At the time of writing this, 5 cities have voted for and 2 cities have voted against a reduction in DART's funding by 25%. Here's how we got here and what's coming next.
Background
In 2023, some member cities of DART, Trinity Metro, and DCTA sent a letter to the NCTCOG (North Central Texas Council of Governments) Regional Transportation Council asking for a comprehensive study to "assess the effectiveness of regional transit today and what regional transit should look like for the next 40 years."
As the region's "neutral transportation planner", NCTCOG released their Request For Proposals (RFP) in late 2023 titled "North Central Texas Regional Transit 2.0: Planning for Year 2050". This document discussed ways to make transit widely available, financially sustainable, and used by many:
- Develop more aggressive transit legislation
- Increase transit authority membership
- Improve collaboration between the 3 transit authorities
- Increase in-fill development
- Review fare collections
- Review the current funding system
This all makes sense - it's been several decades and it's important to review past decisions to see whether anything should be changed or improved for the future.
But unfortunately, some cities aren't doing that.
Plano
June 24th - Plano city council met to vote on a resolution supporting cutting DART's funding by 25%. Several citizens voiced their opposition to this, but ultimately, it passed unanimously. In July, Plano released an article by City Manager Mark Israelson with arguments similar to his presentation on the 24th. Towards the end of the article, Israelson says that "it is time for Transit 2.0 to arrive," which is strange considering the Transit 2.0 RFP specifically states, "Currently there is no evidence that a lower tax rate at DART is possible."
NCTCOG Weighs In
June 28th - Michael Morris, the Director of Transportation at NCTCOG, sent an email to all of the city managers within DART member cities. It included some strong and direct language like
"we see non-financially supported ideas to support transit revenues used to fund pensions and proposed sales tax reductions"
and
"local cities claim DART isn’t listening and I’m sure DART would make the same claim".
and finally
"All 10 cities with highest percentage growth were outside transportation authority boundaries. If we do not work together and turn this around, roadway funds will be lost to DART cities as well and as the RTC chases congestion, air quality and safety to the rural reaches of the region. This will reinforce even greater inefficient land use."
The cities had reached out for a study, NCTCOG started working on it, and in the meantime, the cities do exactly the opposite of the current recommendations. Why ask for help in the first place?
In spite of this firm letter, the cities continue supporting the cuts.
Rowlett
July 2nd - Rowlett's city council put forward a resolution with identical wording to Plano's. Plano's presenter sounded like a politician, talking about going to the Texas legislature, including only facts that support their narrative, and using careful wording to imply certain things without actually saying them. On the other hand, Rowlett's presentation was rougher around the edges. It included numerous errors, perplexing assumptions, and projections based off of those previous errors that gave an even more egregious result. But without the relevant background knowledge, the council voted unanimously in support of it anyways.
A slide-by-slide fact-check of Rowlett's presentation can be seen here.
Irving
July 11th - Irving city council had DART budget cuts on the agenda. At first, it was under the consent agenda, a part of the agenda that is supposed to contain rote items that can be voted on for approval in bulk. Many residents reached out asking for them to remove it from the consent agenda to give the resolution the full discussion it deserved. Irving obliged, and citizens flocked to the meeting urging the council to vote against the resolution. Similar to Plano's council meeting, however, Irving council members made vague arguments of fiscal responsibility and examples of different ways to repurpose DART funding, like paying for police and fire, or lowering property taxes. The vote passed unanimously.
Garland & Richardson
Thankfully, the councils of Garland and Richardson unanimously voted in support of DART's current funding levels, a stark contrast to their neighbors. Downtown Garland and CityLine in Richardson have been seeing a lot of development efforts around their transit centers, and it's paying dividends - so maybe it's not too surprising they're against these cuts.
Carrollton & Farmers Branch
July 16th - Carrollton and Farmers Branch had their meetings on the same day, with the same result - but the way they went about it couldn't be any different.
Carrollton's agenda item was titled "Supporting Transit 2.0". It had a lot of formal text talking about what Transit 2.0 is and why they support it, but if you read all the way to the bottom, you'll see a little blurb saying that in support of Transit 2.0, they support a 25% funding cut to DART. Carrollton has a large Transit-Oriented Development being built around their Trinity Mills station, it has a connection to the Denton A-Train, and it's getting a new Silver Line station in Downtown Carrolton. They knew that cutting DART at this time of growth would be unpopular, so they hid it under language that sounds positive for transit.
After citizens spoke in protest at the meeting, the council members were confused. What does Transit 2.0 have to do with cutting DART? Why was the agenda item titled this way? Ultimately, the mayor and city attorney waved away their worries by saying this was merely a symbolic vote and didn't actually reduce DART funding. So it passed, 6 for, 1 against.
Farmers Branch, however, was evidently hostile towards transit. Several citizens voiced their support for DART, but to no avail. The mayor and one of the city council members voiced contempt for DART and transit, and they even said, "there's nothing but a chain link fence between them and all the trash that comes up here on their trains." Unsurprisingly, it passed unanimously.
What's Next
These member cities, led by Plano and Irving, are looking to lobby at the January 2025 Texas legislature to reduce transit agency sales tax collection from 1% to 0.75%.
Dallas has mentioned they will vote on this at an upcoming September meeting.
Current voting statuses:
Cities FOR budget cuts:
- Carrollton: 6 for - 1 against
- Farmers Branch: 5 for - 0 against
- Irving: 8 for - 0 against
- Plano: 7 for - 0 against
- Rowlett: 6 for - 0 against
Cities AGAINST budget cuts:
- Garland
- Richardson
Cities that haven't voted:
- Addison
- Cockrell Hill
- Dallas
- Glenn Heights
- Highland Park
- University Park