DART Plots Love Field Stop

[aceplace]

Good point, UptownDallas. A transfer is the Kiss of Death, in terms of actual behavior.

Maybe one way around this is to move the terminal to the station. A passenger walks off a DART train into a room with ticket booths and luggage stations. He gets a ticket, gets rid of his luggage, maybe has a coffee and reads a paper, then takes the people mover to security and the actual gate.

How is this different? It provides the illusion of a seamless DART to terminal transfer. Especially if the people mover deposits him well in the gate area.

Other airports have a central terminal for ticketing and baggage, followed by a people mover to the actual gates. Orlando is like that, Atlanta is like that.

[tamtagon]

Actually, this very issue has been studied in depth with respect to the rail service between JFK and Manhattan.

The consensus expert opinion seems to be that a the utility of a rail transit connection decreases dramatically (as measured by number of passengers) for each required transfer.

This seems to make sense, as the attractiveness of a the DART connection would be greatly enhanced by needing only a single ride to get to the airport terminal. The introduction of an extra step, disembarking from the DART rail with luggage, navigating the DART platform, an escalator, a "people mover" platform, and, ulimately, the "people mover" itself, significantly increases both journey complexity and time.

...and this is why the DFW Airport DART station will be inside that airport.

There is no doubt that DART usage directly related to the air traffic industry to DFW will eclipse that of Love Field; however, the Inwood and Brookhaven station which flank Love Field will gain an enormous opportunity to develop substantial residential and employment density with an airport stop in between.

One very pleasant side effect to air traffic volume control at Love Field is the new opportunity for indirect air traffic industry employment growth inside the Love Field boundaries. Now that we know gate limitations, there's going to be plenty of Love Field real estate which can be developed - remember the plans floated during the Wright Amendment debate which included a river walk and billions of dollars of other good stuff? Some of that can happen now....

[DallasMan]

Ok...so this is all very interesting, and I agree we could do things to ease the "transfer" problem.

BUT, my question then, is - if its sooo expensive to build the DART underground, and we aren't allowed to do an above-ground DART around the runway, it means the people mover will have to be underground as well right? Will this really be that much cheaper than putting the DART underground to begin with??? You still have to dig out the tunnel and lay tracks, etc. Is it just a size issue that would make it that much more expensive?

[psukhu]

You would think Southwest Airlines would help the effort to get a station inside the terminal...

[RobertB]

Ok...so this is all very interesting, and I agree we could do things to ease the "transfer" problem.

BUT, my question then, is - if its sooo expensive to build the DART underground, and we aren't allowed to do an above-ground DART around the runway, it means the people mover will have to be underground as well right? Will this really be that much cheaper than putting the DART underground to begin with??? You still have to dig out the tunnel and lay tracks, etc. Is it just a size issue that would make it that much more expensive?
The DART tunnel would be much larger than a people-mover tunnel. The DART rail car is taller than I would expect a people mover vehicle to be, especially when you include the pantograph and catenary wires. The DART trains are also heavier than anything like DFW or Las Colinas' people movers -- they can operate on freight lines, after all. That requires additional construction. The people movers will probably move more slowly than the DART train, and the DART train's turning radius is likely much larger. In fact, the people mover may terminate at a 90 degree angle to the DART station, a turn that the train wouldn't be able to make.

But the kicker is that the people mover only has to go from the terminal to the rail line. A LRT line would have to do that... and also go *back* out to the rail line. Even if the tunnel cost per foot were identical, the LRT would cost at least double.

By the way, I still haven't seen anything that shows how this people mover would actually be built and routed. Frankly, I have a hard time taking the proposal seriously. It certainly won't be built by the time the Green Line is scheduled to arrive at Brookhollow/Love Field Station if there isn't even an engineering study available now.

[UptownDallas]

The DART tunnel would be much larger than a people-mover tunnel. The DART rail car is taller than I would expect a people mover vehicle to be, especially when you include the pantograph and catenary wires. The DART trains are also heavier than anything like DFW or Las Colinas' people movers -- they can operate on freight lines, after all. That requires additional construction. The people movers will probably move more slowly than the DART train, and the DART train's turning radius is likely much larger. In fact, the people mover may terminate at a 90 degree angle to the DART station, a turn that the train wouldn't be able to make.

But the kicker is that the people mover only has to go from the terminal to the rail line. A LRT line would have to do that... and also go *back* out to the rail line. Even if the tunnel cost per foot were identical, the LRT would cost at least double.

As always, the voice of transit intelligence.


By the way, I still haven't seen anything that shows how this people mover would actually be built and routed. Frankly, I have a hard time taking the proposal seriously. It certainly won't be built by the time the Green Line is scheduled to arrive at Brookhollow/Love Field Station if there isn't even an engineering study available now.

I suspect it will end up being a tarted-up DART bus, painted to say "Love Field People Mover," (perhaps including some sort of effect indicating high speed motion), and terminating at fancy bus stops on both ends.

[PuddinHead]

Actually, this very issue has been studied in depth with respect to the rail service between JFK and Manhattan.

The consensus expert opinion seems to be that a the utility of a rail transit connection decreases dramatically (as measured by number of passengers) for each required transfer.

