Orange Line - DFW Airport Rail Connection

[JCL]

Good find... thanks RTG!

[dfwcre8tive]

Dodging a Bullet (Train): When DART's More About the "Area" Than About "Dallas"
By Jim Schutze in SchutzeWednesday, Jun. 10 2009
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/_the_concept_of_regionalism.php

The concept of regionalism is a Trojan horse designed to gut the city in favor of the 'burbs. If you ever doubted that, take a look at the very close bullet that downtown Dallas just dodged yesterday ... we hope.

...

[xen0blue]

Dodging a Bullet (Train): When DART's More About the "Area" Than About "Dallas"
By Jim Schutze in SchutzeWednesday, Jun. 10 2009
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/_the_concept_of_regionalism.php

The concept of regionalism is a Trojan horse designed to gut the city in favor of the 'burbs. If you ever doubted that, take a look at the very close bullet that downtown Dallas just dodged yesterday ... we hope.

...

I can't believe that was even considered for one second. The most important thing dart could possibly do for Dallas is have a train connecting it to the airport. Even if all the other lines didn't exist and the only rail was going from DFW to downtown dallas, it would still be worth every penny that was spent.

[Mballar]

A poster named john k posted the following language in response to Unfair Park's article (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/_the_concept_of_regionalism.php) on the most recent developments affecting this line. john k's statement is as follows:

Jim, you are misinformed. DART only wanted and had funds available to go directly to the airport. DFW has been "wishey washey" regarding what route and when to let DART move on to and over airport property.

The FAA too, has been slow to give the go ahead to move on for Orange Line #3. Ft.Worth a=in conjuntion with Jeff Fegin at DFW liked a route north of the airport along the Cotton Belt making an Intermodal Transit Center with DART and some sort of transportation from that location onto the airport.

While I don't have any information to verify these claims, I believe that this "last minute" ditch effort to re-route the final leg of DART's Orange Line North of the originally planned terminus (at DFW International) is probably a product of Ft. Worth's T and Jeff Fegan's desire to create some intermodal transit center. While I can clearly see the benefit to Ft. Worth, and the T, I don't understand what the benefit to DFW International would be. At any rate, I think the issue deserves some more investigation.

[Lakewooder]

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2842/dfwrail.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dfwrail.jpg)



This makes too much sense! I can see how the bureaucrats would want to screw it up..

[staplesla]

A poster named john k posted the following language in response to Unfair Park's article (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/_the_concept_of_regionalism.php) on the most recent developments affecting this line. john k's statement is as follows:

Jim, you are misinformed. DART only wanted and had funds available to go directly to the airport. DFW has been "wishey washey" regarding what route and when to let DART move on to and over airport property.

The FAA too, has been slow to give the go ahead to move on for Orange Line #3. Ft.Worth a=in conjuntion with Jeff Fegin at DFW liked a route north of the airport along the Cotton Belt making an Intermodal Transit Center with DART and some sort of transportation from that location onto the airport.

While I don't have any information to verify these claims, I believe that this "last minute" ditch effort to re-route the final leg of DART's Orange Line North of the originally planned terminus (at DFW International) is probably a product of Ft. Worth's T and Jeff Fegan's desire to create some intermodal transit center. While I can clearly see the benefit to Ft. Worth, and the T, I don't understand what the benefit to DFW International would be. At any rate, I think the issue deserves some more investigation.

Lets not start bashing FW until there is proof of something.

[PuddinHead]

A poster named john k posted the following language in response to Unfair Park's article (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/06/_the_concept_of_regionalism.php) on the most recent developments affecting this line. john k's statement is as follows:

Jim, you are misinformed. DART only wanted and had funds available to go directly to the airport. DFW has been "wishey washey" regarding what route and when to let DART move on to and over airport property.

The FAA too, has been slow to give the go ahead to move on for Orange Line #3. Ft.Worth a=in conjuntion with Jeff Fegin at DFW liked a route north of the airport along the Cotton Belt making an Intermodal Transit Center with DART and some sort of transportation from that location onto the airport.

While I don't have any information to verify these claims, I believe that this "last minute" ditch effort to re-route the final leg of DART's Orange Line North of the originally planned terminus (at DFW International) is probably a product of Ft. Worth's T and Jeff Fegan's desire to create some intermodal transit center. While I can clearly see the benefit to Ft. Worth, and the T, I don't understand what the benefit to DFW International would be. At any rate, I think the issue deserves some more investigation.

Well let’s think about this for a moment. What is at issue here is not really Rail Service to the airport but who owns the right of way for rail inside the airport proper. As long as DFW is responsible for building the inter airport line and the connector rail from the transit center an intermodal transit center makes sense. The basic design of DFW does not allow for an end of the line station at the airport since there is not an easy way for passengers to access all terminals from a central point. The rail service should be able to connect all the way through from the North Remote Parking area to each of the terminal pairs and finally at the South End of airport to the Rental Car agencies.

I do not agree that the intermodal transit center should be in Southlake but rather it belongs as close to the North Entrance to the airport as possible. If the station cannot be built on the airport grounds then let the burbs fight it out. Whoever wins gets to pay for the right of way through their cities for the tracks and build and maintain the station. On their dime!

[NThomas]

When did Southlake get added to this discussion? Was that just from banter from that recent article? Or are they somehow considering DART or The T?

[palchik]

This makes too much sense! I can see how the bureaucrats would want to screw it up..

Everyone is still ignoring the fact that DFW is totally decentralized, and getting people to terminals A & B does nothing for people fying out of or into terminal E for example. DFW's people mover is on the secure side of the terminals, while the baggage claims are on the non-secure side. What happens when you land at terminal E, and leave the secure side to get your bags? How do you then get to the rail station at Terminal A or B? The answer is by shuttle bus. So if you introduce a bus connection for some terminals, you might as well do it for all terminals and put the station somewhere where it connects with other regional lines (like the Cotton Belt). I think the bureacrats who are second guessing the A/B proposal are the ones who realize the flaws of DFW's decentralized designs, and the ones who are throwing tantrums are the ones who dont care about the facts.

[NThomas]

Everyone is still ignoring the fact that DFW is totally decentralized, and getting people to terminals A & B does nothing for people fying out of or into terminal E for example. DFW's people mover is on the secure side of the terminals, while the baggage claims are on the non-secure side. What happens when you land at terminal E, and leave the secure side to get your bags? How do you then get to the rail station at Terminal A or B? The answer is by shuttle bus. So if you introduce a bus connection for some terminals, you might as well do it for all terminals and put the station somewhere where it connects with other regional lines (like the Cotton Belt). I think the bureacrats who are second guessing the A/B proposal are the ones who realize the flaws of DFW's decentralized designs, and the ones who are throwing tantrums are the ones who dont care about the facts.
I wouldn't say DFWs decentralized design is flawed (from a car's POV). But DFW Airport benefits if DART & The T brings all 3 lines next to Terminals A & B, the DFW Airport shuttle buses don't have to run as far. Also, a central terminus for all three lines north of the terminals puts pressure to connect it to Terminals A through E via something other then a shuttle bus (say similar SkyLink Bombardier Innovias running outside of security).

[electricron]

I agree, that would place more pressure for a people mover system to be built outside security.

I would place the train stations, both light rail and commuter rail, under the pedestrian overpass at the southern ends of Terminals A & B, because that also connects Terminals C & D and the existing hotel in the middle of Airport Parkway. That would leave just Terminal E requiring a bus transfer. Instead of at the top or bottom of a figure eight in the map below, right in the middle where X marks the spot.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2842/dfwrail.jpg

Both rail lines will only have to be extended another 1/4 mile at most. The old AAtrain right of ways radiating to all four terminals, (A, B, C, & D) could be used as sidewalks to all 4 terminals at a minimum. 3 old AAtrain vehicles could be used to provide a ride to each of the old AA train stations at three of the airport terminals, all that would be required will be installing AAtrain stops at the new centrally located train stations. Even moving sidewalks could be placed over the old AAtrain guideways, or in the pedestrian overpass, if they consider that too long a walk, and didn't want to reuse the old AAtrains.

I just think a more centrally located locale within DFW is better than a northern or southern location. It could possibly eliminate the need to add another people mover system for outside security movements.

[palchik]

How about just converting one terminal into a rail station/check-in/baggage claim/parking facility? With all the airline consolidation and recent capacty reductions, I'm not sure we really still need 5 terminals at DFW. So convert one into the central arrival/departure point. The entire terminal would need to be redisigned to accomidate the new concentration of people, cars, and rail, and there would need to be a new system for getting checked bags to and from this terminal (like in Atlanta and Denver), but in the long run, the rduced redundency would probably be for the better. The close-in parking garages at the other terminals could be redeveloped into hotels and convention space.

[mjblazin]

While I think the rail connection is important, it's not that important. The Atlanta model is the worst possible template for the security processes of the 21st century. Driving everyone using one of the world's largest airports through one chokepoint will always create huge lines. While DFW has numerous faults, the ability to use 15-20 different screening points is a big A+. A shuttle bus to your terminal is perfectly adequate. I'd expect no shuttle bus plus average Atlanta wait in security > shuttle time + DFW security time.

[xen0blue]

While I think the rail connection is important, it's not that important. The Atlanta model is the worst possible template for the security processes of the 21st century. Driving everyone using one of the world's largest airports through one chokepoint will always create huge lines. While DFW has numerous faults, the ability to use 15-20 different screening points is a big A+. A shuttle bus to your terminal is perfectly adequate. I'd expect no shuttle bus plus average Atlanta wait in security > shuttle time + DFW security time.

No, no it's not Adequate. It's horrible...I had to catch the shuttle from the TRE twice, and it was an absolute nightmare. I had to go from dart>tre>shuttle>shuttle>airport. Having to switch trains is bad enough, but add not one, but two bus transfers and it's a nightmare since they only come once ever 45 minutes or so. To get from my old place at the davis building downtown to the airport took me 2 1/2 HOURS. I could have gotten there by car in ~15-20 minutes if I wanted to pay the exorbitant parking fees to park at the airport for a week.

If the dart ends up going directly into the airport, it will be an absolute Godsend.

[Matt777]

No, no it's not Adequate. It's horrible...I had to catch the shuttle from the TRE twice, and it was an absolute nightmare. I had to go from dart>tre>shuttle>shuttle>airport. Having to switch trains is bad enough, but add not one, but two bus transfers and it's a nightmare since they only come once ever 45 minutes or so. To get from my old place at the davis building downtown to the airport took me 2 1/2 HOURS. I could have gotten there by car in ~15-20 minutes if I wanted to pay the exorbitant parking fees to park at the airport for a week.

If the dart ends up going directly into the airport, it will be an absolute Godsend.

I know how you feel. It is ridiculously inconvenient, and requires research, careful planning, and a whole lot of patience. I doubt that many people take this route, I know I was the only one on the TRE train to do so.... I can't even imagine how difficult it would be for someone who isn't from the area.

What made the 2 hr trek from George Bush Station worse was that the airline oversold the flight and wanted to put me on one 11hrs later..... I was stuck, it would have been 4 hours of traveling to get home and back, and I would have had to time it just perfectly to prevent it from being even longer. Anyone who says the current linkage is "adequate" has obviously never tried it, or has all the patience and time in the world.

---

[palchik]

The difficulties you are describing have nothing to do with rail allignmnet though. When the TRE first opened as far as CentrePort Station, DFW used to run direct shuttles from it to the terminals (without stopping at the South Remote Parking lot). After about a year, they eliminated the direct service because of low demand I presume.

In my opinion, the vast majority of people using rail service to the airport will be airport employees. DART Stations do not allow for over-night parking, DART trains do not have luggage racks, and for visitors there are very few hotels that are within walking distance or have good pedestrian connections from stations (except the Sheraton downtown of course).

So if you are talking about the best way to serve employees, shuttles are the far better option. Many employees do not even work in the terminals (FedEx, UPS, administration building, etc...), so having a station at terminals A/B is of little benefit to them. The same goes for those employees who work at terminals other than A or B, or at area hotels, or at the rental car facility. Thus, I'm convinced that the best option to serve the most people, is to have a rail station just outside of the terminal areas with a robust network of connecting shuttles serving each terminal directly, as well as the many other employment destination around the airport.

[mjblazin]

I meant a continuous shuttle between train station and terminals as is done at Boston's airport. I've often made the TRE route and even the 408/26 run on Sundays. As noted above, the real problem is no direct connection between Centreport and the terminals. It's not the idea of bus/train combo. In lieu of building track to each terminal, a shuttle works with enormous cost savings.

Most business and student travelers would be satisfied with going to a single terminal. I rarely see families going on vacation on transit to airport in Boston, Chicago, or St. Louis and I doubt we'd be an exception. It could easily be E. I suspect most transit users have few bags. After going on-line to get your pass or use a kiosk at the terminal, you go through security at E (low traffic = fast screening time) and take skylink to your gate. Not the best solution to someone in 1980 or 1990. But in the 21st century with on-line passes, hefty check bag charges, and TSA security, it now makes sense.

[msutton]

^ I take the TRE at least half of the time I go to/from DFW (usually coming from the airport). Especially if my plane arrives in the afternoon rush hour, there's no way in hell I'll consider a cab -- nor would a friend or family member consider taking a couple of hours round-trip to get to DFW in 635 gridlock traffic.

[JCL]

I do not agree that the intermodal transit center should be in Southlake but rather it belongs as close to the North Entrance to the airport as possible.



I think you meant Grapevine... Southlake isn't even a member of The T. An A/B station and an intermodal transit center would both be on airport property equally... saying that an A/B stop is at the airport and a transit center would be in Grapevine is a misnomer. Both are the same.

[PuddinHead]

I think you meant Grapevine... Southlake isn't even a member of The T. An A/B station and an intermodal transit center would both be on airport property equally... saying that an A/B stop is at the airport and a transit center would be in Grapevine is a misnomer. Both are the same.

Southlake - Grapevine = six one way half a dozen the other.

What I meant is that the transit center needs to be as close to the county line between Dallas and Tarrant Counties as possible and it needs to be on airport property.

[xen0blue]

The difficulties you are describing have nothing to do with rail allignmnet though. When the TRE first opened as far as CentrePort Station, DFW used to run direct shuttles from it to the terminals (without stopping at the South Remote Parking lot). After about a year, they eliminated the direct service because of low demand I presume.

In my opinion, the vast majority of people using rail service to the airport will be airport employees. DART Stations do not allow for over-night parking, DART trains do not have luggage racks, and for visitors there are very few hotels that are within walking distance or have good pedestrian connections from stations (except the Sheraton downtown of course).

So if you are talking about the best way to serve employees, shuttles are the far better option. Many employees do not even work in the terminals (FedEx, UPS, administration building, etc...), so having a station at terminals A/B is of little benefit to them. The same goes for those employees who work at terminals other than A or B, or at area hotels, or at the rental car facility. Thus, I'm convinced that the best option to serve the most people, is to have a rail station just outside of the terminal areas with a robust network of connecting shuttles serving each terminal directly, as well as the many other employment destination around the airport.

Shuttles are bad outside taking people too and from a parking lot, period. Every time I have to get off one thing and on another, and then wait some more time, is not worth the hassle it causes. And for older people, it's almost impossible. As it stands, we already have to get off a train to get on another train, add a shuttle to that equation with x amount of stops and it compiles the problem. I want a 1 stop solution.

[mjblazin]

I want a Rolls Royce, a Malibu townhome, a personal jet, and a weekend with Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz. But I can't have them because I don't have the money. DART does not have the money for a one stop solution either. I'll keep driving my 1990's Volvo and people going to DFW on transit will be asking "Where's that bus?"

[palchik]

Shuttles are bad outside taking people too and from a parking lot, period. Every time I have to get off one thing and on another, and then wait some more time, is not worth the hassle it causes. And for older people, it's almost impossible. As it stands, we already have to get off a train to get on another train, add a shuttle to that equation with x amount of stops and it compiles the problem. I want a 1 stop solution.

For the last time, unless DFW is completely redesigned a one stop solution is not possible. The people mover system is on the SECURE side of the airport. It cannot connect to a non-secure rail line. The only way to get between terminals is by non-secure bus, or secure people mover. When you land, you have to leave security to get your bags. At that point you have lost access to the secure people mover. If the rail station is built at terminal A, than youre in luck, but what happens if you land at terminal E? You have to get to the rail station somehow, and you options are either they secure people mover (if you have no checked bags), or a non-secure shuttle bus. Either way, you HAVE TO make a connection.

[AeroD]

I want a Rolls Royce, a Malibu townhome, a personal jet, and a weekend with Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz. But I can't have them because I don't have the money. DART does not have the money for a one stop solution either. I'll keep driving my 1990's Volvo and people going to DFW on transit will be asking "Where's that bus?"

Two chicks at the same time.

[slfunk]

For the last time, unless DFW is completely redesigned a one stop solution is not possible. The people mover system is on the SECURE side of the airport. It cannot connect to a non-secure rail line. The only way to get between terminals is by non-secure bus, or secure people mover. When you land, you have to leave security to get your bags. At that point you have lost access to the secure people mover. If the rail station is built at terminal A, than youre in luck, but what happens if you land at terminal E? You have to get to the rail station somehow, and you options are either they secure people mover (if you have no checked bags), or a non-secure shuttle bus. Either way, you HAVE TO make a connection.

They could design a secured check-in where the Orange lines comes and meets with the airport skylink, and rework AA former tram to become another people mover to connect to the train platform with the non-secured areas or it could be bus shuttles to the rail platform. Just a thought.

[palchik]

For a secure check-in at the rail station, there would need to be a way to get all checked bags to the appropriate terminal and plane in time for take-off. Even if that could be done, how would you deal with arriving flights? Lets say a tourist from Japan decides to visit Dallas. Would they have to be asked in advance, as they check their bags in Tokyo, if they want to check them all the way through to the DART station??? Otherwise, they would land and their bags would come out at the regular baggage claim in the non-secure side of whatever terminal they arrive at. At that point they would no longer have access to the people-mover on the secure side.

[NThomas]

They could design a secured check-in where the Orange lines comes and meets with the airport skylink, and rework AA former tram to become another people mover to connect to the train platform with the non-secured areas or it could be bus shuttles to the rail platform. Just a thought.
The ROW where the TrAAin ran is now blocked in different spots by office additions and such in a couple of the the terminals (I can't remember if which 2 of the 3 terminals it was).

[tamtagon]

Too bad we need so much airport security. Would it help if the baggage claims were inside the secured area? I havent been to DFW in quite a while, but would that really be that difficult and/or costly to reconfigure the baggage claim areas?

[mjblazin]

Someone earlier suggested this one. How does your family/friend/limo driver help you get your bags?
We are not going to reconfigure the airport to avoid taking a bus for a short distance. DFW won't even pay for a direct bus to Centreport. Now they'll pay to reshape the terminal for the same user? It won't happen.

[PuddinHead]

For a secure check-in at the rail station, there would need to be a way to get all checked bags to the appropriate terminal and plane in time for take-off. Even if that could be done, how would you deal with arriving flights? Lets say a tourist from Japan decides to visit Dallas. Would they have to be asked in advance, as they check their bags in Tokyo, if they want to check them all the way through to the DART station??? Otherwise, they would land and their bags would come out at the regular baggage claim in the non-secure side of whatever terminal they arrive at. At that point they would no longer have access to the people-mover on the secure side.


International arrivals must clear immigration before collecting their baggage in the secured customs area.

[palchik]

Too bad we need so much airport security. Would it help if the baggage claims were inside the secured area? I havent been to DFW in quite a while, but would that really be that difficult and/or costly to reconfigure the baggage claim areas?

Thats actually the first workable idea that I've heard. Reconfiguring the interior walls of the terminals to encompass the baggage carousels on the secure side wouldn't even be very expensive compared to many other options. There are many airports where the carousels are on the secure side. It actually cuts down on theft too. A few years ago there was a ring of crooks targeting DFW airport. They simply hung around the carousels and took any unclaimed bags that were left sitting on the carousels.

[mjblazin]

What airport has the baggage carousel within security? I've been to a lot of different airports and have yet to see it.

[Hannibal Lecter]

So I can pack a 357 and a few dozen rounds of ammo in my checked bag -- totally legal -- fly to an airport, collect my checked bag inside the secured area, transfer a few things from my checked bag to my carry on, and hop on another plane?

:stupid:

[JCL]

What I meant is that the transit center needs to be as close to the county line between Dallas and Tarrant Counties as possible and it needs to be on airport property.

Both will be met with either the A/B solution or the transit center.

[JCL]

Just came over the transom:

http://www.dart.org/meetings/publicmeetingsrss.asp?ID=382

DART Public Meeting to Present Orange Line Options Into DFW Airport
A special Public Meeting has been scheduled to receive comments on alternative alignments being considered to extend light rail transit (LRT) into DFW Airport from the Orange Line. Various options being considered will be presented at this meeting, and public input will be considered in the decision making process.

The meeting will be held:

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
6:30 p.m.
DART Board Room
1401 Pacific Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
MAPSCO 45-K (at Akard Station)

For more information, contact DART Community Affairs at 214-749-2543.




Anyone here planning on attending this meeting? I really want to but won't be able to, I'd like a layman position on what happens there.

[palchik]

What airport has the baggage carousel within security? I've been to a lot of different airports and have yet to see it.

This is often done in international terminals. Passengers arrive, go through passport control, collect their bags, and then go through customs with their bags. This is all done on the secure side.

Good point about packing the gun though...usually with international terminals, if you are making a connecting flight, you have to re-check your bag as soon as you pass through customs at a special ticket counter. So customs is sort of a secure area within the secure side of the terminal. I guess I'm back to supporting shuttle buses again :)

[tamtagon]

So I can pack a 357 and a few dozen rounds of ammo in my checked bag -- totally legal -- fly to an airport, collect my checked bag inside the secured area, transfer a few things from my checked bag to my carry on, and hop on another plane?

Doh! :2doh:

[mjblazin]

I was going to mention liquids put in checked bag and then available without a screen, but "the most powerful handgun ever made" is a better tool for resolving almost any discussion.

[saxman66]

What airport has the baggage carousel within security? I've been to a lot of different airports and have yet to see it.

You've yet to see it because it can't be done. One purpose of checked bags is to check your items that can't be carried on the plane with you. This is such as firearms, liquids, gels, your pocket knife. So you will never be able to claim your checked bag on the secure side. Its an easy way to get things past security.


Thats actually the first workable idea that I've heard. Reconfiguring the interior walls of the terminals to encompass the baggage carousels on the secure side wouldn't even be very expensive compared to many other options. There are many airports where the carousels are on the secure side. It actually cuts down on theft too. A few years ago there was a ring of crooks targeting DFW airport. They simply hung around the carousels and took any unclaimed bags that were left sitting on the carousels.

I guarantee there are no airports with baggage claims on the secure side for the reason I stated above. Claiming your bag after an international flight is different because you have to walk through customs with all your bags. But its not like you can turn back with your bag and get on a plane or into the terminal again, since you've already passed through immigration.

So all in all, making the baggage claims on the secure side is not an option.

[saxman66]

Just attended the DART meeting in DT Dallas for the DFW Connection of the Orange Line. Presentation will be up by tomorrow, but here is a summary of the plans looked at.

Option A:
Bring the Orange Line to planned station north of the airport right along the Cotton Belt line. This is on airport property and in the city of Grapevine proper. One big station will be for the Orange Line, SW2NE Commuter Rail, and DART's version of the Cotton Belt. I'll call it Cotton Belt East. DFW is reluctant to build a non-secure Skylink type people mover to this station because is just too expensive. Therefore rubber tired buses would transfer people to the terminals. Ultimately, DART staff did not recommend this option.

Option B:
The original plan of bringing the Orange Line alone SH 114 and into a station at terminals A and B. SW2NE line would also come into the same area, and the Cotton Belt East line as well. Downside is that people wanting to continue east/west along Cotton Belt would get about 20 minutes added to their trip with the entry into DFW. This is because commuter type trains just take a long time to get turned around, whether or not there is a one seat ride east and west.

Option C:
Orange Line will come up SH 114 and then travel up north to the station on the north side of the airport in Grapevine. After this, it would continue into DFW Airport at the A/B station. Solves the east/west riders timing, but adds a good 7 to 10 minutes to Orange Line riders wanting to go to the airport.

Option D:
Orange Line will come into the airport as planned, but a spur line will split off and go to the north side station to made commuter rail connections in Grapevine. About every third train would do this. THEN, from the Grapevine station, the spur line will still continue into the airport. This is two phase project. The first being a direct entry, then once plans are announced for Cotton Belt service, plans to build the spur will be the second phase. This is the option that the staff likes.

Concerns were brought up about having a DART station in Grapevine, which is not a DART member city. There was overwhelming support for a direct entry into the airport from many Irving business leaders.

Personally I like option D. I understand that Grapevine is not in DART and DART should not foot the entire bill of building a spur into non DART areas, and Grapevine reaping the benefits of TOD tax revenues from a DART project. But since this is REGIONAL mobility, I'm sure Grapevine, and the T would be willing to work with DART on getting a station built.

[palchik]

I was at the meeting too, and the statements of the Irving crowd drove me nuts. They kept emphasizing the importance of a "direct connection," but a station at Terminal A (which is what they were advocating) would only provide a direct connection to the very few people lucky enough to have a flight assigned to the two or three gates in Terminal A near the station. Everyone else would STILL have to somehow make their way to or from their respective terminals and gates.

Its very frustrating that this debate (and in fact the final recommendation) is being driven more by symbolism than by functionality. Yes, it sounds nice to say that there is a "direct connection" to the airport, but if 95% of people are STILL going to have to make a bus connection to get to or from their gate, than whats the point of spending millions upon millions of dollars and possibly sacrificing a truly functional connection to the Cotton Belt?

Even if DART goes with the option of building two spurs; one to the terminals and one to the Cotton Belt, with some trains going one way and others going the other, its still waists a ton of money by having to lay two sets of tracks and still having to provide shuttle bus service to get people to all the terminals NOT served directly by train.

[aygriffith]

How about just converting one terminal into a rail station/check-in/baggage claim/parking facility? With all the airline consolidation and recent capacty reductions, I'm not sure we really still need 5 terminals at DFW.

Bad idea. With the eventual remodel of all the terminals the closure of any of the terminals perminately to airtravel is an unlikely and inconvient route to take. Which terminal would you close? A, C, D all are all stacked with domestic and international AA traffic as well as the other international carriers. B has the consolidation of all the AE flights from A Sat and the United gates. This is quite a large amount of flights which could increase since we've seen some mainline markets go to CRJ/ERJ and more ERJ markets going to AT7's. If the AA unions reach agreements we will probably see AA add EMB aircraft with their 90 seats which could possibly open up new flights to new markets which AA would have over or under served with mainline or CRJ's

Even Terminal E has quite a bit of traffic, yes it doesn't go all night long like the AA gates but DL/CO/FL/US/F9 still takes up the majority of the gates and uses them. I've sat on the runway too many time waiting for gates to know there is little room for gate closures at DFW.

