Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

2045 Mobility Plan

User avatar
Warrior2015
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jun 2018 21:19

2045 Mobility Plan

Postby Warrior2015 » 26 Jun 2018 02:02

Pretty interesting article basically stating the priorities that the state is going to spend on roads highways etc and public transit walkability etc.https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/26 ... ort-worth/

User avatar
Matt777
Posts: 442
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 09:10

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby Matt777 » 26 Jun 2018 10:43

The tiny percentage of transit funding dollars devoted to building public transit systems is criminal but I'm not surprised considering our current state leadership. What a disservice to the public. Dallas is ever densifying in the urban core neighborhoods. Traffic is already getting to the point of gridlock at rush hour. Has anyone been in Uptown during rush hour lately? It's crazy. And it will only get worse. We need USEFUL public transit with good design, and our state leadership is saying No, not at least until the end of the century.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 212
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby electricron » 27 Jun 2018 02:47

Matt777 wrote:The tiny percentage of transit funding dollars devoted to building public transit systems is criminal but I'm not surprised considering our current state leadership. What a disservice to the public. Dallas is ever densifying in the urban core neighborhoods. Traffic is already getting to the point of gridlock at rush hour. Has anyone been in Uptown during rush hour lately? It's crazy. And it will only get worse. We need USEFUL public transit with good design, and our state leadership is saying No, not at least until the end of the century.


The State of Texas allows DART to collect $566 Million yearly to fund transit in Dallas. DART has been collecting sales tax revenues since 1984, collecting over $10.5 Billion to date. So please give the State some credit for allowing DART to charge a penny sales tax within DART's member cities. The State could have kept that penny sales tax for itself.

T

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1384
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby tamtagon » 27 Jun 2018 05:48

Passenger rail service in densely populated cities should be as much of a funding priority to the State as highways for cars in rural communities. Allowing a handful of cities to collect an extra tax on residents is not creditworthy.

At the very least, the State should match construction funding.

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1436
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 27 Jun 2018 08:12

^Amen

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 289
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 27 Jun 2018 12:34

tamtagon wrote:Passenger rail service in densely populated cities should be as much of a funding priority to the State as highways for cars in rural communities. Allowing a handful of cities to collect an extra tax on residents is not creditworthy.

At the very least, the State should match construction funding.


There is no such thing as state funding. There is only taxpayer funding.

Why should people in the rest of the state be forced to support our follies?

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1436
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 27 Jun 2018 14:07

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tamtagon wrote:Passenger rail service in densely populated cities should be as much of a funding priority to the State as highways for cars in rural communities. Allowing a handful of cities to collect an extra tax on residents is not creditworthy.

At the very least, the State should match construction funding.


There is no such thing as state funding. There is only taxpayer funding.

Why should people in the rest of the state be forced to support our follies?


Why should I be paying for other cities, not Dallas highway or roadway boondoggles as well? Cause as people we overall agree that improving conditions all around floats all boats. Your point is one that is the basic argument against all taxation and all form of unified government. Why should my city taxes pay for your neighborhood street improvements? Why do the taxes I pay for living on Cedar Springs go to paying for Preston Hollow to get potholes fixed. How dare they do such a thing they should be imprisoned! Why do the taxes I pay go to enforcing laws and fire protection in South Dallas when I don't visit there often or live there. TXDOT's goals and funding should go towards all Texans transportation needs and that includes trains from city to city across the state and reducing traffic snarls in rural and inner city.

User avatar
dch526
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 09:12

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby dch526 » 27 Jun 2018 14:23

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tamtagon wrote:Passenger rail service in densely populated cities should be as much of a funding priority to the State as highways for cars in rural communities. Allowing a handful of cities to collect an extra tax on residents is not creditworthy.

At the very least, the State should match construction funding.


There is no such thing as state funding. There is only taxpayer funding.

Why should people in the rest of the state be forced to support our follies?


Exactly! If it shouldn't go to transit then it shouldn't go to highways that don't pass completely through the metroplex. How does 635, 183, 360, 26, 121 or 820 benefit a majority of the rest of the state? They need to be torn down or have all the cities that border them cover all costs for these roadways.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 92
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby TNWE » 27 Jun 2018 15:21

dch526 wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tamtagon wrote:Passenger rail service in densely populated cities should be as much of a funding priority to the State as highways for cars in rural communities. Allowing a handful of cities to collect an extra tax on residents is not creditworthy.

At the very least, the State should match construction funding.


There is no such thing as state funding. There is only taxpayer funding.

Why should people in the rest of the state be forced to support our follies?


