Burnt Orange Report

Outclassed by Dallas? Gimme a break... The 'peer pressure' argument for light rail is by far the least compelling. Dallas rail has been a failure by every viable measure.

And White is only winning because he's spending so much blasted money... You'll get a taste of that when Bush runs for reelection 2004. :)

Anyone remember how all Phil Gramm's money failed to win him anything outside Texas?

As for DART failing every viable measure, there are issues with it, but it's hardly a complete failure. People in the suburbs complain about waiting for so long for it. Areas are developing along the stops for the rail. I live here. I see a distinct pattern that coincides with the light rail. Ridership is high, which I see firsthand. I see the full lightrail cars. I have been suspicious of DART for years, but there's been undeniable success. Cities like Garland that opposed DART years back are now wanting to work with DART.

This is Dick Armey, Pete Sessions country. And the voters here approved it.

TxBubba,

Bascially you're saying that light rail has succeeded in Dallas in terms of popularity and development patterns. I think the former measure is irrelevant and the latter simply doesn't wash. Office vacancy rates in downtown Dallas are very high and have gotten worse since light rail was built.

Moreover, development occurs regardless of transportation so long as population is increasing. Perhaps light rail guided development to a certain area, but I don't see how it can be claimed that it 'spurred' that development. And in other cities with light rail, development in the suburbs has far outpaced development along rail lines.

And as for ridership, I'll simply point out that Houston's Metro serves a larger percentage of the population than does DART (4.6% versus 5.2%). If DART has full rail rail cars, it has been at the cost of efforts that would have increased overall transit ridership numbers. This was noted in Jonathan Richmond's 1999 study of light rail systems across the country.

And lastly, Dallas has been forced to cut bus and light rail service due to their massive budget shortfall -- $37 million -- caused by light rail. They've also been compelled to ask for more federal dollars and jack up fares, to say nothing of eliminating bus service to Cowboys football games.

In short, I just don't see where a person can point to success, unless that person simply likes trains and is glad they are there for no other reason.

Popularity is not irrelevant: It means that people are using it.

As for vacancy, what data are you referring to? The data I've seen has been the opposite: Vacancy downtown has decreased since the introduction of DART. See http://www.downtowndallas.org/commrealestate.htm

Since the mid 1990s, development downtown has resurged, relative to what it was. Personally, I can't stand downtown Dallas. It's lifeless and stands in sharp contrast to Ft. Worth's downtown. And I think that's one reason the vacancy rate in Dallas so bad. Not to mention that it was long overpriced compared to Las Colinas, etc., which now continue to attract by virtue of a density of related businesses. If you're in telecom, what sense does it make to be in downtown Dallas rather in Richardson? Those are problems light rail won't solve, so I agree that it's not going to fix those kinds of problems. But it coincides with an improvement downtown.

The budget shortfall is due to less revenue than expected from sales taxes. I think lots of problems have suffered that same fate, so I'm not sure how that's an indictment of DART per se.

I have to pick up my kids, so I have to cut this short.

Tx Bubba,

Popularity doesn't mean many people are using it. It just means that people like it. I've given you the ridership numbers -- Houston has managed increases in transit ridership equal to Dallas without rail, and our overall transit usage statistics are slightly better.

As for the downtown office vacancy rate, I got that from the anti-rail Texas Public Policy Foundation. You can feel free to consider their statistics biased, but then I could point out that 'Downtown Dallas' also has selfish interests involved.

And in any case, Houston has had a surge in development since the mid-1990's as well. Apartments are going up all over Montrose and Allen Parkway. New office buildings have been constructed. It was mostly because of the 90's economic boom after the recession, but even then, Houston has a much vacancy rate than Dallas. We're doing better without rail; that's the entire point I've been making vis-a-vis Dallas.

And please, don't blame DART's budget shortfall on declining sales tax revenues. Houston wasn't immune from similar decreases, and yet Metro didn't have a $37 million shortfall. That's because Metro has fewer unecessary expenses (well, at least NOW) and can therefore adjust to poor economic times where tax money dries up. The same goes for other Texas cities. Has this happened in Austin? San Antonio? I haven't heard any such thing.

I looked through your links and didn't see that much about uptodate ridership. The Harvard study was in 1999, and the other data link looks to be about the same date. When the Plano Station opened in
2002, ridership was at capacity.

The 2000 census figures are frequently used to show that DART isn't working. Yet, the expansion into Plano and Garland has occurred since then. And that is significant because of the people living in Dallas who work in Plano and vice versa. I'm not surprised by a drop-off in ridership, in not small part because the rail lines didn't reach into the suburbs. But DART is now reporting double the ridership since 2000.

Personally, I'd value a survey of businesses along the light rail line, about its impact on them, their employees, their customers, sales. I'd also like to see a study of weekday riders by someone other than interested parties.

As for vacancies, you're right. I'd say TPPF is biased. But sticking to the facts, the data that I quoted is closer in line with data from these more unbiased sources:

DMN 2002 article
or
this summary, if you don't have a login for DMN.

Here's a different source that shows 22.7% downtown vacancy.

The vacancy is improving, not worsening, according to different sources. And the rail is encouraging development in older parts of Dallas. Again, it's something that I can look at and see changing. For example, 204 apartments and 30,000 sf of retail space were developed in the West End this year (see West End Awakening ). Other housing has been built adjacent to the DART rail (see the 11/29/2002 article ).

"Around the rail line Plano Transit Village, a 239,000-square-foot commercial and residential project is being developed. The $16 million project includes 246 apartments with space for small shops and other commercial development. The old school gymnasium is being converted into a 300-seat theater." source

A study has shown increases in property value from 1997 to 2001 that were greater than that for the rest of Dallas County. You can say that study is biased, but the facts and the methodology are there for examination.

