DALLAS | Public Transport

[geogregor]

Originally Posted by State of the Union

Please tell me how those European buses look better than this:

I have to admit it actually looks nice in this shot. Which city is it from?

But why the doors are so narrow? Especially the rear ones? If you have a buggy I guess you are forced to use the front door
European buses might be square but at least most of them have very ergonomic interiors with low floor and wide doors.

BTW, sorry for starting this silly discussion At the end a lot depends on personal taste and preferences. Especially if we judge just the look of the bus.

[trainrover]

I like it too ... its livery reminds me of Laval's 1980s silver and orange-banded livery, which looked appealing in the sparsely-dotted, vast suburban scape under the blazing hazy summertime sunshine

[IanCleverly]

Originally Posted by geogregor

I have to admit it actually looks nice in this shot. Which city is it from?

Washington, as part of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authorities Metrobus operation.

FWIW, I like the look of the bus as well.

[trainrover]

(Pardon me, Dallas fans.) I thought that streamlined model hailed from the '80s.

I had no idea the New Look (fishbowl) engines sounded practically like those to GM's prior bus models, plus I'd no idea that automatic engines on busses has been around for ages

image hosted on flickr


Hark:

[Woonsocket54]

Source: http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/blueline.asp

DART successfully completed the first test run of the five-mile Blue Line extension linking Garland and Rowlett on Wednesday, April 25. The extension of DART's Blue Line is scheduled to open December 3. DART will test the new line section several times each day leading up to the opening. Pedestrians and motorists near the tracks and crossings need to be on the lookout for trains.

[FM 2258]

Very nice. I wonder why it will take until December 3rd to open the line.

[FM 2258]

Some pictures I took from April 9th. Not really great but thought someone would like them:

[State of the Union]

I like DART's enthusiasm for expansion, but they really should cut down on extending branches when they should be building another downtown connector. I don't care if they if have the longest light rail system. 15-20 minute headways at 5 o clock in the afternoon is pathetic.

[Nouvellecosse]

If you think of DART light rail less as a low cost replacement for a metro system and more as an advanced Sydney-style commuter rail system. then the frequency doesn't seem so bad.

[State of the Union]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If you think of DART light rail less as a low cost replacement for a metro system and more as an advanced Sydney-style commuter rail system. then the frequency doesn't seem so bad.

I could think of DART light rail as anything. It doesn't change the fact that it's light rail with mediocre headways.

I also don't consider light rail as a low cost replacement to HRT. Not every city needs to build a full blown metro system. Portland comes to mind, though even though they are running 3 lines on the same tracks, their stations are triple-tracked. I would say light rail is more flexible replacement. Also, if you look at the costs to build Seattle's Central Link Light Rail, then this idea of "low cost replacement" goes out the window.

The fact is, those frequencies don't promote growth. If DART plans on ever having high ridership, then they need better headways. They may have the biggest LRT system in country, but ridership is abysmal. The Los Angeles Blue Line alone gets as much ridership as the entire DART system.

With that said, I do see your point, it does tend to act like Commuter Rail in the outlying parts, it's just that closer to the core the branches suffer.

[Woonsocket54]

Originally Posted by State of the Union

Portland comes to mind, though even though they are running 3 lines on the same tracks, their stations are triple-tracked.

which stations in Portland are triple-tracked?

[State of the Union]

Originally Posted by Woonsocket54

which stations in Portland are triple-tracked?

Rose Quarter:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.530221...02323&t=h&z=19

Gateway:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.53073,...04646&t=h&z=18

JELD-WEN:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.521391...03,-122.689913

Beaverton:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=45.491506...98,-122.801201

All the ones I can remember. Notice that even though Portland has allot of multiple lines running on the same tracks, Portland was smart enough to add capacity.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by State of the Union

I could think of DART light rail as anything. It doesn't change the fact that it's light rail with mediocre headways.

I also don't consider light rail as a low cost replacement to HRT. Not every city needs to build a full blown metro system. Portland comes to mind, though even though they are running 3 lines on the same tracks, their stations are triple-tracked. I would say light rail is more flexible replacement. Also, if you look at the costs to build Seattle's Central Link Light Rail, then this idea of "low cost replacement" goes out the window.

The fact is, those frequencies don't promote growth. If DART plans on ever having high ridership, then they need better headways. They may have the biggest LRT system in country, but ridership is abysmal. The Los Angeles Blue Line alone gets as much ridership as the entire DART system.

