Why Not Over Here?

Ocala Mike wrote:And now, there's this (just to fan the embers some more, not that they need that in TX):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/0 ... il-project

That's like linking to Alex Jones' website.

amtrakowitz wrote:

Ocala Mike wrote:And now, there's this (just to fan the embers some more, not that they need that in TX):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/0 ... il-project

That's like linking to Alex Jones' website.

Much of the $50 Million heading towards Texas in that article are mostly for "freight" projects that also help passenger rail operations. Tower 55 is a major freight railroad intersection in downtown Fort Worth. A BNSF north-south line meets both an UP north-south line and an UP east-west double track line. Three major freight corridors cross at the same intersection. The Tower 55 project basically adds a third shared track north-south. It's only a coincidence the Texas Eagle (the passenger component) runs through Tower 55. It's difficult to argue that more freight rail service doesn't help the local economy.
Additionally, planning potential passenger rail services is far different than building and operating one. Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida were willing to plan HSR, although they weren't willing to build and operate. Who knows who will be in office in 2,4,6, or 8 years in the future when that decision must be made to build or not? It's not a waste of resources to plan future infrastructure projects because it takes so long to do so.
This is just another example of people with a political agenda making political points about a general topic with a specific project or program without actually looking into the details of the project. It's not fair to make the following logical argument by generalizing, but that's what many political pundits do.
"NYC Manhattan Island is mostly skyscrapers, therefore NY State is mostly skyscrapers."
We all know that isn't true, but they make that argument anyways....

Without going deeply into politics, I simply want to point out that improvement of both the scope and quality (i e: speed) of existing suburban rail systems is essentially "market driven" ..... the "push" comes from the bottom up, and represents many sources of input and points of view.

In contrast, the "push" for the comprehensive HSR systems envisioned in the first flush of the current Administration's victory was to be essentially imposed from the top down .. with nowhere near as much local input. Just as the term "stimulus" has become such a negative for the Democratic Party that ther "spin doctors" have discouraged, nay .... banned its use in communications with a supposedly-gulible public.

With regard to Rick Perry, not all of us who prefer the workings of open markets, and hold a healthy skepticism toward centralized goverment admire him, as evidenced by the link below: This link is not intended to represent my personal views with regard to the spokesman who, admittedly, could use a few public-speaking lessons.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/r ... ctor-video

2nd trick op wrote:In contrast, the "push" for the comprehensive HSR systems envisioned in the first flush of the current Administration's victory was to be essentially imposed from the top down .. with nowhere near as much local input.

Citation please. Every single plan was an old state plan, and the state plans were mostly driven by cities. Pretty much bottom up.

In California and the Pacific Northwest, there is some difficulty with the areas which the rail has to go *through* in order to get from one strong-backer city to another, but it's still strongly driven bottom-up by the cities at either end; in the states which killed their plans, they were killed specifically by people who weren't in the cities which were going to get the train (thus infuriating the people in the cities which have been pushing for the trains for decades).

Seems pretty much bottom up.

I've been too busy to post in the last few days but wanted to get back to the Dallas DART light rail topic I threw out there. Thanks to some posts and a little more research, I've learned that things are not as great as they seem. Ridership is not up to expectations and no current major expansion is in the works. A lot of my high hopes were based on casual glances online and the verbal praise of relatives in Texas..."everyone loves it! everyone rides it!" this from folks living an hour's drive from Dallas, still car commuting, and with no DART line near them.
Despite all this, one fact stands. The largest light rail system in the U.S. (72 miles!) is in Dallas, TX. So why would the conservative business leaders of this city drink the light rail kool-ade? I think I stereotyped a bit about Dallas being a very conservative city--it's a big urban area with a lot of traditional Democratic constituancies, but I think at the end of the day what happens in Dallas is decided by a roomful of powerful men. They want Dallas to be seen as a world class city, not a cowtown, and such cities have international airports, great art museums, luxe retail, mega sports franchises...and light rail. That and the fact that the freeways are overloaded is what I think has spurred this growth on.
So why isn't it working so well? Despite all the traffic, it's easy and cheap to park and drive in Dallas. I dont' think you'll see anyone trying to change this with "sticks" like tolls or higher parking rates, and this would only harm lower income people anyway. I don't know what kind of "carrots" are possible--better PR, more park and rides, better connections? At present, the only thing that may get more people on the trains would be higher gas prices.
DART is taking a longer view, hoping that real estate will develop around light rail hubs...shades of the old traction companies a century ago. Looking to the past as well, the Dallas metro area had one of the more extensive interurban rail systems outside of the Midwest and California, and it lasted longer than most. Maybe this legacy has some hidden impact, and still makes sense for a big metro area surrounded by a lot of smaller cities and towns.

jaystreetcrr wrote:I've been too busy to post in the last few days but wanted to get back to the Dallas DART light rail topic I threw out there. Thanks to some posts and a little more research, I've learned that things are not as great as they seem. Ridership is not up to expectations and no current major expansion is in the works. So why would the conservative business leaders of this city drink the light rail kool-ade? I think I stereotyped a bit about Dallas being a very conservative city--it's a big urban area with a lot of traditional Democratic constituancies, but I think at the end of the day what happens in Dallas is decided by a roomful of powerful men. They want Dallas to be seen as a world class city, not a cowtown, and such cities have international airports, great art museums, luxe retail, mega sports franchises...and light rail. That and the fact that the freeways are overloaded is what I think has spurred this growth on.
So why isn't it working so well? Despite all the traffic, it's easy and cheap to park and drive in Dallas. I dont' think you'll see anyone trying to change this with "sticks" like tolls or higher parking rates, and this would only harm lower income people anyway. I don't know what kind of "carrots" are possible--better PR, more park and rides, better connections? At present, the only thing that may get more people on the trains would be higher gas prices.

You're looking at 2025-2030 ridership projections if you believe ridership is low, they're exceeding projections for today. DART isn't a regional agency, it serves 13 member cities in an area with three times more cities. Most conservatives live in the other 39 nonmember cities. DART exists because voters in 13 cities passed referendums supporting it financially, and doesn't serve the other 39 cities that didn't. There are a few leaders within Dallas politics, but that's true everywhere. Isn't it easier to sustain higher ridership with honey? You will never get higher ridership by force.

jaystreetcrr wrote:I've been too busy to post in the last few days but wanted to get back to the Dallas DART light rail topic I threw out there. Thanks to some posts and a little more research, I've learned that things are not as great as they seem. Ridership is not up to expectations and no current major expansion is in the works. A lot of my high hopes were based on casual glances online and the verbal praise of relatives in Texas..."everyone loves it! everyone rides it!" this from folks living an hour's drive from Dallas, still car commuting, and with no DART line near them.
Despite all this, one fact stands. The largest light rail system in the U.S. (72 miles!) is in Dallas, TX. So why would the conservative business leaders of this city drink the light rail kool-ade? I think I stereotyped a bit about Dallas being a very conservative city--it's a big urban area with a lot of traditional Democratic constituancies, but I think at the end of the day what happens in Dallas is decided by a roomful of powerful men. They want Dallas to be seen as a world class city, not a cowtown, and such cities have international airports, great art museums, luxe retail, mega sports franchises...and light rail. That and the fact that the freeways are overloaded is what I think has spurred this growth on.
So why isn't it working so well? Despite all the traffic, it's easy and cheap to park and drive in Dallas. I dont' think you'll see anyone trying to change this with "sticks" like tolls or higher parking rates, and this would only harm lower income people anyway. I don't know what kind of "carrots" are possible--better PR, more park and rides, better connections? At present, the only thing that may get more people on the trains would be higher gas prices.
DART is taking a longer view, hoping that real estate will develop around light rail hubs...shades of the old traction companies a century ago. Looking to the past as well, the Dallas metro area had one of the more extensive interurban rail systems outside of the Midwest and California, and it lasted longer than most. Maybe this legacy has some hidden impact, and still makes sense for a big metro area surrounded by a lot of smaller cities and towns.

There's a good an analysis of the shortfalls of DART here:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010 ... s-longest/

Basically what he's arguing is that it has to do with the lack few high-density residential or mixed development areas in the inner city and the poor routing of the lines through more opportune areas. I would add that the lines are far too suburban oriented -- a rail transit line becomes exponentially less effective the further from the city center it gets and the lower the density of the surrounding area. I think to improve the performance of the system, you would have to reverse these trends.

trainmaster611 wrote:There's a good an analysis of the shortfalls of DART here:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010 ... s-longest/
Basically what he's arguing is that it has to do with the lack few high-density residential or mixed development areas in the inner city and the poor routing of the lines through more opportune areas. I would add that the lines are far too suburban oriented -- a rail transit line becomes exponentially less effective the further from the city center it gets and the lower the density of the surrounding area. I think to improve the performance of the system, you would have to reverse these trends.

I'm sure the editorialist made some great points about urban vs suburban rail, which are true. But when 12 of 13 DART member cities are suburban cities; they provide half the subsidies; shouldn't we expect a train aimed for that market, or at least reaches the suburbs? It's not like the City of Dallas provides ALL the subsidies, nor ALL the riders. I find it ridiculous that there are people and pundits arguing otherwise.

If DART light rail trains never reached the suburbs, only were ran within the city limits of Dallas; there wouldn't have been sufficient local funds to build 4 light rail lines branching out in four different directions from downtown Dallas. If you're going to ask the suburbs to subsidy transit with an equal share of funds, you're going to have to provide an equal share of service. Otherwise, they will drop out and pull their tax revenues.

I don't think its a coincidence that the few suburban cities that have drop out of DART weren't scheduled to have train services for decades, if ever. Nor the cities that have voted to remain in DART have trains now, or will soon have trains.

electricron wrote: I'm sure the editorialist made some great points about urban vs suburban rail, which are true. But when 12 of 13 DART member cities are suburban cities; they provide half the subsidies; shouldn't we expect a train aimed for that market, or at least reaches the suburbs? It's not like the City of Dallas provides ALL the subsidies, nor ALL the riders. I find it ridiculous that there are people and pundits arguing otherwise.

If DART light rail trains never reached the suburbs, only were ran within the city limits of Dallas; there wouldn't have been sufficient local funds to build 4 light rail lines branching out in four different directions from downtown Dallas. If you're going to ask the suburbs to subsidy transit with an equal share of funds, you're going to have to provide an equal share of service. Otherwise, they will drop out and pull their tax revenues.

I don't think its a coincidence that the few suburban cities that have drop out of DART weren't scheduled to have train services for decades, if ever. Nor the cities that have voted to remain in DART have trains now, or will soon have trains.

You're completely correct; the suburban cities funding DART are obviously going to want DART service which explains DART's suburban orientation which inherently makes it a weaker system. There isn't much you can do about that. The other part is just the poor planning. That is something that could have been rectified.

Here is another example of powerful suburban areas influencing transit policies even if it isn't for the best:
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-w ... 90761.html

Dekalb County wants their own MARTA extension which is reasonable since they pay into the system. Yet, their project is one of the least worthy of funding in the Atlanta area. Since MARTA left them out of the rail plans, they're going to throw a fit and threaten to vote against the new projects unless they get what they want which makes for a real conundrum -- serve all the communities that pay into your system or stick with the best projects. Since places like DeKalb County hold the purse strings, it isn't much of a choice and you end up with less than effective suburban systems.

trainmaster611 wrote:Here is another example of powerful suburban areas influencing transit policies even if it isn't for the best:
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-w ... 90761.html

Dekalb County wants their own MARTA extension which is reasonable since they pay into the system. Yet, their project is one of the least worthy of funding in the Atlanta area. Since MARTA left them out of the rail plans, they're going to throw a fit and threaten to vote against the new projects unless they get what they want which makes for a real conundrum -- serve all the communities that pay into your system or stick with the best projects. Since places like DeKalb County hold the purse strings, it isn't much of a choice and you end up with less than effective suburban systems.

I agree, MARTA should have provided DeKalb County better services years ago. It doesn't matter how inefficient it is, just as long MARTA keeps collecting revenues from DeKalb County. When fares pay less than 20%, possibly 25%, of the O&M budget, you need to keep ever cent of tax revenues possible. Does DeKalb County have the ability to withdraw from MARTA?
Cities within the metroplex can join DART individually, and once every 10 years since can withdraw from DART. The only carrot keeping cities in is service. The only stick keeping cities in is they first must help pay off their share of the bonds for the services they have. The inner belt suburban cities have more investment than outer belt cities, and would have more bonds to pay off, it could take years before they can rescind the tax. It's that carrot and stick schemes based upon provided service that keep these cities in DART. If DART had never provided any service, or very poor service, these cities could drop out of DART quicker and easier.
Just one of the reasons why DART built a suburban rail lines to the outer suburban member cities.

I'm not entirely disagreeing. Ideally service should be focused on the inner city and inner suburbs. But I'm split on what should be done realistically -- on the one hand the suburban cities hold the purse strings and on the other hand, outer suburban service is an inefficient use of transit funds. Going with the inner city/inner suburb option obviously entails the loss of support from outer suburbs, but I'm wondering if it might actually be worth it to bite the bullet and let places like DeKalb County go.

trainmaster611 wrote: On the one hand the suburban cities hold the purse strings and on the other hand, outer suburban service is an inefficient use of transit funds.

It shouldn't have to be that way. When upgradng of rail systems brings improvements in both speed and reliability, as has clearly been demonstrated with the NEC, then the service can be extended further into the exurbs, the residents pf which clealry benefit via easy access to better paying work at lower cost, This potential benefit can be easily (and inexpensively) addressed by the promotion of park-and-ride ... and for day-trips as well as commuting,

Admittedly, this scenario works well only after a certain point of population density is attained. But a trend toward further momenment out of the extractive (mining AND agriculture) industries which dominate "flyover country" seems to be gaining momentum ... perhaps due in part to rising petroeum prices.

Finally, it should be noted that the often-cited freight-vs-passenger conflicts could also be mitigated somewhat, in part via the fact that the "distribution center" concept would allow the freight line-haul to terminate further away form the heart of the mega-city, and to some degree by the fact that even expensive rail traffic-control systems should offer some economies of scale if the trend intensifies.