What do you think of the DART? (Houston, Dallas: renters, house)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by DWong

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.

Don't you get it DWong... cities in the new America will provide a high density center, and also give people the spread out urban plan that they want.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Don't you get it DWong... cities in the new America will provide a high density center, and also give people the spread out urban plan that they want.

Exactly. There will be a balance. I think a balance is healthy. Maybe the less dense parts of Dallas will continue to utilize the car more. But in a few years or decades, Uptown, Turtle Creek, VP, and downtown. It will be more difficult to use the car. Thus rail will be the option. Just like in DC. In Southeast DC, people do use the car. But those same people that use the car in Southeast DC do not dare to use the car in Downtown DC because it is too difficult to drive around the area with it. Thus rail is the option.

[Bostonian08]

Originally Posted by aceplace

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.

That's kinda what I expected would inevitably happen in D. Over time, ground space is considered underutilized as high rises reap far more $ per sq ft. That is, of course, if they don't build faster than they can sell like they've done in Miami. I've been Google Street viewing D a bit. I like the new brownstones on McKinney - kinda like Brookline.

Originally Posted by aceplace

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?

Well actually I said almost anywhere, and yes, that is true. See the thing is I live in downtown, so I don't have to walk 5 miles to my house from a T stop, I walk 5 blocks. If you live in downtown, then it is easy to get mostly anywhere you want to go. If I wanted to go some smaller town then yes, one may have to run the bus/cab gauntlet - but it can be done. I was carless for about five years. That's not to say I could go anywhere conveniently, but mostly yeah.

The other factor is of course where do you want to go? If you're the type of person who wants to go mountain climbing or fishing in a remote river, well, not so easy. But since Boston has everything in downtown, there's no need to go anywhere really. Go where? I'm already here! I pretty much stay in town, maybe go to Allston, Cambridge or the beach. Maybe Salem on Halloween. Other than that, I hop the bus to NYC for $15 and go to the Met or Central Park.

[ctrres]

Dallas has some density issues still in places where it could be a little more concentrated. Funny Brookline is mentioned: Lower Greenville Ave. seems just dense enough--until the Grenada and its surroundings are compared with something like Coolidge. And then you look back and the former is a scape out of The Last Picture Show.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Bostonian08

Well actually I said almost anywhere, and yes, that is true. See the thing is I live in downtown, so I don't have to walk 5 miles to my house from a T stop, I walk 5 blocks. If you live in downtown, then it is easy to get mostly anywhere you want to go. If I wanted to go some smaller town then yes, one may have to run the bus/cab gauntlet - but it can be done. I was carless for about five years. That's not to say I could go anywhere conveniently, but mostly yeah.

You said anywhere in the metro area, now you say almost anywhere in the metro area. Both assertions are false.

The Boston T provides a convenient pedestrian experience for the central core of the Boston metro, but the vast majority of the metro consists of low-density suburbs, auto-oriented, with a commuter rail station every few miles, with ample parking for people to drive to them. The Red, Orange and Blue lines are heavy rail, the Green line(s) are light rail, that becomes street-running halfway out, the Grey line is Bus Rapid Transit, and between them, they do cover some inner-city areas, such as Boston, Brookline, Somerville and Cambridge. But beyond that, it's commuter rail, a system similar to Dallas' TRE.

Dallas' urban core is small compared to greater Boston's, but it does exist. Maybe it should be larger, but at the moment, it's good enough to give people in the area a genuine urban experience, with good and quick transportation options via streetcar, light rail, or bus.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Bostonian08

The other factor is of course where do you want to go? If you're the type of person who wants to go mountain climbing or fishing in a remote river, well, not so easy. But since Boston has everything in downtown, there's no need to go anywhere really. Go where? I'm already here! I pretty much stay in town, maybe go to Allston, Cambridge or the beach. Maybe Salem on Halloween. Other than that, I hop the bus to NYC for $15 and go to the Met or Central Park.

Interesting point. If you want to go out to the country on a hiking trip, you need a car... that's really true almost everywhere.

In terms of city life, yes, the Boston urban core is a complete urban package. And I'm parsing my words carefully, because Boston, Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville are independent municipalities, but components of the city's urban core.

The same can be said for the areas accessible by transit in Dallas, however. The pedestrian and transit zones contain all the shopping, entertainment, clubbing, employment, residential facilities you'd want. Yes, the transit-accessible areas are a subset of the entire metro area, but within that subset, there is a complete urban package. Well, except for major league baseball at The Ballpark. You got us beat there.

[DWong]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Don't you get it DWong... cities in the new America will provide a high density center, and also give people the spread out urban plan that they want.

You know the area of SD, making a line to UCSD, is a pain w/ the hills and mountain, not to mention cut through the most expensive real estate in the country.

Of course, don't most cities have a high density center. As I've always said, it's a cultural difference here and there... no one in SoCal could care for 3,000+sq ft on a large chunk of land. In TX, it's the minimum... hence why DART for a metro that size has VERY POOR ridersship and will continue too... but you do get the nice big house

And w/ all the posts on this thread and all the stats, no one seems to make much use other than 5% of the people (except for special events).

[DWong]

Originally Posted by Spade

Exactly. There will be a balance. I think a balance is healthy. Maybe the less dense parts of Dallas will continue to utilize the car more. But in a few years or decades, Uptown, Turtle Creek, VP, and downtown. It will be more difficult to use the car. Thus rail will be the option. Just like in DC. In Southeast DC, people do use the car. But those same people that use the car in Southeast DC do not dare to use the car in Downtown DC because it is too difficult to drive around the area with it. Thus rail is the option.

Is there any study or map that shows DFW growth in terms of %. Pretty much showing where growth is.
I don't have one, but I can be pretty sure to say it's growing much faster out and up and in...

OC/SD/LA are ALL landlocked. Yet our population still grows faster in our urban center than does the big D. Not to mention the difference in density in some large cities 3x that of Dallas, ie LA/Santa Ana, Long Beach, all very much urban centers w/ high density, yet are cities around 300k. What are the densities of cities similar in size in DFW?

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by DWong

Is there any study or map that shows DFW growth in terms of %.
I don't have one, but I can be pretty sure to say it's growing much faster out and up and in...
OC/SD/LA are ALL landlocked. Yet our population still grows higher by % than Dallas.

for metro growth, look in US Census Press Releases

Dallas grew 16.3% between 2000 and 2006, adding 842,449. San Diego grew by 4.5%, 127,621 people. LA grew by 4.7%, 548,510.

Dallas added more people that LA metro and San Diego metro combined. Houston added 824,547 and Austin added 263,802. San Antonio added 230,501. So, the East Texas cities added far more people than the Southern California cities... and you like to compare SoCal to Texas, so I'll continue the comparison.

Bottom line: the 4 Texas metros added 2,161,299 people, the 3 SoCal metros added 1,483,445. The 4 Texas metros had a population of 12,838,399 in 2000, and the 3 SoCal metros had 19,917,718. So Texas has 1 1/2 times the population growth based on 2/3 of the population. EaTex: 16.8%, SoCal: 7.4%.

Your best case is Riverside-San Bernardino which grew by 23.7%, mostly spillover from LA. But its numerical growth was 0nly 771,314.

So DFW beats all 4 SoCal metros by the numbers, and 2 out of 3 by percentage.

DFW is late to the game of building a rail network, but it's making up for it in a big way. DART by itself is the largest rail transit project in the United States, and in just a few years (2013), DFW will have about 100 miles of light rail, and 100 to 200 miles more of commuter rail. Plus maybe 10 to 20 miles of streetcar lines in Dallas and Fort Worth. Its 2030 plan is even more extensive. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Let's further compare DFW to San Diego. It is a pretty city, with a beautiful bay and beaches, and very pleasant weather. Yet these advantages could only grow the city by 21,000 people each year (something wrong there). DFW, on the other hand, is hot as hell in the summer, has no mountains or ocean, no pretty bayshore, and yet it grew by 140,000 people a year.

San Diego must have some serious flaws that override its physical appeal. Dallas must have some extraordinary assets that override its liabilities, wouldn't you say? Maybe cities are like people. Sometimes the ones who are physically attractive are the least desirable.

[aceplace]

In terms of urban growth, the center city neighborhoods are all getting new apartment complexes of hundreds of apartments each, much new development to the east of downtown as well, and some growth along the US75 corridor. The massive retail and residential complex at Park Lane station is nearing completion, and Victory Park is wrapping up 2 more high rise residentials.

For transit oriented development, several of the Richardson and Plano stations are getting several hundred units each, the Green line suburbs of Farmers Branch and Carrollton are going full steam ahead with extensive high density development around transit stations, as is Irving and the Orange line, especially in Las Colinas. The paper reported today on yet another $400 million town center project in the Design district on Dragon street. Bottom line is that Dallas is heavily densifying for the benefit of the demographic that wants it, and providing less dense single family for the demographic that wants it..