With that said, I do see your point, it does tend to act like Commuter Rail in the outlying parts, it's just that closer to the core the branches suffer.

But why should a largely suburban focused LRT be criticised for having frequencies of 15-20 minutes when if they had built a commuter train system to cover those areas instead, most of us would be applauding it for those frequencies. The only real difference is that commuter rail is typically used if the service is mostly in pre-existing rail corridors and doesn't need to run along roads. But in some cities the technologies can fulfill a similar purpose. Of course, I'm not suggesting that is the case for every city. Some use LRT as a type of lower capacity metro system or higher capacity/speed bus system. LRT can be used for many different things, and one must consider the intended purpose when evaluating its design and performance.

Don't get me wrong; I love high frequencies too. But in a system that is largely focused on covering a lot of ground and connecting the suburbs with downtown, I'm not sure it can be treated the same as a system fulfilling a primarily urban function.

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If you think of DART light rail less as a low cost replacement for a metro system and more as an advanced Sydney-style commuter rail system. then the frequency doesn't seem so bad.

That is a rather poor analogy. Whilst you may well get 15 minute headways on the extrema branches or some smaller inner stations, most lines will have a train every 5 minutes or so in the peak. Take the Illawarra line for example. A train leaves Bondi Junction every 5 minutes, with one train being all stations to Hurstville or Sutherland, then an express to Cronulla and then an express to Waterfall. All the main stations between Bondi and Hurstville therefore get a 5 minute service.

Besides doesn't change the very valid point the poster was getting at, which is the frequency of the Dart is not really good enough and that the central part is a bottleneck that needs fixing before any more expansion outwards is done.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ajw373

That is a rather poor analogy. Whilst you may well get 15 minute headways on the extrema branches or some smaller inner stations, most lines will have a train every 5 minutes or so in the peak. Take the Illawarra line for example. A train leaves Bondi Junction every 5 minutes, with one train being all stations to Hurstville or Sutherland, then an express to Cronulla and then an express to Waterfall. All the main stations between Bondi and Hurstville therefore get a 5 minute service.

Besides doesn't change the very valid point the poster was getting at, which is the frequency of the Dart is not really good enough and that the central part is a bottleneck that needs fixing before any more expansion outwards is done.

If the frequency of each of the four individual lines is 10-15 min, that means there's 2.5-3.75 min between trains per direction on the central shared section. As it is, that's fairly busy, but not exactly a bottle neck. The argument that the "bottle neck" needs to be fixed is only valid if there is going to be a notable increase in individual line frequency. And even if City rail isn't a good comparison, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other valid comparisons of commuter-based systems functioning ok with similar frequency.

As far as the City rail example, I'm surprised the majority of service is as frequent as you imply since I've had this map saved on the hard drive for awhile and the frequencies appear to be lower unless I'm misreading it (which is possible since we rarely use this schedule format in NA). But there are plenty of other parallels to draw on if you prefer, like San Francisco's BART for instance. On the non-coupled sections, the trains rarely come more frequently than every 15 minutes.

Or perhaps it's just an issue of my individual experience. Here, we only have buses, and most of the routes only come every 1/2 hour. There are a couple that run more frequently like 10-20 min, but I've never lived near them. I honestly would have a lot of trouble empathizing with anyone complaining about 10-15 minute frequencies, because if I had that type of service I'd be in heaven. Same way with most of the commuter train riders in NA.

Now if higher frequency is needed to handle rider capacity, then that's a different story. But if the goal is just to attract ridership by improving the passenger experience, then focusing on reliability, cleanliness, safety, and most importantly accessibility should be the main goals. By accessibility, I mean having direct transit service to more places people want to go.

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If the frequency of each of the four individual lines is 10-15 min, that means there's 2.5-3.75 min between trains per direction on the central shared section. As it is, that's fairly busy, but not exactly a bottle neck. The argument that the "bottle neck" needs to be fixed is only valid if there is going to be a notable increase in individual line frequency. And even if City rail isn't a good comparison, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other valid comparisons of commuter-based systems functioning ok with similar frequency.

It becomes a bottle neck the moment you have an issue with one line or if you want to increase frequencies which is what myself and the other poster are saying.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As far as the City rail example, I'm surprised the majority of service is as frequent as you imply since I've had this map saved on the hard drive for awhile and the frequencies appear to be lower unless I'm misreading it (which is possible since we rarely use this schedule format in NA). But there are plenty of other parallels to draw on if you prefer, like San Francisco's BART for instance. On the non-coupled sections, the trains rarely come more frequently than every 15 minutes.

