Reply With QuoteThe "Uptown Subway" thread:Originally Posted by RobertB
http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=2733
Shouldn't this thread be moved to the "blue sky" thread?
Tighten the female dog!
The "Uptown Subway" thread:
http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=2733
And DART is using the three closest rail lines to cover this area, to the west the railway line following Denton Drive and Harry Hines, to the north the railway line following Beltline and the George Bush tollway, and to the east the railway line following Greenville Ave. and Central. I repeat the railway line where the North Dallas Tollway uses as its right of way is a turnpike, its no longer a rail line.
First, Frisco shouldn't count because it isn't a member of Dart.
Of the total 12 locations you named, only 5,6,7,8 are between Lemmon and LBJ, a distance over 7 miles. I can name streets in Frisco with more density without a rail line. In fact, just about every other artery in North Dallas has more , at least as much, density than the DNT or Preston.
Are you suggesting we build a light rail line down every artery in Dallas, cause just about all of them have more density?
Lets take the Red Line as an example, from downtown Dallas to the end of the line, a distance over 18 miles. Let's count the single family homes adjacent to the rail line.
End of line to GB = 23
LBJ to GB = 8
LBJ to Mockingbird = 49, all in one neighborhood.
Mockingbird to Downtown = 29, more longside North Central Expressway than the Red Line.
Grand total of low density homes on the Red Line north is 80.
Now let's count the low density homes adjacent to the DNT from Harry Hines to LBJ, a total less than 9 miles.
Harry Hines to NW Highway = 145
NW Highway to LBJ = 182
Grand total of low density homes on DNT, LBJ south is 332.
Lets average those numbers per mile.
DNT LBJ south= 332 / 9 = 36.9 low density homes per mile.
Red Line north = 80 / 18 = 4.5 low density homes per mile.
Which means the DNT is 8.2 times less dense than the Red Line.
Which means it'lll draw 8 times less passengers.
You can do the same counting yourself at Google Maps or Google Earth.
Remember to count only the homes that border the right of ways with nothing in between except for a street. You'll count very close to my numbers.
Last edited by electricron; 06 September 2008 at 02:09 AM.
I think estimating ridership may be a bit more complicated than that.
You obviously didn't get my point. I argued that residential density isn't anywhere close to being the be-all end-all of light rail construction, and even less so when the effects of park-and-ride are taken into account. Besides, counting all the adjacent homes to the Tollway and Preston is pointless, because those aren't the only people who are going to be using the line. You don't seem to understand that a light rail line doesn't just serve the people living next to it. It serves people from a wide radius, as well as visitors, businesspeople, suburban commuters, diners, and the like. You can throw all the statistics you want at me, but the Tollway and Preston are two of the most important automobile arteries in Dallas. If you choose to deny that, then I don't think you'd ever understand my point in 100 years anyway. There are so many more intangibles to life than simply using numbers to crunch out more numbers and putting all your eggs in that number basket, which is essentially what you've done by telling me that the DNT/Preston line would command 8 times fewer passengers than the Red Line. Also, when did I ever mention Frisco as a DART member city? My line stops short of Frisco at Plano's Legacy Town Center. If you've never checked it out, I suggest you drive up there...it's a great New Urbanist multi-use development.
That's obvious enough. But it doesn't take into account the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of covering that large area with a perimeter of rail lines while ignoring the heart of the area. However, I agree with you that the railway line that the Dallas North Tollway uses as its right of way is a turnpike, which is why the only way to put a rail line through it (and I think it would be better along Preston) is to put the line under it. That's what my original plan was and still is.
Last edited by Phillip; 06 September 2008 at 03:59 AM.
That wasn't a bike lane. That was a bi-directional recreational trail on a thoroughfare with cars traveling up to 60 mph. Some fun (but a good example of the false sense of security paint stripes give people).
http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2008...ird-2-way.html
Better info here: http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2006...bike-lane.html
BTW, for those who want bike lanes, they have never been shown to INCREASE bicycle ridership, or to increase safety. They have been shown to create more points of dangerous conflicts. They are nothing more than bicycle control devices meant to keep the streets clear for cars, relegating cyclists to something little better than a trash-filled gutter lane.
Their apparent success in places is predicated upon the same reason for success of true public transit: high population density. I've noticed that much of the "blue sky" thought here regarding DART presumes a level of population density that simply does not exist, and can not exist as long as the suburbs are the primary focus of the region's growth.
You missed my point as well. Dart looks at density, whether you think they should or not is immaterial. Check out every EIS Dart does. Density numbers is in every one.
The placement of stations is judged by how many pasengers get on, and how many passengers will get off at the station. Frankily, Dart couldn't justify placing a station between LBJ and Lemmon.
