General Infrastructure & Rail vs. Highway Debate Thread

[Double Wide]

Get a Mac. haha, The Green Line is going to be a huge success for Dallas.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Get a Mac. haha, The Green Line is going to be a huge success for Dallas.What's your definition of success? Iraq?

[Spjz]

What's your definition of success? Iraq?Lecter, are you forecasting sectarian violence along the green line? Uh oh. I'm seeing the greater picture now: Lecter and his army of libertarian jihadists are preparing to issue a fatwa against Dart, the Federal Government, the City of Dallas...

[electricron]

The Green line will be very successful. I expect DART's rail ridership will increase significantly, mainly because rail will go to many more places. Once TXDOT starts reconstructing Stemmons Freeway, you'll be very happy to have the Green line as an alternative.

TXDOT Stemmons Freeway (Project Pegasus):
http://www.projectpegasus.org/overview.htm

Sooner or later, TXDOT will have to rebuild Stemmons.

[cowboyeagle05]

What's your definition of success? Iraq?


Talk about out off no where, many people who don't already know your opinion of DART will totally be confused.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Lecter, are you forecasting sectarian violence along the green line?LOL. You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict violence along that line. That's not Highland Park it's running through. :-)

[Hannibal Lecter]

The Green line will be very successful.So define success. Several people are talking about it being successful, but no one seems willing to set out an objective criteria that defines success or failure. Without said criteria you might as well say that it will be "cool" or "peachy keen" -- those terms would have just as much (if not more) meaning.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Once TXDOT starts reconstructing Stemmons Freeway, you'll be very happy to have the Green line as an alternative.

TXDOT Stemmons Freeway (Project Pegasus):
http://www.projectpegasus.org/overview.htm

Sooner or later, TXDOT will have to rebuild Stemmons.At the risk of implying that my opposition to rail is in any way based on personal utilization or lack thereof, the proposed Trinity Parkway would likely be 1000 times more useful to me, as I might occasionally have reason to use it. I just can't say the same about any current or planned DART rail line.

[Spjz]

At the risk of implying that my opposition to rail is in any way based on personal utilization or lack thereof, the proposed Trinity Parkway would likely be 1000 times more useful to me, as I might occasionally have reason to use it. I just can't say the same about any current or planned DART rail line.Well the Trinity Parkway and the Green line do have one thing in common: neither will be completely paid for by those who use it.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Well the Trinity Parkway and the Green line do have one thing in common: neither will be completely paid for by those who use it.
Now THAT is fantastic fiscal policy in action.

[cowboyeagle05]

At the risk of implying that my opposition to rail is in any way based on personal utilization or lack thereof, the proposed Trinity Parkway would likely be 1000 times more useful to me, as I might occasionally have reason to use it. I just can't say the same about any current or planned DART rail line.


And in return I have no use for the Trinity Parkway but I use a large part of the current DART Train system every day of the week and plan to use the Green Line to visit Fair Park regularly so I guess we both pay for things we don't use. I pay taxes for highways and roads I don't use and you pay taxes for mass transit you don't use.

[Hannibal Lecter]

^ LOL. I knew there would be at least one response from someone who couldn't comprehend the concept of "At the risk of implying that my opposition to rail is in any way based on personal utilization or lack thereof", and try arguing that point anyway.

:stupid:

[Double Wide]

Did a DART Train run over your dog Hannibal? Is that why you hate it so much? DARt has been a success so far an that will carry over to the 2 new lines. :woot:

[tamtagon]

Did a DART Train run over your dog Hannibal? Is that why you hate it so much? DARt has been a success so far an that will carry over to the 2 new lines. :woot:

I don't think you're quite gettin' what he's saying....

[AeroD]

Libertarianism in one city?

The problem with libertarianism is that it is all or nothing proposition. For it to work, everyone has to do it. Don't get me wrong, I would rather live in a libertarian utopia to a socialist one. But it is still just that, a utopia. So let's drop this "heaven on earth" vision, just accept that fact whatever happens, it will occur on the margins, either going one way or the other.

As some libertarians have pointed out, sure there is less government in some place like Sherman and is probably more affordable than say L.A. But it is still Sherman.

You take the good with the bad.

There is saying in Spanish. "Las dos glorias nunca van juntas."

