E

M
October 3D, 2014
Councilmember Sandy Greyson
Dallas City Hall SFN
1500 Marilla
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: DART Locally Preferred CSD Rail Alternative
Dear Sandy:
It is my understanding that the City Council likely will approve the DART-recommended "D2"
alternative rail alignment through Downtown Dallas by yearend or soon thereafter as "locally
preferred" for federal funding. Enclosed are materials which Ihave presented, both informally over
the years and formally as requested in the MIS process, with neither acknowledgement nor any
response to date.

I cannot imagine a major transportation

investment that makes less engineering, planning, land use,

joint development, or investment sense than D2 - unless it is the Trinity Tollway. A more ambitious
and inspiring alternative can be developed for DART's second rail investment in Dallas' CBD. Does
anyone intend to honor the Inter-local Agreement between the City and DART on which approval of
the Pacific Avenue Mall was conditioned? Pacific is now a "bottleneck" for the entire rail system!
Of course, Downtown needs this long-planned rail improvement constructed and operating as soon
as possible - to build on current CSD momentum and to guide creation of a truly urban future for
the region. However, one billion new tax dollars for DART - whatever the mix of federal and local
funding -- should buy a lot more than D2. A proper second rail line could "transform" Downtown
Dallas; D2 cannot as it is no more than an engineering and political muddle, creating more problems
than opportunity.
f assistance in this process please let me know. Thanks for your consideration.
Sine

Enclosures
Cc: Mayor Mike Rawlings, Couneilmember Lee Kleinman, Councilmember
Couneilmember Adam Medrano, Adlene Harrison, Michael Morris

ELM DEVELOPMENT

COf"iPAN"

3BOOAMAIN STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 7522
214821

Q7QC

Phillip Kingston,

John C. Tatum, Jr.

3800 A Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75226

May 17,2010

VIA FAX 214-74x-xxxx

VIA Hand Delivery
Via US Mail

Mr. Ernie G. Martinez

Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Rail Planning
P. O. Box 660163
Dallas, Texas 75266-7213
Re:

Downtown Dallas Transit Study (D2) AAlDEIS

Dear Mr. Martinez:

This letter responds to the opportunity to provide written comment on the above AAlDEIS for
DART's proposed rail improvement in Downtown Dallas. I believe DART's D2 is the most
significant transportation project in a generation and which, if planned and constructed with a far
sighted vision of Dallas' metropolitan future, will be one of the most consequential undertakings
in the DFW region in the twenty first century.
Downtown Dallas will either be "transformed" by the D2 investment - taking its place alongside
the great urban centers of North America - or it will languish. If Downtown Dallas is not so
transformed by D2, the entire DFW region will continue its exurb an "greenfield" expansion
which is both unsustainable and increasingly unlivable and less attractive for new investment.
Given the emerging realities of energy costs and the constraints to improvements in air quality,
there is much at stake for everyone in the DART service area and surrounding cities with this
once in a lifetime chance to "densify" Downtown Dallas. Urbanizing Dallas's downtown core
will set the character and form for regional development into future generations - shaping either
a dense, walkable, mixed-use city or an effectively suburban strip with office towers, the "big
boxes" of arts and government, and a smattering of residences, all set in a permanent sea of
parking lots. In short, D2 is the "game changer" for Dallas and the DFW region.
Before addressing the proposed plan specifically, I want to call attention to a fundamental flaw in
both the transportation planning and community involvement processes of D2, each of which is

Mr. Ernie Martinez

Dallas Area Rapid Transit
May 17,2010
Page 2

constrained by federal procedural requirements. My written comments (submitted on April 24,

2008 and attached) objecting to the elimination of the so-called A-2 alignment early in this
AAlDEIS study have not been addressed in the D2 report; my detailed suggestions, criticisms
and rationales for an Elm Street subway alignment have clearly been completely ignored.
For the record, the alternative of an east-west subway alignment under Elm Street would provide
the shortest and least disruptive connection across Downtown Dallas, would penetrate the
existing office and retail core, would create three direct transfer rail station connections to the
existing PacificlBryan LRT, and would provide direct subway station entrances for large scale
redevelopment at each of the existing bus transfer sites. This Elm Street subway alignment has
been specific in past planning efforts and was preferred in the ILA between DART and the City
of Dallas, but has never received more than cursory technical consideration since the current
family of southerly alignments now under study was politically designated to advance in 2001.
An Elm Street subway with portals at Good-Latimer on the east and the DART LRT on the west
would be shorter than all alignments under consideration, would have few if any property or
traffic impacts, and would cost less than all but the cheapest predominantly street running.
More importantly, the Elm subway would attract significantly more riders and would generate an
order of magnitude more new development, most with direct station access. This alignment
would be a model for future transit oriented development, both in Downtown Dallas and at other
DART rail stations, and as a result, should attract the federal funding which is now fully
necessary to fund any D2 project in the foreseeable future. Frankly, DART is "broke" as far
as new capitol projects are concerned, and now has admitted this publicly. There is now no
money for D2!
Without a plan to attract greater numbers of new rail riders, a plan that will move DART and the
region toward greater sustainability, federal funding under the newly adopted evaluation criteria
will not be available. A claim that any of the current D2 alternatives will attract the necessary
$750M or more dollars is simply a fantasy - none of these alignments and station locations
produces sufficient new ridership, land use or transportation impacts to justify federal funding.
An Elm Street subway alignment should be studied immediately as it is the only alignment
alternative which can attract sufficient federal financing under the new funding criteria.
Further, DART should be held accountable for its default under its ILA with the City of Dallas as
a result of its failure 1) to maintain reserves sufficient to construct D2, 2) do all things necessary
to maximize funding in Downtown Dallas, and 3) do nothing to limit the amount of funding
availability which is precisely the effect of the current alternatives. Interpretation of the ILA
notwithstanding, DART's ability to contribute further to regional mobility is severely limited.

Mr. Ernie Martinez

Dallas Area Rapid Transit
May 17,2010
Page 3

In fact, until D2 is completed, congestion on the existing LRT mall will be severe and the
resulting auto traffic impacts on Downtown Dallas's streets will become intolerable. Only new
federal funding can provide relief. And only an Elm Street subway can attract these new dollars.
I look forward to the consideration of these comments as this work advances and to working to
further the interests of public transportation at DART and in the DFW region.

Cc:

Regional Transportation Council

Dallas City Council
DART Board of Directors

With Attachment

John C. Tatum, Jr.

3800 A Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75226
April 24, 2008

Mr. Gary Thomas

Executive Director
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
600 Pacific Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
RE:

Major Investment Study for 2nd Rail Alignment in Downtown Dallas

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This letter is intended to follow up my earlier public comments regarding the inclusion of
consideration of a subway alignment under Elm Street in and through Downtown Dallas
and other alternatives and aspects of the MIS currently underway. This letter and exhibits
in its entirety is hereby submitted to this public hearing to consider progress of the
technical analysis and community input on narrowing the D2 Candidate alignments.
I appreciate having had the opportunity to participate in the Stakeholders Advisory
Committee meeting of March 27,2008. However, I am disappointed not to have been
included as a member of this group or any ofthe other formal groups organized to
provide guidance and input to this project as required by law, despite my historical
knowledge and long involvement with and commitment to advancing and resolving
transportation issues in Downtown Dallas. Having served as a City of Dallas
representative on the Lone Star Transit Authority (1980), the DART predecessor Interim
Regional Transit Authority (1982-83), and DART Board (1983-88), I am well familiar
with the extensive engineering and other studies conducted over several years which
considered rail transit construction and operation in Dallas' CBD. In particular, I
thoroughly understand the issues associated with subway alignment options along both
Pacific Avenue and Elm Street and the design, engineering and operating criteria which
have been employed over the years to select among possible transit investments and to
apply for federal funding.
I came away from the DART Stakeholders presentation with a better understanding of the
process and the alternatives under consideration, as well as the methodology for
evaluation of those alternatives, the steps to be undertaken to eliminate options, and the
detailed analysis and evaluation that will lead to a recommendation for a Locally
Preferred Alternative. However, there were many questions which were not answered and
several suggestions which should be followed up to make the most of this process.

Mr. Gary Thomas

April 24, 2008
Page 2

Since then I have attended presentations to both the Transportation and Environment
Committee of the Dallas City Council and the Planning Committee of the DART Board
of Directors, and have had private conversations with several Downtown property
owners, representatives of Downtown Dallas, and Dallas Council Member and
Transportation Chair Linda Koop. All concerned voiced strong support for the following
"guiding principles" for this project:
1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

Subway options through the CBD should be maximized; funding sources

should not be restricted or disadvantaged (DART/City of Dallas ILA
1990).
Rail service coverage should be maximized throughout the CBD (Forward
Dallas! Plan), combining circulator!collectorldistributor
and line haul rail.
Traffic disruptions should be minimized, both in and adjacent to the CBD
and new LRT must be grade separated from DART's existing rail line
(Jacobs Comprehensive Transportation Plan 2005).
All alternatives deserve "good faith" examination before elimination, i.e.
options meeting warrants should be given detailed cost and operating
analysis before elimination and designation and implications of "fatal
flaws" should be fully and fairly scrutinized by elected officials.
Consideration ofLRT second alignments cannot be properly undertaken
without consideration of CBD trolley alternatives at the same time since
the two systems compliment each other and work together synergistically.

From the wide-ranging discussion at the Stakeholders Advisory Committee meeting I

would offer the following observations to guide future discussions, in particular any
decisions to eliminate alternatives from detailed evaluation and further consideration:
A.

B.
C.
D.

Evaluation criteria should be quantifiable and explicitly stated, i.e. what

technical standards, including capital and operating costs, are being
employed and how are they being applied for comparison? What "value"
or "limit" constitutes a "fatal flaw"? What level of confidence is required?
Time to implement, from approval to funding to construction.
Extent to which the trolley components are eligible for federal funding,
whether from "Small Starts", Discretionary or other funding sources.
Compatibility with ongoing NCTCOG planning for Alternative
Transportation Futures, i.e. under more transit-oriented land use and mode
split assumptions:
-What is future capacity for expansion and higher level of rail
service?
-What are operating constraints under higher level of rail service?
-What "fatal flaws" are created at higher levels of rail service?

Mr. Gary Thomas

April 24, 2008
Page 3

E.

-How is "cost effectiveness" analysis different at higher levels of

rail service?
-How is availability and level of federal funding affected by higher
levels ofrail service (greater number of new riders)?
-What are the air quality impacts of higher levels of rail service?
-What are long-term construction and maintenance cost savings in
highway and roadway network at higher levels of rail service?
Land use impacts in the Dallas CBD:
-Implementation of Forward Dallas Comprehensive Plan.
-Impacts on CBD TIF's and potential for additional funding.
-Additional contribution by DART to regional rail expansion.
-Housing and retail development impacts.
-Automobile traffic congestion reduction.

Specifically, I would again offer the attached Elm Street Subway alternative for further
consideration (see Exhibit 1), including a plan for complimentary Trolley Circulator (see
Exhibit 2) and tunnel portals, track radii and station locations with platform and entrance
locations (see Exhibits 3A - 3E). I am confident that its cost and operating characteristics
will compare favorably with other options which are being or may be advanced. In
addition, I am still confused by DART's representation (see Exhibit 4) in its presentation
that the A3 Victory-Pacific option is a "refinement" of the Elm Street subway alignment.
Any such claim is patently false.
The A3 option has several highly negative attributes compared to Elm Street, including
geometries, station location options, constructability, land use and joint development
impacts, all of which should be considered "fatal flaws" in any reasonable feasibility
analysis. So much so, in fact, that what is illustrated is easily dismissed out of hand.
Except as a political "straw man", how is this a "refinement" of the Elm Street subway
alignment? There are also other unfavorable aspects of the Pacific alignment including
the number and practicality of transfer station connections, rail coverage and traffic
conflicts which would not recommend it, but none of which exist along Elm Street.
It is my understanding the A3 option has now been recommended for elimination,
as it should be. But the implication that A3 is superior to Elm Street is misleading

and disingenuous. Nor is the B7 Lamar-Commerce option a substitute for Elm

Street. The elimination of an Elm Street subway without fair consideration is both
deceptive and irresponsible and, with all due respect, should be cause to suspect the
"good faith" of the whole process. The case against an Elm Street alignment has not
been made. There is much to recommend an Elm Street subwavv when the totalityv of
capital and operating costs, operations and service quality, and short- and long-term
benefits are considered and comparably evaluated as this process is intended to do.

Mr. Gary Thomas

April 24, 2008
Page 4

Most importantly, an Elm Street subway alignment allows a the CBD trolley system
to serve all the recommended corridors and does not require crossing DART's
Pacific/Bryan surface running line which has been demonstrated by the Jacobs
study to severely limit, disrupt or even gridlock Downtown's auto traffic, depending
on the level of traffic signal preemption allowed by the City of Dallas and train
schedule control by DART.
In conclusion, I hope it will be acknowledged that several key considerations should
overarch and guide this MIS process going forward, and the work of the detailed options
analysis especially, to ensure that we do not "miss the forest for the trees". No doubt
there will be aspects of many decisions yet to be made which will be neither inexpensive
nor politically convenient. None the less, there is too much at stake for DART, the City
of Dallas and the entire North Central Texas region for compromises and expediencies to
guide this single great investment in transportation infrastructure which will shape the
building of our cities throughout this century. DFW Airport is a proper model for success.
It is imperative that DART's planning with the CBD second alignment and trolley system
maximize our historic opportunity to live and grow in more sustainable ways, to provide
regional transportation more cost-effectively, and to create a more transit-oriented future
for D as d it Downtown.

Jo

Attachments
Cc:

Dallas City Council Members

DART Board of Directors
Regional Transportation Council Members
Federal Transportation Administration

&.h\blt2.
I(e~ele~Q.~
NritRIle.y btps

",ct.ory .

~()i~d,

~()uthttb.t.~.
=.
~tVe KelV\
..
~
G\"ie Ce.\~
~
SDcftV\d ~

*-0

~O~~

~&l"-/wJ.e~

:!T~....

YOY\ .

U2;-f

t1,~iWW\\~e~oto
~ie~I\ct:s

~,bi~'36

Alternative A3 Victory-Pacific

wn.""

Key elements:
At-grade
through Victory
Tunnel under
Pacific

~).

. II

Refinement of
public comment
for Elm tunnel

. "'t ... ~"

~
,"-,-

'.'

'

::::.~
C(:>'nstructability

.u.Hr<1cle
,." ..... Umlergrouncl
"

~~<1tiCtn

D,I1,RT L i~lht F<e.il

c;') Rfoii Station

.'
1-~''111

TRE

.-

Mil. T f!.. streetce

",

t.,o1,"'.T.L\ Pr'oposecl Street.:('/'

CO!nll'lLITer

-. . D.u.RT Transfer
c:
Free,'vay
Roacl

Center'

If the business establishment has its way

with DART'ssecond rail fine for downtown, forget about a booming metropotts

JIM

TZ

Tracks of My
Tears
Unfurtunately, this is the line that has the
'm not even trying to change the
outcome. It's a freight train. Strapsupport of the tiny.group of business people
.
ping myself to the tracks is not my who make decisions about downtown Dallas.
fea of fun. But I want you to see what an
It's a line that bends way out of its way
normous mistake we're about to make in
to veer off into the far south side of downhoosing a second DART ~aillirie through
town, far away from the existing align.owntown.
ment on Pacific on the east side, in order
Downtown Dallas so years fro~ now
to go through the convention center, pass
ould be what downtown Toronto is nowby the new convention hotel and, not
ustling, sophisticated, exciting and, best
coincidentally, pass through a lot of idle,
f all, booming.
bare-dirt real estate owned by The Dallas :i
arnot.
Morning News on downtown's weakest ~
In September, DART, our regional mass
limb, its moribund southwest corner.
Developer John Tatum sees Toronto In the future of downtown Dallas. Schutze doesn't.
ransit agency, opens a whole new rail line,
What's wrongwith usingthe train to prop
He sees Morning News CEORobert Decherd.
he Green Line, which will finally give us up the hotel and help out the Morning News
ail coverage from the center of the city out with its real- estate problem? Nothing, except
In other words, 50 years from now
crowd were bounced off the board after a
) all four corners of the region.
Tatum sees Eaton Centre running right
for one thing. Choosing this alignment is a 1988 referendum in which suburban voters
up the spine of downtown Dallas, with
But the opening of the Green Line also once-in-a-century chance to change the funkilled the funding for the plan. Since then,
'ives us way too many trains trying to damental destiny of downtown itself Using DART has emerged instead as DART liteNeiman Marcus, the Mercantile redevelopment project, the new law school
queeze down one narrow passageway
it instead to help out one hotel and one land- a system of beefed-up trolleys, rather than
and the neW' park at the east end of this
hrough downtown on Pacific Avenue.
trains, feeding sprawl, rather than density.
owner would be a reprehensible squandering
'rom the early 1980s, when all of this
But now the swallows must return to vibrant new core and the banks and EI
ofthis rare opportunity.
/as being planned, everybody knew that
Centro at the other.
So last week over frosty iced teas in a Capistrano. The suburban lines will fail
How? Not by taking the new line way
pening the Green Line would require
or succeed depending on how well DART
booth, at the Stoneleigh P, I met with John
over to the south side of downtown and
uilding a second passageway or alignis able to resolve the issue of the second
C. Tatum Jr., a downtown developer. thirty
then joining it with existing lines only at the
.ient through downtown-to handle the
years ago Tatum foresaw and invested in a downtown alignment. A bad solution with
intersection of the X at Pacific and Lamar.
bottlenecks built into it will mean slowdded train traffic.
downtown that almost nobody else believed
That's a bottleneck, a squeeze-point, a narThen you have to tie the two passageways
moving trains, congestion and off-putting
in back then-a downtown that would
row passageway through which all of the
transfer experiences, all of which will drive
ogether somehow. The
become it neighborhood,
transfer traffic must pass.
lap of the system is sort of
people away from rail, not draw them to it.
as opposed to a post-World
DECISIONS HERE ARE
"When I was on the DART board, we
War II office park. Tatum
twisted X with the crossTatum believes a good solution could
went to Atlanta, San Francisco, Toronto,
mean much more than just a better rail
was one of the very first
19 point downtown. How
MADE BY TOO FEW
London. They all said to us, 'Don't build
system. It could mean a whole new future
o you switch from a train
developers to get into the
bottlenecks.'"
oing into downtown on
for downtown. He sees downtown as the
old warehouses in the West
ne leg of the X and board
PEOPLE WITH TOO MUCH End and subsequently in
The other thing he sees in the Decherd
region's biggest "transit-oriented developRoute (my term, named for iVIorning News
ment" opportunity.
different train going out of
SELF-INTEREST AND TOO DeepElium.
owntown on another leg of
At the Stoneleigh P last week, Tatum is CEO Robert Decherd) is the heart-breakHe also was a meming loss of development potential. That
he X? You need a link. Or
ber of the DART board in talking to me about Eaton Centre (CanaUTILE IMAGINATION
vision of Eaton Centre running up the
dians can't spell) in Toronto, a huge 230ven better, links.
the early 1980s when the
spine of the city, he says, is totally depenDART spokesman Mark
store retail mall in the heart of that city's
early planning was done
WHO DON'T REALLYGET
dent on using this new downtown alignuniversity and hospital district. Eaton
talltells me DART staffwill
for the region'S rail sysment to create an entire new population
Centre, he points out, is anchored at both
ecommend two possible
tem. He was one of a cauDOWNTOWNS.
of people living downtown largely withJutes for the second dOWTIends by subway stations.
cus of DART boardlnemout automobiles.
own alignment to the DalReaching across the table, Tatum
b er s who campaigned
Sketching again on my notebook, he
sketches Eaton Centre in my reporter's
ts City Council in August or September. The
for a fast-moving heavy rail system concrosses out the Decherd Route and draws
ouncil will pick one of them in January.
notebook, stretching from Dundas Street
centrated in the inner city with a subway
to Queen Street. "Talk about retail," he a new one running down Elm Street,
lknow from the hearings and Web postthrough downtown instead of the existing
beneath the street in a subway a block
says, in that breathless tone only a real
19Son this stuff so far that the alignment
surface rail down Pacific Avenue. Their
away but parallel to the lines that run
lith the most political juice behind it from
estate developer can summon.
idea was that DART would become an
already on Pacific. Then he draws several
"Now," he says, twisting my notebook
he downtown establishment is the very
instant people-pump-lightning
fast and
/orst one-the one that will cost the most
with massive capacity-feeding a boom of around on the table, "if you turn it this way lateral hash marks from Elm to Pacific
and put it down on a map of downtown Dal- forming a ladder: Those are multiple
downtown residential development.
roney; attract the fewest riders and do the
transfer stations.
continued on page 8
las, it goes from Griffin Street to Harwood."
east for re-developing downtown,
That dream died and Tatum and his

