·-...... • 
Addison Cotton Belt Transit Center I. Introduction a. What b. Where c. How d. Why II. III. Funding Layout and Arial Photos As it has been said many times a picture is worth a thousand
words. What we are proposing is to move forward with the planning and design of the Addison Cotton Belt Transit Center. Last year we approached the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) to acquire a grant sufficient enough to prepare a Transit Center Plan to use as marketing, sales and negotiating tool to encourage inclusion the DART 2030 Transportation Plan.
Unfortunately the grant request was denied. The feeling was that this was a tremendous idea but should be funded from other municipal sources. The Location of the Transit Center has
already been established. Property currently owned by the Town of Addison and the DART Bus Transit Center is the ideal location, bounded by Arapaho Road to the South, Quorum Road to
the East, Addison Road to the West and the Cotton Belt Rail Line to the North. This area is key piece to the overall development of the Addison Circle District and the newly proposed
Belt Line Road Reinvention Project. It is our contention that the idea of "Master Planning" the Transit Center Site, even though the grant was denied by NCTCOG, is still a key element
to the overall acceptance of the Addison Cotton Belt Project and a show of commitment to create the type and quality project that the Town of Addison has become known. The question is
HOW, without the NCTCOG grant, could we fund such an endeavor. During the last.!li.w months the Public Works Department has been perusing Gran(f Funds from Dallas County for specific
"Quiet Zone" crossings (see attaohed doc) that are currently being funded out of 􀁾􀀮􀀠
the DART LAP fund ... approximately $670,000. If we are successful in acquiring this grant from Dallas County we would recommend the immediate redirection of the LAP funds to commission
the development of a Master Plan for the Addison Cotton Belt Transit Center. Process: The plan development process would be similar to the design and development of the Arapaho Road
Bridge and the Arts and Events Center. This project would include resources and input from Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Development Services. As we have on other projects,
Architectural, landscaping, transportation efficiency, and pedestrian features should be key elements of the overall design. We should know within the next ?????weekslmonths if our quiet
zone grant has been approved. If and when this grant is approved we would recommend immediately identifying an Architect to begin the process. 
•• •• •• •• Planning for the Future Dallas Area Rapid· Transit (DART) is in the process of updating its long-range Transit System Plan (TSP). The TSP provides a vision for future capital
and operating programs in the DART Service Area, which includes 13 member cities. The current TSP has a horizon year of 2010. Most projects in the current TSP have been constructed and
are in operation, or are in various phases of design or planning to support implementation before the year 2020. The 2030 TSP update will look beyond the current programmed transit network
to identify and prioritize the next generation of rail, bus, highoccupancy vehicle, and othersupporting mobility programs to grow the region's multi-modal transportation network and
address the projected growth in population and employment. Figure 1 illustrates the planning process for the 2030 TSP update. What the Future Holds Population and employment growth in
the Dallas-Fort Worth region is expected to continue to be strong through the year 2030. According to North Central Texas Council ofGovernments'(NCTCOG) projections, future trends (see
Figures 2 and 3) include: • Nearly doubling population in the region, with most of the growth outside the DART Service Area boundary; • Nearly doubling employment, with most of the growth
also outside DART's Service Area, but with the FIGURE 1-System Planning Process •Needs Assessment Alternatives Development • Evaluation and Plan I Development majority of jobs still
located within the Service Area; • Nearly doubling of vehicle miles of travel, which trends close to the population and employment growth; • A five-fold increase in congestion delay
-meaning that improvements to the roadway system cannot keep up with population growth. All of these trends indicate that we will face a less reliable and slower roadway system and spend
more of our time in our cars and in traffic. DART wants to make transit part of the solution to improve mobility in the region and offer fast, efficient and reliable alternatives to
the single-occupant vehicle. A key challenge is how to address growth and mobility needs outside the DART Service Area boundary. Many of these more regional questions are being tackled
as part of the Regional Transit Initiative, sponsored by NCTCOG (see www.nctcog.org/rrcs for more information). ---------------_.._.J;'>The LINK· DART 2030 Transit System Plan Summer
2004 • 1 
Transit as Part of the Solution DART has defined a range of initial alternatives that will be examined during the 2030 TSP effort. The goal is to develop a multi-modal set of projects
and strategies that can address future mobility issues cost-effectively. Initial alternatives reflect a variety of service strategies developed to meet projected needs within specific
planning corridors. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the initial rail and bus corridors to be tested in the system planning effort. "Express': "Rapid'; andlor "Enhanced" service strategies
will be tested in the various corridors as appropriate. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of these different service strategies in terms of their frequency, carrying capacity, and
primary right-of-way. While not shown on the map, there are also High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes, additional bus services, and mobility programs that will be incorporated into the
plan. 0-' i!lll'l1. 1III!IlI'• •••••• 1••_i-13.... Figures 2 and 3 ilJustrote population and employment employment density projected for the year 2030. Darker areas representhigher demities,
where more trips are generatedandhigher congestion levels typically occur. .., 􀁾􀁬.'••••_8_7_8_0 _lO-H.12-.,_H'" .---_... _--.-....--=.=-..=..-=...=􀁾... ===..... =_... =--=-=='._..
