Tower 55 / Railroads East of DTFW
#1
Posted 01 August 2005 - 02:08 PM
11:30 PM CDT on Friday, July 29, 2005
By TONY HARTZEL / The Dallas Morning News
Congress on Friday approved an oft-delayed transportation bill that promises to bring an average of $800 million annually in additional funding to Texas and funnels $669 million statewide to high-profile projects such as the Trinity River signature bridges near downtown Dallas.
The $286 billion bill would boost North Texas transportation financing by millions of dollars. The increase comes from growth in the amount spent on roads and a requirement to return a greater percentage of the gas tax Texans pay to Washington.
The bill also provides new options to charge tolls on new federal roadways, and it lays a strong foundation for Dallas Area Rapid Transit's coming request for $700 million for rail lines to Fair Park, Pleasant Grove and northwest Dallas.
The bill, which now goes to President Bush for his signature, drew overwhelming support in both houses.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn was one of only four senators to vote against the bill. He argued that the state deserves a larger share of money than it would receive in the new bill.
"This bill simply continues the pervasive and longstanding funding inequity, and I cannot support that," he said, adding that the bill was "cut up in special-interest projects and pork-barrel spending."
Texas will eventually get back 92 percent of all federal gas taxes it sends to Washington, an increase from the current 90.5 percent level. Texas officials have argued that other factors reduced its share to 88 percent in the current bill.
I notice that $2,000,000 was earmarked for the Tower 55 CMAQ Congestion and Preliminary Engineering Study. Is anyone familiar with the scope of this study? Tower 55 sits at the junction of several major railroads and is just under the I-30/I-35W interchange southeast of downtown Fort Worth. I would imagine the best way to reduce train congestion at this intersection would be to grade separate the lines. But while we're at it, why can't we consolidate and relocate the multiple rail lines along the eastern edge of downtown that are preventing redevelopment of the largely vacant industrial area between the TRE and I-35W.
I think Struh's Uptown development would be even better with a hike and bike path along its east side on the old Santa Fe grade, linking downtown and the Stockyards. Maybe with a nice streetcar down the middle of it or a future light rail link?
If we put all four rail lines on common tracks, and maybe even sink the tracks below grade along the east edge of town, the incentive to demolish and redevelop the Purina building becomes attainable.
#2
Posted 01 August 2005 - 09:22 PM
Is Fort Worth going to get "Signature Bridges" as part of the TRV? I don't really care as long as the bats can roost under them.
The Tower 55 project could, as you mention, have a seriously positive effect on the eastern periphery of DTFW. It would be great if the north-south tracks were the ones that woud be sunken to eliminate the at-grade track crossing , and if all the three (or four?) major tracks that feed down into that intersection could be reduced to 3 sets side by side and placed below grade so the downtown streets could continue east and the noisy trains could be somewhat quieter where developers are putting all those apartments and other developments. However, maybe someone should look at the potential for redeveloping the Purina Plant into something along the lines of what the SA investors have done with the old Pearl Brewery!
It is too bad that Fort Worth does not have a viable plan for street-level rail transit on the boards that could be funded by this windfall. I suppose we would have to wait until the 2007 legislative session for that sort of thing to be funded from the feds.
#3
Posted 01 August 2005 - 09:48 PM
Indeed, and the sooner we get rail the better...but as long as it's done before the Arlington Super Bowl (2011?) I think we'll be in good shape.It is too bad that Fort Worth does not have a viable plan for street-level rail transit on the boards that could be funded by this windfall. I suppose we would have to wait until the 2007 legislative session for that sort of thing to be funded from the feds.
I've fantasized about having those cargo lines sunken and moved to maximize space for a long time, even before I knew why it would be a good thing. Sure it would be an ambitious project, but can you imagine the amount of space it would open up for development? We're talking about almost all the space SE of 4th and Jones, assuming we also get rid of Spur 280. I think one could combine new N-S tracks with a revamping of I-35W between the Mixmaster and the Trinity in a multi-modal corridor type project, that way the maximum amount of space could be recouped. Or just bury both and downtown could extend all the way to the Trinity on the East. Never going to happen in my lifetime, but it's a thought.
#4
Posted 02 August 2005 - 11:11 AM
#5
Posted 04 November 2007 - 04:18 PM
More info at http://www.nctcog.or...reach/meetings/
#6
Posted 04 November 2007 - 08:13 PM
I know having the railroads spend their own money is not in my own best interest since I still own a fair amount of stock, but neither is spending taxpayer dollars.
My sister lives in Placentia, CA. and about 10 years ago they had a grand plan to bury the railroad tracks though their town. They spent millions on consultants and studies on how to bury the tracks and obtain the financing from state and federal sources. In the end they almost went bankrupt from the money they spent on the consultants and the fact they never obtained any outside money. I believe one consultant went to jail for flim flamming the city.
Here is and editorial about the Colton Crossing.
“Bridge Over Troubled Waters”
San Bernardino Sun Editorial
Published July 19, 2007
The Colton Crossing, a major bottleneck for the 150 trains per day that pass through the four-way rail stop, is a headache for the rail companies, and creates potential backups for motorists caught at other street intersections along the rail route. The county's transportation agency, Sanbag, has agreed to study a way around the long waits, with a bridge the top choice - at least among those with engineering know how. Colton officials have other ideas, however.
Building a bridge to elevate the Union Pacific tracks over the BNSF Railway tracks at the crossing could cost between $150 million and $200 million, with completion seven or eight years away.
It's a major, expensive undertaking. But a bigger cog in the works could be Colton officials' displeasure over a bridge that would run even with Interstate 10, as if it were too much of an eyesore. They would rather see a trench or a tunnel, presumably to hide the fact that there are tracks going through town. But Colton Crossing is smack in the middle of an industrial sector - just south of Interstate 10 and west of La Cadena Drive,
Moreover, building a tunnel, if it's even physically possible, could elevate the cost of the project more than fivefold - to nearly $1 billion. At this juncture, we must ask, is there really a need to spend a billion bucks on a tunnel, when a bridge would work just as well? And cheaper, besides.
It's not as if that part of Colton is all that attractive to begin with. It's highly unlikely that the mere presence of a tunnel, even a billion-dollar one, could improve the surrounding aesthetics that much. Or that it could ever be worth the cost. Heck, by way of comparison, the whole 20-mile-long Alameda Corridor cost $2.4 billion.
Mind you, at this point, there is no funding source identified to build either a bridge or a tunnel in Colton. But if any taxpayer money were to go to such a far-fetched idea, it would mean less money in the pot for other needed road projects.
For all purposes, a bridge, still expensive, could solve the problem nicely. It's probably the easiest and most affordable option, says Arlis Childs, a project manager under contract with Sanbag.
Now, if city officials want to convince the railroads to pick up most of the tab for a tunnel, more power to them. Keeping the trains moving, after all, is profitable for the railways. But if the city's desire to hold out for a tunnel ends up delaying the process, and leaving the logical contender angling in the air, we'd suggest going with the bridge. It's the smartest, most pragmatic solution.
Sanbag is San Bernardino area governments.
I wish I could attend this meeting, but I will be out of town.
#7
Posted 05 November 2007 - 12:35 AM
The Tower 55 situation is very similar to the Colton crossing issues in California. 150 trains a day meeting at grade and the city concerned about pollution. Both solutions are going to cost taxpayers many millions of dollars to fix. I just wonder why the railroads themselves can't pay to fix their own bottlenecks?
The literature I rec'd concerning this meeting states that "more than 100 freight trains and 70 passenger trains pass through and adjacent to Tower 55 which is below the I.H.35W/I.H. 30 interchange and between historic downtown Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Southside Medical District." Here a tunnel might be more justified on aesthetic reasons; the "new" I-30 bridge south of Lancaster was certainly more expensive than widening the existing bridge, but due to downtown influences it was made possible.
Pollution is certainly a valid concern, as is the concern of helping streamline the nation's rail infrastructure, admittedly a privately owned industry, but of critical national economic importance. Texas voters passed a constitutional amendment proposition a couple of years back that set up a fund to help route freight trains around urban centers, freeing up RR ROW through urban centers in the process, but I don't know if that proposition was ever funded by the legislature. These are certainly questions that deserve answers at the upcoming meetings.
#8
Posted 23 November 2007 - 10:10 AM
Posted on Fri, Nov. 23, 2007 Stop, look and think hard
By Jack Z. Smith
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Related Content
Tower 55: A challenging opportunity
It could be an engineer's dream -- or nightmare.
Either way, devising solutions for the Tower 55 railroad bottleneck in Fort Worth will require one of the most complicated engineering projects in Tarrant County's history, according to Mike Sims, a transportation official for the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
Many engineers dream of working on such a challenging project and receiving the accolades that come with fixing the problem. But the complexities could make it an engineer's nightmare.
Complexities aside, a fix is needed, and sooner rather than later. Regional transportation and elected officials say that curing what ails Tower 55 could speed up travel for freight trains and motorists stalled at rail crossings, enhance future prospects for commuter rail, improve air quality and reduce gridlock by expanding freight-rail capacity and getting more 18-wheelers off the road.
Tower 55, the most congested railroad intersection in the United States, is on the southeast edge of downtown Fort Worth. Named for an old railroad building there, Tower 55 is coping with a huge and growing volume of freight trains. On a typical day, 120 trains might pass through, many with 100-plus cars. Trains often wait 90 minutes or more to use the crossing.
A "ripple effect" slows trains throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area, said Joe Adams, vice president of public affairs for Union Pacific Railroad. The results: slower freight deliveries, longer waits for motorists at rail crossings and increased air pollution from idling trains and passenger vehicles.
Meetings have been held recently on the Tower 55 problem and potential solutions, but firm recommendations probably won't come until late next year.
Here are possible fixes:
North-south trench and tunnel: Trains would go through a trench on the north and south approaches to Tower 55 and tunnel under it.
East-west flyover: A rail bridge would be built over existing railroad tracks that run north-south. The bridge would have tracks for freight rail and possibly commuter rail.
At-grade capacity and operational improvements: Track would be added to speed up trains' movement through Tower 55. Amtrak passenger rail might be rerouted, and other improvements would be made.
Commuter-rail grade separation: Current and future operations related to the Trinity Railway Express, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and Amtrak would be grade-separated from freight-rail movements, either via a new tunnel structure or elevated tracks.
Fort Worth & Western Railroad bypass: This local railroad's line would be upgraded to enable some larger BNSF freight trains to bypass Tower 55.
There could be multiple fixes, none easy. For example, a trench and tunnel might cost hundreds of millions of dollars and extend a mile and a half because of the need for a gentle grade slope of 1 percent or less to accommodate heavy trains.
An east-west flyover might pose aesthetic problems. Adding more train track could be difficult because it would be a tight squeeze. Rerouting Amtrak could have both plusses and minuses.
Fixes to Tower 55 could cost $200 million to $850 million, with $300 million the most-cited guess. A longer-term and broader solution, perhaps 25 years from now, could be constructing a freight-rail bypass around the south and west sides of the Metroplex. The cost could be $6.5 billion, not including right of way.
Railroad, transportation and city officials should continue working toward drafting recommended solutions prior to the Texas Legislature's session in 2009, when state funding probably will be sought. Federal and local government aid, along with money from the railroads, also is likely to be needed.
Coming up with the money could be difficult. But devising effective engineering solutions that achieve consensus support could prove even more challenging.
Jack Z. Smith is a Star-Telegram editorial writer. 817-390-7724
jzsmith@star-telegram.com
#9
Posted 24 November 2007 - 10:23 AM
#10
Posted 24 November 2007 - 10:57 AM
In my opinion, this is all a pipe dream that wont be realized until a lot of money and time go by. I would think that it would be easier to get by with an East-West Tunnel instead of a North-South Tunnel because of the tangle of roads and bridges on the Northeast side of downtown. An East-West Tunnel would have no significant hurdles other that how to cross IH35. Also, the Fort Worth & Western bypass option in now going to run into problems since the TRE will be moving onto the line making daytime freight movements difficult. Most of the FWWR traffic would have to be routed at night or wait/idle for daytime windows. Adding large BNSF re-routed trains to this mix wont help the problem that much.
TP52,
I don't think this should be looked at as a "pipe dream", the Tower 55 problem is a very expensive bottleneck in the national rail distribution network and deserves expedient attention. The "tangle of roads and bridges" and at-grade crossings would have the possibility of getting straightened out if the N-S tracks were combined up in the Northside area and sunk through downtown to pass under the E-W lines. As you point out, an E-W dirch would run right into I-35, and that is a big problem. A sunken N-S alignment would require a bridge for Lancaster to cross over; not such a big hurdle. I have attended the last public sessions of the SW2NE Rail Project and distinctly remember the FWWR as a "potential" or future route, being kept on the table in order to serve the 7th Street and TRV developments. Unless you know something the brass isn't saying publicly, this option was kept on in order to get that route and the potential stations included in the environmental evaluation going on now. However, that said, the most recent Tower 55 information mentions the FWWR (improved as a single or double track route) as a possible bypass for freight trains while Tower 55 intersection work was being done.
I think this project will be at least as big as the I-30 reroute that freed up Lancaster Avenue for redevelopment. Given the various stakeholders, public and private, a cooperative effort involving shared and fewer tracks, parallel freight and passenger lines (regional and nationwide), and funding of the statewide initiative passed by Texas voters a few years back allowingstate assistance for track rerouting should be put together to assure this problem is dealt with in an expedient fashion. The city has a stake in working with the feds, the state, and the railroads to be sure that the best plan for local interests is reached.
#11
Posted 01 February 2008 - 11:18 PM
"If we put all four rail lines on common tracks, and maybe even sink the tracks below grade along the east edge of town, the incentive to demolish and redevelop the Purina building becomes attainable."
There aren't 4 lines running east of downtown. There's 9 tracks to consider.
BNSF Fort Worth Subdivision (Sub - former ATSF) past the ITC has 2 mainlines
UP Duncan Sub (former CRI&P) has 2 mainlines
Former FW&D has 1 main plus 2 additional tracks used as mainlines.
UP Choctaw Sub (former T&P) has 2 mainlines.
North-south trench and tunnel: Trains would go through a trench on the north and south approaches to Tower 55 and tunnel under it.
East-west flyover: A rail bridge would be built over existing railroad tracks that run north-south. The bridge would have tracks for freight rail and possibly commuter rail.
At-grade capacity and operational improvements: Track would be added to speed up trains' movement through Tower 55. Amtrak passenger rail might be rerouted, and other improvements would be made.
Commuter-rail grade separation: Current and future operations related to the Trinity Railway Express, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority and Amtrak would be grade-separated from freight-rail movements, either via a new tunnel structure or elevated tracks.
Fort Worth & Western Railroad bypass: This local railroad's line would be upgraded to enable some larger BNSF freight trains to bypass Tower 55.
There could be multiple fixes, none easy. For example, a trench and tunnel might cost hundreds of millions of dollars and extend a mile and a half because of the need for a gentle grade slope of 1 percent or less to accommodate heavy trains.
An east-west flyover might pose aesthetic problems. Adding more train track could be difficult because it would be a tight squeeze. Rerouting Amtrak could have both plusses and minuses.
Fixes to Tower 55 could cost $200 million to $850 million, with $300 million the most-cited guess. A longer-term and broader solution, perhaps 25 years from now, could be constructing a freight-rail bypass around the south and west sides of the Metroplex. The cost could be $6.5 billion, not including right of way.
Railroad, transportation and city officials should continue working toward drafting recommended solutions prior to the Texas Legislature's session in 2009, when state funding probably will be sought. Federal and local government aid, along with money from the railroads, also is likely to be needed.
Coming up with the money could be difficult. But devising effective engineering solutions that achieve consensus support could prove even more challenging.
Jack Z. Smith is a Star-Telegram editorial writer. 817-390-7724
jzsmith@star-telegram.com
Old photos show Tower 55 having double the track capacity it has now. Why did the railroads eliminate them? Who knows. Most of the newer bridges (such as the one over I35 near Vickery) has more room for track than what exists on there.
The Fort Worth & Western bypass is the easiest option traffic-wise.
Alan
#12
Posted 18 February 2009 - 05:50 PM
They have ranked the alternatives, trench, flyover, Ft Worth & Western bypass, using pros and cons. I'm sure that AG will be happy to hear that the FWWR bypass is ranked last and is only hanging on by its fingernails. There was a representative from Ft Worth South that spoke and he said they are relieved that the trains won't be coming their way.
The North South trench is currently the highest ranked option at $550-625 million. The East West flyover is a little behind at a cost of $550-725 million. Both options are figured to be in the 5-10 year range for construction.
It was announced the BNSF and UP on their own are going to build an at grade capacity project to add a new track.
NCTCOG is working on the Environmental study day and night.
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the trench, which has some interesting side affects. I won't list them all, just the ones I thought the forum could chew on.
1. Widening the "Hole in the Wall" to allow construction of two new tracks for a three track underpass for freight and commuter rail.
2. Reconstruct Lancaster Ave. from Jones to Kentucky and I-30 ramps, Lancaster will have to go deeper because the tracks are going lower.
3. Trench closes Vickery Blvd at I-35, 4 options are being considered, the least expensive was making Broadway a through street with a bridge over I-35 for about $25 million.
There are some other over and underpasses in the plan further out from downtown, Gounah even got a mention.
#13
Posted 18 February 2009 - 06:27 PM
#14
Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:25 PM
They can't build an east-west ditch because I 35W and MLK Freeway are in the way. They only have to dig down 25 to 30 feet for the north-south ditch, an east west ditch would have to be 50 to 60 feet deep.
With a 2% grade, the railroads would prefer a 1% grade, the north-south 25 to 30 feet ditch extends from 7th street on the north to Rosedale on the south, approximately 3/4 miles in each direction. An east west ditch would have to extend 1.5 miles in each direction, 9th Ave on the west to Windham Street on the east, whiich is a total of 3 miles. Presently MLK Freeway and I-35W go under the UP tracks, the MLK Freeway and I-35W would have to be reconfigured to go over the UP tracks. We're adding extra expenses up quickly when we start talking about rebuilding freeways too.
The east-west bridge alternative has to be 50 to 60 feet above the north-south tracks at grade to clear the I-35W and I-30 interchange ramps. That bridge, with the same grade limitations, would have to be 3 miles long too. UGLY!
The only major street reconstruction that would be required for the north to south trench are Vickory and Lancaster. NCTCOG plans to lower Lancaster an additional 18 feet, and tear down the Vickory Bridge but replace it with a bridge at Broadway, one block to the south. Roads can have grades up to 6%, so the distances for reconstruction on either side of the north to south railroad trench are much less, about 1/8 of a mile.
#15
Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:35 AM
The only significant claim that I see as valid would be the loss of the historic underpasses. Not sure I would lose much sleep over that. If I was walking or biking between downtown Fort Worth and the southside, I think I would rather take a short jaunt across a surface level bridge with a good view of my surroundings than have to go down into a tunnel/underpass. Seems like a good opportunity to improve access. I would encourage any of the Fort Worth South denizens to look closely at the potential benefits before passing on the suggestion.
#16
Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:50 AM
The only significant claim that I see as valid would be the loss of the historic underpasses. Not sure I would lose much sleep over that. If I was walking or biking between downtown Fort Worth and the southside, I think I would rather take a short jaunt across a surface level bridge with a good view of my surroundings than have to go down into a tunnel/underpass. Seems like a good opportunity to improve access. I would encourage any of the Fort Worth South denizens to look closely at the potential benefits before passing on the suggestion.
Andy - you don't see the removal of *the entirety of the north side of Vickery from redevelopment potential* as being a huge negative in itself? Where you now have the potential to create a pedestrian-friendly street of redevelopment projects as a northern gateway into the Near Southside from Downtown, you will wind up instead with a barren and hostile environment where one entire side of the street is a fenced-in trench. The negative impact to property on the south side of Vickery, especially things like the former public recreation building and the South Main Village area, can't be discounted either as there is finally starting to be some momentum in redeveloping the north end of the Near Southside. It'll be yet another barrier between Downtown and the Near Southside - the Lancaster I-30 overhead all over again, just sunken instead of overhead.
(I am also curious to hear where you've been hearing of a streetcar bridge over the Hemphill-Lamar connector, as this is the first I've heard of it. Not doubting - just intrigued as that doesn't mesh with the South Main alignment that FWSI and the South Main task force has been planning for.)
And the mind-bogglingly stupid design of the Henderson overpass - taking Henderson up into a 70-foot-high overpass with no through connection, instead forcing the usage of spiral freeway-style ramps to get to street level on the Downtown side - it's lunacy. If that happens, I'm betting we can all kiss the Public Market building goodbye, and maybe the old Dr. Pepper plant as well as there'll be essentially a freeway overpass right in front of it. Ditto the equally stupid Tennessee overpass.
And I really hate the flat-out deceptive way the cost of the East-West trench has been presented - slides showing it being roughly the same as the N-S option, the catch being that the cost doesn't include any of the road reconstruction or massive land acquisitions needed by the E-W option.
And the E-W trench doesn't include any of the improvements for the TRE and SW2NE that the N-S trench does, so if we want that that's even more cost.
It seems to me that E-W is mainly a good thing for Union Pacific at the expense of the Near Southside. Be prepared to see the neighborhood associations of the Near Southside and near east side rise up against E-W - Fairmount and Ryan Place are already gearing up to fight it.
--
Kara B.
#17
Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:00 PM
If its an obstruction to a pedestrian or cyclist, then its an inconvienance to a motorist...
... which usually means the motorist will locate another roadway
(or not go to Near Southside in this case).
Not sure about the east-west Vs. north-south options,
still a lot to look over; but, if the east-west doesn't aid commuter rail options and
henders pedestrians and cyclists it has major flaws.
Regradless- one thing easily agreed upon, something has to be done...
... this Tower 55 thing has been around and worsened for far too long.
It negatively impacts so many other needs/plans and long range development.
#18
Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:53 PM
E-W Proposal drawing
- tamtagon likes this
#19
Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:01 PM
#20
Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:44 PM
Here's the property impact of N-S:
Here's the East-West trench option - for some reason, this does NOT show the Henderson area:
Here's the property impact of E-W:
Here's the proposed Henderson realignment that would be needed with the E-W option:
Here's a rendering showing the Henderson overpass flying over I-30:
--
Kara B.
#21
Posted 04 August 2009 - 01:47 PM
--
Kara B.
#22
Posted 04 August 2009 - 06:51 PM
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#23
Posted 04 August 2009 - 07:13 PM
#24
Posted 04 August 2009 - 09:10 PM
#25
Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:10 AM
Does anyone know whether there is a North-South profile in existence like the east-west version above?
It is pretty hard to make reasonable comparisons of the plans without them. I'm sure the drawings must exist, but since the RR's really like the east-west route it may be less available to the public.
Another thought:
Railroads are privately owned. While the public does benefit from better freight handling speed to some extent, I still wonder if this is worthy of heavy government funding? From a public convenience standpoint, Tower 55 only blocks the occasional north/south bound passenger train. All other passenger operations including Amtrak from Dallas can easily be handled outside Tower 55. And for that matter, for passenger operations only, it would still be possible to bypass Tower 55 in any direction.
Is this project something that Fort Worth and Texas and the Feds need to worry about? After all, history says that Tower 55 has been a congestion point since the 1890's.
The T & P and Fort worth passed up the chance to take care of this situation in 1928-1932 when the entire east-west downtown rail facilties and street plans were totally reworked and rebuilt. The T&P & the Santa and other north-south railroads probably deliberately avoided accepting some easy WPA reconstruction money in the late 1930's simply because their traffic levels were low at the time. In the last 100+ years there have been a number of opportunities for the rairoads to fix this situation if they wanted to. They didn't seem to feel that invest of private money in the problem was worth it.
I am really not too sympathetic to the railroads at this point and I pretty much feel that public investment to any huge degree is not justified unless the railroads start handling inter-city passenger business in a big time way.
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
#26
Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:34 AM
Indeed there is:
http://www.nctcog.or...PlanProfile.pdf
--
Kara B.
#27
Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:21 PM
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
#28
Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:23 PM
#29
Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:46 PM
It's fairly obvious why the railroads prefer the East-West trench, they keep their train traffic moving smoothly. It's also fairly obvious why TXDOT and City prefer the North-South trench, they keep interstate 35W traffic moving smoothly.
The question that needs answering is why Local governments are willing to spend around $600 Million to grade separate Tower 55? Is it to appease the freight railroad companies, or themselves?
Since Local governments are putting up over a half $Billion at Tower 55, don't you think their choices should rule? I'm all for the East-West proposal if the UP is willing to put up ALL the cash to grade separate Tower 55 to compensate commuters over the temporary (over several months) closure of I 35W.
#30
Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:17 PM
#31
Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:33 PM
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
#32
Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:05 PM
#33
Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:10 PM
Thanks. I was having trouble figuring that out. Now, if you can summarize the routing improvements, exact grade separations, bridge lengths including start and ending stationing, plus explain the subgrade structures, I can stop looking at that big old confusing drawing and get back to my paint by numbers. (/sarcasm)
#34
Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:50 PM
To recap, at the February meeting NTCOG had narrowed down the proposals to 3 options.
1. North/South trench
2. East/West flyover
3. FWWR bypass
It was agreed at that time that the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the trench, (N/S). An East/West trench wasn’t even an option 6 months ago.
Let me say upfront, I don’t think the East/West trench is a very good idea. I also believe that anyone older than 20 now will never see the 300 mile track relocation out to the country either.
I have also been on record saying that this isn’t a taxpayer issue and I believe the railroads should pay the costs for a grade separation, if they want one. I don’t think UP does want a grade separation.
I think the planners at NTCOG did a pretty good job whipping up the presentation for the E/W trench proposal on, I would guess, short notice. As I said this wasn’t even an option 6 months ago and for all I know, NTCOG didn’t even know it was going to be in the future until UP brought it up a few weeks ago.
There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the need for this grade separation.
This is political and there are always lies involved in politics. NTCOG has good engineers and planners working for the citizens of North Texas, but they report to politicians, to be a member of NTCOG you have to pretty much be an elected official.
NTCOG is pushing this grade separation because they have to have it to make the Rail North Texas Commuter Plan work. I’m sure the railroads have looked at doing the work themselves, over the years, and decided the cost outweighed the benefit.
Look at the claims made as to why we need this:
Safety; backed up trains create safety issues in the corridors. If you think about it there are people all over Tarrant County being struck by trains, both in their vehicles and on foot, but I can’t recall any recent incidents in the areas they are going to do the work in. There are locations with multiple fatalities, but NTOCG isn’t rushing to fix those spots with a highway grade separation.
Pollution; over and over we hear idling trains are creating bad air. The truth is an idling train burns very little fuel compared to a moving train and technology is cutting down fuel consumption on standing trains even more. I asked at the February meeting if NTCOG had considered if the pollution created by a train fighting the grade out of the proposed N/S trench was more than the pollution from standing trains and they said they didn’t know. On Monday UP claimed they will need an extra locomotive for each train using the N/S trench. There is no doubt, if they are correct, that the trench will generate more pollution than the grade crossing that exists now.
TRE expansion; again Monday NTCOG said the TRE can’t expand without the Tower 55 trench. I don’t believe that, they have used the TRE trains in their counts of trains at Tower 55 to inflate the numbers and make it seem to be a bigger bottleneck than it is. 37 TRE trains arrive and depart the T&P station everyday and they have as big an affect on Tower 55 as I do driving down I-35. If TRE wanted to expand to 50 trains a day tomorrow, they could.
Let me address some of the concerns I have read here on the FW forum. It didn’t come up at the noon meeting about closing I-35 for construction of the E/W trench. I have a hard time believing that I-35 closing for more than a few hours would even be an option in the real world. If the speakers at the evening meeting said that was going to happen please let me know, I’m sure that would be a deal breaker. At the February meeting when the N/S trench was chosen as the LPA, one of the side effects was that the Vickery overpass of I-35 would be closed permanently and one option for that was a tunnel for Vickery under I-35, closing I-35 wasn’t mentioned with that plan.
One of the questioners at noon was the person from the Southside that used the phrase “Berlin Wall” referring to the E/W trench. He seemed very angry. Even though I don’t favor the E/W trench I, like Andy, thought nice level at grade streets over a trench, would be better than crumbling, dark, low underpasses that exist today. I also thought that would be better for the streetcar. However I can see the AG’s point about redeveloping the area someday.
Also, I think some people have confused the time frame for building the grade separation with the time it will take to actually do the work. 5-8 years out to start, but nowhere near that long to actually build after work begins.
I also felt the solutions to the bridges at Henderson and Tennessee Ave. were stupid and probably rushed. I think they could do better with a little more time to plan.
At noon a representative from BNSF spoke. I did not feel at all that BNSF was in favor of the E/W trench over the N/S option. In fact BNSF addressed the N/S trench and said their concern was that construction could interfere, at times, with rail traffic and BNSF wanted to use the FWWR route as a bypass during the construction phase, if traffic backed up.
BNSF talked about the short term plan of adding a third N/S track and the street improvements that would go along with the track work, both North and South of the Tower. This plan looks better every time I see it. The kicker is they (NTCOG, BNSF, UP) are looking for public money for that too. We can hope they get some federal money, but BNSF pointed out it will be a cage fight because the pool of cash is many times oversubscribed.
Here is what I think is going to happen. Nothing. Maybe we’ll get the federal money for the short term option, even if we don’t BNSF and UP could write a check for $75 million any day they wanted.
It is very clear that UP does not want a grade separation at Tower 55. There are 2 reasons. They control the signals at the tower and I suspect their delays waiting to cross are miniscule compared to BNSF’s. They want to keep BNSF under their control at that location and screw a competitor. Second, they don’t want any commuter trains on their tracks. NTCOG is pushing this plan so they can start commuter rail in Tarrant County. Everybody and their brother would like to see commuter trains running through Arlington, except UP. UP figures no separation, no commuters.
In my 32 years at Santa Fe and BNSF I dealt frequently with UP. I think they are better managed right now than at any time in the last 15 years. However they have a culture and their culture is that they are No. 1 and they will mess with you just because they can. That is exactly what I think the last minute E/W trench plan is. When the person from the Southside got angry at the meeting I think I saw a UP rep smile, they got the reaction they hoped for. This is just like high school, they know they struck a nerve and they are going to exploit it.
#35
Posted 05 August 2009 - 04:32 PM
For some historical context about the east-west layout I have uploaded a 5 page PDF of the 1932 Railway Age article on the construction of the T&P facilities as well as the then new underpasses and Front street (Lancaster) reconstruction. On the second page is one of those profile charts that seem to bother Andy , but are technically interesting I think.
Also Tower 55 is very much a part of this article by implication..
1932 Railway Age Article
This was the prime time that the UP, the GC & SF and the other railroads could really have solved the crossing problem, but obviously one or more of them did not want to get involved.
Maybe this article will add something to the conversation..
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
#36
Posted 05 August 2009 - 05:07 PM
#37
Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:45 PM
Only in jest Andy..
From KP's excellent resume of the Meeting:
KP.. Did they really say this?
As far as I can see, in it's present state, the TRE does not in any way have any effect on the crossing at Tower 55. The TRE built it's own connection from the Intermodal crossing Lancaster on a brand new bridge that curves in to the T & P station platform area. I remember watching them building this connection.
Theoretically if the TRE NE2SW ever gets going, it would be unlikely that they would ever use whatever crossing solution is eventually selected, if any. While it would be a little complicated, there is an acceptable way to connect the station platform at the T & P with the existing FWWR rails that would go south. It was done for years by the Frisco.
If they really said this, I think they're blowing smoke and trying to spin the subject..
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
#38
Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:09 PM
--
Kara B.
#39
Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:23 PM
AG is correct that the N/S trench includes a second track from the Intermodal Transportation Center to the T&P station, which would allow trains to arrive and depart T&P simultaneously. It seems to me they could still add a fair amount of new service on the existing route without double tracking that little segment. There was some confusion when the SW2NE route was mentioned. I think that is when they may need the second track, because the heavy rail equipment on the TRE won't be compatible with the DMU they want to use on the SW2NE. Also, they could build the second track and bridge to the T&P without any trench work, if it is really needed, for a lot less than $700 million.
Looking back at my notes from February, the N/S trench does plan to widen the "Hole in the Wall" from 1 to 3 tracks for freight and passenger moves. I guess this means they will have to take another bite out of the Tindall building.
One other comment about corporate culture, Union Pacific has been reluctant to engage themselves in public/private partnerships, I suspect because railroads in general have been leery of the government, based on the regulation they have suffered under most of the 20th century. BNSF used to be the same way, but now they have seen that public/private partnerships can have benefits for both sides. Honking Mad Gordon Dickson reported in the S-T about UP’s objection to the grade on the N/S trench and needing another locomotive for each train. No one from UP spoke at the noon meeting, unless it was after I left during the Q&A because my meter was running out. The BNSF did have a representative speak, he didn’t mention adding locomotives because of trench grades and BNSF would be in the same trench as the UP on the N/S plan. Make what you will of that.
I don't think NTCOG has done any breakdowns on who is going to pay what for these plans. BNSF did say they would look at the cost and determine what they thought their benefit was and contribute accordingly. Local taxpayers won't be on the hook for very much, because I think NTCOG somehow plans to get federal money for all these ideas. What are the chances we can get money from the feds for the TRV, Commuter rail, Streetcars, Highways and this boondoggle?
#40
Posted 05 August 2009 - 11:21 PM
You don't need vertical grade and subgrade drawings to figure this out. The North-South trench is built where the existing railroad tracks are located. To dig a trench there, temporary detour tracks are needed to move the traffic, or shutdown the traffic while digging and building the trench. The freeways aren't impacted much because the freeway is already bridged over the tracks.
The East-West trench is built a hundred feet south of the existing tracks. No detour tracks are needed for trains, the existing tracks will still be in service. But, this trench has to go under the freeway, and the freeway is built at grade. Therefore the freeway will have to bridge over the new tracks. That means closing the freeway while the freeway bridges are built.
#41
Posted 06 August 2009 - 12:47 AM
The N-S trench pretty much wipes out an existing UP yard (was that the Rock or Katy yard?) north of the old roundhouse foundation. Not sure what they used the yard for.
If I read the profile correctly, the ramps for I-30 and E. Lancaster are going to be about 30 feet deeper than they are now. Man, those would be some deep underpasses - almost 60 feet below the top of the tracks there now.
It looks like the railroad is also taking the opportunity to broaden some of the connecting tracks, like in the vicinity of O-B Macaroni. I wonder if they are cramming every single improvement in on the public dime that they possible can. The E-W trench plan and profile seems lacking in such detail, but that may be because the plans were drawn up hurriedly and only show the meat of the idea.
It looks like the trench will also block E 9th Street. Not sure what they plan to do to mitigate loss of access to the landowners on the west side of I-35W, but man those are some isolated parcels.
Also, would it be so much to ask the CAD operator to label the TRE alignment as TRE and not DART? If I recall correctly, this is part of the City of Dallas/City of Fort Worth owned ex Rock Island line, not the StLSW line that DART does own.
Edited by AndyN, 06 August 2009 - 04:14 PM.
Antagonistic comments deleted.
#42
Posted 19 April 2010 - 04:50 PM
http://www.fwbusines...ay.php?id=12400
Tower 55 engineering to begin
Monday, April 19, 2010
Preliminary engineering for surface improvements to Tower 55 will begin soon following an April 8 vote to fund the project by the Regional Transportation Council, the Ft. Worth Business Press reports. The at-grade surface improvements for the congested Tower 55 rail yard, widely considered to be the most congested rail yard in the United States, are expected to cost about $95 million. The yard sits at the southwest corner of the intersection of interstates 35-W and 30.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments previously had applied for $60 million in federal stimulus grant funding to complete the surface improvement plans, but did not receive the funds. The $60 million would have been matched by $35 million from BNSF and Union Pacific.
The recent vote by the Regional Transportation Council approved $2.5 million to go toward engineering for the surface improvements. Having engineering work complete may give Tower 55 a better chance to receive federal grant funding in the future, said Tom Shelton, a senior program manager with the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
"The strategy is that the railroads and the city want to complete the engineering and design for at-grade surface improvements so the project is fully shovel-ready and ready to go in hopes that it will receive some federal funding in the next opportunity," Shelton said.
The $2.5 million approved April 8 comes from federal funding the Council of Governments receives directly, Shelton said, but added he wasn't sure when the funding would become available.
"We're eager for the engineering to be complete because what we don't know is when the next opportunity is going to be for federal funding," he said. The federal government "puts a great emphasis on projects that are ready to go to construction in hopes that it will create jobs, and that's the strategy here."
The surface improvements to Tower 55 would include crossover improvements and grade separations to increase freight capacity, construction on new tracks and work on street crossing improvements and other projects along Jennings Avenue, Hemphill Street and Magnolia Avenue.
Ideas for long-term improvements to Tower 55 include a $600-million trench, which would run from north to south beginning at the Spur 280 overpass and ending near Rosedale Street near I-35W. The trench would be about 25 feet to 30 feet underground, and would reroute northbound and southbound rail traffic underneath the Tower 55 intersection. Rerouting the traffic, officials have said, would free up rail traffic in the yard and along tracks coming into Fort Worth from all directions, and improve air quality issues resulting from idling trains.
#43
Posted 15 October 2010 - 07:57 PM
Star-Telegram reports $34 Million budgeted for Tower 55 improvements. This is only a small portion of what has been estimated is needed to elevate or trench one set of tracks, looks like this is just to install another N/S track.
#44
Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:40 PM
I long for the day when trains fly through Fort Worth. What a tragedy this great train "Stalemate" has been in Fort Worth's history.
Side note, I have supplied the NCTCOG photos of the mess from above. Along with smog photos. They just asked me to use some this week.
#45
Posted 16 October 2010 - 09:52 AM
...
I long for the day when trains fly through Fort Worth....
I long for the day when they go AROUND Fort Worth. To have that massive rail yard in the middle of the city southwest of downtown is a huge waste of space. I have no idea big it is, but it must be about half the acreage of downtown!
#46
Posted 16 October 2010 - 05:25 PM
In my opinion, the US Government owes Texas big time. (Allowing millions to skip across our boarder, taking in hundreds of thousand from the Katrina Hurricane, etc...) I do wish the labor for this 100mm improvement could come from those already receiving government assistance and not working. Too fair.
Sorry Brian, but that comment seems to me to be callous. When has the act by Americans helping fellow Americans become something that is owed back to us? The last time that I checked, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama were still part of the U.S.
Here is a reminder how Americans help Americans in times of disaster:
http://www.disastern...p?articleid=805
Keep Fort Worth folksy!
#47
Posted 16 October 2010 - 06:19 PM
#48
Posted 16 October 2010 - 06:36 PM
BNSF and UP posted a shade less than $2 billion in profit each last year. I'm glad we could help bail them out of this so they can get back over that threshold.
They surely did not pitch in for BNSF. BNSF is pitching in just as much. They did it for transportation and clean air. And maybe some local stimulus. No different really than pouring money into highways. Considering the likelihood of more commuter train action after the fix is done, better than highways in my opinion. With the Trillions of dollars the Federal government spends on crap annually, this seems like the smartest thing they have done in years.
And I hope BNSF Earns 20 Billion this year. I am all for Railroads and Fort Worth Companies.
#49
Posted 17 October 2010 - 09:33 PM
#50
Posted 19 October 2010 - 09:50 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users