II"';

scnurze

W~

continued from page 7

ROi
BU]j 3IEll1J1U11,D1E

(lUJLTiWREE
jta.S,dGf'L

lllizatioi
e easily' .
;ling

:hure.c

~
~1

'RROR,

iii;
lSiC/.
Iltid,COOrs;MJilei'UI'-=" mse ~SI r.99
(O[onO,.Motk/o;llein.k.n. tQsa _J25.99
Bud, (006; Milleilile :18 p~~._.ST5J9
6uinneiL.........:....~coSi
_$29A9
Sininrof!.Vp_,;.,...._ ..,llptick:""SlI J9
Byd, (bOn. Mmer..r- _ hg ..~$9L99
~ud Ice, select., HUe ..... ,.., keg ..... S59.99
![q!!!!A
Ptifron
,.. 750 m/ ,$39.99
CUeml._ ..
J.7S lil_ $33.49
Homila~_ .._.~_,~
_/iler
$30.49

:~\

~:.a:.;~_

asA

l:j

rn

Ii'

~'i:l'
if'

ISPA
ate COl. !

OUSEi!:
teer ,PI;
175.101,
ORD~'
19a1lS
ur Sess .
DOO~.

~.
: THE:
featur :
doedsj..

~.
:o~

VODKA & RUM & GIN

GreyG~5e._
360 Oiganic_ .._

_ .750 m/ .... $2199

1.75 liL. .. $21.99
win .dI7,99
J.75Iif .$18.99
1.75Iil $17.49
miff _...$35.49
L7~Iff $16.99

Svedko, Smimoff _
Bocordi _..__ ._
p, Boy/Copt. Morg........
TonqtJeroy ,.:.._ _
5.ograra . '..,_.._

:n

.ii..

Jock Daniels
Wdler~
Dewail.._~c.
Bu.ch.)ohn.'II;B~':; .
Glen/eiYeI--",":"':
Rm..ll!!!i~ .'
Hypnotiq..._~_Ji5a
ml._521.99
Aiiz. Ro~a.. _ __ """t50ml
S9.99
Salvador __
P51i1
_$8.99
Menage a T(Q.~
~750 riil S8.99
.I.5lil
,$8,99
750 ml SI2.99
7\0 ml $7.99

HS~er~iScg~49
oN ~~.
PUi'lCHASES
Uiil~~

;~~>
Ifateril

fish
""..........

~.
~,
';gIltl
dao

I /

~. " fe. '. Bea

ttI..:.,"
./"
Haller~
.......--- -.....:,ree

Aha! Like any stroke of genius, this

one solves multiple problems at once and
makes the machine run free and smooth.
With the line down Elm in a subway, par ..
allel to the existing lines' on Pacific but
only a block away, now the multiple transfer stations are all only an escalator ride
away from Pacific Avenue.
Dallas passengers, Tatum says, will
want three things in a transfer. "Don't get
tired, don't get hot, don't get mugged."
But much more important: Now you have
created an entire corridorthelengthofdown
..
town where.a person could live, work, play or
do all three and still be able to get out into the
four comers at region by rail. Tatum sees the
MomingNews as pursuingits own legitimate
interests, And he thinks the idea of using the
train to help the convention center might
work. But he thinks the Elm Street subway
would accomplish a much greater good.
His model of parallel downtown lines
connected by a ladder of transfer stations
would create a zone where inuch less money
would be spent accommodatingcars,
"You increase the carrying capacity of
the land," he says.
Great. I have no idea what that means.
"You change the zoning so that people
developing office and residential towers in
this zone don't have to provide parking or
they have to provide much less parking."
I still need help. I grew up in a clergy
house. There wasn't enough entrepreneur ..
ial know-how to run a lemonade stand.
He explains, patiently: Ifyou don't have
to provide massive parking for the tow ..
ers, you save a bunch of money. You can
spend that money building more offices
and apartments, which you can then rent
for less. It's a way to hit the magic number
of 50,000 people living downtown, which
is what everybody says you have to have
in order to attract retail and create a truly
livable community.
"The subway stations and the transfer
points; he says, "become the people-pumps."
All that residential and office population
moving up and down and across that double
rail corridor feeds retail, which feeds street
life, which makes the place even more fun,
and the whole thing just gets better.
Spreading out the lines, splitting the new
one off to the far side of downtown, kills
Tatum's economic engine. The Decherd
line loses the critical mass needed to create
a whole new way of life in downtown.
I don't delude myself. I think the
Decherd line will win. DART staff will
offer the city council the Decherd line and

.~.~
..*~\~~~,~~~~~;;~;I;:;~r'.~:

SUPPLIES

some other line that's a total loser, so the

"

council can act like it's doing the right thing

by going with the Decherd line. That's how
decisions get made in this town,
Butjt's also why downtown Dallas is dead,
and downtown Fort Worth is alive and lively.
Decisions here are made by too few people
with too much self ..interest and too little
imagination who don't really get downtowns.
So that's my two bits' worth. Later on,
when it's all said and done, I'm going to
campaign for re ..naming the Decherd line
after Cesar Chavez. Just to be ornery:

.1

Knowledgeable

& Friendly Staff

6955 Greenville Ave. 214 ..759,;7002
nw.thefishgallery.c:om
~
All

E-mail the author at

jim..schutze@dallasobselver.com.

*BUY

_,.. "* SELL *TRA

'~ESTATES & PRIVA
COLLECTIONS
..
..-:::-~~
"

..~-

~--

<::\p.CKSo~ .

"..~

...,- ..

d--7~ ~ ,:-:...-

\.;:'

.
-::~ ....

-1R1\10R"i'

:~:."

CBn RAIL EXTENSIONS

A good illustration of the issues involved in the addition of new rail service in the Dallas CBD is
found in addressing the following sequence of questions (in order) while keeping in mind the
five decision-making criteria previously adopted as part of the 2005 Master Plan Survey:
Incorporate the following criteria in future Downtown alignment decisions:
-Maximize rail "station area coverage
-Minimize transfers (maximize ridership)
-Maximize future capacity
-Maximize supplemental funding opportunities
-Maximize appropriate joint development opportunities
11

At present, a surface rail mall connects the South Oak Cliff and West Oak Cliff lines (branch at
Corinth station) to the North Central line. The North Central line will soon be extended to
Richardson and Plano and (branch at Mockingbird station) East Dallas and Garland. In addition,
rail service will be added to the southeast by 2007 and to the nort~t
(branching at NW
Highway) by 2012(\0 ~bt7Jrl
3'11.002.
DART's ILA with the City of Dallas stipulates warrants under which the transit mall Downtown
must operate. When headway or capacity limits are exceeded, an additional rail alignment must
be constructed. The current financial plan includes this new CBD line with completion projected
for 2013 at an estimated cost of $350 million.
QUESTION 1: Is the second CBD alignment needed now? After extensions to Richardson,
Plano, and Garland are added? After extension to southeast and/or northwest are added?

,
,-

~-

,-/,,,.~

I
I

If No, proceed with transit mall

t
\

If Yes, go to Question 2

\ ----..-..-

'"

--- -2: Which lines (SW, NE, SE, NW service sectors) are interlinked?

QUESTION
following are generic responses:

A.

The

c.

B.

.-----",

l~~

\SE

I
I

"

\
-..... -........

-- ---- -'"

./

.,,/

J
1;

...
/'

The five system criteria above can be applied to assess performance and cost-effectiveness at this
preliminary level to choose between possible types of systems. Impacts of and constraints on the
various combinations of lines and alignments can be assessed; those with fatal flaws are
eliminated. For example, physical constraints would seem to limit surface to Elm, Main, Jackson
and Wood from the west; Elm, Main, Commerce, Jackson and Wood from the East. Other
considerations include traffic impacts, right-of-way availability, See 106 (historic sites and
structures) impacts, turning radii, station platform lengths (north-south versus east-west streets
block lengths), etc.
QUESTION 3: What is the alignment of the second line, at-grade versus grade-separated?
More refined analysis is possible of all feasible alternatives. Questions of portal location (east
and west), station location(s), transfers, costs, ridership and operations are evaluated in detail.
Again, the five system criteria are applied to assess optimum performance and cost-effectiveness.

,~,

(VtlM\, ~~\)J~)

O~

1
.
I

..

_----

..y'

..

~l

,
.')

"

t
.

I"

\"

;if,

._';'fJ"

'-~~~IJt\(

QUESTION 4: What is the final location of the rail line and station, its design, cost,
construction schedule and operating characteristics? Again, the five system criteria,
especially with respect to funding opportunities and joint development opportunities can be
realistically evaluated, e.g. 1) how to proceed with requests for federal funding and 2) how to
negotiate with related private interests (stations in future developments, convention hotel, grant
for Love Field terminal connection, etc).

issue of the need for grade separation for the new rail line Downtown, for example, is more a
question of self definition than engineering effort and, ultimately, is about shaping future
economic policy for the City of Dallas. Assuming Dallas' CBD and surrounding neighborhoods
grow as currently projected through 2020, and people choose to ride transit in the future as they
have in the past, then nothing more than a surface mall is required. Alternatively, if it is assumed
that Downtown will build a significant amount of residential, retail, regional commercial space
(like the new Arena), in addition to maintaining what is still-- and most likely will remain- the
largest and densest concentration of office uses in the region, the character and form of the core
city will change. Thisalternative vision for future growth in projected transit ridership is such
that, even if modestly realized, it justifies the investment in grade separation for the new SWINE
rail lines Downtown today. Funding for these improvements is required by Dallas' ILA with
DART and is included in the current financial plan.
All the relevant technical services and staff functions to address Dallas' input to these questions
of DART's long-range ridership projections (as well as COG's population and employment
forecasting and modelling of trip distribution on which ridership is based) reside in the Planning
Department. What is needed next year, coinciding with the MIS scoping and alternatives analysis
now underway at DART for the Pleasant Grove and Carrollton rail lines, is an overarching look
at the Dallas CBD and its adjacent neighborhoods to make a realistic assessment of rail transit's
potential for economic development and improved quality of life. Air quality will be an
especially high priority for the region in 1998-1999. Such an overview is not only warranted to
guide Dallas' continuing investment in DART rail, but also to provide a forward looking analysis
of the traffic and transportation implication for local projects, both public and private, which are
currently committed.

SPECIFIC WORK PRODUCTS: Transportation Planning and Economic Development Tools

1.

Revisions to NCTCOG population and employment

Background on DART Light Rail

CDA Suggested Goals and Objectives for an Alternatives Analysis of Future

Downtown Alignments
(As discussed during 2005 Strategic Plan meetings. Not in any order)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Maximize new riders.

Minimize transfers.
Maximize joint development opportunities
Maximize station area coverage.
Complete Downtown's second line by 2007 - concurrent with the opening of
the SElPleasant Grove line.
Provide for interline transfers of rail cars to maximize efficiency.
Minimize traffic impacts during operations and construction.
Increase commuter mode split from current 30% mass transit ridership to a
minimum of 50% mass transit.
Optimize through-put efficiency.

Current DART Timeline and Key Decision Dates

Currently - NW and SE Preliminary Engineering on-going
May 2001 - DART/CDA Workshop
Summer 2001- eDA proposes that a eBD Alternatives Analysis begins now,
before engineering decisions on the NW and SE lines limit future options.
Fall 2002 - Love Field Decision
2002 - Garland extension completed.
2003 - Plano extension completed
2005 - TRE service to DFW begins
2006 - DART proposes to begin eBD Alternatives Analysis in anticipation of
SE line service
2007 - 1st Phases ofNW and SE lines
2009 - I" Phase of Irving Corridor
2013 - Rowlett extension completed.

WILL DART RAIL COME TO MAIN STREET?

[Presentation at Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture Main Street conference with
Roberta Gratz in November 1998]

In 1870, the small town of Dallas had an official population of just 2,960. Founded in the 1840's,
Dallas was still a primitive place with dirt streets and the constant threat of fire. In 1871, "city
fathers obtained a city charter for Dallas, lifting it, legally, out of 'town' class." (A.C Greene) The
first passenger train of the H&TC railroad arrived from Galveston in 1872. This was the real
beginning.
[Slide #1: The Bow, Visions]
"If Dallas has a real birthday, a true year of decision, this is it: 1873. The times before that, for
all their importance, were a period of assembly, a gathering together of possibilities in case
opportunity, fate and hope could all be brought into line." A.C Greene, Dallas: The Deciding
Years - A Historical Portrait, 1973
In 1873 the population was 10,000 - a 300% growth in 3 years! The biggest event was when the
T&P railroad began operating in Dallas, bringing goods and people from the East. The T&P's
tracks crossed the H&TC at Pacific Avenue and Preston Road (now Central Expressway).
Greene continues: "The arrival of the T&P was, if anything, more important than the arrival of
the H&TC For one thing, the tide of emigration and trade was sweeping westward, not
northward. For another, the crossing of two railroads at a 90* angle was what made Dallas not just either railroad itself alone. [Tlhe fact that this was the place where you eventually

arrived created overnight a metropolitan situation:" It's another story how the T&P was
persuaded to cross the Trinity River at Dallas - itself an intriguing weave of vision and political
pragmatism - but the point here is that this crossroads quickly created the beginning of the city
we know today.
I can think of no better image for a look at the possibilities before us today with DART's new rail
system up and running.
But before we talk about DART rail, let's take a look at Dallas' growth over that first formative

50 years through the lens of Main Street.

[SLlDE"#2: Main Street at Broadway (now Record) looking east in 1875. Note the streetcar
turntable and line in the foreground]
[SLIDE#3: Main Street from the banks of the Trinity River in 1877]
[SLIDE#4: Main Street at Akard Street in the 1880's]
[SLIDE #5: Main Street at Market Street in 1900 looking east]
[SLIDE #6: Main Street at Ervay Street in 1900 with an interesting traffic jam! Neiman-Marcus
now stands at the intersection

at the center of the picture]

[SLIDE #7: Main Street at Record Street before 1910 - this is the generation of settlement
before the automobile

began to take over]

[SLIDE #8: Main Street at Akard in 1908 - the popular Elks Arch]
[SLIDE #9: Main Street at Market looking east. The big city was getting bigger and by 1919
horses were gone]
[SLIDE #10: Main Street at Ervay in the 1920's looking west. Main Street was at the center of
things. Neiman-Marcus

is in its new store at the left, across from the landmark Wilson Building.

Note the towering new headquarters for Magnolia Oil in the background]
Now let's talk about the future growth of Dallas - imagining fifty years forward from todayand consider the case for building a rail transit tunnel crossing Downtown

under Elm Street.

Dallas entered a new era of settlement and development with the opening of DART rail. As
with the first coming of the railroads in the 1870's and 1880's,.rail transit brings a new
generation of possibility for growth and prosperity in the Dallas region - something structurally

different added to the infrastructure

mix -like

an interstate highway, for example, or a world

class airport. Most significantly for the City of Dallas (and different

in its land use impact on the

suburbs with which Dallas must often compete for business), completion
"starter system" dramatically

improved the quality of public transportation

of the initial 20 mile

throughout

the

region.
[SLlDE-#l1: DART rail plan map with highlight on SWINE line]
Extensions now being completed to Richardson, Plano and Garland will add substantially to
DART's daily ridership which currently exceeds 35,000.
Construction

of the initial plan's final 20 miles - from Pleasant Grove, South Dallas, Fair Park

and Deep Ellum, and Baylor Hospital in the southeast through Downtown

to the Market Center,

Medical Center, Love Field and Bachman Lake, and on to Carrolton, Farmers Branch, Las Colinas
and DFW Airport in the northwest - is now in the final planning and engineering stages and is
scheduled to be placed in service in phases over the next 5 - 7 - 10 years. And don't forget the
new Arena, Uptown and Framers' Market along this SE/NW route. With rail lines extending into
every major travel corridor, Downtown

Dallas will be reinforced, once again, as the functional

center of the region because of its location at the crossroads of a new, high-capacity, countywide, cost competitive transportation

system.

DART Rail has a "city-shaping" potential equal to, if not greater than the greatest public
works of Dallas' past. [SLIDE #12: The 1908 Trinity Flood] building the Oak Cliff Viaduct, the
longest concrete structure in the world in 1912 - and the Trinity Levee a generation later[SLIDE #13: Oak Cliff Viaduct], White Rock Lake which was intended to supply Dallas' water
needs for a century [SLIDE#14: White Rock Dam], Central Expressway which, shortsightedly,
was narrowed to two traffic lanes north of Mockingbird
because planners and politicians underestimated
Needless to say, huge changes in development
construction

Lane when it was constructed in 1953

Dallas' potential for growth to the north.

and real estate values also were wrought with

of the Dallas North Tollway in the 1960's and DFW Airport in the 1970's. In this

same way, rail transit (whether yesterday's railroads and trolleys or today's light rail) changes
the character and structure of land uses in areas with direct t-ransit service. Transit expands
the potential for growth, allowing for denser use of the land for development
higher capacity and more cost-effective

by providing

systems of movement to support it.

