Agency execs: DART must cut jobs, scrap nearly all rail expansion plans

[staplesla]

Dallas Area Rapid Transit must cut jobs and scrap nearly all of its rail expansion plans for the next 20 years, agency executives told board members Tuesday.

Final decisions are still months away, but chief financial officer David Leininger warned the board that it would likely have to trim nearly a third of the spending DART had planned between now and 2030.

Only one project not already under construction - the final leg of the Orange Line service to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport - is likely to be saved, though even that will depend on how aggressively the board cuts overhead, including jobs. Projects that are under construction, including the Green Line expansion to Carrollton and the first two legs of the Orange Line, will be unaffected.

Leininger said the board will need to trim between $30 to $50 million in annual operating expenses, with the higher number required if it hopes to build the Orange Line out to the airport. Most of that reduction will have to come in the form of job cuts, though it's too early to tell how many of those would come from attrition and how workers would be terminated.

He told board member Jerry Christian that the number of jobs affected would be large. DART staff will present options for cutting operating expenses next month, and Christian, a Dallas appointee, asked if they would bring at least one scenario that would avoid significant job cuts. Leininger said he could not.

"With respect, that is something I won't be able to do," he said. "The number is going to be a big one."

In March, DART officials said disappointing sales tax receipts had caused the agency to take a fuller look at its finances, and it concluded that sales tax projections by the Perryman Group had proven to be wildly optimistic. Its revenue problems, it concluded, go beyond the current recession, and aren't likely to improve soon. For the past 10 years, sales tax receipts have been essentially flat, Leininger said, and demographic changes in its 13 member-cities, especially those in Dallas County, mean that will likely only grow slowly even when the economic recovers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/042710dnmetdart.37eb390.html

[Speedbump Joey]

G** Dammit!

[quietthings]

Well shit. Is it just understood that there will be service cuts?

[TowerGuy]

Damn Damn DOUBLE DAMN!
Hey DART I have an idea!! Get the HOV lanes off your hands. TxDOT needs to take control of the existing HOV lanes as well as the plans for their expansion. The DART rail system shouldn't take a back seat to the automobile. Another thing, it costs 3.2MILLION per station,according to WFAA News 8 DART: A Ticket to Ride video, to incorporate art and that was in 1996. Well, cancel any art on the remaining construction of the Green Line and don't include any on the Orange line branch.

[NTexUnited]

Where can I find sales tax receipt numbers, or more specifically, DARTs revenue projections?

Let's just do away with the DART police, and have the city cops patrol the stations, transit centers and HOV? We hired like a thousand cops in Kunkles brief tenure.

[Speedbump Joey]

This just gives more fuel to the fire for the DART Haters.

[tamtagon]

Looks like Dallas will get a bunch of streetcars in lieu of another light rail corridor.


...In March, DART officials ... concluded that sales tax projections by the Perryman Group had proven to be wildly optimistic.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/042710dnmetdart.37eb390.html

So, like, did they say how much the Perryman Group overestimated?

[Speedbump Joey]

Looks like Dallas will get a bunch of streetcars in lieu of another light rail corridor.



So, like, did they say how much the Perryman Group overestimated?

Can "A lot" be considered a figure of overestimation?

[GreenzaLine]

Well shit. Is it just understood that there will be service cuts?
Oh yes. Very deep and very painful cuts.


Hey DART I have an idea!! Get the HOV lanes off your hands. TxDOT needs to take control of the existing HOV lanes as well as the plans for their expansion. The DART rail system shouldn't take a back seat to the automobile.
I agree with you on this, but that's far from enough to save DART now. Hmm, is there some obligation DART has reguarding HOV lanes?


Another thing, it costs 3.2MILLION per station,according to WFAA News 8 DART: A Ticket to Ride video, to incorporate art and that was in 1996. Well, cancel any art on the remaining construction of the Green Line and don't include any on the Orange line branch.
So you'd prefer something plain and utilitarian? But I still don't think that will be enough. Sure, every little bit helps, but at this point there aren't enough little bits to save the day.


This just gives more fuel to the fire for the DART Haters.
And thus begins DART's downward spiral into oblivion.

So, just to reiterate:
no Loop 12 Station,
no South Las Colinas Station,
no Las Colinas Carpenter Ranch Station,
possibly no DFW Airport Station,
no D2,
no Red Line extension to Red Bird TC,
no Blue Line extension to UNT Dallas or the Southport corridor,
no Orange Line extension along Scyene Road,
no Mesquite,
no Forney,
no Terrell,
no West Dallas Line,
and if you still expect Knox-Henderson Station to open before 2100, you're a damned fool.

