bachmanlad wrote:Also interesting:
DART is considering redesigning the East TC or getting rid of it completely. I asked, and they said they are considering opening it to development and building a new bus TC on the bottom of the new development or just selling it outright.
DPatel304 wrote:Thanks for the recap! I'm a very visual person, so it's a little tricky for me to picture some of the proposed stations, but I'm glad to hear the Deep Ellum station isn't disappearing. I'm wondering why they chose to reduce the number of exits for a couple of the stations though, that seems like a step back.
THRILLHO wrote:The Deep Ellum station isn't disappearing but it still kind of feels like it is ahah. Better than no station at all but it's getting scooted far enough up that it doesn't realistically serve as a rail stop for Deep Ellum anymore. From the new spot it's a solid 10 to 15 minute walk into Deep Ellum depending on where you're going. If this is what has to happen then that's fine, but it's still kind of a bummer to me.
DPatel304 wrote:I'm wondering why they chose to reduce the number of exits for a couple of the stations though, that seems like a step back.
THRILLHO wrote:Also, I didn’t realize what a large structure they had planned for the Metro center station.
DPatel304 wrote:Whenever I'm in the area, I always think that land could be put to better use.
bachmanlad wrote:DPatel304 wrote:I'm wondering why they chose to reduce the number of exits for a couple of the stations though, that seems like a step back.THRILLHO wrote:Also, I didn’t realize what a large structure they had planned for the Metro center station.
1) I'm thinking the exits at the south end of Metro Center may have been scratched because of some complication caused by the existing tunnels there.
2) Maybe they ran the numbers, decided that having as many exits as they had was too expensive, and had to scale back.
3) Judging by the presentation, it seems like they wanted to focus on having a few large, prominent, naturally lit exits rather than a bunch of more convenient but smaller and less visible ones. Typical DART thinking, putting form over function to attract so-called "choice riders".
I very much agree it's a step backward. The smaller and more accessible the stations are, the better they will integrate with the urban fabric and the more they will be used. In the cities with the biggest subway systems, entrances are either directly integrated into development or hardly more than an escalator from the sidewalk to the platform. The kind of advertisement DART wants to do here is misguided - if people think the convenience of taking the train rivals the convenience of their cars (or Ubers), they will choose the train, and if they don't, they won't. Nothing else matters, and anything more is just taking up space that would be better used as parkland or other development. To that end, DART should be trying to eliminate at-grade street crossings and reduce walks through station concourses wherever possible, not trying to turn the subway into a "destination" or an "experience".DPatel304 wrote:Whenever I'm in the area, I always think that land could be put to better use.
Really, though. It's like it was designed to be as space-sucking and useless as possible. I'd rant about it here, but it's probably worthy of its own thread on the bus boards.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests