Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Maybe we'll get lucky and the spoke- wheel will get a boost and the point to point will too.

If DART has the proposals ready for funding then they are likely to get some sort of funding. Keep in mind our highways will be submitted first like the I-30 redo or other highway proposals already far along in the planning stages. Like the Obama's admin they will probably put a limit on road projects for the funding to make sure transit isn't left with the smaller check knowing sunbelt cities are coke heads for highway projects. "Just one more tollway man and I promise I'll stop"

https://www.dart.org/shareroot/about/expansion/d2/D2SubwayEastEndPublicMeeting05aug21.pdf
A look at the proposed solutions of what to do with the east end of D2.

northsouth wrote:https://www.dart.org/shareroot/about/expansion/d2/D2SubwayEastEndPublicMeeting05aug21.pdf
A look at the proposed solutions of what to do with the east end of D2.

Thanks!
My main req. are that Deep ellum keeps a station there,
and minimizes impact on Good Latimer.
I like 3-1A. But it looks like it needs more work.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:If DART has the proposals ready for funding then they are likely to get some sort of funding. Keep in mind our highways will be submitted first like the I-30 redo or other highway proposals already far along in the planning stages. Like the Obama's admin they will probably put a limit on road projects for the funding to make sure transit isn't left with the smaller check knowing sunbelt cities are coke heads for highway projects. "Just one more tollway man and I promise I'll stop"

I never put this in all caps but LOL, that got me. NTTA: "Hey man, you, you think you, think you can help me out?" *scratching all over* "I have visions of the future, terrible ones, transit, just, give me a toll."

I'll show myself out.

quixomniac wrote:

northsouth wrote:https://www.dart.org/shareroot/about/expansion/d2/D2SubwayEastEndPublicMeeting05aug21.pdf
A look at the proposed solutions of what to do with the east end of D2.

Thanks!
My main req. are that Deep ellum keeps a station there,
and minimizes impact on Good Latimer.
I like 3-1A. But it looks like it needs more work.
D0D3050B-8928-482E-AAB7-EF523DAD4530.jpeg

This one is my favorite, and naturally it looks like the most expensive option.
Any of them are better than that 2-5 option though, which crosses over E-M-C at-grade right alongside 345. I worry that might create another visual hurdle that makes pedestrian crossing between the CBD and Deep Ellum an even bigger psychological ask.

northsouth wrote:https://www.dart.org/shareroot/about/expansion/d2/D2SubwayEastEndPublicMeeting05aug21.pdf
A look at the proposed solutions of what to do with the east end of D2.

Looking at Slide 26 - seems like someone at DART decided to listen to me

Granted it's just an accompaniment to the long-shot alternative where the east side D2 portal connects into the main tunnel near Pearl/Routh, but at least someone at DART has recognized that any two branches of the network can be connected, rather than blindly following the paths set 10-20 years ago...

quixomniac wrote:

northsouth wrote:https://www.dart.org/shareroot/about/expansion/d2/D2SubwayEastEndPublicMeeting05aug21.pdf
A look at the proposed solutions of what to do with the east end of D2.

Thanks!
My main req. are that Deep ellum keeps a station there,
and minimizes impact on Good Latimer.
I like 3-1A. But it looks like it needs more work.
D0D3050B-8928-482E-AAB7-EF523DAD4530.jpeg

I Like 3-1, but 2-2 is nice too. No new Station, but i like how everything is underground

TNWE wrote: at least someone at DART has recognized that any two branches of the network can be connected, rather than blindly following the paths set 10-20 years ago...

Yeah that's a valuable insight I hadn't had -- that the [color] Line South and [any other color] Line [East OR West OR North OR even South] can be designated from end to end as a complete operating route.

edit: In TNWE's example, in case you didn't click through to that DART PDF file, the D2 option on p. 26 involved trading the designations of the western halves of green and blue rail lines, keeping their halves east of downtown unchanged.

