Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

DART: Expansion

User avatar
Hannibal Lecter
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 19:57

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Hannibal Lecter » 13 Dec 2016 17:06

Needs to stay underground until north of Elm Street.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1320
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tamtagon » 13 Dec 2016 19:29

I still don't really get why B7 isnt a streetcar.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 676
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby muncien » 14 Dec 2016 09:30

I just hope all the Deep Ellum opposition realize that all of these 'subway' options still have it at grade well before it reaches DE.

IMO, B7 makes sense as a subway. If you're going to shift south to C3A, you may as well go a block further to Canton and keep it at grade all the way. You could leverage the existing track all the way through the CC station, and save a ton of $. There really isn't a lot of traffic to disrupt, or neighborhood to split down there, but a couple stops may bring some new low/midrise apartment development. That alternative would cost pocket change (relatively speaking) compared to subway, and it could be build with almost nobody being disrupted, and in an incredibly short time frame.

We have to keep in mind that Subway construction, particularly at shallow depths as would be the case here, cause serious disruption to the neighborhoods above for several years. When LA built their subway, it killed the street life and business, and took many years to recover.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 16 Dec 2016 18:52

jeffbrown2002 wrote:Exactly my point, those alignments have already been studied and had projected costs assigned to them, it seems to me subway proponents would be most satisfied with B7 while C3A would be a nice compromise.

d2b7mapfeb2009large.gif
c3a.png
Just hope all that research doesn't go to waste.

I have been suggesting B7 as my preferred subway route for a long time. ;)

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 24 Jan 2017 18:08

DART's Cotton Belt Line on possible short list of Trump infrastructure projects.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 164.html#0
P.S. So is the Texas Central HSR

No doubt a list is being made, and whether or not both, one, or neither project remains on this lists only the future can answer.
It'll be interesting to see what projects will make the final list.

User avatar
willyk
Posts: 388
Joined: 18 Oct 2016 20:20

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby willyk » 28 Jan 2017 03:23


User avatar
PonyUp13
Posts: 41
Joined: 03 Nov 2016 21:10

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby PonyUp13 » 09 Feb 2018 12:31

0A917423-1A5C-434F-BE53-FC02E25C46D5.jpeg


Cool map of the 2040 corridors considered by DART as part of their long range planning.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 344
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby The_Overdog » 09 Feb 2018 13:52

Yikes that's bizarre! The most dense parts of Dallas get nothing, the LBJ line is incomplete, and the only complete E/W central Dallas connector is the Cotton Belt line.

Of course, that tiny sliver of Irving will have 2 legit N/S lines and an E/W one and east side of US75 along 635E will have full rail coverage. At least the Irving triangle is planned to be relatively high density. No really so for the eastern portion of Dallas, at least no specific masterplans.

DPatel304
Posts: 988
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 18:49

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby DPatel304 » 09 Feb 2018 14:06

We really need a plan to speed up these trains, otherwise all of this expansion just doesn't make sense. Something like this would probably really speed up travel times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7lr5e-MmTU

I realize it's difficult to implement stuff like this, and I believe the technology in the video is only theoretical at this point, but this is a problem we should be working on.

User avatar
exelone31
Posts: 299
Joined: 31 Oct 2016 11:35

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby exelone31 » 09 Feb 2018 14:43

It's too bad DART didn't leverage the giant recent revamp of LBJ to sneak in some sort of transit line, even a dedicated BRT line.

User avatar
Matt777
Posts: 396
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 09:10

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Matt777 » 09 Feb 2018 15:21

Gosh we need major change in leadership at DART. They're designing the rail map like a highway system.... long routes through low density areas. Meaning extremely large cost and low ridership. The exact opposite of what they should be doing. Smacking my head!

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 09 Feb 2018 15:36

Hopefully by 2040 Dallas has its own specific Transit Agency.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 09 Feb 2018 23:49

The never-ending extensions are stupid.

Also, the corridor planning is from 2016. If you want to check out more detailed descriptions of what they're thinking for each of those corridors, you can find it here: http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/exp ... Sheets.pdf

The presentation where PonyUp's slide is from has some interesting stuff in it. Here it is: http://cafe.tflex.org/attachments/T-Fle ... tation.pdf

Tip for the future: post links to files, not just screenshots.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 00:09

LBJ-Inwood is legit. West Dallas is also good. West Oak Cliff, Scyene, and Irving-Frisco are alright. The rest are varying degrees of useless.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 00:15

Luckily, DART appears to be aware of which ones are good and which ones are hot garbage.

