-121 - Yawn) the freeways are N,S,E and W. I would propose that I-35W be officially re-designated "Pan-American Expressway" to recognize the importance of that route for international trade through this region. 

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/04/4659921/panel-approves-contract-for-interstate.html 



#37 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

Contracts let for construction of I-35W(N) from Downtown to Alliance; no provision for commuter/light rail ROW. I sometimes get tired of the unimaginative names for freeways in Fort Worth, and the reluctance to use names that have been given. With the exception of MLK (US 287, try to have a parade there), Loop I-820 (Jim Wright - never referenced) and Airport Freeway (SH-121 - Yawn) the freeways are N,S,E and W. I would propose that I-35W be officially re-designated "Pan-American Expressway" to recognize the importance of that route for international trade through this region. 

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/04/4659921/panel-approves-contract-for-interstate.html I

Informative article.  I sympathize with your sentiments about honorary names for highways not becoming part of our nomenclature (but some do stick, like Van Cliburn Way).  I think that what sticks comes from the bottom-up, even if officialdom's naming is top-down;  MLK is easy enough to remember, but I-820 is more often "The Loop" than otherwise.  It's just not predictable what will catch on with the public and what will not.  (not highways, but I remember one of the early space station astronauts dubbing it "Alpha 1" but that name never stuck).



#38 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

..... I sometimes get tired of the unimaginative names for freeways in Fort Worth.....

 

I believe that it is wise to stick with non-controversial directional designations for freeways.



#39 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:29 AM

I've observed that, with the exception of Airport Freeway, people in Tarrant County almost exclusively refer to highways by their numbers instead of their names. Outside of the radio traffic reports, I've never heard someone mention "North Freeway" or "South Freeway" — always "35." Same for the highways named after Jim Wright, Tom Landry and Ronald Reagan. (Airport Freeway is probably the exception because the number is different for different segments — 121, 121/183, then just 183.)

 

There seems to be a name/number spectrum: In Dallas, you're more likely to hear the highways referred to as LBJ, Stemmons, Walton Walker, Woodall Rogers or Central Expressway, although you still hear "635," "75," "Loop 12," and so on. Even further, having grown up near Chicago, I can still rattle off highway names — like the Edens, the Eisenhower, the JFK, the Dan Ryan, the East-West, the Tri-State, the Skyway — but I'd be hard-pressed to tell you which names go with which numbers.



#40 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:28 AM

Maps don't accomodate the names very well, so when I look at maps I see the numbers.  I think the names are dumb.  That's just me. I want to go on record right now and say that if I ever contribute anything of value to society, please do not name a dirty highway after me.  Name a park, a school, a municipal building, a museum, whatever.  No one ever says, "Hey, traffic on LBJ was great today.  And now that I think of it, LBJ was a great man."  They say "*&#@!, I'm stuck on freakin' LBJ again!".



#41 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

....And now that I think of it, LBJ was a great man."  They say "*&#@!, I'm stuck on freakin' LBJ again!".

 

Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson was a great man and a great president.  He, LBJ, should be ranked among a list of the top twenty all time American Presidents.  I have always been disappointed that Fort Worth does not have public memorial dedicated to LBJ, a remarkable Texan. 

 

It was a sad and tragic day in November 1963 that ended a remarkable Kennedy Presidency; but it was also the beginning of a too brief but consequential presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson.



#42 TexasArch79

TexasArch79

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:51 PM

I can see people using Chisholm Trail or maybe just "the tollway" when it gets completed. I dont think people will be saying 121, just because of the vast stretch accross the metroplex and beyond. Then again I have been wrong before! :laugh:


Casey C.
Design Director
Member of UTA Construction Research Advisory Committee
Member of SteerFW Urban Development Task Force

#43 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:58 AM

Contracts let for construction of I-35W(N) from Downtown to Alliance; no provision for commuter/light rail ROW. I sometimes get tired of the unimaginative names for freeways in Fort Worth, and the reluctance to use names that have been given. With the exception of MLK (US 287, try to have a parade there), Loop I-820 (Jim Wright - never referenced) and Airport Freeway (SH-121 - Yawn) the freeways are N,S,E and W. I would propose that I-35W be officially re-designated "Pan-American Expressway" to recognize the importance of that route for international trade through this region. 