I45Tex wrote:Yeah that's a valuable insight I hadn't had -- that the [color] Line South and [any other color] Line [East OR West OR North OR even South] can be designated from end to end as a complete operating route.

edit: In TNWE's example, in case you didn't click through to that DART PDF file, the D2 option on p. 26 involved trading the designations of the western halves of green and blue rail lines, keeping their halves east of downtown unchanged.

The effect is to change the routes from 3 lines going north to south and 1 line going east to west to 3 lines going east to west and 1 line going north to south.

Interesting, impossible to judge which would be better without a traffic study. Hopefully a traffic study is what makes the decision and not someone's politics.

Y’all make sure to email your opinions: DDOTPlanning@dallascityhall.com

THRILLHO wrote:This one is my favorite, and naturally it looks like the most expensive option.
Any of them are better than that 2-5 option though, which crosses over E-M-C at-grade right alongside 345. I worry that might create another visual hurdle that makes pedestrian crossing between the CBD and Deep Ellum an even bigger psychological ask.

I also like 3-1a because it provides a permanent link to the East Quarter of Dallas, further enhancing synergy between the two areas that will benefit both.

Its definitely is the most expensive. But we need to get past this mentality of doing things cheap instead of doing things right. It will cost us in the long run otherwise. The existing deep ellum station is already an example. If we had just buried it to begin with, we wouldn’t have this problem at all! Now it will cost twice the money to fix what should have been underground in the first place.

And I couldn’t have expressed it better myself. Worse than traffic is the psychological ask of having to walk across a train corridor. It will do more harm to deep ellum than i345 could ever do, cutting off The Epic from the rest of Deep Ellum.

TNWE wrote: at least someone at DART has recognized that any two branches of the network can be connected, rather than blindly following the paths set 10-20 years ago...

Ideally they should do this for all trains! Just like the redline/orange line dynamic, they should alternate north/south forks going east/west. Or maybe that’s too confusing for people? Or maybe puts too much pressure on the reliability of the wye switching.

Also, don't be afraid of adding colors to the LRT line map with existing tracks and even more so w/D2. Many options available with which come many variables.

quixomniac wrote:

TNWE wrote: at least someone at DART has recognized that any two branches of the network can be connected, rather than blindly following the paths set 10-20 years ago...

Ideally they should do this for all trains! Just like the redline/orange line dynamic, they should alternate north/south forks going east/west. Or maybe that’s too confusing for people? Or maybe puts too much pressure on the reliability of the wye switching.

I've been to so many other cities that have line names/colors with multiple branches, but I feel like DART just assumes their riders can't figure out anything more complex than associating color lines with major landmark destinations (Red Line to Zoo, Orange Line to Airport, Green Line to Fair Park) and changing that would confuse things.

The other possibility is that DART LRT cars had rollsigns with a limited number of color/destination combinations, and all cars could theoretically operate on all lines (I have no idea how often trains swapped between CROF/NWROF or if Orange Line Trains ever "became" Red Line trains at Parker Road or LBJ/Central). Cities like Boston and London have specific rolling stock that exclusively serves a certain line (often due to physical incompatibility with any other line), so they only needed destination signs for a handful of termini.

The good news: The latest proposal keeps D2 out of Deep Ellum.

The bad news: They still haven't put a stake through the heart of this abomination.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/city- ... e/2773147/

Hannibal Lecter wrote:The good news: The latest proposal keeps D2 out of Deep Ellum.

The bad news: They still haven't put a stake through the heart of this abomination.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/city- ... e/2773147/

Just curious, why do you feel that D2 is an abomination? Respect your opinion but want to understand it. To me, D2 seems like a good addition to the core to help provide greater flexibility/connectivity to and from the core, especially as Downtown continues to grow with multiple ongoing/future projects.

^ Why spend $1.3+ billion dollars to, by DART's own estimates, add only a few dozen new riders to the system per day?

The two excuses are:

1) To add capacity. But why spend $$$$ to add capacity to a rail system that has lost ridership every year that it has been operational but one, except for years in which they added stations and forced people off of buses?

2) A backup for when the main line through downtown is blocked. History has shown that only happens a few hours per year. By that reasoning we should build another 8 lane highway down Greenville Avenue for when Central is blocked, which happens more frequently and affects more people.

Hannibal Lecter wrote:^ Why spend $1.3+ billion dollars to, by DART's own estimates, add only a few dozen new riders to the system per day?

The two excuses are:

1) To add capacity. But why spend $$$$ to add capacity to a rail system that has lost ridership every year that it has been operational but one, except for years in which they added stations and forced people off of buses?

2) A backup for when the main line through downtown is blocked. History has shown that only happens a few hours per year. By that reasoning we should build another 8 lane highway down Greenville Avenue for when Central is blocked, which happens more frequently and affects more people.

And, sadly, I think you may have overstated the projected ridership gains.

EDIT: Yikes, I just dug up the analysis. It's even worse than I thought. DART's own study projects that, comparing the No-Build alternative with the D2 alternative, total DART system ridership (unlinked transit trips) DROPS 3,400 per day with the addition of D2 (454,600 per day down to 451,200 per day). Their narrative fluffs it up by saying that's basically a rounding error, so "one can assume the D2 ridership at the systems level is about the same as the No Build (like that's a good thing for a $1.3+ Billion project).

In terms of total linked transit trips, D2 underperforms No-Build 277,700 to 278,500 per day.

Just considering the Light Rail system, building D2 causes a 2% reduction in usage (147,200 down to 143,900 per day).

So, according to DART's own analysis, we could save $1.3+ Billion and have more people using transit every day by killing off this boondoggle.

https://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/ex ... IS_B21.pdf

undefinedprocess wrote:

Hannibal Lecter wrote:The good news: The latest proposal keeps D2 out of Deep Ellum.

The bad news: They still haven't put a stake through the heart of this abomination.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/city- ... e/2773147/

Just curious, why do you feel that D2 is an abomination? Respect your opinion but want to understand it. To me, D2 seems like a good addition to the core to help provide greater flexibility/connectivity to and from the core, especially as Downtown continues to grow with multiple ongoing/future projects.

For full disclosure, Hannibal Lecter and Tucy have been against D2 from the beginning. And there is no version of it that will ever satisfy them, so you cannot expect objective/constructive discussion there.

I have been fairly supportive of most developments, towards the end that leads to better transit, wether it is with highways, bikes, trains, etc. And I had hopes for D2. In that it could add redundancy while expanding the parts of Downtown Dallas that have access to Dart trains which will overall be healthy for the CBD IMO. So when they tried to get rid of the Deep Ellum dart station, i called them out, when they try to force feed an abomination of a wye intersection on Good Latimer, again, called them out.

1st, When making the green line in the 1st place, they made the stupid mistake of making the deep ellum station surface level, which if it was underground, or trenched would eliminate any concerns about complicated wye intersections for d2

2nd, During the initial D2 studies, Farmer’s market NIMBYs slowly pushed the D2 alignment further north, killing anything that could possibly serve the southern half of downtown such as city hall, the public library, etc. The updated design eliminated Deep Ellum station, but set a station near the East Quarter, which has recently picked up steam. But it also basically pushed the wye intersect behind the Epic/bottled blonde


3rd, now that the area surrounding the Deep ellum station has become popular with new bars and the Epic nearby, they want to keep the station after all, and DO NOT want the wye behind the Epic/ bottled blonde and entrance train tunnel all added to the pressures by people trying to simultaneously bury I345 or completely eliminate it, which further contorting D2 and pushing the study into what it is today.

