RobertB
21 October 2004, 03:14 PM
I posted a bit of a rant here (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?p=39024#post39024) in the discussion about the DNT extension to US 380, and on up to Grayson County (and eventually, I guess, to somewhere in between Tulsa and Oklahoma City). I won't get into the details, but here we have a highway that's clearly being built out into the middle of nowhere -- on spec, as it were. What can we do to make such a proposal into a sustainable development plan?
Then I thought of the I-635 spur to Grapevine. It's built with a wide median, with bridge post spacing to would allow rail to be placed between the lanes. That would be an idea -- require roads to nowhere to have the ability to run rail service. But last time I drove I-635, there wasn't anything in the median but weeds, and DART's D/FW service plans rejected an I-635 routing because of the low development density. But development needs a spark -- and the only sparks will be around the existing infrastructure. So you have a spread-out mess like at 635 @ McArthur, where you can't even get from Wal-Mart to the movie theater "next door" without an internal combustion engine.
So here's my thought: Require any new road that's not an upgrade of existing facilities to include rail.
Not just room for future rail, mind you... I mean include tracks, stations, a connection to existing systems, and trains. You want to build a highway to the bustling metropolis of Celina, TX? Fine, turn it into the next Plano/Allen/Frisco if you like. But if you're going to build a road for cars that aren't yet parked, you can darned well build a train for passengers that haven't yet arrived.
Realistically, this won't happen -- public transportation funding is seen as the enemy of highway funding. And it is! It's just that highways aren't sustainable, while public transit can be adapted to the energy sources of the post-petroleum future. Build the DNT to Grayson County using the current design, and you've guaranteed that Collin County will look like The Cedars (c. 1920) in 50 years when the oil runs out (see this thread (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=2771) for my reference).
Then I thought of the I-635 spur to Grapevine. It's built with a wide median, with bridge post spacing to would allow rail to be placed between the lanes. That would be an idea -- require roads to nowhere to have the ability to run rail service. But last time I drove I-635, there wasn't anything in the median but weeds, and DART's D/FW service plans rejected an I-635 routing because of the low development density. But development needs a spark -- and the only sparks will be around the existing infrastructure. So you have a spread-out mess like at 635 @ McArthur, where you can't even get from Wal-Mart to the movie theater "next door" without an internal combustion engine.
So here's my thought: Require any new road that's not an upgrade of existing facilities to include rail.
Not just room for future rail, mind you... I mean include tracks, stations, a connection to existing systems, and trains. You want to build a highway to the bustling metropolis of Celina, TX? Fine, turn it into the next Plano/Allen/Frisco if you like. But if you're going to build a road for cars that aren't yet parked, you can darned well build a train for passengers that haven't yet arrived.
Realistically, this won't happen -- public transportation funding is seen as the enemy of highway funding. And it is! It's just that highways aren't sustainable, while public transit can be adapted to the energy sources of the post-petroleum future. Build the DNT to Grayson County using the current design, and you've guaranteed that Collin County will look like The Cedars (c. 1920) in 50 years when the oil runs out (see this thread (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=2771) for my reference).