[F4shionablecHa0s]

The problem with libertarianism is that it is all or nothing proposition. For it to work, everyone has to do it. Don't get me wrong, I would rather live in a libertarian utopia to a socialist one. But it is still just that, a utopia.
I think you've got some very big misconceptions about libertarianism.

This is a gross oversimplification, but take some of the social stances of the Democrats and mix it with classical Republican economic policy and you've got libertarianism. That's it. It's not crazy. It's not idealistic. It certainly is NOT an "all or nothing proposition".

[cowboyeagle05]

^ LOL. I knew there would be at least one response from someone who couldn't comprehend the concept of "At the risk of implying that my opposition to rail is in any way based on personal utilization or lack thereof", and try arguing that point anyway.

:stupid:


I am sure you did I just couldn't help throw something in that hole before some one else stepped in it. Its just fun when you stir up the discussion when you start throwing in subjects like Trinity River Tollway.

Oh and I mean that lightly and not antagonistically.

[Spjz]

I think you've got some very big misconceptions about libertarianism.

This is a gross oversimplification, but take some of the social stances of the Democrats and mix it with classical Republican economic policy and you've got libertarianism.So promise a bunch of shit to the party base during an election year and then sell out six months later?


That's it. It's not crazy. It's not idealistic. It certainly is NOT an "all or nothing proposition".I guess that depends on the libertarian being examined. I'd say Lecter is an "all or nothing" kinda guy. Specifically he's a "nothing" libertarian, as in no public transit, no public education, no public healthcare, etc.

Regarding the Green Line and public transit in general, I can't fathom why somebody is against the local sales tax paying for trains and buses. It's put to a public vote and mass transit is, at least these days, something that is predominantly the prerogative of government. In other words, it's hardly an oppressive regime. I tend to agree with Lecter when it comes to Congress supporting DART with the ear mark process, but the local tax is quite all right in my book.

Go Green Line!

[Hannibal Lecter]

^ I guess what it comes down to is selfishness. Through the gas tax, automobile drivers pay for highways and make major contributions towards public education and mass transit and rural bus service and the Texas Department of Public Safety.

DART light rail users through their fares pay for 15% of the cost of their rides. Almost.

[AeroD]

I think you've got some very big misconceptions about libertarianism.

Not really. And tell me that this is not idealistic: http://freestateproject.org/

Oh yeah, that Green Line. It should be a good time come Texas-UO.

[electricron]

So define success.

Highways are considered successful if they move cars and trucks on them without much delay. If people use the new light rail kine as much as a single lane of freeway or tollway, around 20,000 more passengers per day, I would consider it successful. To add, I believe the Green Line will add at least 40,000 more passengers per day to Dart's train system after completion and one year in service.

[electricron]

^ I guess what it comes down to is selfishness. Through the gas tax, automobile drivers pay for highways and make major contributions towards public education and mass transit and rural bus service and the Texas Department of Public Safety.

DART light rail users through their fares pay for 15% of the cost of their rides. Almost.

Gas taxes do not pay for all costs associated with streets and highways. To keep the Federal Highway Trust Fund solvent last year, Congress added an additional $8 Billion to the fund from General Revenues. Either more General Revenues will be needed this year, or Highway Trust Fund Taxes will have to be raised this year. The Highway Trust Fund hasn't been in the "Black" since 2001.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States)
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20080723htf.pdf

In 2008, the Highway Department spent $37-$38 Billion. $8 Billion came from General Revenues. Math: 8/38 = 21% Over $1 in $5 of Federal Highway expenditures did not come from the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources last year.

So it isn't true that gas taxes paid for last year highways, even at the Federal level.

And I haven't discussed how local governments collect highway funds for local streets and roads. Many local governments use bonds backed by property taxes.

Dart instead charges a penny sales tax and fares to collect their local funding for operations and to support bond issues. The citizens in Dart member cities voted to do so. As long as both revenue sources keeps Dart solvent, who cares what the fares are set at?

[Hannibal Lecter]

Highways are considered successful if they move cars and trucks on them without much delay. If people use the new light rail kine as much as a single lane of freeway or tollway, around 20,000 more passengers per day, I would consider it successful.You totally ignore cost. If it costs 10x or 100x as much to build and operate that rail line than the highway lane, is it a success?


To add, I believe the Green Line will add at least 40,000 more passengers per day to Dart's train system after completion and one year in service.Based on past results, won't 90%+ of those people be folks who were taking the bus previously? And not all of them will prefer the change. Even DART admits that when they opened new rail lines that for a lot of commuters their trips took longer than just taking the bus.

[cowboyeagle05]

You totally ignore cost. If it costs 10x or 100x as much to build and operate that rail line than the highway lane, is it a success?

Based on past results, won't 90%+ of those people be folks who were taking the bus previously? And not all of them will prefer the change. Even DART admits that when they opened new rail lines that for a lot of commuters their trips took longer than just taking the bus.


That's no mystery about longer trips even I have to leave the house an hour and 30 minutes before I need to be at work to get there by rail if I drive myself its takes an hour. I prefer the rail because I feel safer and I can work on the train ride. Plus it costs me less on average cause my vehicles use more gas in cost getting downtown. I know that's not every riders story but when gas prices shoot all over the place and DART ticket prices don't fluctuate as much I am happy to have that stability even when gas gets so cheap.

[Spjz]

You totally ignore cost. If it costs 10x or 100x as much to build and operate that rail line than the highway lane, is it a success?

Based on past results, won't 90%+ of those people be folks who were taking the bus previously? And not all of them will prefer the change. Even DART admits that when they opened new rail lines that for a lot of commuters their trips took longer than just taking the bus.If you trying to prove that DART riders don't pay their own way, then you have won your case, time and time again. But if you're trying to suggest that the Green Line won't have packed trains or that it won't be as efficient as a bus route serving the same geographic area, then you're smoking something.* Between Love Field, the Medical District, DT, Deep Ellum and Fair Park, the Green Line is going to carry quite a few people. Will those people shoulder the cost of their own ride, certainly not as you have pointed out so many times. That's why we have elections before a city can participate with DART and levy a one cent sales tax.

I've read here and there on the web that buses are more efficient than trains. I call BS for the following reasons.

1. Trains have fewer stops to make and there are multiple entrance and exits per car. Buses generally have only one entrance if you have more than just a few people, it can be a challenge to get everyone on board and seated. I used to ride the buses that served the Crowley Courthouse. There would be twenty or so court staff lining up to get on a single bus that was bound for the West/ East TC/Rail Stations. It would take a good six or seven minutes from the time the bus stopped until it was ready to resume.

2. Train riders purchase their tickets in advance (or not at all) while most bus riders must purchase theirs before they can continue to their seat. If you have even just two or three riders who have to purchase their fare while boarding, this mean the between making a green light and sitting through a red at the bus stop.

3. Trains are for the most part punctual while buses are more likely to be subject to traffic or human error causing them to run off schedule. I know, trains have problems too, but those are rare exceptions to the rule.









*I'm totally down with the libertarian notion of personal autonomy when it comes to recreational drug use.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Gas taxes do not pay for all costs associated with streets and highways. To keep the Federal Highway Trust Fund solvent last year, Congress added an additional $8 Billion to the fund from General Revenues. Either more General Revenues will be needed this year, or Highway Trust Fund Taxes will have to be raised this year.

In 2008, the Highway Department spent $37-$38 Billion. $8 Billion came from General Revenues. Math: 8/38 = 21% Over $1 in $5 of Federal Highway expenditures did not come from the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources last year.Ever heard of "cherry picking"? You're looking at one fund for one year, ignoring that over 10% of those expenditures went to mass transit (including a big hunk to DART), not highways, and roughly 20% of federal gas tax collections go straight to the general fund and not the highway trust fund in the first place. (source http://www.zietlow.com/fhtf.html)

Since we're Texas, how about looking at the state's part of this. A little over half of state gas tax collections actually make it to highways. The big leech, of course, being the 25% of the total that goes to schools.

Nice attempt at misdirection, though.


The Highway Trust Fund hasn't been in the "Black" since 2001.Totally disingenuous. For years the feds let the balance in the trust fund build up as a way of making the federal deficit look smaller. After 2001 they gave up and started spending money that had been accumulating. By saying the fund wasn't in the black you make it sound bad.


And I haven't discussed how local governments collect highway funds for local streets and roads. Many local governments use bonds backed by property taxes.City streets are generally considered irrelevant to the analysis, as they long pre-date automobiles, are going to be needed whether you use cars, buses, bicycles or pogo sticks, and are paid for by totally separate funding mechanisms.


Dart instead charges a penny sales tax and fares to collect their local funding for operations and to support bond issues. The citizens in Dart member cities voted to do so. As long as both revenue sources keeps Dart solvent, who cares what the fares are set at?Well, I imagine the riders care quite a bit. :-)

And, BTW, those two sources don't keep DART solvent. Not even close. It's the many hundreds of millions of dollars from federal gas taxes that do. If not for that money DART would have virtually no funds for capital projects.

Anyway, none of this changes the basic fact that DART fares are paying less than 15% of the cost of the service. My question, as always, is that if light rail transit is all so wonderful, why won't the users of the service pay for it?

[Spjz]

My question, as always, is that if light rail transit is all so wonderful, why won't the users of the service pay for it?Let me answer your silly question with another silly question: Why pay for the entire cost of something if somebody else is more than willing to help you out? My father'n'law won't set foot on a DART train or bus. He loves is car and will probably be buried in it. But he expects others to ride DART and is more than willing to fund it through his gas tax, sales tax, and toll dollars. I'd say he is a member of a growing consensus of North Texans in that they want transit, want to pay its costs through sales tax yet they don't actually want to use it; they just want others to use it - which in my book is better than not wanting it at all.

[tamtagon]

Ever heard of "cherry picking"?

If you a valid comparison between the systemic costs of building and operating light rail to the cost of building and operating a highway, you'll need to remember to consider the operation cost of using the highway... cars & trucks, insurance, gasoline as well as the cost of maintenance.

[incrediculous]

If you a valid comparison between the systemic costs of building and operating light rail to the cost of building and operating a highway, you'll need to remember to consider the operation cost of using the highway... cars & trucks, insurance, gasoline as well as the cost of maintenance.

And unintended costs like traffic jams, pollution, and bunnies getting run over as they dart across a busy freeway/race track.

/i'm serious
//really, i am!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/87kk1IDvhO4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/87kk1IDvhO4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You can't tell me that's not an unintended consequence. Think of the race car bunnies!

[cowboyeagle05]

Just to clear something up for the room I appreciate Hannibal Lecter for remaining active on this forum considering most us posting seem to support our Light Rail system he provides good reminders of whats really going on. His provocation of further discussion allows some of us to think about the behind the scenes data related to our mass transit system. Its good to have somewhat smart discussion rather than all cheerleading cause that just gets boring and doesn't begin to teach any of us anything. That's hopefully what makes this forum such a resource for people who care about Dallas.

[electricron]

The gas tax raises $35 Billion for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. At approximately 20 cents per gallon, and assuming an average low price for gallon at $2.00, WE, I mean all Americans, spend $350 Billion on gas (math= .20 / 2.00 = 10%, 35 billion / .10 = 350 Billion). Last year, WE spent up to almost $5.00 per gallon, averaging lets say $4.00 per gallon. Therefore last year WE spent $700 Billion just on gas alone to use our autos on highways. That's not including what WE spent to buy our cars, or maintain them. Easily, WE spend close to $1 Trillion last year for privately funded surface transportation.
At most WE spent $20 Billion for all transit operations, $10 Billion from the Feds plus another matching $10 Billion from local matching funds. $20 Billion is just 2% of the total of $1 Trillion. As long as transit ridership ratio is larger than 2% of nearby highways, I'll call it financially successful.
Take Dart for example, in the North Central Corridor, it carries 70,000 riders a day. North Central Expressway carries 222,000 vehicles per day. Assuming 1.1 people per car, lets round that to just 250,000 people per day.
Some math: 70000/250000 = 28%. 28% is more than 10 times 2%.

Therefore, the two Dart lines near North Central Expressway are successful. I also believe the two new Dart lines near Stemmons Freeway will be just as successful.

[RobertB]

I split this thread off from the Green Line Construction Progress (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=6907) thread. The debate over roads vs. rail is important, both in the local context and on the national level. The Interstate system wasn't without its detractors, and ironically, many of their concerns are being echoed by rail opponents today. I look forward to a spirited but respectful discussion of this critical issue.

Emphasis on "but respectful". Debate in moderation, or face moderation. :)

[incrediculous]

You mean the bunnies weren't a clincher? I thought this debate was settled with the dead bunnies.

[Hannibal Lecter]

The gas tax raises $35 Billion for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. At approximately 20 cents per gallon, and assuming an average low price for gallon at $2.00, WE, I mean all Americans, spend $350 Billion on gas (math= .20 / 2.00 = 10%, 35 billion / .10 = 350 Billion). Last year, WE spent up to almost $5.00 per gallon, averaging lets say $4.00 per gallon. Therefore last year WE spent $700 Billion just on gas alone to use our autos on highways. That's not including what WE spent to buy our cars, or maintain them. Easily, WE spend close to $1 Trillion last year for privately funded surface transportation.
At most WE spent $20 Billion for all transit operations, $10 Billion from the Feds plus another matching $10 Billion from local matching funds. $20 Billion is just 2% of the total of $1 Trillion. As long as transit ridership ratio is larger than 2% of nearby highways, I'll call it financially successful.
Take Dart for example, in the North Central Corridor, it carries 70,000 riders a day. North Central Expressway carries 222,000 vehicles per day. Assuming 1.1 people per car, lets round that to just 250,000 people per day.
Some math: 70000/250000 = 28%. 28% is more than 10 times 2%.

Therefore, the two Dart lines near North Central Expressway are successful. I also believe the two new Dart lines near Stemmons Freeway will be just as successful.I applaud you for being the first person to actually try to come up with some kind of criteria. It's good to see someone actually think about it.

In return, here are a few issues with your logic.

- You're comparing nationwide expenditures with ridership in one corridor. That's the ultimate apple-to-oranges comparison. You might was well say "50% of the people in my family ride the train, so it's successful". If you're going to use national expenditures, you need to use corresponding ridership figures.

- You're throwing in a lot of figures for personal automobile expenditures that have no relevancy. Whether I chose to drive a Prius or Hummer has a huge effect on gas consumption and cost, but in itself has zero effect on the nearby rail line (other than the Hummer generating more tax money for rail). How does the fact that I drive an expensive sports car that gets lousy gas mileage make DART's rail line more successful? According to your formula, it does.

- Your comparison relies on the implied assumption that the LRT riders are the equivalent of (1/1.1) cars each on the highway. Obviously not true as (a)most LRT riders would be riding a bus instead if the rail line weren't there and (b)not all riders would be using the highway even if driving.

As I said, kudos for giving it a stab. Want to give it another try?

:cheers:

[Hannibal Lecter]

Let me answer your silly question with another silly question: Why pay for the entire cost of something if somebody else is more than willing to help you out? My father'n'law won't set foot on a DART train or bus. He loves is car and will probably be buried in it. But he expects others to ride DART and is more than willing to fund it through his gas tax, sales tax, and toll dollars. I'd say he is a member of a growing consensus of North Texans in that they want transit, want to pay its costs through sales tax yet they don't actually want to use it; they just want others to use it - which in my book is better than not wanting it at all.Bravo! Someone who gets it! I think it was The Onion that had the headline "95% of Public Supports Mass Transit for Others".

You've really hit the nail on the head. Most people support mass transit for one of two reasons: Either it's to get other cars out of there way, or because you can't be a "world-class city" without rail transit. (snicker}

Here's my question to you: Instead of blindly spending money on rail lines to get other people "out of the way", shouldn't we first do a cost/benefit analysis to see if it's the most cost effective manner? Look at the billions of dollars DART has spent to carry 2% of commuter trips in the region. Was that really the best use of the money? Even if you take it as a given that the taxpayer's are going to get screwed on the deal, shouldn't we spend the money wisely?

[CityLove]

And, BTW, those two sources don't keep DART solvent. Not even close. It's the many hundreds of millions of dollars from federal gas taxes that do. If not for that money DART would have virtually no funds for capital projects.

A sampling from the "information that won't be shared on the forum" department.

A banned user finished a term paper touching on this issue.

It states the starter system cost $860 million, $160 came from the feds.

The suburban expansion cost $1 billion, $333 million from the feds.

Victory cost $79 million, $0 from feds.

Green Line currently at $1.7 billion, $700 million from the feds.

Total $3.64 billion of which 33% or $1.2 billion came from the feds.

[Spjz]

Bravo! Someone who gets it! I think it was The Onion that had the headline "95% of Public Supports Mass Transit for Others".

You've really hit the nail on the head. Most people support mass transit for one of two reasons: Either it's to get other cars out of there way, or because you can't be a "world-class city" without rail transit. (snicker}I'd say that sums up local support for DART quite well.