The DART system of 2012 will be the DART system of 2030.

[TowerGuy]

Oh yes. Very deep and very painful cuts.


I agree with you on this, but that's far from enough to save DART now. Hmm, is there some obligation DART has regarding HOV lanes?


So you'd prefer something plain and utilitarian? But I still don't think that will be enough. Sure, every little bit helps, but at this point there aren't enough little bits to save the day.


And thus begins DART's downward spiral into oblivion.

So, just to reiterate:
no Loop 12 Station,
no South Las Colinas Station,
no Las Colinas Carpenter Ranch Station,
possibly no DFW Airport Station,
no D2,
no Red Line extension to Red Bird TC,
no Blue Line extension to UNT Dallas or the Southport corridor,
no Orange Line extension along Scyene Road,
no Mesquite,
no Forney,
no Terrell,
no West Dallas Line,
and if you still expect Knox-Henderson Station to open before 2100, you're a damned fool.

The DART system of 2012 will be the DART system of 2030.

When it comes time for budget cuts, luxuries like station art should be the first to go. It is pure luxury and fluff that in truth, isn't noticed by most passengers. Do I prefer the utilitarian look? Of course not, not in times of plenty. I say cut the art now in favor of expansion. They can go back and add art when they are on sturdy financial ground.
The article states that $30-$50 million has to be cut from the annual budget. I would need to know just how much is spent annually on management (HOV Patrol) and maintenance of the HOV lanes. More money is spent on them then many people realize and it may be a nice sized dent. I have a theory that these two would help the budget but not only these two. Some heads up top need to roll and the people who keep there comfy job up top need and deserve a pay cut.

[ihavebeenseen]

The DART system of 2012 will be the DART system of 2030.

That is a pretty good system. Certainly other locales are facing the same financing problems for transit expansion. At least we got something built before the funding dried up.

[Mballar]

Actual numbers would certainly be helpful in this discussion. But since I don't have them, I will just state that these future cuts are based upon future sales tax projections. At present, due to the economy, those projections are lower than what was imagined in previous years. So, DART execs are right to predict these bleak scenarios (e.g. major layoffs, service cuts, halt on future expansion). I remain optimistic that when the economy comes back (quite possibly within the next 5 years), the sales tax projections will rise to levels predicted in years prior, and DART execs can then recommend putting some of the expansion back on the table.

As for the layoffs, I don't know how many employees DART actually needs vs. how many it has, but I hope that after the upcoming layoffs, the Agency will find ways to run a leaner operation from a human resource standpoint (I'm definitely for laying off a number of the DART police officers because I think that much of their policing duties overlap with other law enforcement).

Can anyone with more detailed insight answer this question?

"Is another bond election out of the question to address some of the expansion shortfall?" I would think that another $700K would be reasonable to covet a much needed D2 alignment.

[Mballar]

^nevermind. . .most of my questions/comments were addressed here: http://m.dallasnews.com/tdmn/db_22036/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=dGQHJRio&src=cat

[BC_Club]

They just sit in their cars and cruise around all day

[AeroD]

So, like, did they say how much the Perryman Group overestimated?

Anything from the Perryman Group should be taken with a grain of salt. Perryman is just an economist for hire, and freelances as a cheerleader for the state economy.

[MarkL2023]

And thus begins DART's downward spiral into oblivion.

Really? You don't think maybe you are blowing this out of proportion just a tad?

[quietthings]

And thus begins DART's downward spiral into oblivion.

You sound mighty alarmist. I'd say you're being a bit harsh, mass transit agencies across the country are feeling the affects of the economy.

[xen0blue]

When it comes time for budget cuts, luxuries like station art should be the first to go. It is pure luxury and fluff that in truth, isn't noticed by most passengers.


THIS x10000000000000. The amount they spend on making the stations look pretty is ridiculous.

[GreenzaLine]

True, "downward spiral into oblivion" is a bit harsh. Honestly I don't think DART's going anywhere. However, being unable to build new rail projects definitely isn't healthy for DART's image.

$3,200,000 to make a station look pretty is quite a bit of money. Scaling back the niceties will definitely make the price tag more reasonable, but alone it won't be enough to save any of the projects. If it came right down to it, I'm sure people would pick an ugly station over no station any day.

