Arlington Transit - Critical May Vote...

[CTroyMathis]

One thing everyone can agree on: There's a lot at stake in May vote
03/15/2002
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News

It's crunch time for transit in Arlington. With the primary season over and the general election not until November, the political focus in Arlington has narrowed almost entirely to the May 4 city election. Voters will decide that day whether to raise the sales tax rate a quarter-cent to provide citywide public transportation in Arlington for the first time. Transit supporters and opponents alike say the issue is critical, and both groups present an image of Arlington at a crossroads. The consequence for a badly chosen path, they say, is serious, long-term decline. "If voters reject it, it will be a significant blow," council member Pat Remington said. "This is about a lot more than just creating a transportation system." Mr. Remington is a leader of Arlington in Motion, a pro-transit political action committee announced Thursday.

Bill Eastland, a veteran city activist who says he will lead efforts to defeat the transit plan, said his team's political action committee – SMART, for Sensible Mobility and Rail Transit – formed three weeks ago. "We are ready to go," he said. He expects to raise $10,000 to $15,000 to campaign against the May 4 transit referendum. His opponents plan to spend a good deal more. Mr. Remington said he expects Arlington in Motion to raise at least $75,000. Mr. Eastland said he has been told the group's anticipated budget is more than twice that. On Thursday, Arlington in Motion unveiled polling data that Mr. Remington said indicates strong support in all five of the city's political districts. "We asked very specific questions about this transit proposal, and even used the ballot language, and the poll shows at least 70 percent approval in all the districts," he said.

The poll was conducted by Raymond Turco & Associates and included a full sample of 607 historical and newly registered Arlington voters. Among its conclusions were that nearly 80 percent of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that the "time was right for Arlington to have public transportation." It has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. In addition to the polling data, the pro-transit group announced backing from community leaders such as the city parks board chairman and the president of the Arlington school board who are expected to lead the fight for transit. "In addition, we have support from every Chamber of Commerce in Arlington," Mr. Remington said. Robert Witt, president of the University of Texas at Arlington, has said the success of the transit proposal is essential to the city's future development.

Mr. Eastland's group and the grassroots organization Concerned Taxpayers of Arlington have different ideas. Chairman Bruce Deramus said Concerned Taxpayers of Arlington members don't oppose public transportation in Arlington, but say that the proposal – the first on the ballot in 17 years – is fatally flawed. "There is no question about the fact that there is some need out there," Mr. Deramus said. "There are disabled, infirm and poor people who really need a way to get to work, for instance. But it does not have to be on this large of a scale, and this is the message we have tried to get out over and over again." Once that message is delivered to voters, Mr. Deramus said, he is confident they will reject the plan. The current proposal would add flexible bus routes throughout the city, expand the door-to-door service for elderly and disabled residents and collect about $1.1 million a year for five years for a commuter rail referendum if that becomes feasible.

Mr. Remington said poll after poll has demonstrated that residents are in favor of transit and "extremely frustrated" by existing traffic problems. The referendum needed the support of the City Council to be placed on the ballot, but Mr. Remington said beyond that, the city's involvement with the pro-transit campaign is limited. What the city can do, he said, has already been done: printing a transit facts sheet for residents and publishing the details about the proposed bus routes and other transit information on its Web site, www.ci.arlington. tx.us. Mr. Eastland said all the polls in the world won't convince him that the transit plan will pass. Polls predicted that voters would approve the 1985 transit plan, as well as two Johnson Creek redevelopment proposals in more recent years. All three times, he pointed out, those polls were wrong. "This is a bad plan, and it won't pass," he said.

[CTroyMathis]

So, what do Arlington and Grand Prairie do?

Sit there and marinate in their highways' exhaust fumes and keep using sparse paratransit and what not? Are they regional players or not? Is it their city councils, or, is it their citizens enjoying the suburban respite and the illusion they are not part of the regional problem? Do they really think their huge void in the metroplex can go unserved by rail, bus, and what not for another decade or longer?

A regional transit authority is likely a long way off, but, a very pleasant idea for the grand regional scheme of transportation in lieu of a metropolitan area that certainly appears heading towards 6.5 million by 2010. 80 percent of those people do and likely will live in the Core Four. So, at the bare bones minimum, I question if Arlington and/or Grand Prairie will at least start (suggesting a joint agency here...) their own transit agency, since it doesn't appear they'll join existing ones.

What are your thoughts on the major void of transit between Dallas and Fort Worth?

(Yet another reason why Arlington and Grand Prairie could consolidate cities... ;))

[gc]

It is the residents. They are afraid that it will attract the "lower class" to Arlington and that it will not serve the majority of the residents.

It is ludacris!

[bloodandpopcorn]

Which is crazy, because there are already tons of "lower class" people in Arlington and Grand Prarie. Transit could bring the development that brings more "high class" people back into these cities.

[crescentboi]

I totally agree bloodandpopcorn. grand prairie and arlington are not exactly beautifull cities with huge amounts of class in my mind. most of the people i know who live in those cities with money come to dallas or go to fort worth to do anything. they need mass transit in the midcities area and through out that region. i think it would be great to create one large transit authority for the entire metroplex.

[gc]

grand prairie and arlington are not exactly beautifull cities with huge amounts of class in my mind. most of the people i know who live in those cities with money come to dallas or go to fort worth to do anything.

hey crescentboi, take it easy on Arlington.....that is forever my homeland. It is a wonderful bedroom community and a great place to live for raising a family or if one don't enjoy being in the city.....AND I don't think those statements are necessarily true.

BUT the residents need to wake up and smell the exhaust. Highways 360, I30, I20, 183 are all nightmares and will continue to worsen as the metroplex grows.

[smontgomery]

While we're on the subject, does anyone know why Mesquite is not a member of DART?

[gc]

That is a good question smontgomery. I believe DART offered all metroplex cities an opportunity to join the system. Perhaps the residents of Mesquite are as short-sighted and narrow-minded as Arlington and Grand Prairie in regards to mass transit?


With that said, what kind of campaign should be started to lobby the residents of Grand Prairie, Arlington, Mesquite, etc to jump on the "The T" or "DART" mass transit bandwagon?

[CTroyMathis]

For the love of ..., how could I forget MESQUITE in this thread. Ughh..maybe I was showing the frustration with A-GP a little too much... ;)

Make that, transit for 640,000 total as well now!

[bloodandpopcorn]

That's like, what, Fort Worth and a half? It's realy abhorrent that that many people have no means of using mass transit. I never really looked at numbers like that... But grouped together, you can see that (no matter how much progress our region has made with public transportation) we have such a terribly long and hard road ahead of us to provide DFW with the public transportation infastructure required for us to thrive.

[CTroyMathis]

Read this article and tell me what you think:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/7495266.htm

[gc]

blah blah blah to my hometown arlington.

get on the transit wagon while you still can.

[dallastophoenix]

i agree... it's almost like an attempt to cover their ignorance of abandoning mass transit w/ other "pollution-reducers" that the "other cities of the metro can follow..." give me a break!

Also, there are some very nice areas of arlington... it's just mostly an older bedroom community that needs mass transit (like light rail) to spur renovations in areas that need it...

geez, and i didn't know that about mesquite... c'mon, hicks, get w/ the mass transit program! (joke - i like mesquite).

[CTroyMathis]

Here's the article to start:

The ugly side of mass transit (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/ok_carter/10458883.htm?1c)

By O.K. Carter

Star-Telegram Staff Writer


Just about every time that a lot of people in Arlington began deciding that maybe being the only top-100 population U.S. city to not offer mass transportation just won't fly, ugly things in the world of M.T. begin to happen.

Consider recent events involving transit systems in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, the Big Apple and elsewhere. They've all been jacking up fares while also trimming services.

Having long ago tapped out their respective city budgets, transit services like those in Philadelphia and Chicago are now pleading with their legislatures for more financial assistance. While that's a dole that is generally supported by state lawmakers from those cities, communities elsewhere in those states can't figure out why they're supposed to help pay for mobility enhancements they don't benefit from.

