Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

DART D2 Subway

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 19 Jan 2017 12:43

Hot off the presses: public meeting presentation from today on potential D2 subway alignments. Maps included!

https://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/ex ... an2017.pdf

DPatel304
Posts: 864
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby DPatel304 » 19 Jan 2017 14:00

Thanks!

I'm really looking forward to this project moving forward, but, to be honest, it's so overwhelming to try and keep up with the amount of information regarding D2. It seems to change slightly each time more news comes in, so it's really hard to keep up with what's reality, and what's no longer being planned.

I still have no idea what sort of timeline we are looking at here, but, on the plus side, it seems like D2 will for sure be a subway, correct? I know about 6 months ago, they were still debating to do this at-grade or subway, so I'm glad to hear that the at-grade option is off the table. As of now, it seems the big decision left would be the actual placement of these tracks.

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 22
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby northsouth » 19 Jan 2017 14:36

Interesting that the subway proponents from Deep Ellum were able to get the Good Latimer connection downgraded to secondary choice vs Swiss Avenue. Although to me, if it's going to take a more northerly route that does away with Deep Ellum Station, they'd be better off putting the portal south of Pacific/Gaston in that block of almost empty land. It's a straighter alignment and avoids having to knock down several buildings along Good Latimer.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 296
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby The_Overdog » 19 Jan 2017 15:02

According to their charts, a route along Pacific, Elm, and Commerce are the only ones they are really going to consider. The Pacific route creates a loop using the existing lines plus a red line extension from Deep Ellum Station to either the rail corridor along I35 or a possible second loop around Victory Park kind of near Perot Museum to Victory Station.

Elm is the same, just a block farther south.

Commerce creates a weird loop around a bunch of nothing next to US75 which I guess would be alright if the freeway was torn out and you could redevelop the land, but I think it makes more sense to build where people are now.

Not sure how lines through Uptown were considered but didn't meet 'core capacity objectives'. The loops that include uptown create a much better loop in my opinion than running above and below ground lines on top of one another. People on the north side of Woodall Rodgers are still mostly locked out of transit access with the Pacific, Elm, and Commerce ideas due to Woodall Rodgers being in the way. And the MLine Trolley would accomplish everything that DART is doing with the subway lines.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 19 Jan 2017 15:52

The_Overdog wrote:According to their charts, a route along Pacific, Elm, and Commerce are the only ones they are really going to consider.


They're also moving forward with studying the Arts District alignment along Ross. They included it in those "City of Dallas proposed modification" maps, and it also got a checkmark in addition to Pacific, Elm, and Commerce. Weird that they only mentioned the latter three in the next slide as best meeting project objectives. Maybe a typo?

Not sure how lines through Uptown were considered but didn't meet 'core capacity objectives'.


Yeah, this is a bizarre statement. Most of the employment within the loop is reasonably served by the existing line. North of Woodall isn't.

eta: possibly they wouldn't as easily qualify as official "Core Capacity" projects for FTA funding?

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 19 Jan 2017 18:48

Here's the meeting notes from the technical committee meeting from last week: http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/exp ... 2jan17.pdf

Here's the initial assessment:
Image

Interesting points:
  • NCTCOG does not like Elm or Pacific
  • Canton likely quite cheap/easy to build because limited utilities in the way. Everyone else hates Canton because it's too far south.
  • Not really the point of the meeting, but seems like a streetcar connection that goes along Young before heading north to meet to trolley would have the strongest support at the moment. Want a streetcar plan to be integrated into D2 alignment decisions.
  • Big issue with Uptown alignments (esp Pearl) is that they would have to travel under existing buildings. You also can't run all the lines through both the new and existing routes (interoperability). And they have worse connection with the bus network.

Also, looking more into it, I'm almost certain the Core Capacity comments concern the FTA definition. That is, the Uptown (and Canton) lines are too far away from the existing service that they're considered mainly expanding the service area instead of just increasing capacity in the existing core service area.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 296
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby The_Overdog » 20 Jan 2017 09:14

Also, looking more into it, I'm almost certain the Core Capacity comments concern the FTA definition.