LBJ-Inwood and West Dallas are Tier 1 (i.e. start to conduct alternatives analysis), while the three worst ones are Tier 3 (i.e. ignore them).

Image

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 00:28

Here's the screening evaluation for the 9 rail corridors (North Central ext is for an upgraded bus route):

Image

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 10 Feb 2018 11:51

tanzoak wrote:Luckily, DART appears to be aware of which ones are good and which ones are hot garbage.

LBJ-Inwood and West Dallas are Tier 1 (i.e. start to conduct alternatives analysis), while the three worst ones are Tier 3 (i.e. ignore them).

Image



The real question is ... Are the proposed lines even good ideas?

Regarding the LBJ line...

Hasn't it been proven already that lines that run adjacent to highways suffer for two main reasons.. 1) they do not take you to where you ultimately want to go.. a connection is always needed and if you require two or more connections ridership suffers.

2). They're next to a highway. The line will not be used on weekends and any advantage that transit has is inhibited by by fact you're on highway ROW (transit is supposed to take you to the door step of your destination).
Are we really expecting ppl to use Dart buses.. lol


Am I missing something here? What is the point of this line.. where would anyone go on this line if it were to built first?..legacy West/DFW? How long will that even take over an HR?! Might as well drive.
Last edited by Tivo_Kenevil on 10 Feb 2018 12:12, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 10 Feb 2018 11:57

I thought Frisco didn't want transit. Nice to see the DART member cities subsidizing the non member cities.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 16:02

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Am I missing something here? What is the point of this line.. where would anyone go on this line if it were to built first?..legacy West/DFW? How long will that even take over an HR?! Might as well drive.



I'm with you that highway ROWs aren't great.

But..

1. That corridor has the highest employment density (aka the primary driver of transit use) of any not yet served by rail. The Galleria area is huge. Medical City is also very big. Dallas Midtown will hopefully be big in the future.

2. Residential density along the corridor is also quite high (for Dallas).

3. Crosstown connection is great, don't have to go all the way downtown to access/switch lines. Relatedly, it makes the Cotton Belt less useless.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 16:11

For reference, here's AM work trip destination density:
Image

And here's AM work trip origin density:
Image

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 10 Feb 2018 20:21

Tier 1 look promising, somewhat. Once D2 is finished, another light rail line west to Oak Cliff makes sense.:)
The LBJ line makes sense between I-35E and US-75, but that's not where they are proposing to build it. It only needs to tie the Green Line with the Red Line, or at most to the Blue Line. The existing plans it doesn't reach the Green Line and it goes way past the Blue Line. :(
Big disappointment. .
Tier 2 are basically extensions of the existing light rail lines to the borders of cities not member cities.The sole exception is another commuter rail lie out to Frisco from Irving. They only make sense if they attract non-member cities to join DART.
Tier 3 are worse than Tier 2, extensions to even smaller cities with even smaller tax bases.

The further out these lines go to the outer ring of suburbs, the better train choice should be commuter rail with faster train speeds and larger station spacing.. Except for the new Oak Cliff line, the rest are not wise choices for light rail unless of course they attract more cities to join DART.

DART to date has avoided routing light rail lines down the middle of expressways, preferring to route light rail lines down one side or under. Any light rail line near LBJ will probably be very expensive and routed under it, just like DART subway under US-75. Building a subway a couple of miles long at a time is very expensive, building a subway 10 miles long will be pie in the sky, cow jumping over the moon, unaffordable. :cry:

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 10 Feb 2018 20:45

Recent speech by Tim McKay at SW Rail Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mx_6YQF5G4

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 23:08

electricron wrote:Tier 1 look promising, somewhat. Once D2 is finished, another light rail line west to Oak Cliff makes sense.:)
The LBJ line makes sense between I-35E and US-75, but that's not where they are proposing to build it. It only needs to tie the Green Line with the Red Line, or at most to the Blue Line. The existing plans it doesn't reach the Green Line and it goes way past the Blue Line. :(
Big disappointment. .


