Passenger Trains > Dallas has worst transit agency

At least according to this article it is. Even if you don't care about the Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) some of the charts are kind of interesting as they
relate to all transit agencies.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-has-the-worst-regional-transit-agency-in-america-bar-none-9588268

How many times have we read about 'cost per passenger' or 'subsidy per passenger' statistics? Unfortunately, on a per-passenger basis, there's no form of transportation that isn't subsidized in some way. Even driving your car on city streets is subsidized as the city maintains the streets, lights, police, cleaning, etc.

Unfortunately, it's an easy calculation to make: Total system cost - farebox totals = Total Subsidy. Divide that by number of passengers carried = Subsidy per passenger. What makes it lopsided is the widely varying number of passengers on each transit system. New York City transit carries almost 500 times more passengers than Dallas. Of course they do it at less cost per passenger due to population density and volume savings.

Unfortunately, politicians use the same logic for Amtrak. X dollars divided by Y passengers = "It would be cheaper to give them an airline ticket!" response. And, of course, if one were to add in the fully loaded cost of the NEC (including new rolling stock, bridges and tunnels) and use that number for NEC passenger subsidies, even DALLAS would look like a bargain!

I have no idea what would be a 'fair and equitable' set of measurements to rate any kind of transport. Part of the measurement problem is the availability of transit reduces monetary costs to the already overtaxed citizenry. How does government calculate 'how much did Joe Schmo save by not using his car?' How much air pollution was NOT created because Joe rode the subway instead of driving? Then we need to ask how many businesses, apartments, and new housing developments did/will the presence of transit create? How many jobs exist within walking distance of the stations wouldn't be located there if not for transit availability?

In short, I think that measuring the 'success' (or lack thereof) of transit on dollar cost only is a mistake as it fails to take in account the financial/community/work force benefits which cannot always be measured in dollars and cents.

I've wondered whether fare-free transit would produce a better balance.

Would adding 10 more VRE trains in the DC area eliminate the need for expensive new lanes?

Posted from Android

BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In short, I think that measuring the 'success' (or
> lack thereof) of transit on dollar cost only is a
> mistake as it fails to take in account the
> financial/community/work force benefits which
> cannot always be measured in dollars and cents.

If you set aside the rhetoric (and potential rhetoric from all the lame ideological wars from the recent past), the article is very informative. San Francisco MUNI and Santa Clara VTA (Silicon Valley) join Dallas in the worst transit agency rankings.

Non-rail modes like buses are listed in the charts also. It seems overall, light rail is not a bad way to move people, but buses and commuter rail are not so good in terms of $ per passenger. The focus of the article is supposed to be about catering to suburban transit needs, and commuter rail and buses are the modes most frequently used to cater to that demographic.

Conclusion? Suburban residents should be forced to drive and get stuck in traffic. Only the city folks should enjoy the convenience of public transit. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/17 07:31 by cchan006.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've wondered whether fare-free transit would
> produce a better balance.
>
> Would adding 10 more VRE trains in the DC area
> eliminate the need for expensive new lanes?
>

The general infrastructure (connectivity, convenient connecting service, and a culture that is accustomed to using public transportation) required for that to be effective is in place. There is a really good chance that a truly objective study would answer that question positively.

The Real Experts derided my small group of (insane, crazy, etc.) colleagues and I about the futility and disastrous consequences of commuter trains in the Seattle area and additional Amtrak trains between Portland and Vancouver BC. Nobody would ever ride those trains, the resulting loss of freight business would result in the bankruptcy of BN, and so on. In both cases (Sounder and Cascades), the trains that nobody would ride were full, more were added and they were full, there are more trains of both flavors coming soon with plans for even more coming, and BNSF appears to be far from bankrupt. Using objective work, we knew that the Real Experts were Really Wrong.

I worked on developing commuter trains between Ft Worth and Dallas with the same expert opinions and results. Funny how that works.

TAW