We had passenger train service here until the mid-50's all coal trains now. We also had a bus station with Greyhound interstate and Trailways for town to town in Eastern Ky.

I guess the same people who bought up the trolley systems bought mass transit out even in the rural area's.

Ain't nothin like a slow train ride through the mountains, I don't care about high speed rail.

I would ride the old narrow gage like the one from Durango to Silverton if they would only bring one back.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Rail service in the US is pretty pathetic compared to that in the industrialized world.

That said, at least here in the NW we have the Amtrak Cascade run from Seattle to Portland. They even have a limited number of bike hooks in the baggage car so you don't have to box your bike to take it along. A great way to get down to P'town...

Rail transit is just incredibly uneconomical compared to bus rapid transit or conventional bus transit.  It's so sad to see so much money wasted on rails and trains with so little benefit.

Trains can only go where rails are built.  Buses can go everywehere that cars can go.  Buses can easily be reallocated to meet shifting demand.  Buses can serve events in locations throughout a metro area.

Why do so many greens buy into these expensive solutions that suck funds from more cost-effective alternatives?

Light rail has been promoted for almost 30 years as the solution for traffic congestion in low density Dallas.  So what has been the result?

Dallas Area Rapid Transit has collected about $5 billion in sales taxes and federal government grants over the past 20 years.  Their latest rail ridership figures for 2007?

light rail - 60,592 riders per day
commuter rail - 8,893 riders per day

Ridership figures count each half of a commuting round trip as a separate trip.  Do the above ridership totals really mean that - at most - 34,700 passengers have abandoned their personal vehicles to ride the trains.  The areas served by DART and the Trinity Railway Express are home to 3.5 million daily commuters.

Net result from collecting $5 billion of taxpayers money for rail transit in Dallas?  1% of commuters have been removed from the highways.

Trains do not work in low density metro areas.  Yet greens keep promoting them.  Why?

Jon Rynn,

Thank you for the link to the very detailed anlysis.  The conclusion of that analysis makes sense:

"Neither the automobile nor mass transit will significantly reduce our energy consumption in urban passenger transportation. There is no magic technical fix for the problem, but there is an obvious solution: Simply greatly reduce the amount of travel."

Environmentally conscious citizens should be promoting mixed use development rather than expensive and ineffective trains.  

Thanks for the response, Mr. Philpott,

As I see it, whether low density is a problem or not, it is the choice that 2 million households have already made in north Texas.  Spending another $5 billion on trains is not going to change the density.  IMO, it is not practical to assume those 2 million homes are going to be abandoned.  On the other hand, workplaces can be moved closer to existing housing.  That's what is happening not just in Dallas, but across the nation as office jobs are relocating to the suburbs.

Jon Rynn: "So it sounds to me that Dallas should be putting in trains along with plans for new town centers (which Virginia Beach constructed a Town Center, for example)."

That would be OK, except that it cost Dallas metro taxpayers $5 billion (so far) to provide a system to serve 1 percent of the commuters.  Of course, if the train commuters were paying for the total cost of their own ride, ridership would plummet.

The problem with so many green solutions is that the masses end up subsidizing the few.  What are needed are solutions which pay for themselves.

Jon Rynn: "Also, ridership is up past 60,000, apparently.  It sounds like you have a winner there."

Please remember that "ridership" counts every one way trip as a rider.  So a "ridership" of 60,000 means that, after 15 years and $5 billion in subsidies, 30,000 people are using the trains each day - in a metro area with a population of 5 million.  How on earth is that a winner?  

"The DART light rail system has been a major success. It has encouraged extensive new development and redevelopment of several older districts."

DART - and its hired econimist from the Universiy of North Texas - are quick to claim credit for every development that occurs anywhere close to its rail lines.  The developments they list just happen to be next to either existing expanded freeways or the still vibrant center city.  Fort Worth has seen similar development near its center city - but miles from the nearest rail line.

What DART - and its economist - do not advertise is that DART lines not adjacent to freeways - such as the Trinity Railway Express and Blue Line to Garland - have seen no development.  They also fail to point out that every new freeway and tollway in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is quickly followed by office and housing development hundreds of times larger than what occurs near its rail lines.

Bottom line:  development still follows roads and highways, just as it has done for the 100 years since the introduction of the Model T.

At this point thanks to BushCo's trashing of the Treasury and the $9.2 trillion debt, we are on the threshold of a decision:  whether to fix our aging highway infrastructure or our aging rail infrastructure.  

We cannot afford to do both unless our next president with backing of Congress starts a WPA-style "Green Progress Administration" that can rev up the economy with green jobs, and that is successful to the point we get out of the hole we're in.  

And we've got to stop this lousy war.

What will you tell your children when they ask what you did to help our planet in peril?

I grew up in London, UK. I love trains. I love the speed, and I love the stress free journey, I love being able to take quick cat nap on the train or read a newspaper or great book. Most of all, I love trains because they do not make as many stops as buses and are not effected by the street car traffic.

There is a new train system put in place in Northern Utah.

Most people here do not take nor care for the public transport, however when the gas prices go up and there is only one income supporting the family for 3 to 4 kids, I am sure that attitude is going to change. Utah has the highest numbe rof people per family in the US. Becausee the average couple here has 4 plus children.

The new train will go from Pleasant view to Salt Lake city.

Imagine if all those people were driving their cars.  I use the Metro whenever I'm in DC.  MUCH faster and trouble free than driving a car in DC area.

What will you tell your children when they ask what you did to help our planet in peril?

Since I'm not familiar with the Dallas area, I can't speak authoritatively on the subject, and your points are certainly important, because if other areas of the country are going to have more public transit, these sorts of issues need to be addressed.

It's very difficult to assess the value of public transit, in my opinion; I don't know if economists could have predicted the success of the NYC subway system for instance, it's more a case of trying to decide how to plan the future of an urban area -- although cost is certainly important too.

Fort Worth has seen similar development near its center city - but miles from the nearest rail line.

Actually, and though not a part of the DART system technically, parta the growth in Fort Worth is due to an expansion of daily services of a transit line that connects Fort Worth to Dallas, and the DART line.

And many of the new developments along the Dart line have been designed with DART in mind, and several are considered pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, new urbanism developments...the type of which may not have occured in that particular area had it not been for the DART lines.

Similar results are occuring with the METRO line in Houston and the new transit lines in Austin.

tasermons partner: "Actually, and though not a part of the DART system technically, parta the growth in Fort Worth is due to an expansion of daily services of a transit line that connects Fort Worth to Dallas, and the DART line."

And what part would that be?  

The Texas and Pacific lofts by the T&P station are a fraction of the development at Sundance Square - which is on the other side of downtown from the TRE line.

I've seen no development near the Richland Hills station.

And, of course, the housing development in the far suburbs of Tarrant County - around Keller, Southlake, Colleyville, and Grapevine - dwarfs the puny growth near the TRE line by a factor of at least 500.  IOW, for every condo that has been added near TRE since its opening, at least 500 single family homes have been added in train-less Fort Worth suburbs.

Burnaby, BC (just east of Vancouver) proves the success of rail in decreasing the use of private vehicles. 20 years ago, Burnaby was a low density suburb of Vancouver where very few people used transit. Now, there two SkyTrain lines through Burnaby and much improved transit service. High density developments have sprung up all around SkyTrain stations.

According to the census, in 1996, 13,415 or 16.8% of people commuted to work by transit. In 2006, this increased to 23,445 or 25% of people, an increase of 10,030. The percentage of people driving by themselves decreased from 64% to 57%. The number of people using transit would have been even higher if it were not for a lack of trains and buses. During rush hour, many trains and buses are filled to capacity.

There are hundreds of units of housing currently being built around SkyTrain stations. More trains will start arriving in 2009. With high gas prices, the number of people using transit will only increase while the number of people driving will continue to fall in Burnaby and throughout Metro Vancouver.

I do feel sorry for cities that have over built highways and bridges that are useless in a future of expensive energy. Time to stop wasting money on roads and cars and invest in rapid transit, rail and buses. This is what the rest of the world is doing. The US needs to act fast or it will even be further behind.  

These days, building or expanding a highway to accommodate 60,000 automobile trips will cost billions of dollars. Such an expansion will only serve a small portion of the population as well.
In addition, while just DART is only at 60,000 today, it can easily be expanded to handle several times that amount. Light rail can handle up to 20,000 people per hour per direction while a lane of highway can only handle 2,000 vehicles per hour.

Rail is a much better choice especially in the long term especial in a world of expensive energy and increasing prices for just about everything. With the rapid growth in China, it would not surprise me that soon, due to rising cost of materials, the average person may not be able to afford their own automobile

Later this summer I will be traveling back and forth between Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, BC.  Though it is only a distance of 140 miles, it will take me nearly 4 hours by train and 4 1/2 hours by bus. Unfortunately, this is why people drive cars.  

I've seen no development near the Richland Hills station.

Really?  Ya haven't noticed all the new condos, the mixed-use development, or the new mid-rise office park?

When was the last time you were down there?

IOW, for every condo that has been added near TRE since its opening, at least 500 single family homes have been added in train-less Fort Worth suburbs.

Yep.  And had the Dart not been built, then that would be 501 houses, wouldn't it?  And 501 cars instead of 500.  Every little bit counts.  I'll take 500 over 501 any day (even though I'd like it to be even less).