DART D2: Downtown Dallas Subway / 2nd LRT Alignment

[gc]

Poof
City manager disappears--a trick!
BY JIM SCHUTZE - jimschutze@mindspring.com
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-05-27/schutze.html/1/index.html

So by now you already know City Hall is a magic show, where all the tricks are based on misdirection. Misdirection is when they get you to focus on the pretty girl in a harem suit so you won't see the trap door.
We're about to get a good example. In this act the pretty girl in a harem suit will be Ted Benavides, Dallas city manager, who is about to disappear before our very eyes. The trap door--the thing they don't want us to watch--is a huge transit decision that can either turn downtown into a crapped-out Vaudeville house or turn the lights on like Broadway.

Benavides is gone. The only question is how soon. The mayor wants him gone now. But she's at her usual voting strength of a third of what it takes. That's going to have to be our new nickname for her, if we do T-shirts. "Laura (a third of what it takes) Miller." A strong majority on the council feel loyalty toward Benavides but believe he does have to go sometime soon. They think The Dallas Morning News is out to get him in ways he and they can't survive. But they also know that the big things being pinned on him--especially the city's scary backlog of sewer, water and street repairs--are not his fault. For his sake, they want him to go with dignity. For their own sakes, they want him to go in a way that won't allow the mayor to claim a scalp. He'll ring the cash register in November on his big pension anniversary date, and it'll be adios, amigos soon after that.

Both sides will act as if this is the most amazing and astounding spectacle ever brought to the American stage, performed here for the first time since its discovery on ancient stone tablets recently unearthed in the long-lost tomb of Nabobkadoozer. They will urge us to keep our eyes on the maiden at all times. Please. That's no maiden. That's Ted Benavides. One city manager goes. Another one shows up. It's just a guy in a job.

Here's the thing to watch: the second DART train line through downtown. And just to save you some time, let me telegraph my punch line here a little: If it goes down Elm Street, preferably in a subway, the new rail line has the potential to create that wonder of wonders--life without automobiles! We could see an explosion of downtown population and commerce unlike anything this or any other Western inland metropolis has seen since the arrival of the railroads in the late 19th century. That is not what the prestidigitators want to do. Forget all the costumes and the outlandish stage names. Forget "Laura Miller, mayor of Dallas, former tabloid terminatrix, scourge of the gentry." Think of her as "Laura, handmaiden to Robert," as in Robert Decherd, chairman and CEO of Belo Corp., owner of The Dallas Morning News.

Decherd wants a second rail alignment down Jackson Street on downtown's far south side, bringing the trains right through the southwest corner of downtown where Belo and the Decherd/Dealey clan hold most of their land. If Decherd gets his way, downtown is dead. Within a few years the last brave restaurants will close their doors, and downtown will return to its normal status as a bus stop/urinal. You don't want to talk about urine? OK, let's talk about "what is a second rail alignment?" Excellent question.

DART and the city of Dallas have a contract with each other, called an interlocal agreement, requiring DART to build a second rail line through downtown when train traffic on the Pacific Avenue Mall through downtown reaches a certain level. Think about it. Car traffic has to stop for trains. If you get to the point where the trains whizzing up and down Pacific are so thick they form a virtual wall, then cars and trucks can never get through them to cross downtown.

And even if you put a second line down Elm Street, which is the next street over, it does more or less the same thing. Getting through the trains whizzing up and down Elm and then the trains whizzing up and down Pacific a block away would be like a nightmare video game, "Train Frogger."

"Hey, where's Mom?"

"Sorry, son, we won't be seeing Mom again. She drove...DOWNTOWN."

One solution--the bad one--is to move the second line four blocks south, across town to Decherdville, by bringing it down Jackson Street. Why is that bad? Oh, just this: If you want to switch from line to line, you'd have to walk four blocks through the 130-degree Fahrenheit and the going-to-the-toi-toi people. Even if some kind of dumb buslet is provided to bump you back and forth from line to line, it's a bunch of waiting outdoors. People won't do it. There are algorithms for this: It's called "impedance" in transit talk. Bottlenecks. Create a certain magnitude of hassle, and people will not use the system. They certainly won't base a whole new lifestyle on it. Instead, the rail system will be relegated forever to brown-baggers on the way to work instead of cosmopolites out for dinner and a play.

The trigger point for choosing the second rail alignment is right now. Haven't read much about this in The Dallas Morning News recently? Yeah, that's odd, isn't it? But the time for a decision is now. I discussed this in some detail last week with Douglas A. Allen, DART's executive vice president for program development, who told me that DART's new southeast and northwest lines will put the downtown train traffic over the top.

Speaking of the second downtown line, Allen said: "We will actually start the detailed planning this fall."

In order to do detailed planning in the fall, they have to know where the train's going to go. Now.

For six years that I know of, forward-looking downtown players such as developer John Tatum have been telling anybody who would listen that the second train line must go down Elm Street, either in a subway or on an elevated bridge system. DART was required by its interlocal agreement with Dallas to keep $350 million in its budget for this project, and Tatum, one of the early members of the DART board, not on it now, believes that's close to enough money for a subway.

And even if it's not, look at what Tatum and others believe a subway would do: A subway down Elm Street would be an air-conditioned escalator ride from the Pacific Avenue Mall or an escalator ride in the opposite direction to Main Street. All of a sudden, huge things start happening. You can live downtown, and you can fly all over the city within the portals of the train system. No sweaty, four-block trudge paying two bucks in homeless tax every block and a half. Or you can come downtown from any of the four corners of the map, pop off the train for lunch, zip on somewhere else to see a store and zip back home.

No impedance. Lots and lots of people.

The city begins to be able to do powerful things for downtown real estate--things that don't involve tax subsidies. For example, the city could waive the parking requirements for residential towers along DART's double corridor through downtown. Why require parking if developers can rent space at a profit to carless loft-dwellers? All of a sudden, downtown residential real estate has a significant cost advantage over equivalent space elsewhere. Who wants to be auto-free? Are you kidding? Me! No gas. No insurance. No bump shop. No car! Oh, man, you're talking about heaven. If I need a car, I rent the sucker. I love rental cars. I especially love taking them back. If that new rail line comes down Elm in a tube, you're talking about a people magnet that would change downtown almost overnight--bright lights, big city instead of Urinetown. The Decherdville plan, a train down Jackson Street, is Urinetown. Why am I so convinced that's what he wants? Did he tell me that? No, he won't take my calls. I tried. And you are perfectly free, by the way, to call me paranoid. I don't mind. I have even considered forming one of those self-help groups around the proposition that, if you think you may be paranoid, one of the healthiest things you can do is try to find a way to make a living off of it.

I'm convinced. For the last several years, Decherd has been pushing and shoving, nudging and budging to get Jackson Street all lined up for the train. Several years ago he tried to get the city council to close most of it for no apparent reason, and the council, to its credit, refused. Then he went off on his "open space" crusade to create strange parks up and down Jackson Street, one of them dedicated to former employees of his TV station. Do you ever see yourself loading up the family for a picnic in Former TV Station Employee Park?

He even built a kind of faux transit station across from the Belo Building. I call it his Potemkin DART village. I couldn't figure out what it was for when I first wrote about it ("Belo the Belt," December 5, 2002). I get it now. He wants to suck that train line down Jackson Street so it will go right through Decherdville. It's a terrible idea. The DART second rail alignment is the one real window that's ever going to open for a vibrant downtown. The Decherdville line would kill it. That's the act you want to keep your eye on. Forget Benavides in a harem suit. Seductive as that concept may be.

[gc]

This is a lot to digest for me right now. What are your thoughts?

[Foucault]

This must be the 'hidden agenda' Laura Miller was talking about. Might Jim Schutze have applied and been rejected for a job at the News?
I'm not sure I follow the logic in putting a rail line right next to another rail line. Having one down Main would be great, but I think Elm's just too close.
And another thing. Robert Decherd's not dumb. If he really is the influence upon DART's route so that he can make money on his land, he will make money on his land, and the same thing will happen to Jackson Street that happened to Sundance Square. He wouldn't make any money by killing downtown putting a rail line through his land, and I think he probably has considered that.

[Columbus Civil]

One solution--the bad one--is to move the second line four blocks south, across town to Decherdville, by bringing it down Jackson Street. Why is that bad? Oh, just this: If you want to switch from line to line, you'd have to walk four blocks through the 130-degree Fahrenheit and the going-to-the-toi-toi people. Even if some kind of dumb buslet is provided to bump you back and forth from line to line, it's a bunch of waiting outdoors.

This seems like a silly argument. Why can't they have a "transfer station" of sorts at, say, Akard. When you get to Akard on the Jackson line (shown in green on the picture below), you can walk through an underground tunnel (black dashed line) that ends at the red line Akard station. Then just walk up the stairs/escalator and wait for the red line train. That way, there's no walking four blocks (the horror!) in the heat.

Also, I would think putting the line on Jackson would help spread development out. Right now, there's no development going on in the south part of the CBD. I think a rail line on Jackson would do wonders for the southern sector.

[rantanamo]

I have to agree with the article's point on alignment. They can build a transfer, that large, but they won't. And it's still four blocks away. A subway under elm would be awesome. We are already trying to do big things with Main. I'magine people riding into downtown and emerging onto Main. Main has the storefront space that the transit mall doesn't currently. This is absolutely pivotal if we are serious about revitalizing Main. Jackson may eventually spread out development. Eventually. I'm more for staying the course.

I'm not as concerned about the southern sector of the CBD. Adjacent development always happens if an area reaches its full potential. We have a plan for a certain part of the CBD, and I am all about seeing that through to its maximum capacity. I think the future of the southern areas is linked to the Farmers Market, Convention Center and Project Pegasus. We must stay the course and not let Belo win. They don't care about Dallas. They care about money.

Belo = Evil. I think you guys can really tell I've thought this for a while.

[Lakewooder]

Remember Belo tore down a really cool building (perfect for lofts or apartments) just northeast of the Belo 'Tower' a couple of years ago...now I can't remember the name of the thing...that's what happens when the wrecking ball wins.


As I said on another post, perhaps an Elm subway line with escalators could tie the tunnel system to the streetscape...

