Uptown subway?

[RobertB]

In the "Downtown Subway" topic, there's a lot of discussion of extending the routes to Uptown. But what exactly should the Uptown subway do for the area? What needs to be connected to what?

For the downtown routings, I had the dallassky.com map to guide me. It includes every building in the downtown core, with skyscrapers highlighted. The streets are drawn to scale. The map isn't perfect, especially on the periphery, but it gave me what I needed to make a phased, doable plan for a downtown subway.

Does someone have a similarly detailed map of Uptown, with info on current and future land use? We can draw lines on aerial photos all day, but without additional information, we're just twiddling our thumbs.

[jsoto3]

For me, it all started with a need to fill the gap in service (with a direct route) to North Dallas and points beyond. Then I figured that the route may as well serve the densest neighborhoods in Dallas (Uptown) and reinforce their stability and growth. As far as good maps, I don't have any and don't know where to get one similar to the one found at DallasSky. But I am pretty good at interpreting aerial photos, so I like to use them. Uptown is a very difficult area to serve with transit. As Barry pointed out, it is very broad and will probably eventually need an east-west 'cross-town' route. But it is not yet dense enough (if it ever really will be) to support two rail alignments (north-south) to serve its broad swath. A single alignment will have to be a very studied compromise, never really serving the area as best as mutiple aligmnents would. Frankly, I am surprised we have seen nothing out of DART on this. I look foward to your proposals Robert . . .

[RobertB]

Here's one site with essential information:

http://www.katytraildallas.com/home.htm

Any subway line will certainly want to connect in some sensible way with the trail, which will (surely!) be a major feature of the area by the time we can even consider funding an Uptown line.

The site has maps that show the trail and the area's parks quite well, but they don't do much to show the additional context.

Did DART ever consider running LRT between Downtown and Mockingbird via the old Katy tracks, instead of in a subway? I wonder how things would have been different if they had? The downtown transit mall certainly increases DART's visibility... I suspect LRT might have been ignored if it hadn't become a major feature of downtown.

[RobertB]

I've got a question: do we really have to run a subway to give LRT to Uptown?

Assuming LRT takes off -- and if we've just spent $600 million on the downtown subway net, that's probably a fair assumption. That means that Dallasites like the idea of rail as an alternative to vehicles. Do they like it enough, though, to give up a street for it?

Attached is a dfwmaps.com aerial montage of Hall Street, from US 75 near Cityplace to the Dallas North Tollway. North of Hall is Lemmon, just a block south is Cedar Springs -- two likely transit-friendly areas.

Here's the radical idea: what if we run surface LRT down Hall? It starts with a branch off of the existing subway just south of Cityplace Station. The transition to surface has to be done just right, because we're doing it in Freedman's Cemetary. But with Hall Street now closed, the environmental impact will be a net positive, especially with proper architecture.

Then, follow Hall all the way to the Tollway. I've got to look on the ground, but it looks like a lot of multi-family and office until we get to Douglas/Wycliffe. The line would end -- with possible expansion via subway under Lemmon -- at the park created by the Tollway ramps.

This is a two-mile spur, and as a surface line with elevated segments, it's theoretically possible to build today. But I'm quite sure that facts on the ground will prove this to be much more difficult than it appears from the air.

Note: both maps are of the same area at the same scale, but the one with the whitespace is about a third smaller (270k vs 413k).

[Foucault]

I've got a question: do we really have to run a subway to give LRT to Uptown?

Assuming LRT takes off -- and if we've just spent $600 million on the downtown subway net, that's probably a fair assumption. That means that Dallasites like the idea of rail as an alternative to vehicles. Do they like it enough, though, to give up a street for it?
Well, I don't think the digging up of dead people would go too well.

[zigwamo]

I like the idea. Foucault--you are joking, right?! The street is already there right through the cemetary. The road is currently too narrow to properly serve a lot of car traffic anyway (and in horrible shape between McKinney and Central). BUT--there are some new Perry homes right on Hall (facing it). Those homeowners would never want DART trains zooming right in front of them (and who could blame them).

[Columbus Civil]

Once they're dead, they're no longer people; they're just bodies.

[jsoto3]

I won't yet discount the potential for surface LRT through Uptown. But the problem I see with this alignment is that is runs right down what is essentially a small residential street (North of McKinney), is blocks from the primary nodes of Uptown, and has very few potential station locations. I think it would serve relatively few people. And the logistics of tying into the existing subway line 150ft below Central could be a nightmare and pose significant cost implications.

[RobertB]

I won't yet discount the potential for surface LRT through Uptown. But the problem I see with this alignment is that is runs right down what is essentially a small residential street (North of McKinney), is blocks from the primary nodes of Uptown, and has very few potential station locations. I think it would serve relatively few people. And the logistics of tying into the existing subway line 150ft below Central could be a nightmare and pose significant cost implications.
Oops... I didn't think about that at all. Between Cityplace and downtown, the line has had a couple of miles to come up to street level. My drawing brings it from its deepest point to the surface in a couple of blocks!

Considering the other comments, is this area (Lemmon from Cityplace to the Tollway) really dense enough for LRT, above or below ground? Or should we concentrate more on the high-rise condo area closer to the downtown core?

I think I must have fallen victim to line-on-a-map-itis, the classic disease of 1960's urban planners. It's a disease that sometimes wipes out entire neighborhoods if left unchecked. :)

[jsoto3]

As I said before, I can't believe this isn't one of the first routes DART planned. This area is the densest and most conducive/friendly to LRT in all of Dallas. With the extension up to Addisson, North Dallas, Frisco, Plano, and Gods knows (and I fear) what points North this line could arguably be the most successful in the entire system. Anyway, I think the line needs to pretty much parallel McKinney up to Lemmon and then take Lemmon North to the Tollway, just as I proposed in the downtown subway thread (image reattached for convenience). I feel that this alignment (if a single line is the only option) is as close to ideal, in terms of access and coverage (not necessarily cost), as can be. And of course it necessitates a subway. As far as the number and spacing of stations, I figured that if you are going to build a very expensive subway you may as well have as many stations as possible to serve the area the best as possible. I would propose that there be an express train from points North of the Tollway station that skips all but one or two of the stations in Uptown proper for quick and convenient access to Downtown for suburban commuters.

I get the impression you are not too familiar with Uptown Robert. Please correct me if I am wrong. Fellow Uptowners/Downtowners, please confirm or refute my sentiments with examples. Thanks . . . .

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1236/dallasuptownsubwayproposal1yj.th.jpg (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dallasuptownsubwayproposal1yj.jpg)

[bloodandpopcorn]

Cityplace cost $50 mil, right? so if it's the same for this line, in addition to drilling the tunnel and laying all the tracks, it's going to be 9*$50 mil, $450 mil, just for the stations. If we could reduce it to 7 stations (no Field station, put a station between Fairmount and Allen instead of having those two stations, for example) then it would be $100 mil more feasible, and still offer great service. People wouldn't mind walking or taking the trolley for half a mile, or probably even more, in Uptown, I don't think, so I think reducing the number of stations could be done without much damage to the line's effectiveness. I totally agree with the alignment and everything else you've said, though.

[rjlevins]

I'd skip Field, Cole, and Wycliffe too.

[RobertB]

I'd skip Field, Cole, and Wycliffe too.
I think you want to end up with a station in downtown, but not neccesarily at Field. Here's an alternative routing for the part of the Uptown line that connects to the existing (heh) Downtown subway loop. Run it down Pearl, all the way down to the station by the East Transfer Center (I called it Carpenter Station, after the nearby park). This lets you have a Meyerson Center Station!

However, going under Pearl has its drawbacks. You have to get deep enough to go below the San Jacinto line, which may make your Meyerson Center Station deeper than you'd really like.

So I tried a routing down Field... it actually needs to turn down Griffin in order to make a smooth junction with the loop. There's no underground crossing required for this route.

Then I noticed that you could easily (and somewhat artistically) put those lines together! I present to you... The Uptown Loop. It's a connection to downtown for whatever surface or subway route you put together. Just run your line to the loop, and you're in. About 2 miles, five stations... call it $350 million bucks for an Uptown starter system.

Downtown and Uptown together are less than a billion! It just sounds so easy! :)

One big question for jsoto3: where are you running that line between Harwood Station and Cole Station? I don't see any street between Cedar Springs and McKinney Ave, and I don't think DART will want to negotiate with every single landowner if it cuts between them.

