The Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority (DART) recently announced their pursuit of up to $4 billion in bond debt to accelerate light rail construction by five years. This may prove to be a very short-sighted policy decision.

The bond interest payments and the $800,000 cost of the election will be paid for out of existing and expected DART funds B funds that would have been used on existing transit service. It is likely that these funds will come at the expense of the bus system, delaying or canceling bus replacements or service expansions, or leading to a reduction in service frequency. Such rail-generated bond debt and other rail expenses have led to civil rights lawsuits against other transit agencies since reductions in bus service to subsidize light rail have a disproportionate impact on minorities. In Los Angeles, such a lawsuit filed on behalf of bus riders led to a cancellation of further expansion of the rail system there.

The money used to finance an election and to pay interest on bonds could be used far more effectively on bus-based strategies. A federal study shows that, where service levels are equal, people have no preference for rail over buses. Accordingly, numerous studies show that more new transit riders are attracted to new bus service than to rail simply because so much more bus service can be purchased for the same dollars. Thus buses do a better job of cleaning the air and reducing traffic than does the same investment in light rail.

San Antonio’s VIA transit agency was somewhat embarrassed in the midst of their recent light rail election when one of their consultants produced a study showing that busways (rather than light rail) would attract twice as many new transit riders largely because VIA could build three times more miles of busways for the same cost. DART is foregoing superior transportation options in its religious devotion to light rail.

It is also important to view DART’s effort in the historical context of transit in Dallas

  • In the 1983 campaign in support of a one cent sales tax to fund DART, many promises were made to Dallas taxpayers. DART advertisements told Dallas taxpayers that light rail offered the best hope for reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and revitalizing downtown Dallas. Light rail has failed on all three counts.
  • Dallas underestimated their construction costs by more than 60% (inflation adjusted) ($17.8 million per mile estimate; $45 million per mile actual). While DART has offered a variety of explanations for the cost overruns, the fact is that the promises to the people have not been kept. Excuses do not provide transportation options to a community. The original plan was incompletely and poorly conceived. Subsequently, the people of the DART service area face the same situation today with respect to the proposed bond issue.
  • As a result of DART’s poor planning, rather than building a 160 mile system as promised (with 69 miles of rail in operation by 1994), only 20 miles opened at the end of 13 years and only 53 total miles are now planned to be built when the system is complete, many years behind schedule.
  • Seventeen years after the election, taxpayers are still taxed at the level that was to build the 160 mile system.
  • DART overestimated light rail ridership by 455% even though it subsidizes fares by almost 88% — the highest fare subsidy ratio of any Texas city. After the election, DART officials drastically reduced their ridership projections and now claim to have exceeded the projections (albeit the revised ones after the tax was approved). This is just an indication of the fact that if the bar is lowered enough projections can be achieved.
  • Light rail has not reduced traffic congestion. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic congestion in Dallas has risen 35% since the light rail election, an amount 10% greater than the national average increase and greater than any other Texas city (none of which have light rail). At a recent Texas Senate hearing, Roger Snoble, the General Manager of DART, admitted that light rail has had no significant impact on traffic in Dallas.
  • Light rail has not improved air quality in Dallas, because to do so would require reducing traffic congestion, which DART has not done.
  • Light rail has not spurred development. Downtown Dallas, the core of the light rail system, rather than being revitalized, has the second highest office vacancy rate (32%) in the entire U.S. and by far the highest among Texas cities. The Bernard Weinstein study commissioned by DART showing the development impacts of light rail has been thoroughly discredited. Most notably, the study fails to factor out the impact of rebuilding and expanding the North Central Expressway, which is also the route of the northern segment of the light rail line. The study simply assumes that all added property value is the result of light rail. It would be expected that the North Central Expressway, which in its expanded portions along the light rail line will carry many more people than light rail, would have dominant impact on property values in comparison to light rail.
  • Latest U.S. Transit Database figures show Dallas to be dead last among Texas Transit systems in most measures

Dallas ranks last in:

  • Service Hours Per capita
  • Passenger trips per capita
  • Annual passenger miles per capita
  • Unlinked Passenger Trips per Service Hour

These data call into question the efficacy of placing so large a share of a transit agency’s resources into light rail rather than into more effective bus-based strategies, as have other Texas transit agencies.