We'll probably be seeing some stations reminiscent of Berlin's 1920:s U-Bahn stations, with "décor" consisting only of I-beams and rivets with a nice coat of paint. That doesn't sound so bad, does it?

If DART could attract some new member cities, it would give them more funds to work with to get these projects back on track... but at the same time, it would also obligate DART to extend the projects into the new cities.

I'm sure we'll also see more PPP:s in the future, especially if the plans for the Cotton Belt pan out.

[slfunk]

Wondering what the back up plan is for D2. Congestion is already an issue for the current line with all three lines using one alignment. This when the Green line is not fully up and functional / and the Orange line is not up and running. Having four lines using one alignment is not going to be good for congestion. The way that I see it the Orange line would terminate at Union Station or the CC instead of going through downtown.

[PennStation]

[...] the Green line is not fully up and functional [...]As far as the downtown transit mall is concerned, it is. Green Line headways will not change when the full line opens.


[...] the Orange line is not up and running [...]The Orange Line will take over slots currently used by some (half?) of the Red Line trains. According to what I've seen from DART, the transit mall is currently running at 2.5 minute headways, which is the same as what is planned when both new lines open.

[electricron]

When it comes time for budget cuts, luxuries like station art should be the first to go. It is pure luxury and fluff that in truth, isn't noticed by most passengers. Do I prefer the utilitarian look? Of course not, not in times of plenty. I say cut the art now in favor of expansion. They can go back and add art when they are on sturdy financial ground.

That's a foolish suggestion. Here's why!

Cut the art, loose the Federal funds paying for half the light rail lines. Federal law requires a certain percentage for all construction jobs to be spent on betterments, which includes art. Believe it or not, DART only spends the minimum required on betterments. Why do you think TXDOT worries about landscaping along new highways? It's the same answer, to get Texas' fair share of Federal funds.....


$3,200,000 to make a station look pretty is quite a bit of money. Scaling back the niceties will definitely make the price tag more reasonable, but alone it won't be enough to save any of the projects. If it came right down to it, I'm sure people would pick an ugly station over no station any day.

Look at my earlier response, it applies to you too. As Federal law stands today, I would rather have a pretty station than having no station at all. If you use Federal funds, it has to be pretty. I also don't think DART really spends over $3 Million on art at every train station. It's more like $50,000 is spent on art.

[TowerGuy]

That's a foolish suggestion. Here's why!

Cut the art, loose the Federal funds paying for half the light rail lines. Federal law requires a certain percentage for all construction jobs to be spent on betterments, which includes art. Believe it or not, DART only spends the minimum required on betterments. Why do you think TXDOT worries about landscaping along new highways? It's the same answer, to get Texas' fair share of Federal funds.....



Look at my earlier response, it applies to you too. As Federal law stands today, I would rather have a pretty station than having no station at all. If you use Federal funds, it has to be pretty. I also don't think DART really spends over $3 Million on art at every train station. It's more like $50,000 is spent on art.
No, you're wrong it is over $3Million at the time the stations first opened. That is what WFAA stated in the video that I cited. Maybe that has changed. 1.3 million was spent on Deep Ellum and $500,000 on another station. As far as that law? Yeah, I really see the feds coming down hard in these times because art was sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. Give me a break will ya?

[GreenzaLine]

Federal law requires a certain percentage for all construction jobs to be spent on betterments, which includes art.
Ah, I had a feeling there was something like that.

An ugly station might be better than no station, but a station that gets funding is even better!

I guess we haven't been considering where the money comes from. I mean, $3,200,000 is a lot of money to spend on making a station look pretty, but if it gets the federal gov't to cover a big part of the cost, it's worth it.

Hmm... I wonder if there might be anything like that for those HOV lanes everyone wants DART to get rid of...

[F4shionablecHa0s]

I guess we haven't been considering where the money comes from. I mean, $3,200,000 is a lot of money to spend on making a station look pretty, but if it gets the federal gov't to cover a big part of the cost, it's worth it.

When you consider how much it costs to build a light rail line overall, the 3.2 million is chump change. You also have to consider the increased fare revenues from having the train be a pleasant experience for soccer moms taking their kids to the aquarium and whatever. Also, think about the lifetime of the stations, increased sales tax revenues from higher property values increasing welfare, decreased costs fighting NIMBYs, etc etc etc

Sounds like a bargain to me.

[RobertB]

I have a theory that these two would help the budget but not only these two. Some heads up top need to roll and the people who keep there comfy job up top need and deserve a pay cut.
Be careful when you suggest a wholesale firing or pay cut for top-level career DART personnel. Chances are, they're already getting paid a lot less than the equivalent executive in the private sector. That means that they can jump ship at any time. Their replacements, at least initially, will either have less experience, or else they'll be Corporate America's rejects -- and your $100K salary savings could lead to $Billions in bad decisions.

You get efficient public agency management with transparency and accountability -- not by paying your executives burger-flipper wages and installing a revolving door.

[tamtagon]

I think station aesthetics is a priority, and reason enough to delay stations which initially will be less used ensuring other stations can be properly tricked-out.

How many agencies/organizations/entities focusing on public transportation already operate in North Texas, and how much task redundancy exists because of that? DART, The T, Denton County whatchamacallit, NCTCOG, and isnt non-DART Collin County grumbling about a new agency? At a minimum, North Texas' four core counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton should have a single transit agency. The reorganization and colsolidation of North Texas transit agencies must be mapped out and ready to go before the first opportunity have the state legislature fix the rules governing the operation of a regionally funded transit plan.

[oldchap]

I also don't think DART really spends over $3 Million on art at every train station. It's more like $50,000 is spent on art.
Indeed. According to the DART officials at the Orange Line community hearing last month, the budget for station art is only $50k. Station artists do a lot with very little.

How does this shortfall affect the Blue Line extention to Downtown Rowlett?

[dfwcre8tive]

Indeed. According to the DART officials at the Orange Line community hearing last month, the budget for station art is only $50k. Station artists do a lot with very little.

How does this shortfall affect the Blue Line extention to Downtown Rowlett?

Since the Blue Line extension to Rowlett is already under construction, it won't affect it. It will, however, affect all of the other 2030 Plan extensions. From the DMN article:


Also likely to be scrapped:

• The 2.9-mile extension of the Blue Line to the University of North Texas-Dallas campus.

• The 28-mile commuter line known as the Cotton Belt, though plans are under way to build that through a partnership with a private firm.

• A new spur off the Green Line along Scyene Road in Dallas.

• A 4.3-mile extension of the Red Line to Red Bird Lane in southern Dallas.

• A 6-mile rail line in West Dallas, probably along Fort Worth Avenue to Loop 12.

• Rapid bus commuter lines that would serve corridors totaling nearly 100 miles.

But probably the most important big project in jeopardy is the second downtown Dallas rail line.

[TowerGuy]

Indeed. According to the DART officials at the Orange Line community hearing last month, the budget for station art is only $50k. Station artists do a lot with very little.

How does this shortfall affect the Blue Line extention to Downtown Rowlett?
That may be the case now but I can assure you that is not how they have done in the past. I think 50k is very reasonable and I am glad to hear that they have reevaluated their art expenditures. We can cross that off the honey do list. However, I can assure you that they spent well over 50k in the past. Red and Blue lines, especially in the starter system, was 3.2 Million. More recently the Green Line, Deep Ellum for instance, 1.3 Million.

[mtanoct]

I think station aesthetics is a priority, and reason enough to delay stations which initially will be less used ensuring other stations can be properly tricked-out.

How many agencies/organizations/entities focusing on public transportation already operate in North Texas, and how much task redundancy exists because of that? DART, The T, Denton County whatchamacallit, NCTCOG, and isnt non-DART Collin County grumbling about a new agency? At a minimum, North Texas' four core counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton should have a single transit agency. The reorganization and colsolidation of North Texas transit agencies must be mapped out and ready to go before the first opportunity have the state legislature fix the rules governing the operation of a regionally funded transit plan.


In quick response (ok...let me read this again)... having a single agency would be nice, but its not as easy as it looks. NCTCOG is a regional policy planning agency and to my knowledge there are only a few MPO's (the true term) that actually conduct transit planning and the agencies themselves operate and maintain services. The legislatives rules for each of the three agencies would have to go to Austin to be revised. That's my guess.

[mjblazin]

How many agencies/organizations/entities focusing on public transportation already operate in North Texas, and how much task redundancy exists because of that? DART, The T, Denton County whatchamacallit, NCTCOG, and isnt non-DART Collin County grumbling about a new agency? At a minimum, North Texas' four core counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton should have a single transit agency. The reorganization and colsolidation of North Texas transit agencies must be mapped out and ready to go before the first opportunity have the state legislature fix the rules governing the operation of a regionally funded transit plan.

These other entities don't want to share their money with DART. I'm guessing they have money or have already synchronized their plans with a reasonable forecast. They don't want to be another Irving, paying and waiting. Additionally so-called DART supporters like Schutze at the Observer don't help cooperation with their "the D in DART means DALLAS and the the suburbs be damned" attitude.

[AeroD]

These other entities don't want to share their money with DART. I'm guessing they have money or have already synchronized their plans with a reasonable forecast. They don't want to be another Irving, paying and waiting. Additionally so-called DART supporters like Schutze at the Observer don't help cooperation with their "the D in DART means DALLAS and the the suburbs be damned" attitude.

I am sure those were the same reasons some thought DFW could not build a regional airport

[ksig121]

I am sure those were the same reasons some thought DFW could not build a regional airport

The federal government had to hold a gun to DFW's collective heads to get that done...

[NThomas]

The federal government had to hold a gun to DFW's collective heads to get that done...
Maybe they would have done it with DART and The T if DCTA would have waited to get federal funding. :confused: Not that DCTA would have any clout to force a regional agency but just food for thought...

[sdub]

I saw a presentation last week by Jay Cline (sp?) from DART about streetcars. They are about 1/4 as expensive to build as light rail ($22-25M per mile vs. $75-100). The number he mentioned that is probably more relevant now is $1M per mile per year in operational costs. Even if the rail fairy built them whatever they wanted over night, they wouldn't be able to keep it running. If they have to cut light rail service, the D2 alignment won't be as sorely missed, I suppose.

[electricron]

That may be the case now but I can assure you that is not how they have done in the past. I think 50k is very reasonable and I am glad to hear that they have reevaluated their art expenditures. We can cross that off the honey do list. However, I can assure you that they spent well over 50k in the past. Red and Blue lines, especially in the starter system, was 3.2 Million. More recently the Green Line, Deep Ellum for instance, 1.3 Million.

I think you''re confusing how much money it took to build the train station, sidewalks, shelters, benches, ticket machines, fences, etc versus what is actually spent on art.

And it is true, DART has spent more than standard amount on several trains stations; for the stations themselves and for art; including Union, Victory, Deep Ellum, Fair Park, and Garland. In just about every case, the local cities or neighborhood merchants subsidized, at a significant percentage, the extra costs. The only case I'm aware of where DART provided 100% of the extra costs was at Deep Ellum, where DART tore down tons of public art when the tunnel was filled in.
Without DART funding the "Traveling Man" art the light rail line would have had to take a different much more expensive route. In reality, DART saved significantly more money spending more for art than what it would have taken to build the rail corridor on a different route....

[TowerGuy]

I think you''re confusing how much money it took to build the train station, sidewalks, shelters, benches, ticket machines, fences, etc versus what is actually spent on art.

And it is true, DART has spent more than standard amount on several trains stations; fpr the stations themselves and for art; including Union, Victory, Deep Ellum, Fair Park, and Garland. In just about every case, the local cities or neighborhood merchants subsidized, at a significant percentage, the extra costs. The only case I'm aware of where DART provided 100% of the extra costs was at Deep Ellum, where DART tore down tons of public art when the tunnel was filled in.
Without DART funding the "Traveling Man" art the light rail line would have had to take a different much more expensive route. In reality, DART saved significantly more money spending more for art than what it would have taken to build the rail corridor on a different route....

NOOOOOOOOO!!! CRAP! AHHHH!! HAHAHAHA! I found another piece of that video and the reporter corrected himself and said the 3.2 Million was the station itseeeeellllllff!!!!!! $50k each station! $1Million price for the art collectively! $3.2Million for the station! DAMMIT!!! LOL.

WELL, I was right...kind of...a little? SHOOT.
Well crap what do we cut? I NEED A DRINK! :drink:

[GreenzaLine]

Well crap what do we cut?
The second track?

Wasn't the plan for the Red Line originally to single-track everything north of Park Lane? But I heard they moved ahead on double-tracking when the starter system proved to be a success.

True, single-tracking does create bottlenecks, but it would reduce the cost of building a line... right?

By how much, though? Obviously much less than half, since the stations still cost the same and passing sidings have to be built. And how much of a headache will it be to double-track it later? I'm sure someone here can answer this.

I guess if they could get them fancy-pants hybrid trains, they could build a line without electrification... but those haven't been developed yet. And how much do the catenaries add to the cost?

Somewhere I heard that light rail costs five times as much per mile as commuter rail. What were the assumptions behind that, anyway? Are catenaries really that expensive? Can anyone explain the price difference to me?

[electricron]

NOOOOOOOOO!!! CRAP! AHHHH!! HAHAHAHA! I found another piece of that video and the reporter corrected himself and said the 3.2 Million was the station itseeeeellllllff!!!!!! $50k each station! $1Million price for the art collectively! $3.2Million for the station! DAMMIT!!! LOL.

WELL, I was right...kind of...a little? SHOOT.
Well crap what do we cut? I NEED A DRINK! :drink:

So do I. :cheers:

I think we can trust DART's staff and board to find and implement the right solutions to keep DART solvent. 15 member cities are relying upon it.

Back in 2000 or 2002, when the last election allowing DART to become more in debt for a longer time passed, it was stated its purpose was to accelerate construction of DART's original rail plans (Pase I and II), not to commence building Phase III. Thinking Phase III projects could be accelerated wasn't dreaming too high with a good economy, but with a bad economy that's all it was, a dream. Sales tax revenues from Allen, McKinney, Frisco, Duncanville, Desoto, Lancaster, Grand Prairie, and Mesquite should allow DART to expand already existing and planned light rail lines to them sooner than 2030. It may also be possible only single tracks need to be built for some initially, which could save save money.

But, I think we all forgot that doubling the light rail lines milage was going to add significant O&M costs to the light rail system, and that the metroplex is growing faster outside DART's territory than within.

[electricron]

The second track?

Wasn't the plan for the Red Line originally to single-track everything north of Park Lane? But I heard they moved ahead on double-tracking when the starter system proved to be a success.

True, single-tracking does create bottlenecks, but it would reduce the cost of building a line... right?

By how much, though? Obviously much less than half, since the stations still cost the same and passing sidings have to be built. And how much of a headache will it be to double-track it later? I'm sure someone here can answer this.

I guess if they could get them fancy-pants hybrid trains, they could build a line without electrification... but those haven't been developed yet. And how much do the catenaries add to the cost?

Somewhere I heard that light rail costs five times as much per mile as commuter rail. What were the assumptions behind that, anyway? Are catenaries really that expensive? Can anyone explain the price difference to me?


NCTCOG a few years ago assumed catenary lines add $1.6 Million/mile for single track corridors.
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/planning/rrcs/V.Corridor_E-3_McKinney_Line.pdf
Read chart on page 64 in the link I posted. In fact, many more answers to your other questions can be found on that chart too.

Remember, those are old numbers and prices probably have changed since. But this chart provides a close estimate.

[AshtonM]

Give me streetcars in dense areas that actually need them. Build as needed.

[electricron]

Maybe they would have done it with DART and The T if DCTA would have waited to get federal funding. :confused: Not that DCTA would have any clout to force a regional agency but just food for thought...

DART, FWTA (the T), and DCTA are based upon three different Chapters of the Texas Transportation Code.
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn.html

FWTA = Chapter 451 METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn/006.00.000451.00.html
1) "Alternate municipality" means a municipality that:
(A) has a population of more than 60,000;
(B) is located in a metropolitan area the principal municipality of which has a population of more than 1.2
million; and
(C) is not part of the territory of another authority.
2) "Authority" means a rapid transit authority created under this chapter
(5) "Metropolitan area" includes only an area in this state that has a population density of not less than 250 persons for each square mile and contains not less than 51 percent of the incorporated territory of a municipality having a population of 230,000 or more. The area may contain other municipalities and the suburban area and environs of other municipalities.
(7) "Principal municipality" means the municipality having the largest population in a metropolitan area.
INELIGIBILITY
This chapter does not apply to an area composed of the territory of two contiguous counties each of which contains a municipality having a population of 350,000 or more.

Most large cities in Texas transportation authorities fall under this Chapter, including Austin, Houston, and San Antonio.

DART = Chapter 452 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn/006.00.000452.00.html
(1) Authority" means a regional transportation authority created under this chapter
(A) A subregional authority created by a contiguous municipality; and
(B) An authority, other than an authority created by a contiguous municipality, consisting of one
subregion.
(3) "Contiguous municipality" means a municipality that has a boundary contiguous with a principal municipality and having:
(A) a population of more than 250,000, or
(B) boundaries extending into two or more adjacent counties, two of which counties include a principal
municipality.
(7) "Metropolitan area" means a federal standard metropolitan statistical area having a population of more than
500,000, not more than 60 percent of which resides in municipalities having a population of more than 350,000.
(8) "Principal municipality" means a municipality having a population of at least 350,000.

