| NTTA Does It Again |
|
|
|
| by Sam Merten | Thu, Nov 1, 2007, 05:54 PM |
|
Tucked at the very bottom next to “Tolltags: the Perfect Stocking Stuffer” was a section called “Information on the Recent Toll Rate Increase.” It said to help answer some of the questions about the Sept. 29 toll increases on the Dallas North Tollway and President George Bush Turnpike, a FAQ was added to its Web Site. In case you missed it, the NTTA hiked up rates the day after it opened the recent Frisco extension to the DNT. This had me interested as any information related to the toll increases could potentially be tied to the proposed Trinity Turnpike. So I clicked on the FAQ, and I was happy with what I saw. The first item said it was necessary to increase tolls “to offset inflation cost and to maintain, repair and expand our current system.” I thought “expand our current system” could be code for paying for the Trinity Turnpike. I read on and felt the hit on my checking account as the FAQ explained how tolls have gone up for TollTag users at main plazas $.10 ($.25 for cash customers) and various rates at ramp plazas. A full trip down the DNT? Now $3.05 for TollTag users and $4.05 cash. The PGBT? Try $3.50 and $5.00. Right after I finished contemplating how anyone in their right mind doesn’t have a TollTag, I moved on to a section called “What is the money used for?” There it was. Plain as day. Six items were listed and stuck right in the middle was “ This was a major shock, especially considering the NTTA board approved this price jump back in November 2006. If you read my first NTTA story, you might remember this: One of my concerns with the NTTA supposedly committing so much money was the potential impact on toll prices on the rest of the system. Voters in North Dallas who don’t spend time downtown may have a new reason to vote if they drive on the Bush Turnpike and “That is unknown at this time,” the NTTA said.” Unknown at this time? Apparently it was well known dating back almost a year. So I emailed Christopher Anderson, project manager for the NTTA. Christopher: There seems to be a discrepancy between an answer to one of the questions I emailed you and one of the answers to a FAQ recently put on the NTTA Web site. I would really appreciate it if you could help me clarify the discrepancy. In the first set of answers you emailed me, the answer to question 7 about raising tolls on the rest of the system to help pay for this road was, “That is unknown at this time.” However, in the NTTA’s recent FAQ, it lists the “ First, can you explain the discrepancy in the answers? Second, if the Nov. 6 vote removes the toll road from the levees, will toll rates go down to make up for the cost of the road that was accounted for in the price jump? Thanks in advance, Sam Anderson, who not only provided the information for the aforementioned story but also for a follow-up, has disappeared. I sent him additional emails and called his office letting him know I needed to hear something, and I got nada. After reading Jim Schutze’s Dallas Observer story, it sounds like the NTTA has gone silent. I don’t blame them after what he was able to uncover. “But last week when I went through boxes of files at the North Texas Tollway Authority, I found estimates for putting the toll road on Industrial Boulevard that were less—$1.606 billion—than putting it inside the park—$1.613 billion,” Schutze wrote. There have been a lot of stories exposing the truth behind this vote, but none more significant than knowing this road can be put on Industrial for LESS money. This story is yet another example of how Schutze is the Boston Red Sox of Dallas journalism and the rest of us are the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, just happy to have a team. The If you pay tolls on the DNT and PGBT, you’re paying for the Trinity Turnpike whether you are going use it or not. Why not vote FOR Proposition 1 on Tuesday and make the NTTA put the road where it won’t interfere with the beautiful park and recreational amenities that are planned? Throughout this campaign, Mayor Leppert and those in his campaign have constantly questioned the lack of an alternative by the Vote Yes! people. When Industrial is given as an option, the additional cost of $300 to $500 million is quoted to scare everyone into thinking that it can’t be done. Now that cost is no longer an issue, I’m sure Leppert would say the displacement of businesses and delay because of eminent domain are reasons enough to question the Industrial alternative. However, I’d argue the delays associated with engineering the road in a floodway would rival if not exceed those concerned with litigation. So what it comes down to is whether you care more about the businesses or the park. This city can recover from moving 300 businesses, but it will always be reminded of what could have been if this road is built in the floodway and ruins the downtown park.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (17)
...
written by HSH , November 01, 2007 Sam, you and Jim deserve Pulitzers for your work on this issue. Now we know that the road CAN be put on Industrial, and that the NTTA is already spreading the cost over the entire system to raise funds. This morning on KERA Gene Rice debunked the Leppert myth that the road inside the floodway had already been "signed off on" by the Corps. Gene Rice confirmed that the Corps is years away from approving a tollroad in the floodway, if ever. We are now left with one motivation for putting this road on gifted city land inside a floodway -- the wishes of private developers, land dealers and individuals and companies wishing to profit at the expense of the citizenry. Vote For Prop 1 on November 6th.
...
written by Sharon Boyd , November 01, 2007 Sam, No one mentions we are mostly talking about liquor stores, strip clubs and bail bonds offices on Industrial. I have heard various VOTE NO! speakers refer to 198 business to displace, but now it's 300. Arlington forced at least that many families out of their homes and wiped out an entire neighborhood for a football stadium. Eminent domain is supposed to be for roads, jails, schools, etc. Using eminent domain on Industrial would be an appropriate use of that municipal power. I agree with HSH, you and Jim Schutze should get national recognition for what you have been doing in Dallas. There's another hero who is certainly paddling upstream against his employer - Brad Watson at Ch 8.
...
written by Mike , November 02, 2007 Leppert and his fat cat masters remind me of Joe McCarthy in a couple of ways...playing fast and loose with numbers ("there are [___] members of the Communist Party in the State Department"--the number changed almost daily) and his belief that a lie told often enough will gain enough traction to prevail. Fortunately, Dallas has now found its own versions of Edward R. Murrow, Joe Welch, Stu Symington et. al. to expose these liars and manipulators for what they are. Vote FOR Proposition 1!
...
written by Paul "The Voice of Reason" , November 02, 2007 Is the position of "NO more tollroads" just not viable anymore in Dallas? Austin managed to effectively handle the toll-road issue... do we just not care about having to pay almost $50/week to use a highway to get to work?
...
written by Sal "The Muckraker" Costello , November 02, 2007 The word "Toll Road" has always meant that the toll you pay, pays for the toll way you are using. But here in the great state of Taxes, toll taxes go into unaccountable slush funds. Heck, TxDOT claims we've run out of tax dollars to build free roads, while they spend those same tax dollars to shift freeways to toll ways. Read about the corruption of Texas AND MORE here at the daily Muckraker blog: http://salcostello.blogspot.com/
...
written by Taylor , November 02, 2007 Here's another example why tollways are nothing more than a hidden-tax scam, 121 will affect what...2 or 3 counties, yet the payout for selling 121 will be divided between 9 (Yes, nine) counties including downtown Ft.Worth and Dallas. We're getting screwed in Collin/Denton counties and if the Trinity passes, so will everyone in Dallas. http://tinyurl.com/2ogzdx [URL shortened by editor]
...
written by El Rey , November 02, 2007 Wow. The NTTA has continually helped the Vote Yes campaign thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and Open Records Requests. I am sure glad to have such outstanding journalists as Merten, Schutze, et al working for the common people of Dallas! The thought of looking through all of the documentation and figures gives me a headache.... I would hate to think what would happen if the aforementioned journalistic heroes were working for the DMN. We would never get the real news on significant topics. I am trying real hard to make an analogy about the Pied Piper and Mayor Leppert. I know it's feasible, but then again my analogies are somewhat incomprehensible. Maybe Jim and Sam can do it better than I.
...
written by Bill Kennedy , November 02, 2007 Listen to KERA radio's final Trinity report this morning. There, the NTTA spokesman said (and I'm paraphrasing): "We will be repaying the bonds sold to fund the toll road via tolls on it. If the toll funding falls short of projections from the road, then TOLLS FROM THE REST OF THE NTTA system will be used to make up the balance." Game, set , match! Good work, Sam!
...
written by Tucker Willis , November 02, 2007 Sam: This is how I see it. You suggest the NTTA should put the tollroad along Industrial because it would cost less to build. Offsetting that saving would be the cost of land acquisition. BUT, no matter what the current use, if you take the land along Industrial, you forfeit the tax base for the City (and the County, DISD, Hosp Dist, and Community Colleges). That tax resource goes away forever. And remember that includes sales tax that is generated by the businesses, which supports DART. How long does it take for the net savings to build the tollroad there become a big loser to the city in tax revenue? We have no land cost for our property inside the levees. It has zero tax producing value. The cost of construction of the tollroad is undertaken by the NTTA. The people who use the road pay for it. I heard a guy on KERA this a.m. say that it is not unusual to spread the cost among the various tollroad projects—I don’t know much about that. I don’t think the roadway between the levees will in any material way affect the use and enjoyment of the proposed park. The thing that drives me bananas about this project is when I keep hearing my Council rep, Ms. Hunt, over and over again referring to the park as “our Central Park,” and calling attention to a park on the west side of Manhattan (I presume she means the Riverside Park), and the Gov McCall Park in Portland, OR. Over the years I have jogged or walked on almost every path in Central Park from 59th St to 110th St. The only way the park in the floodway between the levees in Dallas will bear a resemblance is that there is dirt on the bottom. We will have no Metropolitan Museum, Children’s Zoo, Ice Skating Rink, avenues of cast iron park benches lined by 200’ chestnut trees, etc., etc. In most areas of our proposed downtown park a person will be farther from vehicle noise than in Central Park. There is a constant hubbub of buses, taxis, limos, delivery trucks, police and fire vehicles with sirens booming, and private cars, etc., on 5th Ave., 59th St, Central Park West, and 110th St. Further there are cross park streets at 65th St., 79th St., 85th St., and 97th St. No one pays any attention to speed limits in NYC. I have seen taxis zooming through the park going 50-60 as long as the traffic allows. Central Park has never been under water. The Henry Hudson Parkway (a tollroad) with 6 and 8 lanes runs from above the Geo. Washington Bridge along the shore of the Hudson River to 59th St. and thereat hooks up with 12th Ave., then 10th Ave, then the West Side Dr. as it heads to the Battery. All are major thoroughfares. If Ms. Hunt is referring to Riverside Park, the Henry Hudson Parkway runs through it or under it. The Hudson River is a magnificent body of water. I once saw a parade of the Tall Ships sail up it and under the G. Washington Bridge. Ocean going ships sail on it. It ain’t the Trinity in Dallas. Riverside Park has never been under water. The Gov. McCall Park in Portland seems to be relatively small and it is on the shore of the Williamette River. On Goggle Earth or other sites you can see cabin cruisers and other vessels in the water. It is a lovely river. Hardly like the Trinity. The McCall park has never been under water. In the above examples, there are large population densities within walking distance of the parks. Not like our proposed park. Since neither you or Ms. Hunt or Schutze will tell me how you envision the park, I will tell you how I do. It will be a wide-open green space with walking/jogging/bike trails. There will be areas where one can picnic or lounge. I don’t know much else that can happen in the park due to the limitations because it is in the floodway. Maybe outdoor concerts on mobile stages. I am very enthusiastic for these uses. Particularly the continuation of the Trinity Trail. But keep it mind that June to Sept it will be very hot down there. There will be little shade. And on one has been able to say if the Corps would allow permanent electricity in the floodway for light poles, and would they even allow light poles (like at Bachman) as they might impede water flow in a flood. I can’t see how it will be much of a tourist attraction. Of course, the Calatrava bridges will be grand. Most all of the use will be by locals. I do not see that having the tollroad in the park impairs the use of the actual park that can be there. I think when Ms. Hunt says, “why would you put a 6-lane high speed tollroad in the park,” she hypocritically ignores the two major freeways already there, I-30 and I-35, and the 11 other existing vehicle and 2 RR bridges. The average daily traffic count on these bridges is about 375,000 with Woodall Rogers (Margaret Hill) Bridge with 6 lanes under construction.
...
written by michael a. , November 02, 2007 i've been driving up and down the dallas north tollway since i got my license in 1980. the tollway was 25 cents and only went to lbj. i typically still go no further than lbj. how that portion south of lbj is not paid for already is beyond me. if ntta wants to build to oklahoma that's not my problem. the ft. worth turnpike was paid for and returned to tax payers. it's obvious there's a machine seeking to expand and grow and never go in reverse or relinquish one cent of revenue. these project will never be paid for.
...
written by Sharon Boyd , November 02, 2007 Tucker, The $$ estimates for Industrial included land acq via eminent domain. Look at what's there now. Not a high revenue area. The stores and wholesale places on Harry Hines generate a lot more sales tax. A toll road in the floodway would be a gift that keeps on taking. Any time the Corps has to work on the levees, they will tear out a section of the toll road, making it unusable. Then what?
...
written by Tucker Willis , November 02, 2007 Sharon: It's not what's there now, it's what can be there. If the Trinity project proceeds including the tollroad, that whole area will get redeveloped over a period of time. Think imaginatively--like Uptown. That has taken many years and has many to go. Why take the property off the tax rolls? I realize your answer will be that you don't want the tollroad inside the north levee. I just disagree with you. From what I understood of what Mr. Rice said yesterday, if the Corps is not satisfied with any aspect of the project they won't approve. I would expect that if they do approve, they will have a reasonable and workable notion as to how to do maintenance on the levees. You now join the list of people who will not articulate or even discuss how the proposed park will be used and how the tollroad will hinder its use and enjoyment.
...
written by Erin , November 03, 2007 Tucker, Regarding your argument about losing taxes if the road is put on Industrial, well, should we just pave over the entire City then if increasing the tax base is the only objective? You seem intelligent enough to know that Green Space is what makes a City great and ultimately increases the tax base. Read Victoria Loe Hicks’ recent editorial in the DMN, it’s online. I’m voting FOR City Proposition 1, and I’m not going to tell you how I envision a park. You’ll just immediately respond back how my vision is wrong anyway. Or, perhaps, I really don’t have a vision of a park and I’m really just against having that road there, running next to our River. This could also be a valid reason for voting FOR Prop. 1. Perhaps I just think it’s a money-pit, a taxpayer boondoggle. You say the users will pay for it. Yes and no. Take a look through the hundreds of pages of documents on the City’s website from the last bond issue, just do a search through all the different the categories using the word “Parkway”, or “Trinity”. See what you come up with and add up all the money. Also do a search for “Mill Creek” it’ll be helpful in just a minute. Now go here, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/constr.../pegc.cfm. Look at Project Opportunities, just search for “Mill Creek.” See that notation “Mill Creek needs to be raised, use as mitigation for other work. Once this is done, there is more design freedom for highway” notation? And now you recall seeing that $52 Million in the November bond program for Mill Creek that we approved last year? What I’m trying to point out here is that, despite the many statements to the contrary, that this road won’t cost Dallas taxpayers any money, they are lying. Millions of dollars have been, and will continue to be, diverted and funneled to hide the true costs of building that road in the floodway. When Mary Suhm was asked last year at a public forum why there was not a separate Trinity Project category so taxpayers would realize they were approving more money for this project, she just shrugged and said “Why should we?”
...
written by dave c. , November 04, 2007 There shouldn't be a Trinity Tollway any more than there should be a Brazos Tollway or a Guadalupe Tollway or a Rio Grand Tollway. Roads don't belong in rivers. I30 is as wide as this proposed toll road. Go look at the levies Downtown. This road will reach to the rivers edge. There won't be any park. There won't be anything but road. This road is insane. Mary Suhm should be fired and that lying Leppert should be recalled. Thank you Sam for getting the facts with all your hard work. I was shocked to see that the DMN was printing more lies again today. (Things that have been shot down by you, Jim and KERA.) The DMN is propaganda. It's just disgusting. Write comment
|
|
A few months ago, I signed up for the North Texas Tollway Authority’s monthly newsletter called “Driving Forward.” I received November’s edition on Friday, and it included 12 stories about different NTTA projects in the region. The number of people who sign up for this has got to be low, and how many actually read it has got to put me in exclusive company.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