If a station can't be justified by the numbers for over 7 miles on a light rail line, there's no way the FTA is going to authorized that line for light rail. Golly, the FTA has been suggesting transit agencies all over the country to build bus rapid transit lines vs light rail lines at every opportunity. That means there will be no federal funding for a subway or an aerial line that everyone here recommends, possibly not an at grade line either.
An at grade rail line is going to cost $50 million per mile, and there is over nine miles between LBJ and Harry Hines, it would cost Dart $450 million. Double that for an aerial line, Triple it for a subway line. Since Dart would have to finance it completely, it would mean phase construction, like the Blue Line was built.
Would a rail line between Harry Hines and NW Highway 10 years from now be worth Dart's expense? Followed by an extension to LBJ 5 years later? Followed by an extension to GB Tollway 5 years later? Followed by an extension to SH 121 5 years later? Yes, it'll take Dart 25 years to build this line if it had to finance it completely, without any matching funds from the Feds?
But, the FTA might change it's tune once this line got built north to LBJ, where density increases high enough to warrant matching funding. But after taking 15 years to get to LBJ, Dart would have to start a new 10 year process to build north of LBJ to qualify for Federal matching funding. So, we're still talking about 20 to 25 years to build it.
There are better choices than this one for Dart to build. It's so easy to look at freeway corridors and automatically assume they are great choices for light rail lines.
I suggest you look at South Dallas rail lines. Neither the Blue nor Red Lines follow a freeway closely. Then look at the Orange Line through Irving, and you'll see that repeated again. Then look at the Green Line through East Dallas, and you'll see that again.
So, why does Dart often leave freeway corridors? Was it cheaper to build following the existing rail corridor instead? Was it cheaper to build through private property instead? Or was Dart placing the line to maximize density for their stations?
Density is important each and every step along the line. With a seven mile low density area on this proposed line, there's no way Dart is going to recommend light rail on this corridor, at grade, aerial, or subway.
Golly, Dart is looking at avoiding building a two mile subway in downtown Dallas where density is the highest in Texas. Dart is looking at making the subway as short as possible. It's a fool's dream to believe Dart will do so near the DNT for at least nine miles, or longer.
I like to look at rail possibilities using the three strike planning process.
Strike one = Low density within corridor.
Strike two = No existing railroad right of way in corridor owned by Dart.
Strike three = Majority of people living in corridor don't want light rail.
An east west corridor along LBJ has only one strike. Can you guess which one?
From Dart's point of view, that's the one they will build first.
For those living in Frisco, the BNSF line to Carrollton has only two strikes. Can you guess which two? But Dart can get get access to the BNSF railroad line, should we only call it half a strike, like a foul ball? Regardless, it too has a real third strike, Frisco isn't a member of Dart.
I think that it is pretty clear to everyone here that this line will not get built. You really need to lighten up. (I almost wish that I hadn't said anything about it at all...) My point was that with the explosive growth going on along the DNT (north of LBJ), that it might make sense to have a direct line from DTD to this area of town. I am not a transit expert, just an observant guy who sometimes thinks in an unconventional manner. I believe that numbers can give you a false sense of security in your arguments. They can be manipulated to tell whatever story you want them to.
Sometimes, you just have to put down the calculator and open your eyes. Sometimes you have to have some vision. When NCX was built, who would have thought that building a highway into the "country" would produce the power-house corridor that it has become? I'm sure that the "numbers" didn't necessarily favor that project either.
If you think that riders on a particular line are just those folks who live adjacent to it, I think that you should take a drive up the red line and look at the parking lots at those stations. I'll bet if you asked some of the business owners around those stations why their parking lots were full in the middle of the day, they wouldn't say it was because they are so busy. There are people who drive for miles to get to a rail station. There would be many more if another N-S line existed in the heart of all of the northern suburban growth. I don't have numbers or google maps to back me up, just anecdotal evidence and common sense.
Now that this dead horse has been thoroughly beaten. Where else does DART need to add service?
DART needs an East-West line that starts in the west at Singleton and Loop 12 travels along Singleton into Downtown, then heads east along/near Gaston/Live Oak. Where the line would go from there, I don't know, but I think any such line should service the Lakewood area then down Garland road with a White Rock Lake/Arboretum station and on down Garland Road until it terminates at the South Garland Transit Center. It should also have a spur down Samuel road, then along Ferguson road to Oates, and terminate at Eastfield College.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
^ Last I saw, the Lakewood area got DART On demand service (or whatever it's called) because they didn't have enough ridership to justify scheduled bus service. If there's not enough riders for buses, I don't see a rail line as being a priority.
