DART Expansion (Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth: real estate, 2014, credit)

[Dallas12]

The reason why Dallas doesn't have a very high number of people riding/mile is because stations were purposely placed in areas that are potential mixed-use urban centers. Hopefully, if all the development were built adjacent to the lines, the ridership would be much higher, no doubt. This will only help Dallas in the future. Other cities like Houston have placed their lines where it is already well developed, which resulted in Houston having such a large amount of people riding it. Dallas did it way differently.

There are great examples of mixed-use areas on the line, such as Park Lane Place, Mockingbird Station, West Village, Galatyn Park, Downtown Plano, etc. And there is more to come in the future.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by HOAPRESIDENT

You do realize you're on the Dallas board right? DART is considered a major success and has inspired other sunbelt cities to build rail. Nothing about it has been considered negative in the local press -- so I don't understand how it could possibly be giving other systems a bad name if it is considered successful for its users. You need to learn some facts about this system before you call it a failure or perhaps the critics need to be called out for being liars.

Nexus comes into the Houston thread and essentially does the same thing. He does have a point, but there's really no comparision between sunbelt city transit and midwwestern/northeastern cities.

I will say that some Dallas folks like to point out the fact that DART's LRT length as proof of its success. I've never understood that as Nexus and others have mentioned the low ridership. It's not a bad thing as the system is young.

Originally Posted by Dallas12

The reason why Dallas doesn't have a very high number of people riding/mile is because stations were purposely placed in areas that are potential mixed-use urban centers. Hopefully, if all the development were built adjacent to the lines, the ridership would be much higher, no doubt. This will only help Dallas in the future. Other cities like Houston have placed their lines where it is already well developed, which resulted in Houston having such a large amount of people riding it. Dallas did it way differently.

There are great examples of mixed-use areas on the line, such as Park Lane Place, Mockingbird Station, West Village, Galatyn Park, Downtown Plano, etc. And there is more to come in the future.

Continuing from above. The problem is if the economy doesn't pick up DFW and/or continues its outward expansion then who is going to live by some of these stations that are spaced so far apart. I get what DART is trying to do but it seems like a gamble.

[mm4]

Well it would be a gamble if that were the prevailing reason for building out. But another priority for doing this is simply to provide a reliable alternative means of getting from one place to another, and doing so on a dedicated limited access transit bed that isn't at the mercy of the vicissitudes of auto traffic. And a regional solution only works if you do it on a regional scale right away. It's a balancing act between shortest route, cheapest alignment and catchment of preexisting population density in service areas. New livable growth around the nodes are just historically expected and validating icing on the cake, which breeds more of the same.

[rantanamo]

No one ever mentions that the areas around some of the biggest ridership stations are being gentrified in favor of lower density development. The northern Lake Highlands area where the new Lake Highlands station is as well as Skillman-LBJ station. Those are really dense areas that are being decimated by teardowns and large fires. Spring Valley in Richardson did the same thing. One often forgotten is Walnut Hill/Presbyterian Station. That huge apartment area that formerly housed 5 or 6 huge apartment complexes have been torn down and just huge fields, empty streets and a new Elementary School remain. There is simply no way this didn't hugely affect ridership. These were some of the busiest stations for people who ride more frequently than just commuters. I'd go as far to say that there's no way Dallas didn't lose population. I think the census and NCTCOG or BS.

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

No one ever mentions that the areas around some of the biggest ridership stations are being gentrified in favor of lower density development. The northern Lake Highlands area where the new Lake Highlands station is as well as Skillman-LBJ station. Those are really dense areas that are being decimated by teardowns and large fires. Spring Valley in Richardson did the same thing. One often forgotten is Walnut Hill/Presbyterian Station. That huge apartment area that formerly housed 5 or 6 huge apartment complexes have been torn down and just huge fields, empty streets and a new Elementary School remain. There is simply no way this didn't hugely affect ridership. These were some of the busiest stations for people who ride more frequently than just commuters. I'd go as far to say that there's no way Dallas didn't lose population. I think the census and NCTCOG or BS.

I can't speak to the other locations, but Spring Valley just had a fairly large apartment complex/town home complex built literally right next to the station. If that isn't adding a bit of density, I'm not sure what is.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Well then just copy what Calgary did , which is the Dallas of Canada.....they struck a balance between the city dwellers and the MC Mansion ppl....theres no reason Dallas can't.

What Calgary does and what Dallas does is different. Calgary is in Canada. There are not as many cities in Canada building TOD's around new rail transit systems as there are in the United States. The Canadian cities have more to work with than the US cities so it is kind of easier to build TOD's there than anywhere else in this country. Do you have another example because Calgary is not a good one.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

I can't speak to the other locations, but Spring Valley just had a fairly large apartment complex/town home complex built literally right next to the station. If that isn't adding a bit of density, I'm not sure what is.

The new development isn't nearly as dense as what was there before. Nicer and more expensive yes, but not nearly as dense. The other stations have built nothing. You're talking a significant portion of daily riders that used the system for work, school and just getting around. Those stations went from the busiest stations to not even close.

[Gamarabi]

Originally Posted by HOAPRESIDENT

Man, we Dallas dwellers would love for Dallas to be more dense.

But people come here (to City-Data at least) and want to live in a freakin' cow pasture then claim they "don't mind" a 2 hour commute in their car. Those relocators are scared to death of "Dallas" because its a "big city" even though it is primarily a single family, suburban city. So they live farther and farther out. Believe me, no one is more upset about this than us. I'd love to see more TOD. But we have to change an entire culture that comes to live here so they can move into a McMansion beside a cow pasture. City-Data posters tend to want to live far away from the city -- even if it is a sprawling, non dense city like Dallas.

You coming on here and beating us down about it is an arrogant and jackass thing to do. I'm usually the jackass around here and I don't appreciate the competition!

I think we could satisfy both by making some the areas by rail even denser than they are now. In other words kind of like compacting the majority of people into tight clusters around transit centers. So in other words 70% of dallas lives on 30 percent of the land and vice versa. This way we get our urban city and they get their McMansions. More important though is that we increase the density.

Oh how I would love to buy up a few acres of houses near Morrell Station. A few improvements and one nice development there could easily kick start a revitilization of the area.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by Gamarabi

I think we could satisfy both by making some the areas by rail even denser than they are now. In other words kind of like compacting the majority of people into tight clusters around transit centers. So in other words 70% of dallas lives on 30 percent of the land and vice versa. This way we get our urban city and they get their McMansions. More important though is that we increase the density.

Oh how I would love to buy up a few acres of houses near Morrell Station. A few improvements and one nice development there could easily kick start a revitilization of the area.

That's what DART and Dallas are trying to stimulate. Victory Park, Park Lane, Mockingbird Station, Cityville Southwest, The West Village, These are all TODs in Dallas proper that simply stalled in the economy, but are actually built to a large extent. In Richardson you have TODs at each station outside PGBT, and even downtown Plano built some TOD right on the tracks.

The other problem you have in a cheap land market that's not built up, like much of inner-city Dallas was in 1996, was that development, even with incentives pretty much builds where it wants to regardless of rail. Your only solution is to put together the nodes. This was done where the rail was. Its really easy to say, DART should have built here or there. Well, Uptown was nowhere near what it is today. Bryan Place was nowhere near what it is today. Basically your only option was to connect the hospitals(check), business nodes(most are connected), a line up the DNT(no check. This was attempted but not allowed, Connect the densest existing areas like Lake Highlands and NW Dallas(check), and to try to stimulate TOD in between (check). That's what DART actually addressed. What some come here and want from DART rail simply does not exist in Dallas. Dallas is not Portland or New York, or even Toronto. Those places are dense now. Wherever the station goes, there are people walking. Where in Dallas is that? Why does DART have the sole responsibility of making Dallas walkable when you come here and read everyone desiring a house north of 121? DART is simply following the design of the city. Commuter lines first, and as the city densifies, the FUNDED streetcars go in(at least the first couple of lines are).

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Spade

What Calgary does and what Dallas does is different. Calgary is in Canada. There are not as many cities in Canada building TOD's around new rail transit systems as there are in the United States. The Canadian cities have more to work with than the US cities so it is kind of easier to build TOD's there than anywhere else in this country. Do you have another example because Calgary is not a good one.

No because Calgary is very Sprawly , and doing TOD is very hard like in Dallas. Downtown Dallas and Downtown Calgary are about the same , although Calgary has exploded in recent years due to a min oil boom up there. Canadian cities are much worse then the cities down here , there Transit is non existent outside the Major cities. All Dallas needs to do is copy Calgary is cut down on the Parking lots in Downtown and dense it up and DART Ridership will soar. Kinda what Calgary did , slowly phased out the Downtown parking lots and replaced them with parks , and High Rises. Edmonton is kinda of like Dallas to , infact all the Alberta cities seem to mirror Texas cities if you look it up Google maps. There are alot of systems younger or smaller then DART and yet have more TOD going like in LA , Seattle , Minneapolis , Denver. DART will be overtaken in size by LA in a few years , which also has great ridership numbers to go along with all the routes they have. There planning at least 12 New Light Rail corridors by the end of the decade and Densefying up a few corridors and the Downtown.