[Columbus Civil]

I would agree with you if the existing track wasn't already on Pacific. Maybe they screwed up putting it there in the first place.

However...to me, the ideal situation would be an alignment in the north sector of the CBD and an alignment in the south. If they were to go ahead and build the subway line under Elm, build a subway line under Jackson or a block or two south of that at a later date, then get rid of the surface track on Pacific, I would be cool with that. But if you just have two lines in downtown - Elm and Pacific - what reason would you have to switch to the other line (which was the basis of Jim Schutz's argument)? Aren't the two lines going to meet at Union Station and near Main/Pacific anyway? You could just switch trains at either of these two places.

Maybe I'm not clear on how the new line will fit in with the red line.

[Lakewooder]

Good point, CC, I'd like to know the answer to that, too...

[drumguy8800]

then get rid of the surface track on PacificNo way! That's one of downtown's greatest assets.. mainly because its above ground.. I would be for an above ground track on Young or Jackson, not a subway under Elm, even. It makes downtown look a lot more alive and like it has something to offer.. and provides a visual connection to the rest of the city. I would hate to see it go away.

[Columbus Civil]

I agree that it looks cool, but why would we need a surface track one block over from a subway line? Would they have different stops maybe? Maybe the surface line can be the "local" line - stopping at all the stops it stops at now, and the subway can be the "express line" - only stopping two times in downtown. Hmmm..

Since the surface rail can only be two cars long in downtown due to the length of the city blocks (I think this is the case), they're limited in how many people they can carry.

[jsoto3]

I have to agree with Civil on this one. The new rail alignment should be on Jackson. I don't buy Shutze's arguments against the aligment. It has several things going for it. It is very similar to Pacific/Bryan: 1. narrow right of way; 2. very little automobile traffic; 3. dense adjacent (re)development [more potential than along Pacific/Elm]. This alignment would be better for balancing downtown growth. Belo will develop all of its vacant parcels and others will redevelop remaining vacant buildings. See below for comment regarding transfers. Streetscape improvements and redevlopment will encourage pedestrian traffic between the alignments. I have been thinking about this for a long time now and have come to the conclusion that downtown needs a rail loop, like Chicago. All lines should end in the loop. Everyone would have to transfer downtown if they want to go through it. Transfers can be made anywhere along the loop. Or perhaps there could be a few express cars that only stop at one station downtown and continue through. Here is my vision:

http://dallasmetropolis.com/exhibitionhall/data/500/13downtown_DART_vision.jpg

Montreal has a very similar system for its downtown. The parallel lines are even further apart than they would be here and the lines are continuous and do not terminate downtown, necessitating transfers. But the (odd) number of lines converging downtown make this more difficult here.

[rantanamo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two new lines will fit directly with the existing system between West End and Pearl Stations. The NW line will take a right after the West End to Victory. The SE line will take a right at after Pearl rather than head to Cityplace. Say you were going from Plano to Fair Park to see the Cowboys. You'd get off the Red at Pearl and board the SE line. With two lines, you'd get of the Red at the transfer station, and go to the other line to get to the NW or SE line.

There has already been mention of adding trains, so the Pearl to West End line will be a over crowded. That's why another line will be needed. Pacific would be so crowded that cars and people would have a hard time getting around. Two above ground lines would be even worse. So it's almost a no choice situation to have another downtown line, and it should preferably be underground to avoid congestion and help Main St develop by luring foot traffic.

As I said earlier, We want to develop Main St, and we need to do this to it's fullest capability. If we get Main St right, I fully believe the rest will follow. Elm St is also the best to connect to the how the lines would be aligned once the we are at this point. As I mentioned before, I'd imagine the line would have to surface and turn before it rejoins the old alignment. Elm would be far less painful to this process. I'd also like to ask who thinks that East Elm Street or Main is doing any better than Jackson?
http://img6.photobucket.com/albums/v19/rantanamo/Downtown%20Dallas/DSCF0106.jpg

This is where I think MATA comes in, or something similar. Smaller street car routes to serve much of the rest of downtown. Maybe a downtown loop comprised of a southern and northern line. Southern West End to Convention Center to Farmers Market, to a new east Downtown station near the East Transfer Station. Northern line from Pearl Station to the Arts District, to the West End Station.

[Columbus Civil]

What's the construction timeline for the new line downtown? Isn't it more than ten years away?

rantanamo, I think that's a great idea to integrate MATA into the transportation scheme in the CBD.

[gc]

While I somewhat agree with the arguments for an Elm tunnel, overall I think it is very short-sighted. We continue to tie the new line and MAIN Street revitalization together too closely. That is silly. That is not DART's sole purpose. Here is the DART Mission statement per the website:


The mission of Dallas Area Rapid Transit is to build, establish and operate a safe, efficient and effective transportation system that, within the DART Service Area, provides mobility, improves the quality of life, and stimulates economic development through the implementation of the DART Service Plan as adopted by the voters on August 13, 1983, and as amended from time to time.

While I concede that an Elm line would be beneficial, a Jackson line would carry out their mission statement better.

Would an Elm line limit DART's future growth in DTD? What happens in twenty years when the southern section of DTD starts to fill in?

