Comments on: Once Assured, Dallas Light Rail Expansion to Airport Now Off Track

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:10:31 +0000

Good summary. Although Nouriel Roubini *did* predict the meltdown, you can’t expect a random transit agency (rather than an econ professor) to do so.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:11:50 +0000

Since nobody on the planet did a good job in 2006 of predicting the global economic meltdown, it is hard to see why DART should be singled out.
Transit agencies can’t save up money for capital projects; any substantial reserve generates demands for lower fares, higher salaries, or even rebates to member juridictions.
Federal grants to transit are very small relative to demand, relative to highway spending, and relative to the standards in any other developed country.
DART is only one more casualty of the funding structure that forces borrowing and the global financial crisis that makes borrowing unsustainable.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:46:01 +0000

The real problem here is Texas – which allows MPOs to be jerked around by their ‘member’ cities without mercy, but would never allow Dallas, for instance, to opt out of having gas taxes sent to TXDOT.

By: Wad

Wad — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:21:55 +0000

Contract law would dictate that Irving opting out of DART would only shield it from the time after it exits the partnership. Any costs incurred from the time it joined to the time it left, Irving would still have to pay.

By: allen

allen — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:25:14 +0000

Dart’s problem isn’t a matter of bad timing. It isn’t that tax revenues are down 4-6% but that they’re already carrying too much debt. They didn’t have any wiggle room because of that. That is, too much of what is there today was already built counting dollars in the future. That’s poor management not to realize the situation and over promise.

If Irving were to leave DART, how would that impact tax revenues?