Just Say Yes to the Trinity Toll Road?

I voted Monday...I hate to add to the confusion, but the ballot is set up to read "For" or "Against" on this proposition (and everything else on the ballot), rather than yes or no. So, let's everyone be clear about this: Voting FOR=YES for no damn tollway in the park. VOTE FOR this!

Damn it Schutze, I already voted and your confusing me! What are the odds that someone is going to be able to tape one of these push polls?

Vote 'YES' (that would be 'FOR') Proposition 1!

Hey Jim, Does the Dallas observer verify the ages of the girls displayed in the adult service section?

Mr. Allison, leave the nice little hookers out of this. They give the Observer an editorial freedom that your publication will never enjoy. Why? Because the same assholes who are dumping money into the 'VoteNoPavetheTrinity' PAC are also advertising in your silly little magazine. You should know a thing or two about the sex industry after the Citizen's Council pimped out you and your magazine back in '98. And if you want to know Cindy and Bambi's age, I would just ask them next time they are in the back seat of your car!

Jim, I thought you support TrinityVoteYES. Even I am confused by this article you just wrote. And, I have not voted yet.

Man, this says so much for the slime-ball culture prevalent in Dallas politics... this and occassional "reader comments" like Mr. Olson's.

They can't get this toll-road passed honestly, so they have to resort to weasel-like legaleaze language to fool voters into voting for it.

I think the FBI should just set up their HQ smack dab in the middle of Dallas City Hall.
They'd probably need a recruitment drive to hire enough agents for Dallas alone.

It's already bad enough that Dallas now has a reputation for the highest number of wrongfully convicted people in the country.

Now this.

Wow.

Hey, Schutze, from the mouths of babes in your case comes babble. I am totally confused. You want people to Vote Yes to keep a six-lane high-speed tollroad out of the proposed park, but a four-lane roadway is okay—correct? (Of course, it makes no difference that the four-lane road doesn’t solve the traffic mess at the mixmaster—but, who cares?) However, you are perfectly content that there are two high-speed Interstate freeways in the park, I-30, which has six major lanes and two 2-lane feeders, a total of ten, and I-35, which has four lanes each way, a total of eight. And it is just fine that the Woodall Rogers (Margaret Hill) Bridge under construction has six lanes to connect that freeway to Singleton Blvd. And of course you know the DOT plans to replace the I-30 bridge with a new one that “will have 11 main lanes, 1 reversible HOV lane, and 4 lanes of collector/distributor road.” And the eight other bridges that carry vehicles through the park having two or four lanes plus the two RR bridges are of no concern to you. Wow.

The implication of “Keep their toll road out of our park” is that the floodway is a pristine virginal wilderness; and that “their”, “they”, are the bad guys and “our”, “us”, are the good guys.

I don’t know how many pairs of Birkenstocks you’ve got, I’ve got 4—wear them summer and winter, very comfortable. And I am very comfortable in my support of the proposed Trinity Parkway and I will vote NO. You quote lengthily some guy name of Scott and Steve Blow as if they represented the Neanderthals who could possibly think the Trinity Parkway is a good idea. Your condescension is showing—anyone who disagrees with you is, well, stupid, conned, bribed, eh? And, of course, what could a dufus like a Vote No-ster know about kayaks--condescension times two. I’m “they” and “us”--promise you, I am a good guy.

You barely discuss what the ultimate park will, in your view, look like, what will it offer, how can it be used, what are its limitations. You indicate that anyone who thinks the tollroad can co-exist with the park is an anti-park idiot who doesn’t go to parks. Even though you don’t capitalize central park, the implication is there, but we know that there’ll be no Metropolitan Museum, Children’s Zoo, Band Shell, statues of Beethoven, Goethe, and Gen. W. T. Sherman. There will be no buildings or statues or any other structures of consequence in the floodway. I am a certified tree hugger myself, but I probably won’t be able to meet you in the park to hug many trees because the Corps will be very particular as to anything that will impede water flow in a flood. The park will be very nice, indeed, but let’s be honest.

Help me here . . . is it that you object to a roadway that runs along the side of and through the park but are just fine with ones that run over and through the park? Or are you okay with freeways but object to tollroads? And how is it that in one case ten lanes is okay and in another six is too many?

You don’t point out to your readers that the proposed Urban Lake will be under the I-30 bridge, which carries an average of 151,000 vehicles per day; and that the proposed Natural Lake will be under the two I-35 bridges, which carry an average of 181,000 vehicles per day. And you don’t point out that the Commerce St. bridge crosses the Urban Lake and that the Houston St. and Jefferson bridges cross the Natural Lake. And you haven’t done a count of how many hundreds of columns that hold up those bridges will be in those lakes—nice navigational challenges.