(Source map from Yahoo! Maps (http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?csz=Dallas%2C+TX+75201&state=TX&uzip=75201&ds=n&name=&desc=&ed=dizIeup_0To7TQvfgPBQ06FQfjQjnc_uSSkdwufEpbkL9A0 nHZXpfMknA2LUvbOdS_SqyVDTJhMkrJtmLERFLCJ5Ciw_E78Um eJpm1w-&zoomin=no&BFKey=&mag=9&resize=l))

[jsoto3]

My proposal illustrates the problem that Uptown poses:

1. Do you do cut and cover and align with McKinney?
or
2. Do you cut and cover and align with Cedar Springs?
(Both streets are very dense and each is one half of the ridership catchment area.)
or
3. Do you split the difference as I have done with a deep-bore subway with station entrances at both McKinney and Cedar Springs (just like at Cityplace, each being one of the NCX frontage roads).

I say bite the bullet and go with option 3, it has the most bang for the buck.

[RobertB]

My proposal illustrates the problem that Uptown poses:

1. Do you do cut and cover and align with McKinney?
or
2. Do you cut and cover and align with Cedar Springs?
(Both streets are very dense and each is one half of the ridership catchment area.)
or
3. Do you split the difference as I have done with a deep-bore subway with station entrances at both McKinney and Cedar Springs (just like at Cityplace, each being one of the NCX frontage roads).

I say bite the bullet and go with option 3, it has the most bang for the buck.
I think we're really overestimating the length of those entryways. Sure, we can build walking tunnels from here to Doomsday, but anything we dig that's longer than absolutely neccesary is another million bucks into a hole in the ground.

Attached is a picture that should help us get a sense of scale. On top is an aerial view of Cityplace. I've circled the kiosk where the west escalator comes up, and the corresponding spot on the east side where the escalator comes up into the building. That's what I'd call a "optimum spacing at maximum depth" -- the exits are at a "natural" distance for a station that deep. You could get them closer or farther away, but these are at a medium distance.

On the bottom is an aerial view of The Crescent, where McKinney and Cedar Springs come closest to each other. I've overlaid the circles from Cityplace, and they work pretty nicely at that corner. But the routes diverge, and by the time you get to the top of the picture -- about a quarter mile -- the station exits are already a good block from each street.

That's the main reason why I've made most of my subway exits pretty close to the stations themselves. Unless there's a really good reason -- like a very wide highway directly above your station -- I don't think you want to cut through any more rock than you have to.

[jsoto3]

Yeah, I thought that might be excessive too. That's why, just in case, I put the stations directly below cross streets so that they can atleast be approached from either Cedar Springs or McKinney. I still think there should be separate entrances, as far apart as possible, instead of a single entrance. Atleast this way you feel like you have reached that station a block sooner than you otherwise would have.

Looking at the aerial photo (and just knowing the area):

1. Harwood Station definitely works (entrances on Cedar Springs and McKinney).
2. Fairmount Station has entrances on Fairmount within a block and half of each street.
3. Allen Station probably only needs a single entrance, preferable directly above it.
4. Cole Station depends on the geometry of the curve towards Lemmon and the exact placement of the station. I'm thinking probably just a single entrance at Cole and Lemmon (Eastbound).
5. Oak Lawn Station (cut and cover), 4 entrances, 1 at each corner.
6. Wycliffe Station, same as Oak Lawn.
7. Tollway (needs a better name) is likely an aerial station with 2 entrances, 1 on each side of the tollway.

But I am starting to be sold on the idea that there are too many stations in my proposal. I'll have to think carefully about how they can be consolidated . . .

[freewaytincan]

Just make a Crescent station.

[RobertB]

For what it's worth, re: the "Uptown Loop" subway routing. I drive down the Woodall Rodgers twice a day, and my Pearl Street leg has one interesting glitch. It's gotta be deep! Not only does it need to go below the Phase 1 downtown line, but it has to go below Woodall Rodgers, which is at its deepest point at Pearl.

That may not be a bad thing. There was no way to make that a cut-and-cover line in the first place -- that would shut down Pearl entirely for the entire duration of the project. In theory, it's no harder to bore 100 feet underground than to bore 30 feet below the surface... but in theory, we'd already *have* a subway system.

The most complex (read: expensive) thing about that depth is the Meyerson Center Station. That close to Woodall Rodgers, we're probably looking at a Cityplace-style design, with loooong approaches. However, that does give the architects and designers a chance to make the station visually striking, a grand entrance to the jewels of Dallas' arts district.

However, I'm guessing that Phase 1 of a future Uptown subway project will follow the simpler alignment, from The Crescent around to Field Street, merging with the downtown line just before El Centro/West End. It will be tempting to just run the line straight down Cedar Springs and McKinney straight into Field, but running Phase 1 around that loop will preserve the option of adding the line down Pearl in the future without a painful bend.

