Talk:Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2003 Operating Budget

The language discussing DART's 2003 operating budget seems somewhat biased. It appears to have been inserted by an anti-transit contributor.

• You're right, it's clearly written with an anti-transit bias. In fact, the contributor of that particular tidbit appears to have made similar edits on other transit-related pages. But the statements, though slanted, are factual, so I don't know exactly how to remedy the situation. I did one thing, though: the person originally put the info under a primary heading, which I demoted to a subheading. Perhaps someone with more experience with NPOV edits could adjust the text, or delete it altogether -- but I'm not yet comfortable wielding the axe that strongly. --Robertb-dc 21:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

They're Back

It appears that another anonymous contributor (or possibly the same one, with a different IP address) has inserted the misleading 2003 statistics again. Not satisfied with adding negative information, the person proceeded to remove positive information. This is POV masquerading as "fair and balanced" reporting. Reverted: I no longer fear the axe. --Robertb-dc 15:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sub-section with common criticisms of DART. Instead of automatically erasing every criticism of DART, maybe you should use the section to counter or correct anything factually erroneous with the criticism. Numerous other Wikipedia entries have similar sub-sections that operate in this manner. TexasDawg 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Government Transit System Criticism

Since when are 'income and expenses' as compiled by the National Transit Database an 'anti-transit' bias? Their inclusion adds pertinent facts. The problem with Wiki-pedia. Typically written by people with agendas who include only facts (or less-than-facts) to support what they think is a good idea and start editing out things posted by others.

People researching transit might like to know there is such a thing as the National Transit Database and just how much money gets spent on any particular project. If that is 'slanted' then I guess I am too.

• I don't think anyone would object to the addition of pertinent facts in context. However, the additions that have been made over the past month have focused on one year, 2003, for reasons known only to the contributors. I think a section showing a year-by-year breakdown of DART revenues, subsidies, and expenditures would be a very helpful addition to the article. Singling out one bad year (or one good year, for that matter) is thinly-disguised POV.
  

The data you selectively removed includes the last 10 years, not just 2003. But why let the facts get in the way of a good ideology? LOL.

One other suggestion: if you're going to decry Wikipedia's "problems", perhaps you should consider getting out from behind your IP address and creating an account? --Robertb-dc 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I do not care enough about Wikipedia to invest any more time than this last post. A friend pointed this site out to me claiming it was a free online encylopedia maintained by the public. It turns out it is just a blog in disguise to try to legitimize opinions and rantings from the usual Internet clowns. Too bad.

Line Colors

The identifying colors for the rail extensions have changed. The Northwest/Southeast line will now be Green. The Irving line will be orange. The TRE will no longer be shown as a green line on the map. Instead it will be dark blue (the same as it is on public timetables).

This information has not yet been published anywhere that I am aware of. The only verification I can provide is for you to do a whois search on my IP address 198.51.223.126 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As a huge fan of the public transit, and of DART Rail in particular, please let me say Yahoo! However, although I'm not usually a stickler for Wikipedia bureaucracy, I believe the article should defer to one of Wikipedia's explicit policies: No Original Research. They say it a lot better than I can:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

As accurate as your information may be (and you're right, a reverse lookup gives me the warm fuzzies), it is not verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. However, it's good enough for me to post it in a forum that's sure to appreciate it greatly -- as soon as I revert the edit (sorry), I'll post it right back to dallasmetropolis.com! I hope to see you there soon with all the latest information, verifiable or not, about DART's exciting moves forward. --Robertb-dc 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

More Line Colors and other changes

I've changed the line colors again. You can see a new map on the DART web site with these line colors. http://www.dart.org/inmotion/winter06/4.htm I removed the reference to the TRE being represented by a green line on DART maps because I cannot prove that it will be navy blue on future maps. This isn't on any map on the DART web site yet.

