CMStPnP Sam1 If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART. Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night. As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks. Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story. When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive. The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data. If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers! So again, how does any of that refute the point DART light rail is a well patronized system. If I look at freeway traffic into and out of Dallas I can see the same traffic trends. Should we then abandon the freeway system since it is congested during rush hours into and out of work but only lightly used at late night? Oh my gosh how inefficient our freeway system is? Seriously, the same holds true for some airlines in regards to traffic trends. So here is my point that your reinforcing again. Your stats really do not support your argumentative position. I can look at the DART stats but they would tell me a far different story then what your outlining here in this forum.
Sam1 If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART. Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night. As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks. Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story. When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive. The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data. If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers!
If you think the bunch of numbers is unrelated or wrong, why don't you construct a counter argument that is supported by verifiable financial and operational data. What you have offered up are opinions based on your observations. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities. The financial and operating data can be found on DART's webpage. Have a look. That is where I get most of my information regarding DART.
Three or four years ago, I asked DART for a breakdown of ridership numbers for the buses, light rail and TRE. I never thought that they would make them available to me. Boy was I surprised. They e-mailed me an Excel spreadsheet for every bus and rail line with data for every run from the first run in the morning to the last run at night.
As one might imagine, ridership peeks during the morning and evening rush hours. It is relatively light during the pre-morning and after evening rush hours. On the TRE for example, from CentrePoint to downtown Dallas, the rush hour trains had an average load factor of approximately 85 per cent of capacity. However, overall the average load capacity was approximately 33 per cent of capacity. Some of the late night trains, unless there is a special event at the American Airlines Center, operate with an average load of 10 per cent. The figures probably have not changed much. In fact, according to an article in this morning's Dallas News, ridership for the system is down from it peaks.
Load factors can be deceptive. During the morning and evening rush hours a typical TRE train has four cars. However, during the day, as well as the pre-morning and after evening rush hours, a typical TRE train has two or three cars. Thus, by reducing capacity during the day, the TRE shows a higher load factor than otherwise would be the case. By comparison, DART does not change the consist of its light rail trains because they are semi-permanently coupled together. Again, if you think these are a bunch of unrelated statistics, that's up to you. But unless you can offer some validated counter figures, I am sticking with my story.
When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data, i.e. the $7 day pass on DART/TRE/T without mentioning the substantial subsidies riders receive.
The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you haven't delved into them. Your conclusions are based on personal observations, which are not supported by facts. You are wasting your time criticizing my use of data unless you can present properly supported counter data.
If you don't understand the relationship of incomes to neighborhoods to the ability to drive on a toll road to the ability to park close in or the relationship of low income to the need to use public transit, there is nothing that I can say that would convince you that the numbers are drivers of outcomes. Or to be more accurate they are input and outcome indicators. Or that they are not just a bunch of numbers!
So again, how does any of that refute the point DART light rail is a well patronized system. If I look at freeway traffic into and out of Dallas I can see the same traffic trends. Should we then abandon the freeway system since it is congested during rush hours into and out of work but only lightly used at late night? Oh my gosh how inefficient our freeway system is? Seriously, the same holds true for some airlines in regards to traffic trends.
So here is my point that your reinforcing again. Your stats really do not support your argumentative position. I can look at the DART stats but they would tell me a far different story then what your outlining here in this forum.
Look them up! Then use them to tell me why my interpretations of DART's data, as well as the other data basis that I reference, are wrong.
schlimm Your point? I was talking about suburban commuters. CTA provides mass transit almost exclusively within the city of Chicago. The CTA carries some suburban riders, but only from Evanson and Wilmette (most take the parallel Metra line), Skokie and some who park at the Cumberland stop near O'hare on the Blue line. But you again miss or choose to ignore the point, which is very simple. Metra carries many commuters from the suburbs to downtown, about 50% as many as the expressways do. That is a lot and it takes a great load off those expressways or reduces the very expensive/impossible need to build more lanes. Your metric of 4.5 or 5% is absurd because it is almost meaningless. Why? The total of commuters includes folks who live very close to their workplace or where there is no readily accessible transit, if any at all A friend down in Urbana (UIUC) walked to work daily, about four miles round trip for many years. Why? He chose to because it was close and good exercise. Where I reside I can drive the five miles to my clinic or walk or bicycle (which I do often in milder weather). There is no transit option. If there were, I would use it. When I still taught, I drove the 106 mile round trip because there was no transit option. If there had been, I would have used it. For many people, there is no transit option, even in the Chicago area. You cite your number as though it were evidence that few people would choose transit, "the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice" when it proves no such thing. To prove that you would have to compare the number of commuters in an area where a viable transit option exists with the number who use it to commute. that would be very hard to do. I chose the Metra figures because they give a rough estimate of users who have a choice and roughly 1/3 choose Metra, probably much more since many on the expressway are not going to downtown Chicago.