^Good Point.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Dart own the right of way towards Garland and Samuel Park. It could branch off the Green Line just prior to reaching the Fairgrounds.
Dart promised Dallas to never use that line, but now Dallas is suggesting Dart take another look at it.
But there's freight on that line around LBJ, which will make it hard, but not impossible, to put light rail on. So if Dart decided to use it, it would be a short run, I'm thinking it would make a great streetcar line, terminating it at Loop 12.
It would also make a great bike route, tying the bike paths near south White Rock Lake to Deep Ellum and eventually downtown Dallas following adjacent to the Green Line that last mile or so.
And that's what I think Dart should do with it. We need more traffic segregated bike paths into downtown Dallas. With few overpasses, underpasses or grade separations along that rail line, the bike could be the fastest way into downtown Dallas from East Dallas.
You're a little behind the times. The first phase is already under construction, though the second phase has been delayed again.
I may be behind the times, but it was a great idea. Nice to read that Dallas is going ahead with this bike project.
As for heading west, the Dart 2030 plan iis looking at it.
There are a few critical problems that must be worked out first.
a) How to cross the Trinity River, b) How to cross the TRE, c) where to tie into Dart's existing light rail lines - green/orange or red/blue, d) land uses in West Dallas.
Of all the Dart's 2030 future light rail plans possibilities, the West line is the most expensive light rail route. Dart's 2030 potential light rail lines probably will not be operational until 2025-2030 time period. The existing Phase 2 construction Dart plans to open by 2018 will consume almost all of Dart's $2.9 Billion long term bonds. There will just be enough cash left to build one of the many 2030 possibilities.
I'm not stating it will or will not be built, but I agree it's worth further study.
A West Dallas line could be extended into Grand Prairie, if that city joined Dart. Any additional sales taxes from Grand Prairie could quicken the construction of this rail line. Of course, that's true for expanding all existing Dart rail lines further out. So, any additional city joining Dart could determine which rail line gets built by 2030.
]
Here's a link to a mapped-out version of my proposed East-West line above:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...9592e5597&z=11
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
^ The western portion has extremely low population density and no employment centers worth mentioning.
As mentioned previously, the Lakewood area doesn't even have enough riders to get bus service, not to mention rail.
The middle 20% or so just duplicates existing lines.
Other than those little quibbles, it's great. :-)
OK, since you guys are blue-skying, here's what I would love to see: From I-30 to 635, turn Garland Road into a narrower version of the plans for 635 between Preston and 35E. A four lane (two per direction) tollway below grade, with free service roads cantilevered over it. Unless your on top of the cantilever you'll never see the highway. From the surrounding are it would look like a boulevard with a wide median.
You cut pollution and gas usage by bypassing the stop lights. You get people around quicker. You provide easier access to downtown from the Garland area. With the proper landscaping it improves the appearance of the area, a lot of which is currently rundown. Reduced street level traffic would make the area around White Rock and the Arboretum more pedestrian/bicycle friendly. By making it a tollroad only the folks who use it pay for it. And it will help 50x-100x as many people as would a rail line.
Downsides: Interchange at I-30 would be tough without displacing some businesses. Water table issues around White Rock could complicate construction, as could some of the hills.
Of course the NIMBYs would never allow it, so file this one away with the Mockingbird Tunnel....
^Well, once we get those flying cars who needs roads?
Tighten the female dog!
What they "need" is a line that goes from the LBJ/Skillman station west to the Galleria, then north parallel to the Tollway as the original map in this thread shows. There's a swath of apartments that can be connected, plus it creates another connection between the blue and red lines to the north, and gives an opportunity to hook into the cotton belt line near Addison.
In my version, the west would remain the same but the eastern route would meet up at a wye at the intersection with the DART green line with a station on the northern border of Fair Park before continuing to Mesquite, Forney & Terrell.
I thought about that, too. However, I was trying to plan for a line that DART hasn't thought of already. It's my understanding that DART already has plans for a spur/extension off the Green Line down Scyene (maybe after 2030).
I appreciate your comments, though, because I was just trying to spark a conversation of potential DART rail lines that have not been identified as of yet. . . after all, that's what this thread is all about.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Oops. I didn't know it had been identified. Sweet! Disregard my last post.
Scyene Road would be a great choice to branch off the Green line. But, I think they should check a route down Military Parkway as an alternative, because I believe there's more businesses on it, and more room for light rail on it. Military Parkway just may have more ridership. Both would get to LBJ very close to one another, if Mesquite ever joins Dart.
The only reason that I see for Dart to choose Scyene is that it's a State Highway, and Dart might get some State financing repaving it, like what happen with Lancaster Road on the Blue line in south Oak Cliff.