[rantanamo]

A Jackson line wouldn't carry out the statement any better. It's time for us to be smarter and developing blocks at a time. Remember, we have a LONG way to go. A fully developed Main St would be more efficient(less car traffic at crossing trains, more pedestrian friendly), provide mobility(both would), and stimulate economic development(both would). So it comes do to efficiency, and what would benefit the most economically.

Herein lies my problem with Jackson. It's is more like the current transit mall than Main, Elm or even Commerce. LITTLE RETAIL at street level. Little buildable developable retail I should say. Doesn't have the great structures that M&C have. Main and Commerce are the streets that have this and will benefit downtown most without knocking a lot of things down. with more people entering the street at Main St we can reach full potential with what we are doing. That line should be even further south where there are many more lots just sitting empty. It should go right by the Farmers Market and create link to the I-30 deck park. I'd be all for something away from Elm if it was further away from Elm and in a more developable area.

Elm would not limit DART's future growth. One thing I do imagine that will happen will be an east to west "I-30" line. This will require another downtown line if we build at street-level this time. Or once the east west corridor comes on line we'd have the option of connecting it with an Elm Subway line or building a new street level line that should be build further south. I'm talking maybe down Canton to Marilla near City Hall. We build at street level now and we probably have to build a subway then. Build that subway now and we can run both lines underground. To take this further, that next plan may also have a directly north/south line. That DNT/Galleria/Legacy/Frisco line. That may need to be at street level. All I'm saying is, subway = best for future downtown, and best for near future downtown. It's far less inhibitive to expansion. This second line will not be the last downtown line. We shouldn't build it as if it is like we did the Pacific transit mall. Had we had the vision(or funds) to build underground first we wouldn't be talking about the crowding of this line or a second line. Expansion would be even more easily done. I'd like the + to be incorporated with my MATA type loop. Remember mobility doesn't only include rail. It include people, cars, buses and trains.

[trolleygirl]

I read Shutze the other night and went completely berzerk. I usually agree with a lot of his ideas and complaints, but this one, well, this one has inspired me to write a letter to the Observer. Over the years I've started thinking that Belo's intentions have not been all bad, and I have begun to believe that Belo truly wants what's best for Downtown Dallas. After all, Dowtown Dallas is Belo's flagship for goodness' sake, they damn well should care about this City. I'm looking around at all the absentee corporations that own buildings and sit on them. Not rent them out, not renovate them and sell them, but sit on them, waiting for the market to turn for their investment. That's appalling to me. What are those guys really contributing? If I were Belo, I certainly would want something done about it now. I read a few months ago in D Magazine and I ouldn't believe my eyeballs- Wick Allison actually suggesting that the City use this evil practice known as eminent domain on these buildings!! I think that Belo is the only corporate citizen Downtown that is actually trying to take an active role in its revitalization. What's TXU doing? What's KPMG doing? What's Bank of America doing? Trizec Hahn? Let's not forget- it was Belo spending their own money to hire the top-notch Booz Allen Hamilton who brought us the eye-opening "Tipping Point" article.

DART cannot go down Main Street. You cann't change the laws of physics, and it is not physically poissible to put in on Main Street. Main Street cannot even support the weight a trolley line- we've been to all the meetings, and we've talked about it and we've done all the research. It was cost well over $350 million to put anything underground. It's a lot more than digging a tube, especially in downtown because you have utilities to relocate. When you see a man-hole on Main Street, think $20 million to relocate. Then start counting. Pretty costly.

Also, guess what? There is still streetcar rail on both Elm and Commerce. Okay, so remember the impedence stuff Schutze was talking about? You loose 50% of your transit passengers when they have to walk moree than four blocks. Between four and seven, you've lost 85% of you transit passengers. between seven and ten, you've lost over 97% of your transit passengers. So, I like to stick with the four blocks or less rule.

We have been looking at doing a downtown circulator for a long time. We think an above ground streetcar line circulating Elm and Commerce, that way you get the three block radius on both of those streets, which gets pedestrians to Main Street. From Main, you can choose which direction you want to go- north take Elm, south take Commerce. Easy as that. LRV's do not belong as circulators in a downtown. Sorry they are just too clunky and fast. You don't spend $2 million on a piece of equipment designed to operate at 70 mph and put in on Main Street, Anytown!

If there is a way to get people to Jackson Street or to make a transfer somewhere else to gain access to the second line, then that's where we need to focus. I don't like the idea of walking four blocks to make a transfer- it's not what planners do and if DART is thinking about it, then DART needs new consulting firms. The southern portion of Downtown Dallas will develop as it becomes more dense. When we start curbibg sprawl and creating a need for density in the center city, that's when we'll have our critical mass. Weather or not it happens in my lifetime is another story, but the point is, it will happen someday, that's why cities must do long range planning.

The second rail alaignment isn't going to happen until at least 2020. But the way this war is going and the way our transportation funding is going, I'm not sure if that's not too optimistic.

And somebody remind Schutze that DART is not City Hall. DART's Chair is not the Mayor, the DART board is not the city council. Doug Allen is staff.....he gets his marching orders from a higher place.

[drumguy8800]

Aren't there Santa Fe lines that are either fully or partially underground near the Santa Fe Terminal building..? I thought that it was one of the main reasons (besides money..) that we didn't go underground in the first place. Wouldn't this inhibit any subway lines in the future without MAJOR cleanup?

But, if there was a subway line.. it would be really cool to be walking down Main Street, and there's this great sign that says 'subway below' or something. and then when you're in the subway, it says 'To Main Street Surface' or somethin.. I always think its cool when I'm at Cityplace Station and I see the signs that say 'To surface.' You don't get to see it much in downtown.

I swear Dallas is going tunnel happy.. Mockingbird Tunnel (that got canceled, maybe?) Addison Airport Tunnel, I-635 Tunnel.. Cityplace. And they've all come around in what, the last 5 years? (or at least plans for them..)

[drumguy8800]

We have been looking at doing a downtown circulator for a long time. We think an above ground streetcar line circulating Elm and Commerce, that way you get the three block radius on both of those streets, which gets pedestrians to Main Street. From Main, you can choose which direction you want to go- north take Elm, south take Commerce. Easy as that. LRV's do not belong as circulators in a downtown. Sorry they are just too clunky and fast. You don't spend $2 million on a piece of equipment designed to operate at 70 mph and put in on Main Street, Anytown!

If MATA (or solely DART, for that matter..) make a new trolley line.. they need to make them whisper quiet.. and like, fasten them to the rail lines with something besides squeaky, grinding wheels. (oo.. magnetic-levitation.. not. just something like the trains have.) And, instead of using the single line to gather power, they need to use the kind of system that DART LRV trains use. It doesn't spark. I always get creeped out driving behind one of the MATA vehicles because its sparking, and I always get creeped out riding in one of them because they're loud. No offense, they're efficient and fun, but they just kinda made me trip out.

[rantanamo]

And what exactly has Belo done? Booz Allen suggested that Dallas look to Frisco for urban leadership. Belo constantly touts the greatness of Frisco. What exactly has Belo done but write in their own newspaper or report on their own channels? Those other companies aren't media companies.

I'm a Dallas tax payer. Pay the damn money if it costs $350 million now. Beg, plead with the state and Fed government. We need to do something right the first time for a change, and not just be cheap and leave things for the next generation to do. When DART really gets into gear with multiple downtown lines, what will be the cost of congestion then? The people of Dallas in 2050 will be begging for subway lines. We may be begging in 2030.

The impedence stuff works if you have not congested your blocks with decreased mobility. If rail was the only means downtown, and lets say the rail was only at street level between St Paul and went back under before Field I'd say build surface rail on Elm. But there will be traffic issues, and we will see that immediately when the next to lines open. It may not be a pretty site crossing downtown. I love the look of the current transit mall, but we may see that it is a design mistake with so many cars running from 4 different lines in that small space. Remember the trains actually stop at lights sometimes. We still live in a car society, and we need a semblance of balance. We want people in on rail, but do we need to make it impossible to drive through?

[trolleygirl]

I agree that we should do something right for once. I, too, am a Dallas taxpayer. $350 million will not go a long way and if DART doesn't have final numbers of the total cost, which we do know is well above that, then what are suggesting, that we dig up half a street and leave it there? Then there's the politics of keeping our other suburban DART partners happy. DART is NOT going to spend one dime on anything Downtown UNTIL the NW line out to FB/Carrolton gets built. Period. That's the political reality.

Anything that goes underground will probably have to be somewhere between 120 - 180 feet under ground. The CityPlace tunnel is at 150 feet and it's supporting Central Expressway. Downtown will be completely shut down when/if that happens. DART does not really want to build a tunnel. I don't see it happening.

[rantanamo]

OK, I'll give on the underground then. How about the cost of an EL above the existing transit mall downtown? Or even an EL above Elm? Would Elm support that? Maybe use U-Bracing that starts just off the sidewalks, and allow traffic to drive underneath and even street parking? With either the stops could be similar to those that exist now, it would far and away allow car traffic to move, and digging footer would be far cheaper than digging a deep hole. Would that be a conducive plan?

[Columbus Civil]

We'll all be teleporting by 2030.

[drumguy8800]

OK, I'll give on the underground then. How about the cost of an EL above the existing transit mall downtown? Or even an EL above Elm? Would Elm support that? Maybe use U-Bracing that starts just off the sidewalks, and allow traffic to drive underneath and even street parking? With either the stops could be similar to those that exist now, it would far and away allow car traffic to move, and digging footer would be far cheaper than digging a deep hole. Would that be a conducive plan?

elevated? :(. Talk about destroying the downtown streetscape. I don't think that the DID, City of Dallas, or DART would ever go for such a plan.. All three are highly interested in aesthetics.. especially in such a high profile location.

[Columbus Civil]

I don't think an elevated track would destroy the streetscape. I think the ones in Chicago look really cool.

[rantanamo]

I think something really nice could be done with an elevated line. Stations could be stacked. A two level,four line pearl station. The supports could be done in nice Iron work or simply nice concrete molds with unique aesthetic touches.This would be different from a freeway, as the trains actually promote pedestrian activity by stopping and letting them off there. As well as the ability to easily walk under an El.

I wonder how teleporting would affect sprawl. I would bet it would be far worse than cars. People really could just live anywhere. There would be no argument for things to be urban except for land use. Roads wouldn't exist. Cities probably wouldn't either. Couldn't you just work at home, and teleport with your work when you have meetings or have to turn something in? Couldn't argue air pollution anymore. No more parking lots. I'd imagine grocery stores would turn into food warehouses that simply teleport goods to homes with purchases. Telephone companies might be in trouble though I think internet/phone/tv or whatever will all be one at this point. Airlines and airports would be in trouble. Wonder if this would be a service like cell phones or internet = cars, while there could be free or small fee public teleporting stations that would move the massive groups like a train load at a time. Would this be wireless or through wires? Sorry, I'm into science-fiction and such things fascinate me.

[psukhu]

I think the elevated train would look great if they use concrete. Look at the newer freways.


The iron ones in NYC don't look that great, but then again they are like 80 years old.

What I don't like about the elevated trains in NYC:
1- Mystery Juice leaking from stations
2- Pigeon farm under the tracks
3- blocks out too much light from street
4- Pillars are in street
5- Very loud for properties along the track

What I do like:
1- Great View from the train
2- You can hear when then next train is coming from the street
3- Doesn't block the street from cars
4- Great landmark when giving directions.

I give one warning, look what the overhead freeways did for DT Dallas. Could the trains do more of the same?

[gc]

I am cool with an elevated line, but not along Elm....no way.

[Columbus Civil]

Just think how fat we'd be (re: teleporting).

[trolleygirl]

I like elevated stations. Originally on the SE line, they were going to elevate the MLK Station because DART (most transit agencies) likes to avoid grade crossings whenever possible. But the Friends of Fair Park objected, saying that it would ruin the aesthetic view of Fair Park. IMO, I think they were very short-sighted. The view of Fair Park is from inside the park, not to mention that blighted structures and vacant lots and used tires shops aren't all that aesthetically appealing in the first place. Could have had an opportunity to do something really progressive there but no, it's at grade, it's on Trunk St., and will be a problem as soon as it gets built. Those quad-gates are the ugliest things on the planet.

[drumguy8800]

elevated SUCKS. Subways are great, but not for downtown. I want to have at-grade places so that people can hop off, and as they're going along, they can see all kinds of places to stop and eat. With an elevated, all you could see would be the middles of buildings, it would be dark underneath.. and ugh. just no. I hate it when the red line is elevated- it looks like crap..

[drumguy8800]

Could have had an opportunity to do something really progressive there but no, it's at grade, it's on Trunk St., and will be a problem as soon as it gets built. Those quad-gates are the ugliest things on the planet.

How would elevated be progressive? Is the current plan for it to be in the median or something..?

The two portions of our LRT system that I don't like are: The blue line when its in the median of 342 (pointless, this is one part that should be elevated, so.. good idea for elevated inside a median..) And the elevated portions of the red line, where it doesn't necessarily need to be elevated... well, maybe they need to be. I don't know. I like the downtown portion the best, where it's at-grade..

[trolleygirl]

Grade crossings at busy intersections cause traffic jams. We're talking about the Fair Park Station here, expected to be one of the busiest stops on the system. Add The State Fair to that. (Now add the Cowboys- yikes!) Yes, transit is supposed to relieve traffic congestion but not everybody will ride DART. Transit is not supposed to be a way to look at all the nice, pretty things that you can do along the way- it's suppoed to get you form Point A to Point B. You may like to come to Dallas on the weekends, drum, and ride around on DART and it may be fun for you and that's great, but from 7AM to 7PM Monday through Friday those trains are full of commuters.

Elevated rail is way to have both- not an either or, bot a both. We can have street retail and we can have pedestrian access, but we can also have a train that doesn't impede auto traffic and doesn't have to worry about idiot morons getting run over and killing themselves and their kids.

[bloodandpopcorn]

Trolleygirl, I know you are the resident expert, but I don't think Subway would be as bad as you are making it out to be. Else, why would DART have flouted grand plans for a downtown subway route (which I remember distinctly) a couple of years ago, for 2014 at that time? I don't doubt that it would be expensive, but I think it's totally necessary. And I don't see why downtown would have to be closed while they bore the tunnels, nothing was closed for doing that to Cityplace.

Elevated trains can be fine, but they tend to be more confusing. We can't have a direct connection to the pacific transit mall with elevated stations, and that is something that we MUST have to make the system visitor friendly. If it's not amazingly simple, and difficult to NOT understand, then it's not going to do as well as it could. Also, elevated systems tend to stop looking so good after thirty years. Not just wear and tear, but what looks good today does not look good in a few decades. And while the same rule applies for subways, they are not hitting you over the head with their existance when you walk along the street.

I personall think the subway should be under Commerce street. You could come up onto Main, or a few blocks south, or directly into the transit mall. We may think that people who cannot stand the heat are pansies, but we have to remember that the more we cater to those pansies, the more people could potentially enjoy Dallas. Moving walkways could be employed underground from the station to the transit mall. You could hop off a train on the transit mall and head down some stairs or an elevator (like at union station) that are clearly marked "TRANSFER TO ____ LINES," with big signs everywhere pointing to it.

