What do you think of the DART? (Houston, Dallas: real estate, showing)

[DWong]

Originally Posted by Spade

Well you have to put the stations in areas for people to go. If DC put a system somewhere by Anacostia river, it would see horrible ridership numbers. Put them in historical areas, attractions, and places where people can easily get to work. In DC, stations are put in historic neighborhoods like Foggy Bottom/GWU but also placed directly in the middle of working areas like Farragut North. You must have a balance. I think it would work in the DFW area. Density is part of the story. But not the entire story. BTW, I know that there will probably never be another heavy rail system in the US. Just voicing that it would be another option in the area.

Dallas as of 2000 was around 3000 people per sq mile. I won't be surprised if the density is around 4000 by the time 2010 hits.

3,600 per sq mile today add 400 in 1.5 years, probably isn't going to happen and according to the 2000 census it was at 3469 per sq miles - barely an inch in increase.
Dallas is working very hard to increase it's density and they want to increase it. The citizens want increased density. Dallas will never have New York type of density. As far as the car. One key to rail is to get people out of the cars. To get people from behind the exhaust pipe, the traffic jams, the isolation it provides and get people to start walking and start mingling. It also causes less stress and worries. You don't have to worry about the maintenance and drunk driving. You all can enjoy the night instead of 1 holding out. Less freeways and more rail. If aceplace is correct and Dallas receives up to 120,000 riders after the construction is finished, for a light rail system, that is pretty darn good and it can only get better. Dallas will not continue to prosper and mature by having only one form of transportation and not have an alternative.

Personally I think it's a culture thing. In TX, big homes on lots of land is the thing. That's the culture of most TX Metros. And that's is what makes it different unique and great. Don't become SoCal, bc people leaving here, love it for those reasons. Living in SoCal I don't even know what an acre looks like. If it weren't for our geographic barriers, our density would closer to SF.

Maybe I missed it on the list, but I didn't see DART on the list of top 50? List of U.S. cities with high transit ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
if that's the case DART has a long way to go! No surprise San Diego wasn't to be found on the list, but look at any of those cities, very high density. Unless you knocked down the city and built from scratch it's not going to change. My opinion, maybe work on hybrids and freeways (all though they arn't the best).
Here's another good article:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004983.html

[Spade]

Originally Posted by DWong

Personally I think it's a culture thing. In TX, big homes on lots of land is the thing. That's the culture of most TX Metros. And that's is what makes it different unique and great. Don't become SoCal, bc people leaving here, love it for those reasons. Living in SoCal I don't even know what an acre looks like. If it weren't for our geographic barriers, our density would closer to SF.

It's a culture thing that is dwindling. Especially in the city limits. Dallas does not in any manner want to annex land unless it's the very southeast tip and that's only because of the new inland port. I don't believe Dallas has annexed land for decades. You can build out for so long. It is coming to the point that Dallas is starting to look up nowadays. More and more condo units that are in the form of high rises or mid rises are being built throughout Dallas proper on rail lines and away from rail lines. The culture exists in the suburbs. It is starting to fade in the major city propers. I will not be surprised if the density levels of Dallas isn't 4000 by 2010. Still a long way to go though. Dallas has enough freeways as it is. And they do not last as long as tracks do as well.

Maybe I missed it on the list, but I didn't see DART on the list of top 50? List of U.S. cities with high transit ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a better list.
List of United States light rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

f that's the case DART has a long way to go! No surprise San Diego wasn't to be found on the list, but look at any of those cities, very high density. Unless you knocked down the city and built from scratch it's not going to change. My opinion, maybe work on hybrids and freeways (all though they arn't the best).
Here's another good article:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004983.html

No doubt DART has a long way to go. You don't build successful alternatives overnight. It will take time. Also,most of those cities on that list on the link you provided had a 100 year head start on Dallas as cities and over 80 year head start over them as transit systems. You don't have to have high density to have a rail line to work. It helps, but you can also build dense TOD's which can spur dense areas surrounding those TOD's increasing your density away from the train station and so on and so on throughout the city. That's what's happening in Dallas. As I said, the density is increasing in the city and for a city the size of Dallas, by having only one transportation to move around the city is not smart planning and not smart thinking.

