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.
Henry, the ONLY Riverline street running I know of is south of Rand Transportation Center. Where is the "elsewhere" that you say is "not a real problem"?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
You thought wrong Henry. I didn't understand what you were saying since I define street running as running in the street with no barrier. The right of way you mention south of Trenton and on the private ROW as a median in town centers along the route is where the railroad has run since God was a little boy. I have heard about grade crossing accidents and people driving on the right of way, but I don't see how that's different from any other railroad.
DART Rail Ridership per fiscal year:
https://www.dart.org/newsroom/dartrailfacts.asp
Not bad for a "service area" of only 2.8 million people, IMO. When the DFW Airport extension opens later this fall I would expect the number to increase more.
In FY12 DART operated 85 miles of light rail and served 61 stations. The average weekday passenger trips was 48,136 persons - assumes that most of the passengers were round trippers - or an average of 566 persons per system mileage.
When the system opened in 1996 it operated 11 miles of light rail - I rode the first public train on opening day, and carried an average of 2,692 persons per day or 244 persons per system mileeage. By 2005, when the system was roughly half built out, it operated 45 miles of light rail and carried an average of 33,615 persons per day or 747 persons per system mileage.
From its beginning through 2012 DART's light rail system mileage has grown by 672 per cent. From the opening day until 2005 system mileage grew by approximately 309 per cent. The growth in persons per mileage, however, has not been so dramatic. From opening day until 2012 the growth in person miles was 132 per cent, which is less than the percentage increase in system mileage. From opening day until 2005, the growth in person miles was 206 per cent.
Irrespective of the build out of the system, the average number of persons carried per system mileage by the light rail system actually declined from 2005 (747) to 2012 (566). As noted in several articles in the Dallas Morning News, as well as other sources, DART's light rail ridership has not increased significantly over the last couple of years. How to grow the ridership is a DART challenge.
As noted in the American Public Transit’s 2013 Fact-book, the growth in light rail, as a component of the nation’s transit systems, has increased significantly. Nevertheless, at the end of 2011, the latest year for complete figures, as per Table 11, light rail had just 1,397.5 Directional Route Miles (DRM) or 11.7% of the total transit DRM. Commuter rail had 71.6% of DRM.
According to Table 5, in 2011 light rail accounted for 4.2% of unlinked passenger trips (UPT) and 3.9% of unlinked passenger miles (UPM). Buses and bus rapid transit accounted for 50.4% of UPT and approximately 36.4% of UPM. Commuter rail had 4.5% of UPT and 20.4% of UPM, whilst commuter buses had just .4% of UPT and 1.8% of UPM.
In 2011 the average speed per revenue mile for light rail was 15.6 mph, compared to 12. 7 mph for buses and bus rapid transit. Commuter buses averaged 25.6 mph, and commuter rail clocked in at an average of 32.7 mph. Transit Vanpool averaged 39.3 mph, no doubt because many of these services run relatively long distances without many stops.
Of course, the speed varies significantly depending on the system, route, time of travel, etc. For example, the average speed on DART’s red line from Parker Road Station to Union Station in downtown Dallas for a mid-day, weekday train is 26.9 mph. The average end point to end point speed for a mid-day, weekday train on the Trinity Railway Express is 31.5 mph.
An extension from Plano to Allen, Fairview and McKinney along the U.S. 75 Central Expressway would be a good start towards growing ridership. Population is growing rapidly in that corridor, and I doubt that planned additional highway lanes will be able to handle the traffic. The ROW for light rail is already there, waiting for development.
John Timm
desertdog An extension from Plano to Allen, Fairview and McKinney along the U.S. 75 Central Expressway would be a good start towards growing ridership. Population is growing rapidly in that corridor, and I doubt that planned additional highway lanes will be able to handle the traffic. The ROW for light rail is already there, waiting for development. John Timm
You may be correct.
John Stilgo, Train Time, argues that building light rail along former heavy rail lines, which is what DART did, may turnout to have been a mistake. His view, as I remember it, runs like this.