Exactly! If it shouldn't go to transit then it shouldn't go to highways that don't pass completely through the metroplex. How does 635, 183, 360, 26, 121 or 820 benefit a majority of the rest of the state? They need to be torn down or have all the cities that border them cover all costs for these roadways.


Seems like being the first/last mile for delivery of the food, construction materials, fuel, and consumer goods that are made and sold throughout Texas is a pretty big benefit, but that's just me...

The Urbanism at all costs mentality seems to have forgotten that all of the finance, marketing, sales, legal, HR, and accounting jobs that Dallasites would be commuting to on a gold-plated streetcar and rail network don't exist if there's not a reliable road network for miners, farmers, operators, and assembly line workers to get to their places of work, or for the trucks delivering the finished products to stores and buyers that ultimately pay the salaries of the HQ staff.

The alternative (getting state funding for rail/transit projects) means giving the State government power and influence over which local projects get funded- If the Texas Legislature is going to fund a rail project in the DFW area, chances are its one that looks more like the Cotton Belt and less like D2.

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 289
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 27 Jun 2018 20:23

cowboyeagle05 wrote:Why should I be paying for other cities, not Dallas highway or roadway boondoggles as well? Cause as people we overall agree that improving conditions all around floats all boats. Your point is one that is the basic argument against all taxation and all form of unified government. Why should my city taxes pay for your neighborhood street improvements? Why do the taxes I pay for living on Cedar Springs go to paying for Preston Hollow to get potholes fixed. How dare they do such a thing they should be imprisoned! Why do the taxes I pay go to enforcing laws and fire protection in South Dallas when I don't visit there often or live there.


(a) All examples you gave are same city.
(b) Not boondoggles. :-)

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 289
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 27 Jun 2018 20:24

dch526 wrote:Exactly! If it shouldn't go to transit then it shouldn't go to highways that don't pass completely through the metroplex. How does 635, 183, 360, 26, 121 or 820 benefit a majority of the rest of the state? They need to be torn down or have all the cities that border them cover all costs for these roadways.


TWNE answered you better than I ever could.

User avatar
dch526
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 09:12

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby dch526 » 28 Jun 2018 08:02

TNWE wrote:
dch526 wrote:
Hannibal Lecter wrote:
There is no such thing as state funding. There is only taxpayer funding.

Why should people in the rest of the state be forced to support our follies?


Exactly! If it shouldn't go to transit then it shouldn't go to highways that don't pass completely through the metroplex. How does 635, 183, 360, 26, 121 or 820 benefit a majority of the rest of the state? They need to be torn down or have all the cities that border them cover all costs for these roadways.


Seems like being the first/last mile for delivery of the food, construction materials, fuel, and consumer goods that are made and sold throughout Texas is a pretty big benefit, but that's just me...

The Urbanism at all costs mentality seems to have forgotten that all of the finance, marketing, sales, legal, HR, and accounting jobs that Dallasites would be commuting to on a gold-plated streetcar and rail network don't exist if there's not a reliable road network for miners, farmers, operators, and assembly line workers to get to their places of work, or for the trucks delivering the finished products to stores and buyers that ultimately pay the salaries of the HQ staff.

The alternative (getting state funding for rail/transit projects) means giving the State government power and influence over which local projects get funded- If the Texas Legislature is going to fund a rail project in the DFW area, chances are its one that looks more like the Cotton Belt and less like D2.


I guess I should have prefaced my comment with /s... However, since you decided to make an attempt at the comment I will at least respond a little more seriously. Explain to me how the roadways listed are considered "last mile". "Last mile" is completed on internal streets that are majority funded by the local cities. These roadways provide more access to local commuters far beyond what it does for the "last mile" for miners, farmers, operators and assembly line workers. All of these professions you mentioned can easily still use all of the roadways that cut through DFW and still achieve their goal (it may take longer yes, but it's easily feasible). The roads mentioned connect DFW cities, they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW, therefore, based on HL's premise, these roadway follies should not be funded by the state. They should be completely funded by local government and/or completely tolled to cover all costs associated.

“While the Texas Department of Transportation has a budget of more than $26 billion for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, less than 1 percent of that is earmarked for public transit.” That puts the burden squarely on county and local agencies — including metropolitan planning groups like the Houston-Galveston Area Council — to dig up funding for non-car-catering projects.
If the state isn't helping build out transit in each region then maybe they shouldn't be helping fund roadways that don't connect to other regions. That burden should be left squarely on county and local agencies.

http://swamplot.com/what-txdots-tiny-2-year-public-transit-allowance-adds-up-to/2018-06-27/
Last edited by dch526 on 28 Jun 2018 08:19, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
dch526
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 09:12

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby dch526 » 28 Jun 2018 08:12

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
dch526 wrote:Exactly! If it shouldn't go to transit then it shouldn't go to highways that don't pass completely through the metroplex. How does 635, 183, 360, 26, 121 or 820 benefit a majority of the rest of the state? They need to be torn down or have all the cities that border them cover all costs for these roadways.