That makes sense I guess, but how about flipping the money for Cotton Belt (which shouldn't have any core capacity funding for D2 instead?

So it looks like we are going to get a D2 that basically uses federal core capacity funding to eventually cover every street in downtown.

I love this line too for some reason: "Any portal through Carpenter Park would be fatal flaw" Google 'Carpenter Park Dallas' and you don't get this park. You get one in Plano. That's how important it is to the world.

This line too in the notes: NCTCOG want a southern alignment to– "encourage more redevelopment to the south". We need to stop taking this group's input on anything. They still don't get it.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 20 Jan 2017 10:33

Looks like Pacific, Elm, and Commerce Streets are the most likely routings for D2. The Pacific routing is the easiest to implement using the RR corridor for the west portal avoiding Dealy Plaza complications. The Swiss routing allows placing the east portal east of I-345, making it preferable for that end.
I believe DART prefers using the Victory corridor for the west portal, which allows using either Pacific, Elm, or Commerce, being the most flexible.

But the penciled in sketches slide points to what the city leaders and the other stakeholders want most. RR corridor for the west portal, using Elm Street, and placing the east portal East of I-345, not necessity using Swiss Ave in what is called Monument Alley. It'll be interesting to see if DART can make that happen.

never-the-less, even if Victory is chosen for the west portal and Swiss is chosen for the east portal, I strongly suggest Elm will be the preferred routing for D2 from every stakeholder including DART.
Last edited by electricron on 20 Jan 2017 10:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Las Colinas

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby muncien » 20 Jan 2017 10:37

The Commerce alternative '2' (also listed as 'Commerce St B') seems the most promising. But, I think a lot of support for that would be dependent on the underground junction which will be costly, but a good win for the 'hood.

I actually like a Canton alternative, but there is zero reason for it to be underground, and if done at grade it should simply connect with existing route south of the Convention Center, and act more as a streetcar. Such a route would cost .10 on the dollar compared to any others. Probably not needed for some time, but I could see it spurring some badly needed development down there.

An uptown route would be cool, but I fail to see how it relates to D2. It should be considered D3 and focus on Uptown instead of trying to serve two masters. :)
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Las Colinas

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby muncien » 20 Jan 2017 10:41

I don't understand 'Pacific' or 'Elm' routes at all... That essentially follows service areas that already exist. If we were REPLACING the current route, that would make sense... But as a supplemental route, it makes no sense at all.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 20 Jan 2017 10:51

muncien wrote:The Commerce alternative '2' (also listed as 'Commerce St B') seems the most promising. But, I think a lot of support for that would be dependent on the underground junction which will be costly, but a good win for the 'hood.

I actually like a Canton alternative, but there is zero reason for it to be underground, and if done at grade it should simply connect with existing route south of the Convention Center, and act more as a streetcar. Such a route would cost .10 on the dollar compared to any others. Probably not needed for some time, but I could see it spurring some badly needed development down there.

An uptown route would be cool, but I fail to see how it relates to D2. It should be considered D3 and focus on Uptown instead of trying to serve two masters. :)

I'll agree that Uptown routings for D2 isn't going to happen. The new FTA scoring matrices places a Canton route with just as bad a score as Uptown - too far away from the business core. That's why Commerce, Elm, and Pacific are the preferred routes going on.
The Commerce 2 western portal with a subway junction is too expensive to implement, and therefore not preferred or being studied further.

Another point I wanted to make earlier but didn't is the point DART made about placing the west portal along the existing RR corridor. Their description of increase risks is true, as compared to the Austin shale under Lamar Street. But it's not an unacceptable risk, there are tunnels in landfill soils throughout the world.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 20 Jan 2017 10:57

The_Overdog wrote:This line too in the notes: NCTCOG want a southern alignment to– "encourage more redevelopment to the south". We need to stop taking this group's input on anything. They still don't get it.


Eh, while obviously a northern alignment is preferred if we can swing it, a Commerce alignment seems better than one that largely retraces the current line. It feels like a bit of a waste to go through all this without really increasing service area at all. You can have timed transfers so that Yellow/Green line riders who want to go to the Pacific stations don't have their travel time increased.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 20 Jan 2017 11:05

Just want to point out that the Arts District alignment is still in the running. It's not mentioned in the slides much because it (as well as the Uptown alignments) was not one of the ones developed as of Dec 15, so none of the agencies prepared comments for it. But they did push it along.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 20 Jan 2017 11:10

muncien wrote:I don't understand 'Pacific' or 'Elm' routes at all... That essentially follows service areas that already exist. If we were REPLACING the current route, that would make sense... But as a supplemental route, it makes no sense at all.


It's the new matrixes the FTA is using, servicing the business core, that makes these routes more likely to receive Federal funding. Anyways,that's what our political expert advocates suggest. Additionally the existing bus transfer centers front Pacific or Elm Streets - not Commerce, Young, and Canton Streets. Having two mass transit lines in close approximately to each other creates a mass transit wealthness that should allow zoning and building more and taller buildings near that corridor.

As for expanding onto new sectors of downtown, a streetcar extension down Young Street towards the Farmers Market area should meet those needs. And the streetcar doesn't charge fares.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 20 Jan 2017 11:22

electricron wrote: Additionally the existing bus transfer centers front Pacific or Elm Streets - not Commerce, Young, and Canton Streets.


This, in addition to funding potential, is the most compelling argument to me for one of those two alignments. Elm is the busiest bus corridor in DART, with 19 lines. Though I should point out that Commerce is #2, with 13.

Having two mass transit lines in close approximately to each other creates a mass transit wealthness that should allow zoning and building more and taller buildings near that corridor.


This makes less sense to me. Aren't downtown parcels along that line essentially unrestricted (at least in terms of height/density)? And two parallel lines right next to each other actually doesn't particularly increase total transit in the area, regardless.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1159
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tamtagon » 20 Jan 2017 12:09

The_Overdog wrote:This line too in the notes: NCTCOG want a southern alignment to– "encourage more redevelopment to the south". We need to stop taking this group's input on anything. They still don't get it.


I totally agree with the notion that NCTCOG has run amok with many of the highway expansion ideas, and with the notion of a High speed rail station in Arlington, but I also think encouraging more South Downtown development is critical; all the light rail trains should meet the High Speed Rail near the Convention Center.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 20 Jan 2017 13:15

My two cents: Keeping in mind that the D2 alignment won't materially affect ridership (DART's own projections show D2 only affecting total system ridership by a few dozen trips per day), and that history has shown that in the CBD there is no positive correlation between the existing rail line and new development (actually, it looks like a negative correlation) then if they insist at throwing $1.3 billion at adding capacity to a system with consistently decreasing ridership the priorities should be minimizing the inconvenience to existing stakeholders in the area and keeping the cost as low as possible.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 20 Jan 2017 23:02

Hannibal Lecter wrote:My two cents: Keeping in mind that the D2 alignment won't materially affect ridership (DART's own projections show D2 only affecting total system ridership by a few dozen trips per day), and that history has shown that in the CBD there is no positive correlation between the existing rail line and new development (actually, it looks like a negative correlation) then if they insist at throwing $1.3 billion at adding capacity to a system with consistently decreasing ridership the priorities should be minimizing the inconvenience to existing stakeholders in the area and keeping the cost as low as possible.

I'll agree D2 by itself isn't goi g to increase ridership. But it will allow more trains with shorter headways that could cause increasing ridership. More people will be willing to ride the trains if there are more frequent trains and they don't have to wait as long waiting for the next train.

When extending the subway length to between Woodall Rogers to i-345, that causes the entire length of D2 to be shorter to keep costs below $1.2 billion. Amongst the slides was the goals, and amongst the goals was to build the shortest possible D2 line with the fewest curves - as the way to keep costs as low as possible.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 20 Jan 2017 23:32

electricron wrote:Amongst the slides was the goals, and amongst the goals was to build the shortest possible D2 line with the fewest curves - as the way to keep costs as low as possible.


Also good for decreasing travel times

User avatar
xen0blue
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 13:36

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby xen0blue » 22 Jan 2017 19:36

Having an alignment that is under 3-4 blocks away from the current alignment is just pointless and wasteful. The only alignments that make any sort of sense or Young and Wood.

User avatar
f4shionablecha0s
Posts: 17
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 14:56

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby f4shionablecha0s » 23 Jan 2017 10:52

xen0blue wrote:Having an alignment that is under 3-4 blocks away from the current alignment is just pointless and wasteful. The only alignments that make any sort of sense or Young and Wood.

lol classic DART thinking. Instead of serving any one area extremely well we always choose to provide mediocre service to the largest possible area.

User avatar
xen0blue
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 13:36

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby xen0blue » 23 Jan 2017 15:49

f4shionablecha0s wrote:
xen0blue wrote:Having an alignment that is under 3-4 blocks away from the current alignment is just pointless and wasteful. The only alignments that make any sort of sense or Young and Wood.

lol classic DART thinking. Instead of serving any one area extremely well we always choose to provide mediocre service to the largest possible area.


Sorry, meant "the only alignments that make any sort of sense ARE Young and Wood", not "or Young and Wood".

I'm saying the best alignments are Wood and Young.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2017 13:51

New technical committee presentation today: https://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/ex ... 9feb17.pdf

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2017 14:02

Long story short, looks like we should have a short-list of the detailed potential alignments in early March. Then a final decision on which is the LPA comes in May/June.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Las Colinas

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby muncien » 10 Feb 2017 14:43

Wow... Every proposal here seems to turn DE into swiss cheese. Even more so than original proposal. Yikes!
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby joshua.dodd » 10 Feb 2017 16:07

Who in the hell thought that the Pacific and Elm alignments were good ideas? Those are the most idiotic alignments. I was hoping for something that more integrally connects the southern section of downtown.

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 22
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby northsouth » 10 Feb 2017 17:56

I understand DART wanting to stick to public ROW (streets), but I still think the large, almost empty area between Elm, Pacific, I-345, and Good Latimer is the perfect place to put the east portal. I made a map of this after the last update: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a2KiL ... sp=sharing

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 10 Feb 2017 23:31


dfwcre8tive
Site Admin
Posts: 149
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 12:47
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby dfwcre8tive » 11 Feb 2017 00:19

Sink the current Deep Ellum Station below-grade (similar to Mockingbird Station) and the underground junction will have no conflict with vehicles. Of course, this would require a bus-bridge for several years during construction.

Also, does putting the subway portal under I-345 cause future issues if they freeway is ever to be moved (or placed underground)?

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 11 Feb 2017 04:28

There's going to be two tunnel portals, one east of I-345 and one west.
They're mostly drilling in chalk under downtown Dallas, except for the fill area where they redirected the Trinity River west along the existing RR corridor.
Amongst the design criteria is to minimize curves and their sharpness. A sharp radius (300 to 400 feet) curves requires cut and cover construction technique, a wider curve radius (700 feet) or larger can be dug with a tunneling machine. 700 feet radius curves last longer and need less maintenance than sharp 300-400 feet curve radius. A point to keep in mind is that 700 feet is two city blocks, and a 90 degree curve runs under three city blocks.
All the routes south of Commerce have been eliminated for two main reasons - (1) they're longer and therefore cost too much, and (2) have terrible east portal options.
Points included for reaching a future HSR station near I-30 was the requirement to reconfigure the existing light rail wye west off downtown so its double tracked north to south for bidirectional travel to reach existing light rail stations -- and extending the TRE along the existing RR corridor south to the future HSR station, which will require low station platform suitable for TRE trains. I believe many have suggested doing both those ideas before years ago - except maybe not the reconstruction at the existing light rail wye. Looks like the subway tunnel extension to the future HSR station has been eliminated, which I think is a really great cut.
Building the D2 east portal east if I-345 will place the tracks below grade at the freeway, and making it difficult to rebuild I-345 below grade where the subway is located. But not impossible, the existing subway tunnel was built under the below grade North Central Expressway, you just have to build the subway deeper. Don't forget, there's a drainage sewage line under the freeway and above the subway, so the subway will have to be really deep. The deeper the subway is, the further east the portal becomes, although some of the Monument Street portal alternates had the portal east of the Baylor Hospital Station. A Swiss Avenue portal couldn't be built deep enough to allow a below grade rebuilding of I-345. Killing or making useless one existing light rail station is hard to swallow, doing the same to two light rail stations might cause a panic. :ugeek:
DART has a limited budget to work with, so building a longer and deeper D2 subway might cost more than the allowable budget.

User avatar
xen0blue
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 13:36

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby xen0blue » 11 Feb 2017 18:16

joshua.dodd wrote:Who in the hell thought that the Pacific and Elm alignments were good ideas? Those are the most idiotic alignments. I was hoping for something that more integrally connects the southern section of downtown.


Agree 1000%. What. The. Hell. Were. They. Thinking

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 175
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby electricron » 12 Feb 2017 02:20

xen0blue wrote:
joshua.dodd wrote:Who in the hell thought that the Pacific and Elm alignments were good ideas? Those are the most idiotic alignments. I was hoping for something that more integrally connects the southern section of downtown.

Agree 1000%. What. The. Hell. Were. They. Thinking

Well, I disagree 100%. Building D2 entirely as a subway between Woodall Rodgers and I-345 changed every matrix point. For years I've been suggesting building a subway, or aerial guideway, much closer to the existing street mall.
Finally, downtown leaders were listened to. Just about every route south of Commerce had businesses and churches affected by the at grade train, one street after another had to be eliminated. You can't build something without some political support from the stakeholders. Once a full subway was chosen, the length of the D2 line had to be shorten as much as possible to limit the construction costs. Limiting costs is why using the existing RR corridor west is gaining, a subway portal along Lamar is still technically doable, but the tracks have to leave the street to install a portal, and land in downtown Dallas isn't cheap.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Las Colinas

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby muncien » 14 Feb 2017 10:00

I still have a hard time seeing how portals in DE are less obstructive than at grade rail. But if that's what the stakeholders there prefer, I suppose that's what we work with.

I understand the rationale of a shorter tunnel being cheaper. I just don't see what it really gains you. I mean, if you really intend to support the same service area as you do with the current line, than you may as well remove the current line when tunnel is done. Without at-grade crossings, you can actively support all the rail lines on a single corridor.

My preference had always been to expand the service area. But most of these proposals do very little in that regard. Plus nearly all of them remove an existing station.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

DPatel304
Posts: 864
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby DPatel304 » 14 Feb 2017 11:08

muncien wrote:My preference had always been to expand the service area. But most of these proposals do very little in that regard. Plus nearly all of them remove an existing station.


Yeah, and that's a real shame. I'm happy that we are definitely going with a subway, but it seems like the focus is still on the commuters coming from the suburbs, rather than those that live in the city.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 14 Feb 2017 11:42

To play devil's advocate: expanding the service area is great in theory, but there's not much going on in the southern half of downtown, and DART hasn't demonstrated an ability to spur development where it wouldn't already go. If anything, the center of gravity of the downtown area is shifting north toward uptown. Expanding the service area isn't valuable if it means serving a low-demand area at the expense of taking riders directly where they want to go.

Also, you're still getting new station areas: one in Victory Park and one on the east side of downtown.

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby joshua.dodd » 14 Feb 2017 16:15

DART hasn't demonstrated an ability to spur development where it wouldn't already go.


What in the world are you talking about? Everywhere DART rail has extended to has spurred tremendous development. Just look at the DART line to DFW airport. The Irving Convention Center station used to be an island surrounded by a highway and nothing. in fact, an article about DART by ggwash.org (https://ggwash.org/view/37371/would-you ... ail-system) has a mention about it. Now that little station has a plethora of major developments spurring to life all around it. To say that DART rail doesn't spur development is an ignorant statement.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 14 Feb 2017 19:37

joshua.dodd wrote:What in the world are you talking about? Everywhere DART rail has extended to has spurred tremendous development. Just look at the DART line to DFW airport. The Irving Convention Center station used to be an island surrounded by a highway and nothing.


The fact that there has been development near DART stations doesn't mean that DART is the cause. Does location near DART predict greater development compared to similar places without DART?

Where is the major development happening? Tollway, Uptown, Katy Trail, Bishop Arts, West Dallas, Knox. Places near DART are getting comparatively little from the biggest development boom in 30 years.

The one exception is Victory Park, but ask yourself for the residential, how much is Katy Trail driven vs DART driven? And the Harwood office projects aren't really that close to the DART station (10-15 min walk) and are more an extension of the Uptown office boom than anything driven by station proximity.

I don't know much if anything about Irving, but the fact that there has been development near a convention center with easy highway access to DFW doesn't particularly make me think the DART station had anything to do with it.

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby joshua.dodd » 14 Feb 2017 21:18

Here is an article that explains it well:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/managemen ... l-s-impact

User avatar
Matt777
Posts: 280
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 09:10

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Matt777 » 14 Feb 2017 22:12

Have ever there been any studies/proposals to build D2 through Uptown instead? It would have to be subway, of course, but since we have pretty much committed to a subway for a downtown D2 maybe that wouldn't be as much of an issue now. Crazy idea: Build D2 as a subway with the Blue and Orange lines spurring off from the dug out Knox/Henderson station (and build out the station in the process) and then run it through West Village, Uptown, and ending in Victory Park with the Orange line heading north and blue line heading south. I'm sure it would be far more costly and complicated but it would finally connect one of the most urban sections of Dallas into the light rail system. It would be great to have a Knox/Henderson station and a few in Uptown. A less attractive but cheaper option would be to spur it out from Cityplace underground at the existing station.

User avatar
joshua.dodd
Posts: 297
Joined: 23 Oct 2016 01:11

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby joshua.dodd » 14 Feb 2017 22:18

I can see that happening in the distant future. I can also see a line extending into the Design District. The Design District is very compact with buildings, and high rise density development is underway for that area, so a subway extension there would also seem possible.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 15 Feb 2017 00:30

joshua.dodd wrote:Here is an article that explains it well:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/managemen ... l-s-impact


"...said Terry L. Clower, Ph.D., director of the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas (UNT), which released the study."

A department absolutely notorious for always reaching the conclusion the folks paying for the study want to hear.

In this case, that would be DART.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 15 Feb 2017 02:27

joshua.dodd wrote:Here is an article that explains it well:

http://www.metro-magazine.com/managemen ... l-s-impact


Couple of major problems with that stuody, the full text of which is here: http://www.dart.org/about/economicdevel ... ry2014.asp

First, it just compared development in station areas with development at the next "major intersection". The problem with this is that presumably DART stations are not randomly distributed among intersections along a highway--they were specifically chosen in large part due to the importance of the intersection/location and the willingness of the city to help facilitate development via agreeable zoning.

So, for instance, there are stations at Las Colinas/Irving Convention Center and at the 75/Bush intersection. Those places would almost assuredly be getting an outsize amount of development compared to the next exit on the highway, regardless of DART.

Second, even if it is true that the presence of a DART station has made it more likely that development goes in at Walnut Hill vs Royal, that’s just a reshuffling among closely related areas rather than a net increase in development for the area, much less a net increase overall.

If we’re using spurring development as a reason to build a southern downtown line, the relevant question is “does the presence of DART stations make a developer more likely to build on 75 instead of DNT?” (and really, the even tougher hurdles of “does the presence of a DART station make a developer more likely to build downtown instead of Frisco?” and “does the presence of a DART station make a developer more likely to build there when they otherwise would build nothing anywhere?”)

NOT relevant is “does the presence of a DART station make a developer build at Walnut Hill instead of Royal?” If all a southern downtown line is doing is transferring some development from parking lots in northern downtown to southern downtown, that’s not worth it.

Lastly, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Big new developments at Walnut Hill and Forest, for example.. are they oriented along the highway or at the DART station? The highway. They may be captured in this analysis for those stations, but it's pretty clear that the development isn't influenced by DART proximity.

Similarly, the regression at the end of the study is pretty useless because they don’t control for highway proximity. Of course offices near DART command higher rents.. the question is whether it’s actually due to the DART station or just due to the fact that DART stations are off of major highways.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 15 Feb 2017 03:34

^ Excellent analysis.

Something else I've found interesting is that inside the downtown loop there's a strong inverse correlation between DART rail stations and development.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 585
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Las Colinas

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby muncien » 15 Feb 2017 10:31

I've got a silly question that maybe one of our knowledgeable rail contributors can speak to...
Can the modern street cars run on the existing DART LRT tracks?

Reason I ask...
With D2 going underground, and likely overlaying much of the existing service area... Perhaps building out the original D2 proposal at grade as a modern street car loop would help meet the service area needs without totally screwing up the streets/traffic/land owners.

Consider a loop starting from the previous D2 proposal around Perot museum, running south along Griffin all the way to Young. Then East to DE where it joints the northbound LRT tracks. From there it could service DE station and Pearl/Arts district station, before diverging north on Olive along the existing street car line. It could then follow Olive back west toward Houston briefly, and complete the loop behind Perot.

Such a route would easily link both segments of streetcar lines (Mckinney & Bishop), but also connect Victory, West End, City Hall, Farmers Market, DE, Arts District, and that thriving little area up on Mckinney.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 296
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby The_Overdog » 15 Feb 2017 11:20

Man we have ~1300 highway miles in DFW and ~90ish miles of DART, but highway is the better deal? Somehow I don't think so. If it is then why is the highway in Plano/Richardson/635/along most of I20& I30 dead zones with giant parking lots? The value is just not there. But hey that's cool we really need to spend $billions to expand highways along US75 in all those cities and build one out to all hinterlands because all those highways just creates value and business can't wait to move in next to them. And you are pissing about development moving from one intersection to the next, and not one city to the next? Which is what happened before DART. We don't need studies to see what DART creates. We have 50 years of test cases (1950-2000).

Nice to move the bar a bit.


Have ever there been any studies/proposals to build D2 through Uptown instead?

Yes, Uptown routes were considered but shot down for 'reasons' which went unexplained, possibly due to cost and due to the limited distance allowed for DART to build for its 'core capacity' funding, even though they aren't asking for the same types of grants for the Cotton Belt.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 438
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby tanzoak » 15 Feb 2017 13:58

The_Overdog wrote:Man we have ~1300 highway miles in DFW and ~90ish miles of DART, but highway is the better deal? Somehow I don't think so. If it is then why is the highway in Plano/Richardson/635/along most of I20& I30 dead zones with giant parking lots? The value is just not there. But hey that's cool we really need to spend $billions to expand highways along US75 in all those cities and build one out to all hinterlands because all those highways just creates value and business can't wait to move in next to them. And you are pissing about development moving from one intersection to the next, and not one city to the next? Which is what happened before DART. We don't need studies to see what DART creates. We have 50 years of test cases (1950-2000).

Nice to move the bar a bit.


Whoa whoa whoa. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. But first, because so much about transportation seems to be fairly tribal, let me establish my pro-transit bonafides: I've been car-free for 6 years, and I take the train every day to go to grad school, where I study things like public transit system design. Also, I've worked (well, interned) at a major transit agency.

This is not about what is the better "deal" between building highways in the boonies vs DART in the core. It's about development impacts and whether DART stations cause additional development compared to what would have occurred otherwise, and if so, is it "net new" development, poached from nearby, or poached from far away? The reason why this is relevant is not some battle royale between highway and rail, but rather is helpful for assessing the relative benefits of the Commerce (or even the rejected further south) alignment vs the Elm or Pacific alignments for the D2 subway.