As the nation's population grows and locates in a relatively small number of mega population centers, i.e. Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, etc., - its already happening - many people, contrary to the so-call mass movement back to the cities, will go further and further out to find housing, schools, entertainment, etc. But most of them will still need to go to work along employment corridors.
Because of equipment, station, and track constraints, DART's light rail system, as an example, has a top speed of 65 mph, with an average speed of 30 to 35 mph. Thus, on a typical weekday, it takes 45 minutes to get from Plano's Parker Road Station to Union Station in downtown Dallas, which is approximately 20.2 miles.
Lets say, for illustrative purposes that the DFW Metroplex eventually builds all the way out to Sherman, which is a possibility. It is 63.9 miles from Sherman to Union Station Dallas. In that case, according to Stilgo, heavy rail running at 110 to 125 mph would be a better option. But the light rail system in Dallas, as well as other locations, has gobbled up the rights-of-way of many of the former lines that could have been used to build a heavy, high speed rail system. An interesting perspective, if nothing else.
Over the top? I understand that some people in France use the TGV to commute as much as 100 to 150 miles per day to get to and from Paris. Maybe I will bone up on my French and check it out.
Because of the way the Dallas and suburbs have grown over the years, there were not a lot of feasible choices when it came to locating DART. Building on existing ROW was the least expensive, least destructive option. But I agree, it was not ideal in every case. For example, to my way of thinking, a line parallel to Preston Road up through the Park Cities to Plano, Frisco and eventually beyond to Prosper / Celina, which are growing at warp speed, would have been a better routing. But I cannot imagine the level of opposition from homeowners and businesses.
As to speed, I don't know how much of a priority it is for riders within the Metroplex. Currently, people slog along U.S. 75, the Dallas North Tollway and most of the other freeways at speeds that I suspect are far slower than the 30-35 mph you cite for DART. All you need is one eighteen wheeler to tip over and the roads are toast for the rest of the morning.
Sam1 In FY12 DART operated 85 miles of light rail and served 61 stations. The average weekday passenger trips was 48,136 persons - assumes that most of the passengers were round trippers - or an average of 566 persons per system mileage. When the system opened in 1996 it operated 11 miles of light rail - I rode the first public train on opening day, and carried an average of 2,692 persons per day or 244 persons per system mileeage. By 2005, when the system was roughly half built out, it operated 45 miles of light rail and carried an average of 33,615 persons per day or 747 persons per system mileage. From its beginning through 2012 DART's light rail system mileage has grown by 672 per cent. From the opening day until 2005 system mileage grew by approximately 309 per cent. The growth in persons per mileage, however, has not been so dramatic. From opening day until 2012 the growth in person miles was 132 per cent, which is less than the percentage increase in system mileage. From opening day until 2005, the growth in person miles was 206 per cent. Irrespective of the build out of the system, the average number of persons carried per system mileage by the light rail system actually declined from 2005 (747) to 2012 (566). As noted in several articles in the Dallas Morning News, as well as other sources, DART's light rail ridership has not increased significantly over the last couple of years. How to grow the ridership is a DART challenge.
I'm not sure what your statistic of "person miles" tells us. If the milage of a system doubles, and even though the number of passengers doubles, your "person miles" growth would be zero. If a line doubles in length, and people are traveling longer distances to a central city, then the the more standard statistic of passenger-miles would increase, giving a truer indication of the growing utility of the system. Does DART report passenger-miles data?
MidlandMike Sam1 In FY12 DART operated 85 miles of light rail and served 61 stations. The average weekday passenger trips was 48,136 persons - assumes that most of the passengers were round trippers - or an average of 566 persons per system mileage. When the system opened in 1996 it operated 11 miles of light rail - I rode the first public train on opening day, and carried an average of 2,692 persons per day or 244 persons per system mileeage. By 2005, when the system was roughly half built out, it operated 45 miles of light rail and carried an average of 33,615 persons per day or 747 persons per system mileage. From its beginning through 2012 DART's light rail system mileage has grown by 672 per cent. From the opening day until 2005 system mileage grew by approximately 309 per cent. The growth in persons per mileage, however, has not been so dramatic. From opening day until 2012 the growth in person miles was 132 per cent, which is less than the percentage increase in system mileage. From opening day until 2005, the growth in person miles was 206 per cent. Irrespective of the build out of the system, the average number of persons carried per system mileage by the light rail system actually declined from 2005 (747) to 2012 (566). As noted in several articles in the Dallas Morning News, as well as other sources, DART's light rail ridership has not increased significantly over the last couple of years. How to grow the ridership is a DART challenge. I'm not sure what your statistic of "person miles" tells us. If the milage of a system doubles, and even though the number of passengers doubles, your "person miles" growth would be zero. If a line doubles in length, and people are traveling longer distances to a central city, then the the more standard statistic of passenger-miles would increase, giving a truer indication of the growing utility of the system. Does DART report passenger-miles data?
No! I used person miles to show the number of miles traveled by a person, which is approximately half the number of passenger miles, because most people who ride DART are round trippers. Thus, if DART reports the average weekly passengers using the light rail system as 90,000, for the most part it means that 45,000 people rode the train that day. Most people, although not all of them, get on the train in the morning, ride to work, and then return home in the evening. That is one person making two passenger trips. Just looking as passenger trips overstates the number of people who use the system.
The same issue, by-the-way, applies to all common carriers, i.e. airlines, buses, Amtrak, etc. Amtrak reports number of passenger trips and calculates passenger miles. In fact, however, number of passengers (passenger trips) does not translate into number of customers (persons).
Last year I took 14 passenger trips on Amtrak, mostly from my home near Austin to Dallas and/or San Antonio. I was one customer who took 14 passenger trips.
The key point, with respect to DART's light rail system, is that the percentage increase in system mileage has been greater than the percent increase in person (passenger, customer) miles, suggesting that the system is not as efficient as appears on the surface. If you ride the system, as I have, you can see why. Beyond Richardson and Garland, for example, the ridership drops off significantly, suggesting that those extensions are under utilized. Whether they will be better utilized in the future is another issue.
Too often people throw out a statistic without putting any meat on it or putting it into context. Just highlighting ridership increases without placing it in context tells me, at least, very little in the way of helpful information.
As noted in an earlier post, DART has spent more than $5 billion on the light rail system. Each ride requires a subsidy of approximately $3.82. And less than 3 per cent of the service city populations use it. Was it worth it? Or if we could do it over again, would opting for light rail have been the best option? I don't know. Besides, it is water under the bridge, so the arguments are moot.
You have a starter rail line. Most people use it ride buses that used to go downtown, but buses that now connect with the rail line. They don't mind the transfer because the rail line avoids the most serious traffic congestion.
Now you add extensions and branches. Some now can commute by rail only, and for others the tansfer point is now further from downtown. Assume there are no new riders (and of course there usually are,)
The subsidy for the rail operation per passenger is increased sharply by the extensions.
But the subsidy for the bus operation is sharply reduced, and this reduction should be considerably greater than the increase in subisdy for the rail operation.
So you have to look at the total public transit economics, not just the rail line in isolation.
Less than 3% of the served city populatons use it: What percentage of the peope who commute to downtown use it would be a better figure to judge its success. First, we can assume that the city population includes wives and children. Admittadly, some couples have both husband and wife employed, but that is probably made up by non-commuting children, so let us increase the under 3% to 6%. Then, in the Dallas area, what percent of the jobs are downtown?
The bottom line is whether or not the rail service brough some immediate relief to traffic congestion on the commuter-used roads leading to downtown Dallas during commuter hours. I assume that at least the starter line did, or there would not have been willingness to fund the extensions.
And if it did bring traffic relief, then the operating subsidy may not be as great as the loss of income to the area by loss of land needed for more highways and expanded existing ones.
Approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the people who work in the Central Business District use DART to get to and from work. I don't have the breakdown between buses and light rail, but plenty of folks still ride the bus. I did because the light rail system did not come close to my house and, moreover, running a feeder bus to the closest light rail station was not practicable.