I probably will repeat myself. But there is no problem with the car. But you don't need to use it for every little thing you do to live in a city. Dense city or no dense city.

[DWong]

Originally Posted by Spade

It's a culture thing that is dwindling. Especially in the city limits. Dallas does not in any manner want to annex land unless it's the very southeast tip and that's only because of the new inland port. I don't believe Dallas has annexed land for decades. You can build out for so long. It is coming to the point that Dallas is starting to look up nowadays. More and more condo units that are in the form of high rises or mid rises are being built throughout Dallas proper on rail lines and away from rail lines. The culture exists in the suburbs. It is starting to fade in the major city propers. I will not be surprised if the density levels of Dallas isn't 4000 by 2010. Still a long way to go though.

That I can definitely see the move to come back to the city. 4,000 by 2010 is 1.5 years from now, y'all only added 150 from 2000 to 2006, doubt a 350 person increase is even possible.... Anyways, yes a long long long way to go.

Here's a better list.
List of United States light rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is total ridership on a light rail. 63 thousand daily riders for a metro of 6 million... that is small pickings there. San diego which is a metro of 3million (1/2 y'alls size) had 2x the amount of ridership of DFW. In those cities as well the other methods of public transportation are also considered, making them higher. Again, 5% according to the article, is a better read (Portland, SF, St Louis, Denver and Boston are far smaller than DFW)


No doubt DART has a long way to go. You don't build successful alternatives overnight. It will take time. Also,most of those cities on that list on the link you provided had a 100 year head start on Dallas as cities and over 80 year head start over them as transit systems. You don't have to have high density to have a rail line to work. It helps, but you can also build dense TOD's which can spur dense areas surrounding those TOD's increasing your density away from the train station and so on and so on throughout the city. That's what's happening in Dallas. As I said, the density is increasing in the city and for a city the size of Dallas, by having only one transportation to move around the city is not smart planning and not smart thinking.

Agreed, but it is in how a city is built, constructed and thought out. A city w/ anything less than 7 or 8k density isn't going to go far for a long time. The head start was in thanks to how other cities were built - they new a long time ago NY was going to need it - hence why they did it. And again, Dallas, being only 1.2 million of a metro of 6, has a very large density compared to many parts of the metro. FW and other cities are smaller. Again, the appeal of TX is the larger home on acre of land. That is what makes Tx, Texas.


I probably will repeat myself. But there is no problem with the car. But you don't need to use it for every little thing you do to live in a city. Dense city or no dense city.

True, but freeway parking lots aren't fun either. The question being, is all the $ and time put towards building it ever going to work or should they just invest in freeways and roads? Well any other suggestions or ideas I'd love to hear. Anyone

[Spade]

Yeah I admit I was a bit to optimistic on my first point.

But in regards to their ridership numbers. There is a reason for that. The way the system was built. Dallas plopped their stations in areas in the middle of nowhere. They put the stations in fields allowing dense transit oriented developments to build around it. It is one of the very few systems that actually designed its system that way. Look at Houston's line. It's line is probably more impressive than any on that list. That may have to do with the line going through the Texas Medical Center, Rice U, and downtown. Yet Houston is just as spread out as Dallas with similar all around density. It proves my point that density plays a role, but there's more you have to consider on how successful a line can actually become.

Here to tell you now. Most Dallasites do not want more freeways. They want alternatives. They have enough freeways in the city and there doesn't need to be anymore. They want to bury a couple of them as a matter of fact. With gas prices the way they are, it wouldn't be wise to continue to build freeways and continue to invest around just the car.

[Bostonian08]

Interesting conversation. Yeah it's kinda hard to say if Dallas will ever get to real density or not. My theory has been that as gas prices escalate, a certain percentage of Dallasites, particularly those like myself emigrating from dense cities will choose to live closer to the DART. But Dallasites have told me that Dallas will build its highways out to 12 lanes before they utilize mass transit. Hybrids may be a good argument, but I doubt Chevy Volt is. It takes other combustion (gas) to produce electricity, so my guess is the cost of electricity goes up with gas. If peak oil is true, which makes sense (but smells like another racket), dense cities are better poised for the future. Corporations need a workforce, and affordable convenient transportation provides them a recruitment advantage. That's a fundamental reason for old world density - the inability to commute long distances. There is also a hidden reward in density - increased farmland and improved ecology. That's readily visibly apparent flying over France.

So my theory is this. Dallas will densify. Air rights is the way Dallas could submerge their DART at will - Mockingbird station looks like it's ready for the roof anytime. In a hundred years Dallas may look a lot more like NYC. One look at Dubai or Hong Kong can show you how quickly a city can build up.

I'm very spoiled with Boston's T. I can go almost anywhere in metro Boston without a car. It's very pleasant reading a book while being ferried by my own big green personal chauffeur. It's must less stressful than an hour or more of constant vigilance against road racers and ragers. DART access is high on my priorities when we house shop, and I consider any property near the DART line an obviously wise investment for future property value.

[cityconvo]

A new article out on this topic this morning in the DMN:

As gas prices soar, mass transit winning more converts in Dallas area | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Bostonian08

Interesting conversation. Yeah it's kinda hard to say if Dallas will ever get to real density or not. My theory has been that as gas prices escalate, a certain percentage of Dallasites, particularly those like myself emigrating from dense cities will choose to live closer to the DART. But Dallasites have told me that Dallas will build its highways out to 12 lanes before they utilize mass transit.

I'm very spoiled with Boston's T. I can go almost anywhere in metro Boston without a car. It's very pleasant reading a book while being ferried by my own big green personal chauffeur. It's must less stressful than an hour or more of constant vigilance against road racers and ragers. DART access is high on my priorities when we house shop, and I consider any property near the DART line an obviously wise investment for future property value.

Interesting post in many ways, but I'd have to tell you that you're behind the times... central Dallas is already pretty dense. You get outside of the central office district and the city is filled with 4 and 5 floor apartment blocks and many high rise residential buildings for several square miles.

Can you really get anywhere in the Boston metro without a car? No, you can't. I was able to take a train to Lowell, at least to a small downtown station. There I waited a half hour for a taxi to show up so I could go to a hotel on the freeway... on the way to Lowell, I noticed that the suburban stations were just sheds and canopies, with a vast parking lot beside them. Maybe a couple of them were in a small downtown, but then what do you do? Walk 5 miles to your house?

No, the vast majority of the Boston metro looks like an auto-oriented suburban world, although it is different in appearance from the Dallas metro.

Yes, the transit villages and their close-in neighborhoods will be pretty convenient. You'll find anything you want there. You won't be able to get to each and every possible destination in the DFW metro, of course, but the places you can access will have everything, literally everything, you'd want in terms of city life. Fortunately, you never have to go beyond range of a DART station for anything.

[aceplace]

I will not be surprised if the density levels of Dallas isn't 4000 by 2010. Still a long way to go though.

That I can definitely see the move to come back to the city. 4,000 by 2010 is 1.5 years from now, y'all only added 150 from 2000 to 2006, doubt a 350 person increase is even possible.... Anyways, yes a long long long way to go.

The overall density of municipal Dallas is irrelevant. What is meaningful is the density of Dallas' urban core. And the several square miles of Dallas' central core is pretty dense now.

Here's a better list.
List of United States light rail systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is total ridership on a light rail. 63 thousand daily riders for a metro of 6 million... that is small pickings there. San diego which is a metro of 3million (1/2 y'alls size) had 2x the amount of ridership of DFW. In those cities as well the other methods of public transportation are also considered, making them higher. Again, 5% according to the article, is a better read (Portland, SF, St Louis, Denver and Boston are far smaller than DFW)

The DART rail system has nothing to do with a metro of 6 million. It's currently only 45 miles, with maybe 35 stations. Smaller than San Diego. When the new Green and Orange lines are completed by 2013, ridership for the transit systems in the DFW area should be at around 120,000, plus the ridership for the TRE, the Denton line and the NE Tarrant commuter line.. Actually, San Diego's numbers are inflated by the traffic in Mexican nationals from the border to the downtown. So its apples and oranges.

In addition, SD has pretty much completed its system. Perhaps there will be an additional line going north to UCSD in the future, but that's about it. Dallas is just getting started, both in terms of light rail and several commuter rail lines to outlying areas such as McKinney, Frisco, Midlothian, etc.

[DWong]

Originally Posted by Spade

Yeah I admit I was a bit to optimistic on my first point.

No worries, good to know some people can honest on this and not so biased.

But in regards to their ridership numbers. There is a reason for that. The way the system was built. Dallas plopped their stations in areas in the middle of nowhere. They put the stations in fields allowing dense transit oriented developments to build around it. It is one of the very few systems that actually designed its system that way. Look at Houston's line. It's line is probably more impressive than any on that list. That may have to do with the line going through the Texas Medical Center, Rice U, and downtown. Yet Houston is just as spread out as Dallas with similar all around density. It proves my point that density plays a role, but there's more you have to consider on how successful a line can actually become.

Very true, density and where it goes has all the more to do w/ it.

Here to tell you now. Most Dallasites do not want more freeways. They want alternatives. They have enough freeways in the city and there doesn't need to be anymore. They want to bury a couple of them as a matter of fact. With gas prices the way they are, it wouldn't be wise to continue to build freeways and continue to invest around just the car.

OH no one wants more freeways, but what's the choice? Buidling freeways or metro rails take just as long and cost just as much. The freedom of a car in DFW will always necessary. I agree with the cost of gas, but it took people in SoCAl a long time to get over the car (which most havn't still)

[DWong]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The overall density of municipal Dallas is irrelevant. What is meaningful is the density of Dallas' urban core. And the several square miles of Dallas' central core is pretty dense now.

There are pockets of density, but slowly fizzles out tremendously as you get further away. Even more so, the biggest populations growths in DFW are not in Dallas, but surrounding cities... urban core is a snails growth compared to outlying cities and FW

The DART rail system has nothing to do with a metro of 6 million. It's currently only 45 miles, with maybe 35 stations. Smaller than San Diego. When the new Green and Orange lines are completed by 2013, ridership for the transit systems in the DFW area should be at around 120,000, plus the ridership for the TRE, the Denton line and the NE Tarrant commuter line.. Actually, San Diego's numbers are inflated by the traffic in Mexican nationals from the border to the downtown. So its apples and oranges.

Doesn't eh??? Well then the freeways will continue to be a mess then if you don't think the metro of 6 million won't make better use of it. SD numbers are inflated w/ the TJ people - believe me people in SD don't make much use of it. It's good to take to the baseball games or football, but besides that most people will NEVER use it.


In addition, SD has pretty much completed its system. Perhaps there will be an additional line going north to UCSD in the future, but that's about it. Dallas is just getting started, both in terms of light rail and several commuter rail lines to outlying areas such as McKinney, Frisco, Midlothian, etc.

UCSD line... man I worked for the SDSU a long time ago and recall the time for plans to completion (considering we had to bore a huge tunnel through a mountain) took nearly 15 years. Nonetheless students make little use of it anyways. Point being, UCSD line don't bother SD metrolink.

Y'alls maybe just getting started, however ever heard too little too late.... it will take a century to re-transform a city from a heavy car and drive to making a dent into being a public transportation friendly city.