This seems to make sense, as the attractiveness of a the DART connection would be greatly enhanced by needing only a single ride to get to the airport terminal. The introduction of an extra step, disembarking from the DART rail with luggage, navigating the DART platform, an escalator, a "people mover" platform, and, ulimately, the "people mover" itself, significantly increases both journey complexity and time.


Let me reiterate;

What is the point of building a subway station at Love Field when rail service is all ready planned for the airport at a much lower cost?

You’re citing a study of a proposed rail line from Manhattan to JFK that still requires passengers to connect at Jamaica station to the existing air train to the airport does not help your position since it most closely mimics the people mover solution for Love Field.




...and this is why the DFW Airport DART station will be inside that airport.

There is no doubt that DART usage directly related to the air traffic industry to DFW will eclipse that of Love Field; however, the Inwood and Brookhaven station which flank Love Field will gain an enormous opportunity to develop substantial residential and employment density with an airport stop in between.

One very pleasant side effect to air traffic volume control at Love Field is the new opportunity for indirect air traffic industry employment growth inside the Love Field boundaries. Now that we know gate limitations, there's going to be plenty of Love Field real estate which can be developed - remember the plans floated during the Wright Amendment debate which included a river walk and billions of dollars of other good stuff? Some of that can happen now....

The DFW Airport Dart Station is the terminus of the line. It does not cost any more to terminate the line inside the airport property. Besides there is no Federal Law prohibiting the use of PFC's assist in the construction of the station as compared to Love Field.

It would be cheaper to take the monies that could be spent on Laura’s hole in the ground and buy out the neighborhood on the west side of the airport and open the land to re-development than to dig the tunnel required for the airport subway.

[JasonDallas]

It would be cheaper to take the monies that could be spent on Laura’s hole in the ground and buy out the neighborhood on the west side of the airport and open the land to re-development than to dig the tunnel required for the airport subway.

Good point. We could buy out a neighborhood and expand love field. I'd go for that, especially after the sensational experience I had there last week.

Jason

[UptownDallas]

...study of a proposed rail line from Manhattan to JFK that still requires passengers to connect at Jamaica station to the existing air train to the airport does not help your position since it most closely mimics the people mover solution for Love Field.

The studies I referenced have analyzed the relatively low utilization rate of the "people mover" (on the section between Jamaica, Queens and JFK) and have concluded that this is due to the fact that this is due to the required passenger transfer at Jamaica Station.

You are correct, the JFK situation closely mimics that at Love Field, and provides a real time illustration of how ineffective the Love Field transit solution would be at addressing traffic concerns.

One thing about you puzzles me, puddinhead... during the Wright Amendment debate, you proclaimed yourself to be extremely concerned about traffic in the Love Field area as well as disproportionate impacts on minorities.

Now, you seem to have done an about face, arguing against light rail for Love Field and for the construction of a high-speed rail line through the heart of a stable, working-class Hispanic neighborhood. More than that, however, you appear to be actually advocating that the neighborhood be leveled, which would dispace hundreds of residents.

Why the change of heart?


...The DFW Airport Dart Station is the terminus of the line. It does not cost any more to terminate the line inside the airport property.

That's simply not true. Before consideration of the DFW Airport connection, the Orange Line would end at Beltline Road. Running the train into the airport is going to require an additional 4.8 miles of track.

By way of comparison, that stage length is nearly the same as the length from Bachman Station to the Las Colinas Urban Center Station.

[psukhu]

^
The Jamaica station in Queens is a regional transit hub with transfers available for regional rail and subways. The Brookhollow station with a people mover would not be a the same.

However, an future underground line from Mockingbird station to the Brookhollow station, with a stop at Love, would be nice. It would be like the shuttle between Grand Central and Times Square in Manhattan. How far down do they have to dig so the Parkies can't block a tunnel project?

[RobertB]

^
The Jamaica station in Queens is a regional transit hub with transfers available for regional rail and subways. The Brookhollow station with a people mover would not be a the same.

However, an future underground line from Mockingbird station to the Brookhollow station, with a stop at Love, would be nice. It would be like the shuttle between Grand Central and Times Square in Manhattan. How far down do they have to dig so the Parkies can't block a tunnel project?
http://www.rcowen.com/images/Dig_to_China_R.JPG
That might do it. Maybe.

Image credit: Richard C. Owen Publishers (http://www.rcowen.com/BYLBks-Fluent1.htm)

[hamiltonpl]

Regrettably, DART is going to start with a bus shuttle from Love Field to the station -- not a people mover.

I hope that a people mover gets built. But it has not even begun to be be designed.

They plan to piggy back off plans that they're using for DFW. They're going to have a "people mover" there also.

[dfwcre8tive]

DFW already has a people mover.

[PuddinHead]

The studies I referenced have analyzed the relatively low utilization rate of the "people mover" (on the section between Jamaica, Queens and JFK) and have concluded that this is due to the fact that this is due to the required passenger transfer at Jamaica Station.

You are correct, the JFK situation closely mimics that at Love Field, and provides a real time illustration of how ineffective the Love Field transit solution would be at addressing traffic concerns.

This should tell you that putting any kind of rail line into Love Field and for that matter DFW is a waste of resources, as long as it is faster and easier to drive or take an airport bus to the airport than to fight connections on a rail line.

But alas our illustrious leaders have determined that we needed to promise our wallets to keep the largest tenant at Love Field happy by including a people mover in the compromise on the City of Dallas dime. Now our best option is to keep the costs required to fulfill this promise as low as possible.






One thing about you puzzles me, puddinhead... during the Wright Amendment debate, you proclaimed yourself to be extremely concerned about traffic in the Love Field area as well as disproportionate impacts on minorities.

Now, you seem to have done an about face, arguing against light rail for Love Field and for the construction of a high-speed rail line through the heart of a stable, working-class Hispanic neighborhood………..Why the change of heart?

No change of heart here; yes I did voice concern for the residents around the airport.

But as you said (and if it can be believed) that this West Love Field Neighborhood supported removing all restrictions from Love Field with all of the inherent environmental issues that an unrestricted airport would bring to their quality of life. If that is true, tell us why any of us should now care if a rail line causes them to endure the same affects on their quality of life that they were advocating for the rest of the area around the airport? You cannot have it both ways!

Try to remember that:
1. This rail route has been planned for years.
2. The route skirts the West Love Field Neighborhood it does not go through it.








More than that, however, you appear to be actually advocating that the neighborhood be leveled, which would dispace hundreds of residents.

I am only pointing out that it would be cheaper to just buy the neighborhood out and redevelop the land than to pour money into Laura’s hole in the ground. Besides the residents could actually move to a much nicer and quieter area of town after they are paid for their property.




That's simply not true. Before consideration of the DFW Airport connection, the Orange Line would end at Beltline Road. Running the train into the airport is going to require an additional 4.8 miles of track.

By way of comparison, that stage length is nearly the same as the length from Bachman Station to the Las Colinas Urban Center Station.

Point was that it does not require any additional monies be appropriated to construct the rail line to DFW as compared to the effort to connect the rail line to Love Field.



Regrettably, DART is going to start with a bus shuttle from Love Field to the station -- not a people mover.

I hope that a people mover gets built. But it has not even begun to be be designed.


The design probably is dependant upon the improvements to the terminal.

[RobertB]

Point was that it does not require any additional monies be appropriated to construct the rail line to DFW as compared to the effort to connect the rail line to Love Field.
For what it's worth, there are actually three possiblities in DART's plans for access to DFW.

* Go around the south. This puts the LRT close to the TRE, so it looks a little goofy on the map. But there are few obstacles in the way, and it could open up development southeast of the airport.

* Go around the north. Not only does it look better on the map, it also gets LRT tantalizingly close to Grapevine Mills Mall. The biggest problem is that there are plans for airport runway and taxiway expansion that just don't leave enough room between the taxiways and the SH 114 frontage road. Since DART is moving forward with the north route, I assume that these issues are being resolved.

* Go right through the middle, in a tunnel. The third option is to bore right underneath the runways on the east side of the airport and run the LRT in a tunnel. I believe the plans for that were highly dependent on DFW or some other agency deciding to chip in a big wad of cash. DFW is in big debt from their People Mover, so I think a DFW tunnel much less likely to happen than one under Love Field.

[PuddinHead]

The tunnel of Love
Dallas City Council asks federal government to help fund DART light-rail system under airport
By DAVID WETHE
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

Map: DART at Love Field
The city of Dallas is once again turning to Capitol Hill for help with Dallas Love Field -- less than a year after enlisting the aid of Congress to solve Wright Amendment squabbles.

The new request involves a proposed $160 million tunnel under the airport for a DART light-rail station. The City Council wants the federal government to reconsider a 2004 Federal Transit Administration decision that denied funding for the tunnel project.

A light-rail station in the terminal would put Love Field on par with other larger airports such as Chicago O'Hare and Washington National. DART's expansion plan calls for a light-rail station at D/FW to open in 2013.

The tunnel would also have broader implications for the Metroplex, connecting the two downtowns and the two airport terminals. A passenger starting in downtown Fort Worth could ride to a station between terminals A and B at D/FW, then change trains and ride to Love Field.

Even without the tunnel, riders could take the train from D/FW to a station right across the street from Love Field, then ride to the terminal.

The tunnel request comes at a time when the city's new aviation director, Dan Weber, has been on the job for only two months. It's a job that has almost fully been consumed by plans to refurbish the 77-year-old airport's aging terminal at a cost of up to $200 million.

The renovations are courtesy of the Wright Amendment compromise reached last summer by the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, D/FW and Southwest and American airlines.

The compromise calls for a DART station just off the airport grounds with a people-mover to shuttle travelers to and from the airport. The DART station would be directly across the street from Southwest's headquarters, home to 2,000 employees.

Exactly what the people-mover system would look like has not been determined. It could be a series of buses, or it could resemble the Skylink automated trains at D/FW.

Another option could replicate an underground tunnel at Chicago O'Hare that connects terminals via moving walkways, said Ron Ricks, senior vice president of law, airports and public affairs at Southwest.

"That's just one alternative," Ricks said. "There are a lot of ways to skin the cat."

Support unclear

It's not clear how much support the tunnel will gather outside the Dallas City Council. DART leaders favor the outside station. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said a change might delay or imperil funding for DART's expansion. Southwest and American both said they don't have a preference.