DART, trying to compromise, bending political pressure, citizen outcry, commercial interests, have contorted their D2 into this abomination. It’s the result of mistake after mistake compounding on themselves, with no guardrails to keep it in the realm of logic. It’s only qualification is that it scores high on their arbitrary grid where it is scored orange,green, yellow


This is the master of none! The only thing it does is not piss off anyone with political clout, while completely screwing over southern Dart Riders who have no clout. The CBD east station is now so far away from the East Quarter, and by that extent, Farmer’s Market. These are things people would WANT to ride DART to and from! The CBD east station is now a block away from Pearl station, which doesn’t make any sense other than some jackoff trying to sell that as a positive? Why make the station in the first place?! To walk a block to transfer? Why not just get off at West end/Metro Center? It makes you wonder if anyone at DART making these decisions even rides the train, or have bothered to visit a city with decent public transportation or actual urban development. And the only way it adds redundancy is by some convoluted way of running some trains in reverse? Ridiculous.

The only good thing that came out of it is that they finally realize they can run green/blue lines with alternative north/south configurations, if and only if these are not permanent and alternate during the day. Otherwise you screw over people coming in from the south, who previously had a straight shot to the medical district or victory park for example.


The only thing left to hope for is if someone kneecaps this during City council review. One of the south Dallas council members or maybe the East Quarter guys push a little. Their development is getting screwed over big time. and maybe CBD east is built a little further south to where it was originally proposed.

Otherwise we’ve gone from a potential city hall/ farmers market station to a CBD East station within 1 block of Pearl station. Absolutely ridiculous.

quixomniac wrote:
For full disclosure, Hannibal Lecter and Tucy have been against D2 from the beginning. And there is no version of it that will ever satisfy them, so you cannot expect objective/constructive discussion there.
\

This is reminiscent of the old litigator's strategy lesson: If the facts are in your favor, pound on the facts. If the law is in your favor, pound on the law. If neither are in your favor, pound on the table.

Or in this case, use ad hominem arguments, avoiding altogether the objective fact that DART's own studies project a decline in transit usage as a result of this project.

Tucy wrote:

quixomniac wrote:
For full disclosure, Hannibal Lecter and Tucy have been against D2 from the beginning. And there is no version of it that will ever satisfy them, so you cannot expect objective/constructive discussion there.
\

This is reminiscent of the old litigator's strategy lesson: If the facts are in your favor, pound on the facts. If the law is in your favor, pound on the law. If neither are in your favor, pound on the table.

Or in this case, use ad hominem arguments, avoiding altogether the objective fact that DART's own studies project a decline in transit usage as a result of this project.

I’d invite you to google the definition of objective:
Objective means not influenced by feelings or judgement when considering and representing the facts.

You literally cherry picked data in a 34 page report that supports your POV whereas your own source specifically cautions that those 2045 projections have to be taken with a grain of salt. This is antithetical to being objective

With continuing land use changes that may not be included in the 2045 projections, and increasing density, it is anticipated that system ridership would be higher than that associated with year 2045 demographics

. 
page 12 of your report. And it does this throughout the report continuously citing that it cannot possible account for increasing density along the corridors
And here is another. Page 13

As noted previously, NCTCOG demographics do not reflect the most recent development trend, most of which is occurring in the southern part of downtown, so ridership at some stations may be underestimated.

https://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/about/ex ... IS_B21.pdf

Which just shows how « objective » you can be.

And that would be obvious to anyone serious and unbiased trying to understand the situation, and sees the trends of DFW as a whole and the CBD in general are going towards. You can’t possibly predict into 2045. Data is just but one tool in urban development that needs to be paired with urban planning and land use. Rather than hyper fixating on one data point, a better understanding can be reached by a more holistic approach taking into account the history, politics, urban design principles and yes, data even if it is flawed.

And that completely ignores the fact that I actually agree that this is a boondoggle.
Ive been following this for a long time and summarized the long history of it. How mistakes have compounded on themselves to lead to the mess we are here today.

DART: Pay no attention to the projections. We don't like them either. But we really really want to build a subway. So we'll pretend that there are trends favoring it. Never mind that all of the other development (including much-touted transit-oriented development) that has already occurred in downtown, uptown and the rest of Dallas has not led to increased ridership. Shhhhhhh....

I think Dallas would benefit from a subway system that's heavy rail, like New York, instead of just burying the DART rail line. The DART rail system seems to function more so as a commuter system.

Because it is light rail and that's what light rail is, commuter rail mixed with some heavy rail elements. The city of Dallas tried to build heavy rail first but the voters weren't for it. DFW was a different place back then. The city of Dallas knew it had to change but the city of Dallas wasn't able to convince people that there would be this inner-city revolution about walkability, transit, vintage streetcars, etc. They didn't seem to know that the suburban model for city development would change and that garden-style apartments would get replaced with thousands of urban-like developments. That even the suburbs would want to attract companies and people by offering "mixed-use walkable live work play" developments near multi-modal transit. We can argue all day about how many of these developments are masquerading as true walkable communities but developers certainly like to play the part these days even when built out in the middle of a field in Frisco or Celina or McKinney. Changing an entire transit system is going to be a huge undertaking that DART isn't strong enough to mount and let's face it doesn't even know what they would change first if given the blank check to do so. The voters don't see that Light Rail isn't going to be enough. All the voters see is empty buses or trains sometimes so why would they jump headfirst into a more heavy rail system just cause people loved to watch Friends, Will and Grace or Sex and the City and picture themselves living a cool big city lifestyle. Funny enough those shows almost never showed transit in New York but they still seemed to hit a nerve with the inner city ideas that flourished on TV in the late 90's - Post Millennium. You try and rip out every highway in DFW and tell people we are moving on to the next thing. Moving on from Light Rail as the main thing for DART isn't an easy idea and all anyone sees is pricetags.

If light rail was all underground in the urban part of Dallas it would move faster like other systems. What slows it down are all of the street crossings. We don't have to abandon the system we just need to bury some of it and add some lines and urban stations (also expensive but not like switching to heavy rail).

Cbdallas wrote:If light rail was all underground in the urban part of Dallas it would move faster like other systems. What slows it down are all of the street crossings. We don't have to abandon the system we just need to bury some of it and add some lines and urban stations (also expensive but not like switching to heavy rail).

Where do you propose burying/adding urban stations?

First go ahead and build out the Knox Station. Bury the track and stations inside the main downtown loop and possibly in the very near perimeter around downtown. Another way to help the urban side is to take the new urban streetcar extend to Jefferson and also extend and merge with MATA into one modern urban system (ditch the old streetcars) and then expand the line up to Knox and maybe over to the west into Oak Lawn. There are ways to make transit better for urban Dallas but it will take commitment and money to make it happen along with a lot of time. Dallas still needs to go more dense with construction in its core to achieve all of this. I may not see it in my lifetime but it will happen down the line.

I still wish they'd merge the M Line street car and the Oak Cliff one. Make them run through downtown and extend to Jefferson on the south. Add another line from Sylvan 30 along Commerce to lowest Greenville along ross. So many apartments on both routes that go to bars, businesses, DART stations, etc.

MC_ScattCat wrote:I still wish they'd merge the M Line street car and the Oak Cliff one. Make them run through downtown and extend to Jefferson on the south. Add another line from Sylvan 30 along Commerce to lowest Greenville along ross. So many apartments on both routes that go to bars, businesses, DART stations, etc.

Agreed, I cry about the fact that the M-Line - Dallas Streetcar "merger" hasn't happened. Also, I'd never thought about running another line from Sylvan 30 across Commerce.. I like that route a LOT. I've always pondered how to connect Trinity Groves by rail, but I think a line that runs from Trinity Groves down to Sylvan 30 and the rest of the way like you suggested would be perfect and can't think of a better solution.

Thanks for finally putting this internal debate I've had for many, many months to rest.

Cbdallas wrote:First go ahead and build out the Knox Station. Bury the track and stations inside the main downtown loop and possibly in the very near perimeter around downtown. Another way to help the urban side is to take the new urban streetcar extend to Jefferson and also extend and merge with MATA into one modern urban system (ditch the old streetcars) and then expand the line up to Knox and maybe over to the west into Oak Lawn. There are ways to make transit better for urban Dallas but it will take commitment and money to make it happen along with a lot of time. Dallas still needs to go more dense with construction in its core to achieve all of this. I may not see it in my lifetime but it will happen down the line.

I know the Knox extension + M-Line tie-in has been talked about for years, and I can't wait for the day it hopefully happens.

I think that is a bit better than the old alignment. I think the loop should be a bit wider to the N/S, but it does set the stage for later E/W lines as density grows.

The portal in Victory Park doesn't get talked about enough... Some real ugliness can occur from a walk ability stand point...

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:The portal in Victory Park doesn't get talked about enough... Some real ugliness can occur from a walk ability stand point...

What's the latest on the Field St District development anyways..? I remember conceptual renderings showing an elevated walkway directly above the portal itself that was pretty seamless with the development. Add a ramp and staircase to come down the other side and it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Without something like this though it could be a real mess yeah.

The field district project is nothing more than Vaporware at this point. Understand this Dallas, If there's a project of this magnitude proposed in Downtown... It likely depends on major office tenants... And guess what... Downtown Dallas isn't where these tenants sign more often than not...

...also.... None of those trees will be implemented...lol

The fact that this project made way for a proposed subway line.. Really was a dead give away that this project was a mere idea ..

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:The field district project is nothing more than Vaporware at this point. Understand this Dallas, If there's a project of this magnitude proposed in Downtown... It likely depends on major office tenants... And guess what... Downtown Dallas isn't where these tenants sign more often than not...

...also.... None of those trees will be implemented...lol

The fact that this project made way for a proposed subway line.. Really was a dead give away that this project was a mere idea ..

Oh for sure I'm skeptical of that development happening as is, but the rendering presented a possibility for dealing with the portal when the time comes at least.
I'm not stressed about the portal's impact as that area is already the least walkable area in the loop, surrounded by lots, and if you keep walking down the street it's just... more lots. No reason to walk where the portal will be until things actually get built to walk to, and I naively hope what gets built helps to address the portal.

That field st lot will be prime klyde warren park real estate when the expansion is finished, and I'm sure future wealthy condo owners will want that unsightly thing covered up in someway.

Heavy rail costs more to operate and build than light rail, and Dallas had no experience at all in its past with heavy (metro) rail.
But it did have experiences with streetcars and interurbans. And light rail trains are the perfect combination of streetcars and interurbans.
That is what the citizens of Dallas were familiar with, and that is what the cost-conscious voters were willing to accept.
At the time when both the failed heavy rail and successful light rail referendums were held, there was a push by some to build monorails instead.
DART built what the citizens voted for, which any great utility should do. Stop second guessing that decision made in the 1980s by the people and for the people. You either believe in democracy or you don't!

I wish the City of Dallas would just do a new heavy rail referendum. A nice North-South line from South Dallas to Northpark. A little East-West line from Trinity Groves to Baylor/Deep Ellum to start with (small $15bn project haha).

But back to the D2, has anyone heard anything new recently? I do a Google news search of "DART subway" weekly and haven't seen any new articles. I was hopeful that some sort of announcement about receiving Federal funding (which I think is assumed this will receive it but hasn't been made official) would have happened by now.

Back in July there was a public hearing (or in this case section of the board meeting with public invited I think) as a prerequisite to officially amending the service plan to the new east end alignment. Other than that, not much going on. The east end redo delayed the whole thing to the point that they've had to re-think some of the funding plan, i.e. what federal programs to apply to. They previously had intended to do a thing called a "program on interrelated projects", where they tied it to the platform extension project and said both were "Core Capacity Improvements". As long as D2 hit a certain development point (either final clearance or construction or something like that) before the platform project was finished, they could get the feds to chip in X number of dollars to D2 (separately from any other commitments of federal money). I'm convinced this is why near the end of the platform project, they suddenly decided to do full-platform raises at the last few stations instead of just moving/adding humps. Like, by making Westmoreland and LBJ/Skillman and Downtown Garland take an extra 6 months collectively, they could run out the clock just long enough for D2 to reach that milestone for the funding to happen. But of course because of the east end issues that still hasn't happened, so time ran out and they'll have to figure something else out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dart/comments/10l31zs/d2_delayed_10_years/

Welp. Reset the clock.

Was anyone else there and can confirm this?

I wonder how much usage in the urban parts of Dallas possible DART riders gets siphoned off to Uber due to demographics that would use the rail otherwise if ride share were not available. I think this affects cities like Dallas, Atlanta, LA, but not New York or Chicago as much due to their greater density. I would have loved to see D2 start moving in a few more years but maybe it really is not needed yet here until more density can be built.

Cbdallas wrote:I wonder how much usage in the urban parts of Dallas possible DART riders gets siphoned off to Uber due to demographics that would use the rail otherwise if ride share were not available. I think this affects cities like Dallas, Atlanta, LA, but not New York or Chicago as much due to their greater density. I would have loved to see D2 start moving in a few more years but maybe it really is not needed yet here until more density can be built.

I think rideshares might affect cities such as Chicago at least as much, perhaps more. One of the big drawbacks of driving in a city like Chicago is the difficulty and expense of parking at destinations. Rideshare does away with that issue. I doubt DART loses much ridership because of the availability of rideshares.

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/dart/comments/10l31zs/d2_delayed_10_years/

Welp. Reset the clock.

Was anyone else there and can confirm this?

Let's hope so. D2 has to be among the biggest transit boondoggles ever. Its alleged purpose is to provide "needed capacity and improving system reliability. . . Reliance upon one single LRT transit route through downtown constrains the ability . . . to implement additional radial light rail line projects or increase service levels on all existing radial light rail lines."

First of all, the idea they are even thinking of "additional radial light rail projects" is frightening. If it's possible to imagine a greater boondoggle than D2, it might be additional light rail projects radiating out from downtown Dallas. As to the "needed" capacity to increase service levels . . . assuming they even need additional capacity or that there is any foreseeable likelihood of increasing service levels (decreasing headways below 15 minutes), why not convert the southeastern green line (to Buckner) to be the southern extension of the red line; convert the southwestern red line (to Westmoreland) to be the southern extension of the green line. The result is: two lines running on the transitway instead of 4 (which is the result of the D2). "Congestion" on the transitway or the imagined possibility of future congestion when DART runs trains at less than 15 minute headways (LOL), is eliminated, and it could be done for probably $1.8 Billion less than building D2. (Remember, by their own estimation, adding D2 is not projected to add any noticeable ridership to the DART system.)

Tucy wrote:Let's hope so. D2 has to be among the biggest transit boondoggles ever. Its alleged purpose is to provide "needed capacity and improving system reliability. . . Reliance upon one single LRT transit route through downtown constrains the ability . . . to implement additional radial light rail line projects or increase service levels on all existing radial light rail lines."

Amen.

Tucy wrote:

IcedCowboyCoffee wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/dart/comments/10l31zs/d2_delayed_10_years/

Welp. Reset the clock.

Was anyone else there and can confirm this?

Let's hope so. D2 has to be among the biggest transit boondoggles ever. Its alleged purpose is to provide "needed capacity and improving system reliability. . . Reliance upon one single LRT transit route through downtown constrains the ability . . . to implement additional radial light rail line projects or increase service levels on all existing radial light rail lines."

First of all, the idea they are even thinking of "additional radial light rail projects" is frightening. If it's possible to imagine a greater boondoggle than D2, it might be additional light rail projects radiating out from downtown Dallas. As to the "needed" capacity to increase service levels . . . assuming they even need additional capacity or that there is any foreseeable likelihood of increasing service levels (decreasing headways below 15 minutes), why not convert the southeastern green line (to Buckner) to be the southern extension of the red line; convert the southwestern red line (to Westmoreland) to be the southern extension of the green line. The result is: two lines running on the transitway instead of 4 (which is the result of the D2). "Congestion" on the transitway or the imagined possibility of future congestion when DART runs trains at less than 15 minute headways (LOL), is eliminated, and it could be done for probably $1.8 Billion less than building D2. (Remember, by their own estimation, adding D2 is not projected to add any noticeable ridership to the DART system.)