Rail transit is different than busses which are creatures of the roadway - captives all too often
of the traffic congestion that transit, mistakenly, is thought to relieve. Access to rail transit
affords the potential for density of development
quality pedestrian environment
paradoxical (contradictory?)

while at the same time achieving a high-

[SLIDE #15: Transit station entry, Gratz]. This possibility is

only to those with a vision of future growth served exclusively by

autos. With rail transit available, much of the expense of new highway lanes, service roads, turn
lanes, parking lots, garages and the other economic and social.costs of exclusive automobile
access can be avoided. Cities can develop more efficiently and sustainably -- and grow larger-with an orientation

toward rail transit. This means that real estate development

at higher

occupant densities - including both small and large scales of buildings, with both commercial

and residential uses - is not only economically feasible but, in fact, is preferred in the market.
[SLIDE #16: Density and Walking Distance to Transit Relationship, Regional Plan Association]
[SLIDE #17: Mixed-use Transit-oriented

Development,

from

tronsit Villages]

In a city like Dallas, rail transit will inevitably encourage mixed-use projects with significant
residential and commercial components
dramatically,

will make new construction

to compliment
economically

traditional

office uses and, most

feasible for the vast sea of land now

committed

to surface parking in Downtown.

Roberta Gratz has an alternative vision which she

describes as the process of "going from parking lot to place" - pedestrians reemerge on the
street with transit-oriented

development.

Pedestrian-oriented

land uses and the walkable

streets they support will reappear around high-capacity, walk-accessible rail transit stations,
especially in the Dallas CBD where existing high-density office occupancies are already the
backbone of cost-effective

rail service. CBD offices provide an "anchor" further rail expansion.

In my opinion, Dallas' ability to grow its tax base through transit-oriented

comparatively

development

unlimited [SLIDE #18: TOD from Toronto], given the strength of the region's

diversified economy and the emerging limits to investment to new "sprawl-type"

infrastructure.

is

public

On the "plus" side, Dallas is finally beginning to realize many of the benefits to

be anticipated with rail transit: from increasing patronage for West End restaurants and the
Dallas Zoo to the Adam's Mark Hotel, Mockingbird

Station and Galatyn Park developments.

The

experience of other North American cities with mature rapid transit systems suggests that this
is just the beginning since DART's passenger-carrying

capacity can be increased at an almost

negligible unit cost as demand increases if the initial system investment is properly planned and
constructed.
[SLlDE#19: (BD aerial with Elm Street alignment and station areas]
No area stands to be more advantaged by expanding DART rail service than Dallas' CBD - its
historic and expanding Downtown.

However, this is possible only

built squarely through the downtown

core (of employment

avoids the inevitable delays on surface streets, and only

if

if the

new SE!NW rail line is

and development

density), only

if it

it is directly connected to the existing

rail mall and bus transfer centers. Speed and convenience of service are keys to expanding
system ridership; safety and the perception of safety are essential. [SLIDE#20: DART trains in
traffic].

DART cannot afford to build an operations "bottleneck"

Dallas. Nor should we miss the opportunity

stations within Downtown.

as it goes

through Downtown

to expand rail's coverage when locating new rail

Remember that overall scheduled service speeds will be no faster

than the system's slowest link; regional service quality and financial performance
better than the most congested and least cost-effective

will be no

rail segments. It's the same way we

know to think about our freeways!

maximizing walking access to transit, creating opportunitiesfor

transit-oriented development, and relieving traffic congestion are shared by DART and the City

The over-arching goals of

of Dallas. Since the Starter Line (Oak Cliff to Park Lane) was put into place, the choices for any
new alignment Downtown
imperative

that the 2

nd

are now more tightly limited, both in location and operation.

it is

CBD rail line be directly connected to the existing stations to avoid or

minimize transfers, decrease station dwell times and maximize pedestrian safety. [SLIDE#21:

Station areas with 1,000 foot walking distance shaded]

The potential for new growth around CBD rail stations is both enormous and is of a new form "walkable".

[viz Antonio Di Mambro DMN 2001 & Neil Pierce update] Both aspects are

important. Judging from the history and nature of other transit cities, Dallas' rail station
economic impacts should properly be counted in the thousands of residential units, millions of

square feet of commercial space, and billions of dollars of tax-assessed value of the next 10 - 20
years a new generation of development.
Dallas' leadership would be irresponsible not to insist that this potential for future growth be
fairly represented in DART's 2025 System Update. Specifically, the City of Dallas must update
and approve Downtown's

transit-oriented

potential for mixed-use development

in the TSZ's

(traffic system zones) which are used by NCTCOG in modelling future transportation
behavior. This travel forecasting (trip generation/mode-split
region-al transportation

systems

model) is the technical basis for all

planning and investment decision making. The danger lies in Dallas'

future potential being left out of the planners' equation!

[SLIDE #22: Chart with development

parcel SF at West End Station]

At quick survey of land currently available for future development

includes surface parking lots

and sites with buildings of marginal value, abandonable streets, etc. Note that smaller sites of
20,000 - 40,000 SF (part or all of a typical city block) and larger sites of 40,000 - 80,000 SF (12 city blocks) which are located within a 1- 2 block walk (400 - 600 feet). Sites within 1,0001,250 feet from a rail station are considered easily accessible and attractive to riders (a 5
minute walk or less). There is more than 700,000 SF of available land closer than 1,000 feet
from possible station entrances on Main Street - with development

rights 20 times that

amount! This Elm Street subway alignment also affords direct station entrances from both the
existing West End LRT station on Pacific and West Bus Transfer Center at Lamar Street.
[SLIDE #23: Chart with development

parcels at City Center Station]

A City Center Station on Main Street between Akard and St. Paul would access more than
1,000,000 SF of historically Significant vacant buildings, including the Mercantile Block, the
Praetorian Building, and 1530 and 1604 Main. This station would also serve several
development

parcels totaling more than 400,000 SF within 600 feet walking distance and with

direct connections to the existing Akard LRT Station.

[SLIDE #24: Chart with development

parcels at East Main Station]

A possible third station located to the east between Pearl Street and Central Boulevard would
connect directly to the East Bus Transfer Center and would serve 1,350,000 SF of land within a
600 foot walk, stretching from the Harwood Historic District to the old Deep Ellum district at

Good-Latimer Expressway.