How is it a big disappointment? They're talking about building between 75 and DNT, and then up Inwood to meet the Cotton Belt at Addison Transit Center. Going north at DNT is way better than continuing on 635, as the former is very dense and the latter is even less dense than the portion east of the Blue line. Sure, it doesn't hit the Green line, but it does hit the Cotton Belt, which definitely adds value to that otherwise pretty worthless line.

Connecting to the Green line would be somewhat better than connecting to the Cotton Belt, but going north on Inwood would be way way way better than continuing west on 635. I think they made the correct decision.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 10 Feb 2018 23:39

electricron wrote:DART to date has avoided routing light rail lines down the middle of expressways, preferring to route light rail lines down one side or under. Any light rail line near LBJ will probably be very expensive and routed under it, just like DART subway under US-75. Building a subway a couple of miles long at a time is very expensive, building a subway 10 miles long will be pie in the sky, cow jumping over the moon, unaffordable. :cry:


There's existing rail ROW along 635 on the north side from the Blue line to Garland Ave (which is probably why they included that segment). There's also rail ROW along Inwood between 635 and the Cotton Belt ROW. So what goes between DNT and the Blue line is the question.

Presumably they will want to connect to the LBJ Red line station directly, which will mean crossing 635 twice (LBJ Blue line station is north of 635, but then LBJ Red line station is south, Medical City also south, before turning north after Preston).

The route is about 13 mi long, with estimated cost of $1.8 billion, or $140 million per mile. 5.5 miles or so of that would utilize existing rail ROW. DART says: "Given right-of-way constraints, significant portions of this corridor would be below- and/or above-grade."

User avatar
Tivo_Kenevil
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Oct 2016 12:24

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Tivo_Kenevil » 11 Feb 2018 15:13

electricron wrote:
Tier 2 are basically extensions of the existing light rail lines to the borders of cities not member cities.The sole exception is another commuter rail lie out to Frisco from Irving. They only make sense if they attract non-member cities to join DART.
Tier 3 are worse than Tier 2, extensions to even smaller cities with even smaller tax bases.


I never understood DARTs position on this.

Mesquite, Frisco, McKinney have already rejected DART. Why do we make these proposals with the thought of luring them into buying in. If anything the closer we build to them; the less likely they'll join. Their residents will just drive up to the station at no cost to the city.

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 27
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby northsouth » 11 Feb 2018 23:44

At the rate it's taking TXDOT to get LBJ East figured out, it could be possible to integrate the LBJ line into the rebuild and cut out about 2 miles of tunnel. Of course then you're subject to the whims and delays TXDOT is known for. It happened with the Orange Line segment along SH 114 (why the first segment was delayed half a year) and it happened with Central (DART decided to build the tunnel after it became cheaper and faster than dealing with TXDOT to build the rail line into the highway).

For the hell of it, here's my knock at figuring out where the LBJ line should go.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 13 Feb 2018 18:41

tanzoak wrote:
electricron wrote:DART to date has avoided routing light rail lines down the middle of expressways, preferring to route light rail lines down one side or under. Any light rail line near LBJ will probably be very expensive and routed under it, just like DART subway under US-75. Building a subway a couple of miles long at a time is very expensive, building a subway 10 miles long will be pie in the sky, cow jumping over the moon, unaffordable. :cry:


There's existing rail ROW along 635 on the north side from the Blue line to Garland Ave (which is probably why they included that segment). There's also rail ROW along Inwood between 635 and the Cotton Belt ROW. So what goes between DNT and the Blue line is the question.

Presumably they will want to connect to the LBJ Red line station directly, which will mean crossing 635 twice (LBJ Blue line station is north of 635, but then LBJ Red line station is south, Medical City also south, before turning north after Preston).

The route is about 13 mi long, with estimated cost of $1.8 billion, or $140 million per mile. 5.5 miles or so of that would utilize existing rail ROW. DART says: "Given right-of-way constraints, significant portions of this corridor would be below- and/or above-grade."

The RR ROW along the northern side of LBJ belongs to KCS, not to DART. I'm not aware that KCS wants light rail trains running adjacent to their freight trains.
The reason why I'm disappointed with the line as envisioned today is because it doesn't connect all the light rail corridor spokes in what would be DART's surrounding wheel. Ideally, if you're going to run a rail line along LBJ, it should follow LBJ all the way around Dallas, being the wheel to their spokes. That would give passenger options in both south and north Dallas an alternate rail route vs riding the trains through downtown.