And you don’t point out that where these two proposed lakes are located the visual impact of the proposed tollroad would be at a minimum due to its elevation, but, brother, can you look up and see all those cars and trucks on the Interstate bridges and the other bridges. Nor that the water source for the two lakes is the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant—doesn’t that mean its our drinking water?—it is not coming from the Trinity River as no self-respecting kayaker would ever want to risk tipping into that muddy mess. And you don’t point out, but the VoteYes mailing brochure had an excellent photo that clearly did, that when the Trinity floods from levee to levee the total park will be under water and discuss what are the after-flood ramifications of this.

Now I’ll quit trying to match my cleverness with yours, ‘cause I’ll surely lose on that. I believe that the years that the various elected reps on the city, state, and federal levels, plus the city staff and countless private individuals who care for and want the best for Dallas as a whole, developed a plan for flood control, transportation, and recreation that makes sense. And the private folk encouraged the government people to think big and ponyed up bushel baskets of dough, and that’s why we’ve got the two Calatrava bridges, with a possible third, and the Audubon Center and the Equestrian Center and who knows what else if this whole project gets under way.

When I was a kid I would ride the streetcar from my grandmother’s house in Oak Cliff down the middle of Jefferson and across the Trinity to downtown on a wooden bridge—quite exciting. I have crossed the 11 vehicle bridges in the downtown park area thousands of times and looked down into the vast space between the levees and wondered how it could possibly be used to greater advantage. I believe that the plan for levee upgrades, the Trinity Parkway, and the park is a satisfactory answer. The downtown park will be spacious and the tollroad will not materially detract from its use and enjoyment. Hey, meet me down there in a couple of years and we can share a cold one—would that be legal? I’ll wear my Birks.

While the yes/no stuff is clever and funny, you put this into great perspective with the "Steve Blow cruising down Buckner in his Acura, the autumn air cooling his pate."

I drive by White Rock, ride the bike on White Rock, and have kayaked (once) on White Rock. Even when I go months without riding around the lake, the option to be able to do so is worth alot.

The point is, the guys who vote "no" on this thing likely won't be sailing. Which to me seems beside the point, because should be about making the park as nice as it can possibly be, given the natural limitations of the Trinity and the concrete already between downtown and the park.

Hey Tucker,
You just proved you are an anti-Park idiot in your first paragraph. I didn't even have to read the rest of your blabber to determine that either. Nice math skills in adding up all the lanes (I-30, I-35, et. al.) that CROSS OVER the river and levees. However, what you and others fail to realize is that the Tollway would run PARALLEL TO THE RIVER inside the levees. Nice research on the issue, douche.

Hey, Justin . . . pray tell the difference: "is it that you object to a roadway that runs along the side of and through the park but are just fine with ones that run over and through the park?" "is it that you object to a roadway that runs parallel to the river and through the park but are just fine with ones that run over and through the park?"

Whatever happened to the behind the scenes reasoning for wanting a road from 35 / 183 to 45 / 175 in the first place? Some comments about how this route doesn't accomplish anything have been made, and I recall some agruments about how this was all so the cargo ports at Alliance and in South Dallas could be more easily accessed (directly benefitting the owners of both locations).

Given some now blame Pete Sessions for losing the Cowboys to Arlington because of the behind the scenes real reason for not voting on that, I'm surprised we don't hear more about who really benefits from this road and if it makes sense at all. I'd just like to get on 30 Westbound from I-35 without crossing 5 lanes or taking side streets. That would be a huge improvement in traffic flow all by itself.

Hey Jim, Are all the girls displayed in the adult service section of the Dallas Observer actually adults? Can we see the proof of age on them ?

Hey Jim,

Are all those girls in the back of the observer really girls? How does the Observer prove this? Hey Wick Olson, get off your soapbox and get a life... Your comments not only detract from legitimate comments, but they should be addressed to the editor or the advertising staff.

Despite the complicated ballot language and the Yes/No debate when maybe it should have really been a For/Against debate, I think the voters will make the decision, rather than the Citizens Council and the career politicians. The real issue is Dallas voters are actually making the decision this time.

I like Jim's articles because I like that Dallas has a local jouranlists who writes with passion about something he believes in. Even before the Trinity issue came up I've always enjoyed reading his articles in The Observer. About the vote on Nov 6th....well, either way (YES! or NO!) the lack of interest in local Dallas politics will most likely prevail. I predict a 3% voter turnout and a park that will likely be disapointing whether it has a Tollway in it or not. I'm more interested in the city rezoning Deep Ellum and drooling in wait for the business owners not to get their permits in time so they can bulldoze the area and turn it into a damn yuppie hot spot. We already have Lower Greenville for that...leave Deep Ellum for the artists and musicians. C'mon, when someone is planning for a vacation Dallas is the last place on their mind to visit. We are a crime ridden, smog covered, lazy, out of shape city full of bad drivers and assholes with absolutely no appreciation for local culture or history. But dammit it's my home and I have learned to love it even if no one else in the country has.

Wow, why all of a sudden the confusion over the yes or no vote? Just read the ordinance. Vote Yes if you are for the ordinance or vote no if you are not. It's really simple.