As you can see, these three stations together along Main Street would improve or expand walk
access to DARTrail for more than 2,500,000 SFof development land and numerous buildings in
three historic districts. At allowable zoning densities of 20:1 FAR,these parcels represent more
than 50,000,000 SFof building rights with the potential to become cost-competitive if direct rail
service can be provided.
Unfortunately, these and other benefits for Downtown Dallas are unlikely to be realized
without changes in the planning process currently underway. For the past 50 years, Dallas has
grown almost exclusively around the automobile. Today's new vision of the city - with urban,
walkable places and neighborhoods, new residents and shopping Downtown - needs to be
incorporated more effectively into the regional planning models. Chicago faced these questions
more than 120 years ago with a much different vision and determination.

Make no mistake, this

notion of a truly urban core in Dallas will challenge fundament.al assumptions about future
growth in the region. And so there will be a political challenge to overcome, not a technical or
financial one. It is a "chicken and egg" situation, both self-determinative

and self-fulfilling.

Without future riders, the cost of high quality stations, vehicles and grade separations is feared
to be too great - neither cost-effective to operate, nor permitted under federal capital cost
financing standards. But without high quality, high capacity service, transit will not be rapid
(and safe) enough to attract new riders and support development at an urban scale. Without
more transit use, regional growth may become limited by a failure to meet air quality standards
(Atlanta situation with FTA funds) and quality of life and health will certainly suffer along with
the economy.
Today, many question the need for investing in grade separation for rail transit (i.e., not
running along or crossing surface streets). Is a tunnel under Elm Street cost-effective? Is a
tunnel-

a direct connection -- into Love Field cost-effective? In any long-term scenario, how

can it be cost-effective in any vision of building Dallas' future not to invest in these
improvements today. This is, of course, more a question of self-definition than engineering.
Ultimately, this is a debate about shaping our future economy and built environment in Dallas-

what of the old to save and how and where to build the new. Do we want a city built almost
exclusively around the automobile, or do we want a city with more transportation choices
and real urban centers? Rail rapid transit can make possible this very real choice.
DART's ridership projections through 2025 assume little transit-oriented

development and few

residents and shoppers Downtown. Officially, DART has maintained that in making
transportation

choices people will chose transit in ways not too different than they do today -

because the form of land use is projected to remain fundamentally the same. The immediate

consequence of this view is DART's intention to route the new SEand NW rail traffic down the

existing Pacific Avenue transit mall. Ridership projections (now and for the past five year debate
on this issue) show that traffic warrants requiring construction of a CSDsubway will not be
triggered. It is not thought justified to use incremental subway funds even to build the direct
Love Field terminal connection! However, at the same time, DARThas acknowledged that new
train operations on Pacific Avenue will be numerous and so frequent in peak hours that
preemption of traffic signals in the CSD will be necessary. If this is so, how long will such a
compromised solution be acceptable? And at what cost to the public in in travel time and
convenience?
If, however, as in many great cities, rail transit proves to be more attractive to more people,
and an expanded system of rail and bus service becomes more competitive with the
automobile, then Downtown will be a significant amount of residential, retail and commercial
space (on top of what will likely remain the largest and most dense concentration of uses in the
region) which cannot be served by new roads and surface parking lots. Transit favors density
and density favors transit. More people, fewer cars! Great pedestrian environments require
both, and sustain both.
Therefore, the character and form of the core of Dallas must change to allow for this growth
around rail transit, and Downtown will become even more attractive for its urban scale,
texture and diversity. Such an alternative vision for a truly urban heart of the region's core city
easily generates transit ridership which justifies the investment in grade separating new rail
lines coming into Downtown today. Funding for a CBD transit tunnel has been included in
DART's financial planning and is required by DART's Interlocal Agreement with the City. Grade
separation Downtown is "triggered"

when trains exceed maximum ridership or minimum

headway thresholds on the existing mall. I am confident this situation will develop when the
Richardson, Plano and Garland extensions are opened in 2002, even if nothing more is built in
and around Downtown to add to predicted ridership there. More significantly, addition of the
Pleasant Grove/Fair Park trains from the southeast, beginning in 2007 - 08, will literally "swamp
the boat" on Pacific. (Curiously, the federally-required

adopted locally preferred alternative

specifically did not include the planned extension along Buckner Boulevard which would add
24% to the corridor ridership at an increased cost of 10% for the reason - I believe - that it
caused the SEline to violate the ILA operating thresholds).
As part of the planning process now underway (11/1998) for the Pleasant Grove/Carrolton raii
extensions, including a 2nd alignment for the CSD, we need an 'over-arching, people friendly
vision of Downtown Dallas and its surrounding neighborhoods to guide planners' assessments
of future transit ridership and transit-oriented

development. Only then will the true potential

for new urban fabric and reduction in auto-generated air pollution - both in an increasingly

walkable and livable city - be recognized and planned for by DART.That would be a revolution
of the greatest kind.

A new future is emerging for Dallas which is sustained by the vision of truly urban life at the
city's heart. Because DARTwill be increasingly recognized for its unique contributions to
redevelopment and quality of life in Dallas, DARTshould now be called on more and more to do
its part in that process. If we are to look back from the midpoint of the new century, say 2050,
DART may be best understood for this role in city-building:
D - Diversity of peoples, economic opportunity and cultures
A - Air quality that is neither an economic burden nor a risk to our health
R- Redevelopment of traditional and historically valuable buildings and neighborhoods,
enriching both our cities and our towns as the new is brought forth
T - Transportation alternatives, real choices to the automobile for people of all means
These are again "deciding years" as A.C. Greene wrote more than a generation ago about the
founding 50 years in Dallas. The new transcontinental

railroads brought the Sanger Brothers

and other "terminal merchants" who built their town so quickly into a major center of business.
If DARTbrings its new rail transit to Main Street, Dallas can expect more of the rich urban life
we are beginning to glimpse today. I believe we can grow quickly, then, into a truly
international and livable city with is "crossroads of rail transit" again in the core of Downtown.

~. ,.

,
#

Ccry

.".'eta..
.'

I
t

I-

-~\-l
4:'-

,,
~

CGD ~~~

-n-z,,1\1-l So F R

J.P.).
~

.....

"

--

--

\"

...

'1M{)