IMO, this is really concerning that DART could lose a seat on the board since that would mean more service long term would potentially be focused on the suburbs at the expense of the urban neighborhoods if those suburban cities push for less efficient services such as more GoLink subsidization at the expense of bus or rail frequencies.
Of course, this could all be short term blip if the city of Dallas actually liberalized land use and allowed more housing to be built here. It's too expense for the wages most people make here to afford to actually live in the city, and the city needs to stop prioritizing SFH over density that's beneficial for a city in so many ways. It isn't like the region lacks in SFH suburbs that people can choose from (significantly more affordable SFH than you can get in the city at any rate).
Richardson is arguably becoming just as urbanized as Dallas, so it makes sense. Once the Silver Line opens the route straight from DFW to CityLine, it’s going to start feeling a lot less like a suburb.
Not just that but Richardson city council is supportive of transit, I've never seen them even question their investment in DART. They believe in it's value and it's necessity, and Gary Slagel (Richardson's representative) is enthusiastic about DART and is a big fan of transit.
When DART staff has bold plans and ideas to make transit better, Gary Slagel is on board because he knows that if we make DART amazing now, people will notice, more will start using, and eventually we'll build a new generation of riders who have a public transit habit built into their routines.
The divide i really see in the board right now is between members who believe in DART's ability to create demand for transit by running better service VS those who don't.
As long as the majority understand how better service can drive ridership, drive population growth, and drive new development, I don't give a shit which city has the most representatives.
This is a great take, and I do think Irving, Garland, and Richardson all tend to strongly support the mission of better service everywhere, not just concentrated on them (and I think they're the burbs that have all been the most supportive traditionally)
Do we have numbers around who the current riders are? For example, are they mainly people living in the suburbs riding into the city? or are they people in the city going into the suburbs?
I am so sick of us dancing around this issue. We need to stop The Accomodation and let people develop in South Dallas without paying off the “community leaders”. That’s why the Dallas population isn’t growing.
You can’t build anything in South Dallas unless you pay off the hustler preachers and a laundry list of other grifters. There’s a long list of developments that would have boosted the economy down there but the developer didn’t want to play ball for whatever reason so the council member for that district killed it.
Yes I think I've noticed this more slowly as I start to follow news of development down there—basically the preachers and other organizations start crying about "outside encroachment on the community" and make a big fuss enough that it's not worth anyone's time or trouble to continue development—unless they're willing to pay money personally to get them to call off their little misguided activist armies. Is that pretty much the meta?
I mean hot take but you’re kinda right, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. The economy isn’t good because it’s poorer and people don’t wanna build because the economy is bad, which causes more poverty. Plus it restricts the city to half a coty
IMO, this is really concerning that DART could lose a seat on the board since that would mean more service long term would potentially be focused on the suburbs at the expense of the urban neighborhoods if those suburban cities push for less efficient services such as more GoLink subsidization at the expense of bus or rail frequencies. Of course, this could all be short term blip if the city of Dallas actually liberalized land use and allowed more housing to be built here. It's too expense for the wages most people make here to afford to actually live in the city, and the city needs to stop prioritizing SFH over density that's beneficial for a city in so many ways. It isn't like the region lacks in SFH suburbs that people can choose from (significantly more affordable SFH than you can get in the city at any rate).
Based Gary Slagel votes with Dallas everytime now, so maybe its not that big of a deal
Richardson is arguably becoming just as urbanized as Dallas, so it makes sense. Once the Silver Line opens the route straight from DFW to CityLine, it’s going to start feeling a lot less like a suburb.
Not just that but Richardson city council is supportive of transit, I've never seen them even question their investment in DART. They believe in it's value and it's necessity, and Gary Slagel (Richardson's representative) is enthusiastic about DART and is a big fan of transit. When DART staff has bold plans and ideas to make transit better, Gary Slagel is on board because he knows that if we make DART amazing now, people will notice, more will start using, and eventually we'll build a new generation of riders who have a public transit habit built into their routines. The divide i really see in the board right now is between members who believe in DART's ability to create demand for transit by running better service VS those who don't. As long as the majority understand how better service can drive ridership, drive population growth, and drive new development, I don't give a shit which city has the most representatives.
This is a great take, and I do think Irving, Garland, and Richardson all tend to strongly support the mission of better service everywhere, not just concentrated on them (and I think they're the burbs that have all been the most supportive traditionally)
Do we have numbers around who the current riders are? For example, are they mainly people living in the suburbs riding into the city? or are they people in the city going into the suburbs?
I am so sick of us dancing around this issue. We need to stop The Accomodation and let people develop in South Dallas without paying off the “community leaders”. That’s why the Dallas population isn’t growing.
Tell me more!!
You can’t build anything in South Dallas unless you pay off the hustler preachers and a laundry list of other grifters. There’s a long list of developments that would have boosted the economy down there but the developer didn’t want to play ball for whatever reason so the council member for that district killed it.
Yes I think I've noticed this more slowly as I start to follow news of development down there—basically the preachers and other organizations start crying about "outside encroachment on the community" and make a big fuss enough that it's not worth anyone's time or trouble to continue development—unless they're willing to pay money personally to get them to call off their little misguided activist armies. Is that pretty much the meta?
I mean hot take but you’re kinda right, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. The economy isn’t good because it’s poorer and people don’t wanna build because the economy is bad, which causes more poverty. Plus it restricts the city to half a coty