The issue of where to put a Love Field DART station surfaced several years ago, when the transit authority first examined whether one of its future light-rail lines should tunnel under the Dallas airport.

The agency generally liked the idea, said Gary Thomas, executive director for DART, but decided it would be too expensive after weighing the costs and projected rider levels. That decision came in November 2004, as DART was asking the federal government for $700 million to help expand its network of rails.

At that time, DART worried that its request for an extra $160 million would capsize its entire $700 million project and delay expansion for years. The FTA approved the $700 million request, known as the Full Funding Grant Agreement.

New questions

The issue re-emerged last week when the Dallas City Council was talking about condemning land for the planned train station across from Love Field. Council members started to once again question why they weren't putting a train stop directly in the airport terminal.

Councilwoman Pauline Medrano said it's an important question to raise, considering all the changes happening at Love Field from the Wright Amendment compromise.

The law, originally passed in 1979, limited flights from Love Field to cities in Texas and its four bordering states (other states were later added to the list). Now, because of the compromise, airlines can sell one-stop tickets to anywhere in the country from Love Field. And in less than eight years, all the flight restrictions will be removed, making it possible to fly directly to anywhere in the U.S. from Love.

"Obviously, things have changed," Medrano said. "I think it's a very legitimate thing to consider."

Most of the council members are in Washington, D.C., for a National League of Cities meeting that ends Wednesday. They plan to talk with locally based legislators and other key lawmakers about the tunnel, Medrano said last week before leaving for her trip.

"All we're saying is please consider taking this back to the FTA and reworking the numbers," Medrano said.

Hutchison, the Republican from Dallas who helped shepherd the Wright Amendment compromise, may not be much help this time.

"I have talked with the Federal Transit Administration and they have already looked at the costs of the suggested alterations," Hutchison said via e-mail. "It is my understanding that a change would adversely affect the Full Funding Grant Agreement with DART and would also create the potential for delay or even cancellation of the funding."

On Wednesday, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller said via e-mail that she understands Hutchison's concern.

"The City of Dallas is simply exploring whether moving the Love Field station ... can be done without adversely affecting the entire corridor project -- especially in light of the fact that the residential neighborhood is adamantly opposed to the current location," she said. "We have assured DART officials that we will not put the corridor project in jeopardy, but common sense tells you that light rail should be connected to your airports."

More riders

Chad Edwards, principal transportation planner for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said the most recent comparison of a DART light-rail station inside the terminal versus one off the airport grounds was an environmental impact statement from October 2003.

That study projected that by 2025, a station at the airport terminal would add 13,500 daily riders to the DART system and that a station outside the terminal would add 11,600 riders. The study projects a total ridership of about 200,000 for DART in 2025.

Edwards said it's important to note that Love Field will have light-rail service, but he agreed that the system could be a little more "seamless" with a station inside the Love Field terminal.

Medrano agreed.

"Why would anybody want to go on light rail only to have to get off the train, then get on the people-mover system, as opposed to getting on one time and getting off one time?" Medrano said.

Business travelers

The concept of a rail station in the airport terminal is especially being pitched with the business traveler in mind. Weber, the new airport director, said he believed that most of Love's passengers are headed to downtown Dallas.

"People don't fly into Dallas to visit Love Field," said Weber, who has spent four years running Abilene's airport and before that operated the airport for Brownsville/South Padre Island. "They fly into Dallas to do business and visit friends."

But business travelers will use light rail only if they find it quick and easy to use, said Caleb Tiller, spokesman for the National Business Travel Association.

"If it means that it's fairly time-consuming or doesn't get you to the right area of town, then they're less likely to use it," Tiller said.

In addition, business travelers are always concerned about the costs to build airport infrastructure, he said.

'Never a major factor'

Michael Boyd, a travel-industry consultant at the Boyd Group in Colorado, said no matter where the light-rail station goes, it won't boost passenger traffic at Love Field.

"It's not going to increase the attractiveness of Love Field by any means," he said. "Love Field is never going to be a major factor beyond what it is today. You've built way too much freeway capacity into D/FW, and D/FW is now a single terminal airport effectively."

And Southwest Airlines, which serves 90 percent of travelers at Love Field, can't get too carried away with its expansion plans at Love, Boyd said.

"Southwest is where Southwest is going to be," he said. "It's not like Southwest is going to make an intergalactic space port. They want to put more people on ... existing flights."

Adding baggage

The biggest concern DART officials would have to deal with, Boyd said, is juggling regular commuters and airline passengers, who are lugging more baggage.

Thomas conceded that is a challenge but noted that airline passengers would make up only 1 percent of DART's ridership.

And ultimately, it doesn't make much sense to spend the money on a tunnel, Thomas said, because Love Field won't be growing much. The Wright Amendment compromise shrunk the number of available gates from 32 to 20 so that traffic wouldn't grow too much larger than it is today. Boyd expects the airport to grow 1 percent to 3 percent a year from here on out.

Love Field experienced a huge dip after 9-11, but its 6.9 million travelers in 2006 is only 1 percent larger than its total 10 years ago.

But that hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of its newest leader.

"This is a very exciting time," Weber said. "I can't think of a place I'd rather be right now. Love Field's going to be transformed. I'm just honored to be a part of it."




David Wethe, 817-685-3803 dwethe@star-telegram.com

[psukhu]

Can the city just pay for the tunnel itself? If they float a bond for this, the bond could be paid back using revenue from Love Field.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Can the city just pay for the tunnel itself? If they float a bond for this, the bond could be paid back using revenue from Love Field.
1) Federal regulations and existing bond convenants place major restrictions on what airport revenues can be used for.
2) Doing some quick, back-of-the-envelope math, it looks like it would take $1.50-$2.00 per passenger just to pay the interest on the $160-$200M for a tunnel. To actually pay it off would cost even more.

[Insidetheloop]

DART just continues to fail its ridership. Again. As others have mentioned a seemless rail stop at Love Field, without additional shuttles and trams is critical to attracting people to downtown and beyond. What DART wants to do only makes sense when you realize they simply don't care.

Boo on the city council too, who have failed to keep DART's boots in the fire. It makes you wonder what the city council does all day.

[PuddinHead]

DART just continues to fail its ridership. Again. As others have mentioned a seemless rail stop at Love Field, without additional shuttles and trams is critical to attracting people to downtown and beyond. What DART wants to do only makes sense when you realize they simply don't care.

Boo on the city council too, who have failed to keep DART's boots in the fire. It makes you wonder what the city council does all day.


Yea right?

The average DART rider flies from Love Field several times a year.

[Dr. Thunder]

I would be flying out of Love as much as possible if the LRT went directly there.

[slfunk]

I could really care one way or the other. To be honest I would use DART to get to Love Field with the people mover or with direct access. It was in jeopardy how much we could actually get in federal funding for DART at the time, why put that into jeopardy? I have to agree with Ms. Hutchinson stance.

[psukhu]

The problem is the time spent waiting for the shuttle. When I get back to Dallas on a flight, I just want to get home as soon as possible. That's why I part at the terminal at DFW. So many times I've waited for over 30 minutes for the remote parking shuttle to come by at DFW.

If they implemented a shuttle bus, that would be one more leg of waiting. It could easily take 30 minutes just to get to the station from the terminal. Then you might have to wait up to 20 minutes for the next LRT train. On the other hand, you could just park at the terminal and just drive yourself home and save time.

A people move would be the next best solution if the LRT station can't be built at the terminal.

Most business travelers are not concerned about the higher cost of using a taxi or parking at the terminal. This is already built into their travel expense. Business people, however, will look at ways to save time.

Maybe Love Field will build a rental car garage and build a people mover to connect the terminal to the rental garage and the LRT station. (Just like SFO)

[Mballar]

Great! . .another conversation about how Dallas can settle for a sub-par solution, in the wake of missing an opportunity of a lifetime/generation. When is the next election, already?

[RobertB]

Yea right?

The average DART rider flies from Love Field several times a year.
Nice cynicism. But it kinda breaks down when reality intervenes.

The "average DART rider" goes to how many Mavericks and Stars games with their $50 ticket prices? I know I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a sports event. But enough folks do that the trains to Victory are nice 'n full, despite the developers' forcing the station into a less-than-ideal location.

DART Rail is attracting people to public transportation that don't typically ride the bus. That's a Good Thing.

And before we get all stereotypical about the "average DART rider", keep something in mind. Where *is* the "average DART rider" going? To work. Last I heard, that was also a Good Thing.

[palchik]

If the station was inside the terminal, it would be out of reach for potential neighborhood riders (both current and future). Remember, the neighborhoods around Love Field are likely to look very different in coming years (especially with a new station to develop around). Secondly, no one expects to park their car directly inside the terminal at Love Field. The travel distance from the station to the gates (if a people mover is built) would be very similar to the travel distance from the parking garage to the gates.

[tamtagon]

If the station was inside the terminal, it would be out of reach for potential neighborhood riders (both current and future). Remember, the neighborhoods around Love Field are likely to look very different in coming years (especially with a new station to develop around). Secondly, no one expects to park their car directly inside the terminal at Love Field. The travel distance from the station to the gates (if a people mover is built) would be very similar to the travel distance from the parking garage to the gates.

I thought it would be an additional station: Inwood and Brookhaven still reach into the existing neighborhoods while the Love Field Station serves the airport. If a station inside the airport comes only by sacrificing a "regular" station, that would be the worst. But, an Inwood-Love-Brookhaven TOD triptych would end up being a substantial economic engine. Redeveloping the Legend Terminal, minus the gates, is an door-opening economic development opportunity the city and DART should not allow get away.

[RobertB]

I thought it would be an additional station: Inwood and Brookhaven still reach into the existing neighborhoods while the Love Field Station serves the airport. If a station inside the airport comes only by sacrificing a "regular" station, that would be the worst. But, an Inwood-Love-Brookhaven TOD triptych would end up being a substantial economic engine. Redeveloping the Legend Terminal, minus the gates, is an door-opening economic development opportunity the city and DART should not allow get away.
That's right -- as we've mentioned before, the Love Field tunnel would have emerged south of Brookhollow Station. Things tend to get mixed up now that Brookhollow has been renamed "Love Field Station" -- remember, changing the station's name was one of the City's requests in their resolution supporting DART's 2030 plan. Another note: the Legend terminal is on the opposite side of the airport from the DART line, and wouldn't be served even if the tunnel were to be built.

Meanwhile, the following press release was just posted to DART's website:

DART NEWS RELEASE
Media Relations Contact:
Morgan Lyons, DART
Frank Librio, City of Dallas

March 12, 2007

Full speed ahead for DART Green Line
Dallas, DART Agree to Drop Love Field Tunnel
http://www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=742

Construction of the DART Rail Green Line - which will extend 27.7 miles from Pleasant Grove in southeast Dallas to Carrollton - will stay on schedule, and the City of Dallas will drop its push for a direct tunnel connection from the rail line into Dallas Love Field.

Instead, the city and DART will continue working on an alternative transit access from DART's rail into the terminal area, including a people mover system and traffic improvements to the nearby neighborhood.

The developments occurred after city officials contacted a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) official Thursday (March 8) to make a case for a direct tunnel connection and learned that any changes to the current route or station configuration would cause DART to be in breach of contract with the FTA, jeopardizing DART's $700 million in federal funds for the $1.4 billion Green Line. In 2004, the FTA said the project would not be recommended if it included the tunnel, concluding it did not generate enough benefits (ridership and travel-time savings) to justify the increased project cost.

Federal funds were ultimately approved in July 2006 for the alternate route just west of Love Field and DART entered into a binding Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the FTA. Green Line construction began in August.

Although the city of Dallas continues to believe that a direct DART light rail connection into the Love Field terminal would make the most sense for both airport passengers and the surrounding neighborhoods, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller says the city would never do anything to threaten DART's ambitious expansion plans, which have been a great economic boon to the city and region.

Mayor Miller said that the Dallas City Council is on a two-week spring break and is not scheduled to meet on the Love Field tunnel issue until March 26. But with neighborhood groups headed to Washington this week to lobby Congress on the issue, and Dallas council members going to Washington for the National League of Cities meeting, Mayor Miller felt it necessary to put the issue to bed and ensure unity with DART before Congress.

The council members who last week led the effort to revisit the tunnel issue support the truce, Miller said. The full council will discuss the issue on March 26 as planned at the City Council's Transportation and Telecommunications committee.

Dallas officials asked DART to revisit the Love Field tunnel option in February after residents living near the airport along the rail alignment raised concerns, and in light of the possible impact of the repeal of the Wright Amendment - which restricted flights at Love Field - on Green Line ridership.

City, DART continue working together on Green Line

"Although it's not the outcome we had hoped for, we understand there really is no alternative, except to proceed without the tunnel," Dallas Mayor Laura Miller said. "The DART Rail expansion is too important to the City of Dallas and the entire region to risk the loss of federal funds and the current schedule. I am confident we will be able to work with DART productively to minimize any negative impact on the adjacent neighborhood and maximize the benefit of having Green Line rail service. I appreciate the FTA and DART's efforts this past week to address our questions," Miller said.

DART had previously committed $900,000 toward mobility, noise and visual betterments in Love Field area-neighborhood adjacent to Little Denton Drive. In addition, DART is planning to invest an additional $3.5-million for street and road improvements along Little Denton Drive.

DART Board Chairman Mark Enoch said the investments are evidence of the agency's commitment to continue working with the city. "We have already committed funds to support a future alternative connection to the Love Field terminal. We are committed to meeting all of our obligations to our cities and our federal partners as we build the project. We are also committed to growing our successful reputation in Washington that allowed DART to win one of the largest FFGAs in history; a reputation for bringing in our projects ahead of schedule and under budget."

Dallas City Councilwoman Pauline Medrano, who represents the Love Field area, said she is disappointed that the FTA would not consider amending DART's Full Funding Grant Agreement to connect the rail line directly to the airport terminal via a tunnel.

Green Line heart of DART expansion

The Green Line is the largest portion of an expansion that will lead to the doubling of DART's rail network to more than 90 miles by 2013. The first phase of the project extends southeast of downtown Dallas to Fair Park. That section is scheduled to open in September 2009. The remainder of the Green Line will open in December 2010.

When complete, the Green Line will serve several regional destinations, including Deep Ellum, Baylor University Medical Center, Victory Park, the Dallas Market Center, the UT Southwestern Medical District, Love Field Airport, and the cities of Farmers Branch and Carrollton.

A branch known as the Orange Line will extend from the Green Line in northwest Dallas to the Las Colinas Urban Center in North Irving in 2011, and to DFW International Airport by 2013. In addition, DART's Blue Line will be extended from Garland, east to Rowlett in 2012, and south to I-20 in 2018. And a second rail line will open in the Dallas Central Business District in 2013 to accommodate the completed 93-mile system. Altogether, the rail extensions are expected to add 60,000 weekday passenger trips, essentially doubling ridership.


-- 30 --

[Insidetheloop]

I'm glad that Laura Miller and the city council did not want to interrupt their "2 week spring break" and went ahead and caved to DART. Very professional of them just to say "Screw it".Can't be disturbed on something silly like running rail to the airport.

Why does Dallas always do everything so half assed?