Your point? I was talking about suburban commuters. CTA provides mass transit almost exclusively within the city of Chicago. The CTA carries some suburban riders, but only from Evanson and Wilmette (most take the parallel Metra line), Skokie and some who park at the Cumberland stop near O'hare on the Blue line. But you again miss or choose to ignore the point, which is very simple. Metra carries many commuters from the suburbs to downtown, about 50% as many as the expressways do. That is a lot and it takes a great load off those expressways or reduces the very expensive/impossible need to build more lanes.
Your metric of 4.5 or 5% is absurd because it is almost meaningless. Why? The total of commuters includes folks who live very close to their workplace or where there is no readily accessible transit, if any at all A friend down in Urbana (UIUC) walked to work daily, about four miles round trip for many years. Why? He chose to because it was close and good exercise. Where I reside I can drive the five miles to my clinic or walk or bicycle (which I do often in milder weather). There is no transit option. If there were, I would use it. When I still taught, I drove the 106 mile round trip because there was no transit option. If there had been, I would have used it. For many people, there is no transit option, even in the Chicago area. You cite your number as though it were evidence that few people would choose transit, "the fact that people will not use it if they have a choice" when it proves no such thing. To prove that you would have to compare the number of commuters in an area where a viable transit option exists with the number who use it to commute. that would be very hard to do. I chose the Metra figures because they give a rough estimate of users who have a choice and roughly 1/3 choose Metra, probably much more since many on the expressway are not going to downtown Chicago.
But the topic is public transit. Not just suburban commuter trains. When I quote DART numbers, I include the whole ball of wax. The national figures cover all modes of transport. That is important if one want to get a total picture.
Actually, the percentage of folks who opt for public transit is not my figure. It is published by the U.S. DOT, which you have chosen to ignore. I said that the figure is a strong indicator that most people have not chosen public transit. And it tells me that most people in the U.S., outside of selected metro areas, will not use it.
I misspoke about the per Metra's ridership, and I have corrected the previous postings. Metra claims that its load factor is equal to approximately 50 per cent of the load factor on the expressways that parallel its lines in its service area to downtown Chicago. As noted in a previous post, exactly what that means is difficult to say.
One could say that the DART Red Line, which runs from downtown Dallas to Plano carries 50 per cent of the traffic on Central Expressway, which is an express way that parallels its red line. But that would overlook the traffic on Hillcrest, Preston Road, Midway Road, Greenville Avenue, etc., all of which parallel Central Expressway and the rail line.
As I have noted, people in urban areas make greater use of transit than people in smaller cities, towns, village, and rural areas. Equally important, I have provided figures from the American Public Transportation Association. You have chosen to ignore them; instead giving us your personal experience that is irrelevant.
Clearly, part of using public transit is convenience. But even in Dallas, which has the best developed public transit system in the southwest, even a significant majority of people who live close to a bus or rail line do not use it. One can see this is the demographics and the use data.
A commute of 106 miles a car must have been tiring. Well, not to worry. We Texans appreciate that kind of long distance commuting. Must have burned up a lot of our oil in the process. Or did you specify that it come only from overseas? If you really believed in public transit, you would have moved closer to a transit line. I did! I rode the Numbers 36 and 184 buses in Dallas for more than 30 years.
Absurd, meaningless, .......This terms are not necessary and don't add to the conversation. If you disagree you can say so without using inflammatory words.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm As I said before, you are always right. My quote is directly from Metra. It says exactly what it says. Metra carries a passenger load about 1/2 of that the major expressways do. Is that hard to understand. The reason that figure is significant is because most people who commute from the suburbs to downtown do so via the expressways, Metra or suburban Pace buses. Most metra commuters ride from a suburb to downtown, not to an intermediate point. The suggestion that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk [sic!] to make that journey is beyond comment.
As I said before, you are always right. My quote is directly from Metra. It says exactly what it says. Metra carries a passenger load about 1/2 of that the major expressways do. Is that hard to understand. The reason that figure is significant is because most people who commute from the suburbs to downtown do so via the expressways, Metra or suburban Pace buses. Most metra commuters ride from a suburb to downtown, not to an intermediate point. The suggestion that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk [sic!] to make that journey is beyond comment.
Speaking of cherry picking the numbers, you chose to focus on Metra and have ignored CTA. Metra is only part of the public transit picture for the Chicago area.
If you think that I am always right, how come you keep pushing back. Or do you mean to say that I think that I am always right when in fact I am wrong.
Metra does say that its load factors are equal to half of those of the major expressways. What does that mean? Does it mean that a passenger on the train is equal to a car or does it mean that a passenger on the train is equal to the average number of passengers in a car. There is a significant difference according to the national statistics.
Nationally 86.1 per cent of commuters drive to work and school. Ten per cent ride in a car pool (7.8 in a two person car pool, 1.3 per cent in a three person car pool, and .9 per cent in the four or more person car pool).
Metra would have to have performed some sophisticated studies to determine the number of people on the expressways who are commuting vs. those who are traveling for other purposes. Again, the number could be somewhat different for Chicago and its environs, but it probably is not a significant outlier.
"That is different than saying that 50 per cent of the people who commute into downtown Chicago ride Metra or public transit or other modes of transport, including walking, riding a bicycle, etc." As you can see, I did not say that anything more than a tiny fraction ride bicycles or walk. I just pointed out that these methods could be an option for those who are not on Metra. They are nationwide.
Nation wide 4.5 per cent of commuters walk, ride a bicycle or motorcycle, or use other means to commute to work. In the Chicago area, I suspect not many people opt for a bicycle or motorcycle during the winter months, just as not many people choose to walk or ride a bicycle in Dallas during the summer months.
So rather than looking up the figures you just say that it is beyond comment. How does that add to the conversation, which mercifully is at an end from my perspective.
schlimm Once again you distort others' words, obfuscate with torrents of numbers as though they settled the matter, and attack any and every response. Asking for comments certainly does not mean you can't present your own or even rebut, but when every response is disputed or the respondent is the recipient of dismissive devaluing comments, it begs the question, why do you even ask? But then, you are never wrong. Samples from just your last post: "opinions based on your observations and experiences. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities." "When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data" "The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you don't understand them." and finally, "Moreover, your reasoning is seriously flawed."
Once again you distort others' words, obfuscate with torrents of numbers as though they settled the matter, and attack any and every response. Asking for comments certainly does not mean you can't present your own or even rebut, but when every response is disputed or the respondent is the recipient of dismissive devaluing comments, it begs the question, why do you even ask? But then, you are never wrong.
Samples from just your last post: "opinions based on your observations and experiences. They do not reflect a very good grasp of DART's financials, ridership levels, and activities." "When you offer a fact, which is rare, you select the data" "The reason that you don't understand the financial data and statistics is because you don't understand them." and finally, "Moreover, your reasoning is seriously flawed."
And your properly supported refutation of the data that I have presented will be forthcoming when? You called the five per cent figure absurd. I have given you a source for reference. Apparently you have chosen not to consult it.
Offering up a $7 day pass as an advantage of using public transit in the Metroplex is not all of the story. As noted, the subsidies are more than $11. How is that not selecting data, i.e. not giving the complete picture. It is like Amtrak's claim that it recovers 75 to 85 per cent of its operating costs through its revenue stream, whilst ignoring the heavy depreciation charges. Which have put it seriously in the hole to the tune of approximately $1.3 billion per year!
"I gave the example of Chicago, where "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors." Yes you did! Unfortunately, it is somewhat misleading, and I have misquoted it in part. Metra says that it carries 50 per cent of the traffic along its parallel expressways that is going downtown on weekdays. The number is meaningless. What percentage of the total service area commuters does it carry would be a more realistic number of its market penetration.
henry6 I will agree, Sam1, that you did make a statement and asked for discussion. Since then you've worked hard to slam anybody who has commented. You also show a bent of arrogance and superiority over those of lower income levels. Your political and social views are very transparent and apparent. You don't want any government of supply public services except that which benefits you. Well, that sounds like you are an American for sure.
I will agree, Sam1, that you did make a statement and asked for discussion. Since then you've worked hard to slam anybody who has commented. You also show a bent of arrogance and superiority over those of lower income levels. Your political and social views are very transparent and apparent. You don't want any government of supply public services except that which benefits you. Well, that sounds like you are an American for sure.
So if I have a view that is contrary to yours, it is a slam? But if you disagree with me, it is an enlightened view blessed by a higher power. Is that your perspective? The real problem is that you don't like the fact that I disagree with you on a number of issues. Unfortunately, instead of presenting a well constructed, data supported counter view, you attack my perceived social and political views.
Asking for an opinion is not a pledge to stand mute on the issue.
My political views - I am essentially apolitical - are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have not argued for means testing of public transit per se. However, I believe and suggested that it would be appropriate for commuter rail. Public transit in the United States is a user fee based system. However, the fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of the service and, therefore, must be augmented from general tax funds, i.e. sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
I presume randian is a reference to Ayn Rand. I have never read Atlas Shrugged or any of her books.
According to Table 1-41, National Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, five (5) per cent of the U.S. population used public transportation to commute to work. The percentages have remained fairly constant since 1989, i.e. 4.8 per cent in 1989, 4.9 per cent in 1999, 4.7 per cent in 2005, and 4.9 per cent in 2007. FY09 is the last year for complete statistics.
Work is the major reason people use public transit. It also includes students traveling to and from school, and it includes all modes of public transit, i.e. bus, streetcar, subway, railroad, and elevated trains.
Although the percentages vary from location to location, approximately 90 per cent of all public transit trips are for work. This is especially true on weekdays. In Chicago, for example, approximately 87 per cent of Metra users are traveling to and from work. Thus, if you divide 5 per cent by .9, it gives us 5.6 per cent for the nation as a whole. As is the case with any statistic, peeling back the onion skins can reveal additional information. Moreover, as noted, the percentage of people who use the system in major metropolitan areas is somewhat higher, by in no instance is it the major mover of people.
To claim that the figure, which is generated from a government database, is obviously absurd, without offering any supporting information, is unfounded. It is simply a rant.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
MidlandMikeThe "Main Line of Public Works" was built by the State of Pennsylvania in the 1830s as a RR/canal scheme. The RR was sold to PRR in the 1850s.
The Erie Canal opened in 1825. It quickly attracted much of the traffic that had moved overland by ox cart from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. To recover their traffic the State of Pennsylvania built the Main Line of Public Works that you describe. In addition to a railroad and canals it also included a series of inclined planes over the Allegheny Mountains.
Your contention originally was that only 5% of the US public uses transit. When the obvious absurdity of that was pointed out, you retreated to the contention that even in urban/metro areas, transit is not favored by many folks who commute. Of course in many metro areas, there have not been any alternatives to auto (or possibly long bus rides) until recently, if even now. Consequently a more useful metric is to look at the experience in metro areas that have a well-developed suburban rail commuter system. I gave the example of Chicago, where "Metra carries approximately 50% of the trips to downtown in each of the major expressway corridors. It would take 29 lanes of expressways to accommodate those Metra riders." I believe by any standard, that is a service that has real value, by several criteria.
No, I do not know what your stated political philosophy is. However you make frequent statements expressing displeasure with subsidized passenger rail, whether intercity, suburban and transit, along with statements that express a preference for a user-fee financial basis, modified somewhat by suggesting that transit agencies should means test it ridership. There is a strong correlation between that and a randian (each for his/her own) ideology which may or may not apply in your case.
You asked for opinions in your original thread post, yet seem to devote your responses to abruptly dismissing and disputing everyone who bothered to respond. Not exactly the way to discuss issues productively.
I also ride the DART Light Rail system at least twice a month into Dallas or suburbs of Dallas vs driving. I have no problems mixing with people of lower income. They put their clothes on just like I do.
One of the reasons I use DART light rail on weekends is because the Dallas Freeway system will jam up bad on some Saturdays and Sundays when there are events downtown or when Christmas shopping is at a fever pitch.
Sam1 You have lifted a single sentence from my posting and stated it out of context. Your posting does not have a single data reference to support your point of view. It is based on your observations. Apparently anyone disagreeing with you is silly. According to the U.S. 2010 census, the median household income for Dallas County was $48,942. The median household income for Dallas was $42,259, which is impacted by the large number of poor people in south and west Dallas. The median household income in south Dallas was $39,120. The median household income for north Dallas was $60,575 and the median household income for Collin County was $82,758. The median household income for Highland Park was $219,096 and that for University Park was $151,862. The primary point in referencing the Dallas North Tollway was to show that affluent people will pay the the cost of commuting. Of course a variety of economic classes use it. But a close look at the map of the DNT and the adjacent communities it serves shows that it draws a significant portion of its traffic from affluent areas. Dallas as well as Texas have turned to toll roads because the Texas Legislature has refused to raise the state's fuel tax, which is the primary source of funding for through arteries in Dallas, as well as Texas other major cities. Although Dallas pays most although not all of the cost of its local streets, the throughways, i.e. Dallas North Tollway, I-35, U.S. 75 are funded primarily by state and federal funds. Dallas does not have much skin in the game with respect to these roadways. The population served by most of the light rail system was 3,342,361 in 2010. Approximately and 80 per cent of this population was over 16. The numbers would be slightly higher in 2011 because of growth, especially outside of Dallas but within the service area. Of the major modes of transit offered by DART, the HOV lanes had the highest average weekday passenger trips of 141,700 at an average subsidy of 22 cents. The average weekday passenger trips for the buses was 125,900 at an average subsidy of $5.12 per passenger. The average weekday passenger trips on the light rail system was 71,600 at an average subsidy of $4.23. These are passenger trips. Most weekday passenger trips are for work and consist of a roundtrip for each user. Thus, the average number of users for these components of the system would be 169,600 per day. This means that approximately 6.3 per cent of the population served by DART's HOV, bus, and light rail lines used the services. Also, one should keep in mind that approximately 25 per cent of the light rail riders begin their ride on a bus that forces them onto the light rail line to complete their journey. Yes indeed. You can travel from Dallas to Fort Worth and onto the stockyards for $7. And you can get back on the same tickets. What you failed to mention, however, is you get a subsidy on the Trinity Railway Express of $11.08 ($5.45 each way), but subsidies on connecting transportation in Dallas and Fort Worth. The numbers speak for themselves. You can check them out. If you think that the numbers make the DART spend on light rail, etc., a waste that is your prerogative. The point I made with my opening comments is that public transit in the United States is not well used, even when taking into consideration the higher ridership numbers in the nation's major metropolitan areas. Before you call someone silly, you should check the facts.
You have lifted a single sentence from my posting and stated it out of context. Your posting does not have a single data reference to support your point of view. It is based on your observations. Apparently anyone disagreeing with you is silly.
According to the U.S. 2010 census, the median household income for Dallas County was $48,942. The median household income for Dallas was $42,259, which is impacted by the large number of poor people in south and west Dallas. The median household income in south Dallas was $39,120. The median household income for north Dallas was $60,575 and the median household income for Collin County was $82,758. The median household income for Highland Park was $219,096 and that for University Park was $151,862.
The primary point in referencing the Dallas North Tollway was to show that affluent people will pay the the cost of commuting. Of course a variety of economic classes use it. But a close look at the map of the DNT and the adjacent communities it serves shows that it draws a significant portion of its traffic from affluent areas.
Dallas as well as Texas have turned to toll roads because the Texas Legislature has refused to raise the state's fuel tax, which is the primary source of funding for through arteries in Dallas, as well as Texas other major cities. Although Dallas pays most although not all of the cost of its local streets, the throughways, i.e. Dallas North Tollway, I-35, U.S. 75 are funded primarily by state and federal funds. Dallas does not have much skin in the game with respect to these roadways.
The population served by most of the light rail system was 3,342,361 in 2010. Approximately and 80 per cent of this population was over 16. The numbers would be slightly higher in 2011 because of growth, especially outside of Dallas but within the service area.
Of the major modes of transit offered by DART, the HOV lanes had the highest average weekday passenger trips of 141,700 at an average subsidy of 22 cents. The average weekday passenger trips for the buses was 125,900 at an average subsidy of $5.12 per passenger. The average weekday passenger trips on the light rail system was 71,600 at an average subsidy of $4.23. These are passenger trips. Most weekday passenger trips are for work and consist of a roundtrip for each user. Thus, the average number of users for these components of the system would be 169,600 per day. This means that approximately 6.3 per cent of the population served by DART's HOV, bus, and light rail lines used the services. Also, one should keep in mind that approximately 25 per cent of the light rail riders begin their ride on a bus that forces them onto the light rail line to complete their journey.
Yes indeed. You can travel from Dallas to Fort Worth and onto the stockyards for $7. And you can get back on the same tickets. What you failed to mention, however, is you get a subsidy on the Trinity Railway Express of $11.08 ($5.45 each way), but subsidies on connecting transportation in Dallas and Fort Worth.
The numbers speak for themselves. You can check them out. If you think that the numbers make the DART spend on light rail, etc., a waste that is your prerogative. The point I made with my opening comments is that public transit in the United States is not well used, even when taking into consideration the higher ridership numbers in the nation's major metropolitan areas.
Before you call someone silly, you should check the facts.
You quote a bunch of random numbers and try to relate them to backup your conclusion which is also silly and it is my choice if I believe your position to be credible or not. In most cases I judge it to be NOT credible.
In regards to the HOV lanes, I have never before seen such a analysis applied to mass transit. HOV lanes and particularly the freeway system is more accessible to Dallas Commuters than the light rail system. Futher, a good portion of HOV lanes are free and there are no constraints to using it. With Light Rail you have the constraint of parking at the station where you intend to pickup the train as well as the distance that you have to drive to the station as well as the rail fare and the parking charged at the station. These are what most analysts would call constraints to accessing the system.
Now if you wanted to do a serious rebuttal of my comments you would have analyzed the percentage of occupancy of the light rail trains during commute hours to show me that patronage was not all that great. Instead you compare the open freeway to a pay as you go and limited in route Light Rail system......really? Thats a serious rebuttal?
Seriously Sam1, it's great that you include financial statistics and usage statistics and such you just need to make sure they backup your conclusion and arguing position or are at least relevant. That is where you are missing on your posts, to me it looks like you are grouping in unrelated numbers and figures really that should not be compared and clouding the issues you comment on. Then when someone disagrees with you. You get upset or you introduce more numbers and figures that either are unrelated or are silly to compare.
schlimm Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
And in my view they also show a hint of prejudice towards lower income people.
If your assumption that lower income people avoid toll roads then that means that the marketing of the toll road is either non existent or wrong. Toll roads can be cost effective in with not stopping and starting, traffic lights, etc., a vehicle can get better gas mileage which can be very cost effective; also, less time spent travelling can mean cost savings for some, too.
schlimm Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation. Those two declarative sentences, not just one, clearly state your opinion. What part of them is NOT a correct reflection of your views? Barring phrases snipped out of a larger work that states a contrary opinion, the claiming that what one says is taken out of context is usually just a dodge to avoid responsibility for statements that are either wrong, embarrassing or both.
Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.
Maybe you should read everything instead of lifting sentences out of context. That includes clarification comments.
"The comment about toll roads being built so that low income people can avoid them could be better stated to say that they have been built so that low income motorists don't have to use them and have reasonable alternatives. Thus, no one is forced to use TX130 around Austin; they can continue on I-35 through the heart of the city, but they are likely to encounter more traffic."
If you cannot see from the verifiable numbers that a small percentage of people in Texas, including those in the state's major metropolitan areas, use public transportation, there is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise. But then I don't care what conclusions you draw.
Nope! Claiming that statements are taken out of context is a relevant observation. All too often, when you, as well as several others, don't like the facts, you push back with an extraneous comment without in anyway addressing the facts.
schlimm Perhaps the problem is that Texas cities have very different priorities, needs and values than cities in other parts of the country. It is hardly surprising that in the state that is the center of Big Oil, autos and highways would be the traditional mode of commuting, at least until recently. The comment of the poster ("The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.").reflects an experience and set of attitudes that seem quite alien to the larger metro area of the Midwest and Northeast. Then again, it may be an indication only of the attitudes of the original poster of this thread and the underlying Randian political ideology.
Perhaps the problem is that Texas cities have very different priorities, needs and values than cities in other parts of the country. It is hardly surprising that in the state that is the center of Big Oil, autos and highways would be the traditional mode of commuting, at least until recently. The comment of the poster ("The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.").reflects an experience and set of attitudes that seem quite alien to the larger metro area of the Midwest and Northeast. Then again, it may be an indication only of the attitudes of the original poster of this thread and the underlying Randian political ideology.
You have no idea of my political ideology.
The comment about toll roads being built so that low income people can avoid them could be better stated to say that they have been built so that low income motorists don't have to use them and have reasonable alternatives. Thus, no one is forced to use TX130 around Austin; they can continue on I-35 through the heart of the city, but they are likely to encounter more traffic.
As noted previously, the cities in the northeast and upper midwest, as well as the Bay area, to a large extent grew out along rail lines that had been laid down in the 19th century. Most of the cities in the west and southwest grew out along highways following WWII.
Clearly, people in this part of the country have different attitudes regarding public transit and preferred modes of transit.
henry6 Isn't the new toll road in Texas a private enterprise designed to allow for 80 (meaning 100) miles per hour speed limit? Thus only those with deep pockets and oil wells can afford to drive them?
Isn't the new toll road in Texas a private enterprise designed to allow for 80 (meaning 100) miles per hour speed limit? Thus only those with deep pockets and oil wells can afford to drive them?
Texas 130 is a private toll road that goes around the east side of Austin. The speed limit is 80 mph. I drive it frequently. I have not seen any demographic data regarding the users. However, based on my observations of the vehicles on the roadway, I would say that most of them are the middle class folks who live in Georgetown, Round Rock, Pflugerville, east Austin, etc. These are distinctly middle class neighborhoods.
The toll from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge (Segments 1 - 4) for a two axile vehicle is $5.12. The cost of the segments ranges from $.45 to $1.69. A significant percentage of the users get on for one or two segments. These costs, as well as my observations of the vehicles (plenty of old pick-ups being driven by good old boys) on the roadway, don't suggest that the highway is being used only by those with deep pockets.
Segments 5 and 6, which extend the tollway from Mustang Ridge to Sequin, TX, where it connects with I-10, for a two axle vehicle, would cost in the neighborhood of another $5.00. Commuters can get a discount for regular use.
CMStPnP Sam1The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation. This is just absolutely silly..... I live in Dallas and I do not see a specific income class using the toll roads. I see all income classes using them. Dallas is using toll road construction because it lacks funds SIMILAR TO OTHER STATES LIKE INDIANA to keep up with the rapid population expansion. The Dallas area is reluctant to raise taxes to pay their share of the Federal Matching formula to increase highway construction so they are leaning towards Toll Roads to fill the gap. Plenty of people ride the transit system including Middle Class ole me. I have the choice of using my car but mass transit in DFW is cheaper than the car everytime. I can travel from my home to Fort Worth for just a $7 day pass, the pass works on the Light Rail segment to Downtown Dallas, Trinity Railway Express to Fort Worth........and then on the Fort Worth City Bus system to the Stockyards. If I drive my car that distance you can calculate for an average car that I would be paying more, athough the trip would be shorter in time consumed. Add one or two family members in the car or the rail pass system and the costs become a little more competitive between the two but I still think with two family members I pay less with the mass transit option. Likewise for the benefit of the readers here that are unaware, the Dallas Light Rail system stops right at the downtown Arena where the Mavericks play, likewise, it stops right at the Zoo and the State Fair as well as Dallas Union Station for a cross platform transfer to Amtrak. Additionally, you can transfer to the McKinney Avenue trolley (which is free on weekends sometimes) to get to the Art Museum and other locations. Dallas is pretty well covered by the Light Rail system and shortly there will be an airport spur into DFW Airport. That makes it a very convienient option. It just is a mystery to me why on these Forums the DART system is made to look like a folly or waste of money because I can assure you the predominant attitude in Dallas is it is money well spent. More folks in Dallas think the Bus System wastes money and some bus lines run empty. So there is some waste there that needs to be fixed. DART is well patronized though.