.. 2 • Summer 2004 The LINK· DART 2030 Transit System Pia" 􀁾􀀮􀀠
Potential bu. or rail , To McKinney corridors may be tested with Express, Rapid andlor Enhanced service strategies, No 'recommendations have been made yet for the 2030 Tran.it System.·!t
.. .., Plan. Plano "-'.. 􀁾􀀮􀀠, Downtown Pf,ollO'I'""'-00a<!i!I Wylie FlCMlordl!}-O . " 􀀢􀁾􀀺􀁦􀀢􀀠""Ii"'"': 􀀬􀁾􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀰.... GolotynPClk Trlnltt Milia IE! 0 \ Car,rollton
" Richardson \ Alopoho Cenr.r0 : ';:Addison 􀀧􀀮􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀠j .,.,",'Iev(fJ ( Rowlett ", . 􀁊􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠. j,,; 􀁩􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁦􀀮􀀺􀀩􀁾􀀠, 􀁾􀀠Garland fe-; '" , 􀁏􀀢􀀢􀁉􀀸􀁊􀀯􀁃􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀠'-", 􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀠....
􀁾􀀨􀀡􀁊􀁆􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁰􀀢􀀬􀀠", 􀁾􀁾􀀠.....__.... To Fate o-lf,\f:l .........􀀭􀁾􀀠t"R1oR" ..... _-" IS:::': 􀁲 I ',"', 0i .: \, WoI",,'H'f' 0􀀢􀁾􀁩􀀠Potk.lo 􀁾􀁦􀁾􀀬􀁟􀀠􀁾􀀬...",' \ 􀁲􀁬􀁾􀁜􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀠�
�􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀻􀀧􀀻􀀢􀀻􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀠, 􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀭", .L·_otl ;'-' " 􀁾􀁜􀀺, University', ': 􀁏􀁗􀁎􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁫􀁲􀀬􀁊􀀠 [':; ,,,,,,. Irving , .. '-,'Ij-, '.... Park 􀁾􀁉􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀠\'
-=» Ught RailU"" &Station 􀀨􀁅􀁾􀀵􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀩􀀠-=» Light Rail line &Station (Exisling)....., 􀁈􀁬􀁮􀁲􀀧􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀱􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠, -=» Trinity Railway Express !Jl.E :::; ':c::: ! 􀁾􀀠􀁾"
􀁾􀀠• t ,l!: 􀁾􀀠® J 􀁾􀀠0 0I􀁾􀀠'" 􀁾􀀠Commuter Rail &Station (Existi'1!l) 1IIIII future INingIDFW Light Rail Line .1.1.1 Furure NWfSE light Rail Line 1.1.11 fUMe Ught Rail Expansion
Rail Corridors 􀀮􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀮􀂷􀀮􀁊􀀧􀀮􀂷􀁾􀀮􀂷􀁮􀀮􀁾􀀬􀂷􀁯􀁉􀁊􀀱􀁎􀀢􀁟􀂷􀀢􀀧􀂷􀁕􀀭􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀧..H.·_·_· .,., ,-. '.-..􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀠,,·...·,·t.",.y.•.·. , .... ,"':••g;... "',-" ' 
Irving '" 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠• I "i 􀁾􀀠0 " 􀁾􀀠􀁾H .f I< II􀀬􀁾􀀠Cf) IPJ􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠• 􀀻􀀻􀁟􀁤􀁬􀁲􀀧􀁾U .,;}i'; . 􀀼􀀺􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀧􀁩􀁾􀀬􀂧􀀺􀁾􀁫􀁾􀀺􀀴􀀧􀀬􀁜􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀨􀂷􀀤􀀺􀀽􀁲􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁕􀁩􀁬􀁩􀀧􀀧􀀠To
Arlington' Fort Worth .t> '';''-",';,' ';:W·, !' 􀁾􀁗􀀧􀀠;'<"'Ir"􀁾􀁽􀂻􀀮􀀭:,,,,, 'i.i"';;;;'., 􀁾􀁾􀀯􀀠To Midlothian" 􀀬􀁾􀀻􀀠􀁲􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀧􀁙􀀿􀁉􀁥􀁥􀁇􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀠􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁲􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠"
􀁟􀁾􀀧􀁫􀁾􀁌􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀭􀁟􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀠,," 􀀧􀀮􀀢􀀢􀁜􀀮􀀢􀁖􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁩􀀺􀀠,--,:;:':; 􀀮􀀻􀀭􀀧􀀼􀁾􀀧􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀠􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀾􀀭L '.::,:", 􀀧􀀬􀀢􀀢􀁗􀀧􀁏􀀻􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁜􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀷􀀱􀁫􀀾􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁳􀀠-V---V",
.<' '1". ' , JJ'tc "'., 􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀠-,_ I '1'-' •.(\ , 􀀴􀁾􀀠{, Glenn Heights To Waxahachie '2<r Potential bus or rail corridors may be tested with Express, Rapid andlor Enhanced service
strategies. No recommendations have been made yet for the 2030 Transit System Plan. rtll_ I'IDRTH -=-Ught Rail Un. &Station (Existing)-=-Ught R'illine &Station (Existing)-=-Trinity Railway
Expll!5' !!f Commuter Rail &Sllltion (Existing) ...... Futu'" IrvingIDFW light Rail lin. •••••• Future NWISE light Rail Un. ...... Futur. light Rail Expansion 􀁾Rail Corridors 
Developing the Transit System Plan DART will conduct a three-step evaluation process to develop the 2030 TSP (see Figure 6). The process begins with the initial set of corridor alternatives,and
uses aset of conceptuallevel evaluation criteria to refine and screen them. The most promising range of projects will then be combined into several "system plan scenarios' or transit
networks. These different system plan scenarios will then go through a more detailed evaluation process, focusing on the system-level performance of the different scenarios -that is,
which plans result in the most benefits (ridership, operating efficiendes, air quality, etc.) in the most cost-effective manner? One or more refined scenarios will then go through a
trade-off analysiS that considers financial constraints. DART will project the amount of funds that may be available through 2030, and will have to select and prioritize improvements
based on the amount of funding available. Promising projects that are not affordable may be included in a non-financially constrained vision plan for future consideration. This vision
plan may also include projects outside the DART Service Area that could be implemented by others, or could be reassessed in future TSP updates if new member cities join DART. --"'--.,;,"'The
LINK' DART 2030 Transit System Plan Express SU'i RAPID Rapid Rail Rapid Bus ENHANCED HOV MOBIUTY PROGRAMS 20/60 10 Inone or limited 10120 10/20 500 to 1500+ (varies with 20010300 2,400
to 3.200 300 to 400 servi(eand (onvenief1{e in Depends on transit serviCe on 1)00 per lane 􀀨􀁡􀁵􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁬􀀱􀀨􀀩􀁢􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀩􀀠HOV Alsn Bus 5e(llOn above Existing ra"road mrrido! Existing
railroad (orridor and /or Street corridors freeway/Street freew,y5ystem iranJpiJllo/ion SYltem5 (11'5), ilovel Demand Management Summer 2004 • 5 
What's Next DART held six public meetings in April 2004 to discuss the TSP effort, highlight future mobility issues, and review the initial alternatives and evaluation process, The original
schedule shown at the April 2004 meetings listed public meetings in July 2004, Due to delays In ridership modeling, the next round of public meetings are tentatively scheduled for late
2004 or early 2005. These meetings will present the preliminary results and recommendations of the conceptual evaluation phase. Thus, the next several months are focused on ridership
analyses, cost estimates, and completion of the conceptual evaluation phase, taking into consideration comments received during the April 2004 meetings, For more information visit the
"Expansion Studies" section of www.DART.org 817ZSL x.L 'snlfllG Mnra oqot[ 9169 . <lOl<l!d UI!f 1:£1:L-99Z5L Xl ',ellea £91099 XOll 'O'd anuaA\I Jyped LOt<l l!sueJl P!deH eaJ\I sellea
(t 
2040 Population Projections Populatilm CMJ'lge in ropnbtfum COO"", Percent'000 '040 """I Capillll Men Plannins.l: Council 1.346,833 4,802,535 -'"3,455,701 lS6.6 1: _c.-l1....􀁣􀀢􀁟􀀮􀁲􀁾􀀠5.309277
17.1J9I,{I98; 11,181.81J 2!L9 􀁾􀀠J 􀁓􀁯􀁉􀁲􀁊􀀱􀁔􀁃􀁗􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁃􀀴􀁵􀁮􀁣􀁬􀁬􀀠264,171 786,34! 522.164 191.7 4 ........ 􀁒􀀢􀁡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁥􀀭􀁴􀀠924.'17.1 2,599.3'16 1.674,604
I&LI 5 Howl\J.... Oall'l:.';tDo A..:,a Council 4,8$4.454 12.&&30,490 8,009,036 16$.4 6 C¢#IITc.wCclltll;'a(l!U!!_ 374,518 745,272 310.154 .. 1 RIll tJrWeCl:nlllr:11 c((.l()Vo:ratl:I!IlU
'ro4,318 1..274,1&3 569.865 80,9 8 􀁁􀀡􀁾􀁭􀀩􀀠Ar.e=OIw::J1 􀁮􀁲􀁇􀁯􀁾􀀠1.8{17.86& 3.136,524 1,328.6$6 73.S 9 EMITc:o\M t'n>o:i!<>r&lvertllll<!<lJ; 745,ISO 1,175,802 S3{),622 71,2 10
n..,mVAkyC",,,dn(GI;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 261,08S 415.411 ISBJ26 "3 1\ c..:ul.l.lU::n<l 􀁃􀀢􀁗􀁉􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀢􀁲􀁯􀁟􀀠549,011 871.659 324.647 59.1 􀀱􀀲􀀱􀁴􀁥􀀾􀁉􀁉􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁉􀀠􀁮􀁲􀁇􀁾􀀠321.536
:506,024 184,,48B 57.4 13 􀁟􀁯􀁢􀁦􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁷􀁉􀀧􀁾􀁕􀀮􀁟􀀧.._ 402,862 593,469 190,601 473 141lo:q>&nTo .... t'll<locilor""",,_. 355,&62 521,052 166,190 46.1 15 _fdt.... 􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁲􀀭􀀱􀁐􀀺􀀭􀁱􀁾􀀠385,
090 552:.846 167.156 ,3> 16 􀁍􀁬􀁤􀁤􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁇􀀽􀁤􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠1S4.3!H :m.m 59.516 3&.6 17 Te>:Qrna CQ<!ntl! o(OOl'tl'lll!l¢nI!i 17R.:!OO ::l6,9OS S&;ros 32.9 􀁬􀁓􀁦􀀬􀁬􀀬􀁬􀀡􀁯􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁟􀁾􀀠183,905
:93.,946 .50,04l 21219 __Il....",uf-.,c3.76.672 431,016 􀀺􀁓􀀴􀁾􀀧􀁗􀀴􀀠14.4 􀀲􀀰􀁇􀁜􀁾􀁖􀀧􀁉􀁉􀀼􀀺􀁲􀁃􀁯􀁬􀁬􀀱􀀾􀁴􀁩􀀧􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁦􀁇􀀼􀂻􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀢􀀠14ll,212 169.314 2J,10-1 14.2
21 􀁎􀁏􀁉􀁬􀀧􀁬􀁉􀀧􀀡􀁘􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁣􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁩􀁵􀁩􀁎􀀠214.366 245.261 10,901 9.3 􀀲􀀲􀁳􀀼􀀾􀁯􀀺􀀮􀁢􀀯􀀧􀁉􀀾􀁯􀁲􀀡􀀾􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁻􀁇􀁯􀁟􀀠311,81l 404.206 26335 7 23 w....c_1'....<:<Mdo{C'_ 324,901
320,811 -4,090, 􀁾􀀡􀀬􀀠'w, . q ·13.. Median Household Income in 1999 in Texas by Age of Householder Thousands $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 45·54 55-64 15+ ..• <25 25·34 35-44 i Age of
Householder 
) States Ranked by Median Household Income in 1999 New Jersey (1} $55,146 ConnacllcLit (2) $53,935 Mlllj'land(3) $52,ll64 Alaska (4) $51,571 j Massachusetts (5) $50,502 1 Hawaii (6)
$49,820 New Hampshfre (7) CaOfomla {8} $17,493 Delaware (9) $47,38.1 ColOrado (10) 􀁾􀀱􀀬􀀲􀁬􀀩􀀳􀀠I Texas(30j ••••••••••••••$39,927 I $41,994 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $70,000$0
$10,000 S2O,oOO ) Texas Income Distribution (2000) 􀀱􀀲􀁲􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀰􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠8 6 4 2 o ) 
