DART service to Cedar Hill and other non-member cities

[DTDdreamer]

I am perplexed as to why the fastest growing city south of the Trinity would be completely ignored by DART. The closest thing we've got are the bus stops along Wheatland in the Charlton medical district in Dville. The area could easily support light-rail (red line extension) but since that hasn't even been discussed, bus service would be the next best thing. The north-east, north-west, and south-west corners of HWY 67 and Joe Wilson are all undeveloped and would be ideal for a park-n-ride (NE corner being the largest.) We also need a shuttle route surrounding the core retail & residential areas which would begin and end at the PNR station.. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know the stats but I would assume that a large percentage (if not majority) of CH residents work in Dallas, Downtown and all points beyond. With $5/gal easily gas within sight people are going to be searching for ways to cut consumption. Just throw us a bus PLEASE!!!!

[LH_Newbie]

I didn't think CH was a DART member city. The city has to have available taxes and the citizens have to vote to become a DART member city, then the planning can begin. It's more that CH is ignoring DART, not the other way around. The same could be said for many cities - Frisco, Allen, McKinney, etc, etc.

[Spjz]

I am perplexed as to why the fastest growing city south of the Trinity would be completely ignored by DART.A little suggested reading (http://www.dart.org/about/membercities.asp) to catch youself up on things.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Cedar Hill has voted on tranit once, in 1980 on the Lone Star Transportation Authority and declined the measure, as can be seen in this post http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=230537&postcount=7.

As for DART, the city declined to put the measure on the ballot in 1983, and the citizens never had a vote on whether to join DART.

As for now, Cedar Hill misses the boat on two requirements for DART service. One, it does not border a current member city. This can be circumnavigated due to Joe Pool Lake's shores are actually Dallas'. The second can not be navigated around right now. Cities need to allocate 1% of their available sales tax reciepts to DART. Cedar Hill is at the state mandated cap of 8.25%.

They also have one of those useless economic development taxes, which as this thread illustrates http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=5346, is a near waste of sales tax money since cities with that tax have a deficient economy when compared to those with DART.

I suggest if you wish to have DART serve your city, petition your city government to retire the debt issued with some of the sales taxes and put the issue to the voters, or move to a city that is served by transit.

EDIT:
I am perplexed as to why the fastest growing city south of the Trinity would be completely ignored by DART.

Also, growth has little to do with transit service, since Cedar Hill is a very suburban suburb with land-use that is strictly for cars and nothing else.

[INTX dave]

Cedar Hill has voted on tranit once, in 1980 on the Lone Star Transportation Authority and declined the measure, as can be seen in this post http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=230537&postcount=7.

As for now, Cedar Hill misses the boat on two requirements for DART service. One, it does not border a current member city.

Is this really a requirement? Glenn Heights is a DART member, but does not border any other member citiy.

It will likely be a very long time before Glenn Heights gets rail service, but I think DART can operate with non-contiguous member cities.

[palchik]

Glenn Heights was eligible at the time DART was created, because it was within the contiguous group of North Texas cities that had a referendum to create the transit agency. Unfortunately, Duncanville and Lancaster voters rejected the 1983 referendum proposal, leaving a big gap in the system.

[eirin]

^ Actually, the big gap comes from Desoto turning down the proposal. Duncanville doesn't even touch Glenn Heights. And while Lancaster does, it is sort of slanted towards the northeast from Glenn Heights. Desoto is due north inbetween it and Dallas.

[FoUTASportscaster]

That's correct. Here are the vote totals from 1983: http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=6272

[VectorWega]

Cedar Hill does border the Mountain Creek area of Dallas.

[DTDdreamer]

Duncanville is not listed as a member city yet has service. You can catch a bus on Wheatland Road. Maybe this is considered Dallas, though I've always though I-20 was the dividing line...

[VectorWega]

^ Duncanville does extend to I-20 so DART is providing limited service to Duncanville on wheatland.

That being said, Dallas does extend south of I-20. Those neighborhoods are "Mountain Creek" and "The Woods". If you look at the DART map, there is a route extending from Spur 408 going southbound. Spur 408 turns into Clark Road. Essentially, the east side of Clark Rd is Duncanville and the West side of Clark is Dallas. (although, i'm not sure if the boundary is right down the middle of the street or to the west a bit).

[eirin]

^ Since it borders Dallas very, very closely in both of those instances, as the streets are borders...that is the only explanation. The buses do travel through duncanville occasionally but do not stop until they reach stops in Dallas.

