Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

DART


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:39 PM

I'm sure everyone has seen some of the news about how oversold the DART light rail service to Fair Park was on the Texas-OU weekend. I think I would lay blame both on DART, State Fair and other organizers for excessively touting the rail as the way to get to the game, but I think some blame lays on an uneducated public that doesn't know how to ride. Either way, I don't think DART can meet the unrealistic expectation that they purchase a bunch of additional equipment to handle occasional crush crowds. Light rail is just one tool in the toolbox that must be coordinated with buses and private automobiles. I hope that those people responsible for the Fort Worth streetcar circulator keep this incident in mind when planning for service to large venues that may be on the new system. Decent summary from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:


After State Fair fiasco, transit agencies face 16-month deadline to get faith in system back on track
By GORDON DICKSON
gdickson@star-telegram.com

Jeff Scoggins of Fort Worth says he has taken his last train ride in North Texas.

"I won’t put my fate in the public transportation system’s hands anymore," Scoggins, 34, said this week, recounting how he spent three hours stranded on a train platform and crammed into an overcrowded rail car last weekend getting to the Texas-OU football game in Dallas.

"I won’t be fooled twice."

That’s bad news for 2011 Super Bowl planners. They will be relying on the region’s mass transit system to ferry up to 50,000 people to events in Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving and possibly Grapevine. Failure at any point along the transit grid could stain Dallas-Fort Worth’s standing as a host city for decades to come.

After the Red River Rivalry fiasco, when several thousand riders missed part or all of the game because of overcrowding and confusion on the rail system, North Texas officials say they must mend their transportation reputation before the Big Game, in less than 16 months.

"It’s true that often in public transit you have one chance to get the customer, and it’s no different than opening a new restaurant," said Michael Morris, transportation director for the North Central Texas Council of Governments. "Our hope is the riders won’t have one bad experience and not return to our transportation system."

(Click article title to read rest of the story on www.startelegram.com)
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#2 cbellomy

cbellomy

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Meadowbrook

Posted 23 October 2009 - 12:12 AM

I'm a little surprised DART didn't see this coming. Ridership on the Green Line to get to the Fair on *Monday* was very high. They could and should have warned folks going to the game that capacity getting to Fair Park on Saturday was going to be limited.

I'm a transportation neophyte, but it seems to me that this also illustrates the problem with serving major destinations with only one line -- the choke point is extremely narrow. Of course, Jerryworld has zero lines running to it, so I don't really see how the Super Bowl is going to be a comparable event for rail.

#3 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 23 October 2009 - 09:48 PM

There''s no way light rail trains will be going to Arlington in 16 months. They're talking about using TRE commuter trains on UP tracks. The only stations being used for the Super Bowl by the TRE will be FWITC and Union Station, with two tracks available for trains at both stations, and a temporary platform presumably on the north track somewhere in Arlington near Cowboy's Stadium. There will no no other stations, therefore they'll be like Expresses to Arlington. With up to 400 passengers per bi-level car, I'm pretty sure TRE could move many passengers to Arlington from both cities. How many is the question?

TRE Fleet configuration
6 locomotives
10 bi-level coaches
7 cab cars

Assuming they use every bi-level car and left one locomotive as a spare, TRE could have 5 trains running on Super Bowl weekend on the UP line.
Loco - coach - coach - cab - cab (1600 passengers)
Loco - coach - coach - cab - cab (1600 passengers)
Loco - coach - coach - cab (1200 passengers)
Loco - coach - coach - cab (1200 passengers)
Loco - coach - coach - cab (1200 passengers)

That's 6800 passengers total for one trip to Arlington (a half hour after leaving Dallas or Forth Worth).
It'll take another half hour to reach Dallas or Forth Worth again, and another half hour to return to Arlington when another 6800 passengers would arrive in Arlington total of an hour). Again, another hour will elapse before the trains could reach Arlington again.
Therefore, in two and a half hours from each train initial start, each train could deliver 3 train loads in Arlington.
6800 x 3 = 20,400 passengers in three hours is what these trains could deliver. It'll take slightly less time to load the same number of fans onto the trains in Arlington, but as long to get them to Dallas or Forth Worth......

Will 20,400 fans be enough? No one knows yet.

If the TRE can not get access to the UP mainline that weekend, they shouldn't look at running buses from the TRE line to Cowboy's Stadium. At 47 passengers per bus, they will need to move 435 bus loads the 6 miles between the TRE line and the Stadium.
20,400 / 47 = 434+

To add, 10 of the 13 TRE Budd cars will be leased to DCTA. I'm assuming DCTA will be using some of them that weekend, the rest will be needed by the TRE to service its normal line.

#4 Jamie

Jamie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Electricron @ Oct 23 2009, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...With up to 400 passengers per bi-level car, I'm pretty sure TRE could move many passengers to Arlington from both cities. How many is the question...


Thanks of the analysis. Interesting calculations. A few comments:

1. The actual seats per car on the TRE can range from 136 to 162 (according to wiki). The 400 passegers per car on the TRE is near "crush capacity" which (interestingly) Bombardier no longer advertizes as part of their specs on the website (unless they moved it somewhere).
If I were a planner I would never allow more than 200 per car for such a trip. All it would take is one grade crossing accident to strand a train full of 1600 people for an hour or more to create another "fiasco".
As pessimistic as I am by nature, I would assume the worse case scenario and develop a contingency plan accordingly.