Frequency and ridership is a situation where you often have to put the cart before the horse. If a line doesn't run frequently enough, it becomes less convenient to use and its ridership drops, which can lead to further service cuts. But if you instead make it more frequent, it becomes easier to use and improves ridership. It's not the only factor of course, like if you put the line/stops in the wrong places it'll hurt ridership, and timing/location/convenience of transfers to other lines is also important, but if the service doesn't come frequently enough it doesn't work. The generally held standard is that a 15-minute frequency or shorter is optimal for higher-intensity transit. Gaps between trains are short enough that missing one isn't too big of a deal, and you don't have to check the schedules and aim for a specific train as much.

Changing the line arrangements to add frequency (at the expense of adding more transfers, which would be more frequent too) isn't a bad idea. It's a good example of the principle of "planning before electronics before concrete". The only construction needed would be improvements to West End Junction, everything else would be operational changes. The only issue is that because of how the lines tie into each other, delays and blockages can reverberate across the system much like they do now. If you can decouple the Red/Blue lines and the Green/Orange lines from each other entirely, then delays on one subsystem don't affect the other. This also fixes the issue in the current system where you get uneven waits between trains on parts of the system (Bachman to Victory and 8th & Corinth to Union). I think it'd ultimately be good for the system as a whole for D2 to be built, so I'm sad it'll be a while longer, especially because until this country figures out how build to massive infrastructure projects without the cost ballooning, it'll always be that it would've cost half as much money to build something ten years ago as opposed to when they actually build it. Hell, D1 was supposed to be a subway up until the late stages of the planning process, and although it cost less to put it on the surface, it also created the other aspect of the downtown scheduling bottleneck: the street traffic signals that the trains have to abide by. It would've been a lot cheaper to build it underground 30 years ago that it would be now.

DART is at least better about proposing new light rail lines nowadays; they applied stricter criteria in the most recent big plan (the 2045 plan) and came to the decision not to recommend any new light rail lines/extensions except for D2.

The best thing that could happen to the DART system is for all of the urban stations to get built out with high density urban use developments. The fact that CItyplace subway station is surrounded on one side with a suburban Target strip center and mostly around there is very low density use. Even the West Village area kind of timidly connects to it.
I recognize that DART does not have a part or influence on development destiny but it sure would help if the stations were surrounded by high density urban use with people who might actually use the system. I think we actually have a relatively large system in place but we just don't have enough bodies living and working around all of the stations. Rail systems need actual people to make it work.

Money should be spent to rebuild the downtown section as an elevated line so that train traffic does not interfere with cars. That would help speed up train traffic.

R1070 wrote:Money should be spent to rebuild the downtown section as an elevated line so that train traffic does not interfere with cars. That would help speed up train traffic.

100% agree or trench it. I understand at the time why they didn't, but now it's too much cars, people, trains in one area. I'm shocked more people are hurt or killed the way it is now. Plus new people to downtown often drive in areas they think it is a road but it's for trains only.

As others have pointed out, it is not necessary to run every line thru the downtown transit mall. The lines could be reconfigure to run two less lines thru it, but that will probably require some reconstruction at the wye west of the West End. Not an impossible task, just a commitment to do so.

electricron wrote:As others have pointed out, it is not necessary to run every line thru the downtown transit mall. The lines could be reconfigure to run two less lines thru it, but that will probably require some reconstruction at the wye west of the West End. Not an impossible task, just a commitment to do so.

Surely much easier (and less expensive) than building a subway.

Can signal priority in the downtown transit mall not be made a thing?