The last time I checked, which was a couple of years ago, Dallas and the surrounding communities had 34 major employment centers. And this is the big problem for public transit in Dallas, especially for rail. Most people don't work downtown, but the light rail system is a downtown oriented hub and spoke system.
In FY13 the average weekday ridership on the buses was 128,511 passenger trips (not person trips) vs. 96,272 passenger trips for the light rail system. Some of the trips were linked, i.e. the person rode a bus for part of the distance and then transferred to the light rail system.
The average trip subsidy for the buses was $5.26 vs. $3.82 for the light rail.
henry6I would think a third of the working population using DART or any public transportation agency anyplace, was high and an achievement worth noting.
Actually, it is 1/3rd of the population that works in the Central Business District (CBD). As I tried to make clear, Dallas has at least 34 high impact employment centers. The last time that I checked, the CBD was not even the largest regional employment center and, therefore, most people in the region don't work in the CBD.
As was true for our company, many downtown employers encourage their employees to use public transit by subsidizing their transit pass. If I remember correctly, just before I retired, my monthly bus pass cost me $13, whereas it would have cost me $54 had I purchased it through DART direct. Today the monthly pass for local travel is $80.
If I remember correctly from when I was on the Dallas Transit System Citizens Advisory Board, which was a long time ago, approximately 25 to 30 per cent of the people who worked in the CBD rode one of DTS's rickety, GM buses; now many of them come downtown on the light rail. Many of the bus routes that used to run downtown now feed people into a light rail station where they transfer to the light rail.
As my previous note, less than 3 per cent of people over 18, according to the 2010 census data, from the 12 communities served by the light rail system, use it.
Dallas is not unique in Texas. Cities here are not like many of those on the east and west coasts. They developed along highways instead of railways, which was the case in many of the east and west coast cities. And employment centers followed suite. Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio all followed the same pattern. Thus, tying the employment centers together with a light rail system is challenging.
Contrary to what one may think, I am an enthusiastic supporter of public transit, although I recognize its limits. And I was an enthusiastic support of light and commuter rail. I am still a strong believer in commuter rail, i.e. the Trinity Railway Express, but I cannot help but wonder if the light rail was worth the investment.
System construction of DART light rail was accelerated by almost a decade and the system almost doubled in size due to a large Federal Grant from the Bush Administration (over a Billion dollars). It's not a giant leap of logic from there to see that construction of DART light rail is at least a decade ahead of projected population growth in several areas which is impacting the analysis I am sure.. That should be a footnote to the analysis at least. I would feel better measuring what the projected ridership is 10 years from today to the communities that got their light rail 5-10 years early as a result of that Federal Grant.
Furthermore, the downtown portion of the DART light rail system is not yet complete. DART plans to add another through route via Downtown Dallas at some point in the future which will increase downtown departure points and ridership in each day.
Currently, Allen, Fairview and McKinney are using what they would contribute to DART for Economic Development incentives. They tried to get the legislature to increase the sales tax so they could also include DART funding but the legislature has said NO so far. Anyways that is what is blocking expansion North.
Sam1 John Stilgo, Train Time, argues that building light rail along former heavy rail lines, which is what DART did, may turnout to have been a mistake. His view, as I remember it, runs like this. As the nation's population grows and locates in a relatively small number of mega population centers, i.e. Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, etc., - its already happening - many people, contrary to the so-call mass movement back to the cities, will go further and further out to find housing, schools, entertainment, etc. But most of them will still need to go to work along employment corridors. Because of equipment, station, and track constraints, DART's light rail system, as an example, has a top speed of 65 mph, with an average speed of 30 to 35 mph. Thus, on a typical weekday, it takes 45 minutes to get from Plano's Parker Road Station to Union Station in downtown Dallas, which is approximately 20.2 miles. Lets say, for illustrative purposes that the DFW Metroplex eventually builds all the way out to Sherman, which is a possibility. It is 63.9 miles from Sherman to Union Station Dallas. In that case, according to Stilgo, heavy rail running at 110 to 125 mph would be a better option. But the light rail system in Dallas, as well as other locations, has gobbled up the rights-of-way of many of the former lines that could have been used to build a heavy, high speed rail system. An interesting perspective, if nothing else. Over the top? I understand that some people in France use the TGV to commute as much as 100 to 150 miles per day to get to and from Paris. Maybe I will bone up on my French and check it out.