The fact that there are lightly-developed areas near highways isn't particularly damning because as you mentioned, highways in DFW seem to be significantly overbuilt. Also, We build highways through areas we don't expect to be economically dense and vibrant, whereas we only build rail specifically along corridors that are very intensely used.

I think the most pressing question a Dallas "DART causes development" advocate needs to answer is why has the majority of the in-town development this cycle been in places that aren't easily DART accessible (Uptown, Katy Trail, Bishop Arts, West Dallas, Knox-Henderson, Ross, Harwood), and why did the major suburban office boom happen along DNT instead of US-75?

Note that DART not causing development is not a strike against DART. The purpose of transit is to provide transportation, which is why you typically want it to serve your highest-demand areas instead of focusing on its potential (or not) as real estate development bait.

User avatar
CTroyMathis
Site Admin
Posts: 159
Joined: 13 Oct 2016 19:51

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby CTroyMathis » 15 Feb 2017 14:53

muncien wrote:I've got a silly question that maybe one of our knowledgeable rail contributors can speak to...
Can the modern street cars run on the existing DART LRT tracks?


Yes.

User avatar
f4shionablecha0s
Posts: 17
Joined: 09 Jan 2017 14:56

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby f4shionablecha0s » 15 Feb 2017 16:41

CTroyMathis wrote:
muncien wrote:I've got a silly question that maybe one of our knowledgeable rail contributors can speak to...
Can the modern street cars run on the existing DART LRT tracks?


Yes.

But I doubt the floor of the street cars lines up with the platforms at the LRT stations.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 15 Feb 2017 18:13

The_Overdog wrote:Man we have ~1300 highway miles in DFW and ~90ish miles of DART, but highway is the better deal? Somehow I don't think so.


Let's see.... In North Texas we spend 40x as much per transit user as highway user, yet only about 2% of commuters (and 0% of the freight) use transit. DART requires massive taxpayer subsidies (85% of operating costs and 100% of capital costs), while the government uses fuel taxes as a profit center to pay for other projects. About 1/3 of state fuel taxes go to other things, most of it the 25% dedicated to public schools. The Federal Highway Trust Fund is continually looted for non-highways projects, such as $700 million for the DART Green Line, or $10 million for a Dallas park. I'm going off memory for this, but when NTTA won the bid to manage the Sam Rayburn Tollway they had to make a $100+ million upfront payment for the rights, which went to things like a bike path in Lancaster, 40 miles away. Of course that $100 million will eventually be paid by the highway users.

Please explain how DART is a better deal.

The_Overdog wrote:We don't need studies to see what DART creates. We have 50 years of test cases (1950-2000).


I agree that you really don't need another study. You can look at history. DART spends a billion dollars a year, yet their market share continues to decline. Every year since DART opened their first rail line rail ridership has gone down, except in those years where they replaced bus lines with rail and forced the users to switch.

Make yourself a list of a North Texas cities ranked by growth in population or economic development. Then compare that to a list of cities that are members of DART or the Ft. Worth equivalent. Then tell me that transit expenditures lead to growth and development...and try to keep a straight face while doing so.

dfwcre8tive
Site Admin
Posts: 149
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 12:47
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: DART D2 Subway

Postby dfwcre8tive » 24 Feb 2017 03:01

Here's an interesting article from 1983 stressing the importance of investing in subway over a transitway. Elm Street has always been a long-term plan.

pl_002242017_0338_56529_884_Page_1.jpg

pl_002242017_0338_56529_884_Page_2.jpg


And a few others talk about the subway tunnel / station under 1700 Pacific.

pl_002242017_0349_24484_759.jpg

pl_002242017_0343_38409_442.jpg


If the portal issues could be resolved, it seems Elm is the logical option (diverting to Pacific under 1700 Pacific) since it has remained generally clear of major underground utilities. As it is planned, the originally-designed City Hall and 1700 Pacific station spaces will never be utilized.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login