Dallas l DART Light Rail Expansion Updates

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Why no integration between the hospital and the new station? All these skybridges going every which way except connecting to the station. Why? Seems painfully obvious to me.

The hospital that isn't built yet?

[Xerxesjc28]

I think the author makes a great point about building transit lines the easy way instead of the right way. Having transit lines go through or by freeways and away from high density areas results in low transit ridership!!!

I don't mean to be picking on Dallas on this for my city has the same problem with MetroRail.

An Extensive New Addition to Dallas’ Light Rail Network Makes it America’s Longest
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ricas-longest/

» New Green Line runs 28 miles from Carrollton to Southeast Dallas via downtown, but only every 15 minutes even during rush hours. To ensure its success, the DFW Metroplex must start taking the land use side of the transit equation more seriously.

Want proof that a massive light rail system doesn’t necessarily produce massive ridership? Look no further than Dallas, where 44 miles of DART light rail extending throughout the region and a rapidly growing population weren’t enough to prevent a decline in public transportation boardings between 2000 and 2010. The network carries about 60,000 riders a day — a pittance in the context of the city’s 1.3 million inhabitants. The most recent U.S. Census data show that the city’s transit mode share stands at less than 4%; the metropolitan region’s share is just 1.5%. Both are down from 2000.

Yet the city and the other member municipalities of DART have thus far been relatively steadfast in their commitment to the expansion of the local rail system. Today, with the commencement of service on the full extent of the $1.8 billion Green Line, the region features the largest light rail system of any in the United States, with 72 miles of train operations. The 15 stations opening today extend the short segment that opened last fall northwest into Carrollton and southeast into South Dallas; they are expected to add roughly 30,000 daily rides to the system. The project was completed on time and on budget.

Still more is coming soon. Though a decline in sales tax revenue has limited opportunities for future construction, the 14-mile Orange Line is planned to open in phases over the next four years, eventually reaching Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. A commuter rail shuttle connecting the northwestern extend of the Green Line into Denton County will open for passengers next summer. A streetcar and two Blue Line extensions are still on the books.

But that’s not good enough. Cities shouldn’t spend billions of dollars on a fixed-guideway transit system, only to be rewarded with minimal if any increases in ridership — especially in areas that are growing extremely quickly. What is Dallas doing wrong? Now that it has built itself a massive network, what can it change about its development patterns to ensure better use of its investments?

The clearest answer is that density matters a whole lot more than overall length of rail lines. As demonstrated by Strasbourg’s tramway network, which serves 300,000 daily users on 34.7 miles of track, in terms of attracting ridership it is more important to have a densely packed system in the inner city than it is to have an extensive series of suburban extensions. This, however, requires the existence of a dense urban core.

Dallas’ downtown is filled with jobs — 138,224, more than most cities’ — so it would seem in theory to be a popular place for transit users. But consider parking policies: The city’s downtown district actively encourages visitors to drive there and then park for just a dollar an hour. There’s no need to drive around looking for a space, because virtually every block is consumed at least partially by parking. When it’s this easy to get around by car, the fact is that transit options are unlikely to succeed.

Meanwhile, what Dallas really lacks is residential compactness: The downtown itself has grown from 1,654 residents in 2000 to 10,446 today (that’s pretty impressive!), but neighborhoods immediately adjacent to this area are primarily made up of single-family homes. Moreover, the alignment of the rail corridors, generally following existing highway or rail rights-of-way, often do not reach the densest areas or the biggest destinations. The well-populated (and popular) neighborhoods north of downtown, including Uptown and Oak Lawn, are mostly inaccessible to light rail. An underground station on the Red Line originally planned for Knox Street, which likely would have attracted plenty of riders, was not built because of local opposition. Even Love Field, the city’s second airport, is not directly on the route of the Green Line because a connection would have been too expensive to construct.

Because of the adherence to corridors that are intentionally designed to do as little as possible to challenge the movement of automobiles, trains run in industrial zones north of Love Field and along a forested edge zone along much of the southeast segments of the route. These were wasted opportunities: Those routes could have been designed to run in the boulevard medians in the center of neighborhoods, attracting more users, but instead they’re generally at the periphery of built-up zones.

Each and every decision about station location matters: The best-used light rail networks are those in which people have the ability to walk from their homes to the train and the truth is that that’s mostly impossible to do in Dallas’ system.

Despite all the above, this is not — and I am adamant in writing this — what an anti-transit crusader would argue is an example of Americans simply “not wanting” to living in urban conditions and thus not taking transit. The Dallas metropolitan areas has a total of 570,000 apartment units in multi-family buildings, and over the past four years, an average of about 8,000 of them were added every year, according to a recent real estate market report by the Texas A&M University. This housing is being built by private developers and it is being absorbed by the market. These are, inherently, dense developments.

And yet the Dallas Morning News reports that few major residential or commercial projects are being built in conjunction with the opening of the Green Line. Though several proposals are being considered, they certainly will not represent much of a major percentage of the total investments in new apartments in the area. There are obstacles to new construction in these neighborhoods.

Dallas and all of the cities being served by light rail must make a more serious effort to attract new growth into the transit zones around stations. If people are going to be living in apartments anyway, have them do so in mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods within easy distance of light rail stops. If this means using eminent domain to spur private redevelopment, then so be it: Something significant must be done to encourage increased use of the transit network.