[RobertB]

It sounds like the bus you've seen "in Duncanville" is just really, really close. You could claim the same thing where Irving borders Grand Prairie -- the west side of Beltline (mostly trailer parks) is actually GP.

You will also see DART buses outside the member city limits when there's an "interlocal agreement", such as the one with DCCCD. There's a bus to Eastfield College in Mesquite, and to Cedar Valley College in Lancaster. But once those buses leave the Dallas city limits, they don't stop until they get to the college. Luckily, they don't check your ID when you get on board. My daughter and her friends walked to Eastfield and caught the bus (three, actually) to Carrollton recently.

[DTDdreamer]

^ Now that I think about it, I only see them in D-ville near Charlton hospital and on Weatland and 67 (Pancho's),
Clearly has to with that medical district.

[chrismangus]

Anyone got info on any of the transit elections in Arlington? i am shooting a doc on the lack of transit in the city, but it will expand into the regions problems with transportation. I will be examining the T, DART, and the TRE, as well as the Lone Star Transportation Authority.

[dfwcre8tive]

DART may let other Dallas-area cities buy service
10:20 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 8, 2008
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/070908dnmetdart.3c11a46.html

DART may change its rules to allow cities outside its 13-city service area to pay for bus services, a move that drew strong encouragement – and some stiff warnings about costs – from board members briefed on the idea Tuesday.

"I like the metaphor of letting the camel poke its nose under the tent," said board member John Carter Danish of Irving. "This could be the most important decision we make as a board this year."

But while the idea generated enthusiasm among board members Tuesday, it is far from a done deal.

Making the change isn't simple.

Currently, to receive bus or rail services from DART, cities must pledge a full penny of sales tax to the 25-year-old transit agency.

With that enrollment price tag, no new cities have joined the agency in more than 20 years.

But with gas prices pushing interest in transit up – albeit for rail, not buses, so far – board member William Tsao said it's a good idea to consider changes to encourage more participation.

"If we look at the current energy crisis, it's also an opportunity for transit agencies," Mr. Tsao said.

Board members gave staff members a green light to explore the idea. But the permission came with strong warnings about the costs by the agency's longest-serving board member, Ray Noah.

"We are looking at a 20-year financial plan that doesn't have any money, essentially, for projects not already in line and funded," he said. Adding a few bus lines may seem cheap, especially when weighed against the prospect of winning new converts to transit, he said. "But it gets perfectly expensive."

Any city that wanted the new service would have to pay the full costs, staff members said.

Just who would be interested isn't clear, either.

The DART staff told board members Tuesday that cities such as Duncanville, DeSoto and Grand Prairie could be interested in dedicating some tax revenue – maybe up to a quarter-cent – for bus service.

But in interviews Tuesday afternoon, officials in Duncanville and Grand Prairie played down their interest.

Duncanville City Manager Kent Cagle said his city, Cedar Hill and DeSoto have approached DART together about the possibility of the agency providing on-demand bus rides for senior citizens. It's something they've talked about doing themselves, as Grand Prairie does.

"But like most cities, we're looking at cutting services, not adding them," Mr. Cagle said. "We don't have the money. ... So we thought we'd talk to DART to see if they could provide this service more cost efficiently than we could ourselves."

But he said his city never expressed any interest in paying for a commuter bus service along the lines that animated the discussion at Tuesday's DART board meeting.

And in Grand Prairie, City Manager Tom Hart said his city has had no conversations with DART officials about contracting for DART bus service.

"We're real pleased there may be new options on the table," Mr. Hart said. "But we have had no conversations on this topic at this time."


Who's in DART and who's not

DART member cities:

Addison

Carrollton

Cockrell Hill

Dallas

Farmers Branch

Garland

Glenn Heights

Highland Park

Irving

Plano

Richardson

Rowlett

University Park

Prominent nonmember cities:

Arlington

Frisco

Grand Prairie

McKinney

Mesquite

Cedar Hill*

DeSoto*

Duncanville*

* Cities that have approached DART staff about possibly paying for limited bus service

[dfwcre8tive]

Anyone got info on any of the transit elections in Arlington? i am shooting a doc on the lack of transit in the city, but it will expand into the regions problems with transportation. I will be examining the T, DART, and the TRE, as well as the Lone Star Transportation Authority.

^ you might want to look here: http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=6160

[FoUTASportscaster]

The DART staff told board members Tuesday that cities such as Duncanville, DeSoto and Grand Prairie could be interested in dedicating some tax revenue – maybe up to a quarter-cent – for bus service.

I am out on this idea. Either you join the system, or you don't. This contracting stuff is a bad idea. If I am Farmers Branch and I see Duncanville paying 1/4 of a cent for bus service and Grapevine paying 3/8ths for CRT, I tell DART I am pulling out and I will contract for rail service. Bad precedent.

[Spjz]

I am out on this idea. Either you join the system, or you don't. This contracting stuff is a bad idea. If I am Farmers Branch and I see Duncanville paying 1/4 of a cent for bus service and Grapevine paying 3/8ths for CRT, I tell DART I am pulling out and I will contract for rail service. Bad precedent.Let me play devil's advocate here. Not all cities have the same transit needs. Many of the burbs don't want any bus service, they just want some rail service and park and rides to alleviate their freeways. Why can't DART contract with them? If they just want rail, let them pay for rail, so long as they also understand that improvements to the rail hub in downtown Dallas are to be paid for by ALL cities with rail.

[mjblazin]

As long as they pay fully allocated costs, including bond service, it might work. The worst approach is to only charge marginal costs. I'm sure that's what they'd like to pay.
Determining fully allocated unit costs on particular portions of the business is very difficult, even for the most financially astute firms. Since DART can't properly manage a jewelry/Xmas party fund, it might not be a task that they attempt.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Let me play devil's advocate here. Not all cities have the same transit needs. Many of the burbs don't want any bus service, they just want some rail service and park and rides to alleviate their freeways. Why can't DART contract with them? If they just want rail, let them pay for rail, so long as they also understand that improvements to the rail hub in downtown Dallas are to be paid for by ALL cities with rail.

Regardless of what they want (and lets face it, most in DART are in it for the rail), DART opperates bus and rail. You don't like it, tough. That's what they offer. Problem is, if Duncanville doesn't want bus, then why should Rowlett. As soon as they get their line built, they could say we don't want rail, so we are only going to contract for that.

[downtownguy25]

So you would rather a city have nothing than just some mass trans, does not sound very urban or green of you. Not everyone can afford the chicken and the egg.

[FCDallas96]

Anything to stop these cities from running their own buses? I know they're DART eligible, but since they opted out, couldn't they decide to go it on their own?

[Spjz]

Regardless of what they want (and lets face it, most in DART are in it for the rail), DART opperates bus and rail. You don't like it, tough. That's what they offer. Problem is, if Duncanville doesn't want bus, then why should Rowlett. As soon as they get their line built, they could say we don't want rail, so we are only going to contract for that.Down here in San Antonio (we only do buses) I am told there are two levels of sales tax. The outer lying areas pay a half cent and the inner city pays three quarters of a cent. The closer you are to Downtown SA, the more likely that you are going to use the buses (for reasons of both economics and convenience). Worst case scenario: all the DART member burbs reject buses and just contract for rail service. That doesn't seem so bad, does it?

[cowboyeagle05]

I think Sportscaster is pointing out a legitimate commitment problem considering the fact that DART does numerous long term plans when it comes to buses and rail and how they will work together. I think for the partially committed thing to work is for the contracted service to be kinda less wrapped in the plans the opposite way that Garland is considered when making regional bus service plans and rail plans. If they want full on DART planning they need to work towards a committed relationship but I don't want a city to decide will nilly to cancel service cause they want to shift money around in the budget cause its tight one year. They cannot expect the same dedication that Garland gets when they fully commit money year after compared with a city who contracts work out or is testing to see if the system is worth the value.

[tamtagon]

I think the vote should be by county, not by city.

[RobertB]

I understand FoUTA's concerns, and I'm sure that's a big reason why DART hasn't ever considered anything but all-or-nothing in the past. But look at the success of the TRE -- they didn't make Fort Worth join DART, not to mention North Richland Hills and Hurst. DART also sees the success of The T's deal with Grapevine. Sure, it's for commuter rail service only, but it's getting the rails in place in a way that would be impossible without such a deal.

Sure, Mesquite would be better off with bus service. But I'm concerned that transit opponents can still use the poor image of bus riders to torpedo the plan altogether. I saw a comment on the tragic shootings of the Christian music producers saying "You know those people just got on a bus and looked for someone to kill" -- ignoring the fact that probably 99% of crimes are facilitated by car, but perpetuating the negative stereotype. I don't know why rail doesn't have that perceived issue, but the fact is that it doesn't. And we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The truth is, I can accept a Metroplex where Rowlett dumps the buses in favor of the single rail line... if in return, I get a rail line to Allen, Sachse, Rockwall, Mesquite, Seagoville, Wilmer/Hutchins, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, and Grand Prairie. It might even be better for DART in the long run, because they're already having trouble supplying suburbs like Rowlett with bus service without running empty buses all day!

[FoUTASportscaster]

So you would rather a city have nothing than just some mass trans, does not sound very urban or green of you. Not everyone can afford the chicken and the egg.

It'll be real green when FB or Carrollton pull out just for rail service and all of a sudden, someone like me can't navigate the city. These cities look at rail as park-n-ride lots. In order to make it as effective as can be, these rail stations need feeder buses.


I think the vote should be by county, not by city.

I agree completely. I think Ace has made that point before. In essence, we are making what should be regional decisions local, and forcing the municipalities to fund what should be done regionally. I think we can thank TxDoH for that.


I understand FoUTA's concerns, and I'm sure that's a big reason why DART hasn't ever considered anything but all-or-nothing in the past. But look at the success of the TRE -- they didn't make Fort Worth join DART, not to mention North Richland Hills and Hurst. DART also sees the success of The T's deal with Grapevine. Sure, it's for commuter rail service only, but it's getting the rails in place in a way that would be impossible without such a deal.

The difference is that FW already has a bus system, and its own service. I can go to FW and catch a bus to the zoo. Right now, I can catch a train to Plano and make a transfer to go somewhere else. If they drop out, DART loses a lot of its funding, and then they contract for rail service. All of a sudden, my options for mobility become limited. It's the same thing with a city not already in, limited mobility.

Plus the thing that truely scares me is that if Duncanville or Lancaster contract for rail service, Irving, Plano, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Addison, Richardson, Garland and Rowlett could all do the same.

Just for the sake of debate, lets say tomorrow, Duncanville contracts for bus service and pays 1/4 to 1/2 of a cent. What's Glenn Heights supposed to do? They have been paying the full cent since 1984.


The truth is, I can accept a Metroplex where Rowlett dumps the buses in favor of the single rail line... if in return, I get a rail line to Allen, Sachse, Rockwall, Mesquite, Seagoville, Wilmer/Hutchins, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, and Grand Prairie. It might even be better for DART in the long run, because they're already having trouble supplying suburbs like Rowlett with bus service without running empty buses all day!

I can't. If we want to make the rail lines anything other than commuter trains tied to park-n-ride lots and actually encourage TOD's, connecting bus service is a must. Or we will be tied to the car for everything.

[Spjz]

It'll be real green when FB or Carrollton pull out just for rail service and all of a sudden, someone like me can't navigate the city. These cities look at rail as park-n-ride lots. In order to make it as effective as can be, these rail stations need feeder buses.

Plus the thing that truely scares me is that if Duncanville or Lancaster contract for rail service, Irving, Plano, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Addison, Richardson, Garland and Rowlett could all do the same. kIf you live in downtown, or anywhere inside the loop for that matter, why would you want to navigate those places?

[FoUTASportscaster]

You'd be surprised how often I go outside the core. Despite popular belief, the core still doesn't have everything in it.

[electricron]

What's needed is the ability for cities to charge more than a 8.25% sales tax.

Denton County uses a different State Law than Dart to initiate DCTA. DCTA uses Texas Transportation Code 460 (County)
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/pdf/tn.006.00.000460.00.pdf
All counties surrounding one with a million citizens can form it's own transit agency.
Therefore, Collin, Rockwall, Kaufman, Ellis, Johnson, Parker, and Wise counties can form their own too. It only takes two cities in the country for the country transit agency to form. It'll help for raising revenues if the two largest cities voted yes on the supporting sales tax vote.

But the Dallas county suburbs can't use Chapter 460. It's either join Dart of form their own transit agencies. To form your own transit agency, the city needs 60,000 population per Texas Transportation Code 451 (Municipality) in a Metropolitian Areas with the
Principal Municipality over 1.2 million population.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/pdf/tn.006.00.000451.00.pdf

Dart was formed under Texas Transportation Code 452 (Regional)
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.006.00.000452.00.htm

As you can see, there's many enabling sections in Texas for transit. But in Dallas County, cities not wishing to join Dart can form their own. They can even build their own rail projects, subject to an election. Even more than one adjoining cities can join one.

There's nothing stopping them building their own rail lines to connect with Dart. Just like Fort Worth's T and Denton County's DCTA.

What upsets me the most is these cities expect something for nothing, or for a discount. Golly, either join Dart or form your own. It's their choice.

The politics about whether to join Dart or form their own is cities not knowing what would be cheaper for them. They're looking after their own taxpayers, just like Dart is looking after its member cities taxpayers.

Just ask the NCTCOG RTA to make a study to determne which is better for them. I'm pretty sure NCTCOG can guide their way through the Texas Transportation Code and help them decide what best for them.

[AeroD]

What's needed is the ability for cities to charge more than a 8.25% sales tax.

Hmmmm....don't see that happening despite DMN's editorial board's wishes.

No Democrat in the Lege will vote to raise a tax that is described by them as "regressive".

Nor will any Republican in the Lege vote to raise taxes. They are already catching serious flak for the revised business tax.

[electricron]

Without additional funding, these cities aren't going to get any rail soon.

It's their choice, and it should be their choice.

The State Legislature should let them have it.

[FoUTASportscaster]

It shouldn't be their choice. It is a regional issue that affects everybody. Arlington didn't decide yes or no if they were going to get a freeway through the city. They were told they would and they worked with them to get where they wanted. Why is rail different?

I am going back to UTA, so I now have to drive every class day. WHy is it they can be a regional player for the auto, but not transit? Truth is they shouldn't. Transportation should be a regional decision, not a local one.

[electricron]

It shouldn't be their choice. It is a regional issue that affects everybody. Arlington didn't decide yes or no if they were going to get a freeway through the city. They were told they would and they worked with them to get where they wanted. Why is rail different?

I am going back to UTA, so I now have to drive every class day. WHy is it they can be a regional player for the auto, but not transit? Truth is they shouldn't. Transportation should be a regional decision, not a local one.

Rail is different because it's financed differently. Arlington pays the same State and Federal gas taxes as Dallas and everyone else, and are eligible for the same highways.
Arlington citizens don't pay a one cent per dollar sales tax for transit like Dart member cities. Therefore not eligible for Dart rail and bus transit projects.
It would be foolish for Dart to send rail to a non member city when member cities want more.
When it comes to Dart, Arlington doesn't have representation because it doesn't have taxation.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Rail is different because it's financed differently. Arlington pays the same State and Federal gas taxes as Dallas and everyone else, and are eligible for the same highways.
Arlington citizens don't pay a one cent per dollar sales tax for transit like Dart member cities. Therefore not eligible for Dart rail and bus transit projects.

Dude, you missed the point entirely. I know how it works. What I am saying is how it works is foolish. Transportation is a regional issue, yet is decided at the local level. In areas like the NE, it isn't a local decision, it is regional. MTA runs CRT into Long Island not because LI said they wanted to. MTA did it because the region benefits from increased mobility options.

Here, we leave it up to individual municipalities electorate and their individual taxes. That is a flawed system. If we funded highways that way, the region would look a lot different.


It would be foolish for Dart to send rail to a non member city when member cities want more.
When it comes to Dart, Arlington doesn't have representation because it doesn't have taxation.

Well duh, in the current system yes.

[electricron]

Dude, you missed the point entirely. I know how it works. What I am saying is how it works is foolish. Transportation is a regional issue, yet is decided at the local level. In areas like the NE, it isn't a local decision, it is regional. MTA runs CRT into Long Island not because LI said they wanted to. MTA did it because the region benefits from increased mobility options.

Here, we leave it up to individual municipalities electorate and their individual taxes. That is a flawed system. If we funded highways that way, the region would look a lot different.

Well duh, in the current system yes.

I don't see as many differences as you suggest.
New Jersey has the State financed NJT.
New Jersey has the Federal financed Amtrak.
New Jersey has the Port of NY ad NJ financed PATH.

All financed independently with different taxes and fares, but all using the same tunnels under the Hudson River. They make interlocking agreements with one another, much like DCTA will have to make with DART, of DCTA diesel/electric powered light rail trains are to go to downtown Dallas.

I bet if you looked closer at the Amtrak, MTA and LIRR, you'll find they are independently financed and have interlocking agreements too.

And that's precisely what I'm recommending for non Dart member cities.
They can join the Regional transit group, or form their own.

Check out Texas enabling legislation for transit, Chapters 451 to 461 of the Texas Transportation code. There's many different ways.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm
CHAPTER 451. METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
CHAPTER 452. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES
CHAPTER 453. MUNICIPAL TRANSIT DEPARTMENTS
CHAPTER 454. MUNICIPAL MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 455. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING MASS TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 456. STATE FINANCING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 457. COUNTY MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 458. RURAL AND URBAN TRANSIT DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 460. COORDINATED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES
CHAPTER 461. STATEWIDE COORDINATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Dart enabling under Chapter 452
DCTA enabling under Chapter 460
The T enabling under Chapter 451 or Chapter 453, off hand, I'm not sure which.

One would have to rewrite the Texas laws to have all use the same tax base.
Cities and Counties have rights in Texas, just like individuals. They have the right to join transit agencies or not, or create their own transit agency or not.

[PennStation]

Transportation is a regional issue, yet is decided at the local level. In areas like the NE, it isn't a local decision, it is regional. MTA runs CRT into Long Island not because LI said they wanted to. MTA did it because the region benefits from increased mobility options.I think that you make an excellent case for regional transportation planning, funding, and operation; but, in all fairness, the Long Island Rail Road was an existing (privately operated) service. The discussion there was not so much whether to build the system, but how to pay for continued operation, maintenance, and upgrades. If Dallas had had long standing commuter rail (and rapid transit) like New York or Chicago, perhaps a more holistic version of DART might have evolved here.

[PennStation]

New Jersey has the State financed NJT.
New Jersey has the Federal financed Amtrak.
New Jersey has the Port of NY ad NJ financed PATH.

All financed independently with different taxes and fares, but all using the same tunnels under the Hudson River.Amtrak and New Jersey Transit (NJT) use the same tunnels to reach mid-town. The services they provide (intercity and commuter rail, respectively) were both provided by the Pennsylvania Railroad, which built the twin tubes more than 100 years ago. Port Authority Trans-Hudson, or PATH, operates in four completely separate tubes that were completed about the same time, and used by the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, a private rapid transit operator.


I bet if you looked closer at the Amtrak, MTA and LIRR, you'll find they are independently financed and have interlocking agreements too.Amtrak, of course, is separate from NJT and MTA (New York State’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority). The Long Island Rail Road, however, is a part of MTA, as is Metro-North (ex New Haven and New York Central lines) and the New York City subway.


The MTA Network (http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/network.htm)

New York City Transit
Long Island Rail Road
Long Island Bus
Metro-North Railroad
Bridges and Tunnels
MTA Capital Construction
MTA Bus CompanyIt’s interesting, and perhaps instructive, to see the level of integration on both sides of the Hudson.

[FoUTASportscaster]

I don't see as many differences as you suggest.
New Jersey has the State financed NJT.
New Jersey has the Federal financed Amtrak.
New Jersey has the Port of NY ad NJ financed PATH.

All financed independently with different taxes and fares, but all using the same tunnels under the Hudson River. They make interlocking agreements with one another, much like DCTA will have to make with DART, of DCTA diesel/electric powered light rail trains are to go to downtown Dallas.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The point is still simple. None of those entities you mentioned are local. None ask their individual cities if they wish to join, and if they do, ask them to fund it. They are regional entities. They shouldn't be decided at the arbitrary municipal boundary.


I bet if you looked closer at the Amtrak, MTA and LIRR, you'll find they are independently financed and have interlocking agreements too.

And none of it local. What's your point?


And that's precisely what I'm recommending for non Dart member cities.
They can join the Regional transit group, or form their own.

And you are still asking those decisions to be made at a local level for a regional issue.


Check out Texas enabling legislation for transit, Chapters 451 to 461 of the Texas Transportation code. There's many different ways.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of this is how it is, and this is why how it is is wrong. I am fully aware of what the law in Texas states. Please try to understand I think the way the law states is flawed. I don't care how it is. I know how it is. What I am trying to get across to you is that how it is now is flawed.

Here is the point. Leaving a regional decision to local governments is flawed. Transit is just about the only thing we do that with. understand?


I think that you make an excellent case for regional transportation planning, funding, and operation; but, in all fairness, the Long Island Rail Road was an existing (privately operated) service. The discussion there was not so much whether to build the system, but how to pay for continued operation, maintenance, and upgrades. If Dallas had had long standing commuter rail (and rapid transit) like New York or Chicago, perhaps a more holistic version of DART might have evolved here.

True in most cases. Back then, we were able to allow the private sector to make those types of decisions, before we started transportation subsidy. That is the basic history of the DTS. That said, MTA still makes regional decisions, and many new suburbs have popped up in Long Island since then and they are served by the greater system because the regional entity saw the need, not because the individual municipalities said they needed it.