As a result of the backlash, those state's lawmakers are now trying to figure out a way to use federal highway funds as part of the bailout.

If successful, of course, this would mean that highway funds were not really highway funds.

Other events in the world of mass transit are almost laughable, so long as the joke is on someone else.

For instance, a recent review of compensation practices involving New York City Transit Police revealed that some officers were doubling or tripling their compensation with assistance of overtime.

In King County, Wash., a review of a new system utilizing costly diesel-electric hybrid buses supposedly designed to dramatically cut operations costs revealed that the hybrids were actually using more fuel than the old buses they replaced.

And the jury is still out on a privatization effort involving an operator hired to run the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's garages and parking lots. According to a state audit, the good news was the transportation authority collected an additional $300,000 from the operator. The bad news was that the operator enriched himself in the process by $16 million.

In Philadelphia, the city's mayor threatened to sue the area mass-transit system if it raised fares to $3. The system board not only raised the fares, it announced plans to cut weekday services by 20 percent. So much for the myth of local control.

Not that other states have a lock on peculiar events involving transportation. In Texas, the governor and other lawmakers this past week were giving themselves high fives over the selection of a company that will build a $6 billion toll road linking San Antonio to Dallas-Fort Worth, part of Gov. Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor project.

The company? It's called Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte. If that sounds a trifle foreign, it's because the company is from Spain.

So instead of exporting jobs, the country is now importing foreign employers that will be profiting from tolls collected from American drivers for the next half-century.

From this vantage, this may be a slight improvement over the jobs-exporting problem -- but not by much.

Who makes these kinds of deals anyway, and why did we elect them?

But back to that mass-transit issue. Around the country, Arlington has become something of a joke in connection with its reticence to make an investment in buses or passenger rail.

But given the problems and the general tendency for special interests to feed at this particular public trough, maybe it's the Arlington folks who are having the loudest laugh of all.

[RobertB]

I almost feel as though OK Carter, who has a great talent for poking a stick into just the right spot in the ant mound, had to cut his article short. Or perhaps not -- he also tends to expect his readers to think more than a couple of minutes about his points.

My thought after not much more than a couple of minutes: it's not that public transit systems aren't essential, it's just that they've been subject to the same sort of greed and corruption that any essential service tends to attract. It's not exclusive to government -- ask anyone who's tried to get a SW Bell repairman to admit that the problem is on their side of the junction box. And Carter's discussion of the Perry boondoggle shows that "traditional" highway projects are subject to the same problems.

Any full discussion of transit options must include the downsides pointed out in Carter's piece. It would be nice, though, if disucssions of highway options would also include the hidden problems, like the costs of policing, runoff, and sprawl.

[tamtagon]

communities elsewhere in those states can't figure out why they're supposed to help pay for mobility enhancements they don't benefit from.

That's a very dangerous and ignorant arguement for these communities. If rural communities manage to block additional funding for big city public transportation, these rural communities may open the door to jacked up tolls on highways crossing through the middle of nowhere, utility company surcharges, and any number of nickel-&-dime add-on charges based on the higher operational costs outside of the big city. It's counter intuitive to many happy with small town living, but inexpensive public transportation in the city benefits everyone, not just the people on the bus/train.

[aceplace]

That's a very dangerous and ignorant arguement for these communities. If rural communities manage to block additional funding for big city public transportation, these rural communities may open the door to jacked up tolls on highways crossing through the middle of nowhere, utility company surcharges, and any number of nickel-&-dime add-on charges based on the higher operational costs outside of the big city. It's counter intuitive to many happy with small town living, but inexpensive public transportation in the city benefits everyone, not just the people on the bus/train.Good point, Tam. The smaller outlying communities are definitely draining funds from the cities. They don't have the economies of scale that a metro does.

A good counter-argument to the rural community's claim may be... seperate all state taxes paid by business and consumers in the DFW area and spend it only within DFW. A road from DFW to Houston will be paid for jointly by DFW and Houston taxpayers, but it will have no off-ramps... local communities who don't pay don't get to use it.