In the meantime, Dallas has responded to the fact that it cannot afford to construct a second light rail route downtown by reducing frequencies on its existing routes to accommodate the arrival of the Green Line trains. Headways have declined from every 10 minutes at rush hour to every 15; at other times, trains will operate only every 20 minutes. This decision, made in good faith and reflecting a fundamental lack of resources, nevertheless will ultimately limit the number of people willing to switch to transit. Why do so when the trains run so infrequently? Yet the declining ridership that that thinking will likely produce will only encourage more service cutbacks in the future: It’s the transit death-spiral, and Dallas has to make sure it can avoid it.

Many of these problems are likely to be resolved over time — we cannot expect rail capacity to be absorbed immediately. As the example of the Washington, D.C. Metro shows, new dense and transit-oriented districts are likely to appear as people become used to the idea of living near the rail system. That, in turn, will result in increasing ridership. Yet the prototypical examples of Dallas rail development — at Mockingbird and Victory stations — are packed with parking and located just next to freeways. In other words, they are ideal environments for drivers. Those patterns must be altered if this region ever expects to profit fully from all that it has spent on its light rail network.

[jtk1519]

Wow, that is such a poorly written article. To suggest that DART's flaw is building roughly along freeway corridors instead of to dense areas ignores the reality that Dallas' densest areas ARE mostly along freeway corridors. That's just how the city grew. And as a result, the system now hits (or soon will) a vast majority of the densest areas in Dallas and it's closest suburbs including the Cedars area, Deep Ellum, Fair Park, the Medical/Market Center, the Asian Trade District, Cityplace/West Village, Mockingbird Station, the High Five area, the Telcom Corridor, Downtown Plano, Las Colinas, etc. Those are some of the densest areas outside of downtown and they are all served (or soon to be served) by DART light rail. As for the Love Field station, DART wanted to build a tunnel to Love Field, but the FTA shot it down and threatened the $700 million in federal funds DART was receiving to build the Green line so the tunnel plan was scrapped and future plans are likely for a people mover to connect the station to the terminal.

The biggest areas not served in my mind is the correctly mentioned Uptown area and the LBJ corridor. In fact, I was at the Addison Transit Center just yesterday staring at the system map think how badass it would be to have an East-West line running from the LBJ/Skillman Blue line station through the Forest Lane Red line station to the Galleria, Brookhaven College, etc. before ending at the Farmer's Branch Green line station. I want to say that in TxDot's plans for the new LBJ freeway is actually room and ability to bury a transit line, but the money just isn't there. Would be cool though.

As for Uptown though, I think the area would be better served by an expansion of the M-line streetcar and maybe a couple of other modern street car lines. Same for Knox/Henderson and lower Greenville. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Knox/Henderson subway station finished and I still believe it will happen someday, but that area would be better served by a streetcar or two rather than LRT.

And finally, the Green line isn't bringing huge development right now because of the economy... duh. Still, there are ambitious plans for the area around the downtown Carrollton station, the new Parkland hospital and everything that goes along with that is being built close enough to spit on the Medical Center station (shared with the Orange line) and we've already seen TOD development along the Green line around the Baylor station area. On top of that, there are billions of dollars worth of developments planned or under construction along the Orange line through Las Colinas. That goes along with TONS of TOD and near transit developments built along the Red/Blue line from Cedars all the way up to downtown Plano.

Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it is doing what it was designed to do. It was built to be a hybrid commuter system that would get people to and from the suburbs to major residential and workforce centers and for the most part, it does exactly that. But this is just the start of an overall transit system that has only been building for 14 years and will take decades to really build out in a way that serves the entire city and connects to a regional transit system. The light rail system will be done with the Orange line. In the coming decades, expect to see a lot more streetcar lines to fill in the gaps between the LRT lines and stations. We can expect a subway line or two in the downtown area with numerous stations. All that to be combined with more commuter rail connecting the Metroplex. The Green line may symbolize the start to wrapping up the dream for the DART light rail system, but that was just step one in a much bigger multi-modal dream that will take decades to complete.

[jtk1519]

Just to continue for a second, that author mention's Stasbourg's tram system and suggests DART should have built our light rail system like that one, but it's an apples to oranges comparison. DART's light rail was not built to do what Strasbourg's system does. DART's light rail system I have always compared to Berlin's S-Bahn in that it's a hybrid commuter system that covers more area and serves the city as well as the suburbs. The next long term goal for Dallas now is to build out a U-Bahn or Strabourg type system serving the city of Dallas with shorter distances and greater frequency.

You could make the argument that DART should have started with a city system like Strasboug's and then built the LRT system we have to serve a wider area on top of that, but what you can't do is compare DART's system to one like Strasbourg's... it's apples to oranges. It's purpose is not to do what they do so you can't expect it to perform as their's does.

[VivaLFuego]

^an encapsulation of that contrast is simply Dallas v. Houston --- Houston's light rail being a primarily urban system and Dallas's focusing more on being a hybrid: streetcar downtown and commuter rail/interurban.

The ridership-per-route-mile stats speak for themselves on which is a more cost-effective way to provide rail transit. Over a 30-year time horizon with multiple economic cycles, if the DART system helps concentrate employment growth in DT Dallas, it will be a success, but as it is the reality is that it's ridership figures relative to the size of the system (indeed, the nation's longest!) are eye-poppingly low.

[electricron]

I'll agree with the assessment that DART's light rail system is a hybrid between urban light rail and commuter rail.
Once you leave the central business district, where stations are an average of 1/4 mile apart, stations average a mile or two apart. Not the at most mile apart usually seen in urban light rail, nor the minimum three to four miles apart for commuter rail. That's precisely why DART's ridership numbers lie in-between.

DART's light rail system up to now has consisted of two lines, each averaging between 30,000 to 40,000 riders. That's three times each more than the TRE commuter rail, which by the way connects two central business districts. And at the same time that's not less than three-quarters of what Houston's Metro much shorter more urban rail line gets. DART's rail lines can have more stations added later, like the new Lake Highlands station on the Blue line. As more stations are added as density is built along the lines, halving the distances between stations, it'll become more and more urban like.

DART has been collecting taxes for almost 30 years, and is just now reaching the last of its member cities with rail. With more than 40% of the taxes coming from suburban cities, it was important to reach as many of them as fast as possible to keep the political will behind DART. Cities had dropped out of DART in the past, no doubt cities will hold referendums in the future too. That's why DART built its hybrid light rail system you see today.

The city of Dallas has many controlled access highways extending out from its inner core, in twelve corridors. The completion of the Green Line covers just six of them. DART has twice as much work left to plan and build in the future.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Originally Posted by jtk1519

Wow, that is such a poorly written article.

Ironically, I think it was pretty accurate, for the same reasons you think it was poor.

To suggest that DART's flaw is building roughly along freeway corridors instead of to dense areas ignores the reality that Dallas' densest areas ARE mostly along freeway corridors. That's just how the city grew.

Statistically speaking, lines built near or in freeways have lower ridership per mile than other lines within the same system.

You say that the densest part of the city is along freeways. I wonder, what measure do you use. Is it office? Residential? Industrial? Any combination?

I would say primarily commercial and industrial, of which the latter is a poor destination for rail service.

But assuming that the densest part of the city overall is along the freeways, which side? Obviously the nature of the freeway doesn't allow even the most basic of pedestrian access across to the other side. So, you automatically lose the advantage of transit, walkable access.

Even the part that is near the rail line is rarely transit accessible. Why would it be? It was designed for the car. Would inner city Dallas be better served by a line on or under Greenville, or under Central?

Then there is the point that the rail was originally laid through industrial areas when it was freight. The Blue Line north is such a poorly ridden segment because after you leave Mockingbird, you have to get to downtown Garland before you get to anything that is more than a park-n-ride lot.

And as a result, the system now hits (or soon will) a vast majority of the densest areas in Dallas and it's closest suburbs including the Cedars area, Deep Ellum, Fair Park, the Medical/Market Center, the Asian Trade District, Cityplace/West Village, Mockingbird Station, the High Five area, the Telcom Corridor, Downtown Plano, Las Colinas, etc.

I would say Deep Ellum, Asian Trade, West Village, High Five and Telecom are poorly served. At best, the rail is at the edge. At the worst, it is inaccessible. I don't think it is plausible that someone goes to LBJ/Central and crosses one or both freeways on their way to work. Connecting bus still has all the drawbacks of bus service of operating in rush hour streets. To say it is served is to ignore the land use requirements for effective, well-ridden transit.

Yes, Deep Ellum, Victory and West Village have stations nearby. However, nearby is not the same as in. Imagine Times Square with subway stops nearby. Hardly the same. Aside from downtown, DART's system is chock full of "nearby X station is _______. Ridership would increase if you could say "X station is in the middle of _________.

The areas of supporting land use, the downtown transit mall, Union, Mockingbird and Cityplace account for half the ridership before Green phase II. Heck downtown alone accounted for over 25,000 of the 65,000 unlinked trips.

Another valid point is the fact that DART's system is a commuter system built with an urban system. The four terminus stations are all in the top 11 of the 39 stations and account for 10,000 of the 65,000 trips. You could build a commuter rail system for 20% of the cost and carry 50% of the riders.

As for the Love Field station, DART wanted to build a tunnel to Love Field, but the FTA shot it down and threatened the $700 million in federal funds DART was receiving to build the Green line so the tunnel plan was scrapped and future plans are likely for a people mover to connect the station to the terminal.

To be certain, the fault is not DART, at least not fully. The FTA's funding equation favors commuter systems over urban. Local politics has a share (DART orginally wanted the Blue Line north to go through east Dallas, where they projected 600% greater ridership than the current alignment. The City Council forbade it). Cost favors the current system over an urban system. For the record, I don't completely blame DART for the shortcomings of the system. However, I do recognize them.

As for Uptown though, I think the area would be better served by an expansion of the M-line streetcar and maybe a couple of other modern street car lines.

I disagree. Streetcars are the slowest, lowest capacity and highest delayed rail transit out there. A more desireable service would be a light rail route along McKinney or Cole in either the median or underground.

Same for Knox/Henderson and lower Greenville. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Knox/Henderson subway station finished and I still believe it will happen someday, but that area would be better served by a streetcar or two rather than LRT.

Much of the attractive areas of Knox-Henderson is actually near the freeway. A subway station on either side like Cityplace would effectively serve the area (though it still has limitations that have already been mentioned). Rather than see it as a competitor, see the streetcar as a different function. Streetcars and local buses serve neighborhood needs, an urban rail system serves area needs and a commuter system of rail and bus serve regional needs. Some systems, like New York actually combine the first two, yet the still have an extensive bus system for the first function and express buses for the third. There is no right or wrong type of service, but they don't all serve the same function.