It could even be designed as an electric or diesel powered commuter train and reach speeds up to 79 mph while going all the way around Dallas. It doesn't necessarily need to be light rail, or double track the entire way.

User avatar
The_Overdog
Posts: 344
Joined: 21 Oct 2016 14:55

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby The_Overdog » 14 Feb 2018 14:36

The RR ROW along the northern side of LBJ belongs to KCS, not to DART. I'm not aware that KCS wants light rail trains running adjacent to their freight trains.


The Cotton Belt Line belongs to Kansas City Southern - KCS. I would assume they are working on sharing agreements or are cool with DART building a parallel light rail track.

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 27
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby northsouth » 14 Feb 2018 18:59

The Cotton Belt Line belongs to Kansas City Southern - KCS.

DART owns the Cotton Belt from Fort Worth to Wylie. They let KCS use the tracks from Wylie to Richardson, at the cost of KCS doing maintenance on it.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 15 Feb 2018 01:32

electricron wrote:The reason why I'm disappointed with the line as envisioned today is because it doesn't connect all the light rail corridor spokes in what would be DART's surrounding wheel. Ideally, if you're going to run a rail line along LBJ, it should follow LBJ all the way around Dallas, being the wheel to their spokes. That would give passenger options in both south and north Dallas an alternate rail route vs riding the trains through downtown.


This doesn't make much sense to me. First, it's very low density/not much happening on I-635 south of where they end and between the existing southern segments. The stops themselves therefore wouldn't add much value, so you're only looking at the value of transfers. But anywhere someone along the southern segments would want to go would actually be faster going through downtown than around the loop.

I'm just not seeing the value in terms of actual ridership demand (as opposed to connections for connections sake) for an eastern 635 / Ledbetter (?) loop.

As for the northern portion, hitting the DNT/Galleria business district is a bigger benefit than the delta of Green v Cotton connection. Where's the bigger demand: far north Green riders wanting to go to US-75, or riders from the entire southern and eastern portions of the system wanting to go to the DNT/Galleria business district?

Transit gets used if it takes you where you want to go. You can have all the connections in the world, but if they don't take you to good destinations, that's not worth much. Also, going to DNT would be cheaper bc of existing rail ROW, so that's another plus.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 676
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby muncien » 15 Feb 2018 08:33

I've always thought the idea of a 'wheel' transit line, that connects all the lines further out from the hub, is a good one. But to me, I think BRT along the Loop 12 corridor is a better approach than 635.
The whole idea of serving Galleria area is a difficult one... No doubt it has the density and needs it, but finding where to go from there has always been a challenge. The proposal DART shows here doesn't seem any worse off than any others, but as always, it seems a bit of a reach.
But I do think you get quite a bit of benefit simply connecting with the Cotton Belt. From there (assuming it uses the same equipment), you could easily have DFW-Galleria, and East Plano - Galleria routes. Just three miles of track can easily get you TWO or more additional lines. Preferably commuter rail instead of LRT.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
Cbdallas
Posts: 197
Joined: 29 Nov 2016 16:42

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby Cbdallas » 15 Feb 2018 11:38

I love the idea of DART expansion to include crossover 635 and Galleria area (where I work) but did D2 ever get finalized maybe I missed that seems like the cart before the horse.

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 18 Feb 2018 12:12

muncien wrote:I've always thought the idea of a 'wheel' transit line, that connects all the lines further out from the hub, is a good one. But to me, I think BRT along the Loop 12 corridor is a better approach than 635.
The whole idea of serving Galleria area is a difficult one... No doubt it has the density and needs it, but finding where to go from there has always been a challenge. The proposal DART shows here doesn't seem any worse off than any others, but as always, it seems a bit of a reach.
But I do think you get quite a bit of benefit simply connecting with the Cotton Belt. From there (assuming it uses the same equipment), you could easily have DFW-Galleria, and East Plano - Galleria routes. Just three miles of track can easily get you TWO or more additional lines. Preferably commuter rail instead of LRT.


I believe there is a corridor DART could use to connect the Galleria area with the rest of their light rail sytem, it's the Dallas North Tollway or Inwood Road. It could be built over the Tollway, or under it. Or it could be built at grade in the median of Inwood Road. It could be extended all the way out tothe exburbs. Yes, it would be adding another spoke.
And yes, it would be very controversial and potentially very expensive. But it would serve the transit needs of the corridor best. It will not be long before the NCTCOG will start studying how to expand the DNT, and I think a fair study of alternates will find it far cheaper to build a light rail line instead. With a little bit of arm twisting, you could even use tolls from the DNT to fund most of it if you remain within it's right-of-way.

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

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby xen0blue » 27 Feb 2018 21:00

I'm confused...I was under the impression DART wanted to do both D2 and Cotton Belt simultaneously, but Dallas put its foot down and said "NO, D2 is the priority" and won the vote in the DART board inasmuch, then the suburbs got pissy and threatened to leave DART. So now why are we talking about DART and Cotton Belt again? Did something happen where the possibility of getting both built at the same time again is now an option?

User avatar
electricron
Posts: 202
Joined: 29 Oct 2016 11:07

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby electricron » 28 Feb 2018 00:04

xen0blue wrote:I'm confused...I was under the impression DART wanted to do both D2 and Cotton Belt simultaneously, but Dallas put its foot down and said "NO, D2 is the priority" and won the vote in the DART board inasmuch, then the suburbs got pissy and threatened to leave DART. So now why are we talking about DART and Cotton Belt again? Did something happen where the possibility of getting both built at the same time again is now an option?

Both rail projects planning, environmental clearances, and seeking federal funding process have continued unhindered. But neiither project has 100% funding in the bank, so at this time neither project has commenced construction.
Which one will get built depends upon raising the funding. It's possible neither or both will find the funding from partners. It's possible only one will get built if DART has to fund both projects themselves without helping partners, in which case one should expect some delays in that one project.
Dallas city council might appoint one more member to DART's board than the suburbs, but it doesn't control DART's finances and goals. DART is an independent transit agency and controls its own goals and finances. ;)

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 676
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby muncien » 28 Feb 2018 08:50

If I recall correctly, DART said they are capable of funding their portion of both lines at the same time, assuming they get the federal help they need. That is why they are proceeding with the necessary steps on both, so they can meet those federal application benchmarks. Also, I beleive each project would be tapping into different federal buckets (core capacity, and whatever the other one is called), so it's not like they are competing with eachother at that level. But as with any of these applications, they have to compete with numerous other cities and only those that score high on criterea outlined by the feds will get the money (assuming there are transit $ available).
So, it's possible both get approved for federal $, one gets approved, or neither get approved. If neither get approved... I really dont think DART can wholly fund D2 on it's own, regardless of what the city wants. At least not in its new form factor. Perhaps the original D2 could have made it on it's own... But this new underground version is a bit pricey.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1320
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tamtagon » 28 Feb 2018 09:25

When is the State going to start matching municipal or federal contribution to construction cost?

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 09:34

muncien wrote:If I recall correctly, DART said they are capable of funding their portion of both lines at the same time, assuming they get the federal help they need. That is why they are proceeding with the necessary steps on both, so they can meet those federal application benchmarks. Also, I beleive each project would be tapping into different federal buckets (core capacity, and whatever the other one is called), so it's not like they are competing with eachother at that level. But as with any of these applications, they have to compete with numerous other cities and only those that score high on criterea outlined by the feds will get the money (assuming there are transit $ available).
So, it's possible both get approved for federal $, one gets approved, or neither get approved. If neither get approved... I really dont think DART can wholly fund D2 on it's own, regardless of what the city wants. At least not in its new form factor. Perhaps the original D2 could have made it on it's own... But this new underground version is a bit pricey.


Since the two projects are roughly the same cost (CB ~$1.1B v D2 ~$1.3B), if DART can do both at the same time with FTA help, then it can do one of them on its own (FTA grants are typically ~50% of project cost).

The reason why there was resistance to submitting both applications was that half of the scoring by which the FTA judges projects is the financial capacity of the transit agency. Doing both projects at once stresses DART's cash balances and reserves, limits its ability to cover cost overruns or funding shortfalls, decreases assets-to-liabilities ratio, requires more optimistic revenue projections to cover operating costs, potentially lowers bond rating, etc. All of which are considered by the FTA. So there's the risk that the score for both projects would be dragged down and we'd get neither.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 09:45

tamtagon wrote:When is the State going to start matching municipal or federal contribution to construction cost?


TxDOT is covering all of the state and local portion of the Red and Blue Lines platform extensions.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 09:52

tanzoak wrote:
tamtagon wrote:When is the State going to start matching municipal or federal contribution to construction cost?


TxDOT is covering all of the state and local portion of the Red and Blue Lines platform extensions.


That's $60 million. They're also chipping in $46 million for TEXrail and $2 million for an El Paso BRT project. So all of the Texas projects except for D2 have some state funding.

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 676
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby muncien » 28 Feb 2018 09:55

tanzoak wrote:
muncien wrote:If I recall correctly, DART said they are capable of funding their portion of both lines at the same time, assuming they get the federal help they need. That is why they are proceeding with the necessary steps on both, so they can meet those federal application benchmarks. Also, I beleive each project would be tapping into different federal buckets (core capacity, and whatever the other one is called), so it's not like they are competing with eachother at that level. But as with any of these applications, they have to compete with numerous other cities and only those that score high on criterea outlined by the feds will get the money (assuming there are transit $ available).
So, it's possible both get approved for federal $, one gets approved, or neither get approved. If neither get approved... I really dont think DART can wholly fund D2 on it's own, regardless of what the city wants. At least not in its new form factor. Perhaps the original D2 could have made it on it's own... But this new underground version is a bit pricey.


Since the two projects are roughly the same cost (CB ~$1.1B v D2 ~$1.3B), if DART can do both at the same time with FTA help, then it can do one of them on its own (FTA grants are typically ~50% of project cost).

The reason why there was resistance to submitting both applications was that half of the scoring by which the FTA judges projects is the financial capacity of the transit agency. Doing both projects at once stresses DART's cash balances and reserves, limits its ability to cover cost overruns or funding shortfalls, decreases assets-to-liabilities ratio, requires more optimistic revenue projections to cover operating costs, potentially lowers bond rating, etc. All of which are considered by the FTA. So there's the risk that the score for both projects would be dragged down and we'd get neither.


Sure, it could technically fully fund one of the projects on its own if neither get financial help, but why would we want to? Doing so essentially locks down DARTs own capital funding for quite some time, which means getting ANY federal $ for other projects in the near future would be almost impossible. We would look really stupid if two years later, an administration was very transit happy and offered up funds but we could not accept since we already committed. Just sayin...

EDIT: I am totally okay with going it alone on a paired down version of these projects. But the 'cadillac' version we have on the table now, should only move forward with significant outside help. Even then, I kinda feel bad for doing it... but that doesnt mean I wouldnt take it.
Last edited by muncien on 28 Feb 2018 09:58, edited 1 time in total.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1320
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tamtagon » 28 Feb 2018 09:56

tanzoak wrote:
tamtagon wrote:When is the State going to start matching municipal or federal contribution to construction cost?


TxDOT is covering all of the state and local portion of the Red and Blue Lines platform extensions.
That's $60 million. They're also chipping in $46 million for TEXrail and $2 million for an El Paso BRT project. So all of the Texas projects except for D2 have some state funding.


That's just not enough! How about the state pay for all platform extension costs --- no, what's actually better is how about the state pay for station and track modification so DART can run express trains.

There's no reason the state should not fund public transportation projects with the gusto given to highways.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 10:01

Wow, just looked this up.. LA is paying $4.2 billion for its Purple Line extension, with no state funds.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1320
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tamtagon » 28 Feb 2018 10:12

tanzoak wrote:Wow, just looked this up.. LA is paying $4.2 billion for its Purple Line extension, with no state funds.


haha Wow is right!

It's kinda funny, sometimes people talk about how much money is in Dallas or Houston -- and I know a few people here in Atlanta with have dealings in both Dallas and Atlanta and they observe that there's more "money" in Dallas.... my observations are the same, but for as much money as there is in Dallas, there's is so much more, SO much more in Los Angeles. The gap is remarkable, actually, and I have a theory Rich Dallas (Rich Houston and Rich Atlanta) really do not understand how much money there is in LA, Bay Area, NYC....

User avatar
muncien
Posts: 676
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 08:46
Location: Cypress Waters

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby muncien » 28 Feb 2018 10:24

tamtagon wrote:
tanzoak wrote:Wow, just looked this up.. LA is paying $4.2 billion for its Purple Line extension, with no state funds.


haha Wow is right!

It's kinda funny, sometimes people talk about how much money is in Dallas or Houston -- and I know a few people here in Atlanta with have dealings in both Dallas and Atlanta and they observe that there's more "money" in Dallas.... my observations are the same, but for as much money as there is in Dallas, there's is so much more, SO much more in Los Angeles. The gap is remarkable, actually, and I have a theory Rich Dallas (Rich Houston and Rich Atlanta) really do not understand how much money there is in LA, Bay Area, NYC....


Totally... I lived in LA for much of my life. The rich are totally loaded... But it doesnt really tell the story for LA. From a per capita standpoint... Dallas and LA re neck and neck. When you consider the Cost of Living in LA, you quickly realize why its a hellish place to try to get by.

Measure R will certainly help the less well off the most, but it is paid for by everyone.
"He doesn't know how to use the three seashells..."

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 10:45

muncien wrote:Sure, it could technically fully fund one of the projects on its own if neither get financial help, but why would we want to? Doing so essentially locks down DARTs own capital funding for quite some time, which means getting ANY federal $ for other projects in the near future would be almost impossible. We would look really stupid if two years later, an administration was very transit happy and offered up funds but we could not accept since we already committed. Just sayin...

EDIT: I am totally okay with going it alone on a paired down version of these projects. But the 'cadillac' version we have on the table now, should only move forward with significant outside help. Even then, I kinda feel bad for doing it... but that doesnt mean I wouldnt take it.


I'm not saying DART should go it alone with one of the projects if they didn't get help, just that they could.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 10:50

tamtagon wrote:
tanzoak wrote:
tamtagon wrote:When is the State going to start matching municipal or federal contribution to construction cost?


TxDOT is covering all of the state and local portion of the Red and Blue Lines platform extensions.
That's $60 million. They're also chipping in $46 million for TEXrail and $2 million for an El Paso BRT project. So all of the Texas projects except for D2 have some state funding.


That's just not enough! How about the state pay for all platform extension costs --- no, what's actually better is how about the state pay for station and track modification so DART can run express trains.

There's no reason the state should not fund public transportation projects with the gusto given to highways.


I'm not saying that TxDOT's transit-highway (im)balance is correct, just that they do provide funds for transit projects.

User avatar
tanzoak
Posts: 452
Joined: 18 Dec 2016 19:15

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tanzoak » 28 Feb 2018 11:03

muncien wrote:
Totally... I lived in LA for much of my life. The rich are totally loaded... But it doesnt really tell the story for LA. From a per capita standpoint... Dallas and LA re neck and neck. When you consider the Cost of Living in LA, you quickly realize why its a hellish place to try to get by.

Measure R will certainly help the less well off the most, but it is paid for by everyone.


Yeah, these are all Measure R funds (a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in LA County). LA County has 10 million people in it, which is how they can throw so much money around. Still, though..

Edit: I will say that even in California, the vast majority of the state and local contribution is local (except for projects related to high-speed rail). Perhaps even more wow than the Purple Line, considering the population differences, is that San Diego is paying a $1 billion state and local contribution all on its own for a light rail project.
Last edited by tanzoak on 28 Feb 2018 11:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tamtagon
Site Admin
Posts: 1320
Joined: 16 Oct 2016 12:04

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby tamtagon » 28 Feb 2018 11:04

tanzoak wrote:I'm not saying that TxDOT's transit-highway (im)balance is correct, just that they do provide funds for transit projects.


Oh, sure, didn't think you were saying TxDOT transit-highway imbalance is correct... I should have been clear that my frustration/angst is for TxDOT not you!

Maybe transportation decision makers are still worried appropriate public transportation funding in the cities is too progressive (aka Liberal) for the rural sensibility that maintains a strangle hold on state govt. Then again, the ignorant stupid regressive approach to public educations indicates the rot in decision makers may reach the core. *sigh*

User avatar
northsouth
Posts: 27
Joined: 26 Oct 2016 18:59

Re: DART: Expansion

Postby northsouth » 12 Mar 2018 13:36

We have a preliminary schedule for construction/opening of Carpenter Ranch Station
carpenter ranch schedule.png
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 0 guests

Login