Here's my question to you: Instead of blindly spending money on rail lines to get other people "out of the way", shouldn't we first do a cost/benefit analysis to see if it's the most cost effective manner?I'm going to answer that question based entirely on my own perspective. When you do a cost benefit analysis, the cost end of the equation is easily measured in dollars spent. As you've pointed out, DART has gone through "billions" of dollars to bring us our rail lines and will no doubt go through billions more when it builds the Orange Line, Cotton Belt, and additional extensions to existing lines. How do you measure the benefit though? I guess you could measure by how many people moved per unit of distance? That would give you SOME idea of how efficient DART is. But from my taxpaying/voting perspective, I like DART because it gives me options.

I'm probably not the average commuter because when I lived in Dallas (Oak Cliff specifically) I rode the bus, the rail, drove my car, walked, and cycled. I enjoyed living in a City where I could do all of the above. Of course there was a cost/benefit analysis to my decision making. I would always drive when going shopping along 635 because that area is not accessible by rail, has insufficient sidewalks to enjoyably walk, and too much traffic to take the bus or cycle. On the other hand, if I want to go to a Mav's game, I'd almost always take the rail because I enjoy walking downtown after leaving the station, it's cheaper than paying for parking, and it often takes less time to leave once the games over with.

Let me emphasis the fact that I enjoy riding the rail. I enjoy the people. I enjoy walking. I enjoy the sites and sounds. How does that figure into your cost/benefit calculus?

[tamtagon]

I applaud you for being the first person to actually try to come up with some kind of criteria. It's good to see someone actually think about it.

In return, here are a few issues with your logic.....

As I said, kudos for giving it a stab. Want to give it another try?

:cheers:

So, are you agreeing that the cost of personal vehicles, fuel, insurance, etc should be included in the cost of a highway when comparing operational costs of public an private transportation to try to show which transportation system is a bigger financial burden to the population?

[electricron]

I applaud you for being the first person to actually try to come up with some kind of criteria. It's good to see someone actually think about it.

In return, here are a few issues with your logic.

- You're comparing nationwide expenditures with ridership in one corridor. That's the ultimate apple-to-oranges comparison. You might was well say "50% of the people in my family ride the train, so it's successful". If you're going to use national expenditures, you need to use corresponding ridership figures.

- You're throwing in a lot of figures for personal automobile expenditures that have no relevancy. Whether I chose to drive a Prius or Hummer has a huge effect on gas consumption and cost, but in itself has zero effect on the nearby rail line (other than the Hummer generating more tax money for rail). How does the fact that I drive an expensive sports car that gets lousy gas mileage make DART's rail line more successful? According to your formula, it does.

- Your comparison relies on the implied assumption that the LRT riders are the equivalent of (1/1.1) cars each on the highway. Obviously not true as (a)most LRT riders would be riding a bus instead if the rail line weren't there and (b)not all riders would be using the highway even if driving.

As I said, kudos for giving it a stab. Want to give it another try?

:cheers:

Not really! And by the way, as it appears it went right over you, all dollar amounts in my earleir reply were Federal dollars.........transit vs highways.

All ridership numbers in my earlier reply were specific to North Central Expressway vs Dart's light rail tunnel under North Central Expressway at one specific locale.

70,000 riders a day is equivalent to 3.5 lanes in North Central Expressway. Dart could add another 70,000 riders a day simply by adding more light rail vehicles, or halving the headways between trains. For TXDOT to add another 140,000 riders a day on North Central Expressway, they would have to add another 7 lanes. Where do you propose to put those 7 lanes? Spend several more $Billion like on LBJ building Managed Lanes in a tunnel?

It's true that getting a light rail line built goes through lots of money. But it is also true expanding capacity on an existing rail line is far cheaper than expanding capacity on a freeway.

Look 30 to 50 years into the future, when we'll wish North Central Expressway capacity is twice what it is today. It will be far cheaper to double the capacity of the light rail line than the freeway/tollway.

[Hannibal Lecter]

So, are you agreeing that the cost of personal vehicles, fuel, insurance, etc should be included in the cost of a highway when comparing operational costs of public an private transportation to try to show which transportation system is a bigger financial burden to the population?(disclaimer: it was half-price bottle night at 2900 (http://www.2900restaurant.com/) tonight, so my logic/typing may be a little ragged)

Not really. This discussion really started out regarding the level to which mass transit is subsidized by taxpayers. The factors you're bring up really aren't germane to that. I realize a lot of pro-transit folks would love to take that approach to show how mass transit is more cost-efficient, but there are several reasons it doesn't work that way. No matter how wonderful your rail transit is, people are still going to need their automobiles. Even in subway-nirvana NYC, more folks commute by car than rail. So you there's no linear trade-off between rail and auto. Another factor is the greater time efficiency: How do you figure in the huge economic loss from people standing around waiting on a rail station platform? I don't know about you, but my time is valuable. Example: Each week I drive 10 miles each way to see a client in the Stemmons Corridor. I live three blocks from a future green line station. So maybe from a straight $ viewpoint it might look like it would make sense for me to take the train when its ready. But the reality is that gas would probably have to be $150+ per gallon before the cost savings would offset the extra time it would take. Finally, there's the greater utility of a private vehicles. Rail lines tend not to be as good for pulling a boat the lake, grabbing a hamburger at Keller's, or watching Friday the 13th part XXXIV at the drive-in....

[Hannibal Lecter]

Not really! And by the way, as it appears it went right over you, all dollar amounts in my earleir reply were Federal dollars.........transit vs highways.

All ridership numbers in my earlier reply were specific to North Central Expressway vs Dart's light rail tunnel under North Central Expressway at one specific locale. Huh? You are simply reiterating the basic flaw in your formula. Let's look at it another way: let's compare nation-wide federal mass transit expenditures with the number of people choosing rail transit instead of driving down IH-27 in Lubbock. The comparison doesn't look so good for rail, does it? Of course there isn't any rail transit in that corridor, but that doesn't matter. You picked your arbitrary corridor, I picked mine -- both are equally (in)valid. If you're going to use nationwide figures, you have to use the same "universe" across the board. Otherwise, you might as well compare expenditures in Houston to ridership in Calcutta.

As for the rest of your comments (not quoted for brevity), they have nothing to do with the original question: defining an objective criteria for stating whether or not DART's rail lines are a success or not.

[AndyIvey]

It's true that getting a light rail line built goes through lots of money. But it is also true expanding capacity on an existing rail line is far cheaper than expanding capacity on a freeway.

Let's not pretend like DART can be infinitly expanded by adding cars and adjusting schedules.

DART will face the same problem as the freight lines connecting Texas and California. They can't expand capacity any further on the lines that are currently in place. Therefore, they need to add extra rail. Since we're using TIF's and the like to encourage huge development densiites around the rail lines, how many $billions will it cost to expand DART?

[RobertB]

Using a strict cost-benefit analysis, White Rock Lake and the surrounding park and trails are a waste of resources. There's not a single bicycle trip on that "corridor" that couldn't be replaced by a brisk walk around Town East Mall (which is, conveniently, circular). There are no trips by boat that couldn't be accomplished by a rowing machine in the garage, or standing in the mall parking lot with a large kite. And the lake itself is a waste, since the city no longer uses it as a water supply.

Therefore, the dam should be dismantled and the valuable land currently taken up with useless water should be sold to the highest bidder, or perhaps returned to the (descendants of) the original owners.

Because we all know that only those things that improve efficiency and productivity are worthy of government expenditure. Roads are more efficient than trains, subdivisions are more efficient than parks, and high-rise towers are the most efficient way to house the impoverished (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini-Green). I predict that by 1970, America will be a paradise of capitalism.

[tamtagon]

Not really. This discussion really started out regarding the level to which mass transit is subsidized by taxpayers. The factors you're bring up really aren't germane to that.

true


No matter how wonderful your rail transit is, people are still going to need their automobiles.

true


(disclaimer: it was half-price bottle night at 2900 (http://www.2900restaurant.com/) tonight, so my logic/typing may be a little ragged)

par for course (hahaha)

I think there's a hole in the bucket of the argument that mass transit is overly subsidized by taxpayers. We are essentially rebuilding a system which was dismantled a few generations ago. Until the new and improved mass transit system is a large enough to be a viable option for a greater number of trips, I think it's just as silly to complain about the start up cost as it is to complain about rush hour traffic.

The great unknown in my mind is whether or not the train folks in North Texas (or any sunbelt population center) will be able to determine how much mass transit is needed to generate a large enough ridership so usage costs are reasonable, but also pay for the majority of operational costs.

My point of view all depends on the concept of life in a suburban neighborhood is entirely sustainable in the future only if there is convenient rail access across the entire population center. Everything is great to drive from Grand Prairie to Arlington, but if you're going to Plano from Grand Prairie you take a train --- like that.

I really like the idea that finds Sherman, Waxahachie, Greenville becoming satellite cities of Dallas thanks to commuter trains.

[arlingtonmayor]

Here is what seems to be a simple idea to me. Instead of having a mass transit body governing the operations in dallas and its surrounding areas and then Fort Worth with is own body governing its mass transit system, Why not have one body to manage that of the metroplex? Have a board or panel to represent the cities that take part in the shared participation of mass transpertation. The investment would be whats best for the area and not one city or county!!! We as a region could be more on the same page then seeing a diference as you change counties and or cities.

Please let me know how and what you think and feel on this idea.

[Spjz]

I'm in favor of such a plan under two conditions:

1.) The governing board should be ELECTED and not appointed. While elections will not guarantee quality representations any more than appointments, it will give local councilpersons and commissioners one less political tool that they can exploit.

2.) The system should be concentrated around DT Dallas, DT Fort Worth and DFW Airport and spur outward towards surrounding cities. I'm sure that's almost a given though.

[AndyIvey]

Why not have one body to manage that of the metroplex?
If this is simply an added layer of officialdom then I do not see any potential benefit being worth the cost. I could see the benefit of replacing an existing function of DART with a group like this. However, I’d need to be convinced that it wouldn’t make DART less efficient that it sometimes appears to be today.

[Hannibal Lecter]

I think there's a hole in the bucket of the argument that mass transit is overly subsidized by taxpayers. We are essentially rebuilding a system which was dismantled a few generations ago. Until the new and improved mass transit system is a large enough to be a viable option for a greater number of trips, I think it's just as silly to complain about the start up cost as it is to complain about rush hour traffic.A very valid argument. For the most part, it's philosophical: should the government be spending money to bootstrap an industry? I think everyone can guess where I stand on that issue. :-)

The trouble with the government doing it is that the winners and losers get determined by politics, not by what works best. And once a "solution" is in place, it's very difficult for superior solutions to compete. For instance, there's an effort to create a national broadband policy. Just imagine if that policy had been in place 15 years ago. We'd all be enjoying our "high-speed" 128kbps ISDN lines now.

When you say "we are essentially rebuilding a system which was dismantled a few generations ago", remember why that it is. The market, meaning the people, decided that they preferred something else, and voluntarily moved their dollars to it. If you're having to spend billions in tax dollars to bring back something that the masses have already left behind, isn't it fair to be looking at whether you're really spending that money wisely?

[RobertB]

When you say "we are essentially rebuilding a system which was dismantled a few generations ago", remember why that it is. The market, meaning the people, decided that they preferred something else, and voluntarily moved their dollars to it. If you're having to spend billions in tax dollars to bring back something that the masses have already left behind, isn't it fair to be looking at whether you're really spending that money wisely?
The problem with the argument that "the market killed the train/streetcar" is that the market was being manipulated by outside forces with powers that put themselves outside the normal controls of a true "free market". Some Libertarians see everything "big government" does as evil, but the death of public transit was driven -- at least in part -- by a handful of big corporations. The effect of the automobile and tire companies may be debatable, but it was definitely nonzero.

(For the record, I don't think HLec is that ideological -- I think he's open to the idea that a big company can be just as corrupt as a big government. Am I right?)

There's another factor in the decline of transit that also exists outside market forces... the same "white flight" that changed the demographics of the cities also changed the demographics of the transportation systems serving them. An unfortunate side effect of the civil rights movement -- but I'd take Rosa Parks over the Green Line any day. Though time and $4/gal gas are eroding that obstacle to transit, it should be considered when debating why we're faced with such a massive rebuilding effort.

[mjblazin]

While I agree companies exploited an opportunity, no firm or groups of firms could turn the adult population against its own desires. It's a myth that America happily lived in their tenements and rode the buses/trains. The people in that age endured that lifestyle; they did not relish it. They either could not afford better or given diversion of resources for WW2, no opportunities existed. After the war, they wanted out of the city and their own personal transportation. Did GM or other firms work to dismantle the old options as the population sprinted towards a new lifestyle? Maybe. Like Cortes before invasion of the Aztec Empire, they helped dismantle the way back. But it was the desire for wealth and land that enabled Coretes to get away with it. Different emotions, but just as strong, were the real drivers for cars, highways, and suburbia, not some corporate machinations.