The only airports reducing gates are ones who are losing or have lost their hubs... SJC/STL/CVG etc etc. We don't want to be in that boat.



So convert one into the central arrival/departure point. The entire terminal would need to be redisigned to accomidate the new concentration of people, cars, and rail, and there would need to be a new system for getting checked bags to and from this terminal (like in Atlanta and Denver)

Having spent lots of time and energy in ATL's security line its a nightmare. There are whole threads on flyertalk.com talking about how to get around it. The much of the reason for CLEAR came from how bad ATL is. If you aren't an Elite or if you don't know about the little security line directly into T behind the AA counters you are screwed. You have to be in the line an extra hour earlier than you'd need to be in the parking lot at DFW. Oh and if you do have a moment of weakness and check a bag at ATL... you'll wait 50 mins for it to show up.

Denver isn't any better. I've been in the line at 5am trying to get through quick to jump on a flight standby and its already a 30+ min wait just to get to the TSA agent who checks ID's. Central Security for hundreds of gates is horribly inefficient. Its a pie in the sky idea that doesn't work and its very apparent to anyone traveling.


For a secure check-in at the rail station, there would need to be a way to get all checked bags to the appropriate terminal and plane in time for take-off. Even if that could be done, how would you deal with arriving flights? Lets say a tourist from Japan decides to visit Dallas. Would they have to be asked in advance, as they check their bags in Tokyo, if they want to check them all the way through to the DART station??? Otherwise, they would land and their bags would come out at the regular baggage claim in the non-secure side of whatever terminal they arrive at. At that point they would no longer have access to the people-mover on the secure side.

First of all... don't check your bags! I cannot believe the people who aren't Airline elites who check 3 bags for a family of 4. Its shocking really. It costs upwards of 20 dollars per bag if you aren't a airline elite. And if you aren't on separate itineraries it can cost even more. I'm not asking little Jr to carry his own bag but according to TSA rules he can bring a 22in bag and a personal item through for free, which Mom/Dad can drag through the airport for him. Jr doesn't need a laptop so he can carry two bags full of clothes and so can his sibling and mom and dad. Checking bags is a fools game and if you don't believe that stand at a ticket counter for 10 mins at DFW and look at the clueless who do so. I can (and so can you) pack for a week or more out of one 22in carryon and go to Europe. If you're going to the beach why do you even need alot of clothes? There are whole books that can help people learn to pack better and it'd be cheaper to purchase the book than to check the bags.

If they come from Japan with checked bags they can go out to the baggage claim and get their bags and take a bus to the Dart Station. I don't think there is anyone reading this thread that doesn't understand that SKYLINK doesn't go outside of security and we all know that checked bags are on the unsecure side. You can't build your system to account for those who more and more are in the minority. Airliners often run out of overhead room and the boarding process has been lengthened by all the people trying to stuff bags in the overhead. Carryon is gaining ground both due to price/convenence/safety...

Another Bus stinks but vs centralized security? Palchik, I and alot of other people fly out of DFW every morning of the week. I like getting to the terminal only a hour before takeoff and not having to worry that I won't make it through security and still have to run to a train to my terminal and then run to gate 50 at the end of the terminal. Convenence is King for business travelers. DFW has been incredibly responsive to business travelers and I don't see them making things worse to satisfy current or future train riders.

[electricron]

As I understand the present plans, you're not going to be able to catch a people mover at the train stations anyways. You're going to have to walk to Terminals A or B. Hopefully two old AA trains can be placed into service to shorten the walk some. There you can go through security and catch the people mover and go to any terminal and gate. People checking in bags are probably not taking the light rail trains anyways, where are you going to store your luggage in the trains? Those carrying one bag will be by keeping them nearby on the train, and they will not need to go by baggage claim area anyways, since they will be carrying it aboard and off the planes anyways.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to walk directly to Terminals A, B, C, & D by moving the train stations nearer to the passenger overpass walkways. But the same can be done using the people mover at just Terminals A & B.
Most of the users of the trains will be airport employees anyways. Better to pay the fares and take the train than pay parking fees at the airport. They won't be carrying bags.

[JCL]

I was at the meeting too, and the statements of the Irving crowd drove me nuts. They kept emphasizing the importance of a "direct connection," but a station at Terminal A (which is what they were advocating) would only provide a direct connection to the very few people lucky enough to have a flight assigned to the two or three gates in Terminal A near the station. Everyone else would STILL have to somehow make their way to or from their respective terminals and gates.

Its very frustrating that this debate (and in fact the final recommendation) is being driven more by symbolism than by functionality. Yes, it sounds nice to say that there is a "direct connection" to the airport, but if 95% of people are STILL going to have to make a bus connection to get to or from their gate, than whats the point of spending millions upon millions of dollars and possibly sacrificing a truly functional connection to the Cotton Belt?

Excellent point!


Even if DART goes with the option of building two spurs; one to the terminals and one to the Cotton Belt, with some trains going one way and others going the other, its still waists a ton of money by having to lay two sets of tracks and still having to provide shuttle bus service to get people to all the terminals NOT served directly by train.

It seems to me that option D is a stop-gap measure to appease both crowds for the time being... perhaps in the future a more permanent setup can be planned that isn't too expensive because the infrastructure will mostly already be there.

[saxman66]

I was at the meeting too, and the statements of the Irving crowd drove me nuts. They kept emphasizing the importance of a "direct connection," but a station at Terminal A (which is what they were advocating) would only provide a direct connection to the very few people lucky enough to have a flight assigned to the two or three gates in Terminal A near the station. Everyone else would STILL have to somehow make their way to or from their respective terminals and gates.

Its very frustrating that this debate (and in fact the final recommendation) is being driven more by symbolism than by functionality. Yes, it sounds nice to say that there is a "direct connection" to the airport, but if 95% of people are STILL going to have to make a bus connection to get to or from their gate, than whats the point of spending millions upon millions of dollars and possibly sacrificing a truly functional connection to the Cotton Belt?

Even if DART goes with the option of building two spurs; one to the terminals and one to the Cotton Belt, with some trains going one way and others going the other, its still waists a ton of money by having to lay two sets of tracks and still having to provide shuttle bus service to get people to all the terminals NOT served directly by train.

So you think a 30 minute bus ride from the Grapevine is better? Not really. And yes, I think thats how long a bus ride from say, terminal E would take, especially if the bus stops at another terminal. Why make DFW have more buses then it already has? DFW already has those green Terminllink shuttle buses circulating the terminals. If you arrive in Terminal C, D, or E, why make a 30 minute bus ride when instead you can use the buses already, and make that transfer a 10 minute ride to the A/B station. Plus all American has to do is provide checkin kiosks at the A/B station, and you can enter security there. Since most people are probably traveling AA anyway. Why make everyone suffer a bus ride, when the majority of people taking the DART don't need to check bags, or work at the airport, or are lucky enough to be taking AA. I guess if you're taking US Airways and you have to check bags, then you're outa luck. But like I said, a short 5 or 10 minute bus ride is way better than making everyone come all the way from Grapevine.

[Hannibal Lecter]

If you aren't an Elite or if you don't know about the little security line directly into T behind the AA counters you are screwed.Shhh!!!!!

[Mballar]

Option D makes the most sense to me at this time. Especially since the Cotton Belt Line is not funded, and probably is at least another 15 years from completion. So, I think DART should follow through with it's original plan to provide the airport connection for the rest of its riders, and go to Terminals A/B.

[electricron]

I like Option B the best.
Option B
The original plan of bringing the Orange Line alone SH 114 and into a station at terminals A and B.
The SW2NE line would also come into the same area, and the Cotton Belt East line as well. Downside is that people wanting to continue east/west along Cotton Belt would get about 20 minutes added to their trip with the entry into DFW. This is because commuter type trains just take a long time to get turned around, whether or not there is a one seat ride east and west.

Why? The downside doesn't exist because the SW2NE line proposes a train station north of DFW already to be the Park & Ride train station for Grapevine. Where did this train station go? If the Grapevine P&R station is built as planned, all Cotton Belt passengers wishing to travel from SW Fort Worth to Plano can transfer trains there simply by placing the Grapevine P&R station on the south leg of the future Grapevine wye.
Additionally, DART Orange line passengers can transfer directly to either the T or DART at the DFW train stations at Terminals A & B because both Cotton Belt trains go there.

[JCL]

Option D makes the most sense to me at this time. Especially since the Cotton Belt Line is not funded, and probably is at least another 15 years from completion. So, I think DART should follow through with it's original plan to provide the airport connection for the rest of its riders, and go to Terminals A/B.

sw2ne has a stated timeline of revenue service by 2013... that's a far cry from 15 years... granted there will most likely be federal govt delays... but the hulen to airport segment should come on line roughly the same time as phase 3 of the orange line.

[JCL]

Here's a link to that presentation mentioned above:

http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/orangelinedfwmeetingpresentation.pdf