2030 TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN Public Meetings April 2004 AGENDA • DART Transit System Plan -What is it? -Why plan? -Guiding Principles • Planning Process • Growth Trends and Mobility Issues
• Technology Options • Transit Service Strategies • Initial Alternatives (Rail, Bus, HOy) • Evaluation Process • Schedule and Milestones i 􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀠2030 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠 1 
DART Transit System Plan • What is it? -The Transit System Plan is the long-range element of DARTts Transit Service Plan and provides an indication of future capital and operating programs
for DART. • Policies • Strategies • Implementation and Phasing • Vision DART Transit System Plan • Why plan 25 years into the future? -To define a vision based on future needs -To determine
project phasing and budget needs -To consider project development timeframe (concept through construction) • Why update the plan every few years? -To respond to changing land use and
development patterns -To respond to changing financial conditions and assumptions • DART sales tax income • Other local, regional or federal funds 2 
FTA Project Development Process 1.1 􀀭􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀬􀁩􀀻􀀻􀀽􀀧􀁾􀀠(with representative timeline) 􀁲􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀧􀀱􀀴v ..... '''.jl!l 􀀬􀁯􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀠2030 Transit System Plan (TSP)
DART Board Guiding Principles l.Mobility -to serve market needs and opportunities, provide an integrated system, and preserve right-of-way 2.Rscal Responsibility -to provide an efficient
and costeffective system 3.Land Use and Economic Development -to encourage transit-oriented development and responsible land use planning 4.Planning Process -to develop a common vision
with broad-based support 3 
, System Planning Process ,-------,. ,-------... ;-------,.. '.------... Transit System Evaluation Corridor 􀁾i Corridor/Sy$tem Evaluation Framework Opportunities 11 Evaluation Mobility
Needs Technoiogy Transit Concepts! i Financial Analysis! Assessment Review ServiceStrategies E Prioritize Projects i Evaluation andNeeds Alternatives i PlanAssessment Development 􀁾􀀠Development
Public and Agency Involvement Study Area • Focus is DART 13Member City Service Area • Study Area is larger -to understand mobility issues and potential projects outside Service Area
-how might those issues or other projects impact DART service 4 
Regional Transit Authorities 5 
Mobility Needs Overview • Where is population and employment growth predicted to occur? • What will travel patterns look like -where do people want to go? • What is the future market
for transit? • Travel Demand .;' Population + Employment = Trip Density v" Trip Density -System capacity = Congestion v" Indications of Congestion = Potential Markets Population Trends
6 
Population Trends -Service Area t330/0 -Outside Service Area t 88% Employment Trends 7 
Employment Trends ·service Area t 47% .Outside service Area t 85% 􀀽􀀬􀁾􀀡... ---Jobs to Housing Ratio 2030 J.I'. ... . Nortb 8 
Urbanization Levels (2002) Population Density + Employment Density Urbanization 21102URBAHIZA'tIQNINDEX 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀂭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀺􀀭􀂭..-. !fJ 203CI URBAfGZAiJON INDEX p--"::-;--:...",...
