TABLE OF CONTENTS - appendices - DART.org · 2011. 8. 1. · Delia Jasso, Dallas City Council Representative, District 1 Keith Manoy, Program ... Texas State Representative, District

Appendix FPublic Involvement

TIGER Streetcar Stakeholder Meeting

October 28, 2010

Agenda

1) Update on overall project status

2) Update on Houston Street alignment analysis

3) Update on NCTCOG discussions with Dallas County Commissioner onalternative alignment

Nam

e

TIGE

RSt

reet

car

Proj

ect

Stak

ehol

derF

orum

,Oct

ober

28,2

010

Org

aniz

atio

nC

onta

ctem

ail&

phon

enu

mbe

r

2—(’~

6~7O

~q

-r-~

7~~A

-1V

~T

i!~

~/’

Qc_

cC~2

~4~9

774A

i~1

V/,Is

o,V

~ic

~o

,’i~

ji~

svi

ê~

jwc~

oø

i.zi#

r5Y

-s7

9/

~I~

4Ve

vAC

.G~

OI~J

jfrL

~~

-

‘/czr

~:~

)

1~~i

38

1~

g-

‘tk

~‘i~

c~~

c~~

(4/~

C~d

~4iy

~or

~

TIGER Streetcar Stakeholder Meeting

Nov 18, 2010

City Hall, 4 EN

Agenda

1) FTA Agreement Status Tom Shelton

2) Project planning status update Jay Kline

3) Project O&M AC Gonzalez

4) Streetcar vehicle display opportunity Jay Kline

Summary of Coordination Meeting

Prepared by Reggie Herman, URS, December 20, 2010 1

Title of Meeting: Oak Cliff Stakeholder Meeting for TIGER Streetcar

Date: Monday, December 13, 2010

ATTENDEES Jay Kline, DART Tom Shelton, NCTCOG Reggie Herman, URS Michael Morris, NCTOG Jeff Neal, NCTCOG Keith Manoy, COD AC Gonzalez, COD Peer Chacko, COD Dorey Clark, COD Bob Stimson, Oak Cliff Stakeholder Dan Eddy, Oak Cliff Stakeholder Rick Williamson, Oak Cliff Stakeholder Lauren Odell, Oak Cliff Stakeholder David Lyles, Oak Cliff Stakeholder Monte Anderson, Oak Cliff Stakeholder

ACTION ITEMS • Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), committed to

researching creative financing to fund maintenance and operation of a more extensive streetcar system than the current proposed Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grant streetcar

ITEMS OF DISCUSSION • Tom Shelton gave update on the progress of the streetcar project to those in attendance • Inter‐Local Agreement (ILA) is currently being developed for this project

o This would be an agreement between the City of Dallas, NCTCOG, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

o ILA focuses on responsibilities for implementation of the streetcar project o ILA captures approximately $30 Million in operation and maintenance (there is assumed

set of assumptions for operations with the number of trains and proposed headways) o Estimate for operation of Union Station to Oak Cliff is approximately $1 to $1.5 Million

annually for 30 years (see dollar amount above) o Originally the ILA had been scheduled to be complete by December 15, 2010; however,

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has given more time o Significant progress has been made and ILA should be complete and executed first of

the year (2011) • Current funding break down is $23 Million from TIGER Grant and $15.8 Million ($10 Million and

recently approved $5.8 Million) from Regional Transportation Council • Of above referenced funding $3.8 Million has been assigned for studies associated with project

(environmental and preliminary engineering is included) • Group discussed the rough capital cost for constructing the streetcar (approximately $20 Million

a mile) • Discussion occurred between the City of Dallas and NCTCOG on the need to consider possibly

expanding the streetcar project (example given – Main Street to Bishop Arts District) o City of Dallas communicated the issue with expanding project would be the increase in

maintenance cost for a larger streetcar system

Summary of Coordination Meeting

Prepared by Reggie Herman, URS, December 20, 2010 2

o Michael Morris of NCTCOG proposed to research possibility of creating financing to address additional cost of maintenance (NCTCOG reference 130 Innovative Financing Strategies used for Cotton Belt project)

o Need to determine if this is possible in the next 30 days

January 12, 2011

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGCITY OF DALLAS

Union Station to North Oak CliffTransportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)

Streetcar Project

The City of Dallas in cooperation with North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), DallasArea Rapid Transit (DART), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will conduct a public meetingon Thursday, January 27, 2011 for the proposed Union Station to North Oak Cliff (TIGER) Streetcarproject. The purpose of the public meeting is to present information and to discuss the social,economic, and environmental effects of the proposed project. The public meeting will be held at HittAuditorium on the campus of Methodist Dallas Medical Center, located at 1441 Beckley Avenue,Dallas, TX 75203 and will begin at 6:30 pm with an open house to allow for questions and review ofproject exhibits. Technical staff will be available to answer questions. Following the open house abrief presentation and comment period will be provided.

The proposed streetcar project consists of an approximate one and half-mile single track alignmentproviding streetcar service from North Oak Cliff into downtown Dallas. The proposed alignmentbegins at Union Station in downtown Dallas and extends south and west along Houston Street. Thealignment crosses the Trinity River via the Houston Street Viaduct to Zang Boulevard. Finally thealignment extends along Zang Boulevard terminating at one of two alternatives near MethodistDallas Medical Center (Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue or Zang Boulevard and BeckleyAvenue Intersection).

If you wish to attend the meeting and have special communication accommodation needs, pleasenotify City of Dallas at least two working days in advance of the meeting by calling Keith Manoy at214-670-4038. Because the meeting will be conducted in English, any request for languageinterpretation or other special communication needs should also be made at least two (2) workingdays prior to the meeting. Every reasonable effort to accommodate these needs will be made.

Verbal and written comments from the public regarding the proposed project may be presented atthe public meeting. Written comments submitted after the public meeting should be mailed to:

Katrina KeyesK Strategies Group

3500 Oaklawn Avenue, Suite 230Dallas, Texas 75219

Written comments submitted after the public meeting must be postmarked on or before Friday,February 11, 2011, to be included in the public record. For additional information please contactKatrina Keyes at 214-599-9766.

"ýªå¾ � � N� ÷ºª¿º Løn±ªx`Lâ¾ � xî¾ Qâ`ºý«` � � å� � Sºª¾º Oî`îª¾º `± B¾âî� � � D`° +±ª��

N� ÷ºª¿ºLøn±ªx`

=÷� ý� å� õé � �� º� â¾� õ ÅÅê~ð ÍÒµÒ

6ªîî "÷� ªî¾âª÷µ�A� î§¾� ªåî -`±±`åA� � ªx`± +� ºî� â

Å��Å *� x°±� "ý� Ò-`±±`å QZ é� õ ð

?` xª÷� `� � � -`±±`å� � º x¾¾Í� â`xª¿º x¾º � ± +¾ºx� ¯¾ � � 5¾nª� âº¾å � � ± B¾âî� +� ºîâ¾ � � Q� ÿ`åÏB+Q+D5Ð� -`±±`å "â� ` N`Íª� Qâ`ºåªî Ï-"NQÐ� ±` "� µªºªåîâ`xª¿º 4� � � â`± � � Qâaºåªî¾ Ï4Q"Ð � åîaºx¾±`n¾â`º� ¾ � º � ± Íâ¾ � xî¾ � � ± îâ`ºý«` Íâ¾Í÷� åî¾Ò .± Íâ¾ � xî¾ x¾ºåªåî� � º ÷º `±ªº� `µª� ºî¾ � � ÷º`ý«` øºªx` `Íâ¾ÿªµ`� `µ� ºî� � � µª±±` µ� � ª` Í`â` Íâ¾Í¾âxª¾º`â � ± å� âýªxª¾ � � îâ`ºý«` � � ± º¾âî� � �D`° +±ª�� `± x� ºîâ¾ � � -`±±`åÒ ?` `±ªº� `xª¿º Íâ¾Í÷� åî` � µÍª� ` � º ±` .åî`xª¿º � � Sºª¾º Oî`îª¾º � º � ±x� ºîâ¾ � � � `±±`å å� � ÿîª� º� � `± å÷â `± ¾� åî� ` ±¾ ±`â� ¾ � � ±` x`±±� 6¾÷åî¾ºÒ ?` `±ªº� `xª¿º xâ÷` � ±N«¾ Qâªºªî ` îâ`ý� å � � ± ýª`� ÷xî¾ � � ±` x`±±� 6¾÷åî¾º §`åî` ±` x`±±� ^`º� *¾÷±� ý`â� Ò 4ªº`±µ� ºî� � ±``±ªº� `xª¿º å� � ÿîª� º� � ` ±¾ ±`â� ¾ � � ^`º� *¾÷±� ý`â� î� âµªº`º� ¾ � º ÷º` � � ±`å � ¾å `±î� âº`îªý`å x� âx`� � ± A� î§¾� ªåî -`±±`å A� � ªx`± +� ºî� â Ï+¾±¾â`� ¾ *¾÷±� ý`â� *� x°±� "ý� º÷� ¾ � º ±` ªºî� âå� xxª¿º � �^`º� *¾÷±� ý`â� *� x°±� "ý� º÷� ÐÒ

Oª ÷åî� � º� x� åªî` `x¾µ¾� `xª¿º � åÍ� xª`±� ªºî� âÍâ� î`xª¿º � � ±� º� ÷`¯� � Í¾â �`ý¾â º¾îª�ª×÷� ` ±` xª÷� `�� -`±±`å Í¾â ±¾ µ� º¾å � ¾å � «`å §anª±� å `ºî� å � � ±` â� ÷ºª¿º ±±`µ`º� ¾ >� ªî§ A`º¾ `± õÅ�©êé ©� ð�ÒO� â� `±ª `âaº î¾� ¾å ±¾å � å�÷� â ¾å â` ¾º`n±� å Í`â` x÷µÍ±ªâ x¾º � ªx§`å º� x� åª� `� � åÒ

+¾µ� ºî`âª¾å ý� ân`±� å ¾ Í¾â � åxâªî¾ � � ±` ¾Íªºª¿º Íøn±ªx` å¾nâ� � ± Íâ¾ � xî¾ Íâ¾Í÷� åî¾ Í÷� � � å� âÍâ� å� ºî`� ¾ � º ±` â� ÷ºª¿º Íøn±ªx`Ò 6`nâa ÷º Í� â«¾� ¾ � � x¾µ� ºî`âª¾å Íøn±ªx¾å � � Å� � «`å � � åÍ÷� å � �±` â� ÷ºª¿ºÒ ?¾å x¾µ� ºî`âª¾å � åxâªî¾å � � n� º � ºýª`âå� Í¾â x¾ââ� ¾ x¾º å� ±±¾ Í¾åî`± µaÿªµ¾ � � ±ýª� âº� å� ÅÅ � � �� nâ� â¾ õ ÅÅ� � ºýª`� ¾ Í¾â x¾ââ� ¾ `~ > Oîâ`î� � ª� å 5â¾÷Í� ð� D`°±`þº "ý� º÷� �O÷ªî� õð � -`±±`å� Q� ÿ`å é� õÅ»Ò

L`â` ªº�¾âµ`xª¿º `� ªxª¾º`± Í¾â �`ý¾â x¾ºî`xî`â ` >`îâªº` >� � å `± õÅ�©� »»©»éêêÒ

Summary of Public Meeting

Prepared by: K Strategies Group – Revised March 24, 2011 1

Union Station to Oak Cliff Streetcar TIGER Project6:30 p.m. Thursday, January 27, 2011

Location:Hitt Auditorium, Methodist Dallas Medical Center, 1441 North Beckley Avenue, Dallas, TX 75203

Speakers:Delia Jasso, Dallas City Council Representative, District 1Keith Manoy, Program Manager, City of DallasJay Kline, DART Streetcar Program RepresentativeTom Shelton, Senior Program Manager, North Central Texas Council of Governments

Elected Officials:Rafael Anchia, Texas State Representative, District 103Dave Neumann, Dallas City Council Representative, District 3

Attendees:Eighty (80) attendees listed on the sign-in sheet on record with the City of Dallas

Duration of meeting:6:30 p.m. to 7:43 p.m. / 1 hour, 13 minutes

Duration of exhibit review:7:43 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. / 47 minutes

Agenda briefing:The City of Dallas in cooperation with North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG),Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) conducted apublic meeting on Thursday, January 27, 2011. The purpose of the public meeting was topresent information and discuss environmental effects of the 1.5-mile Union Station to Oak CliffStreetcar TIGER Project. The format of the public meeting included a presentation on theproposed projected followed by a question and answer session for the residents, businessowners, and other key stakeholders that were in attendance. Prior to the closing of the publicmeeting the attendees were given the opportunity to review exhibits reflecting project limits,environmental constraints, proposed project cross sections, potential design considerations, andbus/streetcar interface at Union Station.

Open Forum (Question and Answer):The following question and answer statements are verbatim of the discussion between attendeesand the project team during the Thursday, January 27, 2011 meeting.

Question 1:Is this a one-way track all the way?



Answer: Keith ManoyYes, it’s in a designated lane all the way. The question is regarding the lane the streetcar wouldbe in and if it’s one lane. It is going to back and forth in a dedicated lane across the bridge fromUnion Station to its terminus on this side of the bridge.

Question 2:How will future expansion be integrated into this one-car, one-way system?

Answer: Keith ManoyThey will be integrated in a way that expansion will definitely occur. The reason it is as short as itis is based on the money that is available. But as part of the expansion of the streetcar networkfor the City of Dallas, we will look at those expansions and where they go further south andfurther into downtown.

Question 3:Will you be using any of the existing streetcar rails in North Oak Cliff?

Answer: Keith ManoyNo. It will all be new rail.

District 1 Representative Delia Jasso interjects:I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there are a lot of people in this room thathad this vision, and I was able to carry that vision through. So we have Jason Roberts, pleasestand up. We have the godfather of streetcars in Oak Cliff, Louie Saucedo. Andrew Howard wasone of the early helpers as a consultant. Scott Grays. Don Raines. And last but not least, BobStimson with the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce. I worked for DART when we were takingplans out to neighborhoods to talk about light rail, and nobody wanted it. And today we can’tbuild it fast enough for all the neighborhoods and cities that want it. So think of it this way, OakCliff is cutting edge on a lot of things, but this definitely is a cutting edge thing for Oak Cliff.Thank you for being here tonight and please ask more questions.

Commentary from audience:Along with your vision, tomorrow at Union Station is the seventh annual High Speed RailConference. Everybody is welcome. Starts at 7:30 a.m. Success here means it will go forward.

Question 4:Do you have a running mile cost for when you get off the bridge? For example, from the twoOak Cliff stations, is there a number that has been quoted already for the running mile for this,after you get off the extensive stuff?

Answer: Tom SheltonI will press my answer by saying, depends. I will tell you there have been a few successfulstreetcar projects across the country. You can sort of use that as a thumbnail measure of howmuch this one might cost. Off the bridge, just typical street running – if you don’t have anyissues, if you don’t have any significant utility issues, or light, but just laying the tracks, building



the stations and operating the vehicles – rule of thumb is somewhere around $20 million permile. But that will be a rule of thumb that you can use, and quite frankly I think as you haveheard about the limitations of our funding, we are also working hard behind the scenes trying tofind some additional funds to extend the project. Even though we are focused on this initialproject, as Keith mentioned, there is a lot of interest to extend further into your neighborhoods.And so, we use that rule of thumb to kind of give us a guide as to how much more funding wewould need to acquire extend it to those places.

Answer: Jay KlineI wanted to add one thing. That $20 million a mile, as Tom pointed out, is a ballpark dependentupon many things. If you look at the drawings you will see some cost numbers plugged in. Thosecost numbers that are there, I’m not going to claim are how much it’s going to cost. But basedon what we know now – the information that we have now about the project and based oncosts of other systems around the country, Tucson, Seattle and other places with recentprojects, those numbers are within the ballpark. The challenge we are wrestling with now is thatthose numbers are pretty big for our project and for the amount of money that we have. Sowhat we are trying to do, as Tom said, as part of the background, COG and the city and DART aretrying to find more money. But we are also trying to look at our project and see if there arethings we can do to save costs in certain areas so we can take that money and move it to makinga longer project, buying a vehicle or something like that. There’s a little bit of danger in usingthat. You have to have a rule of thumb, you have to have something in order to make acomparison, and that’s what that $20 million a mile represents. You have to also refine it, so youhave real cost estimate, which is what we are working on now.

Question 5:Mayor of Fort Worth voted against it. What did they have $28 million?

Answer: Tom SheltonSo as many of you know, some weeks ago the Fort Worth City Council in its wisdom, decided notto receive the Fort Worth streetcar project and essentially declining a $25 million award fromDMT. The next morning after that council decision, my good friend at the City of Dallas, A.C.Gonzalez calls – assistant city manager who is a real champion for this project – said, “Tom andMichael, surely you’re not going to let that money go back to Washington without a fight. We’rekeeping it in the region.” And we said we’re not shy about asking. So we immediately sent out aletter and made several phone calls asking if that money could not be kept in the region to quitefrankly fund just as an important project in our region, the Dallas Streetcar Project. Very similarin nature, it just happens to be slightly to the east. Unfortunately, we did receive official wordthis week by letter that the money is not available any longer to stay within the region. Thatmoney has been re-allocated to other projects. Of course, we were not shy about asking whyand the reason that we have been provided is that Fort Worth streetcar project was alsoselected under the previous TIGER opportunity, called TIGER 1, and it was under a competitivegrant program. That award was made specifically to that project under its merits […] so theytook that money back and already re-allocated it under our disappointment. So A.C. I apologize.We were fighting for it, and we are working hard behind the scenes trying to find additionalmoney for the project.



Question 6:It was mentioned earlier that the first step is getting over the bridge. How critical is the successfactor of ridership going to be, because it is right on the edge. I can imagine if it serves ‘X’amount of citizens, but if the ridership isn’t exactly there, is that going to stop to the rest of OakCliff, or is that going to go on either way?

Answer: Tom SheltonThat is a very insightful and excellent question. Quite frankly almost a year ago when wereceived the award, and were disappointed we didn’t receive all that we requested, one of thehardest questions we asked ourselves was given the reduced amount of money we wereawarded could we do anything of value with that? Could we really create a successful projectwith that, because as Jay and the councilwoman will tell you back in there days with DART in themid-80s that was a question they were faced with in determining where would be the first DARTproject for this light rail project. You’re very insightful in that whatever gets implemented has tobe a success. It sets a perception in the mind of the community of whether or not it is a goodproject and whether we made a wise investment. We are confident that it will be a success. It isat least touching on some key destinations and activity centers, two that I will mention quickly.One is the Union Station that provides a vital connection to the light rail network as well as theTrinity Rail Express. So you have this connection between all the various transit services. So ifsomeone from Richardson, for example, wants to get to Methodist Hospital where we aretonight, they can do that pretty easily. Secondly, we believe it will be successful in getting acrossthe river and at least getting into and penetrating this Oak Cliff neighborhood. It doesn’t get asfar as we would like. Then there is that bus component in this area that can at least bring peopleto the station and bring them on into downtown. It’s a good question; it’s another reason whywe are working just as hard behind the scenes to see how quickly we can find some additionalmoney to get that next extension into place.

Question 7:At this time, in my mind, extension from Zang down to Jefferson and 12th area would be ideal.So what are factors for determining the southern terminus of this project?

Answer: Keith ManoyThe deciding factor is basically the funds we have available.

Question 8:You are showing two alternatives for the terminus.

Answer: Keith ManoyThat largely depends on the input we get from folks tonight and the analysis that is done. Whatwe hear tonight and the comments we get in the next few weeks will help us make thatdetermination if that money is available to go that extra step. (Addressing the comment onexpanding beyond Colorado) The way our project is currently defined, any extension beyondthat would actually be a separate project. That is not scope supported.



Question 9:I was wondering if we could incorporate a bike- way and pedestrian walkway somehow with thestreetcar to make it a more complete street. Or is this outside the scope?

Answer: Keith ManoyThe long-term plan for the streetcar project is basically to turn that back into a two-wayoperation. As a part of that we were looking at a wider sidewalk, pedestrian and bicycleenhancements and facilities. A lot of that has to do with the timing of when we would be able toturn that into a two-way operation. With this particular project we can’t do a shared lanebecause of the dedicated lane. We basically are going to have one lane coming across there. Theenhancements we are basically we are going to do is with the existing right of way and existingsidewalks. Having a separate facility with this project is not an opportunity that we have.

Question 10:I didn’t understand the answer to her question, so I’m going to re-ask it in my language, somaybe you can help me. I hear $35 million for a mile and a half, and I hear we have to get to arevenue stream – I’m guessing a revenue stream means we have to have 100 riders a day at $10a ticket and if you don’t, as in her question, what happens if you fail? You just up the price of theticket, or it all goes away? What does revenue stream look like for this project?

Answer: Keith ManoyThe revenue stream is not tied to the success of this project, unless we misunderstood thequestion.

Answer: Jay Kline:First of all the $35 million. With that $35 million we have to pay for final design, we have to payfor the tracks and all the capital costs, which are everything that takes to move that vehicleacross the bridge and get it to wherever it goes. We have to pay for the connection to the DARTtracks, and we have to pay for a vehicle and some kind of upgrade for a maintenance andstorage facility, which we have one targeted. So let me real quickly give you the numbers forthose. Vehicles, we’re probably looking at a vehicle to cost us $4 million a piece. Connection tothe DART track: You can see over there that the range of costs … we calculated that to besomewhere in the ballpark of $9 million. There is some special track work involved with that sowe are up to $13 million. The upgrade to a maintenance facility, we’re probably talking in theneighborhood of $5 million. That’s around $19 million. That leaves us […] around $15 million leftto get us to Union Station to cross the bridge, and we still haven’t talked about any special workwe have to do to the bridge. We think we are looking in the range of $6 million just to repair thebridge to the point where we can put the stuff on it. So know we are up to $24-25 million. Soyou can see how the money just kind of begins to evaporate quickly. So we have a real concernon the capital side. We are looking for money, we are looking for ways to save money; still wehave to use those costs to base our situation. Now, on the operating side we had some ideas weare working on to fund the operating costs. We’ve got some people working on it and looking atdifferent operating scenarios, from aggressive ones to a much less aggressive one. Again, theidea is to save some money where we can, which will also affect the ridership and other things.So there is a balance we have to find there. The way we think we will be able to fund thatoperating costs is really not through charging a fare, but through contributions from different



districts, advertising – a whole long list of potential revenue sources. The question we have toanswer for the federal government is, are we strong enough, are we certain of those revenueson the operating side, and are we able to guarantee those funds for the life of the project, whichis 30 years. So before we get that federal money to build this project, we have to prove to FTAthat we have a project and here is how we are going to pay for the capital piece, here’s how weare going to pay for the operating pieces, and yeah we are going to stand behind it for 30 years.So if those districts go away, and we can’t fund the operating costs – whatever the revenuesource is that goes away, somebody is still going to pay the operating cost to make sure thatsystem is operating for 30 years. If we can’t guarantee that then the federal perspective, well,we are asking for $23 million for a project that may go down in flames. They’re not going to dothat. So you are correct in assuming that there is some risk here. We are trying to figure outways to reduce that risk. I don’t know if that answers your question.

Reply from person asking question:Well your answer is that your funding of the operation is not totally regarding tickets and orpassengers. You’re looking for outside funding from other sources. And again, from ourperspective, advertising comes from shops, vendors and retail along the way, and I see tworetail outlets from this: one being 7-Eleven and one being El Fenix on that line. They’re going tohave to buy a lot of ads based on what you are telling me.

Jay Kline responds:That’s not the only source. The way we are going to have to get this thing funded, we are goingto have to have a whole list of sources of revenues. With regard to your question of whathappens after this project, we are also […] going to be working on a system plan for thestreetcar network, which will have a public outreach and involvement aspect to it as well. And ifwe get your name and address on a comment card you will automatically be thrown into thepile ... and be included in that project as well.

Question 11:Can you explain the advantages of a streetcar over a bus, especially since the 21 Bus follows thisexact route?

Answer: Tom SheltonThat’s an interesting question that the three of us have tried to explain out entire career. All ofyou have read a lot of literature on the pros and cons of various modes of transit. To get to thegentleman’s question about how do we measure success of this project, and I would urge you togo back and read our purpose and need. My friend at FTA would tell you that really that is thecenterpiece for how our purpose and need of the final document is crafted. I think it ties back toyour question about why we believe the streetcar project is the right thing versus bus, and I willgive you my professional opinion on this, and you may have a different view on that. One of theprimary principles of the purpose of this project is to encourage redevelopment and newdevelopment around the properties surrounding the project. There is a real key connection thatis proven across the country between transit and the associated lane use. Both of those supportone another. And from a real estate development standpoint the developers will confirm to youthat with a rail investment that has permanence to it will attract new development that a bus-type move will not attract. They have some likelihood to have routes moved and adjusted. But



with rail it is a permanent investment and the development will support that. So it matches withour purpose and need.

Question 12:In the 1800s you had the railroads going west and you had a stop at the end of the line, whichyou know will have in this situation. My question is a philosophical one: is it better to continue,and maybe you can’t answer this now, but in the other projects across the nation, do you keepgoing to the end of the line and making it go back and forth. Or is the objective to try to makesome kind of loop to where you start to – for your developers – make a village concept with therail as a cornerstone. Philosophically, do you want it at the end of the line, or do you want towork towards a loop.

Answer: Tom SheltonI hope you can appreciate my answer when I tell you my answer is yes on both of those. Quitefrankly, to get back to our purpose and need, we are trying to attract ridership and growth. Wedo believe there is an opportunity there to introduce a loop configuration, because of itsarrangement of its blocks, the developments that are in place and the projections that the Cityhas. To get there – to that loop – we think it is appropriate to introduce a single line in order tomaximize the deficient use of the funds. You make a valid point in both those cases. It justdepends on a block-by-block basis. Quite frankly, on the opposite end we want the streetcarproject to be extended further into downtown, and as it approaches the arts district, I thinkthere is some consideration for a move there as well on that end, and connection would tie intothe McKinney Avenue trolley system.

Question 13:I just wanted to clarify about what I said before. I think a lot of us are excited about this comingto Oak Cliff. I live seven miles away from this, so it wouldn’t affect me initially. My question is,since this is really on the edge, is ridership going to determine – say the first two years – if only400 people use this because they are the 400 who live in the half mile to walk or whatever? Willthat be considered a failure, because only 400 people are getting on it, or will that be, “OK, wehave 400, so if we expand we’ll have 1,000.”

Answer: Jay KlineI think my answer to your question is how do you define project. To us, the important part ofthis project is that it gives us that important, critical river crossing, without that river crossing wedon’t have a larger system. And so success in my view is that we get a project built and thatoperates for the money that we have. You’re right, ridership is always going to be an issue, andwe are going to be working on some ideas to improve that. We have some thoughts about somebus connections and we have some bus routes that run down Beckley for examples that we canhave a connection to those bus routes to feed people into those systems to get them todowntown. The real measure of success is going to get that thing built on time and on budget.Then it’s going to be up to the policy makers and others to help us build the rest of the project.That is where I think we can define it as success.



Answer Keith Manoy:I was going to add that of the partners involved all of us understand that we are not going to bemoving 200,000 people a day. What we recognize with this is this critical link is vital to usextending these lines, and if we thought this was going to be the end of this project, wewouldn’t be doing it.

Comment from Delia Jasso:I think as you have heard from all these guys, it really has proven that where there are streetcarlines there is more economic development and I can tell you right now that this was not aplanned line in coming in to Oak Cliff. Thank God that we had the support, that I had the supportto move it forward.

Comment from audience: Charles Tandy, former City of Dallas Councilmember:I just wanted to put in my 2 cents on the terminus. If it includes the hospital or is close to thehospital as possible that will encourage the vast number of people who work here and comehere to help pay for it.

Public Meeting Written Comment SummaryThe public was invited to submit comments regarding the proposed project. Public commentcards were distributed at the public meeting. The public could submit public comments at themeeting or mail comment cards until Friday, February 11, 2011.

On the comment card, respondents were given the option to select whether they were (1) insupport of the proposed project or (2) in support against the proposed project. Secondly,respondents were given the option to select from among a list of 12 categories for which theremay be concerns. This list included the following:

Project Timeline

Implementation

Cost

Alternatives

Design

Safety

Economic Development

Station Location

Non-Motorized

Parks

Regional Impacts

Other Comments

Thirdly, respondents were provided a general comment section with blank spaces to write in aspecific comment.

Comments received were mostly supportive of the project. Of the 46 comments received, 42indicated support of the proposed project, 3 abstained and only 1 indicated support against theproject (number 42). The most popular concern among the community seems to be station



location, as 15 of the comments received selected a concern for this. Suggested station locationsinclude, a Methodist terminus and a future extension to the Bishop Arts District.

Another important issue the community shows concern for is the project timeline, as commentsindicate that DART should begin the project before funds expire. The third most pressingconcerns of the community include both cost and design. Questions raised include: where thefunds for operation and maintenance will be secured from and if the design will be a single trackor not.

Public Comments:The following 46 public comments are on record with the City of Dallas:

1. Ellen Pool, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Favor Methodist terminus for more public / work transit usage.”

2. Steve Springfield, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Design and Station Location3. Comment: “I will email comments to contact, Keith Manoy regarding future phase route

and overall system.”

3. Brooks Love, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Respondent marked “Other”3. Comment: “With the following assumptions - $4 mil per car, $9 mil per connection to light

rail, $5 mil for facility upgrade and $6 mil for bridge repair - leaves $11 mil for track andconstruction. Is that enough to get across the river? Should end at Colorado & Beckley.”

4. Wes Pool, Cedar Hill1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Favor Methodist terminus.”

5. Name withheld1. Neither for nor against the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline, Cost, Alternatives and Economic Development3. Comment: “Why are you spending money you don't have?”

6. Sarah and Mike Helford, Dallas1. Support the Project2. Key Concerns: Cost, Design and Station Location3. Comment: “Will get lots of ridership if staff at Methodist Dallas Medical Center can ride -

Good connections with DART rail.”



7. Brady Wood, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Please add to list.”

8. David Lyles, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concern: Cost3. Comment: “Is it possible to lease a car(s) and use the balance of the 4 million to extend

the first phase track to Methodist? Then, ideally, to Bishop Arts.”

9. Scott Hounsel, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline, Station Location and Non-motorized3. Comment: “Bike racks at every stop needed. Stay on Zang.”

10. Allan Zreet, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Cost, Design and Economic Development3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

11. Stan Aten, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Economic Development and Station Location3. Comment: “I wish this project had enough money to get to Bishop Arts. Need bike

parking at stations. SYSTEM STREETCAR PLAN.”

12. Randy Ronig, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Don’t see any problems – Go for it!!!”

13. Linda Holt, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concern: Cost3. Comment: “Terminus most conducive to serving the community is the Beckley / Zang

terminus. If bridge needs repairing, the city should pay for those - it should not comeout of the TIGER funds.”

14. Dave Brady, Garland1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Economic Development, Regional Impacts and Link to the hospital area



3. Comment: “Make sure all of the streetcar network features well with DART. Service tothe citizens in the area first. Consider daily work flow needs first. Function is moreimportant than frill.”

15. Jon Toffer, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Implementation, Cost, Economic Development, Station Location and

Regional Impacts3. Comment: “Show potential access to Trinity from Houston St. viaduct - this is another

benefit of this route. Battery powered streetcars would help reduce cost and historicalimpact of catenaries on historic Houston Street bridge. MATA seems to have helpedsustain economic success of Uptown / McKinney Ave. - What lessons can be learned orquantified. If 2-way traffic on Houston is certain to happen then include with sectiondiagrams. Potential revenue sources: Methodist, West End Museums, ConventionCenter.”

16. Peter Kavanagh, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Streetcar needs to go down Colorado to Methodist. Will allow employees

from all over Dallas access to hospital campus. Will allow better patient access. Willimprove downtown housing with access to employment. Will improve housing in OakCliff with green transit to downtown.”

17. Tracy Poe, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline, Implementation, Alternatives and Design3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

18. Joseph McElroy, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline and Implementation3. Comment: “Methodist is better terminus.”

19. Charles Tandy, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Station Location and Regional Impacts3. Comment: “Please consider a terminus as near Methodist Hospital as possible to up

ridership.”

20. Carolina Proce, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Design and Economic Development3. Comment: “A single track seems to limit use. Economic development around Union

Station driven by location of tracks and frequency.”



21. Donna Spillers, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Design and Station Location3. Comment: “Thank you for your hard work.”

22. Stephen Roescher, Castle Rock1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

23. RJ Daum, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Cost Design, Station Location and Regional Impacts3. Comment: “Use of 3-D Terra Lidar scanning for design. (GEOSIM3D) Cost saving. Union

Station as future high speed rail terminal.”

24. Craig Schenkel, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “I own NWC of Beckley and Greenbriar and would be willing to help. I also

own the corner of Zang and Colorado. I am available to help.”

25. Liz Rodriguez, San Antonio1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

26. Tom Broddick, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

27. Daniel Huerta, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Great initiative!”

28. Gilda Burleson, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline and Station Location3. Comment: “The streetcar system will attract more tourists into North Oak Cliff. We need

more businesses in this area. We have waited long enough to catch up with the rest ofNorth Dallas.”



29. Michael Connally, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Other3. Comment: “I favor the Zang + Beckley southern terminus with an eye toward the future

expansion down Zang as far as Twelfth Street.”

30. Mark Housewright, Dallas1. Supports the projects2. Key Concerns: Safety3. Comment: “1.) Desirable next step in completing CBD circulator system 2.) Would like

to be included in "Total System" group.”

31. AnneMarie Bristou, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: Respondent did not leave a comment

32. Buddy Apple, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Economic Development, Station Location and Regional Impacts3. Comment: “1.) Connection to Methodist is vital. 2.) Connection to Bishop Arts in the

future is HUGE. 3.) Announcements of new developments on old reunion site would behuge momentum for this line.”

33. Patricia Kay Dube, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Terminus – Near Methodist (Zang & Colorado).”

34. Charles Haley, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Station Location3. Comment: “I am most concerned that the Oak Cliff Alignment for this initial section is

chosen so as to facilitate future extension to Bishop Arts.”

35. Charlie Perdue, Dallas1. Neither for nor against the Project2. Key Concerns: Project Timeline and Station Location3. Comment: “I'd like to be included in the on-going correspondence moving forward.”

36. Doug Mertz, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comment: “Good luck! Looking forward to seeing this one happen.”



37. Diane Jones, Grand Prairie1. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Implementation, Cost, Alternatives and Design3. Comment: “How will cars access maintenance facility? Will there be an RFP for system

procurement services?”

38. Kyle Oudt, Dallas – Received via USPS on 2/8/20111. Supports the Project2. Key concerns: Project Timeline, Implementation and Station Location3. Comments: “Lang Partners is developing a 260 unit multi-family project on Zang Blvd. I

would like to have input on stop locations.”

39. Raghu Boppana, Dallas – Received via USPS on 2/8/20111. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Responded marked “Other”3. Comments: “Extension to Bishop Arts plus extension to Jefferson are critical for project

success. Please come up with a "sound bite" that counters streetcar to nowhere.Example: Infrastructure investment for next generation.”

40. John Barr, Dallas – Received via USPS on 2/8/20111. Neither for nor against the Project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comments: “The route must travel to Colorado and then west. I oppose the use of

Oakenwald or any purpose.”

41. Tim Herfel, Dallas1. Supports the project2. Key Concerns: Respondent marked “Other”3. Comment: “1.) Better start the project before funds expire of get swept 2.) Where are

funds coming from for operation and maintenance? 3.) Will a pedestrian walkway / bikelane be incorporated in design for a complete street? Work with bike plan! 4.) PreferColorado / Beckley option.”

42. John McCall Jr., Dallas – Received via USPS on 2/10/20111. Support against the Project2. Key Concerns: Cost, Design, Station Location and Other3. Comments: “Too much money for a project that will provide NO impact to North Oak

Cliff.”

43. Don Raines Jr., Dallas – Received via USPS on 2/11/20111. Supports the Project2. Key Concerns: Design and Station Location3. Comments: “Please include station stop on Houston Bridge Viaduct at above

(Downtown Side) levee top for future access to Trinity Lakes Park. Station stops



enhancements seating and shade structure. Reconsider auto usage on Houston Bridge!Should be transit / pedestrian oriented.”

44. Ed Stafford, Dallas1. Supports the Project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. “Dealy Plaza to Texas Theater would be perfect for TOURIST! Let’s work to make it

happen.”

45. Dallas May, Dallas – Received via Email on 1/28/20111. Supports the Project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comments: “I have been following the news about the Oak Cliff Street car line pretty

closely for a while now and am excited to see that the city is going ahead with it. I workwith stellar group of engineers at Metropolitan Infrastructure, and would like to talkwith you about how we can help you achieve your goals. We have broad experiencewith streets, parking lots, and hike and bike trail design, bridge design, environmentalengineering and design, SWPPP, surveying, and much more. You can learn more aboutour company at our website, http://www.metroinfrastructure.com/. Please call me ifyou would like to talk about your plans and goals for the project. You can call my mobileanytime, 214-773-8140.”

46. Steve Springfield, Dallas – Received via Email on 2/4/20111. Supports the Project2. Key concerns: Respondent did not specify a key concern3. Comments: “After reading the project requirements, and its purpose and need, I

support the stop at ZANG and Colorado. This stop is only one walkable block from thehospital and I believe this stop will serve it and the Gateway best as the first phase of astreetcar system.

I suggest for your consideration the following OAK CLIFF STREETCAR SYSTEM asindicated on the attached PDFs:

Phase 1 Union Station to a stop at Colorado (Methodist Hospital /Gateway / transfer)Phase 2 Colorado to a stop at Davis (Bishop Arts)Phase 3 Davis to a stop at Jefferson (Jefferson / Texas Theater)Phase 4 Jefferson to a stop at the DART red line (transfer)Phase 5 DART red line to a stop at Illinois (Wynnewood Village)

JEFFERSON line (shown aqua on the attached PDFs):Phase 1 Zang on Colorado to a stop at Jefferson (Gateway)Phase 2 Jefferson to a stop at 8th Street (Gateway)Phase 3 8th Street to a stop at Zang (Jefferson / Texas Theater / transfer)Phase 4 Zang to a stop at Tyler (Jefferson)Phase 5 Tyler to a stop at Hampton (Jefferson)



I am interested in the design of the streetcar system in Oak Cliff as it interfaces withother means of transportation such as DART, TRE, walking and bike trails, and streets.”

PDF file attached to email sent my public comment #46



PDF file attached to email sent my public comment #46

Contact information for comments:Keith Manoy, City of Dallas1500 Marilla StreetDallas, TX 75201214-670-4038

Katrina Keyes, K Strategies Group3500 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 230Dallas, Texas 75219214-599-9766

Notice of Availability Union Station to Oak Cliff Streetcar TIGER Project

Environmental Assessment

Public Meeting

Monday,

June 6, 2011

6:30 p.m.

Hitt Auditorium

Methodist Dallas

Medical Center

1441 Beckley Ave.

Dallas, TX 75203

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 771, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in collaboration with North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the City of Dallas, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action that includes the proposed construction and operation of streetcar service from Union Station to Oak Cliff in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. The EA evaluates the potential impacts to the environmental and human resources and investigates means of mitigation for unavoidable adverse impacts as a result of the proposed action.

The public has the opportunity to review and comment on the EA for a 30-day period. The review period will be from May 24 through June 23, 2011. The EA may be viewed online at any of the following websites:

Copies of the EA can be viewed at the following locations:

• City of Dallas: 1500 Marilla Street, Room L1BS, Dallas, TX 75201 • DART: 1401 Pacifi c Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. Contact Jay Kline at 214-749-3539 to

schedule an appointment to view the EA.• FTA: 819 Taylor Street, Room 8A36, Fort Worth, TX 76102• NCTCOG: 616 Six Flags Drive, Center Point 2, Arlington, TX 76011• Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce: 400 S. Zang, Suite 110, Dallas, TX 75208 • J. Erik Jonsson Central Library: 1515 Young Street, 6th Floor, Dallas, TX 75201• El Centro College Resource Library: 801 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75202

Request for copies of the EA, as well as written or emailed comments on the EA should be submitted to the attention of: Keith Manoy, City of Dallas Program Manager; 1500 Marilla Street, Room L1BS, Dallas, TX 75201; e-mail: [email protected]. All comments must be submitted by June 23, 2011.

A public meeting will be held on Monday, June 6, 2011 (please see information to the left). If you need special accommodations, or language interpretation, please notify Keith Manoy at 214-670-4038.

www.nctcog.orgwww.dallascityhall.com

www.dart.org/dallasstreetcar

G7 4916716455 Xjy? 66?4>?6=

Xjsy g~? jqj|nxEifqqfxsj|x2htr Sj|x H^FSRFLJSYF^JQQT\GQFHP

V¯� .e»»e÷ DÌóÆ²Æ¦ E� ÷ � b³³bç¼� çÔzÀ· DÌÆ� e � De � ÓÓ *

$+157 -))2,0* ;%&710 >1<6 ',;>4

*9D -9D6/ ,0<

#977D84BH 80F@. ->470 7+;@. +8/

80423,9>399/ 1+-B@< &0B B30 /0B+46@ B3+B

+>08=B +6F+H@ 48 B30 30+/6480@<

$424B+6 +--0@@ B9 69-+6 80F@ 4@ %'"&(#$#

F4B3 H9D> #'--'1 $/0.,.+ %*51 @D,@->4;B498<

"66 H9D 3+E0 B9 /9 4@ 6485 H9D> 80F@;+;0> +--9D8B

98 H9D> 4(+/C. 4(3980? 9> /+66+@80F@<-97

)30 #'--'1 $/0.,.+ %*51 +;;@ +>0 +E+46+,60 B9 0E0>H980< "--0@@ B9

0G-6D@4E0 &4(1)0,(*0 "/.3*.3 4@ +E+46+,60 B9 @D,@->4,0>@ 986H<

"8/>94/ +8/ 0%/4B498 +;;@ -97482 48 'D80<

#,0- >1<6 %''1<0;7 ;1(%>3

"; (%..%70)=73'1/8.,0-

.R_K=A RC "c9KN9;KNK_f4PKRP 2_9_KRP _R /9M $NKD 2_YAA_=9Y 3)(&1 0YRLA=_

&PcKYRPOAP_9N "ZZAZZOAP_

)I-97.(22F7<5

(=<1,K0

'I<2 D0 HL>>

D/GL ?@;@

&7FF "I17F=A7I;

(2F6=17BF %,99,B

(217.,9 $2<F2A

>44> #2.892K "J2@

%,99,B0*+ C3HLG

0bYZb9P_ _R _IA .9_KRP9N &PcKYRPOAP_9N 0RNK=f "=_ U.&0"V RC SQ\Q 9P@ a` $R@A RC 'A@AY9N

1AHbN9_KRP U$'1V 09Y_ [[S? _IA 'A@AY9N 3Y9PZK_ "@OKPKZ_Y9_KRP U'3"V? KP =RNN9;RY9_KRP dK_I

.RY_I $AP_Y9N 3Ae9Z $RbP=KN RC (RcAYPOAP_Z U.$3$/(V? _IA $K_f RC %9NN9Z? 9P@ %9NN9Z "YA9

19TK@ 3Y9PZK_ U%"13V I9Z TYAT9YA@ 9P &PcKYRPOAP_9N "ZZAZZOAP_ U&"V CRY _IA TYRTRZA@

9=_KRP _I9_ KP=Nb@AZ _IA TYRTRZA@ =RPZ_Yb=_KRP 9P@ RTAY9_KRP RC Z_YAA_=9Y ZAYcK=A CYRO

4PKRP 2_9_KRP _R /9M $NKD KP _IA $K_f RC %9NN9Z? %9NN9Z $RbP_f? 3Ae9ZW 3IA &" Ac9Nb9_AZ _IA

TR_AP_K9N KOT9=_Z _R _IA APcKYRPOAP_9N 9P@ IbO9P YAZRbY=AZ 9P@ KPcAZ_KH9_AZ OA9PZ RC

OK_KH9_KRP CRY bP9cRK@9;NA 9@cAYZA KOT9=_Z 9Z 9 YAZbN_ RC _IA TYRTRZA@ 9=_KRPW

3IA Tb;NK= I9Z _IA RTTRY_bPK_f _R YAcKAd 9P@ =ROOAP_ RP _IA &" CRY 9 `gJ@9f TAYKR@W 3IA

YAcKAd TAYKR@ dKNN ;A CYRO -9f aG _IYRbHI *bPA a`? agSSW 3IA &" O9f ;A cKAdA@ RPNKPA 9_

9Pf RC _IA CRNNRdKPH dA;ZK_AZ>

$RTKAZ RC _IA &" =9P ;A cKAdA@ 9_ _IA CRNNRdKPH NR=9_KRPZ>

< $K_f RC %9NN9Z> SFgg -9YKNN9 2_YAA_? 1RRO ,S#2? %9NN9Z? 36 [FagS

< %"13> SGgS 09=KE= "cAPbA? %9NN9Z? 36 [FagaW $RP_9=_ *9f +NKPA 9_ aSGJ[GQJ`F`Q _R

Z=IA@bNA 9P 9TTRKP_OAP_ _R cKAd _IA &"W

< '3"> BSQ 39fNRY 2_YAA_? 1RRO B"`\? 'RY_5RY_I? 36 [\Sga

< .$3$/(> \S\ 2Ke 'N9HZ %YKcA? $AP_AY 0RKP_ a? "YNKPH_RP? 36 [\gSS

< /9M $NKD $I9O;AY RC $ROOAY=A> Ggg 2W 89PH? 2bK_A SSg? %9NN9Z? 36 [FagB

< *W &YKM *RPZZRP $AP_Y9N ,K;Y9Yf> SFSF 7RbPH 2_YAA_? \_I 'NRRY? %9NN9Z? 36 [FagS

< &N $AP_YR $RNNAHA 1AZRbY=A ,K;Y9Yf> BgS -9KP 2_YAA_? aP@ 'NRRY? %9NN9Z? 36 [Faga

1AXbAZ_ CRY =RTKAZ RC _IA &"? 9Z dANN 9Z dYK__AP RY AO9KNA@ =ROOAP_Z RP _IA &" ZIRbN@ ;A

Zb;OK__A@ _R _IA 9__AP_KRP RC> %39G7 '->?I1 #9GI ?4 $-<<-C (B?6B-= '->-63BD @5JJ '-B9<<-

*GB33G1 )??= &@"*1 $-<<-C1 +, E5HJ@D 38=-9<0 ;39G7A=->?I.2-<<-C/9GI7-<<A/?=W "NN =ROOAP_Z

ObZ_ ;A Zb;OK__A@ ;f *bPA a`? agSSW

" Tb;NK= OAA_KPH dKNN ;A IAN@ RP -RP@9f? *bPA \? agSS UTNA9ZA ZAA KPCRYO9_KRP _R _IA NAC_VW

)C fRb PAA@ ZTA=K9N 9==ROOR@9_KRPZ? RY N9PHb9HA KP_AYTYA_9_KRP? TNA9ZA PR_KCf +AK_I -9PRf

9_ aSGJ\[gJGg`BW

dddWP=_=RHWRYH

dddW@9NN9Z=K_fI9NNW=RO

dddW@9Y_WRYH]@9NN9ZZ_YAA_=9Y

D0VSH

HAB"±8HD" +;V`� ;ð÷ ¯eó� Ì¯e � ¯�V¯ Æ� � óáV¯� ²ó �eÆ÷ eó�÷Ì Æ²�� á

* ; � ²�Á u� ÷ á *� �Ìó� 7eÁ� � � Æ ÷eó � � � ; Û²�º� � Û¯� �ó� � íV¯ Æ� � ó Qó²� � îV±÷¯²ó �óÌÁÁ ÆÌ÷� u»� � �÷� e� óÆ� � Ì ¯� �óÌ �u� ¯²Æ� Á� eÆ� ¯� »� ² Û±÷²� � ±� Ì Æá

D eÆ²�÷ � »²�²� � e �� ²¦¯� ÛÌ»²� ÷Á²»� ÷ eÆ�÷¯eº²Æ¦ ¯� e� ÷á EÌ ¯� ó� ±e� ²ÌÆ ; e÷ ÷� �ó� » ¯ÌÛ±²Æ¦ �Ìóá

* � ÌÆð Á²÷eº� HA+�eÆ÷ð ó� ÷� ó � �Ìó �ÌÁÛ»e±�� Æ� á V¯� ðó� ÛóÌ � eÆ�»Ì � á

D ²�� ¯Ì e÷ � eó²Æ¦ Á De ÷ð íV¯�V²Á� ²÷ EÌ î V±÷¯²ó � ÷ ¦±¦� ÷ � � ; Á²¦¯ eÆ ÌÌÆ� ² � Ì Æ e u²á

í`Ì � ÌÆð ÌÆð Ì u�÷� � Æ e÷ V¯� HuÆÌ ²Ì ÷6eÆ�î ÷¯� ÷e²� á

8 ¯éTÌ� Ì � Æ÷ ó� Áeó²e»

e��Ìó� � eÆ� ÷»²¦¯» Ì Ì� �� eó e�� ó ¯� De ÷ ÷¯ÌÌ e ¯ ¦� � � eó» »� e� � ; e÷ ÷e²÷�²� � ¹ ÷ Ì Û ÁÛÁ �²÷ e� � ó � � ó De ÷ue÷º� � ÷¯Ì í; ð÷ Ì ó÷�.²óº�î eÆ� º� � Û Á � � ÷ÌÆ ¯� �Ì ó á

6²Æe»» � ¯� ¦ ÷² ²Æ¦Æ� Ì Á� ²Æè ²ó� � � í"ó� Ì �óÌÁ ¯²÷ eó� e Ìó .e»±»e÷éî

íD ²�� eÆ� ; � óÌ � Û¯� ó� �óÌÁ .e»»e÷�î ; ÷e²� áí* ¯� e � Ì ¯e � e � ó Æ²�� eó� Æeá "Æ� Ì ó

�eÆ÷ eó�¦ó� eáî

í`Ì¯e � Æð ÷� � ÆeÆ ¯²Æ¦ � �î ¯� ÷e²� á

"Æ� ;¯e� Æðá

V¯²÷ ²÷ e eº� ± Û �e»»�De ÷ �eÆ÷á V¯� De ÷ ¦Ì¯� ²ó÷ e ¯ÌÁ� ²Æ 7eÁ� á;Æ 7eÁ� � ; ¯ÌÆ� ÷» u� ±»²� � ¯� V¯ Æ� � ó e÷ eu»�Ì � e ±ÛÌ²Æ »� e� Ì�Ì ó Ûeó » ÌÆ ¯� ÷ó� Æ¦¯Ì� ¯e e÷ ¯eÛÛ� Æ²Æ¦ ²Æ¯� ÷eÆ� ÷á

V¯� ÆÌ²÷� »� � » �óÌÁ¯� Æ� � ó±è ² HA+ �eÆ÷ e÷ � � e�� Æ²Æ¦á "Æ� ² �� ó±e²Æ» ÷Ìº� � ¯� V¯ Æ� � óá

`Ì �eÆ u� ²ð »» u� � � Æ�óe ²� ó DÌÆ� e Æ²¦¯� ¯� Æ ¯� De ÷ ó� óÆ ÌHº»e¯ÌÁe +² "ó� Æe �Ìó7eÁ� ¤á

;� ¯� ÷� � eÁ÷ º� � Û ÌÆóe� ²Æ¦ ²Æ÷� e÷ ¯� ð �� ÌÆ� ÷Ì �eó� .e»»e÷ �eÆ÷¯e� u� � ó u� ó� e� Ì óÌeó»²º� S� Æ²ÌÆ óÌ � ²� ÷ � ±� ó ²Á� ¯� De ÷ Û»e ²Æ""+á

*� �e ÷� ue�º ¯ÌÁ� ²ÆHA+� ²ð÷ eÛÛeó� Æ � � � ÆÌ e � ²� ¯eó� De ÷ �eÆ �¯e ¯� V¯ Æ� � ó �eóó²� ÷¯� ¯ÌÛ� ÷ eÆ� � ó� eÁ÷ Ì� e�² ¯e ð÷ Æ� � ó� � � ó ¦² ±²Æ¦ Û ÌÆ ¯� Áá EÌ � � Æ ¯� Æ ¯� ðó� � Ì Æ u á

T� � 9eóó²÷ ²÷ eÆ e÷÷²÷±

eÆ Á� óÌ � � ² Ìó eÆ� D77B

¯Ì � Æ¹Ì ÷÷� � ²Æ¦ ¯²÷¯ÌÁ�

� eÁ÷ ²Æ Û»e Ì�� ¦eÁ� ÷ ÌÆ

� Æ� Á ó� á Be÷ H� Ìu� ó�

� óe � »� � Ì ÷� � ¯� V� e÷

SeÆ¦� ó÷ u� e ¯� eÆº� � ÷

²Æ eÆº� � Te� ² Á� eÆ� ¯�

� ÷�eÛ� � ²¯¯²÷ »²�� á

÷¯eóó²÷s� e»»e÷Æ� ÷á�ÌÁ

TV0]0 9"SS;T

RX;+A V"A0

S¬ Ã� �ðíô ðÉbð¯ô ¬bð� þÉ ¯£ÃÉð�

¯� eó� ¯óÌ ¦¯Ì ¯� ¦eÁ� áí; �²¦ ó� � ¯� ó� Ì »� u�

÷ÌÁ� De ÷ �eÆ÷ ¯� ó� �î ÷e²�D²º� S� ÆÌ»� ÷� e .e»»e÷ Æe² � ¯Ì ó� �� Æ» ÁÌ � � Ì *� ÆÌÆ± ²»»� � Hº»eá í* ; e÷ ²Á±Ûó� ÷÷� � u ¯Ì ÁeÆ ¯� ó� � ó� áî

V¯� � ²÷eÆ�� u� � � Æ"Á� ó²�eÆ "²ó»²Æ� ÷ +� Æ� ó eÆ�¯� Hº»e¯ÌÁe+² "ó� ÆeÁ� e±÷ ó� ÷ ¤Á²»� ÷á

V¯eð÷ ¹ ÷ e ¯ó� � ±¯Ì ó� ó² � ÆÌó¯ ÌÆ ;Æ� ó÷e� ¡� ¯²�¯ Áe� � ² � e÷ �Ìó De ÷�eÆ÷ Ì Û»eÆ ó²Û÷ Ìó Áeº� ²Á±Û »÷² � »e÷±Á²Æ � � � �²÷²ÌÆ÷á

í � ¦Ì ÌÆ ¯� �ÌÁÛ � ó6ó²� e Æ²¦¯ eÆ� �Ì Æ� ²�º� ÷�î÷e²� A� Æ +¯� e»� � Ì� "»»� Æ� ¯Ì�eÁ� Ì Te ó� e ð÷ ¦eÁ� ²¯¯²÷ ÷ÌÆ�7ó� ¦á

T� e÷ÌÆ ²�º� ¯Ì»� � ó S eÆ*ÌÆ²�e÷ Ì� 6Ìó ^Ìó¯ � óÌ � ÛÌÆ Te ó� e á ; e÷ ¯� �²ó÷²Á� ¯� ¯e� ¦ÌÆ� Ì e De � ó±²�º÷ ¦eÁ� ²Æ eÆ ÌÛÛÌ÷²Æ¦ eó� ±Æe� u ¯� e÷ � Æ�Ì óe¦� � u ¯e ¯� ÷e ÌÆ¯²÷ � ó² � á

í � ÷e e »Ì Ì� De ÷ �eÆ÷ ²¯ ¯� ²ó �eó �»e¦÷�î *ÌÆ²�e÷÷e²� á í � � ó� ¯ÌÆº²Æ¦ e � e�¯Ì¯� óáî

V¯� ó� � ó� ÷ÌÁ� ÷Û»² »Ì e»±²� ÷ ²Æ e� Æ� eÆ�� e÷ � »»á @� ÷÷�7Ì»÷ÌÆ Ì� +óÌ÷÷óÌe� ÷� V� e÷� e÷ ÷ÛÌó²Æ¦ ¯²÷ íV¯� V²Á� ;÷EÌ îDe ÷ ÷¯²óá8²÷ ²�� Beº±²e� e÷ � eó²Æ¦ e V¯ Æ� � ó÷¯²óá

í"÷ ÷ÌÌÆ e÷ ÷¯� ÷e 7eÁ�

Ì »� u� ¯� ó� � ÷¯� ÷e²� � ¯e�Ì ¦Ì�î7Ì»÷ÌÆ ÷e²� á

V¯� � � º� Æ� � Æ e÷ � »» e÷ÛÌ÷÷²u»� �Ìó De � ó²�º÷ �eÆ÷á "7eÁ� ²Æ e÷ �� »� uóe� � »e�²ÆÌ Te ó� e Æ²¦¯ e ueó÷ eÆ�ó� ÷e óeÆ÷²Æ � Ì ÆÌ ÆHº»e±¯ÌÁe+² á

EÌ ²ð÷ ²Á� �Ìó e ó� Û� eÛ� ó�ÌóÁeÆ�� á

í; e÷ e ¦ó� e ÷¯Ì ²Æ¦ uDe � ó²�º÷ �eÆ÷ �Ìó 7eÁ� �î÷e²� SÌ Q»ee÷ Ì� B� ²÷ ²»»� á

8� e � Æ� � � ¯� ¦eÁ� ²¯e ¦óÌ Û Ì� �ó²� Æ� ÷� ¯Ì Û»eÆ Ìu� ue�º e Hº»e¯ÌÁe +² "ó� ±Æe �ÌóDÌÆ� e Æ²¦¯ð÷ ¦eÁ� á

í � ð � ¦Ì Ì ó� Ûó� ÷� Æ Ì ó � eÁ�î ¯� ÷e²� á

D²�¯e� » "²Æ÷ Ìó ¯ýTe�� Q¯ÌÌ¦óeÛ � ó

.e»»e÷ De � ó²�º÷ �eÆ 0Æó²è � .� B� ÌÆ Ì� .e»»e÷ e»º÷ Æe÷¯eÁ� � ²Æ ¯²÷ � eÁ V±÷¯²ó ²Æ Hº»e¯ÌÁe +² ò÷ *ó²�ºÌ Æá

E·¸b¬É¾b +¯þ |¸Éô� �ÃÉ £¬�Éð ¾bÃ ¾Éþ¯ bþ�� Bb ô �bÃô

+ÌÆ²Æ � � �óÌÁQe¦� Ó* í; ¦ ó� � ¯� ó� Ì »� u� ÷ÌÁ� De ÷ �eÆ÷

¯� ó� á * ; e÷ ²ÁÛó� ÷÷� � u ¯Ì ÁeÆ

¯� ó� � ó� áî

D²º� S� ÆÌ»� ÷�e .e»»e÷Æe ² � ¯Ì »² � ÷ ²Æ*� ÆÌÆ ²»»� � Hº»eá

V¯� �e � Ì� Deó Ì� Q � � ²Æ8²»»� ¯� 7ó� � Æ ²»»� ueº� ó�eÁ� � �Ìó ²÷ V� e÷ Û� �eÆ�ó ² �eº� � ó�Áe²Æ÷ Û ²Æ ¯�e²ó e÷ Ì Æ� ó A� Æ *e²Æ ÛÌÆ±� � ó÷ Ì�� ó÷ �óÌÁ ÷� � óe» ÛÌ±� Æ²e» ²Æ � ÷Ìó÷á

V¯� � � �e� � ÷±Ì»� ueº� ó �Ì�� ;Æ� ó÷e � euÌ ¡Á²»� ÷ � e÷ Ì� .e»»e÷� �»Ì÷� � ²÷� ÌÌó÷ e� � ó e u ÷ Te ó� e÷Û� Æ ÷� ó ²Æ¦ e »e÷ ±Á²Æ �÷ ó¦� Ì� � ÷ÌÁ� ó÷ ¯Ì ¯e��ÌÁ� �Ìó e �²Æe» ¦óeu Ì� ¯�÷Ìó� ð÷ �ó ² �eº� ÷� Û²� ÷ eÆ��eÆ� ó� e ÷á

í; e÷ »²º� ¯� Á²� � »� Ì�

¯� +¯ó²÷Áe÷ ¯Ì»²� e ÷�î �ÌÁ±ÛeÆ ÷ÛÌº� ÷ÁeÆ *²»» 8eóó²÷÷e²� á í � ¯e� ¯ó� � �e÷¯ ó� ¦±²÷ � ó÷ eÆ� Ì Û� ÌÛ»� ²Æ»²Æ� ÛóÌueu» ¯e»� ¯� � e áî

Te�� ó÷ � ó� ÷Ì u ÷ ²¯¯� ó ÷¯ ¯e ¯� ó� e÷ ÆÌ ²Á� Ì � ²÷� ÷÷ ¯� ÌÛ²ÌÆ÷ ÌÆ¯� eu»� � *e²Æ ÷e²� á

6Ìó ÆÌ � Deó Ì� Q � � ²Æ8²»» ²»» ó� Áe²Æ �»Ì÷� � ¯²»�ueº� ó Ìóº� ó÷ �ÌÆ²Æ � Ì

�²»» ¯� �»ÌÌ� Ì� »e � Ìó� � ó÷á * *e²Æ ÷e²� ¯� ÷Ìó� ²»» »²º� »ÌÛ� Æ »e � ó ¯²÷ � � º �Ìó e �²Æe»÷e»� Ì� ó� Áe²Æ²Æ¦ ²Æ � ÆÌó á

*e²Æ ¯e÷ ÷e²� ¯� ²÷ ÷� � º²Æ¦e u � ó Ìó ²Æ � ÷Ìó ²»»²Æ¦ ÌÁe²Æe²Æ ¯� �¯eóe�� ó Ì� ¯��Ì Æó ±÷ »� ÷Ìó� � ¯Ì÷��ó ² �eº� ó� �²Û� � e� ÷ Ì Ó� Èu ¯Ì÷� ÌÛ� óe ²ÌÆ Æ� � � ÷÷²¦Æ²�²�eÆ Û¦óe� � ÷ Ì ó� ±Áe²Æ �ÌÁÛ� ² ² � á

5bþ� É� �b¾�� ð ¯þ|b·�ô Ã|¸�bðXQ."V0 w 8S00E];BB0

Bbð É� N � � ¯Ã 7¯¸¸|¸Éô�ô b�þ�ð ¸bþ� ð ô¬÷É Ã�ð �¯£¬¯Ã£ É��ðô

* D"S+ S"D;S0cT e�� ó² � ó

ÁóeÁ²ó� s� e»»e÷Æ� ÷á�ÌÁ

Te�� Û¯ÌÌ

V� e÷ Û� ±

�eÆ �ó ² ±

�eº� ÷ e e²

¯� Ì � Æ e

Deó Ì�

Q � � ²Æ 9²»»á

V¯� 8ó� � Æ±

²»»� ue±

º� ó ð÷ ó� �²±

Û� � e � ÷ Ì

Ó� Èá

Pu

blic

ati

on

Date

:05/2

3/2

011

Ad

Nu

mbe

r:53

50

97

Inse

rtio

nN

um

ber:

33

46

744

Siz

e:

3.7

5x

5.2

Co

lor

Typ

e:

B&

W

Clie

ntN

am

e:

Ad

vert

iser:

CIT

Y/D

AL

LA

ST

RA

NS

PO

RT

AT

ION

Se

ctio

n/P

ag

e/Z

one

:M

ET

RO

/B03

/Sta

te

Desc

rip

tion

:

Th

isin

form

ati

on

isp

roo

fo

fp

ub

lic

ati

on

of

the

ad

inT

he

Dall

as

Mo

rnin

gN

ew

so

nth

ed

ate

&p

ag

ein

dic

ate

d.

Yo

um

ay

no

tre

pro

du

ce

,cre

ate

de

riv

ati

ve

wo

rks,

dis

trib

ute

,tr

an

sm

it,

rep

urp

os

eo

rin

an

yw

ay

exp

loit

an

yo

fth

ec

on

ten

t.

cnfkcvz/eqo a O K � T E Q N G U 3 6 F G O C [ Q F G N 3 1 2 2 C N !F � C . 2 2 C

9+0-0H5+,,E69+0-0H5+,,EFC22 a 16.36.3122 Ugv<!28<53<23

Ugpv!d{<!cljcttkult Pgyu DNCEM

`=VPP!pEASQ!Q?=´!T<?SVFREQICJQVRE?!CVAV!JV!TERQOV!RQ

pE??MJ!QF!nVAJVFR!7!aMSNVAR?EF

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!=AVTVLVARQ!J<FQ?!V!REIMFOEo!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!=AVTVLVA_ere`!JE?!?¶TVRE?!7!REIMFOE?o0qICJQVRE?!AQSMTQF!E=AE?!>!R�V?!JMTAQ?!B<Q!FE!?QVF!?¶TVRE!E!REIMFOE.!R<AVF=Q!JV!?QIVFV.!CVAV!SEICQF?VA5

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!=AVTVLVA=MQICE!Q8=AV!SEF!V;M?E!QJ!IM?IE!R�Vo!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!Q?=VA RQ!CMQ!CEA <F!=<AFE!SEICJQ=E!RQ!)D~)>!NEAV?o!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!CAESQ?VAÆARQFQ?!AVCMRVIQF=Q!7!SEF!CAQSM?MÆFo!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?CEFMTJQ!CVAV!JQQAMFPEAIVSMÆF!SEF!=Q8=E!QF!PEAIV=E!CQB<QÂEo!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!CE?QQA CEA JE!IQFE?!<F!VÂE!RQ!Q8CQAMQFSMV!CAQ;MV!RQ!=AVTVLE!QF!VJIVS� Fo

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?C<Q?=E!V!?EIQ=QA?Q!V!<F!Q8VIQF!RQ!RAEOV?o!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!Q?=VA RM?C<Q?=E!V!RM;<JOVA ?<!A� SEAR!SAMIMFVJ!MFSJ<?M;Q!?<!VASNM;E!SAMIMFVJo!

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!CAQ?QF=VA RE?!RES<IQF=E?!RQ!MRQF=MPMSVSMÆF!B<Q!RQI<Q?=AQF!?<!QJMOMTMJMRVR!CVAV!=AVTVLVA QF!JE?!q?=VRE?!^FMRE?o!^FE!RQ!JE?!RES<IQF=E?!=MQFQ!B<Q!?QA ?<!=VALQ=V!RQ!`QO<AE!ÈSMVJ!CVAV!QJ!RQCVA=VIQF=E!RQ!FÆIMFV?o

Å _MQFQ!B<Q!=QFQA =AVF?CEA=VSMÆF!?QO<AVo!

>)$~"D,~+$$>+#|&!`KMJJIVF.!rVJJV?.!_Q8V?!#">$,

]qfnu u f^q`_au eplslfu qf_aq iu` | uoho Z , doho Z

daqn^f_q usqasu rq iu` de`lslefq` sef pe``li

aqc^l`l_e`b

±_]o`p!qp!t_gty±^LPEP!PE<@P!){!6!&"

UÔD>!QP!PQUQy

^?=QR!CERA�V!CVA=MSMCVA!QF!QJ!Q?=<RME

RQ!MF;Q?=MOVSMÂF!?ETAQ!=� SFMSV?

RQ AQ?CMAVSMÂFo

}]><PQ!@PRLSL@Á!HPQLRLEU!N@U<L>!6!>P@ÁRDHBPE>UQD!BD@!>;!<LPHBD}

cU@U!HÂ>!LEOD@HURLØE!RDE<ÂR<PED>!UaU>RQB@DN@UHw>H;nPQ;

=)$}#&{})=*)

("+%*-%!

),$'*#&

B6C&;'!

E6CJA!0'!/8<<!

0I38!?>D>

HJ99!*6)J9A=J6D!

@&9"A)J;9!$.FF.;!

@&)J,.F!%&C9&=

<##<!(&,GF&2!*5&>!

$.FF.;'!41!7+/83

*5J;A!)&!)J;?ACJ-JFJ).)346+%(26!-;="1!&%!-4*7.@*!&%!,7>67!/2*2>67!*!5*<!$9>##!

".*90*(>?7!'8)>%72*9

4Y!\MNXMIOUZ^Z!\MN!YQ!9\G^!ZY!Q !9WYN\U !+^\UMN^Q!ZY!(IMGY\\UfN!9O]UYNG^Q!<+3(9?!ZY![P>P!A!6a!ZYQ!5fZUWM!ZY!'YWEQ^\UMNYH!2YZYI^QYH! <52'?`!(ÎGY!00[`! Q !9ZOUNUH;GI^\UfN!2YZYI^Q!ZY!%IjNHUGM!<2%9?`!YN!\MQ^]MI^\UfN!\MN!YQ!5MNHYTM!ZY!1M]UYINMH!ZYQ!+MIGY!A!5YNGIM!ZY!%YB^H!<+5%5*1?`!\UEZ^Z!ZY!4^QQ^H`!A!4 QQ^H!9IY^!'^LUZ!%I^NHUG!<49'%?!V^!LIYLÎ^ZM!EN^!3D^QE^\UfN!9O]UYNG^Q!<39?!LÎ^!Q^!^\\UfN!LIMLEYHG^!JEY!UN\QEA^!Q^!LIMLEYHG^!ZY!\MNHGIE\\UfN!A!YBLQMG^\UfN!ZY!EN!HYIDU\UM!ZY!GI^NDh^!ZYHZY!$NUMN!&G^GUMN!^!*^S!5QUXX!YN! Q !\UEZ^Z!ZY!4^QQ H`!\MNZ^ZM!ZY!4^QQ H`!%YB^Hb!-^!39!YD^Qe^!YQ! UOL^\GM!LMGYN\U Q!ZY! QMH!IY\EIHMH!Ô]UYNG^QYH!A!VEO^NMH!Y! UNDYHGUW^!QMH!OYZUMH!ZY!OUGUW^\UfN!LÎ^!QMH! UNYDUG^]QYH!UOL^\GMH!^ZDYIHMH!\MOM!IYHEQG^ZM!ZY!Q^!^\\UfN!LIMLEYHG^b

3Q!Le]QU\M!GUYNY!Q !MLMIGENUZ^Z!ZY!IYDUHÎ!A!\MOYNGÎ!HM]IY!Q^!39!LMI!EN!LYIhMZM!ZY!aF!Zh Hb!3Q!LYIhMZM!ZY!IYDUHUfN!HYIj!ZYQ!6_!ZY!OÂM!^Q!6a!ZY! TENUM!ZY!6F[[b!-^!39!LEYZY!DYIHY!YN!QhNY^!YN!\E^QJEUYI^!ZY!Q^H!HUWEUYNGYH!LjWUN H!ZY!UNGYINYG8

CCCbN\G\MWbMIW!CCCbZ^QQ^H\UGAV QQb\MO!

CCCbZÎGbMIW=Z^QQ HHGIYYG\Î

5MLU^H!ZY!Q^!39!LEYZYN!HYI!DUHG^H!YN!Q^H!HUWEUYNGYH!QEWÎYH8

g 5UEZ^Z!ZY!4^QQ^H8![)FF!,ÎUQQ^!&GIYYG`!'MMO!-[7&`!4^QQ^H`!%"!0)6F[!g 49'%8![_F[!(^\Um!\ 9DYNEY`!4^QQ^H`!%"!0)6F6b!5MNG^\GÎ! !/ A!.QUNY! Q!6[_;0_P;a)aP!! LÎ^!LIMWIÔ I!EN^!\UG^!A!DYI!Q !39b!g 2%98!R[P!% AQMI!&GIYYG`!'MMO!R9a>`!2MIG!#MIGV`!%"!0>[F6!g +5%5*18!>[>!&UB!2Q^WH!4IUDY`!5YNGYI!(MUNG!6`!9IQUNWGMN`!%"!0>F[[!g *^S!5QUXX!5VÔ]YI!MX!5MOOYI\Y8!_FF!&b!c^NW`!&EUGY![[F`!4^QQ H`!%"!0)6FR!g /b!3IUS!/MNHHMN!5YNGI^Q!-U]IÎA8![)[)!dMENW!&GIYYG`!>GV!2QMMI !4^QQ^H`!%"!0)6F[!g 3Q!5YNGIM!5MQQYWY!'YHMEI\Y!-U]IÎA8!RF[!, UN!&GIYYG`!6NZ!2QMMI !4^QQ H`!%"!0)6F6

(Î^!HMQU\UGEZ!ZY!\MLU H!ZY! Q !39`!^Hh!\MOM!LÎ^!YNDU I!\MOYNGÎUMH!LMI!YH\IUGM!M!LMI!\MIIYM!YQY\GIfNU\M!HM]IY! Q !39!ZY]YN!HYI!LIYHYNG^ZMH!^! Q !^GYN\UfN!ZY8!.YUGV!,^NMA`!\UEZ^Z!ZY!4 QQ^H`!(IMWIÔ!,^N^WYI ![)FF!,ÎUQQ !&GIYYG`!'MMO!-[7&`!4^QQ^H`!%"!0)6F[`!LMI!\MIIYM!YQY\GIfNU\M8!SYUGVbO^NMAKZ^QQ H\UGAV^QQb\MOb!%MZMH!QMH!\MOYN;GÎUMH!ZY]YN!LIYHYNGÎHY!YQ!6a!ZY!TENUM!ZY!6F[[b

$N^!IYENUfN!Le]QU\ !HY!QQYDÎj!^!\^]M!YQ!QENYH`!>!ZY!TENUM!6F[[!<Di^HY!Q !UNXMIO^\UfN!^ Q !U@JEUYIZ^?b!&U!EHGYZ!NY\YHUG ! IIYWQMH!YHLY\U^QYH`!M!UNGYILIYG^\UfN!ZYQ!UZUMO^`!LMI!X DMI!NMGUm!JEY!^!.YUGV!,^NMA!YN!6[_;>0F;_FaRb

�u��x

Eqp!vqfq!gn!oqxkokgpvq«xgtfgº!fg!cjqttq!fg!gpgtióÂc-eqogt!uqnq!rtqfwevqu!qticÂpk.equ-!gve/-!gn!vqoct!vgÂ xgtfg!guvcÂfg!oqfc/!

Cniwpqu!nq!vqocp!rqtvtcfkekqÂp!{!qvtqu!jcp!gorg|c.fqc eqpuwoktnq!{c!swg!fóÂc!cfóÂc!gpeqpvtcoqu!dgdkfcu!swgpqu!rtqogvgp!wp!ukppwÂogtqfgdgpghkekqu!c!nc!ucnwf!rqteqpvgpgt!vgÂ xgtfg/

Gn!vgÂxgtfg-!qtkikpctkq!fgEjkpc-!ug!eqpuwog!rtkpekrcn.ogpvg!gp!xctkqu!rcóÂugu!fgCukc-!eqoq!rctvg!fg!nc!fkgvcfkctkc/!VcodkgÂp!ug!ng!cvtkdw.{gp!rtqrkgfcfgu!ogfkekpcngu/!

CswóÂgp!Guvcfqu!Wpkfqu!ugjc!rqrwnctk|cfq!{!ug!xgpfggodqvgnncfq!gp!ecuk!ewcnswkgtvkgpfc/!

Gn vgÂxgtfg!rtqxkgpg!fg!ncujqlcu!fg!nc!rncpvc!Ecognnkcukpgpuku/

C fkhgtgpekc!fgn!vgÂ pgitqswg!ug!jceg!fg!ncu!jqlcu!swg!ugjcp!uqogvkfq!cn!rtqeguq!fghgtogpvcekqÂp-!gn!vgÂxgtfg!pqgu!hgtogpvcfq/!

Gu!korqtvcpvg!gzcokpctpq uqÂnq!nq!swg!ug!ucdg!rqtvtcfkekqÂp-!ukpq!vcodkgÂp!ncgxkfgpekc!ekgpvóÂhkec!rctc!pqugt!xkevkocu!fgn!eqpuwokuoq{0q!ogtecfgq/!

Rgtq!cfgocÂu!fg!dgpgÂhkeq-gu vcp!tkeq!swg!nq!rqfgoqukpvgitct!c!pwguvtc!nkuvc!fgdgdkfcu!hcxqtkvcu/!" Nqswg!nc!ekgpekc!fkeg<Ekgtvqu!guvwfkqu!jcp!uwigtkfqswg!gn!vgÂ xgtfg!guvcÂ cuqekcfqeqp!wp!ogpqt!tkguiq!fg!uwhtktwpc!crqrnglóÂc-!rgtq!hcnnctqpgp fgvgtokpct!eqp!ugiwtkfcfcduqnwvc!swg!nc!ecwuc!fktgevchwg!gn!eqpuwoq!fgn!vgÂxgtfg/!

Rgtq!gp!guvwfkqu!cpkocnguuóÂjwdq!wpc!tgncekqÂpocÂufktgevc!fg!ogpqt!fcpÄq!cn

egtgdtqewcpfq!cguvqucpkocnguug!ngu!fkqrtkogtqnqu!rqnkhg.pqngurtqxgpkgp.vgu!fgn!vgÂxgtfg/!CuóÂswg!gpjwocpquugtóÂc!ow{cttkguicfqcugiwtct

swg!gn!vgÂ xgtfg!rtqvgig!gpeqpvtc!fgn!tkguiq!fg!uwhtkt!wpccrqrnglóÂc/!

Gp!guvwfkqu!rtgxkqu!{rtgugpvgu!uqdtg!ecÂpegtgu!fgrtqÂuvcvc-!rwnoqÂp-!fg!ugpq-!{qvtqu!vkrqu!fg!ecÂpegt!ug!rquvw.nc!wpc!cuqekcekqÂp!gpvtg!gneqpuwoq!fgn!vgÂ{!rtgxgpekqÂp!qtgvtcuq!gp!gn!fgucttqnnq!fg!nquuóÂpvqocu/!Rgtq!nqu!tguwnvcfqupq!jcp!ukfq!eqpvwpfgpvgu/!

Ugiwtcogpvg!fgpvtq!fg!nqurtqÂzkoqu!cpÄqu!ucdtgoqu!ocÂucn!tgurgevq-!rwgu!cwÂp!ug!tg.swkgtgp!guvwfkqu!guvtkevcogp.vg!eqpvtqncfqu!rctc!jcegtcugxgtcekqpgu!uqdtgc!ncurtqrkgfcfgu!cpvkecpegtóÂig.pcu!fgn!vgÂ xgtfg/!

Nq!ekgtvq!gu!swg!gn!vgÂ xgtfggu tkeq!gp!rqnkhgpqngu-!ew{curtqrkgfcfgu!cpvkqzkfcpvgu!{dgpghkekqu!rctc!nc!ucnwf!jcpukfq-!{!guvcÂp!ukgpfq-!guvwfkc.fcu/!

Fgpvtq!fg!nqu!rqnkhgpqngu-nc!kpxguvkicekqÂp!ug!gphqec!gpnqu!hncxqpqkfgu-!rqt!uwu!rtq.rkgfcfgu!eqoq!cpvkoketqdkc.pqu-!cpvkecpegtóÂigpqu-!{!qvtcuocÂu/!VcodkgÂp!gn!vgÂ xgtfgeqpvkgpg!echgóÂpc-!cuóÂswg!ukuwhtg!fg!cniwpc!eqpfkekqÂp!swgtgswkgtc!gxkvct!gn!eqpuwoq!fgechgóÂpc-!vgpic!ewkfcfq/!

" EwcÂpvq!{!eqÂoq!eqpuwokt.nq<!nqu!cukcÂvkequ!cequvwodtcpc vqoctnq!igpgtcnogpvg!vtguxgegu!cn!fóÂc!{!gp!hqtoc!fgkphwukqÂp-!citgicÂpfqnq!cn!ciwcecuk!jktxkgpfq!{!fglcÂpfqnqtgrquct!rqt!wpqu!okpwvqu/!" EqÂoq!ug!xgpfg<!Jc{!ow.ejcu!dgdkfcu!swg!eqpvkgpgp!vgÂxgtfg/!

Jc{!rtqfwevqu!swg!ugxgpfgp!eqoq!dgdkfcu-!rgtqrwgfgp!eqpvgpgt!owejcc|wÂect-!kpenwukxgnc!okuocecpvkfcf!swg!wpc!uqfc!tgiw.nct/!Gn!eqnqt!xgtfg!ug!uwgngqdvgpgt!eqp!wuq!fg!eqnqtcpvguctvkhkekcngu/!

Qvtqu!rtqfwevqu!fkegp!swgeqpvkgpg!vgÂ xgtfg!eqp!cpvkqzk.fcpvgu-!rgtq!nq!ecpvkfcf!guvcp!oóÂpkoc!swg!wpq!vgpftóÂcswg!eqpuwokt!fg!fqu!c!vtgudqvgnncu!rctc!kiwcnct!nqudgpghkekqu!eqpvgpkfqu!gp!wpcvc|c!fg!vgÂ rtgrctcfc!cn!guvknqvtcfkekqpcn!)kphwukqÂp*/!

CfgocÂu!jc{!dgdkfcu!swgcpÄcfgp!xkvcokpc!E!eqoqcpvkqzkfcpvg-!rgtq!pq!gn!vkrqfg!rqnkhgpqngu!eqpvgpkfqu!gpgn vgÂ xgtfg/!

CuóÂswg!xcng!nc!rgpc!nggt!ncgvkswgvc!{!xgt!ocÂu cnncÂ fgngvtcu!itcpfgu!eqp!eqnqtgunncocvkxqu-!rctc!kpxgtvkt!gpdgdkfcu!fg!vgÂxgtfg!swg!guvgÂpjgejcu!c!dcug!fg!wpc!kphwukqÂpfgvgÂ-!ocu!pq!fg!gzvtcevqu-!pkeqpegpvtcfqu/!

Q dkgp-!rqt!swgÂpq!tgitg.uct!c!nc!jqtc!fgn!vgÂ eqp!cok.iqu-!q!hcoknkctgu!{!ucdqtgctwpc!kphwukqÂp!fg!vgÂ jgejc!rqtpquqvtqu-!eqp!wp!rqswkvq!fgokgn!{!fqu!icnngvkvcu/

Ctcegnk!XcÂ|swg|!gu!fkgvkuvc{pwvtkqÂnqic!eqp!rtcÂevkec!gpFcnncu/!Rwgfgu!guetkdktng!cCtcegnkBFkgvigpkeu/eqo!qnncoct!cn!;83.775.1957/

Z]a-PS\STWQW]a-RSZ-b� -dS`RS

CTCEGNKX� \SWG\

XKFC!UCPC

Nc gfcf!pq!gu!korgfkogpvqrctc!xgtug!dkgp/!

Guvcu! uqp!cniwpcu!uwigtgp.ekcu! rctc! swg! ug! ocpvgpic!gpdwgpc!hqtoc!hóÂukec!gp!uwu!cpÄqu31-!41-!51!{!61/!

Gp nqu!xgkpvg<!

cnglct!gn!guvt� u

Wpq! kpxkgtvg! ewcpfq! vkgpgfkpgtq-!¿ekgtvqA/!Gp!gug!rgtkqfqfg chnwgpekc!hóÂukec!swg!uqp!nquxgkpvgu-!kpxkgtvc!gp!gn!hwvwtq!fguwewgtrq!vcodkgÂp/!

Wpc! ewejctcfc! fg! nkpc|coqnkfc!gp!uw!egtgcn!fg!nc!ocpÄc.pc!ng!c{wfctcÂ c!oglqtct!uw!guvc.fq!fg!cÂpkoq/!

Guvcu!ugoknncu!fg!cnvq!eqpvg.pkfq!fg!hkdtc!uqp!nc!oglqt!hwgp.vg fg cÂekfq!cnhc.nkpqngÂpkeq-!wpcitcuc!ucnwfcdng!swg!oglqtc!gnhwpekqpcokgpvq! fg! nc! eqtvg|cegtgdtcn-!gn!cÂtgc!fgn!egtgdtq!swgrtqeguc!nc! kphqtocekqÂp ugpuq.tkcn-!eqoq!gn!rncegt-!fkegp!ekgp.vóÂhkequ!htcpegugu/!

Gp nqu!vtgkpvc<!

eqodcvkt!nc!itcuc

Uk!ewcpfq!gtc!wp!xgkpvgcpÄg.tq ug!fgfkeqÂ c!ncu!rcttcpfcu!fg.ugphtgpcfcu-!gn!ewgtrq!ng!rcuc.tcÂ hcevwtc!gp!nqu!41/!

Nc! rtgukqÂp fg! guvg! ecodkqrwgfg! ugt! kpuqrqtvcdng=! uwewgtrq!{c!pq!rwgfg!eqp!nqu!hgu.vkpgu!pqevwtpqu!fg!eqokfc!ejc.vcttc!kiwcn!swg!cpvgu/!

Wpc!fg!ncu! oglqtgu!hqtocufg eqodcvkt!nc!itcuc!gu!rqpgtngocÂu rtqvgóÂpcu!c!uw!fkgvc/!

Fg jgejq-! kpxguvkicfqtgufcpgugu! fguewdtkgtqp! swg! ncurgtuqpcu!swg!vwxkgtqp!wpc!fkg.vc tkec!gp!rtqvgóÂpcu-!eqorctc.fcu!eqp!qvtcu!swg!pq!eqpuwokg.tqp! rtqvgóÂpcu-! rgtfkgtqp! fquxgegu!ocÂuitcuc!cdfqokpcn/!

¿Rqt!swgÂA!Wpc!tc|qÂp!rqftóÂcugt!swg!wpc!fkgvc!cdwpfcpvg!gprtqvgóÂpcu!c{wfc!cn!qticpkuoq!ceqpvtqnct!uwu! pkxgngu! fg! eqtvk.uqn-!jqtoqpc!fgn!guvtgÂu!swg!fk.tgeekqpc!nc!itcuc!jcekc!gn!cÂtgccdfqokpcn/!

Gp!nqu!ewctgpvc<!

eqodcvkt!gn!e� pegt

Gn!vtcdclq-!nc!ecuc-!gn!rcuvq-nqu!pkpÄqu-! nqu!gswkrqu!fgrqtvk.xqu!fg!uwu!jklqu-!gn!hqpfq!rctcgn tgvktq-!nc!dcuwtc-!gn!ecttq-!ncu

ocueqvcu/!¿Jc{!cniq!swg!pq!gu.vgÂ dclq!uw!tgurqpucdknkfcfA!

Dwgpq-!citgiwg!guvq!c!uw!nku.vc<!uw!ogpvg!{!uw!ewgtrq/!Ocp.vgÂpicug! gp! hqtoc! nngpcpfq! uwrncvq! fg! xgtfwtcu! eqoq! nc!eqnxgtfg!)mcng*/!

Guvg!xgigvcn!gu!tkeq!gp!xkvc.okpcu-!rqvcukq-!ecnekq-!jkgttq!{cÂekfq!hqÂnkeq/!

CfgocÂu!eqpvkgpg!mcgorhg.tqn-!wp!hncxqpqn!swg!fg!cewgtfqc wp!guvwfkq!fgn!Eqngikq!fg!Og.fkekpc!Dc{nqt!c{wfc!c!korgfktswg!etg|ecp!ncu!egÂnwncu!fgn!ecÂp.egt!fg!rcÂpetgcu/!

Gp nqu!ekpewgpvc<!

ectfkqrcv�cu!{!eqnguvgtqn

Gn!vkgorq!fkuokpw{g!uw!tkv.oq ectfkceq-!gtqukqpc!uw!egtg.dtq-! qrcec! uw! rkgn! {! ng! tguvcowuewnqukfcf¼!uk!nq!rgtokvg/!

Eqodcvc! gn! fgvgtkqtq! eqpguvqu!cnkogpvqu!fg!nc!lwxgpvwf<ngejg-!pwgegu!fg!ocecfcokc!{rkokgpvq!oqttqÂp/!

Gp! wp! guvwfkq! rwdnkecfqrqt!gn!Cogtkecp!Lqwtpcn!qh!Og.fkekpg- ncu!rgtuqpcu!swg!vqoc.tqp! wp! uwrngogpvq! fkctkq! fg2-111!oi!fg!ecnekq!xkgtqp!cw.ogpvct! gp! 8&! uwu! pkxgngu! fgeqnguvgtqn! JFN! )nkrqrtqvgóÂpcfg!cnvc!fgpukfcf*/!

DTGPFCP!UWNNKXCP0FOP

Ejctngu!Xq{ngu!)k|s*! {!uw!cokiq!DL!Jqyctf!jcegp!glgtekekq!gp!Rncpgv!Hkvpguu-! gp!Fcnncu/!Nqu!gzrgtvqutgeqokgpfcp!clwuvct!ncu! twvkpcu!fg!glgtekekqu!ugi� p! nc!gfcf!fg!nc!rgtuqpc/!

Ucpqu! {! cvtcevkxqu!c ewcnswkgt! gfcf!Eqpuglqu!rt� evkequ! {ugpeknnqu! rctc!ocpvgpgtuggp! hqtoc! c! nq! nctiq! c! rguctfgn!rcuq! fgn! vkgorq

OEV

TCEG!HQT!VJG!EWTG

" Okngu!fg!rgtuqpcu!fg!vqfcu! ncugfcfgu!rctvkekrct� p!gp! nc! ecttgtcfg!nc!hwpfcekûp!Uwucp!I/!Mqogprctc!rtqoqxgt! nc! kpxguvwicekûpuqdtg!gn!e� pegt!gp!gn!Pqtvg!fgVgzcu/!Nc!ecokpcvc!{!ecttgtc!ugt�gn!u� dcfq!22!fg!lwpkq/!Rctc!kpuetkdktug!xkukvgyyy/mqogppqtvjvgzcu/qti/Vcodk� p!nq!rwgfg!jcegt!gn!f�c!fgnc!ecokpcvc!fg!7!c!8<56!c/o/

" Equvq<!%41!rqt!cfwnvqu-!%29rctc!pkØqu!{!oc{qtgu!fg!76!cØqu/!

" Fûpfg<!Vjg!Ecorwu!cv!Ngice{-gp!Rncpq/!

Xkukvg!yyy/fgc/iqx!{!jcic! enkemgp!«Iqv!FtwiuAº!rctc!eqpqegt! ncwdkecekûp!o� u!egtecpc!c!wuvgf/!

CUKGPVQU!UGIWTQU

" Gzrgtvqu!fgn!jqurkvcn!Rctmncpftgxkuct� p!nc!ugiwtkfcf!fg!nqucukgpvqu!rctc!ecttq!fg!uwu!jklqu/!

" Ew� pfq<!ug! tgswkgtg!jcegt!wpcekvc!cn!325.6;1.5566/!

" Fûpfg<!Xkemgt{!Ogcfqy!JgcnvjEnkpke-!gp!gn!9335!Rctm!Ncpg!gpFcnncu-!{!Xkemgt{!OgcfqyNgctpkpi!Egpvgt-!gp!gn!743;Tkfigetguv!Tqcf/!

CN!F�C

OGFKEKPCU!ECFWECU

" Qticpkuoqu!nqecngu!fg!vqfq!gnPqtvg!fg!Vgzcu!ug!jcp!wpkfq!c!ncCigpekc!Cpvkftqicu! )FGC*!rctctgecwfct!ogfkecogpvqu!ecfwequq pq!fgugcfqu/!Guvq!c{wfc!cgxkvct! gn!eqpuwoq!ceekfgpvcn!q!nceqpvcokpcekûp!codkgpvcn/! Gnugtxkekq!gu!itcvku!{!cpûpkoq/!Ugcegrvcp!ogfkecogpvqu-xkvcokpcu-! uwrngogpvqucnkogpvkekqu!{!h� tocequ!rctcocueqvcu/!Uûnq! ug!rkfg!gnkokpct!nckphqtocekûp!rgtuqpcn!gp!gngpxcug-!{!cewfkt!c!uw!ukvkq!fgtgeqngeekûp!o� u!egtecpq/!

ecngpfctkq fg! ucnwf

Pu

blic

ati

on

Date

:05/2

5/2

011

Ad

Nu

mbe

r:53

70

76

Inse

rtio

nN

um

ber:

33

61

682

Siz

e:

3.7

5x

5.2

Co

lor

Typ

e:

B&

W

Clie

ntN

am

e:

Ad

vert

iser:

CIT

YO

FD

AL

LA

ST

RA

NS

PO

RT

AT

ION

&P

LA

...

Se

ctio

n/P

ag

e/Z

one

:A

l_D

ia/A

11

/Sta

te

Desc

rip

tion

:

Th

isin

form

ati

on

isp

roo

fo

fp

ub

lic

ati

on

of

the

ad

inA

lD

iao

nth

ed

ate

&p

ag

ein

dic

ate

d.

Yo

um

ay

no

tre

pro

du

ce

,cre

ate

de

riv

ati

ve

wo

rks

,d

istr

ibu

te,

tra

nsm

it,

rep

urp

os

eo

rin

an

yw

ay

exp

loit

an

yo

fth

ec

on

ten

t.

Summary of Agency and Public Comment

Prepared by K Strategies Group, July 21, 2011 1

Union Station to Oak Cliff Dallas Streetcar, Dallas, Texas

As required by 23 Code of Federal (CFR) 771.119 the Environmental Assessment (EA) wasavailable for agency and public review and comment for 30 days from May 24 through June 23,2011. Public notices published in general circulation newspapers informed the public of thecomment period and means to review or obtain a copy of the EA. In addition, a public meetingwas conducted on June 6, 2011. This document provides a summary of public commentsreceived at the public meeting, as well as, agency and public comments received during the 30-day comment period.

Public Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Monday, June 6, 2011

Location:Hitt Auditorium, Methodist Dallas Medical Center

1441 North Beckley Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75203

Speakers:Keith Manoy, Program Manager, City of DallasJay Kline, Streetcar Project Manager, Dallas Area Rapid TransitTom Shelton, Senior Program Manager, North Central Texas Council of Governments

Elected Officials:Delia Jasso, Dallas City Council Member, District 1

Attendees:Twenty-nine attendees listed on the sign-in sheet on record with theCity of Dallas

Duration of meeting:6:45 p.m. to 7:37 p.m. / 52 minutes

Duration of exhibit review:6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. / 30 minutes

Agenda briefing:The City of Dallas with North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), Dallas Area RapidTransit (DART), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) conducted a public meeting onMonday, June 6, 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the public of items completedsince the January 27, 2011 meeting and present the project details of moving forward with theUnion Station to Oak Cliff Dallas Streetcar project. The presentation provided details about thealignment, streetcar stops, operating plan, options for purchasing a streetcar vehicle, andfindings of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA was completed between January andMay of 2011 and was released for public review and comment on May 24, 2011. The publiccomment period concluded on June 23, 2011. The EA identified that there are no significant



impacts to the area. A list of locations to review the document was provided to attendees. Thelocations are listed below:

City of Dallas: 1500 Marilla Street, Room L1BS, Dallas, Texas 75201

DART: 1401 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202

FTA: 819 Taylor Street, Room 8A36, Fort Worth, Texas 76102

NCTCOG: 616 Six Flags Drive, Center Point 2, Arlington, Texas 76011

Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce: 400 S. Zang, Suite 110, Dallas, Texas 75208

J. Erik Jonsson Central Library: 1515 Young Street, 6th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201

El Centro College Resource Library: 801 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202

The presentation was followed by a question and answer session. Before and after the meeting,attendees reviewed exhibits illustrating the project alignment, identified stops on the route andenvironmental constraints that had been evaluated.

Open Forum (Question and Answer):The following question and answer statements are verbatim of the discussion between attendeesand the project team during the Monday, June 6, 2011 meeting.

1. CommentDan Eddy, Vice President External Affairs, Methodist Dallas Medical Center:On behalf of Methodist Dallas Medical Center, we are very much in support of this project andour proud to be your host tonight. Thanks to Councilman Jasso for her support on this project.Also, we have great hopes of expanding to Bishops Arts area and Jefferson.

ResponseKeith Manoy:Thanks, Dan. We have some really gracious hosts. This is our second meeting here, and weappreciate what you do for the community.

2. CommentRick Williamson, General Public:I think you’ve done a great job. I’ve been following this from the beginning. You’ve overcomesome significant punches that were thrown at you. You’ve had a lot of innovative ideas, such ashow to stretch the budget as far as you can. I know the goal is to make it a larger system. We’llwe have to redo some of this stuff for a larger (expanded) system?

ResponseKeith Manoy:We were very careful not to have any throw-aways. Every decision that we make during this

project will fit with a much larger project.

3. CommentBill Conner, General Public:Is the project a go?



ResponseKeith Manoy:We’re getting it toward go. The next step is the public comment period, which ends June 23.That document will go to FTA and they will tell us if we are a go or not.

4. CommentDan Eddy, Methodist Dallas Medical Center:The $35 million is committed, correct?

ResponseKeith Manoy:Yes.

5. CommentLaura Irvine, President, Methodist Dallas Medical Center:As far as the original plan with Union Station, what will the estimated occupancy be orridership? Do you have studies on that?

ResponseKeith Manoy:This application actually started as a joint application with the City of Fort Worth. It was aboutmaking regional connections. With Methodist being the largest employer in North Oak Cliff it isthe employment center that is the anchor with what we are doing. Union Station was theanchor on the other end for the Trinity Railway Express, which takes you into Fort Worth, alongwith DART’s LRT lines. To use Union Station and distribute ridership there was basically what wewere doing. We don’t have a number of what the estimated ridership is. The primary thing weare trying to accomplish is extend the trip for folks who need to get to Methodist, to encourageuse of light rail transit, and we will take you the rest of the way.

6. CommentTom Ryden, Parsons:I know schedule is really important. You guys have accomplished a tremendous amount. Do yousee any bumps in the road ahead with regard to getting the vehicle you want and all the stepsthat are required?

ResponseJay Kline:As it seems, we are right on our schedule. The problem with that is we have very little, if any,slack, built in that schedule. We are pursuing other options. The City of Seattle apparently hasprocurement underway. For the most part, it matches up well with what we need. We aretalking to Seattle actively about getting onto their procurement. We are also putting togetherour own procurement documents for our own procurement, so we have that in place in case the

Seattle one falls apart.



Written Public Comment Summary and ResponseTwelve written public comments have been received. Six were from comment cards distributedat the public meeting, two were from e-mails received by the City of Dallas, and four were fromcomments received online through the Dallas Streetcar link on the DART webpage.

The comment cards distributed at the public meeting gave respondents three opportunities toprovide input on the project. First, the comment card provided an option to select whether therespondent was in support or in support against the proposed project. Second, the respondentwas given the option to select from among a list of 12 categories for which there may beconcerns. This list included the following:

Project Timeline

Implementation

Cost

Alternatives

Design

Safety

Economic Development

Station Location

Non-Motorized

Parks

Regional Impacts

Other Comments.

Third respondent was provided a general comment section to write a specific comment.Overall, respondents indicate support of the proposed project. As previously stated, the publicwas given the opportunity to submit public comments until Thursday, June 23, 2011.

Public Comments:The following twelve written public comments have been received:

1. John Barr, 203 East Colorado Boulevard1. Method Received: Comment card received at public meeting2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: Other4. Comment: Make available parking in the 200 block of Colorado Blvd. and that

issues compatibility with the street car.

Response:Additional parking is typically not associated with streetcars as they primarily serve localresidents and businesses within the vicinity of the stops. Parking would continue to beassociated with the adjacent land uses and would be the responsibility of the respectiveproperty owners.



2. Dan Eddy, 1441 North Beckley Avenue1. Method Received: Comment card received at public meeting2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: Design4. Comment: “Methodist is very supportive and hopes the project can eventually be

expanded to Bishops Arts, Jefferson and West Dallas.”

Response:Comment Noted. The key concern checked on the comment card has been evaluated andaddressed in the EA document. Seven technical memoranda in Appendix C of the EA haveevaluated and discussed all aspects of design for the streetcar project.

3. Luis Saucedo, 400 South Zang Boulevard1. Method Received: Comment card received at public meeting2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: Not available4. Comment: No comment

4. Karim Amir, 115 East Colorado Boulevard1. Method Received: Comment card received at public meeting2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: Project timeline, safety, economic development and parks4. Comment: No comment

Response:The key concerns checked on the comment card have been evaluated and addressed inthe EA document. The project is on an expedited scheduled in order to meet timerequirements of the TIGER Grant. Environmental clearance is projected to occur in theSummer of 2011. Final design and construction would begin following environmentalclearance and as stated in the EA on Page 6 substantial construction is expected to becomplete in 2013. Streetcar service is proposed to begin at the end of 2013. Safetyconcerns have been addressed on Pages 9 and 10 of the EA. Economic development hasbeen evaluated and discussed in technical memoranda in Appendix D of the EA, Page 13of D-1: Assessment of Land Use Impacts, Page 25 of D-4: Assessment of SocioeconomicImpacts, and throughout D-5: Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. Finally, thesurrounding parks in the project area have been evaluated in a technical memorandum inAppendix D of the EA, D-7: Assessment of Parkland and Recreational Resources.

5. Greg and Nancy Pickering , 509 Elm Street #2031. Method Received: E-mail received by the City of Dallas2. Comment: Mr. Manoy, why not continue the streetcar line up the hill (in front of

Methodist) to Bishop, then left a few blocks to the Bishop Arts community? There aremany restaurants and retail shops, etc. in the Bishop Arts area which would greatlybenefit from the streetcar access. As it is presently proposed, I don’t envision muchusage, since the Oak Cliff destination point is, except for the hospital, sorely lacking inanything to draw people to ride.”



Response:The project limits have been defined by the need of the proposed action and availablefunding, which are detailed in Appendix A of the EA, A-1: Project Development DecisionPoints. The proposed action provides critical rail crossing of the Trinity River andconnectivity to Union Station. This proposed action is the first segment of a largerstreetcar system that is currently being evaluated and could be implemented in thefuture, subject to availability of funding. The current project limits do not precludeexpansion into Oak Cliff including the Bishop Arts District or downtown Dallas.

6. Scott Boone1. Method Received: E-mail received by the City of Dallas2. Comment: Thank you and the entire team for organizing this project and for the public

meeting last night. I am definitely in favor of the project!

As a member of the Board of Trinity Townhomes, I have a community and personalinterest regarding the design and usage of the streetcar. From my townhome, I view theintersection of Zang/Greenbriar on a daily basis. My questions are below:

Path of TravelLast night [at the public meeting], Mr. Kline stated that the streetcar track would be inthe far right (north) lane. However, the slide depicted the streetcar track to be one laneinboard from the far right north) lane with the far right (north) lane as pedestrian. Pleaseconfirm which scenario is being planned. I and many of the folks I have discussed the planwith, like the pedestrian lane to be the far right (north). This would protect pedestrianseven more so as they walk along the bridge. Will this pedestrian lane be shared withdefined bike lanes? Lastly, how would either path of travel impact the Zang/Greenbriarstop?

Response:On the Houston Street Viaduct, the placement of the streetcar track would occur in thefar right or northern most travel lane, which would be dedicated to streetcar vehiclemovement. A 10-foot sidewalk would extend from streetcar travel lane to the northrailing of the viaduct and would allow for both pedestrian and bike traffic. No definedbike lines would be provided on the sidewalk.

Zang/Greenbriar Stop

Where exactly is the Zang/Greenbriar stop to be located?

Is there a rendering which depicts this stop on a map?

Is there a rendering which depicts this stop once it is fully constructed?

What amenities will/will not be in place at the stop?

Response:The current location is on the northeast corner of Zang/Greenbriar as depicted in theEnvironmental Assessment Appendix G. There is a map that depicts the general locationof stops and is found in the Environmental Assessment document on Page 5. There areno renderings of the stops at this time. The stops would be similar to typical DART bus



stops, but would include a raised curb to accommodate level boarding and alighting ofthe streetcar vehicle.

Substation near Zang/Greenbriar Stop

Where exactly is the power substation to be located?

Is there a rendering which depicts this substation on a map?

Is there a rendering which depicts this substation once it is fully constructed?

What safety features will be constructed along with the substation?

Response:The current location is in the City of Dallas right-of-way adjacent to the existing abutmentunder the Jefferson Viaduct ramp. A map depicting the general location may be found inthe Environmental Assessment document in Appendix C-4: Traction Power SubstationLocation Analysis. No rendering is available at this time; however, a typical substationlayout is provided on Page 2 of Appendix C-4. Security fencing would surround thesubstation at the code-required clearance and access would also be blocked from above,if necessary.

Parking along GreenbriarShould the street car be a great success as everyone intends that it will be:

What actions were taking to account for the potential increased parking alongGreenbriar near the Zang/Greenbriar stop?

Will parking be allowed/disallowed/metered?

Will residents and their guests need "stickers" like the ones on Greenville toallow for parking?

Response:Additional parking is typically not associated with streetcars as they primarily serve localresidents and businesses within the vicinity of the stops. The proposed streetcar is afeeder service that provides access to the more regional DART Light Rail Transit (LRT)System, Trinity Railway Express (commuter rail), and Amtrak service at Union Station.This is much like the DART bus service that serves local residents in the immediate areasurrounding a bus stop. The DART buses provide a feeder service into the DART LRT,Trinity Railway Express, and Amtrak rail systems. There are no additional parking spacesprovided at DART bus stops. Parking would continue to be associated with the adjacentland uses and would be the responsibility of the respective property owners.

7. Canowna J. Pace, 4524 Lorrainne Avenue1. Method Received: Comment card disbursed at public meeting via mail2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: None selected4. Comment: Great connector of Downtown Dallas and Oak Cliff! Excellent compatibility

with light rail tracks, routes, and facilities.

Response:Comment noted.



8. John Pace, 4524 Lorrainne Avenue1. Method Received: Comment card disbursed at public meeting via mail2. Supports the Project: Yes3. Key Concerns: None selected4. Comment: Need closer headways.

Response:Headway times have been developed during the streetcar operation analysis conductedearlier this year, which is detailed in Appendix C of the EA, C-1: Operations Analysis ofProposed Action. Considerations of the operation analysis pertained to the travel of asingle streetcar vehicle in both directions along the alignment, overall cycle time, roundtrip travel time (including traffic signal stops and dwell time at streetcar stops), and therequired layover at terminus stops for recharging the streetcar vehicle. The headways forthe proposed project would be 20-minute during peak travel time and 30-minute offpeak. A 20-minute headway is the most reasonable headway that safely accommodatesall considerations previously referenced. As the streetcar system is expanded in thefuture, headways will be reevaluated.

9. Jonathan Toffer, 411 Elm Street1. Method Received: Online through the Dallas Streetcar link on the DART webpage2. Comment: Consider locating Union Station stop in front of Union Station for greater

accessibility and other benefits:

Streetcar stop could be at south end of Union Station to allow buses to pullout ifstreetcar is stopped.

Reduce confusion merging from four to two lanes after Reunion/Young

Extend sidewalk to occupy current transit lane

Adjacent shared transit lane for streetcar/buses

Begins transition from four lanes to two lanes earlier

Also widen west sidewalk from Wood to Jackson to improve accessibility and begingradual transition down to two lanes over Houston Street Viaduct. Would help toimprove accessibility to Union Station along west sidewalk.

Response:Early in project development the northern terminus (streetcar stop) was locateddirectly in front of Union Station; however, following the analysis of this location itbecame less attractive due to the following reasons:

If the stop is to be placed directly in front of Union Station, bus operationswould be adversely impacted. The streetcar stop would occupy the majority ofthe curb space, thus reducing the available space for the buses. As this stopcurrently accommodates five bus routes, there are often several busesoccupying this space. Additionally, buses servicing Routes 50 and 61 would berequired to make severe cross-traffic movements to make the left turn at YoungStreet. Shifting the northern terminus to the Young and Houston Intersectionreduces the conflict between streetcar vehicles and existing buses.

Prior to streetcar service, the City of Dallas plans to convert Houston Street fromYoung Street north to two-way traffic rather than one-way traffic. Two-way



traffic and a streetcar stop at this location present reduction of roadway level ofservice as well as an increase in conflicts between vehicles (automobile andbuses).

10. Jonathan Toffer, 411 Elm Street1. Method Received: Online through the Dallas Streetcar link on the DART webpage2. Comment: For the Zang Blouvardd segment, the outside lane alignment seems to serve

potential customers better than inside lane along median since apartments are along theoutside of the westbound lane. If ROW is an issue for catenaries could streetcar continueto operate on alternate power supply in areas where ROW might be a problem?

Another advantage of keeping the alignment along outside lane of Zang Blouvardd seemsto be that merging between Houston and Zang would be safer since the streetcar wouldnot be crossing the through traffic lane. It may reduce cost since it seems that a signalwould not be necessary at Houston and Zang as described for the new alignment alongmedian of Zang Blvd.

Improvements to pedestrian facilities needed to complement the Colorado/ Beckley stopto facilitate access from streetcar stop to Methodist Medical Center.

Response:Selection of median running streetcar along Zang Boulevard has been based on theAlternatives Analysis – Best Lane Allocation. Details on this analysis may be found inAppendix C of the EA, Appendix C-5: Alternative Analysis – Best Lane Allocation. Thereasons identified in the analysis for a median running segment are based on reducingconflicts between the streetcar and access drives of adjacent residential developmentsalong Zang Boulevard, eliminating the utility conflict with the 16-inch water line beneaththe southbound right lane of Zang boulevard (major cost consideration), and the medianlends itself to future double tracking to allow for greater capacity. Neither the median orright lane track placement would result in the acquisition of right-of-way.

It is more cost effective to place a dedicated traffic signal at the Greenbrair/Zang Stop toallow for the streetcar vehicle to safely transition from the southbound right lane to themedian than to relocate a 16-inch water line extending 1,700 feet along Zang Boulevard.

Comment noted on the pedestrian facilities.

11. Jonathan Toffer, 411 Elm Street1. Method Received: Online through the Dallas Streetcar link on the DART webpage2. Comment: The wider sidewalk along Houston Street Viaduct seems to be a great idea for

the possibility of future connectivity to the Trinity Park.

Response:Comment noted.



12. Jonathan Toffer, 411 Elm Street1. Method Received: Online through the Dallas Streetcar link on the DART webpage2. Comment: “The existing conditions of the sidewalks near Houston & Wood Streets are

"off kilter" and make for a treacherous stroll for wheelchair and stroller pushingpedestrians. It is almost safer to just bypass the sidewalks here and take a chance in thestreet to cross this intersection.

Widening the west sidewalk along the island north of Wood/Reunion could help solvethis problem and begin the transition down to two through-lanes and one dedicatedguideway for the streetcar. The approaching outside lane could become a dedicated rightturn lane dropping off with connection to westbound Reunion Blvd. South of Reunion thenew section could then be (left to right): a dedicated left turn lane, two through lanes, ashared transit lane (streetcar and bus) and a widened sidewalk (occupying current transitlane). The shared transit lane could have south portion for the streetcar stop with thenorth portion for buses. Most of the time the streetcar will not be there so buses couldcirculate through the streetcar stop area without conflict. When the streetcar does arrivethere could be enough space allocated to allow for buses to pass to the left around thestreetcar if needed.

Sidewalk improvements also needed along the route to improve access to and fromstreetcar stops. On Oak Cliff side narrow sidewalks with several obstructions for"disabled" pedestrians such as; utility poles in sidewalk path, no curb cuts in severallocations, and several sidewalks in need of repair/replacement.

Response:Comments noted on the sidewalks along Houston and Wood streets as well as thesidewalks along the alignment in Oak Cliff.

A shared transit lane along the Houston Street Viaduct north approach would not be afavorable design due to the possible conflicts resulting from bi-directional streetcarservice on a one-way street. To eliminate traffic conflicts the streetcar lane would beexclusively used by the streetcar vehicle and separated from automobile and bus trafficby buffer pylons. For further details please see Appendix G for design drawings.

Agency CommentsThe following two agency comments have been received:

1. Agency CommentTexas Parks and Wildlife Department – June 2011:Based on the project description, the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program does not anticipatesignificant adverse impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species, or other fish and wildliferesources.

Response:Comment Noted.



2. Agency CommentEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) – June 2011:Because the Dallas/Fort Worth area is designated as a “serious” nonattainment area for the1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Federally-funded actions must beevaluated for air quality significance as per the requirements of General Conformity with CleanAir Act (Section 176(c)(A)). Please provide estimates of construction-related emissions of ozoneprecursor compounds (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) during theanticipated timeframe of construction activities, and compare these emissions with the ozoneserious nonattainment area de minimis threshold levels specified in 40 CFR 93.153 – 50tons/year for either VOCs or NOx. If construction emissions of either precursor compoundexceed 50 tons/year during the course of construction, a general conformity analysis will berequired for this action.

Response:Actions by the FTA are not subject to the General Conformity regulation, they are subject to theTransportation Conformity regulation at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. In an ozone nonattainmentarea, an FTA-assisted project conforms if the project is included in the conforming metropolitantransportation plan (MTP) and transportation improvement program (TIP) developed by themetropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Union Station to Oak Cliff Dallas StreetcarProject is included in the current MTP and TIP developed by NCTCOG, which is the MPO formetropolitan Dallas. NCTCOG, Federal Highway Administration, and FTA have determined thatthe MTP and TIP which include the Project conform, in accordance with TransportationConformity regulation. Therefore, the Project conforms.

Documents

TABLE OF CONTENTS - appendices - DART.org · 2011. 8. 1. · Delia Jasso, Dallas City Council Representative, District 1 Keith Manoy, Program ... Texas State Representative, District