TWNE answered you better than I ever could.


:lol: Sure

cowboyeagle05
Posts: 1436
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 08:45

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby cowboyeagle05 » 28 Jun 2018 08:57

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
cowboyeagle05 wrote:Why should I be paying for other cities, not Dallas highway or roadway boondoggles as well? Cause as people we overall agree that improving conditions all around floats all boats. Your point is one that is the basic argument against all taxation and all form of unified government. Why should my city taxes pay for your neighborhood street improvements? Why do the taxes I pay for living on Cedar Springs go to paying for Preston Hollow to get potholes fixed. How dare they do such a thing they should be imprisoned! Why do the taxes I pay go to enforcing laws and fire protection in South Dallas when I don't visit there often or live there.


(a) All examples you gave are same city.
(b) Not boondoggles. :-)


(a)Your argument still applies no matter what level of government. Whether it's across the state or in one city why do I pay taxes for other cities/counties/congressional districts/neighborhoods pet projects including trails, highways, service roads, farm to market roads, economic incentives, transit etc. If you want to segregate all taxes out to the immediate property they get collected from then so be it make that argument but you arent are you. You are cherry picking trains as being a TXDOT project you don't want but highways built in San Antonio with your taxes as fine because you have a distaste for transit projects in Texas and not highways that are not built to your liking.

(b)Yes, many highways designs/tollways/freeways are boondoggles and just cause you don't like it doesn't mean those projects are not boondoggles just that you disagree. The high five is one of the states biggest money pits and boondoggles.

User avatar
TNWE
Posts: 92
Joined: 03 May 2017 09:42

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby TNWE » 02 Jul 2018 17:22

dch526 wrote:I guess I should have prefaced my comment with /s... However, since you decided to make an attempt at the comment I will at least respond a little more seriously. Explain to me how the roadways listed are considered "last mile". "Last mile" is completed on internal streets that are majority funded by the local cities. These roadways provide more access to local commuters far beyond what it does for the "last mile" for miners, farmers, operators and assembly line workers. All of these professions you mentioned can easily still use all of the roadways that cut through DFW and still achieve their goal (it may take longer yes, but it's easily feasible). The roads mentioned connect DFW cities, they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW, therefore, based on HL's premise, these roadway follies should not be funded by the state. They should be completely funded by local government and/or completely tolled to cover all costs associated.

“While the Texas Department of Transportation has a budget of more than $26 billion for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, less than 1 percent of that is earmarked for public transit.” That puts the burden squarely on county and local agencies — including metropolitan planning groups like the Houston-Galveston Area Council — to dig up funding for non-car-catering projects.
If the state isn't helping build out transit in each region then maybe they shouldn't be helping fund roadways that don't connect to other regions. That burden should be left squarely on county and local agencies.

http://swamplot.com/what-txdots-tiny-2-year-public-transit-allowance-adds-up-to/2018-06-27/

You can't claim it was sarcasm, then vigorously defend it :roll:

The "last mile" is not the final 5280 feet of a given trip. You asked how shorter spur or loop highways benefit the rest of the state, and I answered that question. If my business is hauling produce from the RGV up I-35 to a store in Richland Hills, I'm not going to pretend 820 or 121 don't exist because they "they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW" (In fact, if I were hauling hazardous cargo, I'm required *by Law* to use 820/Loop 12/635, even if I'm just passing through). They are every bit a part of the state and national highway system, with direct connections and 100% interoperability. My car drives exactly the same regardless of the color/shape of the highway shield. Loop 12/Spur 408 could just as well be re-designated as Alternate I-35E and suddenly be eligible for TxDOT funds under your pedantic vision of which roads should get state funding.

Of course, no DFW-area transit system would clear your "does it connect with another part of the state outside DFW" criteria for TxDOT funds, as DART, the TRE, and DCTA only serve stops in the DFW metroplex. Sure, Amtrak stops at the same stations in Dallas and Fort Worth, but you won't see the Texas Eagle (or any other train car for that matter) headed down the Pacific transit mall towards CityPlace, because DART's system is restricted to their rolling stock, with limited interoperability even if it wasn't. Riding DART means you do so on their vehicles, on their schedule, and at the fare they ask for. Sure, you don't *have* to be a resident of a DART member city in order to ride DART, but anyone who rides with any regularity is paying their share via fares + sales tax in member cities (just as anyone who drives anywhere in the state is paying their share in gas & sales taxes and registration fees)

User avatar
dch526
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 09:12

Re: 2045 Mobility Plan

Postby dch526 » 05 Jul 2018 16:34

TNWE wrote:
dch526 wrote:I guess I should have prefaced my comment with /s... However, since you decided to make an attempt at the comment I will at least respond a little more seriously. Explain to me how the roadways listed are considered "last mile". "Last mile" is completed on internal streets that are majority funded by the local cities. These roadways provide more access to local commuters far beyond what it does for the "last mile" for miners, farmers, operators and assembly line workers. All of these professions you mentioned can easily still use all of the roadways that cut through DFW and still achieve their goal (it may take longer yes, but it's easily feasible). The roads mentioned connect DFW cities, they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW, therefore, based on HL's premise, these roadway follies should not be funded by the state. They should be completely funded by local government and/or completely tolled to cover all costs associated.

“While the Texas Department of Transportation has a budget of more than $26 billion for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years, less than 1 percent of that is earmarked for public transit.” That puts the burden squarely on county and local agencies — including metropolitan planning groups like the Houston-Galveston Area Council — to dig up funding for non-car-catering projects.
If the state isn't helping build out transit in each region then maybe they shouldn't be helping fund roadways that don't connect to other regions. That burden should be left squarely on county and local agencies.

http://swamplot.com/what-txdots-tiny-2-year-public-transit-allowance-adds-up-to/2018-06-27/

You can't claim it was sarcasm, then vigorously defend it :roll:

The "last mile" is not the final 5280 feet of a given trip. You asked how shorter spur or loop highways benefit the rest of the state, and I answered that question. If my business is hauling produce from the RGV up I-35 to a store in Richland Hills, I'm not going to pretend 820 or 121 don't exist because they "they do not connect other regions of the state to DFW" (In fact, if I were hauling hazardous cargo, I'm required *by Law* to use 820/Loop 12/635, even if I'm just passing through). They are every bit a part of the state and national highway system, with direct connections and 100% interoperability. My car drives exactly the same regardless of the color/shape of the highway shield. Loop 12/Spur 408 could just as well be re-designated as Alternate I-35E and suddenly be eligible for TxDOT funds under your pedantic vision of which roads should get state funding.

Of course, no DFW-area transit system would clear your "does it connect with another part of the state outside DFW" criteria for TxDOT funds, as DART, the TRE, and DCTA only serve stops in the DFW metroplex. Sure, Amtrak stops at the same stations in Dallas and Fort Worth, but you won't see the Texas Eagle (or any other train car for that matter) headed down the Pacific transit mall towards CityPlace, because DART's system is restricted to their rolling stock, with limited interoperability even if it wasn't. Riding DART means you do so on their vehicles, on their schedule, and at the fare they ask for. Sure, you don't *have* to be a resident of a DART member city in order to ride DART, but anyone who rides with any regularity is paying their share via fares + sales tax in member cities (just as anyone who drives anywhere in the state is paying their share in gas & sales taxes and registration fees)


Yet again, still not catching the sarcasm (to be fair, it is hard to catch online). But let's continue for fun.

Premise: If it does not connect to the rest of the state then it should not be funded by the state.

The roadways I mentioned directly benefit the state because hazardous waste can bypass downtown? Choose a different out of the way state or federally funded highway that go through the region or near the region.

Also, your answer to the question on how it benefits the rest of the state because it's easier to use than other roads that are funded by the state or local governments does not answer the question while also ignoring half of the argument presented, which states, that they should be torn down or funded completely by local or regional government/entities. If they roads stayed in place and funding was now in the hands of the local or regional governments then they stay as is. If these entities cannot properly fund these roads then they have some choices to make, not the state. (Also, thanks for the clarification that your car is not prejudice to the type of road it drives on, in the world today, you can never be too sure, I do question mine from time to time, especially on Fridays :mrgreen: ).

In reference to paragraph 2, on why I even created this theoretical argument, which was, if local transit doesn't connect to or benefit the rest of the state then the state should not fund it... I have no desire to defund or eliminate these roadways, I think they are great for the DFW region, however, based on the idea presented by HL, I decided to run down a path on what else shouldn't be funded if we based the transportation system off those beliefs. The whole post was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous comment.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login