2. The Bombardier bi-level cars are basically standard and additional cars could possibly be borrowed from other agencies. Salt Lake City, Seattle-Tacoma, and others have done this in the past.

3. Jerryworld is about 3/4 mile from the tracks. Not everyone can walk that far. Perhaps Six Flags could rent out their tractor-trams for a special event? In any case, Division Street should probably be closed between Collins and Stadium drive due to the hoards of pedestrians.

#5 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 24 October 2009 - 11:30 PM

How many more people than seats will be allowed in the new stadium for the Super-Dooper Bowl? I don't think that the stadium management, team management and owner, the Arlington police, or the fire marshall will allow a repeat of the opening game free-for-all where standing room only tickets were oversold. As much as I advocate transit that game was successfully loaded and unloaded using personal autos and express buses. The people living and doing business along the neighboring streets were inconvenienced (or shut down) for several hours, but perhaps that is the price of progress (sarcasm). The ideas of running trains from the urban centers and providing shuttle services (other than bicycabs) from the tracks to the stadium are all good, but not vital to bringing in the crowds and then dispersing them. This is a useful exercise in planning, but would not seem to have real-life applications for this event.

#6 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 26 October 2009 - 07:33 AM

PP beat me by a day with the analysis on the need for rail transportation to the Super Bowl. I have to pretty much agree with everything he said about the game.

If you consider for a moment, most Super Bowls have been held in Southern cities that have not had any public transportation beyond busses. I went to two at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, which is in a residential neighborhood and there were no problems getting the 100,000+ people and Michael Jackson to the game, on busses.

The Super Bowl is like a golf tournament, instead of tailgaters, most of the parking is given over to corporate tents and entertainment venues. The corporate folks are luxury coached in hours before the game to take part in the festivities. There will be a few individuals that might get a plain old ticket and the T bus from the T&P station will work fine. I suspect 20,000 TRE riders to the game is a high number.

I do think the TRE could play an important role in the week leading up to the game as people shuttle between events in Dallas and Ft Worth. I could see several thousand folks in Ft Worth heading down to the station all trying to get to Dallas at once for an event. smile.gif



#7 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 26 October 2009 - 06:50 PM

The problem last week was a combination of riders and DART. But before anyone goes off on DART, it was their first time. Things that are the same from the first time as the most recent time mean there has been no improvement and it is rare.

Riders should know that you don't try to get to the game 1 hour beforehand. Some also could have used alternate means, such as walking to or using a bike.

If Mr. Scoggins doesn't want to spend three hours on the train, fine next time he can spend 3 hours by car.

The car that had a breaker trip caused a 12-minute delay on that particular train, but the repercussions were felt for hours as the system worked to recover from the backup. When that train broke down, it caused all trains on the transit mall to stall, losing their windows.

I think DART could have done some things different, but hindsight is 20/20.
There were two choke points that day, Victory Station, both because the TRE was dumping passengers, and the parking lots operators by Victory Station were charging for parking. The other was Pearl Station, where the Red and Blue Lines were dumping off passengers.

The first thing I would do is to run express trains from the terminus at Parker Road and Downtown Garland Stations and make regular stops all the way to Cityplace. From there it doesn't stop until Fair Park, then heads to the S&I yard. That would alleviate the choke point at Pearl partially-mostly, as some would still use the existing lines.

Similarly, run an express train from 8th and Corinth through the S&I yard to Fair Park or better yet MLK Station.

I would see if UP would negotiate and let the TRE run on its tracks for that day and setup a temporary station on the east side of Fair Park. If that were to happen, that entirely eliminates the Victory choke point. If not, have some passengers get off at Victory and the rest at Union and run a special event train from Union to FP or MLK through the S&I yard.

When returning home, the TRE needs more frequent scheduling. If someone misses the train for overcrowding, an hour and a half wait is killer.

Advertise that people are going to the State Fair, come early before the game and stay late after and enjoy the atmosphere.

Buses would be near useless. The seating capacity is roughly 45, standing room is about 65-70. To carry the same amount of LRT passengers, there would need to be 5 buses for every one train. Those buses would then sit in traffic, taking at least an hour to make the round trip. So if the trains are running once every ten minutes (which I hope it would be closer to 5), there would need to be 30 buses to carry the capacity of six trains. If the other options are in place, buses become a mute point.

#8 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 26 October 2009 - 09:06 PM

DART reports over 90,000 train riders that Saturday, three times normal Saturday ridership. Let's assume there are 30,000 regular riders, that means 60,000 extra riders were going to the Sate Fair, not all of them specifically for the football game.

A train tripping a circuit breaker did mess up the sequencing of the trains through downtown Dallas. Another significant cause for delays not expected was the 5 minutes it took to get all the passengers off the over-crowded trains at Fair Park. The idea that DART could decrease headways to shorter than 5 minutes can't be done because that's how long it takes to all the passengers off the trains.

