Why Is DART Light Years Ahead Of METRO?

[Slick Vik]

Isn't a light rail system that no one uses the same as one that isn't built at all...except that the one no one uses cost billions more?

Once the extension goes to DFW it will be interesting to see if ridership rises as predicted.

[Houston19514]

Once the extension goes to DFW it will be interesting to see if ridership rises as predicted.

How much of a ridership increase is predicted?

If DART's history is any guide, they will come nowhere near the predicted ridership.

[RedScare]

Once the extension goes to DFW it will be interesting to see if ridership rises as predicted.

I don't think it will be the least bit interesting. Even if one station at the airport caused a massive 20% increase in systemwide ridership (it won't), DART would still only be at 1,200 per mile ridership. It would still only be the 20th busiest LR system, hardly worth celebrating. Besides, I don't think that the DFW extension has even started construction. DART...and you...will simply have to promise us how great it will be someday in the future, even though there is not one single shred of evidence that it will have any more ridership than it already doesn't.

Face it, using DART as your argument for Houston rail expansion is the quickest way to kill off Houston rail forever.

[Houston19514]

Further to the points raised by others above, according to DART's vice president for planning and development, even with their 85 miles of track and 53 stations "only 256,000 people work within a half-mile of a DART rail station." What a joke of a system. Metro already has about that many people working within a half-mile of its stations, even thought it only has 7.5 miles of track and 16 stations.

[Slick Vik]

I don't think it will be the least bit interesting. Even if one station at the airport caused a massive 20% increase in systemwide ridership (it won't), DART would still only be at 1,200 per mile ridership. It would still only be the 20th busiest LR system, hardly worth celebrating. Besides, I don't think that the DFW extension has even started construction. DART...and you...will simply have to promise us how great it will be someday in the future, even though there is not one single shred of evidence that it will have any more ridership than it already doesn't.

Face it, using DART as your argument for Houston rail expansion is the quickest way to kill off Houston rail forever.

County commissioners, Garcia, and the mayor did a superb job of killing the metro rail expansion by themselves this year

[kdog08]

County commissioners, Garcia, and the mayor did a superb job of killing the metro rail expansion by themselves this year

It's not permanently killed. METRO screwed itself with it's incompetence/corruption from previous administrations but the area along the University and Uptown Lines are gentrifying in spite of the lack of plan. I don't mind BRT along the proposed routes, but I just want a plan that eventually upgrades to LRT. No doubt these areas will need it eventually.

[samagon]

A matter of semantics, I'm sure, but I don't think that what is currently happening in the Galleria area can be considered gentrification. Perhaps moving even farther upscale is a better term.

Either way, neither the area along the proposed uptown line, nor university line that is booming now is doing so because of any plans metro has (or had) for the areas.

I'm personally very glad that both lines that could be called the U line have been stopped indefinitely. Certainly LRT itself can be called compromise, but the path the line was to take was such a compromise itself. It's like a compromise of a compromise. I am okay with the lines that have, or are being built, while yes LRT is a compromise, it's a smart compromise.

but the university line, ugh, it's path was horrible. Hopefully in the years it takes to put it back on track (so to speak), the path it follows will be corrected as well.

[Slick Vik]

A matter of semantics, I'm sure, but I don't think that what is currently happening in the Galleria area can be considered gentrification. Perhaps moving even farther upscale is a better term.

Either way, neither the area along the proposed uptown line, nor university line that is booming now is doing so because of any plans metro has (or had) for the areas.

I'm personally very glad that both lines that could be called the U line have been stopped indefinitely. Certainly LRT itself can be called compromise, but the path the line was to take was such a compromise itself. It's like a compromise of a compromise. I am okay with the lines that have, or are being built, while yes LRT is a compromise, it's a smart compromise.

but the university line, ugh, it's path was horrible. Hopefully in the years it takes to put it back on track (so to speak), the path it follows will be corrected as well.

The uptown line had a good route, going straight up and down post oak. The university line should've gone straight down richmond then taken a left at Voss. Or better yet just gone straight down westheimer until beltway 8. The westpark corridor of that line was a joke.

[samagon]

The uptown line had a good route, going straight up and down post oak. The university line should've gone straight down richmond then taken a left at Voss. Or better yet just gone straight down westheimer until beltway 8. The westpark corridor of that line was a joke.

agreed entirely, uptown line was a good route.

only problem with the University line was it was nixed by those residents out at the loop

[dfwcre8tive]

I don't think it will be the least bit interesting. Even if one station at the airport caused a massive 20% increase in systemwide ridership (it won't), DART would still only be at 1,200 per mile ridership. It would still only be the 20th busiest LR system, hardly worth celebrating. Besides, I don't think that the DFW extension has even started construction. DART...and you...will simply have to promise us how great it will be someday in the future, even though there is not one single shred of evidence that it will have any more ridership than it already doesn't.

