News

Just to set the record straight, the Rowlett line is an extension of the existing Blue line going northeast of Garland, the Orange line will connect downtown with DFW airport and the UNT line will extend the Blue line in the south.

Comment by Nathan — April 23, 2008 @ 06:18PM

Jim, I find myself sharing your viewpoints quite often, so this is a rare miss. I do agree with the second half of the article. Dallas is too often a pushover in the region, seeming as if it is afraid to hurt the feelings of the suburbs. If Dallas were as take charge as say Addison or Irving on everything, it would be in a lot better shape. Dallas needs a no BS-style attitude that Joyce has.

That said, the doomsday scenario you painted about a solid wall of trains blocking north and south downtown is just pure hogwash. Part of the reason is based on the presumption that trains every 2.5 minutes is the tipping point between traffic congestion and free-sailing roads. Part of this, I think, is Dallas' unfamiliarity with railed transit. The City forced DART into that agreement, but it is faulty.

Here is some math for you. With light rail transit (LRT) trains run every ten minutes during rush hour. Currently, with two lines, that means a train will run every 5 minutes in one direction. With the introduction of the Green Line, that will mean trains every 3.3 minutes, and will be reduced to 2.5 with the Orange Line.

At this point, I am sure that I am not introducing you to something you aren't used to. Now, compare that to a standard traffic light. I'll use the one adjacent to my home, the intersection of Saint Paul and Elm. It takes one minute, twenty seconds for the light to cycle through. Elm, the major street goes from green to red in only 32 seconds. So Elm, with its major traffic, sits at a red light for close to a minute.

Now compare that to a train intersection. It takes a train, depending on the length and proximity to a station, between 15-30 seconds to clear an intersection. So, if every intersection was timed to allow a train to pass, then be clear for auto traffic, the street would be clear for 2 to 2.25 minutes. Now add both directions and assume one enters the intersection just as the other is about to leave, the intersection is occupied for one minute and unoccupied for a minute and a half. In other words, auto traffic is more free-flowing at this type of train intersection than it is on Elm Street at the St. Paul intersection.

Now, onto your statement about the second line causing a black hole for congestion in the core, if the second line were built and the Green and Orange Line were operating, both would be operating on the new line downtown and both downtown lines would be operating at a capacity similar to today's Red/Blue combo.

The answer isn't an expensive subway, although there are places were it would be more suitable for reasons other than congestion. The answer is simply timing of the train lights to stop traffic when a train is passing through, and allow auto traffic to pass through the rest of the time.

That said, anything interesting happening lately with the Trinity River Project?

Comment by Branden Helms — April 23, 2008 @ 08:46PM

Is it also true that the trains cannot be longer than 4 cars going thru downtown Dallas so that their span does not exceed a city block? - in which case they would block traffic when they stop.

Comment by RRB — April 24, 2008 @ 02:13PM

The three cars trains DART sometimes uses now already block some intersections downtown

Comment by Alfredo — April 24, 2008 @ 03:01PM

I've been following this issue in the Observer since long before DART even made its original rail proposal, so I'm well aware of the issues with downtown trains and traffic. But just a quick question: Why all the emphasis on a subway? What's wrong with elevated rail? Wouldn't that be considerably less expensive than a subway?

Comment by Tom — April 25, 2008 @ 03:23PM

how about a monorail - probably much cheaper and faster to construct?

Comment by jonat — April 25, 2008 @ 04:44PM

Dallas is blessed by sitting atop the best tunneling medium on the planet--Texas chalk limestone. Tunnels can be cut through it very economically and with incredible structural integrity. Dallas should--and one day will (I predict 2060)--have a world-class subway system to match the Paris Metro or the London Underground.
I recently returned from Ciudad Guanajato, Mexico, a lovely city much like Austin--which is home to a big, prestigious state university and the State Legislature--both of which are in the middle of downtown. The pedestrian-friendly downtown area sits atop an enormous catacomb of tunnels that carry the auto traffic--all cut through solid rock--and they're building new ones. The Mexicans in Guanajuato could show the panjandrums of the Citizen's Council a thing or two about how to do "city".

Comment by Tim Dickey — April 26, 2008 @ 05:54PM

What a poorly thought out, written article. I ride dart on a reg. basis, and I drive in downtown frequently. I don't see any of this nonsense being true. I have never seen traffic backed up because of a train. And the fact that 10 years ago, you could not think of driving in downtown at 8am. Today, 8am in Downtown is nothing more than average. I have actually found a couple of short-cuts I can take through downtown to avoid trouble at the 30/35 interchange.

Comment by anonymous2112 — April 28, 2008 @ 12:20AM

As a resident of the downtown area who uses 75 to get in and out of the downtown area I am aware of the funnel effect of traffic. We used to be able to funnel traffic onto 75 north from several different points and actually kind of be on our way at Live Oak going north or south. Imagine my shcok and dismay to see the new rail lines and streets all converging on the same level. Good Latimer, Pearl Expressway, Central Expressway, Live Oak, Fairmont,Dart Trains --- all at the same grade. It is going to be a nightmare when it is open with no bridges that used to ease us in and out the north end of the CBD.

Comment by Tom In Dallas — April 29, 2008 @ 09:28AM

I think some people just want to complain because they are sooo used to our downtown being so devoid of *real* traffic and *real* congestion (c'mon people, 635 is a nightmare to drive, no matter the time of day). You can actually drive across DTD, even in rush hour, in far less than 10 minutes. This isn't NYC- let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we are not spoiled when it comes to *gasp* Down Town Traffic! Eek. Puh-leez. Traffic is worse on McKinney and Greenville Avenues than in DTD. And even then, those streets flow fine.

You know what will cause traffic congestion in DTD? 20,000 or more people living there and walking all around amidst more businesses and street level retail- NOT a friggin DART train.

Please Jim... This is such "sky-is-falling" hyperbole. We just don't have enough density in DTD for an at-grade train to cause so much alarm. We just don't have it. We just don't. We don't. We. Don't. It would be a nice problem to have, but I have to agree with Tim Dickey- and that's that we aren't gonna be there until we're all way dead.

Comment by Casie Pierce — April 29, 2008 @ 08:52PM