In the suburb where I live, DART light rail station won't be built for a couple more years. Yet, they are already developing that land and refurbishing the area where the light rail station will be.

As for the budget, what do you mean don't blame sales revenues? The fact is that sales taxes have fallen. I haven't seen anything indicating that their expenses rose, which seems to be what you're saying.

I have my doubts about the rail, particularly in a sprawling urban area. Your point about Houston not needing it for economic reasons sounds valid. I agree that the Dallas experience shouldn't be taken at face value. If nothing else, this project is incomplete. Addressing areas outside downtown Dallas has just started, but it could way too late to respond to or influence population growth. One thing I see is that people change where they work in Dallas often. (A couple of years ago, for example, a software developer in Dallas spent less than 2 years at a job.) Yet, folks are using DART rail in the suburbs. And there is significant development along the rail lines. My concerns are fully answered, but I'm hardly seeing an utter and complete failure.

Don't get me wrong: Dallas has some poor planners, who are outclassed by the likes in Addison.

My point has been that DART light rail has had some successes. It has helped downtown Dallas. I have no doubt that DART's expenses could be better managed and minimized, as you can say about almost anything. And I am concerned about the impact of the budget issues and the withdrawing of services.

No one action is the solution. Arguing that money spent on DART could have funded more highways in Dallas is pointless. For one, we have projects for the highways. But the growth and direction is faster than any one project. Also, where would these other highways be built? If sprawl is a problem for light rail, so it is for highways.

Tx Bubba,

The fact that Dallas considers a 21.5% vacancy rate to be good just shows how pathetic its downtown is. Around the time of that Dallas Morning News article, the highest downtown office vacancy rate in the country was just .02% higher!

And compare it with Houston's:

Houston fares better than some in vacant-office survey
By RALPH BIVINS
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

The Houston office market weakened as it took its share of hard knocks over the last year.

[...]

Office vacancies have increased as woes hit telecommunications and technology firms. According to Oncor's study of 43 North American markets, the Silicon Valley of California had the highest office vacancy rate in the nation in the second quarter: 21.7 percent.

By comparison, Houston had a 13.3 percent vacancy rate and ranked 24th. Oncor reported an average vacancy rate of 14.2 percent for the cities in its study.

Houston took a major hit from Enron, but it's still doing much better than Dallas. And I find it highly suspect to credit rail with a short-term declining vacancy rate in a city that still fares poorly compared to almost every other major city.

Moreover, it's also suspect to claim that light rail 'caused' apartments to be constructed, which is something I've already explained. We've had several new complexes go up in downtown Houston in the past year, and most of them haven't been near the Main Street line. Lots of cities are getting new apartment complexes; demand is simply higher. But don't kid yourself and think that light rail affects overall housing demand. That's absurd.

And you still seem to be completely missing the point with regards to sales tax revenues, despite my plain efforts to explain it. You see, OTHER Texas cities don't have massive budget shortfalls. This is because they DON'T have the added expense of maintaining cost-ineffective light rail networks. This expense has been around for a while, and if not for rail, Dallas would have been able to weather this storm like Metro did.

You seem to think that the decline in sales tax revenues experienced by Dallas was unique. It wasn't. Other cities had the same declines, but they didn't have the shortfalls.

Accordingly, I still say that Dallas rail is a massive failure. It's killed DART's budget and it hasn't increased transit usage. Believe it or not, you can have rail cars at capacity at rush hour and still have a system that serves fewer people than buses would have. And while you might be willing to support a bad public transit system because of dubious claims that it had nominal affects on development, but I can't consider that to be anything short of foolish. It's still a boondoggle.

Owen,

First, there was a typo in my previous post; it should have read "My concerns are NOT fully answered . . . ."

I earlier acknowledged downtown Dallas's high vacancy, due to several factors. And I said that light rail probably won't fix those problems by itself. But it has helped. I cited the data and examples. The facts are these occurred near the light rail. You can argue that these developments would have happened anyway, but it's not an argument that you can prove. But tell me: What else could possibly have attracted development in the down(ghost)town in Dallas? It couldn't be less expensive real estate. It couldn't be the throng of businesses moving downtown before light rail. That was happening in Las Colinas, Addison, Plano, and Richardson.

I never said 21% was good, just that it was better than 32%, what it was before 1994.

Infrastructure has historically had development impacts. Why do you think developers try to get roads built into certain areasn where they own undeveloped property? Look at the negative and positive economic impact of the interstate system. The cause/effect logic is pretty well established. You're saying that it's coincidence that areas along the light rail are developing and that it would have happened anyway.

As for the budget shortfall, yes, DART has added services and costs because of the light rail, which is funded directly by the $0.01 sales tax. There's no denying that. I understand your point.

I also agreed with your argument: Houston should not base its decision on Dallas, in large part because it ain't done. At this point, there are some successes of DART. Why do arguments have to be all or nothing? Why is it so hard to admit that okay, there has been $800 million worth of develpoment along light rail lines.

The question is it that $800 million worth it? Are those few successes enough? Saying that there have been absolutely none is not realistic. Frankly, I have my doubts of the worth. But, again, the project isn't complete. Let's see what happens in even 2-3 years, if the development continues, if the ridership continues to increase. (Again, unless you have data to the contrary, ridership has more than doubled since 2000.)

At this point, there is really not much choice for DFW but to continue with DART. But it could have been a costly lesson that had to be paid just once.