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/04/4659921/panel-approves-contract-for-interstate.html 

 

Attn: Moderator

Might be best to split this off to start a new thread if anyone responds...

 

Local legislators have introduced a bill to rename I-35 W through Fort Worth for Cesar Chavez.

 

http://www.star-tele...ch-of-i-35.html

 

 

I would oppose this, even though I have hispanic origins and am a supporter of unions.

 

This appears to be an attempt to politically cater to a voting segment of the community by invoking a historical figure from another part of the country who had no real relevance to Fort Worth (see MLK and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan, both of whom have freeways named in their honor and for similar reasons). Continuing this trend doesn't make it right. I-35 is and will continue to be an important link in the cultural and economic chain uniting North America, especially the US and Mexico. The historic highway that "joined" North America together was the Pan American Highway, and I remain in favor of using that name to designate the highway and recognize the important ties between out (three) countries. If it HAS to be named for an individual choose one of the many Texans who have contributed to making this place what it is (as was done years ago when I-820 was designated the Jim Wright Freeway).



#44 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

MLK, Ronald Reagan, Jim Wright  I guess its ok to rename parts of the Federal Highway numbered system just for local usage.  But when traveling locally I only read the Federal Highway signage to get where I am going... renaming is really a distraction.. let alone confusing.

 

Keep it simple


Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#45 Brian Luenser

Brian Luenser

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,038 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

Flagrant vote buying indeed.  Pathetic.  I might as well say that I am running for city council and will give $5. to everyone that votes for me.   Shameful.  


www.fortworthview.com

#46 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:02 AM

....This appears to be an attempt to politically cater to a voting segment of the community by invoking a historical figure from another part of the country who had no real relevance to Fort Worth (see MLK and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan, both of whom have freeways named in their honor and for similar reasons)....

 

Are you arguing that neither the American Civil Rights Struggle or the Ending of the Cold War had no real relevance to Fort Worth?



#47 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:00 AM

In general of course not! But would you agree that there were other civil rights leaders who had decisive roles in that struggle? MLK was not the only civil rights leader, and many in the broader movement did not agree with him as to how to best get results. Is there a Medgar Evans, James Forman, John Lewis, or Joseph Lowery Freeway? What about civil rights for women? Why not the Susan B. Anthony or Ida B. Wells Freeway? And gay rights is the most recent aspect of civil rights to gain popular support; what about a Harvey Milk Freeway? And as for Reagan, he was sleeping in the White House when the cold war with the USSR ended, but there were several causes to that, Reagan could not seriously claim to have ended it, although his worshippers have. 

 

The sad truth is that Texas was a backwater for African-American Civil Rights for a long time following Emancipation due in large part to white political leaders, as late as Governors Shivers and Connolly. This is not to say there were not leaders, and local leaders, some who took a vocal stand and other who led by example:

 

http://www.star-tele...ist-became.html

 

Texas WAS a major area contributing to Mexican-American civil rights action; and Chavez was a minor player here. Mexicans were instrumental in the leadership that resulted in Texas winning independence, first among many was Lorenzo de Zavala, signer of the Texas Constitution and interim VP of the republic. Skip ahead to WWII and Dr. Hector Perez of Corpus Christi who founded the American GI Forum, arguably the most influential vehicle for Mexican American equality under the law, while advocating for the rights of all veterans. He has a public plaza in Corpus Christi and a statue at Texas A & M but no freeway named for him.  



#48 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:29 PM

Meh. 

Let 'em name it  after Cesar Chavez.

 

As long as it's not named after a violent tyrant, a war criminal, or Justin Bieber, who cares? You're stuck in traffic for 10+ minutes either way...


tcu_sig.png

2hrhp3q.jpg

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#49 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:37 AM

So we can name I-30 Tom Landry Freeway but Cesar Chavez for I-35W is just too much? Please.



#50 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 14 April 2013 - 06:11 PM

Naming a freeway after a football coach verges on absurdity, so I didn't even bother to address that in my previous posts about naming freeways. It is also perhaps the best argument that no one really uses names for regional freeways other than their numeric designation outside of Dallas (Stemmons, Thorton, LBJ, Julius Schepps). I'll bet very few people in Dallas even know the state numeric designation of Woodall Rogers.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users