I would again disagree on several points (listed below)
1. Much like the San Diego Trolley, DART in sections can be a dual use system as it uses CTC as well as 115 lb rail, I would suspect but I have not looked that it's bridge structures can support heavier weights than the current LRT cars. Thus I think the system is capable of hosting higher speed trainsets much like the Chicago EL could back in the day.
2. DART has not started express service yet. So the average speed is based heavily on all stops trains that currently make up 100% of the DART light rail offerings unless you charter a train. So once express service is instituted on the Orange Line I would like to see a revisit of the average speed.
3. DART has openly suggested that perhaps Plano to McKinney should be served by Heavy Rail Commuter with a train change in Plano. I think it would be smarter just to design a dual use trainset that can use the DART trackage as it approaches downtown.
4. Disagree that the DART system can only handle the existing LRT cars I think it can also handle hybrid trainsets with some modification precisely because of the CTC, multiple rail crossovers and 115 lb rail. Granted you would not see 110 mph on DART trackage but you could probably increase track speeds a little bit in some areas. Yes there are limits on radius curves and due to the tunnels the higher speed equipment can only be single level on the Red Line at least. Not sure those are insurmountable obstacles though.
BTW, the "heavy rail" SP Line on which most of the Red Line replaced, used 90 lb rail and SP ran freights at 49 mph using train orders over most of it. It started in the 1870's as a mixed passenger and freight line and used to haul the steamship passengers up from Galveston and Houston, the name of the line was originally the Houston and Texas Central Railway. I think most of the Passenger runs were discontinued by the 1930's North of Dallas but I am not sure.
The part of the San Diego trolley liine that is dual use is near the Mexican Border and used by a Freight Railway..........there is a noticeable difference in ride quality on that portion of the line. I was last there about two years ago and I do not know if the freight line still shares these tracks. Pretty sure DART can do the same over some sections although so far it has avoided it and insisted parallel freight lines be seperate from DART even if on the same ROW. On the Blue Line, the Dallas, Garland and Northeastern parallels the Blue line from before the Garland stop into Downtown Rowlett.. There are some grades that might be challenging for long freight trains but DGNO doesn't really run long freight trains on this section.............just an interesting note to add.
CMSTPNP wrote:
"DART has openly suggested that perhaps Plano to McKinney should be served by Heavy Rail Commuter with a train change in Plano. I think it would be smarter just to design a dual use trainset that can use the DART trackage as it approaches downtown."
I was unaware of this recommendation until now. Frankly, it makes no sense to me. The distance between the two cities (Plano terminal to U.S. 380 in McKinney) is fourteen miles. If high speed operation is the goal, the distance hardly justifies it, especially if stops in Fairview and Allen are included.
Moreover, a train change is never convenient for anyone and would be enough to keep some from using the line if the connection too often turns out to be unreliable.
CMStPnP System construction of DART light rail was accelerated by almost a decade and the system almost doubled in size due to a large Federal Grant from the Bush Administration (over a Billion dollars). It's not a giant leap of logic from there to see that construction of DART light rail is at least a decade ahead of projected population growth in several areas which is impacting the analysis I am sure.. That should be a footnote to the analysis at least. I would feel better measuring what the projected ridership is 10 years from today to the communities that got their light rail 5-10 years early as a result of that Federal Grant. Furthermore, the downtown portion of the DART light rail system is not yet complete. DART plans to add another through route via Downtown Dallas at some point in the future which will increase downtown departure points and ridership in each day.
The percentage of people in the light rail service area using it has not changed materially since it opened, i..e. roughly 2.5 to 3 per cent. Moreover, if it were not for the fact that many of the bus routes that formally ran downtown now run to DART rail stations and require a transfer to get downtown, the ridership on the light rail line might be less.
Spending a $1 billion to build out a system before there is a market for it is not a wise investment. It is certainly not one that a viable business organization would make. What do you think would have happened to Southwest Airlines if it had attempted to begin operations before there was a market for it? And why should public transport be any different? By the way, the Southwest story is so compelling that it has been a case study in many of the nation's leading business schools.
DART has talked about a second transit way through downtown Dallas since the get go. It has not come about, in large part because of costs.
The original plan was to have the red line run from the Mockingbird Station area to downtown via the former MKT route, and then loop through downtown in tunnels. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately given the projected costs, the good citizens of the Park Cities objected. They did not want trains running through their backyards. Ironically, when the principal means of long distance travel in America was by passenger trains, they did not object to the fact that the Texas Special stopped in Highland Park.
As a matter of interest how long have you lived in Dallas? And how often do you ride public transit?
CMStPnP BTW, the "heavy rail" SP Line on which most of the Red Line replaced, used 90 lb rail and SP ran freights at 49 mph using train orders over most of it. It started in the 1870's as a mixed passenger and freight line and used to haul the steamship passengers up from Galveston and Houston, the name of the line was originally the Houston and Texas Central Railway. I think most of the Passenger runs were discontinued by the 1930's North of Dallas but I am not sure. The part of the San Diego trolley liine that is dual use is near the Mexican Border and used by a Freight Railway..........there is a noticeable difference in ride quality on that portion of the line. I was last there about two years ago and I do not know if the freight line still shares these tracks. Pretty sure DART can do the same over some sections although so far it has avoided it and insisted parallel freight lines be seperate from DART even if on the same ROW. On the Blue Line, the Dallas, Garland and Northeastern parallels the Blue line from before the Garland stop into Downtown Rowlett.. There are some grades that might be challenging for long freight trains but DGNO doesn't really run long freight trains on this section.............just an interesting note to add.
I was in San Diego in January, and I took the trolley to San Ysidro, which is the last stop before the Mexican border. The trolley does not run on the freight tracks, and to the best of my knowledge never has. It parallels the freight tracks from at least National City.
Here is an example of why many middle class people do not now and will not use public transit in the United States. At the 12th and Imperial Transfer Point, where the Green, Orange, and Blue Line intersect, a ruckus broke out on the train. A couple of bad guys got into an altercation with the transit cops, who were required to draw their guns to subdue them.
I just looked at the on-line information regarding the Orange Line. DART does not mention any express service to DFW Airport. Where did you get that information?
I go to San Francisco two or three times a year to attend the San Francisco Symphony. I always take BART from the airport to Civic Center/UN Plaza. It is a convenient service. Unless it has changed in the last six months, the trains do not run express from the airport to the center city.