I've changed the date for the Irving line opening which will be December, 2011. http://www.dart.org/DARTExpansionDates.pdf

One final change is that the northwest line will not directly go to Love Field so I changed the wording to read "operate near Love Field airport" 198.51.223.126 19:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Map of light rail/commuter rail system

I would like to see a map of the light rail system (with current and soon-to-be-built routes) and the current Trinity Railway Express line with this article. If one can be drawn, I'm sure I'd like to see it. MattFisher 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done and uploaded.--Bchan 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect map uploaded - DART

• The above unsigned comment is from an ISP IP address. I've reverted the change, restoring the map. Removal of the map seems like borderline vandalism, unless someone would care to post a link to something more official. --Robertb-dc 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of revising and correcting the System Map. SM V2.0 will be posted in a day or two. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Bchan 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• System Map V2,0 is up on the DART page. Sorry for the delay. Please inform me of any errors you might find. -- Bchan 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice to (lazy) anti-transit contributors

The citations of crude annual operating losses are definitely biased without some context. Key indicators for comparisons between cities might be "annual transit operating expenditure per capita" and "annual transit operating subsidy per capita."

By adjusting for inflation, it is also possible to demonstrate significant reduction in unit operating cost (per passenger, per passenger-mile) following introduction of rail service.

In fact, it is also possible to adjust for differences in labor costs between cities. Simply use employee hours per some measure, such as passenger-miles.

All of the figures above can be easily calculated using FTA data. Ldemery 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lazy", operating losses, and "anti-transit"

Is the pejorative "lazy" really necessary? Seems superfluous to your argument, imho. Anyway, you are free to introduce any relative measure you'd like to help put the operating losses in a less negative light, but the criticism is still factual: DART had annual operating losses of over $300M from 2002-2004.

Also, "anti-transit" itself is a biased and vague term. Critics of DART are not necessarily opposed to (anti) transit. They are opposed to the government financing of transit systems. TexasDawg 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that "lazy" is a perjorative term and does not apply. You're not lazy -- you're just biased against "government financing of transit systems". Do you think you might have better success if you discuss the operating losses of the United States Numbered Highways or the Interstate Highway System? They too are government-financed systems of transportation. The debate over whether government funding is appropriate for these purposes does not belong in any of these articles. If you feel that strongly, then you and your fellow Libertarian colleagues can go to Wikicities and create your own Wiki, where every article includes a description of how the government should butt out. As for this Wiki... selective use of facts is as POV as posting "DART IS A WASTE OF MONEY!" in 48-point type. --Robertb-dc 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• you're just biased against "government financing of transit systems"
  And one could say you are biased for "government financing of transit systems". Attacking the messenger doesn't do much here.
  Do you think you might have better success if you discuss the operating losses of the United States Numbered Highways or the Interstate Highway System?
  This is an entry about DART. Those projects are unrelated to this entry.
  As for this Wiki... selective use of facts is as POV as posting "DART IS A WASTE OF MONEY!" in 48-point type.
  No one has posted any selective use of facts. Just criticisms of DART backed with facts that you dislike and can't counter apparently. TexasDawg 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

POV/Vandalism complaint about Criticism section

Robertb-dc, please specifically list what about the criticism of DART section you feel is vandalism... instead of just labeling it that without cause and then reverting the section to your edit. TexasDawg 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate your efforts in finding a source for one part of your criticism. That part stays. The ranting about "the government's using its power of taxation to subsidize its unprofitable transit operation" is POV and goes. --Robertb-dc 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. TexasDawg 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact + Opinion = POV

TexasDawg, you added this paragraph:

• According to The Dallas Morning News [1]: "One trip in a three-car train on the red line from Plano to west Oak Cliff costs at least $280 for things like operator salary, electricity and vehicle maintenance." Critics of DART believe this is an exorbitant amount of money (comparable to many cross-country commercial plane flights) to be spent on such a short trip.

The Dallas Morning News data is very interesting. I suggest you use it forcefully and often in online forums where your opinions about taxpayer subsidies of public transportation can be discussed. However, when you say "Critics of DART believe", you're currently saying "TexasDawg believes". Find a source or leave it out.

By the way, the benchmark federal mileage reimbursement, a number intended to take into account both fuel costs and vehicle maintenance expenses, is currently 44.5 cents per mile [2]. The route in question is about 30 miles long, so each rider who takes the full trip (or pair of riders, one from Westmoreland to Downtown and another from Downtown to Parker Road) is worth $13.35. Just 25 riders at that mileage reimbursement rate would cost $333.75 -- well over the $280 cost of running the train. If the train is full -- seating capacity 72 in each car for a total of 144 [3] -- then the investment of $280 pays back $1,922. That's comparable to a trans-oceanic commerical plane flight. --Robertb-dc 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I stand corrected. There are a lot of other costs involved in creating and operating a light rail system which you are ignoring, but I admit I misunderstood the figure used in the DMN article. TexasDawg 12:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

rail system map error

The rail system map shows the LBJ/Central station on the Red Line twice. There is only one LBJ/Central station, and it's the one between Forest Lane and Spring Valley. The station between Arapaho Center and the Bush Turnpike is Gatalyn Park. 204.0.197.190 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please, not again

On the 10th anniversary of DART Rail, I suppose it's fitting that TexasDawg should find something to complain about. He's added a pointless whine about suburbs that don't have rail. Rather than remove the clearly inflammatory and NPOV content (and risk yet another revert war), I'll add some blindingly obvious facts -- that these cities are scheduled for rail by 2010 (Rowlett may be a bit longer). --Robertb-dc 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant truths that you don't like are automatically POVish, naturally. And the fact that they are getting light rail service from DART 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars later (I wonder how many people whose money was taken will even be around to use the service at this point) does nothing to refute the criticism I posted (which is common and valid enough to be cited by the Dallas Morning News in its own section of an article on DART in the suburbs). TexasDawg 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge content from Dallas Transit System

The DTS article is pretty tiny, though it has a good image and good links. I think it should be part of the DART article's History section, similar to how CITRAN/SURTRAN is part of the history of The T. Any objections? See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details of the process: two weeks with consensus or four weeks if nobody cares either way. --Robertb-dc 18:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur. It makes no sense to have a stub article when it can be merged into another, more comprehensive one. Quidam65 14:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge complete. I also did some rework on the history section to consolidate duplicated information and organize it into sections. If you find any problems, fix 'em! --Robertb-dc 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the phases accurate?

The current page lists the current rail system as phase one and the current expansion as phase 2. Wasn't the 20 mile starter system phase one, the expansions to Garland, Richardson and Plano phase 2 and the current expansion phase 3? ----FoUTASportscaster 14:16, 07 October 2006

Executive Directors

I noticed that two additions were made to the Executive Directors list. That's fine and dandy, but I'm a bit suspicious... because "Maurice M Carter" was added by a user named "M2Carter", and this is his only edit ever. Was there ever a M. M. Carter on the DART board, or is this just a creative bit of faux history added by a clever high schooler? I've tagged the section with "unreferenced" in hopes that the real MMCarter will Please Stand Up. --Robertb-dc 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Photos

Does anyone have current rush-hour pictures of DART light rail vehicles? The present shots of 90% empty one-car trains don't show the real usefulness of DART light rail. One photo of a four-car train packed full of people who paid $2.50 to ride is worth a thousand kilobytes of TexasDawg's ranting about government funded transit...

Cost per passenger

I'll give the person, operating under the IP address of 72.54.93.13, one week to attribute his/her facts before I delete them. I have seen nothing on anywhere that gives those kind of numbers and this seems like typical anti-rail rhetoric.----FoUTASportscaster

Well, anti-public transport, but no joke. The facts at the bottom of this page might provide more insight. -- drumguy8800 C T 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those numbers before, but have not seen anything like the numbers added by the anon IP addresser, especially the fully loaded part. I have never seen anything that states that the LRT system costs more than bus, especially not that type of disparity. My statement still stands.----FoUTASportscaster

I gave the person a week. No facts attributed, so I deleted it.FoUTASportscaster 16:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I did the research on the executive directors. What is up there now is accurate.

It was I who posted the data, straight from the 2005 NTD. If I were more adept at using Wikipedia, I would have added the footnote. In that report DART outlayed $202,794,312 in operating costs on the buses, $16,494,441 on capital bus outlays, and carried 53,394,331 unlinked passenger trips. That equates to a fully loaded cost of $4.11 per passenger trip. For light rail the numbers are $69,273,579 ops, $116,729,227 capital, carrying 17,487,057 trips. That is a cost per passenger of $10.64. And while this may appear to you as "anti-transit" to you, it is the most basic statisitc of the transit industry in which I have worked for years. Passengers is the most frequently used statistic in quantifying benefit in the industry, and thus the fully-loaded cost per passenger does offer insight in the benefit/cost ratio of the service. And that ratio is in turn the most important indicator of all transportation planning, both roadway and transit. I apologize for pointing out what all transit planners secretly know.