20 years from now people will look back and ask what the hell were they thinking.

[ajmstilt]

I'm glad that Laura Miller and the city council did not want to interrupt their "2 week spring break" and went ahead and caved to DART. Very professional of them just to say "Screw it".Can't be disturbed on something silly like running rail to the airport.

Why does Dallas always do everything so half assed?

20 years from now people will look back and ask what the hell were they thinking.


I think 20 years form now people will look back and be gratefull Dallas has a comprehensive rail transit system. While it may take a people mover to get to Love Feild. We will have one of the best rail systems in the US. much better than Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tampa, etc.....

Does New York's system go to all it's airports? LA? Chicago? San Francisco? ...i really don't know

[Mballar]

Why doesn't somebody on the council propose a bond measure to cover the tunnel? Why isn't Miller pressing the state to kick in some coin for tunneling? Why is the FTA considered the only option? How can people who talked so much about "will power" last week, show so little of it this week?

[slfunk]

I think 20 years form now people will look back and be gratefull Dallas has a comprehensive rail transit system. While it may take a people mover to get to Love Feild. We will have one of the best rail systems in the US. much better than Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle, Detroit, Cincinnati, Tampa, etc.....

Does New York's system go to all it's airports? LA? Chicago? San Francisco? ...i really don't know

Well I believe JFK now has train linking it, but Newark is connected by a people mover like the skylink at DFW. Can speak for La Guardia. Atlanta has a rail link to its airport.

[UptownDallas]

Does New York's system go to all it's airports?

Yes to Newark, yes to JFK (via connection to high speed monorail), no to LaGuardia.


LA?

No, but they don't really have a viable system in the first place.


Chicago?

Yes to O'Hare; yes to Midway


San Francisco?
Yes.


Washington, D.C.?

Yes.


St. Louis?

Yes.


Philadelphia?

Yes.


Portland, Oregon?

Yes.


Minneapolis?

Yes.


Cleveland?

Yes.

[RobertB]

Why doesn't somebody on the council propose a bond measure to cover the tunnel? Why isn't Miller pressing the state to kick in some coin for tunneling? Why is the FTA considered the only option? How can people who talked so much about "will power" last week, show so little of it this week?
In case anyone forgot, the voters *just passed* a whopping number of bond measures totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. That may seem like free money, but it ain't. Every dollar spent is backed by a "bond", which is the city-level equivalent of a credit card. You have to pay it back. With interest.

Saying "Let's just have a bond measure" is like maxxing out your credit cards, and then saying "Let's just apply for another Visa card." It hurts you in two ways:

* You now have to pay back more, which really hurts because you only have enough income to cover the last batch of maxxed-out cards.

* You soon have to pay back still more, because your credit gets whammied if you take on more debt than you should. For people, your FICO score drops. For cities, the bond rating drops. In both cases, you end up paying higher interest on the money you already borrowed.

There's just no two ways about it; neither DART nor the City of Dallas has a spare $150 million lying around, and neither agency is in any condition to borrow it. Unless Southwest Airlines pulls the sword out of the stone, there will be no light rail tunnel under Love Field.

[PuddinHead]

Nice cynicism. But it kinda breaks down when reality intervenes.

The "average DART rider" goes to how many Mavericks and Stars games with their $50 ticket prices? I know I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a sports event. But enough folks do that the trains to Victory are nice 'n full, despite the developers' forcing the station into a less-than-ideal location.

DART Rail is attracting people to public transportation that don't typically ride the bus. That's a Good Thing.

And before we get all stereotypical about the "average DART rider", keep something in mind. Where *is* the "average DART rider" going? To work. Last I heard, that was also a Good Thing.


So now we have two kinds of DART riders then, those that have enough disposable income to ride the trains to games and concerts at the AAC the those without enough disposable income to ride the trains to games and concerts at the AAC.

So tell us which group is more representative of the average DART rider?


FYI,

on the results of the effort to place a subway station under Love Field

:roflmao2:

[RobertB]

So now we have two kinds of DART riders then, those that have enough disposable income to ride the trains to games and concerts at the AAC the those without enough disposable income to ride the trains to games and concerts at the AAC.

So tell us which group is more representative of the average DART rider?
In your case, I'd say it depends on which stereotype you're trying to push.

[PuddinHead]

In your case, I'd say it depends on which stereotype you're trying to push.


Good dodge, now why not answer the question?

[psukhu]

The average rail rider is different from the average DART rider.

I would say the same goes for most big cities with large rail systems.

[SuperAROD]

The City of Dallas loves to spend that coin doesn't it? $50 million on a football stadium where no games will be played, $150 million on a tunnel so that people don't have to board a people mover to go 200 yards from the train station to the airport entrance.

I am actually happy with the federal government for a change, for telling our wonderful city leaders no: You risk sacrificing $700 million for DART so that you can chunnel under Love Field to shave off 200 yards of people mover for an additional $150 million.

Laura Miller has done a grand total of 1 thing right in her entire tenure as mayor: Wright Amendment compromise. Other than that, siyanora.

[tamtagon]

FYI,

on the results of the effort to place a subway station under Love Field

:roflmao2:

hahaha

I always prefered an above ground train access to Love Field because the skyline view is great.