For example, it would take about 8 minutes to get to a Knox-Henderson Station from my home station of St. Paul. If MATA were extended into downtown along the route proposed in the last federal application and was extended to Knox-Henderson, it would take roughly 45 minutes one-way. Even modern streetcars don't improve on speed too much, it would still be over 35-40 minutes. An hour to an hour-and-a-half trip would do little for us, but it would attract trips along the line. An 8 minute trip on the light rail would do much more for us, but not as much for local needs.

And finally, the Green line isn't bringing huge development right now because of the economy... duh. Still, there are ambitious plans for the area around the downtown Carrollton station, the new Parkland hospital and everything that goes along with that is being built close enough to spit on the Medical Center station (shared with the Orange line) and we've already seen TOD development along the Green line around the Baylor station area. On top of that, there are billions of dollars worth of developments planned or under construction along the Orange line through Las Colinas. That goes along with TONS of TOD and near transit developments built along the Red/Blue line from Cedars all the way up to downtown Plano.

Yet other apartment buildings have been built away from transit. There's still the plain fact that Dallas has no supportive zoning or regulations around transit stations. Mockingbird Station and Victory were accidents. That is partially why they are underutilized. They have the same parking requirements as a suburban strip mall on Preston Street. If Dallas has done such a good job, why do they have 30 more miles of rail and 10,000 less passenger trips than Portland? The primary answer is the land use.

The only thing Dallas does now that I know of is 10% less parking if the location is within 1/4 mile of a station. Hardly groundbreaking when stations are over a mile apart outside of downtown.

Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it is doing what it was designed to do. It was built to be a hybrid commuter system that would get people to and from the suburbs to major residential and workforce centers and for the most part, it does exactly that.

How can you say it does when 5% of all commuter trips in Dallas (the region is less than 2%) are by transit? If it truely did what you said, surely that share would be in the double digits.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

I disagree. Streetcars are the slowest, lowest capacity and highest delayed rail transit out there. A more desireable service would be a light rail route along McKinney or Cole in either the median or underground.

I disagree strongly on your point about the Uptown area being better suited for LRT than streetcars. The area is dense and not very spread out so speed is not an issue and more streetcars running every hour as opposed to typical DART light rail frequency would more that negate the capacity issue. There is so much on every block that a system which allows riders to board every block or so is much more preferable than a system with fewer stops.

I would like to see the Uptown area served by another station (and I guess that will comes with the proposed DART station by the Perot Museum), but for transportation within the Uptown area, something like a streetcar with frequent stops and service would not only better serve the residents of Uptown, but all the bar-hoppers diners and whatnot that visit the area. I would say the same thing for areas like lower Greenville, the Bishop Arts District, etc.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

I would say Deep Ellum, Asian Trade, West Village, High Five and Telecom are poorly served. At best, the rail is at the edge. At the worst, it is inaccessible.

And my point was that the DART system is not designed to get people in and around those areas... it's designed to get them to and from those areas. It's designed to be fast and get people across long distances. Now, our long term goal needs to be a streetcar or frequent street-level LRT system like Houston's within those individual areas so that people can get off at the DART station and then board a streetcar to take them to the individual destinations within those neighborhoods.

And that is also why I said the light rail system is just step one in a decades long desire to see an all-encompassing transit system. To try and create a single system that does what DART's is designed to do... transport people to destinations quickly across great distances while also doing what you seem to want... to provide frequent service within those destinations, is fundamentally impossible. For example, the goal of the Red line would be impossible if commuters traveling from downtown Plano to Akard had to endure the slow service and delays that would arise if the Red line also hard to provide numerous, frequent stops within the Uptown area.

Now, if many years down the road all that exists in Dallas is what DART has already built or is currently building, then yes, the system as it is will not come close to reaching it's full potential. But if those many years later Dallas is (once again) criss-crossed by streetcars or shorter LRT lines that connect with DART LRT stations and provide a seamless transition from DART's LRT system to destination or neighborhood based transit systems, then the current LRT system as DART is building it will be maximized and it's full potential realized. That is why I suggest the current system being built should only be the first step towards a system that truly serves the city as a whole.

[zilfondel]

I find this thread very interesting, as I feel there does need to be a lot of analysis on a lot of the recent transportation development and land-use planning.

Yet other apartment buildings have been built away from transit. There's still the plain fact that Dallas has no supportive zoning or regulations around transit stations. Mockingbird Station and Victory were accidents. That is partially why they are underutilized. They have the same parking requirements as a suburban strip mall on Preston Street. If Dallas has done such a good job, why do they have 30 more miles of rail and 10,000 less passenger trips than Portland? The primary answer is the land use.

Hate to nitpick, but DART's ridership is about 1/2 that of Portland's. Source

Portland's total track-mileage is 20 miles shorter, but carries over 120,000 riders/weekday.



However, there have been some critical stories about us, too:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...-it-should-be/
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/...(Human+Transit)

[dollaztx]

What makes the opening of the Green Line different is that it finally makes the DART Light Rail System relevant. Up until now the Red and Blue lines were for the most part to get you from your house to your job and vice versa. And that's if you happened to live and work close by the stations. People didn't really have other motivations to use it besides that. I for one don't live or work in Plano or south Dallas and found no reason to go to those places. With the Green Line you now have other reasons to use it, healthcare (Baylor, Medical District), transportation (Love Field), entertainment, (Fair Park, Victory, Deep Ellum), shopping (Royal) and of course other neighborhoods were people live and work.

