A Better Way on the Trinity Highway

Let's build a road on the river, not a wall.

All of this freelance mind-wandering occurs because I have been thinking a lot lately about something called the "Connected City Design Challenge," a joint venture of the Trinity Trust, a private advocacy group for the Trinity toll road, and the CityDesign Studio, a private urban design group working with City Hall on land-use questions. The challenge is a contest inviting professional urban design firms and amateurs with big ideas to compete for prize money awarded for the best idea or ideas for connecting the major urban districts along the river in and near downtown.

The announcement of the competition a week ago was greeted by a certain amount of paranoia in certain circles — well, at my house, anyway. The early stories quoted Beasley and former Mayor Laura Miller making it sound as if the toll road could be reduced to some kind of gentle park lane, which I knew not to be true. I would love that, but I also believe it's wrong even to suggest that's any kind of possible outcome.

Just to be sure, I checked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last week. The corps, in preparation for a final ruling next year on the feasibility of building a road in the floodway, has been working with the Federal Highway Administration on a handful of alternate routes forwarded to the corps by the FHWA.

Those are all eight-lane high-speed highways. The corps confirmed that the only routes under study and therefore the only ones that are candidates for final approval are those proposed by the FHWA. No gentle four-lane park roads will be considered.

So on the one hand I could argue it's a deception to let people think anything can happen along the river except an eight-lane highway. Once that approval comes down from the corps saying some version of a big honking freeway can be built inside the levees, it seems terribly unlikely the partisans will give up their decades-long fight and accept a measly little park lane instead.

On the other hand, what if the partisans found out an eight-lane freeway is exactly the wrong thing for their real goal of major redevelopment?

I had two long talks last week, one with Beasley, the other with Brent Brown, founding director of CityDesign Studio. Both pointed out that the rules of the contest require contestants to assume the toll road will be built, and both said the contest explicitly is not an invitation to redesign the toll road.

But I heard more. They both spoke of the magnitudes of value that can be achieved by redeveloping and changing the nature of entire urban districts as opposed to developing discrete one-off properties:

"Isolated developments are one kind of play," Beasley said. "If you can tie developments together into something bigger, from a marketing point of view it's just a totally different kind of play."

Brown told me there are lots of landowners and developers in Dallas who can make money on their own scraps of land, which he said they can do, "without having to come in and ask for zoning or things like that. Individually they can probably make some money. It would be profitable."

But he said there's much more money to be made when developments are linked in a fabric. "Connected together in a more uniform city-shaping or city-building effort, it's like all boats rise. When you build the connectivity, the value actually goes up. It's not just a destination, a one-stop. It's about a larger community. It's almost intangible in a way."

So both Beasley and Brown, perhaps sensing my own unhinged proclivities on these issues, told me about 700 times that they are not asking anybody to design away the toll road, and both of them told me they think roads are often a good way to build connectivity.

Fine. I get it. I'm not trying to put anything off on them. But I've been working here on Maggie's Farm a long time. And I'm telling you: The notion that land value can be enhanced, rather than eroded, by connectedness and different kinds of people walking around free in the neighborhood will be very new and very foreign to the crowd who've been fighting for that toll road for 20 years.

I'm not going to get all flibbertigibbet about it. The thing the Corps of Engineers approves next year will be an eight-lane freeway walling off downtown from the river. But I am very curious to see what comes out of this contest.

This is Dallas. We agree on little, but $10 is pretty much universally viewed here as being worth more than $5, even by the Baptists. In this contest we might find grounds for agreement after all.

« Previous Page
 |
 
1
 
2
 
All
 
My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
ozonelarryb
ozonelarryb

Schutze and friends uke-ing it out with a bonfire and smores...I'd ppv that. Prob show up too.

Seriously, does anyone really think this thing will not get drowned during construction?

d-may
d-may

I've heard you give you "It's about land development" spiel before, and I don't get it. I just don't see how you think that they think this will help sell condos. Yes, the powers that be would like to redevelop the chunk of industrial/river front blvd, but this road isn't going to help that. 

I don't think you are crazy. Land development is a major reason why road are built in North Texas. But that's the case NORTH of I-30. South of I-30 different rules apply. This road is built for the same reason that I-45 was built. (Side note: did you know much of I-45 was also built in a flood plain?) I-45 was built to get good white people through South Dallas as fast as possible. There is no land development going on out there. It's built for one reason -to move cars through South Dallas as fast as possible. 

That's the reason for the Trinity Toll Road. It's a redundant road that is designed to move people who don't mind paying tolls as fast as possible from the northern 'burbs to I-45 and onto Houston.

You are wrong on this one. This one isn't about land development. 

All the more reason for it not to happen. 

atosbarn
atosbarn

During the all-but-forgotten Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee (which began circa 1994) meetings, it quickly became apparent that the actual citizens were there just to put lipstick on the pig of a process that ultimately was directed by city staff and developers.  One of the options the CITIZENS' committee had proposed was a low-speed parkway on the inside of the levees, that was aimed at providing access to facilities in the river bottom.  However, the final report published by the CITY bore no resemblance to the report that the citizens had worked on.  This is of course now all water under the (white PVC pipe & string) bridge, to coin a phrase, but I thought I'd remind folks that the duplicity around the toll-road goes back a long way. And speaking of deceptiveness, who here remembers the pictures of sailboats on the Trinity used by toll-road proponents in campaigning for the Trinity River Project bond campaign in 1998?

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

I'm seeing a road under the river, with a big glass dome over it. Kind of like a reverse glass bottom boat. When your stuck in traffic, look up at all the cool stuff floating by overhead.


WhiteWhale
WhiteWhale

Why not a Boston Big Dig on steroids?  That was only about 14 Billion.  Elevated highway and tunnels under the existing bridges.  Why let a little thing like tax payer money stand in the way of a world class project?  That's what Dallas bond issues are for

baker24
baker24

I can see no way the Corps of Engineers will approve any bermed, landscaped parkway type road. The ONLY type of road inside the levees that will not result in a critical raising of the flood levels will be a viaduct, essentially a bridge carrying the highway above the river bed inside the levees, supported on a jillion pilings and extending for several miles from the Bachman area to 175. It will be interesting to see them try to get that past the Margaret Hunt Hill bridge and the other bridges over the Trinity while keeping it above the maximum flood levels. Considering the presence of extensive sand deposits in the Trinity bottoms, the Corps of Engineers will almost certainly have to ensure the pilings for any highway will have to be at a distance from the base of the levee system to prevent any weakening of the levees due to water incursion from the drilling operations for the pilings. That in turn will reduce or eliminate needed space for the park amenities we all were told would be built. Certainly building a several mile long viaduct will create a wall that will separate Dallas from the river forever: how will people in Dallas access the river with an elevated highway blocking the way from Bachman Lake down to 175? It won't happen.

feldnick
feldnick

@atosbarn Oh, I remember very well all those picturesque 'artist-renderings'....it was like a brochure for "Runaway Bay". And like good little sugar-coated cereal eaters, we engulfed that lie. And sadly, it was a lie from the beginning. I still don't know why we fell for it.


director21
director21

@Montemalone Now THAT is a project the Dallas City Council might actually approve. Perhaps they could even incorporate a designer fake suspension bridge. The loonier a project is the more likely it will be approved, funded and built.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

The flood control system in place in New Orleans in 2005 before Katrina was approved by the Corps of Engineers. The choices and decisions in these matters ultimately are political, not mechanical. The Corps is made up of engineers, not elected leaders.

atosbarn
atosbarn

@feldnick Who is this "we" you speak of?  :-)

director21
director21

@JimSX The Corps is also keenly aware of what caused flooding in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, and that is prcisely why they have been a thorn in the side of Dallas City Council over the Trinity Toll Road Project from the beginning. The Dallas Citizens Council wants that project because they own most of the adjoining land and they want the money they will make off developing it. USACE wants to prevent creation of a new lake called Downtown Dallas Lake.

I do not believe USACE will EVER approve a toll road plan inside the Trinity levees. Even with pilings for an elevated road the amount of displacement would be so great as to require raising the levees 3-4 feet, which USACE has already stated would have to be done.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Couldn't complete comment on phone. Wanted to say that in 2007 the people of Dallas stated with their ballots that flood safety was less important to them than real estate development. If I had to choose a single factor that I think will be govening here in the end, it would be that.

d-may
d-may

@director21 @JimSX The voters were duped by a lot more than that. Like that this project was irreparably tied to the "Dead-man's Curve" fix, and that the Trinity Park wouldn't exist without it. 

Granted, the second one was mostly true, in that the "Trinity Park" was never going to happen anyway regardless of this thing getting built or not. 

director21
director21

@JimSX No, Dallas citizens were duped by the City Attorney's Office writing a ballot initiative where voting "Yes" meant you opposed the toll road and voting "No" meant you favored the toll road.

If the matter were put to a vote today where "yes" means a vote for approving the project and "No" means a vote opposed to the project it would go down in flames by a landlside tally.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Nah. I already got that planned. Life preservers, $4,999.99. Sorry, cash only. Free, if you can prove you voted against the toll road.

baker24
baker24

@JimSX If you are feeling entrepenurial, this could be your chance to lay the ground work for a canoe/kayak rental business for people who want to travel through the Dallas CBD during flood stage.....:-)

 
Loading...