At 4,000 rider per hour per rail corridor, there's no way the Green Line can get that many riders to Fair Park in three hours prior to kickoff, or in three hours after the game ends. If Downtown Dallas is where the attraction is, DART can get 20,000 riders per hour there over 5 different rail corridors (northern and southern legs of the Blue/Red/Green lines counted separately) today, and 25,000 when the northern leg of the Green Line is completed. When the Orange Line enters service, up to 30,000 riders per hour can reach downtown Dallas.

Fair Park isn't located in downtown Dallas, where all the rail lines converge. It's located on the southern leg of the Green Line. DART's rail system wasn't designed specifically for getting hoards of passengers to Fair Park, it's designed to get lots of weekday commuters to downtown Dallas to work and back home.

I'm sure DART can find some way to increase capacity to Fair Park in the future. Interlining lines with Special trains will help some, but obviously using the alternate route through the maintenance yard would help most.....

#9 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 09 June 2010 - 05:01 PM

On December 6 of this year, the Green Line will open. While that isn't news to some, what may be is that the Orange Line will begin as well.

The route will run from Bachman Station to Lawnview during non-peak hours and from Bachman to Parker Road during peak hours. Peak hour Red Line trains that had previously terminated at the Cedars will be converted to Orange Line trains, meaning the transit mall will see no new increases in trains in the peak direction and six new trains in the non-peak direction. That will max out the capacity of the downtown transit mall. Any new rail line would need to either have a new downtown routing or terminate at an outlying rail station.

#10 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 08:56 AM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Jun 9 2010, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
On December 6 of this year, the Green Line will open. While that isn't news to some, what may be is that the Orange Line will begin as well. That will max out the capacity of the downtown transit mall. Any new rail line would need to either have a new downtown routing or terminate at an outlying rail station.


I'm not so sure DART will max out the capacity of the downtown transit corridor, upcoming cuts for DART caused by the bad economy and poor sales tax revenues may change 12 trains per hour per line to 5 trains per hour per line. (A train every 5 minutes to a train every 12 minutes). With 4 rail lines going through the downtown transit corridor, and using a train every 12 minutes for each line, that's a train every 3 minutes in each direction coming from all the lines. That's a decision that hasn't been made by the DART Board yet, but some cuts in service should be expected.

My chart for number of trains per hour and headways between trains
5 trains per hour = 12 minute headways between trains
6 trains per hour = 10 minute headways between trains
8 trains per hour = 7.5 minute headways between trains
10 trains per hour = 6 minute headways between trains
12 trains per hour = 5 minute headways between trains
15 trains per hour = 4 minute headways between trains
20 trains per hour = 3 minute headways between trains
24 trains per hour = 2.5 minute headways between trains
30 trains per hour = 2 minute headways between trains

I think DART is looking at increasing headways to 10 or 12 minutes on each line, routing the Orange line northeast or southeast to decrease headways when needed.


#11 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 09:38 AM

Dude, 10 minute headways on 4 line reaches the capacity of the transit mall.

#12 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 04:00 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Jun 10 2010, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dude, 10 minute headways on 4 line reaches the capacity of the transit mall.

I agree with 10 minute headways on each line if the downtown street mall is designed for a train every 2.5 minutes. But, it's possible DART may cut light rail services back to 12 minute or more headways for each line to reduce more costs. That's the decision the DART board will make later.

#13 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 01 January 2011 - 09:32 AM

But, it's possible DART may cut light rail services back to 12 minute or more headways for each line to reduce more costs. That's the decision the DART board will make later.

DART's board has decided to reduce headways to every 15 minutes on every line during the rush. That's 4 trains an hour in each direction.
In the downtown streetmall, with 4 lines sharing the tracks, that's a train every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
Where 3 lines share the tracks, that's a train every 5 minutes.
Where 2 lines share the tracks, that's a train every 7 and a half minutes.

#14 ron4Life

ron4Life

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Tarrant County

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:55 AM

Maybe someone has brought this up, but I've notice while heading down Hwy 114 east that train tracks are being layed on the northside of the airport.



#15 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:20 PM

Those are the DART tracks. The foundations for the station in front of Terminal A are complete and construction on the station is underway. The traffic around the FedEx office is nuts due to the construction of the light-rail bridges, but they are almost complete. 



#16 ron4Life

ron4Life

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Tarrant County

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:10 PM

Those are the DART tracks. The foundations for the station in front of Terminal A are complete and construction on the station is underway. The traffic around the FedEx office is nuts due to the construction of the light-rail bridges, but they are almost complete.

Interesting. Its the fact that I heard that the TEX Rail will arrive on the northside of the airport, soooo... Well anyway thanks for the clearification.



#17 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:50 PM

The plan for TEXRail that I saw once had the line terminating in front of DFW Terminal B, and an enclosed walkway/moving sidewalk scheme was to connect the two train stations and allow passengers from each rail line to access the airport. Not sure how baggage would be checked for rail passengers unless they just drug it along to the ticket counters in the terminals. Seems it would be good marketing for AA to have a station-side bag checkin for transit passengers at the train stations so they could just walk with carry-ons through security to their planes.

 

Perhaps transit riders don't check bags...



#18 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:22 PM

What Houston has learned from its light rail

 

“The kind of rail we’re building in Houston is very unlike what most cities are doing,” said Christof Spieler, a board member at the Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority, or Metro, in a phone interview with Next City. “Most cities are essentially building park-and-ride-oriented systems, building as far out as they can through low-density areas.” (Dallas and Austin’s next planned light rail line spring to mind.) “We’re really staying in the core, trying to put stations in walkable places. The kind of ridership we’re getting is so impressive.

 

http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/houston-heads-west-as-light-rail-goes-east-with-buses-to-plug-the-gap1



#19 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:24 AM

Houston has amongst the lowest light rail fares in the country boosting ridership statistics. 

DART charges $5 for a local day pass, $10 for a regional day pass, and METRO charges $3 for a day pass, note that's $2 less.

They have been able to get away with the low fares because their one line was just 8 miles in length and having significantly lower operating costs - compared to DART's 90+ mile system of 4 lines. Metro has been spending around $17 million for O&M for rail, DART has been spending $150+ million for O&M for rail - mainly because the rail system has 8 to 9 times as much track..

 

DART's massive system has 103,100 riders 4th Quarter 2012. METRO's small system 38,300 riders.

 

METRO's system is getting larger as I write this, with the recent opening of the North extension, and soon to be open East and Southeast lines. 

 

Dallas has barely control of 50+% of DART's board while Houston has control of over 75% of METRO's board. Just the board makeup of the two transit agencies results in building two entirely different rail systems. 

 

METRO's trains almost exclusively run in city streets, while DART's trains run mostly in pre-existing rail corridors. Therefore, DART's train maintain a higher average speed which makes it more attractive to suburban commuters (remember its board makeup). Exclusive street running that METRO uses causes shorter line lengths because of their slower average speeds. 

 

So, how slow are both systems?

METRO's (Red) 12.8 miles (7.5+5.3) in 59 minutes = averaging 13 mph

DART's (Red) 31 miles (19+12) in 65 minutes = averaging 28 mph.

Note: Distance and elapse times found at the agencies web sites.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that DART wanted to build a light rail system that reached the suburbs, METRO did not. Looking at their boards explains the political decisions completely. 



#20 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,126 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:17 AM

DART's light rail is sort of serving two roles - it both moves commuters long distances to and from the periphery, *and* functions as an urban light rail system closer in to the central city.  As you would expect, the positive development changes on the DART lines happen in the central city.

 

And, of course, Dallas is adding more streetcars to the mix - both extending the M-line and adding the Oak Cliff line.


--

Kara B.

 


#21 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:43 AM

DART's light rail is sort of serving two roles - it both moves commuters long distances to and from the periphery, *and* functions as an urban light rail system closer in to the central city.  As you would expect, the positive development changes on the DART lines happen in the central city.

 

 

Sounds a lot like the MAX in Portland.

 

 

 

And, of course, Dallas is adding more streetcars to the mix - both extending the M-line and adding the Oak Cliff line.

 

I'm sure my friends in Oak Cliff will send a thank you note to Fort Worth once their streetcar is up and running. And we'll really get to see TOD take off once that happens. We really showed those Feds who is boss!! :rolleyes:



#22 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:16 AM

 

DART's light rail is sort of serving two roles - it both moves commuters long distances to and from the periphery, *and* functions as an urban light rail system closer in to the central city.  As you would expect, the positive development changes on the DART lines happen in the central city.

 

 

Sounds a lot like the MAX in Portland.

One may find huge park & ride lots in the suburbs for DART, but you will not find huge parking lots near many of DART's stations in downtown Dallas, nor at their few "Kiss & Ride" stations. That's an advantage light rail posses, the ability to be very flexible; the ability to go up and over, to stay at grade, to remain in the street, and to go down and under allows light rail to have stations blocks apart, or miles apart when necessary. 

 

Commuter rail lines like the TRE as so heavy and slow that to maintain a higher average speed they usually have stations placed miles apart. But "light" commuter trains can have stations blocks apart too, look at NJT's Riverline through downtown Camden. The Riverline uses shorter GTWs that DCTA uses, and what some believe is strongly favored by DART and FWTA for the Cotton Belt rail projects (east and west). GTWs can be bought with either diesel and electric drives - although the DFW area will favor diesels for some time. Never-the-less, in the future some of these commuter lines can be electrified and different GTWs ordered to run on them. 

 

DART, DCTA, and FWTA aren't building rail lines exclusively to generate TODs. Their primary purpose is to move people, and more people need moving during the commuting hours. The transit agencies encourage TODs near their stations, but they aren't in the business to rebuild DFW. That's the responsibility of city hall, county commissioners, and private enterprise. The transit agencies primary job is to provide transit that allows TODs to grow.

 

When given a choice, private enterprise is going to favor building TODs where there are more passengers riding the trains. Usually, more trains per day at any particular station equates to more passengers per day. 

 

As for why DART builds huge park & ride lots in the suburbs, all one has to do is look at the number of bus routes and bus headways in the suburbs, there's little to none. Park & ride lots are needed at the suburban stations if they expect any significant riders to use the train there. 



#23 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:51 AM

DART rail line to open DFW Airport Station in August; ahead of schedule and under budget!

 

http://www.star-tele...w-airports.html



#24 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 25 March 2014 - 11:04 AM

Meanwhile in Fort Worth...

#25 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:36 PM

Vote NO for continuing the CCPD! May 10, 2014



#26 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:50 PM

Vote NO for continuing the CCPD! May 10, 2014


Is there a spot to vote Yes for transportation district?

#27 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:42 PM

Wouldn't that have to come after the vote on the CCPD? There would be no "overhead" for a Transportation District unless the 1/2 cent tax increment was vacated by the Crime Control and Prevention District so it could be used for transportation. Other taxes (property most likely) would also probably have to be raised to cover the loss of revenue by the police department, unless they could continue doing their job but with fewer toys. I don't live in Fort Worth proper, but would easily vote to eliminate my city's CCPD in favor of improved transportation. In the case of Haltom City it would most likely take the form of joining The T with a couple of bus lines across the town and the hope for a station on the TEXRail when complete.



#28 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 March 2014 - 10:52 PM

It's the chicken or egg thing. But we can't even talk about funding transportation or anything else until we get rid of the CCPD bloat.



#29 RenaissanceMan

RenaissanceMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 March 2014 - 06:59 AM

It's the chicken or egg thing. But we can't even talk about funding transportation or anything else until we get rid of the CCPD bloat.


Generally, I agree. But the truth is that once taxes are lowered, you have a very tough time convincing voters to accept a new one (even if it simply and almost immediately takes taxes back to the original level). I just can't wrap my head around how you actually get it through.

#30 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 29 March 2014 - 03:30 PM

DART rail line to open DFW Airport Station in August; ahead of schedule and under budget!

 

http://www.star-tele...w-airports.html

 

30 Year Anniversary:

 

http://www.dallasnew...owing-pains.ece



#31 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:19 PM

Can Houston learn to love light rail ?

http://www.theatlant...ight-rail/8820/

 

Light rail will function as "the spines that funnel the bus system together," says Spieler, and greatly increase the appeal of a carless commute in Houston.

The train lines will operate in concert with both the local bus network, in the process of a much-awaited redesign, and a park-and-ride bus system reputed as one of Houston's best-kept transit secrets. 



#32 BlueMound

BlueMound

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,260 posts

Posted 21 April 2014 - 11:38 PM

Dart might cut services if federal fund becomes insolvent.
http://m.bizjournals...if-federal.html

#33 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 July 2014 - 11:15 AM

Dallas's DFW connection is complete, 4 months ahead of schedule, and under budget...

 

http://blogs.dallaso...conventions.php

 

(sigh)

 

 

Just how does one store their luggage aboard a DART train?  I would imagine that the trains will have more of an impact upon those who are employed at the airport than those who are taking or arriving on a flight.



#34 Dylan

Dylan

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 10 July 2014 - 01:28 PM

Considering DFW is one of the world's largest airports, I would imagine there are a lot of people employed there.


-Dylan


#35 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts

Posted 10 July 2014 - 03:08 PM

Considering DFW is one of the world's largest airports, I would imagine there are a lot of people employed there.

 

Absolutely. According to yesterday's Dallas Morning News article, 143,000 people either work at the airport or are based out of it.



#36 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:47 AM

Agreements for trackage rights for TEXRail over DART tracks from the Stockyards to Grapevine have been approved by the T-Board, actual signing should be completed over the next couple of weeks. Does anyone know what the "Madill and Lumber Yard" property is?

 

http://www.star-tele...ly-reached.html



#37 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairmount

Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:10 AM

Looks like the Madill Corridor runs to Madill OK.

 

They are probably talking about a section of track in Carrollton.  Start reading at page 11 of this pdf ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/high_speed/04_2011/dart/prelim_eng_doc.pdf for a description of the line.  It appears that everyone owns a little of the tracks through the corridor.

 

It's also mentioned here concerning a water pipeline http://www.ci.dallas...-14/14-0431.PDF



#38 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:42 AM

A portion of the BNSF Madill Subdivision is owned and maintained by DART (from the wye at Irving to Carrollton Interlocking). BNSF and DGNO have trackage rights over this portion of DART rails.



#39 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 02:49 PM

Without reading the Board minutes for FWTA and DART, I would think DART would like to have full ownership of the Madill line that's 100% located in Dallas County. The old Rock Island line between Dallas and Fort Worth that the TRE runs on is owned 50% by DART and FWTA. The Madill line present ownership follows the same split. Transferring ownership of the Madill line should save FWTA with the lease payments for running trains on the old Cotton Belt line.  It will also eliminate one party (i.e. FWTA) in future negotiations commencing passenger rail services to Frisco, which should make that task easier to accomplish. 



#40 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:16 AM

The old Rock Island line that runs between Dallas and Fort Worth that the TRE runs on is owned 50% by the City of Fort Worth and 50% by the City of Dallas. As I recall, the purchase was made in the late 1970s/early 80s in anticipation of future transit service. Anyone running on that line pays fees to those cities. Kinda screwed up how the cities want transit service but use the route as a cash cow. DART got smart and started purchasing their own right-of-ways.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#41 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:10 PM

Without reading the Board minutes for FWTA and DART, I would think DART would like to have full ownership of the Madill line that's 100% located in Dallas County. The old Rock Island line between Dallas and Fort Worth that the TRE runs on is owned 50% by DART and FWTA. The Madill line present ownership follows the same split. Transferring ownership of the Madill line should save FWTA with the lease payments for running trains on the old Cotton Belt line.  It will also eliminate one party (i.e. FWTA) in future negotiations commencing passenger rail services to Frisco, which should make that task easier to accomplish. 

I'm sure BNSF would have something to say about this, since BNSF owns the Madill Subdivision north of the Carrollton Interlocking. This is a pretty significant route for BNSF and I'm not sure the route would be sold without major concessions. In my opinion, a better idea would be to utilize existing highway right-of-way for transit projects between Dallas and Frisco.



#42 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 24 July 2014 - 12:04 AM

If Frisco was to join DART I would agree. But I don't think they will anytime soon. Frisco is so far removed from downtown Dallas that a light rail line would take forever to get there - both in construction and operation. 

 

Most likely, Frisco could join DCTA and it's A-Train could be routed to Frisco after reaching downtown Carrollton along the BNSF owned corridor. Part of Frisco is in Denton County - just like part of Carrollton is, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for DCTA to expand its services to Frisco.  

 

Even if Frisco were to join DART, a branch off the future Cotton Belt line could be done - reducing the amount of track DART would have to improve to reach Frisco by 75%. DART would have the option to run either regional rail on the tracks or light rail on new track built parallel to the existing tracks - it would still be far less tracks than a brand new light rail line all the way to downtown Dallas paralleling the Dallas North Tollway. 

I'm sure BNSF would have something to say about this, since BNSF owns the Madill Subdivision north of the Carrollton Interlocking. This is a pretty significant route for BNSF and I'm not sure the route would be sold without major concessions. In my opinion, a better idea would be to utilize existing highway right-of-way for transit projects between Dallas and Frisco.

 



#43 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 24 July 2014 - 08:49 AM

 

If Frisco was to join DART I would agree.....Frisco could join DART......

 

I will not shed a tear if and when TexRail collapses. It is TCC-Downtown on steroids. :blink:



#44 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 24 July 2014 - 07:06 PM

 

If Frisco was to join DART I would agree. But I don't think they will anytime soon. Frisco is so far removed from downtown Dallas that a light rail line would take forever to get there - both in construction and operation. 

 

Most likely, Frisco could join DCTA and it's A-Train could be routed to Frisco after reaching downtown Carrollton along the BNSF owned corridor. Part of Frisco is in Denton County - just like part of Carrollton is, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for DCTA to expand its services to Frisco.  

 

Even if Frisco were to join DART, a branch off the future Cotton Belt line could be done - reducing the amount of track DART would have to improve to reach Frisco by 75%. DART would have the option to run either regional rail on the tracks or light rail on new track built parallel to the existing tracks - it would still be far less tracks than a brand new light rail line all the way to downtown Dallas paralleling the Dallas North Tollway. 

I'm sure BNSF would have something to say about this, since BNSF owns the Madill Subdivision north of the Carrollton Interlocking. This is a pretty significant route for BNSF and I'm not sure the route would be sold without major concessions. In my opinion, a better idea would be to utilize existing highway right-of-way for transit projects between Dallas and Frisco.

 

 

 

I'm not really tuned into what's going on in Frisco, but I haven't read anything about citizens clamoring for public transportation solutions to their traffic woes. Is it likely that Frisco will join DART or DCTA or more likely that Frisco won't join anything at all?

 

I certainly don't mean to pick on you, but why do I get the impression that people see freight railroads and think they are the only viable option for future light rail/commuter rail or even streetcar routes? Is it because Fort Worth and Dallas bought the former Burlington-Rock Island when the CRI&P sold its assets in bankruptcy that people are just inclined to think any freight railroad is fair game?

 

Several of the freight corridors I see talked about here are difficult to squeeze more freight trains on, let alone any proposed passenger vehicles. The Cotton Belt corridor is one of the rare exceptions, since it has few online customers and even less traffic now than when Cotton Belt was running two locals daily over twenty years ago. From Hodge Yard in Northside to Carrollton the right-of-way is there and so are the neighborhoods, businesses and attractive destinations at either end. I think it's more than a minor problem that none of the cities where this ideal future passenger train runs participate in the deal other than Grapevine, but so be it. The real problem - the expensive problem - with the Cotton Belt route is getting from Hodge Yard/Tower 60 to anywhere else in Fort Worth without dealing with a maze of active (read: busy) freight railroads. That should have been addressed when Tower 55 was in the design phase, but that horse has left the barn. Now either a vehicle that's compatible with freight railroads will need to be used or the route will need to be grade-separated from the other railroads.

 

Anyway, even with its inherent problems and problems brought on by mismanagement, poor timing and a total lack of foresight, the Cotton Belt corridor is one where I agree that a freight corridor is a good candidate for a passenger/commuter corridor. The other routes that come up in discussion periodically are not. I realize that the Madill Subdivision may seem like a sleepy freight railroad that time forgot or something like that, but I can assure you it's far from it. It operates at near capacity and is the major conduit for aggregate and other construction materials into the Dallas area. It's also handling as much overflow from the Tower 55 project as it can (which will hopefully, thankfully, end in a couple months). The UP Choctaw Subdivision was brought up the other day and it's another one that's very busy. Busy enough that the long term plan is to double track the entire thing from Denison to Fort Worth (at least that's the rumor on the railroad). The BNSF Fort Worth Subdivision from Cleburne to Gainesville is also a mess, even with the cutbacks in traffic for Tower 55. Like the Choctaw Subdivision, construction is underway to expand the current configuration to two main tracks over a longer run that currently exists.

 

The modifications required to operate passenger vehicles on some of these routes aren't going to be cheap, either. Just for starters, there is no signal system in place on the Cotton Belt or the Madill Subdivision between Sherman and Irving, not even a basic system that can be upgraded. If these routes are going to be shared with freight trains, a more substantial vehicle is required than the Stadler vehicle or its contemporaries (I don't care about waivers, a waiver won't save you in a derailment or collision, only a stronger vehicle like the Bombardier railcars TRE uses).

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to pick on you, Electricron. I enjoy your posts and respect your opinion.



#45 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts

Posted 24 July 2014 - 08:40 PM

Several of the freight corridors I see talked about here are difficult to squeeze more freight trains on, let alone any proposed passenger vehicles. The Cotton Belt corridor is one of the rare exceptions, since it has few online customers and even less traffic now than when Cotton Belt was running two locals daily over twenty years ago. From Hodge Yard in Northside to Carrollton the right-of-way is there and so are the neighborhoods, businesses and attractive destinations at either end. I think it's more than a minor problem that none of the cities where this ideal future passenger train runs participate in the deal other than Grapevine, but so be it. The real problem - the expensive problem - with the Cotton Belt route is getting from Hodge Yard/Tower 60 to anywhere else in Fort Worth without dealing with a maze of active (read: busy) freight railroads. That should have been addressed when Tower 55 was in the design phase, but that horse has left the barn. Now either a vehicle that's compatible with freight railroads will need to be used or the route will need to be grade-separated from the other railroads.

 

Anyway, even with its inherent problems and problems brought on by mismanagement, poor timing and a total lack of foresight, the Cotton Belt corridor is one where I agree that a freight corridor is a good candidate for a passenger/commuter corridor. The other routes that come up in discussion periodically are not. I realize that the Madill Subdivision may seem like a sleepy freight railroad that time forgot or something like that, but I can assure you it's far from it. It operates at near capacity and is the major conduit for aggregate and other construction materials into the Dallas area. It's also handling as much overflow from the Tower 55 project as it can (which will hopefully, thankfully, end in a couple months). The UP Choctaw Subdivision was brought up the other day and it's another one that's very busy. Busy enough that the long term plan is to double track the entire thing from Denison to Fort Worth (at least that's the rumor on the railroad). The BNSF Fort Worth Subdivision from Cleburne to Gainesville is also a mess, even with the cutbacks in traffic for Tower 55. Like the Choctaw Subdivision, construction is underway to expand the current configuration to two main tracks over a longer run that currently exists.

 

The modifications required to operate passenger vehicles on some of these routes aren't going to be cheap, either. Just for starters, there is no signal system in place on the Cotton Belt or the Madill Subdivision between Sherman and Irving, not even a basic system that can be upgraded. If these routes are going to be shared with freight trains, a more substantial vehicle is required than the Stadler vehicle or its contemporaries (I don't care about waivers, a waiver won't save you in a derailment or collision, only a stronger vehicle like the Bombardier railcars TRE uses).

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to pick on you, Electricron. I enjoy your posts and respect your opinion.

 

You're probably correct as the freight corridors exist today. Just about all of them are 100 feet wide, sufficient to install 4 to 5 tracks within. The fame Amtrak NEC maxes out at 4 mainline tracks in NJ, 3 mainline tracks in CT, and has only 2 mainline tracks most everywhere else. 

 

The DART owned Cotton Belt isn't going to be double tracked far, as the mainline will be shared. On the portions owned by the UP, Tex Rail is laying a separate track for passenger trains 25 feet away from UP's existing mainline, except for a very small section of already existing quad track west of the T&P terminal - which by the way Tex Rail isn't building for initial services. What Tex Rail plans to do on FWWR tracks southwest of downtown Fort Worth can wait, because it too isn't being built for initial services either. Never-the-less, shared double track or separated freight and passenger tracks within the corridor can be physically built within the corridor.  The reason why the entire capital budget for the entire project is over a $Billion - Tex Rail will be installing new tracks in all the corridors adding "capacity" to them. Therefore, fears that the corridors capacity can't be expanded upon are overblown, but it will cost money, all that's needed is to lay more tracks and install signals to control the trains on them. 

 

​I will admit that running passenger trains on freight corridors in large numbers will cause conflicts with freight trains, even with additional tracks and signals. But I strongly believe those conflicts can be managed with proper cooperation between TexRail, DART, and the freight railroads. The TRE manages to handle all those freight trains heading to and from the Madill corridor and all the TRE passenger trains, and it's not completely double tracked. So I'm fairly sure the Madill corridor owned by BNSF can handle additional passenger trains if the proper amount of double tracking is added. The only rail corridor that has limited capacity to add more trains on it is the UP corridor between Dallas and Fort Worth. It's already double tracked, any additional passenger trains placed on it will require triple tracking much of it. The GM factory in Arlington is the major choke point, and with the existing freight yard within the corridor, there isn't much room to add an additional mainline track there within the corridor. Of course, there's always the possibility that whichever transit agency builds a passenger train line on it will be able to purchase additional land to the north to make room for an additional mainline track. Again, at considerable expense. So, every freight corridor in the Dallas - Fort Worth can have passenger trains added. Whether the local transit agencies can afford what the freight railroads will demand is the question remaining unanswered. 

 

There's a difference between possibility, probability, and affordability. 



#46 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:29 PM

You're probably correct as the freight corridors exist today. Just about all of them are 100 feet wide, sufficient to install 4 to 5 tracks within. The fame Amtrak NEC maxes out at 4 mainline tracks in NJ, 3 mainline tracks in CT, and has only 2 mainline tracks most everywhere else.

 

The NEC is an older railroad corridor built by private companies in the distant past. Since it was built for speed, the curves are broad. The Pennsylvania and New Haven had only each other and other railroads to compete with, not automobiles and tollways and airlines. I doubt such a feat of engineering could be constructed in the US today. Perry tried to push something like this with the Trans Texas Corridor - which to be fair was a lot more than a combined rail corridor - but we saw how far that went.

 

Getting back to stuffing four or five tracks in a 100-foot cross-section of railroad right-of-way, yes, you can build the tracks on 15 foot centers (that's the minimum, but 25 feet is preferred and is now the norm). How far from the exterior of the outer railcar is sufficient to the edge of the right-of-way and what protections are there for the public and private landowners adjacent to the corridor? How far from the exterior of say, DART's light rail vehicles is the edge of the right-of-way and what minimum protections are provided?

 

My main concern with these combined freight/passenger corridors is safety of the passengers and the communities nearby. I'm sure you've noticed that freight rail is getting a bad rap for the recent high profile oil train derailments. How comfortable are people with traveling on the same tracks or next to tracks with freight trains carrying ethanol, chlorine, low flash point crude oil, anhydrous ammonia and so on? There has been an uproar in some places about these commodities being moved through town. I can only imagine the uproar if people knew they were riding the rails with these trains.

 

 

The TRE manages to handle all those freight trains heading to and from the Madill corridor and all the TRE passenger trains, and it's not completely double tracked.

 

Except that it doesn't. BNSF in particular is limited significantly by the TRE, which only allows certain windows for running trains. The answer is often to reroute the train to already congested corridors. Sundays are usually the answer, but even then I've been held up by the TRE dispatcher because they were running special event commuter trains.

 

 

So I'm fairly sure the Madill corridor owned by BNSF can handle additional passenger trains if the proper amount of double tracking is added.

 

It's dark territory - no signals - and it handles unit rock trains with unloading points in several cities such as Irving, Carrollton and Frisco. These are slow, lumbering trains that enter, exit and move within these facilities at less than five miles per hour. These are real choke points that prevent any serious development of this corridor, other than the movement of TRE's RDCs to the DCTA before their Stadler cars were operating, and those cars moved during the wee hours of the morning with no passengers. Work on this territory has been going on for years, most of which is maintenance necessary to repair the damage done by these heavy trains, but even the upgrades come at a staggering cost and add little improvement to velocity. Adding a signal system, a second track, and isolating the loading and unloading operations that dominate this territory will come at a massive cost. 

 

Not for nothing, but these parallel tollways and overhead access ramps and cantilevered roadways over existing highways can't be cheap. The right-of-way is there on the highway and it comes with none of the hurdles the Madill Sub. presents. Not only that, it's owned by us, the taxpayers, not a private railroad. But again, I didn't think there was a need for passenger rail to be built between Frisco and wherever. 



#47 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 25 July 2014 - 06:58 AM

For those of us not in the know on the railroad. 

 

Can someone ballpark the cost (+/- $100k):

- per mile of laying new track in a existing rail ROW (assume no street crossings)

- per street crossing, no signal

- per street crossing, four lanes, signal bars, lights, etc.



#48 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 25 July 2014 - 09:30 AM

..... But again, I didn't think there was a need for passenger rail to be built between Frisco and wherever. 

 

 Yeah, this is the elephant in the room...The Need!



#49 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 25 July 2014 - 10:33 AM

DART seems to have done a good job historically anticipating future transit needs and acting ahead of time to get bargain prices on assets that would/will be needed to satisfy those future needs. Strategic, over-the-horizon planning is a good thing to have when engaged in a long-term project to provide sensible, sustainable and practical public transportation. If the Tarrant side of things was up to the task the TEXRail project would be well along by now, ready to open this year or the next, and would be actively working gathering resources needed for the SW commuter line, studying what would be needed in establishing a westside line, and actively buying up parcels for a longer-term NW branch to Azle.



#50 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,279 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:08 AM

I don't think that is true because they do not have any money. Even if they got a big bulldozer and shoved the DART headquarters and all of its staff to downtown Fort Worth, they wouldn't be able to accomplish much without any additional money. We Fort Worthians prefer a Crime Control and Prevention District over additional transit.

 

People also are quick to forget DART's mistakes and how many problems they've had over the past 3 decades. Just because they are running now doesn't mean they didn't pull their own fair share of boneheaded mistakes and wasted funds.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users