Streetcars: An Interesting Observation
#101
Posted 03 July 2014 - 10:22 AM
#102
Posted 03 July 2014 - 11:05 AM
I keep thinking about the potential released for several parts of the city if the three railroads (UP, BNSF, and FWWR) could be convinced to work together to combine all north-south tracks east of downtown (a "Union" line) into 4 or 5 tracks that could be grade separated from the UP east-west lines, and then split apart into their respective lines in the south side. This would free the awkward FWWR tracks for commuter use from the Stockyards to Biddison Street. This sort of arrangement might attract some financial support from the Federal DOT, state funding sources, and even from the city if it can get it's house in order. This sort of arrangement would of course free up a lot of acreage downtown, especially where future commuter (and HS?) train approaches and platforms might be needed at the Jones Street Station (ITC).
#103
Posted 03 July 2014 - 11:21 AM
Hey why stop there? Why not just get all the train lines out of the center city. Shut down the huge trainyard along the river and open up hundreds of acres of prime real estate.
#104
Posted 03 July 2014 - 11:27 AM
What about the potential to use those rails and corridor in the future as a commuter rail? That would surely up the amount of traffic on that line.
....This would free the awkward FWWR tracks for commuter use from the Stockyards to Biddison Street. This sort of arrangement might attract some financial support from the Federal DOT, state funding sources, and even from the city if it can get it's house in order. This sort of arrangement would of course free up a lot of acreage downtown, especially where future commuter (and HS?) train approaches and platforms might be needed at the Jones Street Station (ITC).
And this is related how to streetcars?
#105
Posted 03 July 2014 - 12:38 PM
What about the potential to use those rails and corridor in the future as a commuter rail? That would surely up the amount of traffic on that line.
Of course, but not by all that much. You're talking about adding 3-5 car commuter trains in the mix a few times an hour. That's not a huge increase in traffic.
#106
Posted 03 July 2014 - 12:41 PM
What about the potential to use those rails and corridor in the future as a commuter rail? That would surely up the amount of traffic on that line.
And this is related how to streetcars?
If you're going going to run streetcars down 7th and have an at grade crossing with freight tracks which aren't very busy currently, but in the future those tracks/corridor are used for other forms of transit, then running streetcars on 7th may be impeded.
Hey why stop there? Why not just get all the train lines out of the center city. Shut down the huge trainyard along the river and open up hundreds of acres of prime real estate.
Heck of an idea. Sounds perfect to relocate to Alliance. By my measure the existing lot is about 350 acres. Prime real estate to. Just off the Chisholm Trail, Vickery, and river.
#107
Posted 03 July 2014 - 04:12 PM
What about the potential to use those rails and corridor in the future as a commuter rail? That would surely up the amount of traffic on that line.
And this is related how to streetcars?
If you're going going to run streetcars down 7th and have an at grade crossing with freight tracks which aren't very busy currently, but in the future those tracks/corridor are used for other forms of transit, then running streetcars on 7th may be impeded.
Hey why stop there? Why not just get all the train lines out of the center city. Shut down the huge trainyard along the river and open up hundreds of acres of prime real estate.
Heck of an idea. Sounds perfect to relocate to Alliance. By my measure the existing lot is about 350 acres. Prime real estate to. Just off the Chisholm Trail, Vickery, and river.
Where exactly would the railroads be relocated to make these dreams of developing all this wasted, prime real estate come true? Across whose property would the new lines be constructed? What cost are the developers willing to pay to relocate the railroads? Surely nobody thinks the railroads are going to just move on their own, right?
What about the extensive environmental remediation that will need to be done to reclaim these industrial sites, places where carloads of hazardous materials have spilled and diesel engines leaked for generations long before there was even a governmental regulation in place to limit such pollution? Who are the residents of these future developments willing to live on top of some former Love Canal waste site? Is there going to be a guarantee in place that nobody will suffer birth defects or whole neighborhoods will see increases in cancer and other diseases from exposure to these sites?
I didn't see any sarcasm tags, so I have to ask: are you guys really serious?
- renamerusk likes this
#108
Posted 03 July 2014 - 04:17 PM
I keep thinking about the potential released for several parts of the city if the three railroads (UP, BNSF, and FWWR) could be convinced to work together to combine all north-south tracks east of downtown (a "Union" line) into 4 or 5 tracks that could be grade separated from the UP east-west lines, and then split apart into their respective lines in the south side. This would free the awkward FWWR tracks for commuter use from the Stockyards to Biddison Street. This sort of arrangement might attract some financial support from the Federal DOT, state funding sources, and even from the city if it can get it's house in order. This sort of arrangement would of course free up a lot of acreage downtown, especially where future commuter (and HS?) train approaches and platforms might be needed at the Jones Street Station (ITC).
Hasn't this already been covered in the Tower 55 thread? It's not going to happen unless somebody else picks up the tab. BNSF and UP have already spent what they are willing to spend to upgrade the tower (the upgrade should be complete this fall).
- djold1 likes this
#109
Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:03 PM
Does anyone know, just out of curiosity, if the tunnel [Lamar/Taylor/Hemphill Connector] will be able to accommodate streetcars, if such a thing were to happen in the future?
I have been equally curious about that too. There should definitely be ROW included in a new tunnel to accommodate future transit projects. Along that same subject, I blogged in another thread about the potential use of the Jennings Street Tunnel as a potential ROW for connecting downtown to a southern transit route.
This is why I think that there are various "avenues" in and out of downtown, many already in existence, to accomplish a transit network; and why I think that the idea being floated about that downtown is landlocked by RR and Highways is non-sense.
#110
Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:40 PM
It was shown last night at the public meeting that the new bridges on White Settlement Road and Henderson are both 1) designed to accommodate future transit use and 2) bridging over the FW&W RR which will remove 2 grade crossings. The new north main bridge will also be capable of supporting transit but will not remove the railroad grade crossing.
There are at least 3 places in the United States where rail transit crosses railroad. It is not impossible. The new Hemphill tunnel would be ideal if it can support future transit. As I recall from a previous engineering study, the Main Street underpass has sufficient clearance for rail transit.
- djold1, renamerusk, Austin55 and 1 other like this
#111
Posted 19 August 2014 - 05:05 PM
Portland is building a bridge that bans cars
http://www.citylab.c...ns-cars/378665/
"The bridge will carry MAX light rail trains (the impetus for construction) as well as Portland's streetcar line and city buses, and of course pedestrian and bike lanes on both sides—but no cars."
#113
Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:13 PM
^Me to!
But to be fair, Fort Worth has several bridges that don't allow cars. I understand there's several differences, but we've got a good stock of pedestrian/bicycle only bridges and more on the way with the TRV, and several rail only bridges. It seems like one of those things that's only a big deal because it's portland.
#114
Posted 20 August 2014 - 07:17 AM
^Me to!
But to be fair, Fort Worth has several bridges that don't allow cars. I understand there's several differences, but we've got a good stock of pedestrian/bicycle only bridges and more on the way with the TRV, and several rail only bridges. It seems like one of those things that's only a big deal because it's portland.
It's a big deal because it's a major new bridge project and is multi-modal (rather than just a rail bridge, or just a bike/pedestrian bridge, etc.) but non-car.
- BlueMound likes this
--
Kara B.
#115
Posted 20 August 2014 - 07:53 AM
^Me to!
But to be fair, Fort Worth has several bridges that don't allow cars. I understand there's several differences, but we've got a good stock of pedestrian/bicycle only bridges and more on the way with the TRV, and several rail only bridges. It seems like one of those things that's only a big deal because it's portland.
It's a big deal because it's a major new bridge project and is multi-modal (rather than just a rail bridge, or just a bike/pedestrian bridge, etc.) but non-car.
Also because it cost $134 million (all Federal Grants). Here in Fort Worth we only spend that kind of public money on Rodeo Arenas. (The Tilley Bridge cost $3 million).
#116
Posted 20 August 2014 - 09:37 AM
Also because it cost $134 million (all Federal Grants). Here in Fort Worth we only spend that kind of public money on Rodeo Arenas. (The Tilley Bridge cost $3 million).
Yeah, and as we know, we can't have BOTH a rodeo arena and a modern central-city rail transit service. Powers that be don't want anything competing for mindshare with their rodeo arena.
--
Kara B.
#117
Posted 03 November 2014 - 09:51 AM
Dallas City Manager goes all in on streetcar plan:
http://www.dallasnew...-streetcars.ece
Good golly, when will idiot reporters stop using the "Streetcar Named Desire" pun?
- McHand, Russ Graham and FWFD1247 like this
#118
Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:47 AM
Good for Dallas. I'm glad the Metroplex is going to benefit from the money Fort Worth was too short-sighted to use.
#119
Posted 03 November 2014 - 05:36 PM
"Powers that be don't want anything competing for mindshare with their rodeo arena."
This may or may not be true. However, the new arena adds another good reason to consider a reasonable, useful streetcar system. It will have to be considerably different than the proposals that have come in the past however.
Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
#120
Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:59 PM
"Powers that be don't want anything competing for mindshare with their rodeo arena."
This may or may not be true. However, the new arena adds another good reason to consider a reasonable, useful streetcar system. It will have to be considerably different than the proposals that have come in the past however.
A streetcar line down Lancaster, or parallel immediately to its south, would be blocks closer to the new Arena, and would also be set up to head east towards Texas Wesleyan as a straight shot through downtown Fort Worth. In much of that route, there's a median available on Lancaster which could allow dedicated right of way for the streetcar and faster average speeds. It would make a great east-west route while avoiding at grade crossing of the FWWR tracks west of downtown, and avoiding at grade crossings of the UP, TRE, and BNSF tracks east of downtown too.
#121
Posted 04 November 2014 - 09:46 AM
Not ready yet for track layouts.
My comment was meant to add the new Arena district in as a full partner with downtown and the emerging Stockyards/Panther island district. This changes the aspect of the 7th street development and makes it a connector rather than a final destination. Any previous streetcar plan would have serious problems accommodating the Arena district plans now.
Next question: Should the South side district streetcar development concern itself with just the development of the "village"? Or should it also include serious ability to transport those who work in the medical district. If so, from where to where? Or, should there be a stand alone medical district solution? What percent of patient and worker destinations come from the core downtown area every day?
Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
#122
Posted 04 November 2014 - 10:20 AM
A streetcar line down Lancaster, or parallel immediately to its south, would be blocks closer to the new Arena, and would also be set up to head east towards Texas Wesleyan as a straight shot through downtown Fort Worth.
Not sure if you mean that literally, but I don't see Lancaster as being a convenient route to TWU as far as a streetcar goes - it's 10 blocks from much of the campus, separated by a very active rail line, only one through street between Lancaster and the campus.
I don't disagree with the idea of a streetcar down the median of Lancaster, but it doesn't provide much in the way of connectivity to TWU.
#123
Posted 04 November 2014 - 11:47 AM
Next question: Should the South side district streetcar development concern itself with just the development of the "village"? Or should it also include serious ability to transport those who work in the medical district. If so, from where to where? Or, should there be a stand alone medical district solution?
Don't know how it would work out, but I thought about what it would look like if the Near Southside had a "circulator system" while connecting a line to downtown as well.
I guess the boundaries could be: North = Vickery / East = Main / South = Allen / West = 8th
- RD Milhollin likes this
#124
Posted 02 December 2019 - 10:01 PM
The remnants (no over head power line) of a street car?
Below is a 1938 Photograph from the UTA Libraries Digital Gallery:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users