Sound familiar? That's exactly how a transit agency like DART is currently funded.

[CTroyMathis]

Yes sir(s.)

[aceplace]

Maybe Arlington has a good point...

A municipality should not have to fund transit.... it should be a regional or county responsibility.

That's the way it is in big cities. For example, in the SF Bay Area, AC Transit serves Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It is funded by a county district that collects a county sales tax and the people elect board members by transit districts... individual municipalities like Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, etc, are not responsible for funding it, and have no control over it. In fact, regional transportation, whether freeways, buses or rail, are not considered to be a municipal responsibility.

If Arlington were surrounded by 50 miles of country land beyond its borders, and it had a downtown that drew heavy commuter traffic, then combining the municipal government and a transit district would make sense.

But that's not the case. Arlington is just an administrative division of a metro area with almost 6 million people. It has a heavy commuter load outside of its jurisdiction in the morning and back again at night.

I'd say that Arlington is following the logically realistic and appropriate policy in refusing to fund a transit agency.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

When are they going to stop being stubborn and just join DART?

[aceplace]

When are they going to stop being stubborn and just join DART?Never.

Arlington joining DART makes as much sense as DART joining Arlington. They are separate state-chartered agencies with different roles, just as Tarrant County and Arlington are separate units of government with different roles.

Arlington, or any other municipality, should be separate from DART. It should not have to join DART.

So how is DART to be funded? By countywide sales taxes, covering one or more counties. How is it to be governed? By a governing board elected by the people.

Who creates this regional body? The Texas legislature.

What does Arlington do with its tax moneys? Spend it on projects that are specific to Arlington.

[texman]

If Arlington were surrounded by 50 miles of country land beyond its borders, and it had a downtown that drew heavy commuter traffic, then combining the municipal government and a transit district would make sense.

But that's not the case. Arlington is just an administrative division of a metro area with almost 6 million people. It has a heavy commuter load outside of its jurisdiction in the morning and back again at night.

I'd say that Arlington is following the logically realistic and appropriate policy in refusing to fund a transit agency.

But cant a transit agency also help get people out of the area? Like DCTA, when they provide commuter rail to Carollton, Its connecting people to Dallas, out of Denton

[aceplace]

But cant a transit agency also help get people out of the area? Like DCTA, when they provide commuter rail to Carollton, Its connecting people to Dallas, out of DentonArlington sees no urgent need to fund this out of its municipal revenues. Any more than it funds access to DFW airport out of its revenues.

In the future, if there were regional commuter rail crossing Arlington, to Dallas and Collin Counties, say, and the Arlington-Grand Prairie area wanted feeder bus service to commuter stations, it should lobby its transit district board member to put them there.

An analogous situation. What if there were not enough Drivers License testing stations in the Arlington area? Is the municipality going to statr testing drivers and issuing licenses? No.

[texman]

municipality

I think you love that word, you say it in every post, haha.

[aceplace]

I think you love that word, you say it in every post, haha.I have to. That's exactly what Arlington is. A municipality. And that is the term that is the least ambiguous, the most clear.

When you realize that it is just a municipal government, you can accept the reality of it having a limited role in the scheme of things.

And running a transit system over a metro area, with its interlocking commute patterns, is absolutely beyond the scope of a municipality like Arlington. A situation that it is wise enough to understand.

So Arlington's wise outlook is this... if the State of Texas sees fit to create a transit district across the DFW Metroplex, with a separate taxing authority, it will do so. If the state chooses not to, Arlington will not take on that burden.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

So, ace, your solution is for Arlington to completely ignore it's own need for mass transit until the state forms a DFW transit district?

Note: The state is NEVER going to make a DFW transit district. Our dear state isn't that forward thinking. DART has existed for 20 years, and before that it was a mishmash of transit agencies. In all this time we haven't had a transit district.

Now, if Arlington is wise and realizes that letting me have the ability to ride the train to Six Flags will make me go to Six Flags much, much more often.....

[rantanamo]

pfft at this article

[The Great Hizzy!]

Arlington's in a tough spot (much of it self-created).

1) Transit is more expensive to implement AND operate nowadays because a) Transit professionals are earning more money today (as a rate) than they did, say, 25-30 years ago, b) Construction costs are higher now, and c) Federal funding is more stringent.

2) It would be of less burden on Arlington tax payers if they did join DART or "The T" but they would get less in services than what they need (see my point #1a-c about rising transit costs). DART can't expand services too fast or too soon, especially since they just had to go through a string of layoffs themselves (a growing problem across the nation).

3) White Collar firms are savvy, and they're less likely to locate their firms in your area if they believe transit options, be they private or public, are limited.

4) This relates to #3. Since you have a less than burgeoning white collar job market coming to town, you can expect YOUR existing residents to be taking white collar jobs in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Irving, Richardson, Addison, Plano, etc. So in essence, a good portion of the money you would be willing to spend on transit would be going towards helping your residents go to jobs in other municipalities.

All this is why procrastination usually leads to even bigger problems.

"You can pay me now or you can pay me later... but you're gonna pay me."

[mikedsjr]

The key word in that article was "SPECIAL INTERESTS". When you see those two words used together it means "we've sucked in the people and lets now screw'em".

[mikedsjr]

Another word I just love. "Forward Thinking". Such a fad word.

[rantanamo]

Arlington's in a tough spot (much of it self-created).

1) Transit is more expensive to implement AND operate nowadays because a) Transit professionals are earning more money today (as a rate) than they did, say, 25-30 years ago, b) Construction costs are higher now, and c) Federal funding is more stringent.

2) It would be of less burden on Arlington tax payers if they did join DART or "The T" but they would get less in services than what they need (see my point #1a-c about rising transit costs). DART can't expand services too fast or too soon, especially since they just had to go through a string of layoffs themselves (a growing problem across the nation).

3) White Collar firms are savvy, and they're less likely to locate their firms in your area if they believe transit options, be they private or public, are limited.

4) This relates to #3. Since you have a less than burgeoning white collar job market coming to town, you can expect YOUR existing residents to be taking white collar jobs in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Irving, Richardson, Addison, Plano, etc. So in essence, a good portion of the money you would be willing to spend on transit would be going towards helping your residents go to jobs in other municipalities.

All this is why procrastination usually leads to even bigger problems.

"You can pay me now or you can pay me later... but you're gonna pay me."
Bingo, we have a winner.

I'd add that Arlington's congestion is and will never be mutually exclusive to the rest of the metroplex. If you're causing my city congestion problem, you are costing my city money.

[RobertB]

Bingo, we have a winner.

I'd add that Arlington's congestion is and will never be mutually exclusive to the rest of the metroplex. If you're causing my city congestion problem, you are costing my city money.
... therefore, my city can blame you for all our problems. That way, my city's leaders can wash their hands of any reponsibility, and give $300 million to some bozo with a football team. At least, that's how it seems to work if "my city" == "Arlington, TX".

[Mballar]

Well said Hizzy.

[texman]

hahaha, nice robertb.

[rantanamo]

... therefore, my city can blame you for all our problems. That way, my city's leaders can wash their hands of any reponsibility, and give $300 million to some bozo with a football team. At least, that's how it seems to work if "my city" == "Arlington, TX".
Actually when I was saying, "my city" I was referring to GP, FW, Dallas, etc that recieve the backups from bad infrastructure in Arlington. For them or any other city in the metroplex to not work on their transportation/congestion needs means they are causing other to lose money. I'm just saying, everyone should do their part.

[tamtagon]

^Ya, taxes collected by DART should come from Dallas and Collin County residents. Similar tax should be collected from Tarrant and Denton County residents to pay for the construction of DART light rail compatable service on the west side of the metroplex.

Q. What happens when all the tracks are built and there is no new construction, does the tax paid to the transportation agency decrease to the amount needed to cover operational & upgrade costs?

-I dont really see this tax going away, ever, there will be new member cities with new tracks to plan (like a route from Frisco to the CBD), but once the trains are up and running to Pleasant Hill, DFW Airport, Farmers Branch,

Q. Can we expect new routes will have dramatically quicker delivery since resources will not be divided among different projects.

-The residents of Farmers Branch will have paid into the fund 25-30 before they receive service, yet potentially, Frisco, McKinney, or Grand Prairie residents may pay into the fund for less than 10 years before train service is a reality. Does this represent an imbalance???

[rantanamo]

remember, DART is more than rail service. Those paying in for all those years have had bus service forever.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Well, even if new member cities get their train service faster, it will still be in the best interest of the cities that have been paying for a long time. The more places DART serves, the more people will use it to get to member cities, new or old.

[gc]

Rail could offer plenty to Arlington
By Nolan Finley - The Detroit News
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/13916656.htm

There's been little to no public buzz about it, but a healthy cross section of the powers that be in Arlington would really, truly like to figure out some way to bring passenger rail to the city in time for the 2009 opening of the Cowboys stadium. The problems in doing this can easily be summarized. Those problems are, with no ranking intended, thus: Dallas, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, the Union Pacific Railroad and money. As a subset of money, it would be smart to include Arlington voters who have historically and repeatedly turned down transportation issues. More on those problems momentarily, but first there's this: It doesn't take much in the way of genius to conclude that accessing the middle of Arlington by passenger rail opens up a whole new grab bag of possibilities. Need we hit you in the head?

A new mode of public access to the 100 or so events that will take place annually at the stadium, including Cowboys games, conventions, concerts and quite likely a future Super Bowl and -- why not? -- maybe the Cotton Bowl down the road. Would the Rangers like passenger rail access to their 82 home games, plus playoffs, plus maybe a World Series someday? It's so obvious that it sort of sounds like a stupid question, doesn't it? Would a town center that Rangers owner Tom Hicks plans to build -- a facility that would include retail, offices and condos -- benefit from passenger rail proximity? Absolutely, as would attractions like Six Flags and Hurricane Harbor. And while those perks are certainly nice for the already wealthy owners of those attractions, the big question for future voters has to be a logical one: What's in it for them?

It's a fair question. To start with, based on census calculations, there are 115,000 people who commute out of Arlington to work Monday through Friday, with rail only requiring a small section of those people to make the thing viable. In fact, according to a recent census study, Arlington has the third-most residents whose commute to work takes them out of the city than any city of more than 250,000 in the entire country. It also has 70,000 workers commuting into the city every day. Would they all use rail? Of course not. But a substantial number would. Could passenger rail moving through the middle of the city also serve as a redevelopment catalyst for the downtown area? For Division Street and East Abram Street? For increased Convention Center and hotel business? Would it make UT-Arlington much more attractive and accessible for more students, who would then provide more motivation for central city redevelopment?

Even the most cranky and rabid members of the anti-transit crowd would have to concede that, yes indeed, passenger rail would dramatically improve the chances of all those things happening. Oh, those problems? Either DART in Dallas or the T in Fort Worth would have to be a participant in this process, which means things get very political in a hurry. In general, DART wants a lot more money, and it also wants Arlington to get in the back of the line for rail service. But DART also has much more experience running rail systems. Grand Prairie? As usual, it's a town in the way. It's not a member of DART, and having passenger rail would offer it few of the perks that Arlington would enjoy, which is to say there's no university that would be served, nor are rail lines in proximity to giant tourist attractions as they are in Arlington. In short, there's very little motivation for Grand Prairie to get involved.

So one of the intriguing possibilities bouncing around -- just a concept -- is a passenger rail connection from Fort Worth to Arlington, with the connection to Dallas coming in a roundabout way through a link to the Trinity Railway Express. The advantages of this is that it would require only a few miles of rail on existing Union Pacific right of way and it could be accomplished relatively quickly, particularly if passenger trains with new diesel technology are used instead of the more costly electric systems. The snag with that idea? Like Arlington voters, Union Pacific will want to know how it will benefit. Clearly its busy and already overused commercial lines can't be burdened with additional passenger rail lines. But there's also room along the right of way for at least a couple of more lines, which if Union Pacific were also allowed to use -- today's computerized switching is a thing to behold -- might well be an incentive.

The idea could be blue-sky dreaming, but in reality, unless some kind of partnering takes place along the right of way, the whole idea is pretty much scotched. Where would the money come from? Some from the federal government, some from the state -- recollect that voters statewide recently approved funding for a massive rebuild or relocation of existing rail lines. But otherwise recognize that Arlington still has room to raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent. That's $10 million a year now, and presumably a lot more once the stadium and town center open. There's also the possibility of asking the Legislature for permission to raise the sales tax even higher. The odds on any of the above happening by 2009? Getting it done that fast would involve a level of collaborative regional leadership with a skill level not-so-far demonstrated. But some of these ideas will begin surfacing in a more public way -- the trial balloons going up -- very soon now. Getting it done by 2012 to 2015? It's absolutely doable.

[FoUTASportscaster]

It's a good article and makes sense, which means it won't happen in Arlington. One thing people don't mention because no one will say and it hard to prove, but I believe is truely the case is this: Many people in Arlington don't want the "undesireables" that are precieved to come with mass transit. That alone forces several to vote no.

[AndyIvey]

The preception that Dallas gets all of DART's attention doesn't help. It is easy to forget about all Dallas sacrificed to bring these services to the area.

[Tnekster]

Many people in Arlington don't want the "undesireables" that are precieved to come with mass transit. That alone forces several to vote no.

They already live and work there.

[gc]

They already live and work there.

Which is true of every city.

[FoUTASportscaster]

No arguement here, but Arlington is still living in the suburban mind set of the '50's where they try to isolate themselves from everything else.

[RobertB]

No arguement here, but Arlington is still living in the suburban mind set of the '50's where they try to isolate themselves from everything else.
I strongly suspect that Arlington really does want to see itself as an island -- a lower-budget Park Cities. Its big attractions aren't for the locals, after all -- there are probably more Arlington residents working at Six Flags than riding the rides.

I'm afraid that Arlington will continue to reject public transportation connectivity with the rest of the Metroplex out of fear. Do they see local access to the Ballpark, Jerryworld, and Six Flags as a Good Thing? No, I think they see a rail line to Six Flags bringing in kids from Oak Cliff, South Dallas, and Stop Six -- and the people who have convinced themselves that "those people" don't already live in Arlington will continue to oppose the concept.

Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for the rest of us), poor folks' votes and off-white folks' votes count just as much as theirs do. Demographics should bring Arlington and Grand Prairie into the transit fold eventually. The only question is when -- if it's soon, then the cities will prosper, but if it's 30 years from now, the rest of the Metroplex will have passed them by.

Sadly, the latter scenario seems the most likely. Grand Prairie's mayor crows about the SH 161 project as being like I-635 in North Dallas. I now see that he's right: it's *exactly* like I-635. It's a solution that's 30 years out of date. If Mayor England had real vision, he'd be looking at Plano, Garland, Irving, and Carrollton -- suburbs pinning their hopes on rails, not roads. I'm afraid the best hope for my former home is if Arlington's leadership sees the light, and drags Grand Prairie kicking and screaming into the future.

[B-chan]

As an Arlington resident and a daily TRE commuter to/from Dallas, I heartily support rail for Arlington as part of a regional transit system. We have the rails already -- the UP line -- and plenty of open space downtown to build a truly spectacular station. We can come up with the money, and DART and the T are ready with the plans. All that is needed is the public will.

This is where the problem lies. A large portion of Arlington's civically-active population lives in the primarily-white new development areas south of I-20, and, while fine folks, these car-oriented commuters generally do not see the need for local rail service (especially if the station were to be placed in "dangerous, dirty" central Arlington); . In addition, many residents of south Arlington may fear that linking our city to the T or DART via rail would be equivalent to placing the discharge grate of an open sewer right at their front doors. "The Parks Mall is already overrun by outsiders from Grand Prairie and Duncanville", they reason; "Why should we pay our money to bring trainloads more from Dallas and Fort Worth"?