[freewaytincan]

You can't worry about it being "too deep". I believe Moscow has the deepest one in the world, and I don't know how deep it is. I know that Portland has the deepest one in North America at about 260 feet or so.

[RobertB]

You can't worry about it being "too deep". I believe Moscow has the deepest one in the world, and I don't know how deep it is. I know that Portland has the deepest one in North America at about 260 feet or so.
According to this page (http://home.teleport.com/~samc/max/index3.html) (by a Portland transit fan), the station is 260 feet deep, and the deepest part of the tunnel is 300 feet. However, the project's cost went from an original estimate of under $104 million to $184 million, in part at least due to unexpected geology that prevented the tunnel boring machine from working properly.

As far as Moscow goes, I can't read Russian, but I was able to find this incredibly cool map (http://www.metro.ru/map/2004.html) of the system. Notice how the lines never seem to converge anywhere! However, there appears to be a large loop around the central zone, making transfers super easy.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Moscow Metro site is their historical maps. This page (http://www.metro.ru/map/) includes both the current maps and previous maps, includings scans of historical maps dating back to 1935! Even cooler... the 1935 map looks a lot like DART's "starter system" at its inception, 60 years later. It gives hope to those of us anticipating the North Texas transit system of 2055.

[drumguy8800]

You're obsessed with subways, yeh?

(not that its a bad thing..) :D

[RobertB]

You're obsessed with subways, yeh?

(not that its a bad thing..) :D
It's really more an obsession with maps. When I was a little kid (like 5-7), my grandmother let me play with an old map of the Southwest. I complained that the two stretches of Interstate 40 in Arizona shouldn't be labelled "Interstates", because they were completely contained within Arizona. (Wonder what I'd have thought if she'd given me a map of Hawaii?)

In my teens, I drew two lines across a piece of paper at an oblique angle, added a cloverleaf intersection, and proceeded to create 20+ pages of an imaginary city in the middle of nowhere. There were competing designs, with planners advocating through streets vs. culs-de-sac, and mile-based blocks vs. kilometer-based blocks. The city didn't really come into its own, though, until an alien spacecraft landed, leaving a two-mile-long gouge in the earth behind it. Tourism and development flourished in the new center of alien science research.

The odd thing, though... I don't believe I ever named the town.

My mom came across the 20-year-old maps recently while cleaning out a storage room. She's saving them, and I'll scan them in and turn them into a web page... when we're able to find them again. We're both terribly disorganized pack rats.

[drumguy8800]

Ha. I'm obsessed with maps too.. In third grade, I took a 6' by 6' piece of plywood, covered it with paper, and made a city that filled the entire thing. I'm also obsessed with Sim City 4 (and 3000, 2000, and classic when they were in their primes..), and on my trip to malibu, when i couldn't sleep, i made a design for a traffic circle where the NS road is 12 lanes, where four break off into a tunnel to go under the traffic circle, the EW road is 10 where four break off to go into the tunnel, and then there's a train station in the middle.. and another road that has to completely go under all three (trenched rail, tunneled roads, and traffic circle) to get through. Then there are all these multiple turn lanes.. and i even wrote up plans for the traffic light configurations.

Also when I'm bored in my dad's car, I dig through the mapsco. That's what made me so obsessed, I think... looking at the atlas and mapscos as a little kid. On our family trips to Colorado, my dad had me sit in the passenger seat and told me I was the navigator. Even if they knew what to do, I always got to tell them. I had to consult a map.. and that made me feel important, I guess.

As far as interstates.. I-99 and I-238 are both extremely annoying. You interstate buffs might know what I'm talking about there.

And Have you ever noticed that I-40 completely cuts around the tip of Nevada? It's like they were avoiding it, or Nevada was avoiding it. When I-40 cuts south (going west), it splits and you can take the road that goes over the Hoover Dam and rejoin with I-40 when it cuts back up to about the same latitude in California.

[RobertB]

As far as interstates.. I-99 and I-238 are both extremely annoying. You interstate buffs might know what I'm talking about there.
I'm not nearly as annoyed by I-99 as I-238. True, I-99 had its numeric designation written into law by the pork-barrel king whose state it "serves", but at least it's in the general area of other 9x routes. But I-238 is a travesty against nature. The best the apologists (http://www.gbcnet.com/roads/I-238/) for the route can do is claim that renumbering it to something more sensible isn't worth doing, now that the route is already there.

Although I have to admit that the proposal for I-338 (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix38.html) is intriguing. Perhaps something similar could be applied here, in the Lake Lewisville area? :cool: