If the Dallas business establishment has its way with DART’s second rail line for downtown, forget about a booming metropolis.

I'm not even trying to change the outcome. It's a freight train. Strapping myself to the tracks is not my idea of fun. But I want you to see what an enormous mistake we're about to make in choosing a second DART rail line through downtown.

Developer John Tatum sees Toronto in the future of downtown Dallas. Schutze doesn’t.
He sees Morning News CEO Robert Decherd.
Mark Graham
Developer John Tatum sees Toronto in the future of downtown Dallas. Schutze doesn’t. He sees Morning News CEO Robert Decherd.

Downtown Dallas 50 years from now could be what downtown Toronto is now—bustling, sophisticated, exciting and, best of all, booming.

Or not.

In September, DART, our regional mass transit agency, opens a whole new rail line, the Green Line, which will finally give us rail coverage from the center of the city out to all four corners of the region.

But the opening of the Green Line also gives us way too many trains trying to squeeze down one narrow passageway through downtown on Pacific Avenue. From the early 1980s, when all of this was being planned, everybody knew that opening the Green Line would require building a second passageway or alignment through downtown to handle the added train traffic.

Then you have to tie the two passageways together somehow. The map of the system is sort of a twisted X with the crossing point downtown. How do you switch from a train going into downtown on one leg of the X and board a different train going out of downtown on another leg of the X? You need a link. Or even better, links.

DART spokesman Mark Ball tells me DART staff will recommend two possible routes for the second downtown alignment to the Dallas City Council in August or September. The council will pick one of them in January.

I know from the hearings and Web postings on this stuff so far that the alignment with the most political juice behind it from the downtown establishment is the very worst one—the one that will cost the most money, attract the fewest riders and do the least for re-developing downtown.

Unfortunately, this is the line that has the support of the tiny group of business people who make decisions about downtown Dallas.

It's a line that bends way out of its way to veer off into the far south side of downtown, far away from the existing alignment on Pacific on the east side, in order to go through the convention center, pass by the new convention hotel and, not coincidentally, pass through a lot of idle, bare-dirt real estate owned by The Dallas Morning News on downtown's weakest limb, its moribund southwest corner.

What's wrong with using the train to prop up the hotel and help out the Morning News with its real estate problem? Nothing, except for one thing. Choosing this alignment is a once-in-a-century chance to change the fundamental destiny of downtown itself. Using it instead to help out one hotel and one land-owner would be a reprehensible squandering of this rare opportunity.

So last week over frosty iced teas in a booth at the Stoneleigh P, I met with John C. Tatum Jr., a downtown developer. Thirty years ago Tatum foresaw and invested in a downtown that almost nobody else believed in back then—a downtown that would become a neighborhood, as opposed to a post-World War II office park. Tatum was one of the very first developers to get into the old warehouses in the West End and subsequently in Deep Ellum.

He also was a member of the DART board in the early 1980s when the early planning was done for the region's rail system. He was one of a caucus of DART board members who campaigned for a fast-moving heavy rail system concentrated in the inner city with a subway through downtown instead of the existing surface rail down Pacific Avenue. Their idea was that DART would become an instant people-pump—lightning fast and with massive capacity—feeding a boom of downtown residential development.

That dream died and Tatum and his crowd were bounced off the board after a 1988 referendum in which suburban voters killed the funding for the plan. Since then, DART has emerged instead as DART lite—a system of beefed-up trolleys, rather than trains, feeding sprawl, rather than density.

But now the swallows must return to Capistrano. The suburban lines will fail or succeed depending on how well DART is able to resolve the issue of the second downtown alignment. A bad solution with bottlenecks built into it will mean slow-moving trains, congestion and off-putting transfer experiences, all of which will drive people away from rail, not draw them to it.

Tatum believes a good solution could mean much more than just a better rail system. It could mean a whole new future for downtown. He sees downtown as the region's biggest "transit-oriented development" opportunity.

At the Stoneleigh P last week, Tatum is talking to me about Eaton Centre (Canadians can't spell) in Toronto, a huge 230-store retail mall in the heart of that city's university and hospital district. Eaton Centre, he points out, is anchored at both ends by subway stations.

Reaching across the table, Tatum sketches Eaton Centre in my reporter's notebook, stretching from Dundas Street to Queen Street. "Talk about retail," he says, in that breathless tone only a real estate developer can summon.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • JKR 07/29/2009 6:49:00 PM

    The Kessler Plan also called for the beautification of Mill Creek as was done with Turtle Creek. Instead, Mill Creek was buried and built over..it runs from the Knox-Henderson area, down to Haskell and Ross then through Exall Park to the new Baylor DART station then down to Expo Park before heading west to Old City Park and into the Trinity. If this were done now, think what a huge impact it would make and the redevelopment it would bring. But back to the original subject - I am for a Commerce alignment but perhaps the next street south, Jackson, would be a good compromise between the 'southerners' and the Commerce route. As the street is little used today, there might be a dig, cut and cover method which could get the subway in cheaply. Escalators would extend the entrances a block or two out in each direction.

  • Tim 07/27/2009 10:15:00 PM

    "The Decherd Plan"? I wonder what G.B. Dealey owner of the DMN, and one of the earliest supporters George Kessler's City Plan for Dallas would say about that? Since a central part of the plan was the removal of the numerous rail tracks that crossed through downtown Dallas and united then in one area aka Union Station. Ironically Kessler's Plan also included flood control, mainly controlling the wild-ass and flood prone Trinity river with levees. I don't recall the plan included tollways and parks in the floodplains either. Maybe the city Muckety-Mucks ought to pull the Kessler's Plan off the shelf, dust it off, and reread it. The more things change...

  • chevytexas 07/27/2009 8:43:00 PM

    Wow, lots of intelligent comments and input here. Let's not lose sight of the fact that, just like other developers, Tatum's perspective is one who owns/owned North side property, not Southside property. I do like the transfer theories and surface load arguments but frankly Toronto & Eaton Centre (Galleria laid right over whatever you wanted to save of downtown skin)are not my idea of living or transportation models, or retail for that matter. The future of residence in downtown lies south, not north; and the idea of an Elm Street Subway (wait, there's sand in the levees?) along a route that is made up of clay, sand and about four extant watersheds just sounds expensive. The current economy will drive surface rail, and that'll go the cheapest route just like it's always done. Heck, I wouldn't miss driving down Main Street --would you?

  • JimS 07/25/2009 3:35:00 PM

    Ken Duble: you are right, the street car potential is interesting. But why not use street cars, which are a somewhat diatant possibility, serve the southwest corner, which is a somewhat distant possibility. Meanwhile what streetcars can't do is build a transit-oriented development at the beating heart of downtown at its other end. Too many transfers, too much monkey business. The transfers have to be effortless, quick, very secure, or people won;t do it. The thing to capitalize on is the potential for a major TOD along the existing alignment, and you can only do that by putting the second alignment a quick escalator ride away from it. Pulling DART all the way over to the other end of town is a hugely speculative way to play wth the public's money, especially since it goes directly against all transit wisdom. But I'm vglad to see general agreement here that the motivatipon for this play is to promote real estate development at the southwest corner of downtown,. where the market has stubbornly refused to go for the last quarter century.

  • Ken Duble 07/25/2009 6:59:00 AM

    While I admire Jim Schutze's thoughts on this issue, I'm more inclined to agree with Crispin. The real development potential is farther south. It is not built out, as is Commerce. Furthermore, Jim left out a significant detail: the corresponding streetcar study. When one considers the potential of streetcars to transport people within the periphery, particularly north and south along Harwood and St Paul, encircling downtown with a more southerly LRT route like Lamar-Marilla or Lamar-Convention Center makes a lot more sense. Also, these two proposals have the further benefit of tying in Farmers Market. Dannob is right about the departure from AAC being useless after AAC events. It is faster and more enjoyable to walk from AAC after an event to the West End station. However, I would remind Dannob that this is merely a temporary fix. The Green line will serve AAC by late September, and this ridiculous situation will be a thing of the past. I encourage Dannob to try again then.

  • JaeTex 07/24/2009 10:55:00 PM

    Elm does not even look to be one of the alignments under consideration. Commerce appears to be the closes thing to me. http://dart.org/about/expansion/downtowndallas.asp

  • JimS 07/24/2009 9:55:00 PM

    Crispin, I respect your view of this, but I think there's a major factor you may be ignoring. No siginificant development of downtown -- that is, the kind that would bring us to 50,000 residents, the number required to make retail happen -- can occur if it's automobile-dependent. Especially with downtown cut by two surface rail alignments, you just cannot squeeze that many cars into downtwn. In addition, you have Tatum's point about the carrying ability of the land. If you impose car-parking costs on developers, they can never get rents down to the level you need to attract the young urbanites. The only way to make downtown pop is to create a truly transit-driven residential corridor, and the only way to make that happen is to concentrate densities and make transfers way easy. Every block of walking you add to a transfer, you drop X many thousand people willing to make the transfer. There are algorithms for this stuff. Therefore, the rail lines need to be butted up against each other. By runnning a subway under Elm, you create three streets -- Pacific, Elm and Main -- that are walkable residential with access to the entire region. We only have two buckets of water for the entire garden. We need to pour it where soemthing can grow, not spread it around evenly in tbe name of fairness and allow everythingto die. Let's not sacrifice downtown for Belo.