Don't let the numbers zombies hypnotize you into wishing you hadn't said anything at all. Numbers zombies indeed need to lighten up a little. They should learn to use their imaginations and not look at everything in such a pragmatic way. You are definitely not thinking too unconventionally, ksig121. Let's look at this closely.
Why do existing rail corridors always have to be the routes that light rail trains take? Yes, they're cheaper, but that's short-term thinking rather than long-term vision. Methinks that you wouldn't see such a compromise between convenience and cost in places that most people would consider "real" cities, such as LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Boston, and the like. It's low-density suburban hells like Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio that don't want to put forth the effort and $$$ to build a state-of-the-art passenger rail system (subway tunnels, below-grade or underground stations, new track, etc.). I'm not satisfied with lumping Dallas in that category, but that's essentially what you're doing if you're only going to use surface streets or existing rail corridors as track for a passenger rail system. There's a reason why existing rail corridors are where they are--they were built for freight rail or cross-country travel, and as such, they're often located in places lined with industrial businesses and trucking yards, not residents and retail. I'm all for using existing heavy rail as track for high-speed passenger rail, but it shouldn't be the end-all, be-all, and it definitely shouldn't be used at the exclusion of laying track in more useful places.
Last edited by Phillip; 14 September 2008 at 05:53 PM.
What you're saying is true. But, I believe there are many more lines with far more ridership for Dart to build next than the DNT, which is going to be very, very expensive. Like extending their existing Red and Blue lines north and south, a new west Dallas towards Grand Prairie and Arlington, and another in east Dallas towards Mesquite. Then there's the cross town corridor, either along the Cotton Belt or LBJ, or a combination of both. I would rank all of them higher in ridership than a DNT line.
And ridership is a very important statistic when asking the FTA for 50% funding. Higher density usually means higher ridership.
According to the NCTCOG, the single line towards Grand Prairie and Arlington all the way to Fort Worth would carry 33,000 passengers a day, by 2007. I wonder what it would carry by 2030?
Here's the 2007 predictions, made in 2004, for various transit modes:
Commuter Rail (TRE) 15,000
Bus Rapid Transit 21,200
Light Rail 32,800
The whole Red and Blue lines Dart system which has been in service almost 10 years averages 70,000 weekday riders. Therefore, assuming a 50-50 split between those lines, each averages 35,000 riders a day. The Green line ridership is expected to have an average of 33,000 weekday riders.
I doubt the DNT ridership numbers are as high. But, let's go ahead and do a study and see what the ridership numbers will be. It's possible I might be surprised. But I strongly believe Dart should continue to build rail lines where they draw the most ridership, first.
The north-south rail corridor along the DNT is another idea I was thinking about as well. Of course under the plan I was thinking about the entire line would be underground, especially going through Highland Park. Hmm, maybe we could deep-bore the line through HP without telling them that a rail line is going under their house, and they'll never be the wiser. If we told them about it they'd just start protesting something about "the homeless digging 100 feet through the roof of the tunnel to invade their homes"
Virtually all the tracks going through Addison will have to be underground. There's no way of going through Addison Circle aboveground along Quorum without tearing down a lot of new condos, and demolishing our beloved blue metal sculpture. I wouldn't mind seeing a subway station north of Addison Circle near Keller Springs and Addison Rd. There's a large group of apartment homes there, and there is a lot of room to expand. It could also serve as a station to connect to Addison Airport.
"Bow down... bow down... before the power of Santa! Or be crushed... be crushed... by his jolly boots of doom!" --Elves:: Invader Zim episode 29, The Most Horrible Xmas Ever
One of DART's streetcar documents talks about a streetcar line along Preston, which would probably be a better route than under the DNT. Once it gets up to the Galleria area it could follow the rails beside Inwood up to Addison.
I don't see that as a possibility, mainly because of the mindset of the very rich people living along that route. They wouldn't want a streetcar there, because it'll take up a lane of their precious street. Also they don't want the homeless people from downtown riding up there on the streetcar, robbing their houses, then making a getaway on the streetcar with their ill-gotten goods.
Also the streetcar will take much longer to get from downtown to Addison anyway, and it's subject to the same traffic jams the cars are stuck in. I'd prefer to never see Highland Park anyway, except maybe stopping by Kathleen's Sky Diner for some awesome food.
"Bow down... bow down... before the power of Santa! Or be crushed... be crushed... by his jolly boots of doom!" --Elves:: Invader Zim episode 29, The Most Horrible Xmas Ever
So, I see a lot of people mentioning the DNT as a potential route, and I agree. The problem is that it already has the smallest ROW of any freeway since it was built on a prior rail line. I think tunneling would be the best option but it would be ridiculously expensive. I think it does have enough development and potential riders to justify a serious consideration. People want to go to those shopping centers and office buildings on the northern reaches. What is better than offering people on other parts of the DART system the ability to quickly and efficiently get to those places? I think that they should also tunnel through uptown (maybe under Lemmon or Cedar Springs) and add a few subway stops there. They could connect it to pearl station or something. That would be immensely helpful to that already booming area. Adding mass transit to any dense area can only be a good thing. I also think that way, a street car line from downtown to uptown will compliment both services even more by adding more linkage between the two. Street cars seem to only be for local traffic while a light rail system is more towards regional coverage. It's obviously not as regional serving as a commuter rail, but hey.
My idea is that someone should use whatever rail line goes out of Union Station towards Arlington and GP. Call it the purple line. I think it should go from union station and follow those ROW until Arlington where it would branch off slightly towards Six Flags, etc. There could be stops in DT GP and DT Arlington as well as Six Flags, the Ballpark, and the Cowboys Stadium, a stop could be added at UTA, too. The rails are already there, tunneling or elevating the rails would be minimal. Then DART would really have ridership. I know I hate parking at Six Flags and that whole area. Imagine what a rail connection would do to DT Dallas! People riding from all over Dallas would basically HAVE to pass through DT, in which case, more development could be spurred. It also seems like it'd be pretty easy to lure people to DT with the promise of being able to ride the train to most major DFW attractions. It also would benefit people living along the rail lines since DART will now be offering service to a major university (UTA). There really aren't any colleges along the current DART system. UofD isn't exactly major and that's about the only university adjacent to the lines. So the line would be: Union Station, Sylvan/Commerce, Westmoreland, Loop 12/I-30, Jefferson/Main, DT GP, Six Flags Mall, Six Flags, Ballpark/Cowboys Stadium, DT Arlington, and UTA. I think it sounds pretty sweet, no? It also offers riders stations near industrial areas to even more people can use the trains to go to work... The only problem is forcing Arlington and GP to join DART...
I also think a line should run east out of Dallas to Mesquite along whatever rail line that is. Maybe route a little north first to get to all the shopping around Town East and then south to DT Mesquite? I haven't thought about this one as much, but I still like the idea.
Sounds great, except Arlington, Grand Prairie, and Mesquite are not members of DART or any other transit system for that matter. Until that changes, there is no chance for any of these ideas.
Your kidding, right?
Arlington is and always will be land of the lost when it comes to mass transit. UP is not going to give up that rail line.
Not really kidding...? I guess I should say major colleges within convenient walking distance. SMU is about all I can think of. I guess UT Southwestern Med School counts, too. My bad. Richland is about a mile away from the closest station, UTD is about 2mi, Collin College - Spring Creek Edition is about 1.5mi, Mountain View is about 2mi, and Paul Quinn is about 2mi. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not staying they aren't somewhat close, it's just that they seem to be far enough away to not be a big draw, people would rather ride a train than a bus, right? My point is that having a large university along the DART would do wonders. I'm not really sure what the effect of SMU/UTSw on DART is, but it can only be good.
It sucks that Arlington hasn't done anything in the way of mass transit. Isn't it supposedly the largest US city without mass transit? Maybe Arlington/GP would be enticed to join with the promise of light rail. Then Arlington would lose the title and stigma, and DART would greatly expand ridership. I know it's a pretty crazy shot, but those are ideas I think should happen sooner than later. I also think that maybe DART could convince UP to let them build within their right of way? Obviously for a price, but still. Thanks for letting me know it was UP - I had no idea. Anyone know about the one that branches off the green line towards Mesquite?
Now if DART could solve the downtown issue. I like this idea a lot. Then the red/blue lines can split each taking one route, the green/orange could split each taking one route, and my purple still goes to union. Then there's never more than 2 lines on any track. Superhuman DART building powers, GO!
Thanks.
In response to the 11th post in this thread, the deal in St. Louis is: The residents and the community around Washington University wanted it...and the city and the county were on the hook for the entire cost of the rail line (at least the extension to Clayton County). I was in St. Louis for a conference a few years ago, and the agency staff presented some information regarding the extension and some of the challenges the agency had.
I would love honestly to see what life would have been like in Dallas if the Tollway was actually a Subway north from downtown. But one item of concern...besides all of those mention (and this probably has been mentioned as well)...is that to qualify for federal funding (as it stands now), a subway of a long distance with no high density could price the project out, which means local funds would have to pay for the entire line. Not saying that it would not be possible, it would be a stretch.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks