Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Transit
»
Public Transit Ridership in the United States
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="MidlandMike"]</p> <p>Sam1, you say "<span>cost estimates were put together with rose colored glasses." Was this because DART was an early project and the true costs were not well known? I'm guessing no one could successfully dispute the costs at that time? </span>[/quote]</p> <p>DART was a political response to a mobility problem. From my interaction with many of the leaders, I got the impression that they had decided on a solution and were looking for signs to justify their decision. Once people decide on a solution, they tend to look for the data that supports their conclusion and overlook warning signs. I saw the same thing, at least in part, with my employer's decisions on numerous major construction projects. Suffice it to say that we did some things simply because they had come into vogue, i.e. we needed to be overseas because some of our peers were going overseas, which is a join the crowd move that turned out not to be in our best interest. </p> <p>DART had a number of light and commuter rail systems to look at. The San Diego system was up an running. They also had many foreign systems to look at. And they did. The members of the board, if I remember correctly, were criticized for their seemingly excessive overseas trips, primarily to Europe, to look at rail based transit systems. Also, they engaged as the chief engineer the man who had overseen the construction of the Singapore rail system. He supposedly had a good handle on the costs to develop rail systems.</p> <p>Dallas is very conservative, although less so today than when I moved there 38 years ago. To gain the support of the powers that be, the advocates had to come in with cost estimates that could be sold locally. That meant, amongst other things, stating that the system could be built without federal funds. </p> <p>Part of the cost overruns can be attributed to having to build a tunnel under Central Expressway to reach north Dallas, Richardson, and Plano. Originally, the plan was to run the light rail from downtown to the Mockingbird Station area along the old Katy route. Unfortunately, the planners had not counted on the serious pushback they received from the residents of University Park and Highland Park, who did not want light rail running through their back yards. Interestingly, they did not object in the first half of the last century when most intercity travel was by passenger rail. The Katy had a station in Highland Park.</p> <p>The DART Board of Directors are political appointees. They usually get their positions because they helped the council person who appointed them get elected to the city council(s). Most of them had (have) no experience with transit. During development of the light rail system I was shocked to learn, for example, that the board did not have anyone with transit expertise or engineering background. They did not even know what questions to ask let alone determine whether they were getting a straight answer. Based on what I observed at some of the meetings, they were bowled over by the slick presentations from technical experts. </p> <p>What really got my attention occurred during the opening cerimonies for the first segment of the Red Line. They were held at Union Station. Speechs aplenty poured forth for the crowd of well wishers. I was amongst them. Not one of the dignitaries had any background in transit. Not a one of them used it. To this day not a single board member is a regular user of public transit in Dallas. Shoot, most of DART's executives don't use it on a regular basis. Given the decision makers did not have a strong background in transit and don't use it on a regular basis, it is hard to believe that they understand it and how much it truly costs. </p> <p>Light rail is a viable transit solution under the right conditions. I was and remain an enthusiastic supporter of DART. I ride the trains every time I go to Dallas, which is at least once a week. But it is a costly solution, and in many instances there are better alternatives.</p> <p>DART has spent more than $4.5 billion for a light rail system, which combined with the buses and commuter rail, carries approximately 3 to 5 per cent of the Metroplex's commuters. It draws a higher percentage of the residents living closer to the system, and it carries approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the workers commuting into the CBD, but it has proven to be a very expensive solution. Whether it is seen that way 25 years from now is another story.</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy