I find your blog on DART to be rather humorous; and quite ignorant as well.

Good, more insults. Yet another indication that since you have no factual, logical, or reasonable basis to attack my argument, you have to attack me personally. I'll take that as an indication that this is yet another post that's hit a bit too close to home for your comfort.

You've made several claims that simply aren't true, several ridiculous analyses of statistics, and your primary evidence seems to prove only that %$#@ happens andmore specifically that $%#$ happens to you.

I'm just an average schmoe who rides the train to work every day. When something happens, most people don't speak up or complain about it. They just quietly go elsewhere. There are all manner of studies on this, since you seem to be fond of quoting studies. I won't bother giving you a link, I'm sure that you can Google for it. Unfortunately for you, that's not how I operate. I don't slink off and go away.

Furthermore, if you're so certain that you're correct, you should post numbers of your own and prove that I'm incorrect. I have people who like telling me that I'm wrong, but I've yet to see anything concrete to back up that assertation. So far, I haven't see anyone post a single digit to disagree with me. All I get are wordy editorials and insults.

Just as an example, one thing you state in one of your posts is quote "Do you know that we have the only public transit system on the entire planet where you can access passenger waiting areas without a ticket?" This is complete and utter bull. I think it's sad that there are people out there who are going to believe the what you're spouting.

The "honor system" is something that most transit agencies are smart enough to avoid. It didn't work in elementary school and it won't now. The report that you so kindly directed me to, specifically gives numbers to show that it really isn't a feasable system. 90% of your passengers riding for free just isn't going to survive. It's not just about fare evasion. It's about letting every panhandler and pickpocket on to the platform to harass the passengers, who are something of a captive audience. It's about having homeless guys urinating and defecating in the wheelchair lifts. It's about having a safe place to wait while you utilize the transit system.

Why don't you do some secondary research so you can stop wasting your readers' time with these ridiculous posts. DART has its problems, but you've not meaningfully addressed ANY of them in any of your posts.

Since you seem to know so much, why don't you post and enlighten the rest of us? And since when is being able to ride safely and peacefully not a problem? Since when are your management decisions to do things like tear up Exposition Boulevard one month before the start of the State Fair not a problem? Tell me what problems you'd like for me to address? Maybe I'll take them on.

Comparing daily/yearly ridership with numbers of security guards is completely meaningless. How many people fly every year compared to the number of TSA agents? How many air marshals are on a plane? DART (or any other transit agency for that matter) will never be able to afford the ratio of security numbers to riders that you're asking for. Nor do they have to.

TSA numbers are totally irrelevant because the passengers on the planes are handled in ways that passengers on DART are not and cannot be handled. Tickets and luggage are checked, often at the curb, but certainly for access to the air port - which DART doesn't do. All of the passengers are screened for weapons - which DART doesn't do. Only the passengers can get to the waiting area - which DART also doesn't do. Comparing yourself and your police staffing to the airlines is totally irrelevant. You may as well compare yourself to the number of astronauts on the shuttle mission. It's got about the same level of relevance to the matter at hand.

The point of the matter is that you're unwilling to allow the city police in the various member cities to police your property and you're either unwilling or unable to do it yourselves.

Your posts bemoaning how crowded DART is are equally ridiculous. Have you ever been to another major city and ridden the rail? Tokyo or Yokohama? Bangkok? Hong Kong? London? DC? The list goes on and on. DART has got nothing on them in terms of crowding, although you and I should wish it did, because Dallas has nothing on them in terms of economic vitality or cultural relevance.

If you like those places so much and they're so superior to Dallas, I'm sure that you can probably figure out how to go live there. I don't really care about those places, because that's not where I'm from, where I live, or where I work. Yes, I bemoan *unnecessary* crowding on DART. When you're running a shorter than normal train (2 cars instead of 3, 4, or even 5) and it's *that* crowded, you need to add cars to the train. Being responsive to changes in ridership *is* part of a successful transit system. Not being sued because people are falling out of your cars at train stops *is* part of a successful transit system. Being proactive and trying to anticipate ridership *is* part of a successful transit system. This isn't Singapore and if you start hiring attendants to physically pack riders into the cars like sardines into cans, you're not going to have a successful transit system.

There's a definite correlation between successful mass transit and successful cities. And while you talk about the number of assaults and argue that driving is safer you leave out the number of people who die in car accidents, violent incidents on the road, or at places like gas stations which of course are just as much a part of driving infrastructure as stations are to rail.

Some of that may be true, but no one tells you that driving is safe, stopping at a gas station is safe, etc. I think pretty much anyone old enough to have a license and smart enough to have a pulse knows about those dangers and how to mitigate them. That's not what this is about though. Let's get away from the misdirection and back on to the topic at hand. DART promotes itself as a fast, safe alternative to get where you're going. Since you advertise yourself that way, you have an obligation to provide that safety.

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=804761

You suggest, rather nastily, that I read this. I'd suggest you read it too. It doesn't exactly support your argument. Here's a quote from it: "The most efficient strategy against fraud is to control access to the system." That comes straight out of the abstract along with this: "International surveys have shown that the population’s attitude toward fare evasion in public transport follows a Gauss curve. The majority is willing “to give it a try” if the perceived opportunity “of getting away with it” outreaches the perceived risks."

Since I've gone for weeks at a time without ever seeing a Fare Inspector or DART police officer, I'd say that the likelihood of "getting away it" is pretty high and that your actual figures are well above the 2% you cite. I suspect that you are only able to catch 2% of them and that the actual number is far higher. The report says that 85% are opportunistic fare evaders, meaning that they'll "bite" if the opportunity presents itself. Another 5% are "hard core" and will refuse to pay period. That's 90% of the people and that's just another reason that the "honor" system doesn't work.

Oh my, look at this. On page 231 of the report, it specifically mentions the DART set up. Here's what it has to say. Features: Open space, few controls. Advantages: Urban integration, feeling of freedom, self-organized flows. Disadvantages: Lack of human presence, feeling of insecurity, high fare evasion. Hmmm...feelings of insecurity and high fare evasion. Isn't that what we're talking about here?

The general principle is to strengthen the honor system by more frequent roving human controls. Indeed, the link between an open system, fraud, and insecurity is obvious since an open system provides unlimited physical access to everyone, including illegal travelers or criminals. These controls should be highly visible in order to modify the risk perception and influence the passenger’s natural opportunistic behavior.

Apparently, it's obvious to everyone but DART. This is exactly what *I* have been telling you all along. You need more officers because your system is so open. Since you've chosen to build such an open system, it requires more policing. Since you've chosen not to implement any automated security measures, like video cameras, it requires more policing. Again, this all seems to revolve around some poor decision making on the part of DART management.

Odder still is that you *have* implemented fare restriction on the buses. You must board the bus at the front and either show your pass or swipe your ticket or buy a ticket in order to get on the bus. If you feel the need to do this for the buses, surely you can see the need to do this for the trains. What was it that made you implement this on the buses? Could it have been the fact that people weren't paying?

Further into the report it says that you should be doing between 32% and 42% fare inspections per day. What that means is that 32% to 42% of all the tickets in any given day get checked. The very report you pointed me to indicated that you're understaffed since you don't have enough people to do this. And the slide this information is on, shows officers on the platform lined up to board the train and check the entire train in one fell swoop. It's not just a pair of Fare Inspectors that get on, check that car, get off at the next stop and move to the next car. You loose the element of surprise and many of your fare evaders are also evading your Fare Inspectors. These slides also go on to mention the need for increased (as in higher than normal) security in these types of settings. They specifically mention closed circuit TV, which I understand that you folks are not a proponent of.

This comes from a section discussing how to maintain passenger flow while managing to keep people paying... While being extremely effective against fare evasion and being compatible with larger passenger flows, the limits of this philosophy (Closed Metro Type Statoins) for LRT applications are numerous: lack of space at street level, costs, and reluctance against severance effect in public urban space. For these reasons, a strategy of full “closing” is neither cost effective nor acceptable for LRT. Experience, however, suggests that applying this principle to only a third of the light rail stations can be a viable option. With this approach, it makes sense to target the busiest stations, which are likely to be in the densest area of the central business district (CBD). This speaks,therefore, in favor of underground station design in the CBD."

Wow, yet another vote against having an open system particularly in the downtown (CBD) area and another bad decision by DART management. And...another big surprise, the stations that I complain about the most are all downtown in what would be Dallas' CBD.

There's a very interesting section here on Cybersecurity and just how dependent you guys are on the Internet. Since your physical security for your passengers and in some cases, employees is so poor, how's your Network Security? Just how dependent are you guys on SCADA?