Face it, using DART as your argument for Houston rail expansion is the quickest way to kill off Houston rail forever.

Construction of the DFW Airport DART station started in August and will open in December 2014.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121214-dart-receives-120-million-federal-loan-to-fund-dfw-airport-rail.ece

[livincinco]

Sorry, I had to revisit this because I've been looking at numbers and wanted to revisit the central premise here. First of all, yes, I know that it's kind of pathetic that I'm looking at transit numbers on a Sunday morning and second, yes, I know that I'm severely masochistic for wanting to bring up transit again.

But let's look at numbers for a second and let's look at all modes across these two systems for 2012

System #1 - daily ridership - 290k - total annual ridership - 81,823k - operating expense - $445 million

System #2 - daily ridership - 245k - total annual ridership - 69,414k - operating expense - $449 million

I'm not sure why anyone would look at those numbers and conclude that one system is light years ahead of the other.

For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, of course Houston is system #1 and Dallas is system #2.

So here's my fundamental concern with the premise. The two systems have taken different approaches to transit. Neither cities approach has demonstrably reduced the need to widen and extend the highway network. Neither city has seen a measurable impact on urban sprawl as a result of their transit policies and I think that there are credible arguments about which metro has seen stronger urbanization in their urban core. Both metros have comparable commute times.

Given those things, why should it be accepted that DART is light years ahead of METRO?

Edit - forgot to mention that Metro ranks higher than DART in terms of percentage of the population with access to transit.

[nativehoustonion]

I rode it from Downtown to Richardson and it took an hour. I had to wait a long time for a train. After that I rented a car. I think people are moving to Frisco, Plano, North of Forth Worth. Arlington is the largest city without a transit authority. So, overall I have seen they have cutback service due to low ridership.

[nativehoustonion]

Cannot wait till Metrorail opens it three lines. I believe the ridership will be very high. It always is the other lines will complement the Red line.

[Slick Vik]

Cannot wait till Metrorail opens it three lines. I believe the ridership will be very high. It always is the other lines will complement the Red line.

The areas they've been built in have population that rides public transit and will be thankful for upgrades.

[mfastx]

Sorry, I had to revisit this because I've been looking at numbers and wanted to revisit the central premise here. First of all, yes, I know that it's kind of pathetic that I'm looking at transit numbers on a Sunday morning and second, yes, I know that I'm severely masochistic for wanting to bring up transit again.

But let's look at numbers for a second and let's look at all modes across these two systems for 2012

System #1 - daily ridership - 290k - total annual ridership - 81,823k - operating expense - $445 million

System #2 - daily ridership - 245k - total annual ridership - 69,414k - operating expense - $449 million

 

 

I love analysis like this.  I spend lots of time looking at NTD and APTA numbers lol.  Kind of a hobby of mine. 

 

Anyway, the original topic is basically asking why DART has been able to fund and build so much rail while METRO is broke.  This is due to the fact that there is regional agreement on the system, and region-wide support.  This is both a blessing and a curse, because while this allows for more higher quality transit to be built, it usually means that long lines are built out to the suburbs and therefore results in lower ridership.  In DART's case, using light rail technology to build a commuter-like system was probably not the best decision in hindsight.  But most people in Dallas are happy with the system so I'm not going to crap on it. 

 

Also, you have to consider that a huge chunk of the Metroplex's population isn't served by DART at all.  If you take out Ft. Worth, Dallas is a lot smaller than Houston.  So it having similar ridership is actually pretty impressive. 

 

All those new trains are running mostly empty when you get outside Downtown, which is causing the inefficient cost-per-rider numbers.  But eventually the trains will fill up, it might take many decades though lol. 

[IronTiger]

One of the things that DART has that Houston doesn't was conveniently abandoned railroad routes that could be utilized for light rail systems. Contrast Houston, which had several abandoned routes but utilized them as freeways and toll roads (Westpark Tollway, Katy Freeway), which given where they were, to what areas they connected, and other factors, were the most cost/usefulness effective.

 

There are some bike paths that could've been used as light rail--the Columbia Tap Rail Trail comes to mind, for instance--but had it been converted to lightrail, it wouldn't have really useful--it connects to TSU but that's about it. The existing 2004 route is much more effective.

 

Building underground may have technically worked--but it would've been enormously expensive (and Houston wouldn't have developed as well as it did) and it couldn't have gone underground in downtown due to the tunnels. 

[livincinco]

I love analysis like this. I spend lots of time looking at NTD and APTA numbers lol. Kind of a hobby of mine.

Anyway, the original topic is basically asking why DART has been able to fund and build so much rail while METRO is broke. This is due to the fact that there is regional agreement on the system, and region-wide support. This is both a blessing and a curse, because while this allows for more higher quality transit to be built, it usually means that long lines are built out to the suburbs and therefore results in lower ridership. In DART's case, using light rail technology to build a commuter-like system was probably not the best decision in hindsight. But most people in Dallas are happy with the system so I'm not going to crap on it.

Also, you have to consider that a huge chunk of the Metroplex's population isn't served by DART at all. If you take out Ft. Worth, Dallas is a lot smaller than Houston. So it having similar ridership is actually pretty impressive.

All those new trains are running mostly empty when you get outside Downtown, which is causing the inefficient cost-per-rider numbers. But eventually the trains will fill up, it might take many decades though lol.

It's fair to point out that Ft. Worth isn't included, but that swings both ways. Houston is covering a significantly larger area and is able to do it on a comparable budget. That's in spite of the fact that rail theoretically has a lower maintenance cost than buses. Additionally, those costs don't reflect the cap/ex costs that Dallas incurred to build the system to begin with.

My additional point is that I don't see where the benefits that are commonly touted with light rail have occurred. I don't see reduction in highway spend, reduced traffic, or reduced sprawl. As a result, I don't see why DART is light years ahead of Metro.

[RedScare]

I love analysis like this.  I spend lots of time looking at NTD and APTA numbers lol.  Kind of a hobby of mine. 

 

Anyway, the original topic is basically asking why DART has been able to fund and build so much rail while METRO is broke.  This is due to the fact that there is regional agreement on the system, and region-wide support.  This is both a blessing and a curse, because while this allows for more higher quality transit to be built, it usually means that long lines are built out to the suburbs and therefore results in lower ridership.  In DART's case, using light rail technology to build a commuter-like system was probably not the best decision in hindsight.  But most people in Dallas are happy with the system so I'm not going to crap on it. 

 

Also, you have to consider that a huge chunk of the Metroplex's population isn't served by DART at all.  If you take out Ft. Worth, Dallas is a lot smaller than Houston.  So it having similar ridership is actually pretty impressive. 

 

All those new trains are running mostly empty when you get outside Downtown, which is causing the inefficient cost-per-rider numbers.  But eventually the trains will fill up, it might take many decades though lol. 

 

This post sounds like a list of reasons why DART is BEHIND METRO, not an explanation of why DART is light years ahead of METRO. 

[mfastx]

It's fair to point out that Ft. Worth isn't included, but that swings both ways. Houston is covering a significantly larger area and is able to do it on a comparable budget. That's in spite of the fact that rail theoretically has a lower maintenance cost than buses. Additionally, those costs don't reflect the cap/ex costs that Dallas incurred to build the system to begin with.

My additional point is that I don't see where the benefits that are commonly touted with light rail have occurred. I don't see reduction in highway spend, reduced traffic, or reduced sprawl. As a result, I don't see why DART is light years ahead of Metro.

 

True.  DART has really taken on a lot with their light rail expansion over the last 15 years.  I honestly have no idea how they can afford it or how there's political will to do it, because 1) ridership has been underwhelming and 2) their tax base is significantly less than METRO's.  I don't think they have something equivalent to general mobility payments though.  But again, they're happy with what they're building so I'm not going to criticize too much. 

 

And those benefits to light rail you listed are kind of silly.  IMO, light rail works well in shorter high ridership corridors to carry more passengers at a more efficient rate, resulting in savings in the long run.  But what DART is building isn't doing that.  Perhaps decades from now the system will be more well utilized.  I think the only area where DART is ahead of METRO is future ridership capacity/efficiency.  But those benefits are not showing as of yet. 

 

This post sounds like a list of reasons why DART is BEHIND METRO, not an explanation of why DART is light years ahead of METRO. 

 

Yeah, I think METRO seems to be doing better with the few resources they have that's for sure.  The only way DART really beats METRO is that their seems to be more political support for it. 

 

But DART has potential though, things can change in the next few decades.

[livincinco]

And those benefits to light rail you listed are kind of silly.  IMO, light rail works well in shorter high ridership corridors to carry more passengers at a more efficient rate, resulting in savings in the long run.  But what DART is building isn't doing that.  Perhaps decades from now the system will be more well utilized.  I think the only area where DART is ahead of METRO is future ridership capacity/efficiency.  But those benefits are not showing as of yet. 

 

 

Yeah, I think METRO seems to be doing better with the few resources they have that's for sure.  The only way DART really beats METRO is that their seems to be more political support for it. 

 

But DART has potential though, things can change in the next few decades.

Agree completely with your statement about short high ridership corridors and I'd even add that the benefit is truly in shorter high ridership corridors that are already established.  What DART has done is speculative, assuming that the corridors that they have developed will eventually become high ridership corridors.

 

In a lot of ways, my point is less about rail vs. bus and more about effective use of public funds.  DART has invested a huge amount of money on future speculation and I just don't see how that makes financial sense.  If you think that an area will support light rail in 25 years - why build it now?  Buy the corridor then build the rail twenty years from now so that it's ready when it does make financial sense.  That happens all the time with highway development.  DART is now going to be paying interest and operating costs on low ridership lines for years and will be starving immediate needs related to public transit as a result.

[editor]

This post sounds like a list of reasons why DART is BEHIND METRO, not an explanation of why DART is light years ahead of METRO. 

 

Perhaps if one defines "light year" as "the amount of time it takes light to escape a black hole" it all makes sense.

[nativehoustonion]

Dallas DART Desperation: Cost is Growing but Ridership is Not

COST Commentary: Below is an article from the June 10 Dallas Morning News. It is a story of the Dallas Dart light rail nearing the end of its planned expansion to a 90 mile system, the longest in North America. Following the reporter’s article is a Dallas Morning News editorial dated the following day, June 11.

DART’s light rail investment is more that $5 billion is today’s dollars and its annual bond debt service is greater than the current annual cost of operating all of Cap Metro’s transit system for the Austin region. This debt would be much higher if interest rates were at more “normal,” higher levels.

Several key statements from the article below point to the simple conclusion that rail: COSTS TOO MUCH and DOES TO LITTLE. Experience has proven this again and again, yet the city of Austin and Cap Metro continue the wasteful spending of millions to plan the spending of billions on rail systems to follow in the tracks of Dallas and numerous other cities.

Statements from the Dallas Morning News article below:

“The longer many stations are in service, the less people use them.”

“Plano has collected nearly $1 billion in sales taxes to support DART, and its two rail stations opened a decade ago. But the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent estimate is that, of the city’s 133,000 or so workers, only about 2,000 used mass transit of any kind — buses or rail — in 2010. That’s down a third since 2005.”

“The use of mass transit [total bus and train] in Dallas appears to be falling, too. In 2005, 23,180 workers, or about 4.35 percent, commuted by bus or rail. By 2010, that had fallen below 20,000—“

 

[IronTiger]

In DART's case, they need to halt construction of new lines and take a look at why LESS people are using the trains, even number-wise, not proportionally wise.

 

Either way, someone needs to understand the prospect of diminishing returns. I'm thinking about buying another ELO album. When I got "Out of the Blue" in addition to "Time", my collection of ELO songs doubled (we assume an album has the same number of songs each time for the purposes of this demonstration, as well as the same cost). But then as I got "Eldorado", the song collection only increased by 50%, and by "A New World Record", even though it was a great album, only increased it by about 25%. It will go even lower when I buy "Discovery". And I'm aware of this.

 

The problem is when DART builds stations, they are all quite expensive, but aren't getting better returns from it (as demonstrated by the albums).

 

Furthermore, As it goes further out into the suburbs, that means that there's more stops, which are slower. And you're still paying the price for it. Suddenly, taking the toll lanes into the city makes a lot more sense, plus you actually have a car, which gives you a lot more freedom. You can't, for instance, stop at a store on the way home (discount stores and/or grocery stores) when you're riding a light rail.

[Hugh Stone]

All these "Secret Messages" will one day force DART to make the "Discovery" that it will have to "Face the Music" because "On the Third Day", or sometime thereafter, DART will realize that it has "No Answer" and will have to succumb to the new "Balance of Power" in its quest to turn DFW into the next "Xanadu".

[musicman]

The areas they've been built in have population that rides public transit and will be thankful for upgrades.

yeah less stops will make it less user friendly than the current bus system. not sure that's an upgrade.

[IronTiger]

The other reason why total ridership is dropping is a matter of price. Right here, in front of me (in real life), I have a "Reduced 1 Zone Day Pass $1.00 All Zones" from March 19, 2004 (first day I rode DART in Dallas, Spring Break about nine years ago).

 

But the current rate for Reduced is http://www.dart.org/fares/fares.asp'>$2.50 these days. Accounting for inflation, that would maybe be $1.50 at most. Where did the extra dollar come from?

[nativehoustonion]

Who cares don't you have your own forum?

 

[nativehoustonion]

They finished the Orange Line from Terminal A at DFW that has access to Downtown.  Dallas has the largest light rail system in the USA.  We really suck down here.  DART has some flaws with low ridership and trip times are longer but they a bragging up north.

[Slick Vik]

That's a big step

[Dakota79]

How could we let Dallas beat us? The nerve!