[PuddinHead]

Laura Miller has done a grand total of 1 thing right in her entire tenure as mayor: Wright Amendment compromise. Other than that, siyanora.

Nope she did not even get that right.

[sasquatch69]

Not to go completely off-topic, but I give LaMiller credit for the smoking ban - that's something she got right. It's very nice to go out to eat in town these days and not come home smelling like an ashtray. I wish they'd do the same in Richardson.

[SuperAROD]

PuddinHead, we should continue on another thread, but the results of what has happened since Wright was modified have been beyond anyone's expectations. Southwest's schedule has just completely blossomed, you can fly to about 80% of their entire system in one stop or less, and ticket prices have gone way down from DFW to those stops. AA is still making money.

Proof is in the pudding. Head.
Back to the DART station, the line is almost in the glidepath of the south runway, you cannot get any closer to the airport without spending $150 million dollars for a tunnel. There are about 5,000 better things than a chunnel to spend $150 million dollars on.

[desirous]

Laura Miller has done a grand total of 1 thing right in her entire tenure as mayor: Wright Amendment compromise. Other than that, siyanora.
It's "sayonara" - and in other news, boodgye!

How much did the Cityplace tunnel cost? Now, that tunnel is useless. Every time I pass through, less people are around than at the Parkland Hospital #44 bus stop. A Love Field tunnel would at least get decent patronage.

[PuddinHead]

PuddinHead, we should continue on another thread, but the results of what has happened since Wright was modified have been beyond anyone's expectations. Southwest's schedule has just completely blossomed, you can fly to about 80% of their entire system in one stop or less, and ticket prices have gone way down from DFW to those stops. AA is still making money.

Proof is in the pudding. Head.
Back to the DART station, the line is almost in the glidepath of the south runway, you cannot get any closer to the airport without spending $150 million dollars for a tunnel. There are about 5,000 better things than a chunnel to spend $150 million dollars on.


Oh yea everything is so much better than it was before, new non stop service, new airline service in the area, new destinations served, no new debt assumed by the city....... Oh wait; nothing really changed at all did it?

But hey we did get a City government that acts like silly marionettes everytime Southwest has a brain fart.

I.E. this inane last minute attempt to build the subway at Love Field.

But we do agree that a tunnel for Love Field subway service was and is a waste of money.

[RobertB]

It's "sayonara" - and in other news, boodgye!

How much did the Cityplace tunnel cost? Now, that tunnel is useless. Every time I pass through, less people are around than at the Parkland Hospital #44 bus stop. A Love Field tunnel would at least get decent patronage.
That's not exactly a fair comparison. Many of Parkland's patrons are transit-dependent, making it a big bus destination.

Nonetheless, you're right about Cityplace Station. The place is dead, with footsteps echoing down the empty platforms. Cityplace itself is not designed around the rail line -- it's a monolithic edifice built fortress-style, like Momentum Place (which, in another thread, is looking for ways to connect with the street that it previously spurned). They didn't even open the 7-11 in the lobby to transit patrons. The Target center behind Cityplace is easily accessible, but faces away from the building and station, because it was designed exclusively for auto-oriented development.

The tunnel under Central wasn't built for Cityplace's benefit, though. Cityplace just happened to be a handy spot to drop an escalator. Looking back, perhaps it would have been better to leave Cityplace Station unfinished, and build out Knox-Henderson Station instead?

[UptownDallas]

Oh yea everything is so much better than it was before, new non stop service, new airline service in the area, new destinations served, no new debt assumed by the city....... Oh wait; nothing really changed at all did it?

Nothing besides saving DFW air travellers millions of dollars and untold hours of wasted time.

[FoUTASportscaster]

How much did the Cityplace tunnel cost? Now, that tunnel is useless. Every time I pass through, less people are around than at the Parkland Hospital #44 bus stop. A Love Field tunnel would at least get decent patronage.

I've been to both and I wouldn't say that. Cityplace is a top 10 station in the LRT system based on ridership. I use it most everyday to get to the job in Turtle Creek.


Cityplace itself is not designed around the rail

That's not exactly true. When I was doing that research that I did over the summer, I ran across some articles from 1983, 5 years before the tower was built, that they wanted the rail line to be like it is today, connected to the building. There was a lot of bruhaha from douche's like Bill Cerblahblah that they were building the line for corporate and not public interest.


-- it's a monolithic edifice built fortress-style, like Momentum Place (which, in another thread, is looking for ways to connect with the street that it previously spurned). They didn't even open the 7-11 in the lobby to transit patrons. The Target center behind Cityplace is easily accessible, but faces away from the building and station, because it was designed exclusively for auto-oriented development.

Agreed


The tunnel under Central wasn't built for Cityplace's benefit, though. Cityplace just happened to be a handy spot to drop an escalator. Looking back, perhaps it would have been better to leave Cityplace Station unfinished, and build out Knox-Henderson Station instead?

First part again isn't true. Second part might be accurate, but we will never no.

[RobertB]

^^ Cool info, thanks!

[desirous]

Cityplace is in the top ten, but it certainly isn't the top one, which is what I would expect for the astronomical price that must have been paid. Now, how much was that tunnel? They should've saved the money for Love Field.