I still feel that subway is the way to go. Another thing about elevated lines -- they don't look cool on big, popular streets. They look cool through sidestreets and alleys. Having an elevated line over a major street, which we want everything in the immediate vicinity of Main St., is probably going to have a pretty negative effect.

[drumguy8800]

amen, blood. amen amen amen a-...

[trolleygirl]

The tunnel under CityPlace was there for years. Also, they were doing Central Ewy. back then so everything was pretty much a traffic nightmare already. It may be feasible and it might happen, but I have serious doubts about a tunnel. There has to be a TON of political pressure and a TON of money for a subway. By the way, I really like the subway too, I am constantly telling people to take DART to the CityPlace subway station- the ONLY subway in the southwest (now I can say it honestly since the Ft. Worth Tandy cars are gone), to get to the trolley and around Uptown. Uptown had a big mixer down there a couple of years ago and how they pulled it off was a stroke of genius on the part of the marketing director. She's been marketing that subway as "Uptown Underground".

I'm not against underground, I just think that there is more than one way to skin a cat. And it's so typical for Dallas planners, leaders, editorial boards and journalists to scream about this NIMBY syndrome.....hell it's why Texas is so far behind the rest of the planet in terms of "Internationality". We want the train, BUT we don't want it in our backyard, we don't want to have to wait for it at a grade crossing, we don't want to have to look at it and overheead, we don't want to have to listen to it, we don't want it to be too slow, we don't want it to be too fast, we don't want it to ruin business, we don't want to have ugly fences and quad-gates, we don't want it to destroy ambience, or culture or an outdated old grafitti'd bridge, we don't want it to cost anything, etc., etc., etc. Well......how in the world have other cities managed? We are so new at this thing and we should be out looking at the many successful examples, both is this country and abroad for solutions.

[bloodandpopcorn]

Yo're right that it would take a lot of political pressure... I just think that that is something that we need to do. In the long run, I'm talking now 80+ years from now, a downtown Dallas subway could still be functioning. I don't think the current transit mall will be, unless very little development happens so that everything stays as it is.

And yeah, I misspoke, I just meant the tunnel in general. But, out of curiosity, why would roads have to be closed because a big tunnel is being drilled out underneath? Just curious...

And that "Uptown Underground" is awesome! It brought a big smile to my face.

[drumguy8800]

I agree with the bridge. I drove through it yesterday.. It's very cool.. but.. outdated, and its not like DART can't make some bridge that could be graffitied.. But I'm still gonna go "NIMBY" on the elevated train thing. Elm, Main, and Commerce need impressive streetscapes- they're the big three contenders downtown. Main's the starting point- and if we ruin (ruin, in my opinion and the other we-hate-grit-ists in Dallas [the vast majority.. like you said, dallas is a city of nimby-ists..]) elm street by blocking out all sunlight and all views of the city.. then.. crap. Subway.

[Lakewooder]

IMO Commerce has a lot of development potential...maybe it wouldn't be too hard to dig out Elm St. though-- anyone ever heard of the cave-in by One Main Place back in the late 1960s?

[drumguy8800]

anyone ever heard of the cave-in by One Main Place back in the late 1960s?

go on, go on..

[sogod]

I think jsoto's 'vision' picture makes a good argument for not having the Elm line. If you use the same picture but moved the 2nd line north three streets it just seems to close to the current line to be useful. I guess the idea is that the current Pacific line will be too overcrowded very soon, but in that case maybe Commerce is the best bet. You could build it so people could be emptying on main like we want, two blocks to walk to the other line isn't that far, and you also don't cause traffic jams on the surface. Of course we could also go with trolleygirl's downtown circulator idea, and in that case, Jackson would probably be the better alignment. I always thought it would be perfect to have trolleys circulating people around downtown, after they arrive on rail.

One line I would like to see in the (far) future is a greater urban area loop. The north side would go through uptown, the east side through the densifying areas northeast/east of downtown, the south side would either go along the "2nd" downtown line if it ends up being on Jackson, or another line further south if the other alignment is chosen (hitting the farmers market maybe), and the the west side would either run up what is the western rail line now, or a new line west of 35 that would hit the area that will eventually be home to high rises overlooking new trinity river area (god willing). I have no delusion that this is at all practical now, but if those areas in the southern parts of downtown and west and east of downtown get built up, it might be pretty nice to have rail linking them all together. I wonder how much something like this would cost...

[Lakewooder]

sogod, kind of like London's circle line?

[drumguy8800]

circulator systems never worked downtown.. DART's last circulator system got shut down pretty recently..

and lets be practical about this entire second line thing.. the two new lines that would go along the second DTD alignment would be orange and purple. The orange line will inevitably go through Victory station and Union Station- and the purple will inevitably go through Union Station, Victory Station, and Pearl St Station. There are two great places to transfer (union and pearl) and one other kinda- pointless-to-transfer-there-but-you-could-if-you-wanted-to station (victory.) Therefore, no one will HAVE to walk between say, Akard North Station and Akard South station.. or I guess they would probably make it Field St to mix up the names some... but this entire argument of whether or not people will want to walk four blocks is kind of pointless. people wouldn't have to.

and what about people who work, say, at belo? How about farmers market? They would have to walk WAY too far if the elm street thing was put into place, but if Jackson was used, they could just walk over to it. So could anyone living on Main, Commerce, or Elm.. they could just walk up the the Pacific line or down to the Jackson line. Not that an Elm line wouldn't be nice.. to have this great subway running through downtown and have all the positive development that would come after it.. but its putting the lines too close together. kinda pointless.

[rantanamo]

and what about people who work, say, at belo? How about farmers market? They would have to walk WAY too far if the elm street thing was put into place, but if Jackson was used, they could just walk over to it. So could anyone living on Main, Commerce, or Elm.. they could just walk up the the Pacific line or down to the Jackson line. Not that an Elm line wouldn't be nice.. to have this great subway running through downtown and have all the positive development that would come after it.. but its putting the lines too close together. kinda pointless.

Belo and Farmers Market are relatively underused compared to other parts of downtown. My hope is that by the time this new line is ready to be built, we are talking about a street car system or other lines going downtown. I doubt the second line is the last one.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Trollygirl, why exactly would they have to shut downtown down to dig a tunnel? If the tunnel needs to be as deep as you say, there's no way in hell they're going to cut and cover it anyway. Boreing the tunnel would have no impact on the streets above, except to dig the access escalators.

And I think that everyone should remember that this is light rail, not a glorified streetcar. You don't ride transit for views of the city, you use it to get around painlessly. A subway would be the best way of getting that done. There is nothing more frustrating than having to wait on those damn cars going across the street when you need to get downtown in a hurry. Screw the streetscape and screw encouraging development in the southern part of downtown. I want to get where I'm going. Fast. Most people riding the train downtown will be going to the central part anyway.

This probably doesn't make any sense. So to sum it up: Subway: YAY!!! At grade: BOOOOO! Elevated: Um. Maybe?

[rantanamo]

Weren't they going to bore the Mockingbird Tunnel without disturbing Highland Park residents? And isn't the LBJ tunnel boring supposed to be pretty much unnoticeable?

[tamtagon]

Weren't they going to bore the Mockingbird Tunnel without disturbing Highland Park residents? And isn't the LBJ tunnel boring supposed to be pretty much unnoticeable?

I recall that a Mockingbird tunnel was denied because Park Cities worried about ugly exhaust vents in their cities. I can understand that, they have a good thing; I also would like to see the Park Cities reciprocate to neighboring Dallas the opportunity to improve quality of life and work out a way to build the tunnel and keep the Park Cities as pretty. If we can put a man on the moon....

I would like to see the next rail through the CBD include easy access to government buildings. Sometimes you just have to get to city hall, or to court, why should we have to drive? Personally, I think the next CBD line should originate at Mockingbird Station, swing through Lower Greenville, Fair Park, Deep Ellum, and into downtown Oak Cliff, maybe even Grand Prairie, Arlington, FW Cultural District and downtown FW.

[drumguy8800]

elevated, no. no, no, no, no, no. no. bah.

subway, yes. yes yes. yes yes yes.

at-grade, okay.

And don't forget that with a subway, we'll have those really cool things that you see in NYC.. that point below to the SUBWAY STATION.. ooo.... OOOOOOOOOO... Dallas :D. Texas :D. Urban..

[rantanamo]

You can't think of an elevated train the same way as a freeway. First of all, the footprint is much smaller. Second, it's sole purpose to to deposit and collect pedestrians. It's not disruptive, and doesn't have to be an eyesore at all. What if a similar design to some of the arched Viaducts on the Trinity was created? That would be super nice. The DART trains are simply more quiet than those in Chicago and NY. If you've ever been under a DART elevated while it was passing overhead, you'd notice it's pretty much silent except for the whistles and a low whoosh and rumble.

I know the street-level transit mall looks nice, but at-grade is not okay as a close in second line for reasons mentioned above. Subway first, Elevated if we can't get subway.

[drumguy8800]

What? Make it look like the Houston St. Viaduct? Anything that has repetitive supports like that deserves not to exist (but lets not get into the argument of whether the HSV should exist, we've done that before, and you all think it should.) The only kinds of bridges that i appreciate are things like.. suspension bridges.. the Calatrava bridges (where there are hardly any supports at all, and the bridge actually is interesting looking..) If we cut out one lane of vehicular traffic, widened the sidewalks and centered the remaining four lanes, added trees, and then on either side of the road very very close to the buildings we had seperated lines, then I might go for it. Then it would serve as like an awning, and.. I dunno. it would make the street feel cool. That's the only way I'd go for elevated though.. not U-braces lifting it over Elm Street.. can you say, Texas Stadium exit ramps?

[rantanamo]

http://www.historicbridgefoundation.com/images/texas/prairies/dallas/pl_houston_b.gif

I think it's a beautiful structure. I guess you think the Roman aqueducts don't deserve to exist either. Anyways, I'm not saying verbatim. I just mean something of the style.

Let's run with your suspension bridge idea. It would only need 2 or 3 supports to run the length of downtown. The supports of the viaduct are what I like. Notice the two archways under each support. Modify that design and you can have trains run through them. There would only be a couple, so no big deal. You could have two nice sized support towers. Minimum street interruption, with a new beautiful structure downtown. Of course we're only talking about a feasible option.