Trinity Toll Road Doesn't Add Up

However you slice the numbers, it's still baloney.

The idea is especially implausible at this moment, because the cost — somewhere between one and two billion dollars — is way out ahead of anything the city can raise. And now we do have an alternative. There is a better, cheaper, more effective way to reduce traffic congestion in downtown Dallas.

Project Pegasus is a plan to reconfigure the existing freeways that run through downtown, getting rid of left-hand exits and blind entrances, straightening out cork-screws and devising a system of signage that will reduce the number of wrecks caused by people craning around, lifting their feet off their accelerators and yanking sharply on their steering wheels while they try to figure out which way to turn.

There's no money for that project, either. So the question is this. If we ever do get some money, which thing should we do first, fix the roads we have or sort of give up on them for now and build a brand-new one along the river?

Jared Boggess

Details

Email the author at jim.schutze@dallasobserver.com.

As you may know, Mayor Mike Rawlings and City Council members Hunt, Scott Griggs and Sandy Greyson have been wrestling with this question and with each other, gathering up all kinds of numbers and projections and algorithms. The answers are in by now. I believe they are not hard to follow. Look at Hunt's web page, angelahunt.com, and you will find numbers, footnoted and sourced to the government documents they come from, proving that Pegasus wins on every score.

The mayor, however, has his own set of numbers. I think they are contorted to the point of blatant dishonesty, but I also happen to know something else. I believe I know what the final argument is going to be on all of this on the part of the Old Guard.

At some point in the days ahead, The Dallas Morning News editorial page will float an argument that the debate between the three council members and the mayor over traffic projections and costs is all sort of six of one, half dozen of the other — too much to follow. Instead, the News will offer the following case for the toll road:

The two plans, Pegasus versus Trinity toll road, both have a lot of complicated numbers whirling around them. So in that sense they're sort of equal. We'll never figure it all out, will we? It's like your worst subject in school. Stay away from it!

The toll road is a new road out on new dirt between the flood control levees, so it can be built without any construction mess. And it can charge tolls. So let's do it! Let's just do it!

That's a fundamentally idiotic argument for all sorts of reasons. But maybe the News will be right about one thing. Maybe it's a mistake for all of us to go rushing into numbers-land. If the experts are afraid to go there, maybe we should think twice too.

So how about trying this instead as a nonexpert way to look at things: Let's go ahead and just agree with what I think the News' argument will be. Six of one, half dozen of the other on those real complicated numbers. Winds up equal.

But one road is a Chinese wall in front of the riverfront. The other is not. Where does that get factored in?

If there is a way to solve congestion problems downtown and leave La Santísima Trinidad entirely alone, and in fact enhance and adorn her with parks and trails, then why wouldn't that simple fact alone tip the scales dramatically away from building a new expressway where we do not have one now?

Is this 2012? Or is this 1954, the year President Dwight David Eisenhower announced the Interstate Highway Program in Cadillac Square in Detroit? In 1954, more highways were better than fewer. Every new interstate was money ahead. But this is 2012. Fewer highways are better than more highways if we can possibly manage.

More highways are more air pollution, more noise, more land wasted, more money spent that could be spent on better things. So if there is a way to use the highways we already have, a way to not build a new one and save our entire riverfront in the process and if the traffic projections and the costs are sort of a wash, then why in the world wouldn't we go with the fewer highways option instead of the more?

Isn't it this simple? One solution puts a highway right down the length of the river through all of downtown where we want to have a park and a natural area. The other one doesn't. Do we really need experts to figure this out?

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
All
 
My Voice Nation Help
12 comments
Bbetzen
Bbetzen

Jim, you said it well.

Joe L
Joe L

Oh, you are cruel.

Joe L
Joe L

The citizens of Dallas obviously do want this road or they wouldn't have voted for it in TWO ELECTIONS.

Joe L
Joe L

Fortunately there is a huge new Kroger on Maple near the Dart Station, a Walmart Neighborhood market at Central and Hall, and a big Albertson's at Lemmon and McKinney. No need to worry about grocery stores downtown if you want to move there.

Joe L
Joe L

"'... He said, 'Look, traffic is like water. If you close one road, traffic will find a way to its destination another way.'" This is one of the more idiotic metaphors I've heard lately. Yeah, you dam up traffic and you get insufferable congestion, pollution, lengthened commutes and urban decline just like when you dam up water you get a flood. Just who is this nameless 'expert'? Expert X "flying in from Dubai or some Middle Eastern City", so ipso fact, he knows his stuff? In one breath you exaggerate the 45 mph toll road as a high speed highway, and then proceed to accuse the mayor of blatant dishonesty? I have followed Angela Hunt's career and pronouncements, and some one who makes common cause with her should be careful about accusing others of "blatant dishonesty". This whole conspiracy theory of an "old guard cabal" just doesn't make sense. Since when did the rabidly Republican Dallas Old Guard start admitting progressive Democrats like Mike Rawlings? The fact is, with the growth this area is going to have in the next decades we are going to need more roads or have a miserable future and probably induce more suburban flight. The toll road and Pegasus are both necessary. Suggesting we can just have bicycles and streetcars, and pretend we can just ignore transportation problems is the kind of thinking that kills cities. Downtown is already cut off from the Trinity by freeways and they are not about to tear them down. I love waterfronts, but Dallas is perfectly capable of engineering an ersatz Riva Schiavoni on top of a buried section of the toll road ( the way they are decking Woodall Rogers and building a park) if that's what people want.

Zizi JeanMer
Zizi JeanMer

Dallas' urban big shots should be quite concerned that the only food market in downtown Dallas will be closing on July 17th.

Julia Barton
Julia Barton

This all true, except for: "Dallas, like many mid-20th century cities, always considered its river a sewer." No, it was only a sewer on its way to becoming a great 20th century shipping channel to the sea. The idea that the Trinity is only good for transportation is the idea that won't die here. The Port of Dallas dream has been bending reality for so long, this ability remains long after the dream itself imploded. It is the black hole which will apparently never stop folding this city out of its senses.

John
John

Great article Jim. Dallas can do better but there's a few powerful and money hungry people that our city leaders are scared of or think they can benefit from. The citizens of Dallas don't want this road. Let's keep fighting.

Brandon T
Brandon T

Jim- Great article as always. Your "Chinese wall" comment reminded me of something I recently read in Robert Caro's epic biography of Robert Moses "The Power Broker". As you know, Moses was solely responsible for the parks and transportation planning in New York City for most of the 20th centry. Among the many mistakes that Moses made, perhaps the worst was the west side highway, which separates most of Manhattan from one of its greatest treasures, the Hudson riverfront. To this day there really are few places where pedestrians can really enjoy the riverfont. Sounds like we're well on our way to repeating this mistake. Hopefully we can come to our senses.

Lorlee
Lorlee

I was heavily involved in the first election -- People didn't vote for a road -- they were voting for some grand vision with water taxis that the proponents put out. Also, the vote was not as clear cut as you are trying to portray. The opponents won the early vote -- the election was won by the proponents on election day with a great infusion of "walking around money". Hmmm... I think those same actions may be the subject of upcoming trials. Then the City went to Court to say "doesn't matter what we put in brochures or how we said we would spend the money on the Trinity project -- we are going to spend however we d^$* well please, we always meant it for a road -- those were just pretty pictures to sucker you in"

Chiggers!
Chiggers!

"...progressive Democrats like Mike Rawlings." *ha ha* Good one!

 
Loading...