The DART Experience

[palchik]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/opinion/stories/DN-west_mckillip_06edi.ART.West.Edition1.46f979d.html

Vickie McKillip of Carrollton: With apologies to DART man

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, June 6, 2008
Vickie McKillip of Carrollton is an administrative assistant at her church and a Community Voices volunteer columnist. Her e-mail address is rvmckillip@verizon.net.

I am most decidedly not interested in going green; I recycle mainly because all our junk won't fit in the trash bin. Razing small forests for commercial development seems like a good idea to me. I think global warming is nonsense – remember global cooling? So my recent experiment in riding DART buses to work has absolutely nothing to do with hugging trees and everything to do with high gas prices.

I last rode public transportation 33 years ago. Some of my best childhood memories are interwoven with the Dallas bus system: trips to the State Fair every fall with my non-driving grandmother and skipping school to go downtown to look at the Christmas decorations. But my recent experiences did nothing to bring back memories of the good old days.

The trips themselves were not terrible; I could easily get used to having someone drive me around without expecting chitchat. The buses were fairly clean, and much more interactive than they used to be. An automated voice announces upcoming major intersections, and other cross streets flash on the marquee up front. Fun factoids and ads scroll across another screen.

Instead of the old bell chords you used to pull to announce that you wanted to decamp, there is a strange, ceiling to shoulder-height rubber strip every few feet along both sides of the bus that you push just prior to arriving at your destination; the perky automaton announces – in English and in Spanish – that a stop has been requested.

The real problem lies in many small but crucial annoyances. First of all, it's already too dang hot to wait at a stop that faces west at 5 p.m., especially when your wait is prolonged because the bus is late. Again. On average, my morning bus was about 10 minutes late; the afternoon bus had a tardy average of three minutes. That's an eternity in summertime Texas.

The buses themselves are air-conditioned, but not well. Compensating for repeated blasts of Texas heat roaring through the doors every few blocks means the thermostat needs to be set much lower. The regular day pass fee of $3 is probably a real bargain for most riders, especially those who have a long way to go that involves one or more transfers.

It wasn't such a great deal for me; even though my subcompact is old and has never had a tune-up, it still doesn't devour more than $3 in gasoline on my daily 14-mile route to work and back.

The real hassle with the day pass is that it must be purchased in exact change only. Since grocery stores utilize technology that allows shoppers to make purchases with bills of most denominations, can't DART follow suit?

Weekly or monthly passes can also be purchased at a savings, but may not be easy to find, depending on what city you live in.

Potty-mouthed kids with saggy pants are another unpleasant reality in bus travel. Other than push for transit cops to baby-sit on the buses that run near schools, there's probably not much passengers can do except allow themselves to be held hostage by unruly young punks.

DART's not to blame for the alienation and disconnect you feel as a rider, but those perceptions pervade the cabin's atmosphere, and they're creepy. Being enclosed in a dark capsule hurtling willy-nilly down the street with a dozen or more people all staring anywhere but at each other is surreal.

And while it's the ultimate stereotype, another perception DART battles is that buses carry losers. Historically, traveling by private car signals affluence. There's a tendency to believe that bus riders are either so destitute they can't even afford broken-down jalopies or they've lost their drivers license to a DUI conviction.

But the biggest problem I encountered, I'm afraid, originates with me: The loss of independence and spontaneity was immensely depressing. Call me selfish and irresponsible, but I'm not ashamed to admit I'm addicted to Big Oil. And I'm more than pleased to pay my share at the pump again. DART man, I salute you.


Vickie McKillip of Carrollton is an administrative assistant at her church and a Community Voices volunteer columnist. Her e-mail address is rvmckillip@verizon.net.

[eirin]

Well continue living in the suburbs then, sucking on your big oil until they repossess your house and you are forced to live in a shack for being obstinate. Oops, forgive me for being selfish and irresponsible. LOL

[downtownguy25]

Well continue living in the suburbs then, sucking on your big oil until they repossess your house and you are forced to live in a shack for being obstinate. Oops, forgive me for being selfish and irresponsible. LOL

You know not everyone living in the suburbs are living beyond their means. Like articles death of the suv, news makes money with big headlines. I still drive a large suv, it gets about 8 miles per gallon, though a tank of gas lasts me a month because I rarely drive to Dallas. I used to live in West Plano, where I still talk to alot of my neighbors. None of them have gone into forclosure, the vast majority of them dont drive more than 10 miles to work. I think some of you guys forget how many jobs there are out in the suburbs and that alot of people that live in the suburbs, also work in the suburbs.

[grantboston]

I was surprised to read on one of the DMN blogs recently that Mr. Crunchy Con himself, Rod Dreher, just rode the DART train for the FIRST TIME recently. If someone who lives in town and has written a book (and blogs constantly) about the need for a more sustainable lifestyle is just now getting around to riding the DART trains, something tells me that DART has a long way to go before it needs to start attracting marginal riders like Carrollton's finest Ms. McKillip.

[texcolo2]

Riding DART is like learning how to ride a bicycle. It takes time to learn about what you can do and how you can do it. I lived a quarter mile from the LBJ / TI station. It took a bit of goofing around, but I got to the point to where I could get to the post office, grocery store, movie theatre... etc. with out using my car. I could get away with not using my truck for 5 day stretches at a time.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Riders need to have reasonable expectations. DART, like almost any form of mass transit, will always disproportionately attract riders from the lower strata of society. Generally, for successful people the time spent using mass transit outweighs the cost savings. Also, successful people are more likely to want or require the flexibility that mass transit can't deliver. So a disproportionate portion of the ridership will always be people on the bottom rung of the ladder, for who every penny counts, or for who an extra hour getting home just means an hour less watching TV.That means that a disproportionate number of riders will be those who haven't gotten ahead in life, and for some that will be because they're thugs, mentally ill, alcoholic, druggies or voted for Ralph Nader.

I'm sure I'll now get bombarded with examples of CEOs who ride the bus or something. Don't bother -- isolated examples don't prove anything. We're talking overall ridership here.

[Mballar]

Riding DART is like learning how to ride a bicycle. It takes time to learn about what you can do and how you can do it.
I totally agree with this statement. The system can be beneficial to those who actually take time to read schedules,and coordinate their trips accordingly. It's not always that easy, because some routes don't run that frequently (partially b/c more people don't ride to justify the extra operations costs), but it definetly isn't hard to get around the city on DART. One only has to make an effort.

[Random Traffic Guy]

but it definetly isn't hard to get around the city on DART. One only has to make an effort.


I thought the column was a pretty fair assessment of the DART experience for people who have a choice. While it provides a feasible alternative, the negatives cited will require the price of gas to get much worse, or traffic to get much worse (mututally exclusive btw), for DART to be a common choice. There's a bell curve of demand based on individual judgement of the situation. The line is moving towards the center as people sensitive to gas prices or other factors switch to transit, but the center is still a long way off.
Unfortunately, DART's weaknesses of capacity and service will become more apparent as ridership grows, and increase the negatives that keep people away. This is largely my reasoning for going back to my vehicle from the train. Transit folks talk a good game about being productive or relaxing on the commute, but when the trains are full enough to have all the seats taken by ladies and seniors, I'm left standing for the whole trip. Add the 50-100% extra time penalty and small things like the column says, and the attractions are low indeed.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Riders need to have reasonable expectations. DART, like almost any form of mass transit, will always disproportionately attract riders from the lower strata of society. Generally, for successful people the time spent using mass transit outweighs the cost savings. Also, successful people are more likely to want or require the flexibility that mass transit can't deliver. So a disproportionate portion of the ridership will always be people on the bottom rung of the ladder, for who every penny counts, or for who an extra hour getting home just means an hour less watching TV.That means that a disproportionate number of riders will be those who haven't gotten ahead in life, and for some that will be because they're thugs, mentally ill, alcoholic, druggies or voted for Ralph Nader.

I'm sure I'll now get bombarded with examples of CEOs who ride the bus or something. Don't bother -- isolated examples don't prove anything. We're talking overall ridership here.

If we want to talk overall ridership, the main thing is service, which is hard to fund in our country, since we see transit as a subsidy and highways as an investment.

In city after city where quality is high, transit riders are more diverse. Manhattan, which has some of the highest income per capita in country has 75% of its residents that don't own a car. For New York, the percentage is 54%. In Portland, which essentially stopped building highways in the late 70's early 80's, 78% of its riders are choice riders, meaning the do/could own a car, but choose not to. In St. Louis, 60% of their LRT riders drove to work, but choose not to because the rail is convenient to them. In Salt Lake City, 45% of their rail riders had never used public transportation prior to the train. For Denver, that stat was 39%. All in all, when transit is convenient more people flock to it. When it is not, it attracts only the transit dependent.

[palchik]

One of the biggest problems with mass transit is that much of society has disengaged from it for literally generations. Transit in the US was the best in the world for decades. We had the fastest trains, the biggest route networks, the finest service, and the best technology, but we as a society let it all go to waste. The same can be said about so many things: schools, cities, etc… We are a very mobile society, and very little is sacred to us and worth staying and fighting for. Once our collective attention is caught by the next “big thing,” we go after it and don’t look back. That’s how we surrendered so much of our society to thugs and incompetent leaders…we simply didn’t care enough to keep them in check…it was easier to just say “screw it,” and buy a car and move farther and farther and farther out. Now, out of necessity, our attention has refocused on those domains that we long abandoned, and we find it surprising that no one “kept up the lawn” while we were away. The only way to get DART, the City of Dallas, the DISD, etc...to offer the type service that most reasonable people expect is to over-run them with responsible citizens. Attend DART Board meetings, DISD, and City Council meetings…don’t let the insane and delusional among us have the last say…or the only say in many cases. So, if DART’s not doing it for you, make yourself heard, and if nothing changes, demand new leadership. That’s the beauty of democracy: politicians are completely and totally dependent on our satisfaction to keep their jobs. If we make transit an issue, transit BECOMES an issue.

[Knight1979]

I can't believe the article or some of the comments on here. This lady is an outright bigot. I love her descriptions of people who ride mass transit are "losers" who probalby either can't afford a car or lost it because of a DUI. Wow, what a sohpisticated, tolerant and progressive society we live in. I would love to here her comments on geo-politics and philosophy.

[Alex Rodriguez]

This is where Transit Oriented Development comes into the picture. If you can put a lot of the new incoming population into TOD's, you are going to get a lot of ridership from that group. I am all for that.

But expecting someone to get on board with Transit who is already established in DFW is going to be a very difficult proposition, simply because Transit cannot get you close enough to your house/job. This is also a reason why a lot of new influx will not be able to do transit, either.

And THAT is why you cannot simply stop road development in DFW. The numbers are simply too large, the increase is too fast to expect that DART is going to transport the increase. It is simply not capable of doing so.

[LH_Newbie]

My wife and I rode the DART to the Arts Festival this weekend. I was surprised how packed the trains were - both around 1pm on our way there and 5pm on our way back. Not many seats and many people were standing. I would have to agree that if one were to judge a book by it's cover, one could assume that a large percentage of DART riders are currently on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Dunno about some of the other assertions.

We thought about our ride and determined that it took about the same time to wait for a train as it would have to drive there if you include the time looking for parking. And at $3 per person x 2 people, the cost was actually a little lower than paying for parking and gas. We definitely had a good experience on DART. Unfortunately, it doesn't go to my wife's office - so we aren't going to be using it for our commute (and I work from home most of the time anyhow).

Brian

[RobertB]

Riders need to have reasonable expectations. DART, like almost any form of mass transit, will always disproportionately attract riders from the lower strata of society. Generally, for successful people the time spent using mass transit outweighs the cost savings. Also, successful people are more likely to want or require the flexibility that mass transit can't deliver. So a disproportionate portion of the ridership will always be people on the bottom rung of the ladder, for who every penny counts, or for who an extra hour getting home just means an hour less watching TV.That means that a disproportionate number of riders will be those who haven't gotten ahead in life, and for some that will be because they're thugs, mentally ill, alcoholic, druggies or voted for Ralph Nader.

I'm sure I'll now get bombarded with examples of CEOs who ride the bus or something. Don't bother -- isolated examples don't prove anything. We're talking overall ridership here.
I would have to say that Mr. Lecter's analysis is spot-on -- and from someone that I usually associate with an anti-transit viewpoint. I don't have any disagreement with his assessment of Dallas transit ridership, and the reasons why it skews towards the less fortunate.

And he's nailed it on the head when he says "Successful people are more likely to want or require the flexibility that mass transit can't deliver." But don't forget that "success" is a slippery quantity, and as gas prices rise, success in some areas may require less flexibility in others. The 283 express from Garland to Dallas is full (standing room only) of well-dressed "successful people" who have given up flexibility in favor of economy.

As for myself, I *did* vote for Nader. So there. ;)

Save the vituperation for that lady in the paper, who whines about her schedule:

On average, my morning bus was about 10 minutes late; the afternoon bus had a tardy average of three minutes.
I can hardly imagine that she expects me to take her seriously. She's whining about 10 minutes? Has she *never* been in a traffic jam? And three minutes isn't even worth calling "late". If I get to my 10:00 meeting at 10:03, I'm considered pretty much on time. I wish I could go visit her church and take a stopwatch to Sunday School class, choir practice, and the preacher's sermon. 10 minutes? That's less time out of my life than I wasted reading her self-absorbed drivel. But at least she's honest -- she's going to keep sucking at the Big Oil teat until it runs dry, her church's supposed theology be damned. Bear a cross? You gotta be s#!++ing me.

[psukhu]

The fact that gasoline prices will continue to rise will help DART. How many people will be able to afford $8/gallon gasoline? At the very least DFW people will drive more fuel efficient cars (like Europeans) and will attempt to live closer to their jobs.


Two factors will cause gasoline prices to rise for DFW area residents:

1) Increasing demand for oil in China and India is out pacing the increase in global supply.

2) The US government continues to run a massive deficit because of the war in Iraq. This will continue until we pull out of Iraq or hike Federal income taxes. What are the chances of either of these events happening? To cover the deficit, the US government must sell bonds. This dilutes our currency and causes the US Dollar to fall relative to other currencies. The end result is that oil costs more in US Dollars.

[grantboston]

The fact that gasoline prices will continue to rise will help DART. How many people will be able to afford $8/gallon gasoline? At the very least DFW people will drive more fuel efficient cars (like Europeans) and will attempt to live closer to their jobs.


Two factors will cause gasoline prices to rise for DFW area residents:

1) Increasing demand for oil in China and India is out pacing the increase in global supply.

2) The US government continues to run a massive deficit because of the war in Iraq. This will continue until we pull out of Iraq or hike Federal income taxes. What are the chances of either of these events happening? To cover the deficit, the US government must sell bonds. This dilutes our currency and causes the US Dollar to fall relative to other currencies. The end result is that oil costs more in US Dollars.

psukhu, I'm trying to think of the last time you posted and didn't compare something to its European equivalent. Coming up empty. :) Just saying..

I think in the discussion about 'successful' people using public transit, we ought to broader our scope to include car pooling and other methods designed to achieve the same ends DART provides. (Namely, lower cost transportation) If you're a successful person living in the nicer suburbs in the area where DART service is either non-existent or lacking, car pooling/HOV lanes, telecommuting and altered work schedules are in a sense, competitors to DART in terms of changing existing habits.

Ultimately, I'm sure the DART experience is much different in one of their HOV lanes than it is on an express bus. For many 'successful' people, this difference is critical.

[psukhu]

psukhu, I'm trying to think of the last time you posted and didn't compare something to its European equivalent. Coming up empty. :) Just saying..


Well, if we want to see the impact of higher gasoline costs on a developed society we should probably look there. Same goes for the widespread use of mass transit. :)

The local news in Dallas seems to be very sensational when talking about rising gasoline prices and doesn't really spend that much time talking about DART and the need to expand the light rail network.

[Hannibal Lecter]

The fact that gasoline prices will continue to rise will help DART.Because such a tiny portion of their revenues comes from riders, the effect of higher energy costs on operating expenses will outweigh the increase in revenues. So DART ends up even further in the hole. And don't expect to see any increases in capacity (new trains/buses) beyond what is already planned for the green line.

[Hannibal Lecter]

The local news in Dallas seems to be very sensational when talking about rising gasoline prices and doesn't really spend that much time talking about DART and the need to expand the light rail network.You obviously don't read the Morning Snooze. They harp about it at least once or twice a week. The latest: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061308dnmetrail.24b193b6.html

[grantboston]

Because such a tiny portion of their revenues comes from riders, the effect of higher energy costs on operating expenses will outweigh the increase in revenues. So DART ends up even further in the hole. And don't expect to see any increases in capacity (new trains/buses) beyond what is already planned for the green line.

I think the local media loses that point in the debate about mass transit. DART won't expand in a meaningful way until the state and/or the Feds pony up some serious cash for mass transit. That won't happen until the next Congress in 2009 (or later). Any meaningful rail construction beyond what is already planned is probably a decade behind that.

Personally, if I had to choose between funding the DART 2030 plan beyond the Green/Orange lines or the NCTCOG regional rail proposal, I would choose the NCTCOG. Light rail is nice, but something more along the lines of commuter rail would be even better.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I think that point is lost in the general debate in the local media. DART won't expand in a meaningful way until the state and/or the Feds pony up some serious cash for mass transit.Correct, though you had a few typos. If I may be so bold as to correct them:


I think that point is lost in the general debate in the local media. DART won't expand in a meaningful way until the taxpayers flush even more cash down the toilet for a inflexible, cost-ineffective 19th century system.Of course, I'm still trying to figure why we expect people in the 49 other states to pay for our local transportation.

[grantboston]

Correct, though you had a few typos. If I may be so bold as to correct them:

Of course, I'm still trying to figure why we expect people in the 49 other states to pay for our local transportation.

I sent the copy-editing staff (SkyTime) out to lunch. I'll get on those errors, post haste.

I think we'll see increased pressure on the Congress to pay for mass transit outside of the crumbs thrown in the Highway Bill that circulates through Congress every once and a while. States are likely willing to shoulder some of the burden, but I can't imagine the Texas legislature, for one, allowing municipalities to break the sales tax cap, charge various fees and increase the gas tax solely to fund transportation needs. It's easier (even if it isn't right) to simply kick that responsibility upstairs and let the particulars of funding all those shiny new trains, etc get lost in some footnotes of a giant Appropriations bill.

[Spjz]

Correct, though you had a few typos. If I may be so bold as to correct them:

I think that point is lost in the general debate in the local media. DART won't expand in a meaningful way until the taxpayers flush even more cash down the toilet for an inflexible, cost-ineffective 19th century system.
Of course, I'm still trying to figure why we expect people in the 49 other states to pay for our local transportation.
I believe its called "commerce...among the several states." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause)
Each state paying for its own infrastructure, education and entitlements? Talk about a 19th century idea! :roflmao2:

[RobertB]

Because such a tiny portion of their revenues comes from riders, the effect of higher energy costs on operating expenses will outweigh the increase in revenues. So DART ends up even further in the hole. And don't expect to see any increases in capacity (new trains/buses) beyond what is already planned for the green line.
Again, an excellent and accurate summary of the hard facts, though with a conclusion diametrically opposed to my own.

Mr. L sees DART's impending financial difficulties as a reason to abolish the agency. He calls it an "inflexible, cost-ineffective 19th century system"

I see it as a call to find additional funding for an essential service. I see public transit as a 21st century alternative to an unsustainable, sprawl-inducing 20th century system.

(Putting on my moderator hat: debate of the issues is a Good Thing. Please avoid the ad hominem attacks, though, or you'll see more posts being sent to archiveland.)

[mjblazin]

You can forget the Federal Government. It will pay for Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and a few national parks. That's it.
If Texans want rails, roads, or bridges, we'll pay for them ourselves. If we can't set our own priorities in a state that is doing as well as any state in the country, we should not be asking for someone else's money.

[RobertB]

You can forget the Federal Government. It will pay for Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and a few national parks. That's it.
If Texans want rails, roads, or bridges, we'll pay for them ourselves. If we can't set our own priorities in a state that is doing as well as any state in the country, we should not be asking for someone else's money.
Well, the complexity there is that we're already sending money to the feds, and we'd like to get some of it back. And the feds supply the lion's share of transportation dollars -- as much as 90% of new highway construction, if I recall correctly.

Whether that's a desirable situation is an entirely different debate. But that's the situation we have. When we say we want Federal funds to pay for transportation -- whether public transit or more roads to nowhere -- we're not asking for someone else's money. It was ours in the first place.

[mjblazin]

Historically Texas paid more than we received. That changed in 2003. Some of the money we now get is someone else's money and now we want more.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Mr. L sees DART's impending financial difficulties as a reason to abolish the agency. He calls it an "inflexible, cost-ineffective 19th century system"Au contraire!

I doubt you'll find a single post where I called for the outright abolition of the agency. I merely fight for it to be run in a cost-effective manor, paid for by its users. I believe recent events have buttressed my argument that it's business model is unsustainable.

[ksig121]

Au contraire!

I doubt you'll find a single post where I called for the outright abolition of the agency. I merely fight for it to be run in a cost-effective manor, paid for by its users. I believe recent events have buttressed my argument that it's business model is unsustainable.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but are any transit agencies run in such a way? I just don't know enough about the inner-workings of them to know for sure. I always thought that transit agencies were sort of like highways and streets -- they are built for the public good, but they don't make money or break even. I don't think that the gas tax that we pay in Texas covers the cost of building and maintaining our highway infrastructure. How is that any different than public transit? How about Parkland hospital? I know that that place consistently runs a deficit.

So, by your logic, all highways should be tolled(at more than $1 per booth), Parkland should turn away uninsured folks, and DART should charge about $6 bucks for a one-way ride. Am I understanding you correctly?

[RobertB]

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but are any transit agencies run in such a way? I just don't know enough about the inner-workings of them to know for sure. I always thought that transit agencies were sort of like highways and streets -- they are built for the public good, but they don't make money or break even. I don't think that the gas tax that we pay in Texas covers the cost of building and maintaining our highway infrastructure. How is that any different than public transit? How about Parkland hospital? I know that that place consistently runs a deficit.

So, by your logic, all highways should be tolled(at more than $1 per booth), Parkland should turn away uninsured folks, and DART should charge about $6 bucks for a one-way ride. Am I understanding you correctly?
Don't forget the bill you receive from the arresting officer when he nabs the guy breaking into your house. ;)

Still, Lecter is making a very good point -- the current DART "business model" is unsustainable, because a bad economy brings MORE riders and LESS operating funds. I guess a better way to view the difference between me and him is the distinction made in the two posts above: he says DART should be self-supporting like a private business (a laudably Libertarian suggestion), while I feel that public transit is a valid and beneficial use of taxpayer funds (another gallingly Green ideal).

[mistyp0523]

Since when did profitability become the end all-be all measure of a service's worth?

[grantboston]

Since when did profitability become the end all-be all measure of a service's worth?

I won't speak for Hannibal, but my concern is that all of those who are genuinely concerned about DART's long term survival, should be agitating for a change in the way DART is funded. As the agency expands and matures (entailing legacy costs like heavy maintenance and senior employees), it will need more funding. Tying's DART's financial well being to the sales tax is a disaster waiting to happen. As the system expands, that disaster will only grow by several orders of magnitude.

Does that mean that each rider should have to pay the true cost of his/her ride? Not necessarily. But simply hoping that sales tax projections pan out and counting on infrequent cash infusions from the Feds to keep DART afloat is not the right way to go.

[mjblazin]

The libertarian viewpoint is not that every government service has to be profitable. It's that the service has to financially sound. As a local offering, the jurisdictions in DART can allocate the source of funds as they desire, tickets, sales taxes or whatever. But we have to understand that we have to provide sufficient funds or make operating changes.

It is no one else's responsibility to fund DART. We either make the case to our fellow citizens across the metroplex, and it's a good case, or we scale back as required. If they don't want to pay, then the service can't exist.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but are any transit agencies run in such a way? I just don't know enough about the inner-workings of them to know for sure. I always thought that transit agencies were sort of like highways and streets -- they are built for the public good, but they don't make money or break even.Public transit, like anyone else, has to at least break even to keep the doors open. If they don't break even, how will they pay the bills? DART has the luxury of sales tax revenues to help it achieve that goal. The problem is that even that money isn't enough. Looking at the 2007 DART finanical statements (http://www.dart.org/debtdocuments/DARTFinancialStatements2007.pdf):

Passenger+Advertising Revenues: $50,544,000
Sales Tax Revenues: $389,953,000
Total: $440,497,000
Operating Expenses: $460,934,000

That's right: Farebox, advertising and sales tax revenues combined come up $20 million short of covering just their operating expenses. The only way DART is keeping the doors open right now is through investment income and money they get from the feds.

(A little aside for anyone not up on financial lingo: this is only operating expenses, meaning day-to-day costs. It does not include capital expenses, which means things like new rail routes, new rail cars, new buses , major repairs, etc... There's not a penny of sales tax revenues going to that kind of stuff)

In other words, if tomorrow the federal government said they were going to stop subsidizing mass transit, DART would be close to insolvent.


I don't think that the gas tax that we pay in Texas covers the cost of building and maintaining our highway infrastructure.It way more than covers it. In fact, about a third of the state gas tax is diverted to other uses. Per the state constitution, 25% of the state gas tax is dedicated to public education. As for the federal gas tax, billions of dollars are diverted from highways to mass transit, including DART. The DART rail lines have pretty much been paid for by the federal gas tax.


So, by your logic, all highways should be tolled(at more than $1 per booth), Parkland should turn away uninsured folks, and DART should charge about $6 bucks for a one-way ride. Am I understanding you correctly?I'm a firm believer in tollroads, as long as the revenues go for that specific route. I'm firmly against the crap we're seeing with 121 and 161.

Parkland, as a county-operated entity, shouldn't even exist. No hospital (or any business) should be forced to take a patient that can't pay. (BTW, the folks at Parkland once saved my live, so no one can argue that I'm against them just because I don't use them myself).

And, no, DART shouldn't charge $6 for a one way ride -- they should charge a lot more.

(For anyone who thinks that's ridiculously high, go ride the London Tube. A one-way, single zone ticket there will cost you about US$8.)

[Hannibal Lecter]

Since when did profitability become the end all-be all measure of a service's worth?Hmmm... I'm trying to find anywhere I used the term "profit"

[Hannibal Lecter]

The libertarian viewpoint is not that every government service has to be profitable. It's that the service has to financially sound. As a local offering, the jurisdictions in DART can allocate the source of funds as they desire, tickets, sales taxes or whatever. But we have to understand that we have to provide sufficient funds or make operating changes.

It is no one else's responsibility to fund DART. We either make the case to our fellow citizens across the metroplex, and it's a good case, or we scale back as required. If they don't want to pay, then the service can't exist.Very well put.

[Spjz]

It is no one else's responsibility to fund DART. We either make the case to our fellow citizens across the metroplex, and it's a good case, or we scale back as required. If they don't want to pay, then the service can't exist.

You can forget the Federal Government. It will pay for Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and a few national parks. That's it.
If Texans want rails, roads, or bridges, we'll pay for them ourselves. If we can't set our own priorities in a state that is doing as well as any state in the country, we should not be asking for someone else's money.Oh, but the Federal Government pays for a little more (http://perotcharts.com/home/) than just SS, Medicare, Defense and a few parks. Calatrava bridges, project pegasus, DART expansion, flood control for the TRP, education grants for public schools, and the war on drugs are all brought to you by Uncle Sam at the expense of the American taxpayer. Is this a bad thing? I like half of the federal programs, maybe you like the other half. I think that one of the unintended consequences of federalism is that if a minority of voters in a particular state (people in Texas who want mass transit) don't get what they want from their state legislature, they can go to there U.S. rep and get the same.


Parkland, as a county-operated entity, shouldn't even exist. No hospital (or any business) should be forced to take a patient that can't pay.If only the police department, fire department, public schools, and Trinity Toll Road were the same. :rolleyes:

[ksig121]

It way more than covers it. In fact, about a third of the state gas tax is diverted to other uses. Per the state constitution, 25% of the state gas tax is dedicated to public education. As for the federal gas tax, billions of dollars are diverted from highways to mass transit, including DART. The DART rail lines have pretty much been paid for by the federal gas tax.


Again, I'm not being confrontational, just curious.

If our gas taxes more than cover all of the highway construction and maintenance that the state needs, why do we need toll roads? For that matter, why does TxDOT drag its feet on projects beacuse of funding reasons? I know that I may be over-simplifying things. If so, please enlighten me.

[mjblazin]

It's not that other programs are bad or good. The Feds simply won't have any money to fund anything but those programs in any major way. It definitely won't be in the business of giving out money for local transportation needs. We'll be on our own and need to plan accordingly.

[FoUTASportscaster]

I won't speak for Hannibal, but my concern is that all of those who are genuinely concerned about DART's long term survival, should be agitating for a change in the way DART is funded. As the agency expands and matures (entailing legacy costs like heavy maintenance and senior employees), it will need more funding. Tying's DART's financial well being to the sales tax is a disaster waiting to happen. As the system expands, that disaster will only grow by several orders of magnitude.

I agree that funding is awful. Most of the established systems of the NE are funded out of a general fund. Here, with sales tax hit or miss, it can be very tough setting a budget or projecting funds.

On the otherhand, replacing buses with rail lines and then having shorter routes that feed into rail lines helps to reduced operating costs. Rail attract more riders, costs less to operate and have higher passenger capacity. There will be at least 3 routes completely eliminated when the Green line opens and there will be a lot of redundant bus/rail routes, so the miles traveled by the bus system will decrease as a result of reroutings that lead to shorter routes.


Does that mean that each rider should have to pay the true cost of his/her ride? Not necessarily. But simply hoping that sales tax projections pan out and counting on infrequent cash infusions from the Feds to keep DART afloat is not the right way to go.

Other than the federal granst for rail construction, just whatr does DART get from the feds? For that matter, what does it get from TxDoH?


(http://www.dart.org/debtdocuments/DARTFinancialStatements2007.pdf):

The link that you posted a little over an hour ago doesn't work.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Again, I'm not being confrontational, just curious.

If our gas taxes more than cover all of the highway construction and maintenance that the state needs, why do we need toll roads? For that matter, why does TxDOT drag its feet on projects beacuse of funding reasons? I know that I may be over-simplifying things. If so, please enlighten me.The current gas tax more than pays for what we have. It does not come close to covering what we *want*.

[Hannibal Lecter]

The link that you posted a little over an hour ago doesn't work.The forum editor included a closing parentheses in the link. Here it again: http://www.dart.org/debtdocuments/DARTFinancialStatements2007.pdf

I've edited the original post.

[RobertB]

No hospital (or any business) should be forced to take a patient that can't pay.
A true, unabashed Libertarian philosophy. Unfortunately (for you), us bleeding-heart liberals have a little problem with leaving people to die on the side of the road. (To be fair, though, I think a Libertarian would argue that's what charities are for -- if we claim to be Christians, for example, we should pick up that cross.)

The debate, really, is over whether some services are of sufficient public value as to warrant public funding. If you believe that people who can't afford health care should just curl up and die, then it's pointless to argue that that people who can't afford a car should have access to public transportation.

[AeroD]

Here we go, an example of a successful private operator of public transit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation_Limited

[grantboston]

I agree that funding is awful. Most of the established systems of the NE are funded out of a general fund. Here, with sales tax hit or miss, it can be very tough setting a budget or projecting funds.

The T in Boston is funded a bit differently than you describe. But I was reading through Governing Magazine and saw this blurb in an article about Charlotte's new LYNX system:


The original plan for financing the system, however, builds in some difficulties for the future. Back in the late 1990s, Mecklenburg County and the city of Charlotte banded together with Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro and other cities to push a bill through the legislature allowing counties to propose tax increases to their citizens to fund transit. Charlotte's voters approved the tax in a referendum. There also emerged an agreement that the state DOT would match local funding, or 25 percent of the total cost. The federal government was expected to pay 50 percent.

Now, as new lines are planned that go beyond Mecklenburg, there is a question of who will pay and how. Will surrounding counties and localities enact their own sales taxes? Or is Charlotte expected to be the primary local funder, even for lines outside Mecklenburg County? And what should the role of the state transportation agency be? It is, after all, the one agency whose jurisdiction cuts across multiple county lines.

I believe the parties should explore having the state agency take more direct responsibility for building and paying for transit within urban areas. When the state builds a road, it takes on the burden of coordinating with all the counties it goes through. It buys land, negotiates rights of way and designs and builds a project. Why should transit be any different? DOTs are traditionally highway-minded, and North Carolina's is certainly no exception. But bringing these agencies into the transit fold suggests a way to turn them into allies. Eventually, it makes sense for state transportation money to be portable and to be used for either roads or transit lines, as conditions fit."

While the entire LYNX system is well behind DART, they're both in a period of rapid growth and initial public acceptance. Are the solutions the author poses here good for TXDOT, DART and other Texas transit agencies? Could we ever get away with having TXDOT fork over some of its highway money for trains when necessary?

Critically, I think when DART starts looking at how its funded, it needs to take into account the ways in which transportation is funded across the entire state with an eye to eliminating the barriers between different modes of transportation, and perhaps even overlapping agencies. Who knows if we'll see greater funding coöperation between DART and others vying for the part of the transit money pie. If urban living really takes off, that strikes me as a debate worth having.

[mjblazin]

Statewide might work, but only if the money entering a region is fixed: a zero sum game between roads and mass transit. The state draws a line around the area and the same money that went into that area before can be divided as that region desires. But no extra money goes in.

Road and mass transit interests will then have to grab their cleavers and start fighting over the pie. Buying peace by the state adding more money, i.e., shifting burden to others across the state, would be unacceptable. If more mass transit is the right answer, then we have to be adults and get less of something else. We can't continue to act like children and always ask for more.

[LH_Newbie]

The T in Boston is funded a bit differently than you describe.
Funny thing... I'm in Boston right now. The T has been absolutely wonderful to use - gets me to my hotel and used it last night to head to the Barking Crab for dinner. Ugh... 4 pounds of crab later, I waddled back to the T so I could sleep off the food coma. :) Boston is a beautiful city and easy to maneuver around via public transit.

Brian

[RobertB]

Here we go, an example of a successful private operator of public transit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation_Limited
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article notes that the "[Hong Kong] government maintains a majority stake in the MTRCL". So its actions would be determined by a combination of business and social objectives.

And those objectives extend far beyond anything DART could conceive: "MTR Properties and MTR Property Management of the MTR Corporation Limited are responsible for managing apartment buildings it developed, shopping malls at some of its stations, and collaborate with land developers in projects near its stations. It made over HKD $8,304 million in 2007 from property development." Imagine if DART owned Mockingbird Station, Victory Park, and the developments around West End Station and Baylor? I think you'd see a very different DART.

[mjblazin]

No, you'd see a very different Mockingbird Station and Victory Park. Maybe the area around West End Station would be the same.

[FoUTASportscaster]

And those objectives extend far beyond anything DART could conceive: "MTR Properties and MTR Property Management of the MTR Corporation Limited are responsible for managing apartment buildings it developed, shopping malls at some of its stations, and collaborate with land developers in projects near its stations. It made over HKD $8,304 million in 2007 from property development."

That is similar to how things used to be done here, and probably most everywhere. Developers used to build the streetcar lines, operate a streetcar company, then fund the streetcar with the development. However, with the introduction of the bus, developers quickly passed the cost of transportation on to the government as well as the transit company. In time, the transit company was no longer part of the mix.