CMStPnP Sam1 John Stilgo, Train Time, argues that building light rail along former heavy rail lines, which is what DART did, may turnout to have been a mistake. His view, as I remember it, runs like this. As the nation's population grows and locates in a relatively small number of mega population centers, i.e. Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, etc., - its already happening - many people, contrary to the so-call mass movement back to the cities, will go further and further out to find housing, schools, entertainment, etc. But most of them will still need to go to work along employment corridors. Because of equipment, station, and track constraints, DART's light rail system, as an example, has a top speed of 65 mph, with an average speed of 30 to 35 mph. Thus, on a typical weekday, it takes 45 minutes to get from Plano's Parker Road Station to Union Station in downtown Dallas, which is approximately 20.2 miles. Lets say, for illustrative purposes that the DFW Metroplex eventually builds all the way out to Sherman, which is a possibility. It is 63.9 miles from Sherman to Union Station Dallas. In that case, according to Stilgo, heavy rail running at 110 to 125 mph would be a better option. But the light rail system in Dallas, as well as other locations, has gobbled up the rights-of-way of many of the former lines that could have been used to build a heavy, high speed rail system. An interesting perspective, if nothing else. Over the top? I understand that some people in France use the TGV to commute as much as 100 to 150 miles per day to get to and from Paris. Maybe I will bone up on my French and check it out. I would again disagree on several points (listed below) 1. Much like the San Diego Trolley, DART in sections can be a dual use system as it uses CTC as well as 115 lb rail, I would suspect but I have not looked that it's bridge structures can support heavier weights than the current LRT cars. Thus I think the system is capable of hosting higher speed trainsets much like the Chicago EL could back in the day. 2. DART has not started express service yet. So the average speed is based heavily on all stops trains that currently make up 100% of the DART light rail offerings unless you charter a train. So once express service is instituted on the Orange Line I would like to see a revisit of the average speed. 3. DART has openly suggested that perhaps Plano to McKinney should be served by Heavy Rail Commuter with a train change in Plano. I think it would be smarter just to design a dual use trainset that can use the DART trackage as it approaches downtown. 4. Disagree that the DART system can only handle the existing LRT cars I think it can also handle hybrid trainsets with some modification precisely because of the CTC, multiple rail crossovers and 115 lb rail. Granted you would not see 110 mph on DART trackage but you could probably increase track speeds a little bit in some areas. Yes there are limits on radius curves and due to the tunnels the higher speed equipment can only be single level on the Red Line at least. Not sure those are insurmountable obstacles though.
No one suggested that the current DART light rail system could not be upgraded. The author simply suggested that in retrospect light rail may not have been the best option, at least in many instances where it has been implemented.
Sam, from what you say, it seems that both DART and you take actual miles ridden by the people into account. Nevertheless, there may be a logical reason for person-miles not increasing as fast at system milage. Let's say for simplicity the line started with a 1 mile section, and 1000 people rode it, which would produce 1000 people miles. If the line was expanded to 2 miles, and you still had the 1000 people riding the original mile, plus another 1000 people riding the entire 2 miles to downtown, that would equal 3000 people miles, or a 1.5 mile average trip. So while the system milage doubled, and the number of riders doubled, the average trip went up only one and a half times. In a center city oriented commuter system, the outer milage will naturally be less utilized.
MidlandMike Sam, from what you say, it seems that both DART and you take actual miles ridden by the people into account. Nevertheless, there may be a logical reason for person-miles not increasing as fast at system milage. Let's say for simplicity the line started with a 1 mile section, and 1000 people rode it, which would produce 1000 people miles. If the line was expanded to 2 miles, and you still had the 1000 people riding the original mile, plus another 1000 people riding the entire 2 miles to downtown, that would equal 3000 people miles, or a 1.5 mile average trip. So while the system milage doubled, and the number of riders doubled, the average trip went up only one and a half times. In a center city oriented commuter system, the outer milage will naturally be less utilized.
You are correct. Expansion of the DART light rail system since 2005 has been extensive. And it the miles have grown at a faster rate than the rate of growth of the user population, thereby reducing the utilization of the outlying mileage.
1. From what I have been told by experts, the current top speed of the Dallas light rail cars is arbitrary, it can be increased at practicly zero cost . Remember that that there really is no specific difference between light rail technology and heavy electric mu technology, particularly in the case of Dallas which eshewed the low-floor trend and uses high platforms and regular four-wheel trucks under its cars, and its cars have mu-capability and use it. They are heavier cars than the CTA rapid transit cars and than th Bosston Blue-Line cars . The articulated Electroliners did run regularly above 80mph. So, there is no reason why DART cannot be speeded up in the future. But speed increases the power bill and track maintainance markadly.
2. Before DART's first line opened, was there serious highway congestion during commuter hours in the Dallas area? If there was, then DART not only benefits its riders, but those who continue to drive as well. If there were near grid-lock conditions, and average commuter speed was in the 15-20mph range, it is possibly that shifting 10% of the rush-hour road users off the highway can result in a nearly-doubling of speed for the remaing drivers, to the 30-35mph range. And usually, buses don't have quite the drawing power to get people to use public transportation than rail services have.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.