Portland's Light Rail System has a higher ridership in less miles of rail than Dallas but you have to remember that the city is much more compact. With those fewer miles of rail that it has it goes to more relevant places than DART. The system takes you to Portland International, hospitals, shopping centers, parks and on and on. Up until the Green Line opened DART didn't offer that.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Originally Posted by jtk1519

The area is dense and not very spread out so speed is not an issue and more streetcars running every hour as opposed to typical DART light rail frequency would more that negate the capacity issue. There is so much on every block that a system which allows riders to board every block or so is much more preferable than a system with fewer stops.

Manhattan is dense and not very spread out. There is so much on every block there. I would assume that you wouldn't advocate a streetcar system in place if their urban rail system.

The current design of the DART light rail system would be awful, because outside of downtown, it is a commuter system. However, were uptown to have a transit mall similar to downtown, your concerns would be assuaged.

I would like to see the Uptown area served by another station (and I guess that will comes with the proposed DART station by the Perot Museum), but for transportation within the Uptown area, something like a streetcar with frequent stops and service would not only better serve the residents of Uptown, but all the bar-hoppers diners and whatnot that visit the area. I would say the same thing for areas like lower Greenville, the Bishop Arts District, etc.

Like most of the rest of the stations, the Nature Musuem Station is not going to be well patronized. It isn't around much aside from the museum.

The barhoppers will never be well served in Dallas. There just isn't the demand for it. If it doesn't work in cities like Boston, it won't here.

Originally Posted by jtk1519

And my point was that the DART system is not designed to get people in and around those areas... it's designed to get them to and from those areas.

That doesn't make much sense. If you can get to and from those areas, but can't get in and around them, what good is the system?

In a way, you are argueing the exact point the author of that article made, while at the same time saying you disagree. The system is poorly ridden compared to every other american system (which is bad at a world comparison) and this is why.

It's designed to be fast and get people across long distances.

So are urban rail systems like MTA in New York, The Tube in London and Tokyo's system. Not saying Dallas in on par with that, but you can build a quick and efficient urban rail system that actually gets where people want to go.

And that is also why I said the light rail system is just step one in a decades long desire to see an all-encompassing transit system. To try and create a single system that does what DART's is designed to do... transport people to destinations quickly across great distances while also doing what you seem to want... to provide frequent service within those destinations, is fundamentally impossible. For example, the goal of the Red line would be impossible if commuters traveling from downtown Plano to Akard had to endure the slow service and delays that would arise if the Red line also hard to provide numerous, frequent stops within the Uptown area.

An urban rail systen doesn't transport the suburbanites in, that's commuter rail, which could have been done much more cheaper than light rail, which is heavy rail with lower capacity and costs.

However, several lines in New York are much longer and faster. The design makes a difference.

In some ways, the lines around downtown can serve this function. As a downtown resident, I often take the LRT to Cityplace, West End or Mockingbird, because it is quick.

And, once again, you made the same point of the author of the article. Urban rail systems attract more riders than commuter systems. DART has lower ridership because it was designed to be a commuter system.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I find this thread very interesting, as I feel there does need to be a lot of analysis on a lot of the recent transportation development and land-use planning.



Hate to nitpick, but DART's ridership is about 1/2 that of Portland's. Source

Portland's total track-mileage is 20 miles shorter, but carries over 120,000 riders/weekday.

I compared DART's current ridership, us the projected ridership of the new line that opened this week to Portland.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Originally Posted by manuelpr

Portland's Light Rail System has a higher ridership in less miles of rail than Dallas but you have to remember that the city is much more compact. With those fewer miles of rail that it has it goes to more relevant places than DART. The system takes you to Portland International, hospitals, shopping centers, parks and on and on. Up until the Green Line opened DART didn't offer that.

Yes and no. Portland is more dense for the exact reason I said Dallas isn't. Dallas, unlike Portland has virtually no zoning for any dense or TOD developments.

Also, Portland has designed their inner city lines to go to places in the city, not near them like Dallas did. Those two things allow for higher ridership.

Besides the airport, the rail did do all of that. Just not conveniently. The Green does not make any of that more convenient.

[Owlhorn]

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

Yes and no. Portland is more dense for the exact reason I said Dallas isn't. Dallas, unlike Portland has virtually no zoning for any dense or TOD developments.

Also, Portland has designed their inner city lines to go to places in the city, not near them like Dallas did. Those two things allow for higher ridership.

Besides the airport, the rail did do all of that. Just not conveniently. The Green does not make any of that more convenient.

This isn't true at all, Dallas does have TOD zoning. Dallas wasn't as dense as Portland in the first place. Most dense residential areas in Dallas were built after the rail line was planned and opened in many cases. Uptown, last ten years. Brian Place, Last ten years, Victory Park, last ten years. The thing is, the areas that grew to be dense in the past ten years are near rail stations, all with land immediately adjacent to rail stations. What did they all choose to do? Build the furthest away from the rail stations that they could. Yes, I'm looking at you Cityville, Galatyn Park, Victory Park and West Village.

The areas that were dense as far as population density(Lake Highlands, Presbyterian areas) did get stations. The problem you have now is rapid gentrification in those areas. The existing and torn down apartments were garden style, but huge, tall complexes with high densities of people that are/were train and bus dependent. They are being replaced "in the future", by town center style developments, complete with townhomes, condos and apartments in a more new urbanist style. Problems with this:

- Not nearly as dense
- Higher socioeconomic population who is far less dependent on public transit
- Most of this simply did NOT happen. The apartments were torn down due to code loopholes, now we have big fields with the roads built and no development. Awesome.