Your miss reading it. The times shown are off peak. If you look at they key you will see they say services are more frequent during peak hours, and of course all the discussion above was about peak period frequencies. And as I said there is no way what so ever that Sydney's city rail network can be compared to Dart. For one Dart is a light rail network, not heavy like sydney. The city rail network extends for about 300km North, 200km West, 200km South and 200km South West and has over 300 stations. The bulk of the trains are 8 car double deckers, with a handful of smaller trains operating he diesel routes or suburban Newcastle or Wollongong services. Dart on the other hand has how many line, stations and covers what area? As I said no comparison what so ever.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Or perhaps it's just an issue of my individual experience. Here, we only have buses, and most of the routes only come every 1/2 hour. There are a couple that run more frequently like 10-20 min, but I've never lived near them. I honestly would have a lot of trouble empathizing with anyone complaining about 10-15 minute frequencies, because if I had that type of service I'd be in heaven. Same way with most of the commuter train riders in NA.

Now if higher frequency is needed to handle rider capacity, then that's a different story. But if the goal is just to attract ridership by improving the passenger experience, then focusing on reliability, cleanliness, safety, and most importantly accessibility should be the main goals. By accessibility, I mean having direct transit service to more places people want to go.

You seem to keep switching between peak and offpeak times to make your argument. For a service like Dart I would say 10 minute peak should be the minimum and 20 minutes off peak. As for your argument that to attract rider-ship reliability, cleanliness etc should be priorirites, now whilst yes they are important so too is frequencies, especially in a city like Dallas that has a good network of freeways. If you want to get people out of their car you need to offer a frequeny service. It is no good to expect someone to drive to a park and ride and then wait up to 15 minutes in peak or 30 minutes off peak then travel when they could probably drive in a short time period.

[sweet-d]

I guess Texas can't do anything right when it comes to public transportation.

[FM 2258]

Originally Posted by State of the Union

I like DART's enthusiasm for expansion, but they really should cut down on extending branches when they should be building another downtown connector. I don't care if they if have the longest light rail system. 15-20 minute headways at 5 o clock in the afternoon is pathetic.

More frequency will be great especially in the hot Texas summers. When we took the train a few weeks ago it wasn't fun waiting so long for the train in the miserable heat.

I noticed some stations and even downtown don't have message boards showing how long the next train will arrive. Downtown Dallas doesn't seem busy or walkable for a city of it's size. There seems to be nothing downtown and not many people walking around.

[State of the Union]

Originally Posted by sweet-d

I guess Texas can't do anything right when it comes to public transportation.

They have the right intentions, but they seem to always have a glaring flaw that ruins the entire thing.

In Houston's case, it's excessive street running. In Dallas' case, it's the lack of capacity and frequencies with a single double-track downtown connector. Every Texan on this board seems to agree.

Nouvellecosse -You can have cleanest stations, best customer service, and only have angels riding it - but the fact is, if you miss the train, and have to wait 20 minutes when it would take that same amount of time to get to your destination by car just to wait for the next train, who is going to ride it?

Also, if there's an ONE accident on the downtown connector, the ENTIRE system is knocked out. LA is learning this the hard way with the new Expo Line - One thing happens on the shared track portion and now TWO lines are screwed. The Expo Line also showcases why at-grade light rail track sharing should avoided unless you add capacity like Portland.

It's going to get even worse when the new Orange Line Branch comes online, because now the Orange Line won't be a "select peak trip service" but a full blown line. I wonder if DART ever thought about this before-hand.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by FM 2258

More frequency will be great especially in the hot Texas summers. When we took the train a few weeks ago it wasn't fun waiting so long for the train in the miserable heat.

I noticed some stations and even downtown don't have message boards showing how long the next train will arrive. Downtown Dallas doesn't seem busy or walkable for a city of it's size. There seems to be nothing downtown and not many people walking around.

unlike Austin, most of the "cool" stuff people do is in other neighborhoods. Most pedestrians are usually around the West End or doing business. Really don't know if anything can be done to make downtown Dallas lively again but a critical mass.

I still think a lot of the criticisms are time sensitive. There is another downtown line planned. There are more commuter lines planned. The system is 16 years old and pretty much trying to get to the various employment nodes in the Dallas half of the metro. The true usefulness of the system won't come for another 15 years. Growing pains.