Streetcar Circulator Update

Awe, come on, KP..... EVERYBODY LOVES A JUNKET!!!!

A junket here, a junket there, everywhere a junket, junket.

I think it is not such a bad thing since (and I don't think this was in the article) a majority of the money for the trip was donated from outside, special interests (at least $35,000) compared to the city's portion of $25,000. Also, from the schedule I saw, there is no time for lolli-gagging. This is a fast pace trip with a full schedule. The participants were told to pack their walking shoes and tell any family they might have in the Northwest to watch for them to wave as they zoomed past. No time for sightseeing beyond what the streetcar passes and only to pack carry-on luggage.

Remember that many of the people on the committee are regular citizens who do not necessarily have a background in transit or development. These are the people who need this trip to be able to do the work that they were appointed to do and I would feel a lot more comfortable with them knowing the difference between a bus and a modern streetcar before they issue their final report. As for the city staff, council and "cling-ons" (consultants), not so much. We were initially informed that the committee would be responsible for paying their own way, but apparently the donations helped cover most of their cost. I imagine the city's portion covers most of the city staffers. Not sure who pays for city council and mayor, but if they're exited about what they see, I'm all for the investment.

My humble opinion.

Lots of publicity this week. I heard a blurb about it on WBAP radio also.

Streetcar group rolling forward
BY LESLIE WIMMER
September 29, 2008

The sound of streetcars moving on

steel tracks though the city keeps getting louder.

Since the Fort Worth City Council put together a Streetcar Study Committee in June, committee members have chosen the type of streetcar Fort Worth will see in the future as plans move forward. The committee members also have lined up priority routes and brainstormed ideas for possibly color coding streetcars based on route destinations.

At a committee meeting Sept. 22 members narrowed down routes for the streetcar system, which would branch out from a Downtown hub, said committee member Phillip Poole. Poole is also a lead development executive with Townsite Co.

“We’ve isolated basically five or six routes that would start in the Downtown hub,” Poole said. At the meeting “we went over criteria such as how much density there is, where the development opportunities were, what routes would be the most economically viable in terms of both fares and which ones would create the most energy.

“One would go into the Medical District, one would go into the Cultural District, another route would come off of the one in Fort Worth South and go to Polytechnic either on Rosedale or on Lancaster, and one that would come, after the completion of the Trinity River Vision, to the North Side to the Stockyards,” Poole said. “The routes would come from the hub with radial arms that go out into where our urban villages are, where our big districts are: the Cultural District, Hospital District, Stockyards, and then one to Texas Wesleyan or the Lancaster Corridor.”

Read the rest of the story in the Fort Worth Business Press

A history of streetcars once desired

BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
September 29, 2008

Standing on the corner of Magnolia and Eighth avenues, a man talks to a fellow Near Southside resident about the weather and waits for the clang-clanging of a bell to signal the arrival of a streetcar.

It stops, the man climbs aboard, takes a seat and thinks about the day ahead as he begins his five-minute commute into the heart of Downtown.

That’s not the future, it’s the past – and if some mass transit proponents get their wish, it could repeat itself.

“Fort Worth had, up until 1936 or 1938, one of the better streetcar systems in the United States,” said Pete Charlton, a Fort Worth historian and streetcar enthusiast. “It was modern, up-to-date and maintained.”

Read the rest of the story in the Fort Worth Business Press

Dallas Morning News Story

This one has video:

Fort Worth officials consider trolley system

11:06 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 1, 2008
By JIM DOUGLAS / WFAA-TV

FORT WORTH — Fort Worth city leaders want to know if streetcars can ease gridlock and bring new development along the lines.

They want to know so badly that almost every one of them will fly to Washington state Thursday for a first-hand look at three modern systems.

The mayor says this is the biggest delegation he can recall for an out-of-town fact-finding trip, and he says what they find could eventually make a huge difference in how this city grows... and goes.

Read the rest of the story at the WFAA Website

I went on a bit of a transit junket myself last weekend, of course, I didn't use public money to finance my trip. I spent the better part of Friday in San Francisco. The vintage streetcars were beautiful and had passengers packed in like sardines. While marveling at the quietness of the trolley busses I forgot to check for passenger loads. I did observe 2 modern streetcars and they were virtually empty. This was around 730-800 pm so it wasn't exactly rush hour. Vintage trolleys outnumbered modern ones and load wise, their passenger count was exponentially greater the two modern cars I saw.

I rode BART under the bay to Oakland. When the lady sitting next to me found out I was getting off at the West Oakland station she said she would pray for me. It really wasn’t bad at all. I paid a couple of young men at the station for protection and everything was fine.

Saturday I took Amtrak from Oakland to Los Angeles and the train was only 3 hours and 11 minutes late out of Oakland but we made up almost an hour into LA and arrived at 1115 pm.

I flew American out of Orange County to DFW Monday, we were ahead of schedule and I got upgraded to first and that made for a wonderful ending to my transit weekend.

And from the FWBP article:


It is for these reasons that I think we should consider how the original streetcars in Fort Worth can influence any future operation. And I don't mean just mentioning in the newspaper that we had a modern trolley system 70 years ago, because so far that's the only mention I've heard. I want to see transportation experts really digging into the past for inspiration and to compare and contrast today's inner city with yesterday's.

On the other hand, the junket wasn't that expensive, and hopefully it will be enlightening.

FWIW, the old maps are being consulted. The city and traffic flows have changed somewhat in 80 years, so I don't think it would be practical to put in the exact same system, but they are looking at what was there.

That is good to know!

eta: I am just really interested to see some progress on public transit in fort worth, to see some action after all the talking, and a little wary of expensive fact-finding missions, when there are neighborhoods in the Fort that need sidewalks, and furthermore, call me naive but these kind of things strike me a little as political grandstanding. Maybe that is a harsh term. I am just of the belief that if a city is admittedly strapped for funds every dollar should be carefully spent.

But that does not mean that I am against funding for public transit; on the contrary, I believe it is an investment in the very survival of our community, before we get more and more isolated by our cars, and more and more unhealthy from pollution and lack of movement.

Just wondering...

When routes transit are being planned/studied for streetcar routes is there consideration given for streets parallel to major traffic routes so as to avoid messing up vehicular traffic patterns and at the same time encouraging alternative/pedestrian development along those sidestreets?

I am thinking of West 7th Street in Fort Worth as an example. A streetcar running down that street is going to cause traffic to stall during busy commute times, and traffic lights will most likely need to be timed to allow streetcars to have some sort of preference for their timetables to work. Routing the trains along a street just south of 7th would allow that street to be devoted more to transit and pedestrians, and still be just one block off the big street. Street signals on the sidestreet could be controlled by the approaching streetcar, and the street actually could be closed to automobile traffic for increased safety and to support pedestrian usefulness (shopping, dining, etc.)

I am all for streetcar traffic, but also recognize the need for city traffic arteries to be somewhat efficient at moving traffic.

Just wondering...

I think that is a false pretense. Why would a modern streetcar stall traffic? Couldn't be any worse than a bus running in traffic. Also, why would the streetcar need timed traffic lights? Modern streetcars are engineered to run in the flow of traffic. They have comparable acceleration and top speeds to the traffic conditions they are running in. I think to put the streetcar on a backroad would set it up for failure in adding additional turns and manuevering to make the same run as a bus. Should we relegate the buses to the backroads?

Yes & No..

In my opinion there should be a careful study of exactly where the destinations are and where the fares are coming from when working on a route. Just because a street is busy with all kinds of vehicular traffic doesn't necessarily mean that this is always the best place to pick up and drop off passengers. Sometimes it may be. In other situations, it might be more desirable to have mass transit on private or dedicated right of way (even in a congested area) or route the vehicles onto less busy alternative streets that parallel those already filled with cars and trucks.

I won't go into this deeply because it would take a lot of space and might be a thread in itself. But I do believe this is almost always overlooked and should be considered in any new FW transit planning.

As a part of this idea, I cannot believe that new planning is not considering building a stand-alone 7th street transit bridge or bridges if streetcars are to be re-introduced onto this street. With the development of SO7, University and Camp Bowie Blvd it is very dumb not to take the opportunity to clear this potential bottleneck. Using separate transit bridges also allows some innovative track placement and routing.

Also, I think that the idea of having two (or any) streetcar tracks on the Paddock Viaduct is criminally short sighted. If Trinity Uptown takes off and the Mercado and Northside/Stockyards continue to grow, the idea of streetcars constricting an already congested set of lanes is not to be believed.

Not to mention the really nasty problem of routing streetcars on rails around the already tight bridge approach on the top of the bluffs north of of the courthouse. This was always a much discussed streetcar problem back in the 1920's and early 1930's. The fact that there is a fairly steep grade involved doesn't help anything, either. Esthetically, it would also be bad for the view of the courthouse vista to have overhead wires on the Viaduct and a tangle of poles and pulloff wires in the street area around the courthouse north side, which we are all so proud of.

In addition, Paddock Viaduct would have to receive extensive & expensive reconstruction to support the heavier streetcars.

There are solutions...

Back in 1912-1913 when the planning was going on to replace the rickety old vintage 1890's iron North Main bridge, many of the preliminary plans called for the new viaduct to be connected on the south bluff with Commerce Streeet and then slanted to the west to connect with North Main just about where the north approach to Paddock Viaduct sits today. This would have eliminated the constricted south approach as it exists then & today and would have opened up the area north of the Courthouse for a beautiful view and probably a practical park area.

If we think outside the box a little, how about using the already constructed slot approach through the late and not-lamented battleship gray TCC building to connect to a combination transit and pedestrian bridge over the Trinity using the sunken plaza for something useful as an approach slope? This would essentially be the same as the old Commerce street idea and would allow the Paddock Viaduct to handle more regular traffic.

Another solution might be to make a northside transit crossing bridge at river level just to the south of the Trinity confluence and then connect it to North Main. Thsi was was also an historical solution that did work and quite possibly would work better now in a different transit climate.

These solutions or others for 7th Street and Paddock and other similar situations may cost more money at the beginning. But the investment being considered deserves an innovative plan that does not slavishly follow conventional thinking.

The ideas above lead to many other ways that Fort Worth might come up with a better and world class transit system if we can just stop our natural tendency to follow the leader.

I agree with that. I have often though that a transit specific bridge would do well lined up with Commerce. You could be right in front of LaGrave Field and you could conceivably stay on Commerce all the way to the Stockyards. (Although the Mercado thing didn't help).

The 7th street bridge is geared for replacement. Perhaps as part of the route study, capacity improvements could be programmed in and constructed at the same time the bridge is replaced. As for the Stockyards route, Samuels was mentioned as an alternate entrace into the Stockyards, but it looks like neither that nor Main is being considered for the starter route, so a new bridge would be future consideration.

Absolutely right. This was to be my next point...

The use of alternate streets or right of way in the right situation should be always a consideration. Light rail tries to use private or dedicated right of way where possible for speed and safety. There is no reason that this approach would not work for streetcar transit as well with the idea being to lessen traffic congestion or add capacity and perhaps to speed up stop-to-stop time.

In the case of the lower Northside route, building early before Trinity Uptown gets developed allows the transit system to define and control the corridor. This is one of the few places in FW where streetcars would really promote development.

Think about a north Commerce street route and on the west side a north Houston street route diverging off at the base of the new Commerce Street transit bridge from the bluffs and then combining north of Northside Drive. In place in advance and ready for TRV development. The Houston Street route could conceivably pass under the Paddock Viaduct.

I find financing more interesting than route planning, but let me mention an alternate route that seems to have not been a good idea.

Las Vegas built a monorail behind tha casinos on the Strip. It is poorly patronized, while a block away the Strip is jammed with people walking and taking taxi's. I think people do find safety in numbers and don't want to be getting on and off public transportation in lightly used locations.

To branch off, when the new Seventh Street bridge is built traffic is probably going to be messed up unless they leave the old bridge in place while building the new one. I suspect Lancaster and White Settelment are going to be very popular.

I can start a new thread for the LV Monorail if we want to discuss it in depth, but.... I think one of the problems with the LV Monorail is that the fair is FIVE FREAKIN' DOLLARS for a single ride, $12 for a day pass and $28 for a 3-day pass. If I'm going to skimp, a monorail is not high on my priorities - especially when valet parking is free or at most a dollar or two tip.

Even at five freakin dollars a fare, I think the monorail would be packed if it ran down the strip, instead of behind it. The point is location does matter. I suspect a transit line down N Main would have better ridership than one down the back roads.

If a line brought redevelopment to N Commerce and attrations and shops were located there, people would want to ride down that street. If business is on Main St. then people aren't going to want to use a line behind the stores and restaurants. Tourists enroute to the stockyards won't care, but the back streets won't exactly put the city's best foot forward.

Heck, when I drive to the grocery store or Costco, I never park in the back, it's just creepy.

Consider that what is now North Main is going to be jammed with vehicular traffic since it will be the only direct passageway through the 800+ acres. Even if they get the big trucks off it, it will be a mess. We really don't need to add the congestion of buses or streetcars to add to the eventual gridlock.

Now: Take a second look at what I was suggesting for streetcar passage through Trinity Uptown which is similar to Andy's suggestion as well:

If, as you say, the presence of a streetcar can stimilate growth & development around itself, then laying the rails in now or in the near future while there is absolutely nothing on North Main, North Commerce or North Houston from the base of Paddock Viaduct up north to the railroad tracks woiuld allow controlled development away from North Main.

Pre-planning along with a separate transit bridge to open up Paddock Viaduct and its approach on the Courthouse side will make rail corridors possible on both the east and west sides of North Main which will reduce the pedestrian access distance from the most extrme points by over one-half. Thereby hopefully making the use of the transit facility more desirable. The Houston or Throckmorton street section would need bridges over the cut-off channel and perhaps other places. Having at least two sets of north-south rails in the development doubles the access and desirability. And if the planning and installation is done early, the cost will be considerably less.

That jives with the second problem of the Las Vegas strip that I didn't mention but I couldn't speak to since I did not ride the monorail the last time I was in Vegas. Have the businesses along the line adapted their layout to the new transit? The most prominent that I could see of the line was down at the MGM Grand and the loop at the north end. Perhaps as the area continues to redevelop, the casino builders will build new structures that are transit-oriented instead of solely strip oriented.

Like Djold1 says, Trinity Uptown has not yet been filled in. I won't go as far as some to say that the area between Northside Drive and Stockyards is wasteland, but it is prime redevelopment properties and the ability is there to restructure new growth to acknowledge both the automobile on Main and a streetcar on Commerce.

I certainly didn't want to turn this into a LV monorail thread, just to point out their mistake, as a caution here. I consider both Andy and djold to be experts on streetcar lines and respect your views.

It has been 2 years since I was last in Vegas and I did ride the monorail. At that time I didn't see anything but the back of the casinos as we passed by. There were back doors to get in, but like I said, who wants to hang around the back of any building. The only front door entrance was the convention center and a neighboring hotel that was off the strip. LV monorail is expected to go bankrupt by 2010 even though it is operated as a charity. When I rode we passed by an HVAC installation as big as a house and it had a sign that said it was manufactured in Ft Worth, Tx.


This sounds like we are back in the 30's, get the streetcars out of the street!

I do agree that separate bridges over the Trinity are a good idea. Is the Paddock Viaduct even in good enough shape to support a streetcar? As the Trinity Uptown develops there could be space created along Main St. for a right of way in the newly redeveloped areas. San Jose has areas with the street, a tree lined trolley right of way and then the sidewalks and buildings. Of course, by the time you get to Northside you would have to get in the street or behind the buildings on Commerce or Calhoun.

Two lines would be great if that happens. I'm not sure the streetcar is needed as a development tool for Trinity Uptown but as Andy said there are areas North of there that are. I only hope the streetcar is sucessful.

When I rode BART a couple of weeks ago my 2 hour ticket cost $5.55.

I have experience with parts of street railways but I am not the ultimate expert on streetcars. More of what I am looking for with the development of the Fort Worth system is to look out for stupid mistakes made by modern-day engineers who find it necessary to reinvent the wheel to justify their consulting fees. I think discussion and exchange of ideas is good.

I am certainly not a transportation expert of any kind. I became interested in historic Fort Worth transit development first through my map collection and then in the written accounts and then began comparing the historical operation with the contemporary transit planning that has evolved since the 1970's. A couple of things became clear:

First, it is quite obvious that the FW transit system before 1945 or 1950 was an entirely different beast than what we perceive as useful transit now. It had an entirely different purpose and served a ridership that is much different than that available or potentially available today. So, a direct comparison is hard to make.

Second, it is important to remember that until the City of FW took over the remaining bus lines in the 1970's, that the streetcar and bus lines were under private tax paying, franchised for-profit corporate ownership and returned money to their investors for many of those years except in the deepest depresson times and toward the last years. Hard to believe isn't it? Incidentally, from about 1906 on until after WWI, the transit system was under the same ownership no matter whether the predominant vehicles were streetcars, buses or combinations of the two.

Finally, history tells us that the Stone & Webster/Northern Texas Traction/Transporation organization was very neutral as to the type of vehicles used. The first 20-25 years the streetcar was the primary people carrier for a number of good reasons. As the 1920's progressed the NTT came under pressure from private taxis and Jitney buses and added internal combustion motor coaches to the transit mix where they were appropriate from a service and cost standpoint. The object was to keep high ridership and make a very good profit. I suspect that they would have used tethered blimps and monorails if they looked practical.

Hysteria is one of the few connecting points between the prewar and current transit advocates. In the 1930's a combination of the financial problems of the depresson and the election of a very liberal city council resulted in an almost hysterical effort by a number of the council members and their toadies to subsitute "modern" buses for the remaining streetcar lines, ostensibly to reduce the carfare from 7 cents to 5 centa a ride. In the case of FW transit there was no real outside effort by General Motors or the National City Lines conspiracy involved that I can find. Strangely enough, the City Council rejected the idea of buying out the private system which would have given them the opportunity to set fares and buy buses as they wanted to. In my opinion, the whole debacle was a locally generated irrational moment that destroyed one of the better US transit systems without ever reaching the mythical 5 cent fare level.

A similar but inverted hysteria exists today in transportation planning with some individuals & groups making irrational demands to replace buses with streetcars in situations where there is little or no justification. Again in my opinion, if careful, rational, unbiased planning is not done, then FW is going to invest huge amounts of money into adding streetcars where they are not justified or not practical. And as well, the city will overlook or ignore opportunites to add streetcars where they really should be used.

I am in favor of using streetcars where streetcars are best, buses where buses are best and kinky monorails if necessary, but never any one of them in a situation where they make no sense.

In the case of Trinity Uptown or the TRV, the creative addtion of transit to the mix early on allows real planning to be done to be sure that the overall development ofo the area is adequately served. No other part of FW offers this essentially virgin territory.

Just to keep apples and oranges in their own bins, monorail is closer to light rail than streetcars and BART is really commuter rail, so neither one does much in a urban surface transit thread in my opinion.

You guys are being modest. I'm pretty sure you two know as much about streetcars as anyone else in Ft Worth with the possible exception of some folks at Carter Burgess. At least one of you should be on the study/junket committee.

We are just spinning our wheels talking about routes anyway, until they decide to go ahead with a system. Odds are a route to the stockyards won't be in the first phase anyhow. I expect the cultural district and Magnolia Ave will come first.

Maybe we can chew the fat some more on stockyards routes in five years or so.
The stockyards would be an excellent route for heritage cars if they could be found. You know, old west and all that.

To my mind it's kind of a chicken vs. the egg thing...

It's obvious from the stuff coming from the Streetcar Study Committee spokespeople that they have already decided that a streetcar system is desirable. Even though they are going through the motions to make things look good. If they haven't decided, then why are these routes so prominent on the maps?

I think that if the decision has been already been made, then it has posibly been made for the wrong reason.

There is a strong undercurrent of trendy pressure for streetcars and light rail because they seem to be the thing to do without any real examination of the costs vs. the possible benefits, etc.

The routes that are being discussed now are essentially a thoughtless overlay of the existing bus lines. How smart is that? If it is smart, then why is it smart? I'm not seeing any real justification in the reports. Simply that someone "thinks" that a particular route would be good.

As a person that is intereested in seeing an improved transit system rather than just a streetcar overlay of the bus system, I would like to see some really hard analysis to discover new routes on which streetcars might offer really substantial benefits in terms of service and ridership. Even if one only route resulted.

It's my feeling that instead of throwing out a bunch of general garbage route selections with arbitary build dates, that it would be much better to identify in advance the best routes. Even if it turns out that only one route could benefit from streetcars rather than designing a general system that would not pay. And it's always possible that no route woudl be found that could justify.

Then...

If the route or routes really do look like they might be justified, it would be timely to make a decision as to whether the climate is right to build them and if the financing is available.

First things first..

KERA's report on the study committee junket.

http://publicbroadca...

The Streetcar Study Committee further refined the corridor options today based on information provided by the city staff and their return from a fact finding junket to the Pacific Northwest. Prior to the meeting, the committee was evaluating six corridors for inclusion in the proposed starter system.

After discussion, Lancaster Avenue was removed as an option for both the Cultural District Route and the eastside. The committee adopted 7th Street as the preferred corridor to the Cultural District and Rosedale as the preferred southeast corridor.

A special meeting to determine the exact routing through downtown and on the near southside will be held October 24th. The primary discussion relating to the southside was deciding whether to route the line down Hemphill or South Main.

And to add to the study a possible north Main/Samuels route.

According to the meetings I have attended, there are no plans to include N. Main or Samuels in the starter line. North Main is considered a "next phase" project, which is outside the scope of this committee. Not sure I understand your comment, JKC.

I thought I heard the chair say " we've also asked staff to add to the evaluation matrix, a north route for review", or something like that. There were no cookies for the meeting so it is certainly possible that I misunderstood.

Three public meetings have been scheduled to receive citizen comments on the work of the Modern Streetcar Study Committee. Committee members are encouraged to attend one or more meetings. The meetings are scheduled for:



November 17th at 6:30 p.m.

Rose Marine Theater

1440 N. Main Street



November 18th at 6:30 p.m.

Guinn School

1150 South Freeway



November 19th at 6:30 p.m.

UNT Health Center

RES Building Everett Hall

3500 Camp Bowie Blvd

Andy, I think the crux of the discussion needs to center on a choice: is this for tourists or residents? If tourists, then obviously Seventh Street, if residents, then maybe Samuels has a chance. I hope to see you at the meeting! Redhead

It's for everybody. The committee looked at tourists, residents, workers, transit-dependent people, development trends, etc.. etc..

The goal was to determine a route that would have the most of everybody on the streetcar. That is why 7th street is in now and stockyards is a future phase. I think they have a good core system proposed and I am looking forward to seeing the city council take action on this. Mayor Moncrief has really embraced this project and I think it is going to be good for us all, except certain curmudgeons living in far northeast Tarrant County who will be saddled with a significant portion of the tax bill.

Hey, I resemble that quote! I may be a curmudgeon but I have every intention of riding that sucker when it is built. 7th Street is my pick for the route to the cultural district, so the committee has my seal of approval so far. Besides, I don't see how I am going to have to pay for this, in fact, I hope this will be a free trolley, since the city will be making a lot of money off the high tech parking meters.

If Colleyville will cough up a couple of million for the commuter station, I can park there, take the train to DTFW and ride the streetcar to the zoo and visit my relatives.

Between Belknap, Weatherford, 1st and 2nd, for the north end of the circular, I think it would be better to choose Belnap/Weatherford, otherwise, the north end of downtown will be underserved, considering the width of the Belknap and Weatherford, which could be deterrent to pedestrians.

What kind of timeline are we looking at?

As a reminder, three public meetings have been scheduled to receive citizen comments on the work of the Modern Streetcar Study Committee. Committee members are encouraged to attend one or more meetings. The meetings are scheduled for:



November 17th at 6:30 p.m.

Rose Marine Theater

1440 N. Main Street



November 18th at 6:30 p.m.

Guinn School

1150 South Freeway



November 19th at 6:30 p.m.

UNT Health Center

RES Building Everett Hall

3500 Camp Bowie Blvd


The committee has pretty much established the route it will recommend to the City Council as a start. They have also itemized where they think funding can be found to support the starter system. They decided to hold off making the recommendation official until after the series of public meetings mentioned above. The west side route was refined to run west on 7th, through the giant intersection at University to Montgomery. South on Montgomery to Lancaster, east on Lancaster to Currie, and north on Currie to 7th. Although I have described it as a counterclockwise circle, no preference as to direction of travel was established by the committee.

I assume for the purposes of showing commitment to future phases, a route to North Fort Worth was identified as running north on Main to the Stockyards. This route was not included as part of the starter system and the committee had also evaluated running out Samuels Avenue to get to the Stockyards.

The downtown route was left somewhat vague to allow for further investigation of utilities and conflicts by a consulting engineer, but the southern limits of the downtown loop are identified as Lancaster Blvd., western limits as Houston or Throckmorton, eastern limits as Commerce or Calhoun and the northern limits as Belknap, Weatherford, First or Second Streets. A spur to the burgeoning Samuels Avenue area was surprisingly included as part of the downtown loop, although I can't imagine how that would be incorporated.

As previously mentioned, the line south would run down Main Street to Magnolia to Seventh to Terrell to the hospital and a line heading east on Rosedale to Evans with future expansion to Texas Wesleyan. There were some disappointing comments from the audience including a council aide for southeast Fort Worth who worried that their area would be underserved. It seems the committee will be needing to remind people that a full network system cannot be built all at once, the starter route that has been selected is the one that has the highest potential funding sources and is the most likely to be successful. With the success of the starter system, additional funding will become politically acceptable and further routes can be added. Believe me when I say that the committee has evaluated all of the proposed routes and selected the best options for a starter system.

That's all I can think of from the last meeting.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial pages:

http://www.star-tele...ry/1023905.html

Old new idea

A transportation mode that worked well for Fort Worth many decades ago could be revived.

We’re talking about an urban streetcar system, operating similarly to the nearly two dozen streetcar lines that served numerous city neighborhoods from the late 19th century until about 1940. The system was abandoned as the city expanded, residents began traveling farther to work and the automobile became dominant.

City officials are considering establishing a modern streetcar system focused on serving the downtown area and major central-city corridors inside Loop 820.

Have your say

Fort Worth’s Modern Streetcar Study Committee is holding three public meetings, all at 6:30 p.m., for residents to learn more about a proposed street car system and voice their opinions.

Mon., Nov. 17: Rose Marine Theater, 1440 N. Main St.

Tues., Nov. 18: Guinn School, 1150 South Freeway (Interstate 35W) at Rosedale Street.

Wed., Nov. 19: University of North Texas Health Science Center, Everett Hall, RES Building, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd.

Here's a story about the proposed Fort Worth streetcar.

Streetcar Video on WFAA

I think I saw my old purple friend in the video.

Full article on Dallasnews.com

More are jumping on streetcar proposal in Fort Worth

12:00 AM CST on Monday, November 24, 2008
By DEBRA DENNIS / The Dallas Morning News
debdennis@dallasnews.com

FORT WORTH – The old could become new again as Fort Worth looks to streetcars to ease traffic congestion, promote development and help tourists and central-city residents get around.
Last week, city officials hosted three public meetings to gauge interest in the project and found residents receptive to the idea.
City leaders see several advantages to a modernized streetcar line.
"You're creating greater access to existing businesses," said Dana Burghdoff, deputy director of the city's Planning and Development Department. "This is the kind of development we're promoting. The streetcar is a catalyst for high-density, mixed-use environments."
The project is also seen as a way to alleviate the traffic problems that accompany new development.

Here is a PDF with my personal thoughts on the Streetcar Committee work to date:

Fort Worth Streetcar Committee

Good points Pete. I'm sure we will see some folks on here to refute some of them. My only real objection to the starter route is that it isn't shown going to the Intermodal Center, but my hope is before something is finally decided that mistake will be corrected.

If the line on West 7th can be constructed fast enough the streetcar can claim credit for all the development going on on 7th.

Very good points especially re: connecting with the ITC and having the rail lines access the downtown area only on the periphery with other means used to shuttle riders through the downtown area. I hope this will be brought to attention to the Committee.

In reading you PDF, it seems that you don't have a firm grasp on how streetcars work. You wouldn't make the suggestion of moving buses to the periphery. Once the tracks are in place, there are no disruptions and pedestrian traffic increases.

Permanance is one thing you seem to miss as well with your attack on choice riders. Buses are undesireable because you don't know where they go if you are unfamliar with the system. Streetcar tracks are different. That attacts choice riders. Convenience makes those riders permanent. Since 2001, MATA has seen ridership grow every year. Same thing with LRT. The trains attact more choice riders everyday than any express bus combo ever could. I am a choice rider who moved downtown and gave up a car. I could own a car, but choose not to because I am well-served by transit.

Streetcars are operational superior to buses, cost less to operate, attract more riders and influence dense development. (I chuckled at the part where you insinuated that FW was forcing people to live in dense developments. Just because you don't prefer it, doesn't mean everybody thinks the same way) From coast to coast, border to border, not just the NW, streetcar systems have done that. Portland, Seattle, Tampa, Kenosha, Little Rock have all experienced this. There is nothing to suggest it won't work here. Bottomline is if you give people a reliable choice, some will choose one option, some will choose another, and society has a balanced transportation system.

I hate to be the voice of dissent, but Pete's PDF is just not something I can get behind on the whole. It's a largeish document and I haven't had a chance to fully go through it, so these are just my initial thoughts.

Please understand I do not mean to be rude or mean here - there's a lot to go through so I'm just parsing out my thoughts. No malice or disrespect is intended.

Connecting to the ITC is a good point, one that I have raised myself on numerous occasions. I suspect there may still be a bit of work on that, but beyond that point...

The system as planned would most certainly serve visitors - I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the committee has "ignored" the potential for economic impact by serving visitors, but that is flat-out wrong. The Cultural District line in particular is one of the initial phases in part because of the tremendous desire for an effective transit link to the museums for visitors. The difference is that the planned system is not designed *solely* for the benefit of visitors - which is the right way forward. There is no expectation that visitors would have a separate system in the future - I have no idea where that bit comes from but it's certainly not the study committee or the city.

The scare-quote laden "mystique" about streetcars not really being any more desirable than buses - I've noticed that it's become fashionable for anti-transit groups to try and say that streetcars/rail is really no more desirable than buses are, but reality constantly seems to be pointing the other way. Tacoma (a much smaller city) went from a bus line with ridership of 200,000 per year to a streetcar on the same route with ridership of over 900,000 per year, for just one example. Portland and Seattle are busting ridership records. For all the talk about the streetcars not being any more desirable than buses and for all the scare quotes around "choice riders" and the attempt to paint that as an elitist term (which is certainly not the truth), the streetcars tend to be more popular. And it's not hard at all to see why. There should be no mystery why the streetcars ARE more desirable to riders and why they DO attract people who are not transit-dependent. They're quieter. They're far, far, far smoother and more comfortable. They don't stink of exhaust. They don't lurch around like the buses do. They're easier to figure out thanks to the rails in the street - the fact that you put the quotes around that doesn't make it any less true. People see the tracks, and they know where the system's going. It's just simpler than a bus. A system should not serve solely the transit dependent - attracting choice riders should certainly be a goal. And let's talk about "choice riders." There is ZERO elitism in that term. It's been corrupted by the anti-transit brigade. "Choice" doesn't mean "better." It simply means that people who have the capability to choose their mode of transportation - car, transit, whatever - *CHOOSE* transit. That's all "choice" means. It was not elitist until the anti-transit and buses-are-all-we-need groups decided to twist it around. Streetcars attract far more of those people than buses do, which puts fewer cars on the street, reduces congestion, makes neighborhoods more pleasant thanks to fewer speeding cars, encourages infill, improves air quality, gets more people walking, etc. etc. etc. There should be no mystery about why streetcars are more desirable.

On Downtown (aside from the ITC) - the dashed lines indicate potential routes in downtown. They won't all be built. The plan will create a loop in downtown on four streets. I see the old canard of "disruption to business" due to construction. These things take about a block a week to build. The disruption will be minimal and the benefits to those businesses will be great. The point of the system only being on the periphery with shuttle buses accessing the core - that sounds to me like the sort of anti-urban post-war planning we'd have done in the '70s. The streetcars need to get right into the heart of things. Put them on the periphery with shuttle buses taking people to them and you've just killed a lot of their appeal. This is not rapid transit - it needs to get into the core. Some CNG buses that sort of look like streetcars won't have the appeal of the actual thing.

Though you say that Sundance Square has been ignored in the planning I can assure you that is absolutely not the case. The Basses are definitely involved in the downtown portion.

On 7th Street - Take a look at those developments. While they are walkable and urban, they are very auto dependent. They're not being built because of the bus system - they're being built because of pent-up demand and some of the 7th Street landowners FINALLY letting go of their properties to developers. There is still a LOT more development that could occur along 7th, and the streetcar will help shape it. Take a look at West 7th - half the development is massive parking garages. That's not sustainable. I don't begrudge them - it's what they had to do - but an effective rail transit link will reduce the need for so much parking and will encourage further infill on the *many* properties that are still re-developable. I know it looks like a lot of stuff happening down there, but in the grand scheme the 7th Corridor is not nearly at its full potential. And I cannot see how the system as planned has "no visitor enhancements."

On the Near Southside - yes, there's most certainly reason to believe that the streetcar would encourage the sort of development we're wanting there. The Near Southside's new form-based code and zoning is precisely the sort of thing that works very well with a streetcar line, for one thing. For another, the district has two Urban Villages - Magnolia and South Main. These streets are designated by the district as the primary mixed-use corridors for the Near Southside with the point of building developments which would be ideally suited to being on a streetcar line. The Near Southside is the city's second-largest employment center and attracting new residents who are already the sort who would use a local streetcar line.

The terminus of the Near Southside line (there is no Medical District - the entirety of the area is now the Near Southside, hospitals and all) is absolutely not an afterthought as you suggest. I know - I was involved in its design. The Near Southside line is designed very precisely and specifically and was given a lot of thought. It has been designed to link the two primary Urban Villages/mixed-use corridors (Magnolia and South Main) and give access to the five hospitals (JPS, Baylor, Plaza, Cook, Harris). 7th Avenue was chosen to keep the streetcar off 8th Avenue and to run it down a slower and narrower street. In fact the entirety of the line as presented was pushed by us because we wanted the line on narrower streets to encourage more pedestrian activity and infill. The streetcar would reverse at Terrell and head back down 7th to Magnolia. This alignment was chosen based after extensive discussion and work with Fort Worth South, Inc., the hospitals, planners, local businesses, developers, etc.. It is certainly not an afterthought and I've got many e-mails from the design discussion I was part of. We feel strongly that the Near Southside line as presented is a very effective route that will serve the goals we want from it nicely and we are very happy we were able to change from the useless Hemphill/Rosedale route that was originally planned. It is an example of us - the residents, business people, and leaders of the Near Southside - telling the group they'd gotten it wrong and showing them what we wanted.

The East Rosedale short line is only a beginning. As part of a future phase that line would extend further down East Rosedale but the money would not be there for that to be built right away. That is part of the hard decisions that have to be made when planning the system. It has a purpose, though - linking the Evans/Rosedale Village area which has mixed-use developments in the works, and it's a promise to the long neglected east side that "we're coming." Later it will be extended. Another part of the reason why it's not yet being extended all the way to TWU is because the city wants to work with east side leaders and residents to re-examine the desired land uses along the route.

On Samuels - people are indeed serious about this. Linking Trinity Bluff is not something the committee is joking about. It could also be later extended further down Samuels perhaps even to the Stockyards. And despite you saying that's not worth considering (with no evidence presented as to why), it is indeed something that the city and planners feel is worth considering. And the narrowness of the new Samuels has no bearing on the system as far as I and others are concerned.

The Stockyards line is indeed important and would likely be one of the first expansions, but you are severely underplaying the important of the Near Southside in comparison and it is felt that the Near Southside is a better candidate for a line now than the Stockyards is.

TRV - There's so much that has to be done before the TRV is in place that streetcar options through here are still in the works. I have indeed seen ideas on TRV routes but there's a long while to go until then and we can do a lot more planning.

Southeast - How far are you suggesting? This is not rapid transit. Going deep southeast is not practical at this time and may not ever been appropriate for a non-rapid neighborhood circulator like the streetcar to handle.

The "radical alternative" plan - serving visitors above all others is a mistake. This is not about just carting visitors around. This is about moving visitors, residents, workers, etc. It's about creating a sense of place in central city neighborhoods. The streetcar plan as presented is about far more than just visitors and visitors alone are not going to be the key to its success.

The Near Southside absolutely *is* a destination and in addition it is the second largest employment center and has the groundwork to be one of Fort Worth's finest urban districts and neighborhoods. The streetcar helps to serve that vision and it is meant to be about far more than just shuttling visitors to the Kimbell and Stockyards.

And BTW, "forced density" - nobody is forcing anything. Fort Worth is wanting to give the CHOICE to people now instead of just assuming everybody will want a house out in the 'burbs fifty miles from the office, and there is obviously demand (demand that will only get stronger in the future). That CHOICE is what the streetcar helps - there is no such thing as "forced density."

I just love the thought that only transit dependent will ride and those who have a choice shouldn't be given one.



Agreed. Anti-transit folks rail on transit systems built in car-oriented areas for having low ridership, then when given an option to make transit compeitive, ie get on and then get off right at your destination, they say that is an undesireable option. An extreme example, but 100 years ago, subway construction dispupted business in New York. Any say that was a bad idea now?

Just a few points that I think are relevant to this discussion:

• It is difficult right now to anticipate a stockyards line because of the TRV. The bypass channels and upcoming major redevelopment would make planning a line this early moot. No sense in spending dollars on planning and environmental impact studies when there can be significant changes.

• The 7th street corridor right now only has about 1500 new residential units in the coming developments. Density around other modern street car lines in cities like portland have reached around 10,000 units for the same linear miles of track as the 7th street line.

• Something that hasn't been brought up a lot about this kind of streetcar is the city's transportation costs per household. In a meeting the other day, someone threw out this number: cost per household of the residences along streetcar lines in other cities average around $15,000. Costs here are around $70,000-100,000. Granted, with the structure of our city, I doubt that number would ever get down to 15k even in the most dense development, but the higher the concentration of people that are able to work and play without daily auto traffic would greatly reduce the city's road and traffic costs.

• Air quality, air quality, air quality.

• ITC connectivity might not have to be a direct connection into the ITC. I think that even if the downtown route were to go down calhoun, the ITC is only a block away. It would be great if there could be some sort of public art or street improvement on 11th or 9th that provides a seamless visual and pedestrian connection to the ITC.

Planning for the stockyards connection only means putting a "most likely location 'X'" on the land use master plan and TRV construction drawings.

density along 7th is not high enough so local residents may not adequately support the streetcar. Then we need travelers/out of town visitors. So if the Lines do not connect with ITC, streetcars are doomed to fail.

While I would prefer seeing the system tie directly to the ITC, a one or two block walk to the stop from the ITC will not be something that leads to the system being "doomed to fail," in my opinion.

To put it in perspective, next week I will be taking a honeymoon in New York. In planning the transportation from La Guardia to the hotel in Manhattan, there are two times we will have to walk a block. And it is the long block of the numbered streets, or the equivalent of a little more than 2 east-west blocks in DTFW.

Bottomline, if the transfer is convenient (step off the train of bus and be able to get on a streetcar in less than 5 minutes) and the system is well publisized (maps, attendants for directions, a public education campaign) then people will use it.

New Yorkers must laugh when they read stuff like this. Walking a block or two or three or five is nothing for them. But in comparison, 1/2 of households in the city own no car, 3/4 in affluent Manhattan don't and it boast the largest ridership of any transit system in the country by 4-5 times that of number 2. If you compare just the heavy rail aspect, it is 8 times that of number 2.

10,000 new units?

There's still plenty of re-developable property along the 7th Corridor - Montgomery Plaza, SoSeven, West 7th, and Museum Place have not even come close to fully building-out that corridor.