This is just absolutely silly.....
I live in Dallas and I do not see a specific income class using the toll roads. I see all income classes using them. Dallas is using toll road construction because it lacks funds SIMILAR TO OTHER STATES LIKE INDIANA to keep up with the rapid population expansion. The Dallas area is reluctant to raise taxes to pay their share of the Federal Matching formula to increase highway construction so they are leaning towards Toll Roads to fill the gap.
Plenty of people ride the transit system including Middle Class ole me. I have the choice of using my car but mass transit in DFW is cheaper than the car everytime. I can travel from my home to Fort Worth for just a $7 day pass, the pass works on the Light Rail segment to Downtown Dallas, Trinity Railway Express to Fort Worth........and then on the Fort Worth City Bus system to the Stockyards. If I drive my car that distance you can calculate for an average car that I would be paying more, athough the trip would be shorter in time consumed. Add one or two family members in the car or the rail pass system and the costs become a little more competitive between the two but I still think with two family members I pay less with the mass transit option.
Likewise for the benefit of the readers here that are unaware, the Dallas Light Rail system stops right at the downtown Arena where the Mavericks play, likewise, it stops right at the Zoo and the State Fair as well as Dallas Union Station for a cross platform transfer to Amtrak. Additionally, you can transfer to the McKinney Avenue trolley (which is free on weekends sometimes) to get to the Art Museum and other locations. Dallas is pretty well covered by the Light Rail system and shortly there will be an airport spur into DFW Airport. That makes it a very convienient option.
It just is a mystery to me why on these Forums the DART system is made to look like a folly or waste of money because I can assure you the predominant attitude in Dallas is it is money well spent. More folks in Dallas think the Bus System wastes money and some bus lines run empty. So there is some waste there that needs to be fixed. DART is well patronized though.
blue streak 1 Sam1 I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year. trying to balkanize again? Cities in different states are sized differently. Take Houston which is a very large one city in texas. In NJ that area would take in maybe 100 towns or more. New York city is actually composed of what was 5 cities at one time . WOULD you have had those 5 each with their own transit system? Local Transit, commuter rail, AMTRAK are all some kind of regional service providers. These entities shuld not be subject to an artificial political division but be population driven.
Sam1 I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
I agree with taxpayer in-city transit. A significant percentage of it provides transportation to low income people. I have a problem having the taxpayers pick-up part of the commuter cost for a Wall Street Bank earning a half a million a year.
trying to balkanize again? Cities in different states are sized differently. Take Houston which is a very large one city in texas. In NJ that area would take in maybe 100 towns or more.
New York city is actually composed of what was 5 cities at one time . WOULD you have had those 5 each with their own transit system?
Local Transit, commuter rail, AMTRAK are all some kind of regional service providers. These entities shuld not be subject to an artificial political division but be population driven.
OK, change it to local transit or bus transit or whatever. What does your comment have to do with whether wealthy suburban commuters should pay the full cost of their commute?
Most of the commuters in north Dallas that are commuting into the CBD use the Dallas North Tollway. They are coming in large part from upper class neighborhoods. Not only do they cover the cost of their commute, they contribute to other transit projects in the area. The same applies if they are traveling east to west across north Dallas and Collin counties. The same concept applies many areas of Houston and Austin, where toll roads have cropped up like weeds after a west Texas rainstorm.
The toll roads in Texas have been or are being built so that low income motorists can avoid them. Very few people in Texas use public transportation.
John WR Sam1Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail. The Philadelphia Main Line was developed by and for executives in the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the wealthiest special interest groups in the history of our country.
Sam1Mainline Philadelphia developed long before special interests decided to use public funds to support commuter rail.
The Philadelphia Main Line was developed by and for executives in the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the wealthiest special interest groups in the history of our country.
The "Main Line of Public Works" was built by the State of Pennsylvania in the 1830s as a RR/canal scheme. The RR was sold to PRR in the 1850s. It was electrified to Paoli in 1915 and was followed by electrification of 5 other Phily suburban lines in the next 15 years. I think SEPTA took over suburban service in the 1970s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.