I do not mean to disparage these folks and their worries. Crime and class conflict are valid areas of concern for all of us. Nobody wants crowds of gangsters (of any skin tone) roaming the streets of Arlington, least of all me. As a family man and a property owner, I too am concerned about the possibility of social disruption caused by the intersection of middle-class people (of whatever color) with ghetto folk (regardless of race). What my fearful fellow citizens need to realize, however, is that the racial/class problems they anticipate as a result of the presence of public transit to Arlington simply have not materialized when the train has arrived elsewhere in the DFW area. For example, the extension of DART rail service to northern Richardson and Plano has not caused any race riots or gang wars or crime sprees or housing value crashes of which I am aware; to the contrary, real estate values along the lines and near the stations are skyrocketing, both north and south of I-635. This is not theory; this is cold statistical fact. Besides, unlike those communities north of LBJ, Arlington has a good ethnic mix in place; our city has a long history of blacks, whites, Latinos, and Asians living together in peace, thus reducing the possibilities of cultural shock between "outsiders" and residents (which again has not been a problem elsewhere). Add to that Arlington's relative lack of destinations with ghetto appeal and the basically working- and middle-class orientation of the fine people of our community and it's easy to see that the supposed danger of increased crime and cultural friction as a result of establishing commuter rail service to Arlington is likely highly overrated.

I believe that there are many benefits to having a commuter rail line in Arlington, and that the problems that establishing that service might create can be planned for and mitigated. How best, then, to see that the trains come here? One course of action is to make it plain to our local governments that we want rail in Arlington. Concerted lobbying action on the part of Arlingtonians like myself who want to see our city integrated into the regional rail network is vital. What is even more necessary, however, is that we make the people of our town aware of the benefits of public transportation. After all, in the end, the voters of our city will decide if Arlington ever enjoys commuter rail service; unless we can convince our fellow citizens of the necessity and benefit of linking Arlington the the rest of the region via rail, all the lobbying in the world will be fruitless.

To this end, I propose a hearts-and-minds public information campaign to show the rail-phobic citizens in our city the positive aspects of our having a train linking to the region. With a little planning, some (donated) creative work, and a bit of cash, billboards, radio spots, editorials, and perhaps posters could be created and presented to the public for this purpose.

Any thoughts or ideas from the board regarding this topic would be welcome. Thank you all for your time and attention.

[gc]

Well said my friend.

[FoUTASportscaster]

A lot of the problem is that there isn't a rail phobia, as much as there is a bus phobia. One person told me he'd vote for a train, but not a bus. That's where the the "undesirables" come from.

[jdwillis]

What my fearful fellow citizens need to realize, however, is that the racial/class problems they anticipate as a result of the presence of public transit to Arlington simply have not materialized when the train has arrived elsewhere in the DFW area. For example, the extension of DART rail service to northern Richardson and Plano has not caused any race riots or gang wars or crime sprees or housing value crashes of which I am aware

Several years ago my wife had her car broken into while it was parked in the portion of the Northpark development that is on the eastern side of Central. The thief stole the radio (doing a fair amount of damage to the interior of the car while stealing said radio), a Stetson of some sentimental value, and some other odds and ends. The police officer who responded, yes a DPD officer did respond and they took fingerprints and we later got a response (only one) from DPD saying they got a hit off those prints, stated outright that the thief was most likely using DART rail as a means of getting from wherever he was from to this area as they had seen a sharp increse in this kind of activity since rail went in.

I don't make any conclusions based on this information. I just report the facts in this case. That's what happened and that's what the officer said. So DART can have some impact on local crime, at least according to one officer who was in a position to know based on his expereince.

Take this for what it's worth...

[rantanamo]

could just as easily drive over with some friends and break into cars. I'd call that the "traditional" method.