  • richard schumacher 07/24/2009 9:55:00 PM

    Lobby DART board member(s) from your city to vote for the Young Street surface alignment. See http://dart.org/about/board/boardbios/boardbios.asp Fill out and submit DART's alignment preference survey at http://dart.org/about/expansion/downtowndallas.asp

  • Dannob 07/24/2009 4:34:00 AM

    We went to a hockey game last fall and rode from Mockingbird Station to the West End and then transferred to the line that goes to American Airlines Center. Getting there wasn't too bad, but when we got our of the game, Dart was runnning these transfer trains every 30 minutes. We missed one and then waited for the next. One train every ten minutes for an hour after the game would have cleared everyone out and made for a pleasant eperience. As it is we could have walked faster, and have not been inclined to take Dart since. Until Dart gets a clue about actually running a service that attracts riders, I'm not sure either alignment will make a difference.

  • Crispin Lawson 07/24/2009 3:38:00 AM

    I'm going to have to disagree with Schutze for once. The downtown "core" that would be Dallas' version of Eaton Centre is already the most successful part of downtown. More development is already going to be attracted there by the original rail line, the new parks, and the existing weight of retail, office space, and residents. A parallel second rail line would be overkill. However, there is a huge chunk of downtown, the southern third or so, that was once a vibrant part of a larger downtown but today is badly in need of some spark to save it from its current backwater status. It has acres of underutilized land just screaming for some kind of development, but it's not going to happen without a major increase in its desirability. I would argue that the second rail line would help increase downtown's population faster by providing access to land where it would be much easier to build high density projects on a larger scale and cheaper (all adding up to less expensive rents) than you could in the downtown core. Instead of concentrating development in one limited spot, a southern aligment would greatly expand development opportunities and actually benefit downtown more.

  • JimS 07/24/2009 12:37:00 AM

    Mark Ball of DART told me that DART staff will recommend an alignment to the DART board, not to city council. My dumb mistake.

  • Downtown J 07/23/2009 9:34:00 PM

    Is there the slightest chance with a loud-enough public outcry against things like this we can fight it[hearing the life of the city, as opposed to decision makers who probably all consider 'going downtown' as leaving preston hollow for turtle creek..lame!] I live downtown, right next to the new main/st paul park thats going in, Im pumped. More life + downtown = everyone happier, residents, commuters, tourists, maybe not DMN ..but in that case screw'em. Jim, you should make it as easy as possible to cry out for all of us observers; have a cut-on-the-dotted-line form in the observer or online that we can sign, click and send to amass our wise opinions in one place... or somthing.. thoughts?

  • richard schumacher 07/23/2009 6:50:00 PM

    The wrong choice is not a slam-dunk because it costs almost twice as much as the most affordable (and not so bad) mostly-surface option, and thus it will have trouble winning Federal Transit Administration funding. There is reason to hope: cost killed a subway connection to Love Field on the Green Line, which the Dallas panjandrums also wanted really really bad. Unfortunately high cost also makes it unlikely that the Elm Street subway option, which would be great, will be built in this go-around. (Maybe in 80 years after much of Houston has been forced by rising sea levels to move up here.)

  • Ed Cognoski 07/23/2009 4:49:00 AM

    Great insight. It's almost as if DART is being sacrificed to improve the viability of the convention center hotel, instead of using the hotel to improve the viability of downtown. No, it's not almost like that. It's exactly that.

  • Jay 07/23/2009 2:08:00 AM

    You're probably right Jim. It's the Dallas mindset. City's like NYC and Toronto have huge cultural advantages when it comes to mass transit. Not the least of which, council members, mayors, powerful business people have more than likely at some point, for some length of time, relied on mass transit in their lives. For those who haven't the myths of the rich Wall Street exec riding the train still represent a powerful cultural stereotype that acts as a counterweight to the kind of stigma Dallasites have when it comes to mass transit. The result of all this is that, yes, our systems are being heavily influenced from top to bottom by people who will never ever use light rail for more than a press event. This is why, instead of emphasizing solutions that would work for citizens OF MEMBER CITIES getting to work or getting around town on the train they can even begin to think that one of the major objectives of our mass transit system is to support places built for tourists. The best solution is to build an alignment similar to the line you've made out here and then a trolley line to the hotel from one of the stations, even if it's short. Good luck to anyone who cares enough to try to convince the whozits in Dallas to think long term.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy