News and Opinions...



Because the Bypass Channel removes over a mile of valley storage for storm water and because a shorter link means a somewhat steeper grade that means a faster flow, the Trinity Uptown Plan was expanded to include a large upstream storm water holding area identified as Riverbend and as shown on slide 20 of the Alternative Plan presentation on this website.

The Riverbend area, near Rivercrest Country Club, was too expensive and difficult to acquire. Thus, a new $500,000 study to investigate other potential storm water storage sites (mitigation areas) is under way and the results are due later in 2006. This study is considering new upstream sites as well as a new site in the Riverside Oxbow area at Gateway Park in east Fort Worth to replace the lost storage area of Riverbend.

Some of the obvious questions to consider are:

1. What good are mitigation sites downstream of the Bypass Channel when the problem seems to be having too much upstream flood water to put through the Channel?

2. Are we going to continue to expand the project area forever just to fit
in all the pieces necessary for the original Trinity Uptown concept to work? At what point do we admit that the original idea just doesn't work?

3. What has become of the USACE's request to change the criteria for storm water flows since the original plans showed excessive scouring, velocities and flows?


The Trinity Uptown's latest projected budget of $435 million only has $110 million approved for funding.

Project managers in the sponsoring agencies have said that the balance of the Federal Funding (the second $110 million) is being pursued in this
fall's budget appropriations. So that leaves another $215 million in matching funds to be raised by local participants such as the City of Fort
Worth. Since the project was "earmarked" by Congresswoman Granger it is very likely that there will be little or no scrutiny of the project in Congressional budgetary committees.

Some of the obvious questions to consider are:

1. Isn't it time that Congress make the effort to look at cost cutting procedures and more fully investigate the Alternative Plan costs?

2. Isn't it time to consider the Alternative Plan's 1/10th cost estimate?

3. Isn't it time to ask the Fort Worth City Council how they intend to raise their portion of the funds? AND ... isn't it time to ask the citizens
of Fort Worth if this is how they want to spend their tax dollars? Isn't it
time for a referendum on the Trinity Uptown costs?


The North Main Street Corridor continues as an existing, approved highway improvement project that has focused on street beautification elements such as street lights, signage, street trees, and pedestrian crossings,

Such area improvements and other incentives could continue without the Bypass Channel and still promote the area’s redevelopment just as the Alternative Plan in the attached presentation proposes.

1. Shouldn’t we investigate the possibilities of all the other projects that could be used to help redevelop the Uptown area without a Bypass Channel?

2. Why should we invest in a Bypass Channel, when smaller amounts of
money could go to local improvement projects and allow the area to develop privately as market demands dictate?


The Bluffs residential project has a block of buildings that are perched
along the eastern side of the bluff overlooking the area. This private
project made its commitment to the area well ahead of the Bypass Channel's approval. Its success seems likely because it has such a dramatic site and overlook views - with or without the Trinity Uptown project.

The Trinity River Vision project is building the infrastructure for the
proposed Trinity Uptown. This website's Alternative Plan shows that the
goals and "vision" of the Trinity Uptown project can be achieved with
considerably less public expenditures than all the massive local, state, and federal infrastructure expenditures proposed. The Bluff project is one
example of a development built in the existing gridwork of the city and with some city support.


How is it that the adjacent local landowners are being bought out or taken by eminent domain and the two largest landowners in the project area will be the Tarrant Regional Water District and the City of Ft. Worth?

Take a look at slide 29 and 30 in this website presentation.

How is it that the largest landowner of riverside property will be the
agency (TRWD) running the show? Aren’t they supposed to be a water supply agency? Don’t we want them to stay focused on supplying our water needs and keeping it pure? Do we want them to be real estate developers?

The River is our Central Park. The levees don’t block us from the City,
but the levees will provide a quite separation in a green corridor in the
middle of downtown that is truly unusual in most cities. Our Central Park, our River, as it is, without ten + years of bulldozers and mayhem.



Do the citizens of Fort Worth and Tarrant County want to have the Tarrant Regional Water District be the largest landowner/developer in the proposed Uptown project, controlling the economic development through its newly formed Corporation. Or, would the citizens rather have the private sector, with private property owners and the free market, in control of economic development?

Do the citizens of Fort Worth and Tarrant County want their federal and
local tax dollars spent on a project that is controlled by Tarrant Regional
Water District? Do the citizens of Fort Worth and Tarrant County believe
that any governmental agency has ever been as successful in economic
development as the private sector? How would the citizens grade the success of the Mercado project on North Main?