In closing, some of these pie-in-the-sky, I'm a planner or urbanist and I'm going to change Dallas for the better things are not going to happen. The system is a young system (14 years old) and is continuing to densify its lines. What it will never be though, is the line of a planners dream. What will happen though, is Dallas is running out of space. It has a high apartment demand and occupancy. Outside of a few areas, it is densifying. At the same time, the streetcar line is beginning construction. Will it eventually connect the dots to different areas of the commuter system? NO. Billions are being spent on I-635 and I-35E, people come onto CityData saying they are moving to Dallas and only seem to consider Frisco, Allen or McKinney and our nation is facing crisis. Recipe for DART never being a planners dream. And why don't more people ride? I dunno, no one at my job rides but me despite us being given highly discounted monthly passes and most actually driving to work down corridors immediately adjacent to rail lines.

[dollaztx]

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

Yes and no. Portland is more dense for the exact reason I said Dallas isn't. Dallas, unlike Portland has virtually no zoning for any dense or TOD developments.

Also, Portland has designed their inner city lines to go to places in the city, not near them like Dallas did. Those two things allow for higher ridership.

Besides the airport, the rail did do all of that. Just not conveniently. The Green does not make any of that more convenient.

Well I'll give you shopping with with Mockingbird Station and to a lesser extent Park Lane station. Perhaps this is the reason why this two stations are some of DART's most successful because they offer something other than a bedroom community or an office park. But no DART up until now hasn't really offered the airport, entertainment, parks, or healthcare. Pearl Station is a couple of blocks from The Arts District but all that didn't exist until recently.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

Manhattan is dense and not very spread out. There is so much on every block there. I would assume that you wouldn't advocate a streetcar system in place if their urban rail system.

That is a very poor comparison and I think you know it. One, Uptown does not have the population densities to justify an underground metro system (nor does the rest of Dallas for that matter). Two, the astronomical costs associated with such a system make it near impossible. And the reality is that Dallas is and always will be an auto-centric city which NYC clearly is not. The goal in Dallas is not to create a system that will render the automobile unnecessary as it is in NYC, but to provide a viable alternative.

As an example, I would point out LA's transit system which includes underground metro where logistics and density allow for it, in addition to light rail, commuter rail, BRT and I believe LA has some streetcar plans in the works. LA is the model for Dallas... not NYC.

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

That doesn't make much sense. If you can get to and from those areas, but can't get in and around them, what good is the system?

In a way, you are argueing the exact point the author of that article made, while at the same time saying you disagree. The system is poorly ridden compared to every other american system (which is bad at a world comparison) and this is why.

I clearly explained that when I said ultimately the true potential of DART's light rail system will only be realized if and when it is layered with other transit option to connect the dots so to speak. If 50 years down the road all Dallas has is the LRT system as it will exist with the opening of the Orange line, then yes, the criticism in that article will be legitimate. But if you read what I said and see the LRT system as the first major step to a greater transit system, then what I said makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by FoUTASportscaster

An urban rail systen doesn't transport the suburbanites in, that's commuter rail, which could have been done much more cheaper than light rail, which is heavy rail with lower capacity and costs.

However, several lines in New York are much longer and faster. The design makes a difference.

In some ways, the lines around downtown can serve this function. As a downtown resident, I often take the LRT to Cityplace, West End or Mockingbird, because it is quick.

But once again, DART really isn't an urban rail system so to criticize it for not being that when it was never intended to be that seems kinda silly. I agree, it acts like that once you get to Mockingbird Station and then into downtown, but that is why I and other have purposefully called DART what it is... a hybrid commuter system. The hybrid part of it of course being that area downtown and surrounding where it operates more as a true urban rail.

I get what you're saying and I get the point the article was making. all I am saying is that the fundamental flaw with that argument (and presumably yours) is that you are criticizing DART for not being something it was never intended to be.

Now, as I said before, if you want to fault DART for starting with this system instead of starting with a true urban rail system, then that is fine (of course, as electricron said the politics and funding, more than 40% of which comes from outside the city of Dallas, means DART almost needed to start this way). But you can't fault the system for not being what it was never supposed to be.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Originally Posted by Owlhorn

This isn't true at all, Dallas does have TOD zoning. Dallas wasn't as dense as Portland in the first place. Most dense residential areas in Dallas were built after the rail line was planned and opened in many cases. Uptown, last ten years. Brian Place, Last ten years, Victory Park, last ten years. The thing is, the areas that grew to be dense in the past ten years are near rail stations, all with land immediately adjacent to rail stations. What did they all choose to do? Build the furthest away from the rail stations that they could. Yes, I'm looking at you Cityville, Galatyn Park, Victory Park and West Village.

No, they do not have TOD zoning. The only thing close to it is 10% lower parking within a certain radius of a rail station. All the things you mentioned were either allowed in the current zoning, or more likely, required a zoning change. Mocingbird Station, for example, was an area with little zoning controls. The developer secifically chose that site for that reason along the rail line. Dallas was not, just as with the Ambrose, West Village, Downtown, etc., proactive in creating dense developments. (I wrote a research paper on that topic).

As for your developments, that is another indication of bad growth controls. Victory, for example, actively fought against the Green Line running down Houston and therefore within the development. Dallas city leaders obliged and told their appointees to the DART board no to Houaton. This also shows the critique the author posted and I agreed with, that running near freeways is bad for ridership.

The areas that were dense as far as population density(Lake Highlands, Presbyterian areas) did get stations.

Lake Highlands just got a station five days ago and it still suffers from being in an old freight ROW. Its main saving grace is that a freeway does not run on one side. The "dense" part of Lakehighlands is still a ways away.

The problem you have now is rapid gentrification in those areas. The existing and torn down apartments were garden style, but huge, tall complexes with high densities of people that are/were train and bus dependent. They are being replaced "in the future", by town center style developments, complete with townhomes, condos and apartments in a more new urbanist style. Problems with this:

- Not nearly as dense
- Higher socioeconomic population who is far less dependent on public transit
- Most of this simply did NOT happen. The apartments were torn down due to code loopholes, now we have big fields with the roads built and no development. Awesome.

Dense depends on development. Los Angeles-style dense is less transit friendly than New York dense, even if the people per square mile is the same.

The second point is most definately true, but it also depends largely on the rest of the region. If it is transit-accessible in a convenient manner, people will ride it. The more the region is accessible, the more the ridership.

The lack of development is always a problem, but in pro-growth cities like Dallas, demo has always happened without question, while development is a little more questionable.

Originally Posted by jtk1519

That is a very poor comparison and I think you know it. One, Uptown does not have the population densities to justify an underground metro system (nor does the rest of Dallas for that matter). Two, the astronomical costs associated with such a system make it near impossible. And the reality is that Dallas is and always will be an auto-centric city which NYC clearly is not. The goal in Dallas is not to create a system that will render the automobile unnecessary as it is in NYC, but to provide a viable alternative.

Light rail does not mean subway. That is one option. The most likely outcome for light rail is like the transit mall downtown or on Lancaster. Surface running in the median. Depending on the design, speeds can still be quite high, with a greater degree of usage.

But why will Dallas always be auto-centric? Political will is my answer. But as long as we continue to build and expand freeways, continue to build rail lines like we do and have little land use controls, it will always be.

As an example, I would point out LA's transit system which includes underground metro where logistics and density allow for it, in addition to light rail, commuter rail, BRT and I believe LA has some streetcar plans in the works. LA is the model for Dallas... not NYC.

Uptown, at near 22,000 people per square mile (New York as a whole is 26,000) is the densest residential area in the city. Downtown at over 100,000 jobs per square mile is the densest job. Uptown is second at levels near 30-40,000. The same can be said for Los Angeles' downtown area, where the subways are.

I clearly explained that when I said ultimately the true potential of DART's light rail system will only be realized if and when it is layered with other transit option to connect the dots so to speak. If 50 years down the road all Dallas has is the LRT system as it will exist with the opening of the Orange line, then yes, the criticism in that article will be legitimate. But if you read what I said and see the LRT system as the first major step to a greater transit system, then what I said makes perfect sense.

Yes, you did say that. No one is disagreeing with it, as it stands today. There is one problem. A properly designedLRT system would have avoided that. When you mention that streetcars are better for uptown, I disagree. However, the way the rail system is built right now, it is.

This whole debate stems from the article that detailed why DART has poor ridership compared to peer cities and systems. None of the reasons who have detailed say why. Portland has buses like Dallas, has a streetcar line like Dallas and has a light rail system like Dallas, yet tons more ridership. Why? For all the reasons listed. Adding more streetcar lines won't do much. Transfers tend to lower ridership and this system has been built with an inordinate amount of them needed to get around. Transfers also include personal autos.

But once again, DART really isn't an urban rail system so to criticize it for not being that when it was never intended to be that seems kinda silly.

Let me repeat, light rail is a cheaper form of heavy rail, with both designed for urban use. If DART wanted to design a system for commuters, as you seem to suggest, it should have done commuter rail, like the TRE, for considerably less money.

I agree, it acts like that once you get to Mockingbird Station and then into downtown, but that is why I and other have purposefully called DART what it is... a hybrid commuter system. The hybrid part of it of course being that area downtown and surrounding where it operates more as a true urban rail.

So why can't it act more like urban rail in the dense mixed-use areas, instead of being built near highways? Hypothetically speaking (I already know the reasons), why couldn't the subway under Central be under McKinney? A Knox-Henderson Station near where it would be if there were one today, plus two Uptown Stations at Blackburn/Lemmon and Maple/Pearl would have exponentially more riders than the current Cityplace.

I get what you're saying and I get the point the article was making. all I am saying is that the fundamental flaw with that argument (and presumably yours) is that you are criticizing DART for not being something it was never intended to be.

You slightly missed my point. I know what it was intended to be. I think what it was intended to be is flawed, as the article points out. Right now it is operating as its design was intended to be, with its poor ridership going along for the ride .

Now, as I said before, if you want to fault DART for starting with this system instead of starting with a true urban rail system, then that is fine (of course, as electricron said the politics and funding, more than 40% of which comes from outside the city of Dallas, means DART almost needed to start this way). But you can't fault the system for not being what it was never supposed to be.

I have already made the point about politics, but that doesn't make it completely what it is. A light rail line down Harry Hines/Denton Highway would carry more riders than the current alignment, with little to no increased costs. The densest part of the current system outside of downtown is the Blue Line south, the one that runs in the median of Lancaster.

The simple key to transit is to go where people want to go, from where people are. DART's rail system misses that mark by a big margin.

[jtk1519]

DART Buying Compressed Natural Gas-Powered Buses
January 12, 2011 8:13 AM



DALLAS (AP) – Dallas Area Rapid Transit, in an effort to clear the air, is spending $217 million on up to 452 buses powered by compressed natural gas.

DART’s order for new buses will be the nation’s largest and will be the first big purchase to include electric air conditioning.

A DART board committee voted unanimously Tuesday for the fleet purchase, with service expected to begin in 2013.

DART will build CNG fueling stations, with the federal government helping cover the cost. Current buses run on diesel fuel.

“This is one of those game-changing decisions that affects all of North Texas,” said William Velasco, DART board chairman. “Cleaner air is better air and this helps clean the pollutants out of the North Texas region.”

The declining price of natural gas was another reason for DART’s endorsement of CNG buses.

DART executives and outside experts initially maintained that newer, cleaner diesel engines now on the market cause no more pollution than CNG-operated vehicles. Those diesel-powered buses would have cost less to buy and would not have required DART to build natural-gas fueling stations.

“Emissions from both engines were virtually the same,” DART president Gary Thomas said after the vote. “We came to the board I guess almost two years ago now with a procurement (for diesel buses) in place. At that point, diesel prices were relatively low and the natural gas prices were relatively high.”

Board members previously instructed the DART staff to make do with its existing buses for another year to give the agency more time to explore a switch away from diesel.

Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert has said that even if the environmental impacts were about the same, the “greener” reputation of natural gas made CNG buses a better choice.

“It is not just about branding the city as a green city,” said Leppert chief of staff Chris Heinbaugh. “He (mayor) cares very much about easing this country off of oil, and not just from an environmental aspect. He looks at it from a national security standpoint, too, and that is why he feels so passionately about this and why he worked so hard to get DART to consider buying the CNG buses.”

DART supplies transportation for Dallas and a dozen surrounding cities in a 700-square-mile service area. The operations include the state’s largest municipal rail system.

(© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/12/d...powered-buses/

[jtk1519]

Plans for Burleson Bus, Rail Transit Station Explored
Steve Knight
Cleburne Times-Review, Texas

TEXAS - The public was invited to chime in on plans for a proposed transit station for bus and commuter rail service and area development potential during a public meeting at Burleson City Hall on Thursday.

The meeting was hosted by officials from the city of Burleson, North Central Texas Council of Governments and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority who talked about the design, development and access to the proposed transit station in Burleson, to be located at the intersection of the future Alsbury Boulevard and Hulen Street, west of Texas 174, which includes 580-acres available for mixed-use development.

The W-4 corridor, also known as the Cleburne Corridor, runs from downtown Fort Worth through Crowley, Burleson and Joshua and terminates in Cleburne.

Mayor Ken Shetter said that the city has been planning for commuter rail for seven years now, and that it is not too soon to plan for population growth that is expected to come in the next 15 years.

"Our roadways are so much more congested now," he said. "Everybody understands that we have to plan on rail. More people are going to commute to Fort Worth and Arlington. We are dedicated to see [this project] happen."

Thursday's meeting was the first of a series of public meetings of the Burleson Transit Oriented Development study and the first opportunity for people to share information and opinions about the design, development, and access to the proposed transit station.

Project manager Mark Bowers from the Dallas-based architectural firm HOK said that input from the public is vital as concepts are developed for future transit sites.

"All of you are the most critical part of this project," he told attendees. "Burleson has the opportunity to be connected to a huge part of the area."

Project officials said that the Burleson TOD Plan will include an analysis of current and future market and development conditions for the Burleson West TOD District and the historic downtown.

The project will include the identification of short- and long-term strategies that can be implemented in Burleson, Bowers said, with initial bus service and a station that has the flexibility to transition to a commuter rail station when demand and funding are available.

In November 2005, the city of Burleson annexed 653 acres of land in the vicinity of the proposed rail station to establish land use control to encourage mixed-use development that would be compatible with a rail station.

After a regional transit summit in March 2002, the Regional Transportation Committee of the North Central Texas Council of Governments studied options for regional rail transit in the Fort Worth-Dallas metro area.

One of the rail lines studied was the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line, identified as the W-4 corridor in the Regional Rail Corridor Study, which coincides with the western city limits of Burleson.

Attendees at Thursday's meeting were afforded the opportunity to visit with project officials to provide feedback in three areas:

zx Transportation: Participants were asked to provide information about how they use transportation and how they might change their transportation pattern in the future.

zx Development/Market: Participants offered thoughts about the city's growth and how it can best serve the community and help make transit more effective.

zx Station design: Participants were shown station designs from other areas and were asked to comment on which elements would best fit the character of Burleson.

Anne Ricker, a real estate advisor and owner of Centennial, Colo.-based Ricker Cunningham, said the historic downtown area would also be part of the development project.

"We've got to keep an eye on downtown, too," she said. "The idea is to create two bookends. This is absolutely the time to plan. You do not want to be behind when the investment comes."

Project officials have planned a second public meeting for early April and a final public meeting in June.

For more information on the Burleson TOD study, visit www.nctcog.org/sdplanningprojects or www.burlesontx.com.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/online...3411&pageNum=1

This Fort Worth to Cleburne rail line is seen on the NCTCOG's Mobility 2030 plans...


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=170210&page=2