' ..'. Urbanization Trends (2030) Population Density + Employment Density Urbanization 9 
Regional Desire Lines of Travel • Trips becoming more dispersed • Major travel patterns emerge 2002 Roadway Volumes -t_'.eH'!lT____ItNlr .......2••} 10 
2030 Roadway Volumes 􀁾􀁜􀀠􀁟􀀧􀁦􀁏􀁃􀀧􀁾􀁏􀁉􀁬􀁙􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁟􀀢􀁈􀀢􀁟􀁾􀁾_ .. 􀁡􀁾􀁦􀀿􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁬􀀧􀁬􀁮􀁬􀁮􀁃􀀠&. 􀁏􀁥􀂥􀀨􀀡􀁊􀁴􀁴􀁰􀁾􀁬􀀧􀁉􀁴􀀠Freeway Congestion -Ayg. Da!JyYMT ·2002. 129
mllUon miles "2030 • 240 million mll&& 􀁾􀁁􀁹􀁧􀀠DaUy Fuel Consumption <>2002. 6.7 mnuon gauOM .2030 c 11.6lt\UtJon gaUons .Avg. Dally Consntkm petav "2002 .1.0 million hours. -2030
• $.1 million houm ·Ava. Dally Property PaggtAecld.nt§. ..zG02'::t 700 '2030 Di,500 11 
Mobility Needs Overview •• Market Assessment (Question: Which of the following best describes your feeling about public transportation?) Sourt:e: DART 2002 Oimate Survey 12 
Technology Review Technology Review • Variety of technologies can be used in DART system • Desire is to have technologies well-suited to the service strategy and environment in which
they operate: -What works best to get people to where they want to go? -can the technology address community concerns (noise, visual, etc.)? -How customer-friendly is the technology?
• The 2030 Transit System Plan focuses on the service strategy: -more detailed studies would confirm technology type 13 
Technology Options DART Ught Rail Transit (Ull) StatIon $ladng: <1 to l rr.lles Ile!lgn-Ilty Lew tn t'Jgh capadty Serve short-medium Ieogl:h trlps • fAA non-comptiant -cannot 􀁳􀁾-by"""""'---""1#
􀁾rAlilal c:osVMl!e: $2G-$S5 mlllJon Ughtwelght Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) SIm/&iJr ItJ urr but diesel powered; no 􀁾􀀠-. Sl:aHon Spadng: <1 to 31T'i1e1> Wi:Se:ty I..I:5ed i':I Europe
fAA I'ICtHXImpIiant • f'AMot: 􀁾􀁾WIth ""1#TYfiCaI: 􀁣􀀮􀁡􀁾costImi!e: $5-$20 million Technology Options Diesel L.o<::omotive 􀁄􀁉􀁥􀁳􀀮􀁥􀁉􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁉􀁥􀁤trains Station Spadng:: l to 5
miles IJse:J fOr Dallas-rort wCtth Tl"inltY Rai!¥mv 􀁾􀀠 (TRE) c.mmuo.r ... """'" 􀁾longer-trips at high 􀁾speeds FAA 􀁾can Share I'3IIrcad WItt! frelghtw '1"ypIaI1 tapIt3I costImlJe:
$S-$25 minIM Diesel Multiple Unit (OHU) Self_"',""""'__ """to< Di!llo<."", Worth T_..,,,,,,,,""'"'" (mE) Commuter RaIl seM:e smtIoc; SpacIng: 3. to S 􀁾􀀠 _'''''''''''''' lit high ......."".'"
fAA compliant 􀁾􀀠CM smN!' I1IdrOad with frf!Ig.'lt 􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁊a>stJmlle: $$-$15 million 􀁾􀀧􀁣􀁾􀀠.... ,,,-14 
--Technology Options streetcar lOw to medium CiI;..acItV 􀁪􀁮􀁴􀁮􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁾􀀠Fre:tuent station stDp5 -"'--Typ<:atly opeRIl:e$ on $treetS -shared lane With a1Jb)$, or 􀁥􀀻􀁡􀀺􀀺􀁪􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠lane
Vehicles can be 􀁾modem, (If' nen made to ""'''''' 􀁾AverlueVIntage -..eh/de$ !.$f.Iij Oil. DalIbS' rertIatId, OR haS a modem 􀁾􀁲$'IStIem TypIcal ,",,'" _ ..􀁾􀀬􀀠$10.$25 ....1On Technology
Options High oa::..paney V_(HOY) S1rategieo 􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁴􀁲􀁨􀁬􀁧􀁢􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁯􀁤􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠fitt:rans1t :seMce Se¥traI &:1sUng and plalWld HOV laMS In DART -speod-""'""""" btps--us.d "" """""
""' """"" TypIcal 􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁟􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠$S-8 """"(va<If<) 15 
Technology Options .... Rapid T",n$it (aRT) EJdU$/Ve tran$ltway for bus use MedIum capadty sevIce with speeds 􀁾􀁥􀀠to LRT {20-1S 􀁭􀁰􀁨􀁾􀀩􀀠StatIon $PaCing: 1-3 miles Typieally seno'e'$l<::nger
triQ:; with medlum-hir.ln-,,,... 1"ypIca1 􀀨􀀳􀁪􀀻􀀱􀁾􀀡􀀠COSt/mHe: $4-40 milion 􀀨􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀩􀀠Enhanced BUs strategies WOUld use !QW-flOor bus 􀁾"""""'''''_'''''''''by__ and c:ustomeI'
o::cwenten¢e: Opesates 00 􀁾streets wtth some IeYet of lran:stt ptkXtty treatment (dedicated bUS lane, traffIC 􀁾priOrity, etc.) TypICalty 􀀵􀁴􀀧􀁍􀀵􀁾IrIps T'tl'ical 􀀨􀀺􀀳􀁾􀀱􀀠oostInille;
< $lmllion (varlt$) 203Q 􀁾􀀠Transi.tService·c:iGnlCI 16 
Transit Service Concepts 􀁾􀀨􀁉􀁩􀀡􀁯􀁨􀀩􀀠_ P.lIt*! (Hec1kIm) _ 􀁾􀁲􀀨􀁬􀁄􀁷􀀩􀀠_ Transit Service Examples • Express: -Regional commuter rail -Express Bus • Rapid: -Ught Rail Transit
(LRT) -Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Enhanced: -Enhanced Bus • Regular: -Local Bus • Circulator/Feeder: -Streetcar -Activity Center circulator -Bus feeder routes o Expresso Rapid IJIT lRT
o Express 500 0 Regular BusO Enhan<:ed 􀁉􀁬􀁜􀀮􀁾􀀠o Streetcar 0 Rapid Bus Transit Service Concepts 17 
Initial Alternatives • Initial bus, rail and HOV alternatives have been defined based on mobility issues, DART staff, and member city and agency staff input • Provides the basis for
defining model runs to test various corridor alternatives and service strategies • Alternatives focus on service strategy rather than mode. Service strategies include: -Express -high
speed, limited stations, long-haul trips -Rapid -moderate speed, closer stations, short-mediumhaul trips -Enhanced -improved service through physical! operational enhancements Initial
Rail .Alternatives • Range of express and rapid alternatives • Corridor segments defined at logical break pOints DART 2030 1'RAH$.It S'fS1!M PlAN bdUalltllll AHnndvn --'􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀭􀁒􀁬􀁴􀁴􀀮􀁾􀀠=-􀀭􀀭
􀀮􀀭􀁾...B....... 􀁾􀀠 18 
Initial Bus Alternatives Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Loop 12 -Low-moderate investment -Exclusive or shared ROW with BRT stations Enhanced Bus Strategies on major bus corridors -Low cost
enhancements to improve speed and convenience .. -<-􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁧􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀽􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀦􀁯􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁎􀁜􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀠Initial HOV Alternatives Used Mobility 2025 Plan update as basis
for alternatives 2030 TSP will focus on defining transit enhancements to take advantage of HOV fadlities 19 
• Evaluation Process 20 
Evaluation Categories • Six major evaluation categories -Mobility -Feasibility -Cost-Effectiveness/Affordability -Land Use/Economic Development -Environmental -Public and Agency Support
Example Evaluation Criteria 21 
• Evaluation Process • Alternative corridor strategies will be qualitatively ranked "High, Medium, or Low" -Quantitative data will back up ranking • Benchmarks will be defined to compare
to 2030 forecast ridership and cost-effectiveness -Potential indicator of federal fund competitiveness • Evaluation will support dropping alternatives or segments that do not perform
well -Refined alternatives that perform well will be included in Initial System Plan scenarios for detailed evaluation Schedule and Milestones Metllodology and 22 
NEXT STEPS • Next three months will focus on: -ridership modeling -conceptual evaluation • Public meetings planned for Summer 2004 to review: -conceptual evaluation results -initial
system plan scenarios ':-'.,2030 􀁾􀀧􀁉􀁉􀁦􀁁􀁎􀀮􀁓􀁬􀁦r:::::' ...._ ........ Contact Information • www.DART.org -Information available under "Publications" • Michael Miles /Rosa cavazos
Rosteet -Community Affairs -214/749-2853/214/749-2522 -mmiles@dart.org /rrosteet@dart.org • Kay Shelton /Ernie Martinez -Project Management/Technical Issues 23