[electricron]

Here is the point. Leaving a regional decision to local governments is flawed. Transit is just about the only thing we do that with. understand?

True in most cases. Back then, we were able to allow the private sector to make those types of decisions, before we started transportation subsidy. That is the basic history of the DTS. That said, MTA still makes regional decisions, and many new suburbs have popped up in Long Island since then and they are served by the greater system because the regional entity saw the need, not because the individual municipalities said they needed it.

I'm all for regional agencies. But to change the ways things are, one would have to give regional agencies more powers. The Regional agency in North Texas is the NCTCOG. It has no taxing authority at all. It never will.

NCTCOG web site http://www.nctcog.org/about.asp

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association of, by and for local governments, and was established to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development. NCTCOG's purpose is to strengthen both the individual and collective power of local governments and to help them recognize regional opportunities, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and make joint decisions.

Regional transportation planning in North Central Texas is conducted by the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), comprised of the NCTCOG Transportation Department, NCTCOG Executive Board, Regional Transportation Council (RTC), and several technical committees. The MPO works with state and local governments, the private sector, and the region’s citizens to plan coordinated transportation systems designed to move goods and people affordably, efficiently, and safely.

The Regional Transportation Council is the independent transportation policy body of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The RTC, which meets the second Thursday of each month, is comprised of 40 members: 33 local elected or appointed officials representing cities and counties, and seven transportation provider representatives. The RTC is responsible for overseeing the metropolitan transportation planning process. Primary activities include:

Providing guidance regarding the development of multimodal transportation plans and programs,
Programming federal and State funds for the implementation of transportation improvements,
Selecting specific federally funded projects and programs,
Assuring the coordination of services among transportation providers, and
Ensuring compliance with federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to metropolitan transportation and air quality planning.

While the NCTCOG, MPO, and RTC controls a lot of Federal and State funding for transportation projects, it has little to no control of local matching funds that's required for State and Federal grants. The ability to tax, wisely or not, in Texas is granted locally, not regionally. The reason why is to place controlling influence of transportation projects in the local areas. That's why I 30 reconstruction was built the way Fort Worth wanted, south of the T&P Station and the US Post Office, instead of north where TXDOT wanted to build it. That's why North Central Expressway was built the way Dallas wanted, eight lanes below grade level, vs four lanes at grade and four lanes above grade as TXDOT wanted to build it (as I 35 was built in Austin).

Having the tax placed locally gives local communities better control of getting what they get. Dart, as a regional authority, doesn't even have the power of eminent domain. It must get approval from the local cities. It doesn't have the power to lay taxes, it must get approval to tax from local cities.

I think Texans in general fear Big Brother government more than other regions of the country. And that's the way it is.

If the citizens of Mesquite, Allen, Flower Mound, Grand Prairie, Duncanville, etc want transit, they have choices. I've listed them earlier. It's their choice to choose to have one or not, and to choose the type of transit they want.

I wonder if the citizens of the other states mentioned earlier have as much influence over their transit agencies? I have a gut feeling NJT, MTA, and LIRR aren't partially financed by local sales taxes, but by some other means. Obviously it works for them.
But what's good for New York and New Jersey doesn't mean it's good for Texas. Likewise, what's good for Texas may not be good elsewhere.

When the NCTCOG was formed back in the 1960's, many local cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth, feared it would gobble them up. Even counties feared that might happen. It hasn't, mainly because it lacks the power to collect taxes.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Dude, I am merely commenting on the falacies of the system. There is no reason to debate and take things so literal. I don't read half the stuff you put up because it has no meaning to the point. Most of it I already know, but it still has no bearing on the point I am making. We have a problem in the current system, that is ALL I am saying.

I never said a thing about the COG, I don't care about the trans. code. I am merely pointing out a shortcoming in the way we fund transit. Sheesh.

When you leave it up to cities, you have holes in your system. Period. There is no need to pull the laws out. I know them. Believe it or not, there are people who know just as much as you, if not more. You can have a philisophical debate about the merits of a system, that doesn't need to be based in the Texas Trans. Code. The reason is that the Texas Trans. Code is part of the reason for the shortcoming.

[electricron]

Dude, I am merely commenting on the falacies of the system. There is no reason to debate and take things so literal. I don't read half the stuff you put up because it has no meaning to the point. Most of it I already know, but it still has no bearing on the point I am making. We have a problem in the current system, that is ALL I am saying.

I never said a thing about the COG, I don't care about the trans. code. I am merely pointing out a shortcoming in the way we fund transit. Sheesh.

When you leave it up to cities, you have holes in your system. Period. There is no need to pull the laws out. I know them. Believe it or not, there are people who know just as much as you, if not more. You can have a philisophical debate about the merits of a system, that doesn't need to be based in the Texas Trans. Code. The reason is that the Texas Trans. Code is part of the reason for the shortcoming.

How would you incorporate regional funding for a regional transit system? We all would like to know.

Raise taxes just in one County? Raise taxes in all 16 Counties in the NCTCOG? Raise taxes over the entire State of Texas?

Which taxes would you raise, Property or sales taxes?

If property, who's evaluating the worth of your land? The local tax appraiser, or the tax appraiser from Dallas County?
If sales, how would you resolve paying the bonds already sold by local cities that were relying on sales taxes tp pay them off, when those cites are already at the State maximum? The genie is already out of the bottle. How do you plan to put the genie back into the bottle?

Taking a share of gas taxes raised in whichever Coutnies and City you decide must join the Regional Tranist Agency or else? Isn't that kind of harsh? No legislator from a rural area will vote for that.
Cities and Countiies, with the power of refrendrum, will vote themselves out at the first opportunity.

You can't force higher taxes on anyone in Texas, citizens can call for a recall election to recall a tax increase. In Texas, they do so often. A large Regional Transit Agency in this area, Dart to be specific, has failed on as many elections as it has won.

I can see a Regional Transit Agency unraveling before out eyes, when Rockwall County passes a recall election on your financing scheme to finance that Regional Transit Agency.

The idealogical way it should be often is not the political way it should be.

[FoUTASportscaster]

How would you incorporate regional funding for a regional transit system? We all would like to know.

I never intended to give a solution to a problem. If you look carefully, I was pointing out a problem. Again, I'd suggest stopping taking things so, literal (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=301250&postcount=21). The forum rules do noit require every post to solve a problem. It can merely be pointing out a problem as I have done.

If you would like, before you start trying to discredit what I say, you can ask and avoid 4-5 pointless posts.


The idealogical way it should be often is not the political way it should be.

Where did I say otherwise? Again, you seem to be struggling on the point that I was singling out a transit problem that doesn't exist with other transportation systems, not trying to solve the nation's energy problems, solve world hunger or figure out how to bring world peace.

[electricron]

I never intended to give a solution to a problem. If you look carefully, I was pointing out a problem. Again, I'd suggest stopping taking things so, literal (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=301250&postcount=21). The forum rules do noit require every post to solve a problem. It can merely be pointing out a problem as I have done.

If you would like, before you start trying to discredit what I say, you can ask and avoid 4-5 pointless posts.

Where did I say otherwise? Again, you seem to be struggling on the point that I was singling out a transit problem that doesn't exist with other transportation systems, not trying to solve the nation's energy problems, solve world hunger or figure out how to bring world peace.

Whereas I'll agree that a larger regional transit agency would be nice, I'm trying to point out there's one already, and it's called Dart. Funding will have to be local, as that's the way it's setup in Texas. There are taxing mechanisms already in place.

Would it be nice if every city in the region join Dart? You bet it would. But short of having a dictatorship forcing every city to join, elections seems far more democratic.

[FoUTASportscaster]

You continue to miss the point, so whatever. You posts can be informative, but they can also be assinine. Like a few others here, I am done with you too.

[tamtagon]

You continue to miss the point, so whatever. You posts can be informative, but they can also be assinine. Like a few others here, I am done with you too.

hahahaha

[Hannibal Lecter]

I think the pot and the kettle are having a conjugal visit.

[RobertB]

I think the pot and the kettle are having a conjugal visit.
Winner! :Banana09:

[electricron]

You continue to miss the point, so whatever. You posts can be informative, but they can also be assinine. Like a few others here, I am done with you too.

Assinine?

Denton County has found a way to have its own transit agency.
So has Fort Worth. Why can't Kaufman County?

Interesting news posted yesterday.
http://kaufmancountyonline.com/artman/publish/article_2248.shtml

"Commissioners had planned to designate the proposed half-cent sales tax for the road and bridge districts, but Mr. Clark would like to expand that to cover ìtransportation. We might want that for other transportation, roads or light rail, Mr. Clark said."

Now there's apparently a few smart County Commissioners in Kaufman County. If they can get the county's cities to join, they will not need Dart.