DART is the only one formed under this Chapter so far. Both Carrollton and Richardson (considered "Contiguoous muncipalities) are members of DART, which extend across county lines, Chapter 452 applies....

DCTA = Chapter 460 COORDINATED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn/006.00.000460.00.html
This chapter applies only to a county that is adjacent to a county with a population of more than one million.
A municipality that is a member of a subregion of a transportation authority governed by a board described in Chapter 452, is not eligible to join or become a member of an authority created under this chapter unless:
(1) the municipality holds a withdrawal election iand a majority of the voters at the election approve the withdrawal;
(2) the municipality has paid in full all amounts that it is required to pay
(3) the comptroller has ceased to collect sales and use taxes within the municipality that were levied and collected in the municipality for purposes of the authority from which the municipality has withdrawn.
INELIGIBILITY
(b) A municipality that is not eligible under this section for membership in an authority created under this chapter may not be added to or join an authority until the municipality meets the requirements of this section.

So far, only Denton County falls under this Chapter, but Galveston County is seriously considering forming their own under Chapter 460 to support building a Galveston-Houston commuter rail line.

There are others Transporation Authorities allowed by State Law too, which you can find listed at
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/tn.html

The Code gets quite messy, but it is specific. Chapter 452 can be used for a Regional Transportation Authority for more than two contiguous counties. But voters in every FWTA member city withinTarrant County will have to terminate FWTA by election, then vote to join DART by election, increasing the sale tax allocation to DART to a full penny - vs the half penny FWTA charges.
Meanwhile, between elections, there may not any transit service. The FWTA member cities would have to pay off the FWTA debt before any sale tax revenues can be sent to DART. The same goes for DCTA member cities and DART member cities.
The reason why DART can't attract new member cities is because these cities use part or most of the optional penny sales tax cities can collect for other purposes, DART wants all of the optional sales tax. The same tax ceiling in State Law will also prevents member cities of both the FWTA and DCTA from joining DART anytime soon, even if DART was allowed to assume the FWTA and DCTA debt.......

Why should the State Legislature create another Regional Transit Authority complicating tax measures and issue further. What needed is raising the State sales tax cap and have everyone join the Chapter 452 Transit Authority (DART).

Assuming the skes tax cap law changes, and Tarrant and Collin County cities wish to join DART, Dallas DART Board members will vote against allowing them to join. Why? Because Dallas will immediately lose control of DART's Board.
Which is why Denton County formed a Chapter 460 Transit Authority. Why Galveston County wants to do so too. Why Collin County is looking at forming one too, if they can convince Plano to join them after leaving DART.
Chapter 452 doesn't work to well with two or more Principal Cities.

[GreenzaLine]

Assuming the skes tax cap law changes, and Tarrant and Collin County cities wish to join DART, Dallas DART Board members will vote against allowing them to join. Why? Because Dallas will immediately lose control of DART's Board.
Are you sure that's what's guaranteed to happen? That Dallas would deal such a huge blow to DART's long-term viability just to keep control of the board?

...I bet if you tell them the money from new cities would fund their Convention Center Hotel Station, they'll approve. </joke>

[sdub]

But, I think we all forgot that doubling the light rail lines milage was going to add significant O&M costs to the light rail system, and that the metroplex is growing faster outside DART's territory than within.

I agree that these are the two key issues, controlling O&M costs and expanding their revenue base.

[mjblazin]

When you don't align your revenue with your cost drivers, you really don't have control over your business. Now increased usage and costs generate an insignificant share of incremental revenue. They are inversely related if at all. Lower economic results increase usage meaning lower revenues and higher costs.

It might be heresy, but I'd recommend DART follow the Belo approach: jack up the price and intentionally lower the users and expense. Yes, as in the commercials, I'm an avid DART user. The Feds paid for the build out. Now we have to find an operating model that reduces further buildout as the Fed tap runs dry and that pays for the upkeep and debt service.

[eirin]

While that model can and does work often, isn't it kind of missing the point that DART isn't supposed to make profit? It's supposed to be an aid of transportation...to get quite a lot of people from point A to point B.

For example, if DART suddenly stopped running, there'd be chaos. Not only would there be a huge spike in car traffic, but thousands and thousands of people would be unable to get to work. It's a public service - cheap and reliable, at least somewhat, I suppose.

So, I'm not entirely sure what I feel would be the best method to increasing revenues. I would think that an increase in ridership and desire for rail and bus services, and having other cities join would in turn bring more tax revenue. That is the main source of income for DART in the first place. The more riders there are, as well, the more it seems to be a viable means of transportation.

The main problem DART and the T and now, DCTA, have had is the scoffing of NIMBYs and white suburbanites who constantly flee further and further into the exurbs. All the tax revenue created in these places, they want to go to more roads, more development, etc etc. Until you change the mindset (which has been drifting towards the idea that mass transit is good...), you're going to have issues with funding. In fact, these same people strain the system they aren't even paying for (by and large). They drive to park and rides and pay their fare but what is that but a drop in the bucket compared to the millions and millions of tax dollars collected every year? I'd like to see the figures on 1% of tax revenue in Frisco, McKinney, Arlington, Grand Prairie, and places like that and see how it would compare to an estimate of ridership multiplied by fare prices. I think the tax revenues would win out.

Ideally, the best way to solve the issues with mass transit and transit of any kind in DFW is to have the entire region serviced by a regional transportation authority - one to oversee highways, rail, buses, turnpikes.

Now DART also has a lot of overhead of construction costs piling up right now as well. Once those projects are done, things should begin to pan out...one would assume, or hope. Honestly, I don't think the problem lies with DART (although they have been known to have 'problems with money' before) but with TxDOT. Transit agencies in Texas have done pretty well for having so little regard, or assistance from our state's only transportation authority. We seriously need rail and other mass transportation funding from the state government, but alas there's none to be had...not even for roads anymore. All in all, this whole place needs a new stream of thinking when it comes to funding for any kind of transportation. And I don't see that happening any time soon. :\

[incrediculous]

Dallas has control of DART's board? That's news to me.

[msutton]

Several other things DART could be doing to bring in (even minor) additional revenue: utilize the inside of the train for advertising space. Even at current ridership levels, Advertising income alone could save several jobs or take a chunk out of operating costs.

Allow food/beverage/newsstand vendors to "rent" space at certain stations. I buy an HonestTea from the vendor on the 2/3 platform at 34th st. most mornings. Tons of others do as well. Especially on DART, when you have the occasional 15 minute wait for a train, those guys could easily make enough money to pay some rent.

FIX THE DAY PASS PRICING! with the MTA, a day pass is $8.25 ($.75 less than 4 trips)-- clearly DART can't charge that since its service is so much less functional, but $4 for local (just more than a round trip) is pretty goofy. It should be at least $6 ($1 less than 4 trips). The system Day Pass should be at least $8 ($2 less than 4 trips) and the Regional should be at least $10 ($7.50 for a ticket that get takes you to and from Fort Worth, and gets you around both cities, is madness! $5 each way starts to sound like something reasonable, but I think it could be more still).

Next -- open up parts of some of the DART parking lots for private development. Neither residential nor office is going to be bringing in too much money for the system anytime soon, but retail certainly could.

Next -- until the Orange line opens, replace the nightmare of bus-to-bus-to-TRE (which is wonderful once the train finally comes), DART should operate an express bus that takes incoming passengers from the airport to Union Station or the West End. In NY, the airport express bus from Laguardia to Port Authority is $10 each way, and I'll take it any day over a cab. As will most residents, and many tourists (if it were advertised more successfully, they'd get an even bigger share of this market). DART could charge something similar -- maybe $8 each way or $15 for a round trip -- especially if the price included a day pass on the system.

I'm sure there are other, more creative, small ways to increase revenue. But it has always seemed to me that DART has felt too safe in its tax, grant, and borrowing funds and has not scavenged as they should for the myriad possibilities to increase revenue on their own.

[RobertB]

Allow food/beverage/newsstand vendors to "rent" space at certain stations. I buy an HonestTea from the vendor on the 2/3 platform at 34th st. most mornings. Tons of others do as well. Especially on DART, when you have the occasional 15 minute wait for a train, those guys could easily make enough money to pay some rent.
I want this too, badly. I can't believe that I can't buy a breakfast burrito on the way to work and a hot dog on the way home without leaving DART property. I know it's because they don't want people eating on the train and bus... but that ship has already sailed (especially on the bus, where the Evening 40oz is a common afternoon sight). The TRE allows food -- I think the LRT could survive such a meaty fate as well.