282 replies to this topic

[Russ Graham]

 More and bigger roads, yes.

 

Brian, where are you going to put "more and bigger" streets downtown?   Or anywhere within 5 miles of downtown?

[Brian Luenser]

 More and bigger roads, yes.

 

Brian, where are you going to put "more and bigger" streets downtown?   Or anywhere within 5 miles of downtown?

Downtown doesn't need bigger streets.  As it has good traffic light timing, except for like the half hour before the parade of lights, downtown is the easiest place to drive.  We need more and bigger streets (I-35/ 820 in the N.E. quadrant) around downtown.

[Fort Worthology]

More and bigger roads, yes.

 

Please, no.  A lot of our neighborhoods are still picking up the pieces from the last time we thought "more and bigger roads" was the way of the future.  Some of us have spent years trying to get rid of those "more and bigger" roads and now that we have our 'hoods are becoming wonderful again.

[RenaissanceMan]

With all respect to Brian, I've always been amused by the number of people who have little to no qualms about calling for more responsible public spending out of one side of their mouth and gleefully supporting what amounts to a blank check for road construction out of the other. More disturbing is what some are willing to sacrifice or forego as they place road construction above all other civic investments.

[johnfwd]

In defense of Brian (though he can undoubtedly defend himself), he did advocate light rail, as well as roads.  I agree about street cars, because it does conflict with motor vehicular traffic on a narrow street (one such street on Dallas's west side of downtown has the electric cable car that I had to eek past not long ago).  Of course street cars have a cultural quaintness about them, albeit they may lack efficient functionality.  My sci-fi fantasy is the downtown with high-rise buildings interconnected above street level with some kind of monorail or "people pod" delivery system (less creepy than a dark, forbidding subway).

[RenaissanceMan]

You may have a point, however I think it's important to distinguish between heritage streetcars (quaint, cute, obstructive, however you want to characterize them) and modern streetcars which had been under consideration and are of a whole different breed. I did not experience the inconvenience, congestion or delays that some have suggested (and which heritage streetcars often may create) in my visits to Portland which has perhaps America's best Modern streetcar system and which is not used exclusively by tourists and the hopelessly nostalgic but also by commuters and downtown residents for everyday needs.

[Fort Worthology]

In defense of Brian (though he can undoubtedly defend himself), he did advocate light rail, as well as roads.  I agree about street cars, because it does conflict with motor vehicular traffic on a narrow street (one such street on Dallas's west side of downtown has the electric cable car that I had to eek past not long ago).  Of course street cars have a cultural quaintness about them, albeit they may lack efficient functionality.  

 

My friend Patrick makes a great point that the streetcars on McKinney do a great, great service by making motor vehicle traffic drive more slowly than it would if they were not there.  In the context of a streetcar street, serving as a pedestrian accelerator around and between adjacent neighborhoods, impeding the speedy progress of cars is quite often very beneficial.  (It certainly hasn't held back McKinney Avenue at all, nor the Pearl District.)  Streetcars exist in areas where the highest priority - the most "meaningful" traffic to use the term from earlier - is the pedestrian.

 

EDIT:  And yes, to Renaissance Man's point, there is of course a difference in feel between the McKinney Avenue heritage streetcar and the modern units being installed in various cities.

 

EDIT 2:  This all gets to the bigger point that the free, speedy, unimpeded movement of automobiles is usually shown to be a major negative when we're talking about dense central city neighborhoods like streetcars would operate in.  This is why "more and bigger roads" rubs me the wrong way.  To use my own personal experience, a lot of us fought hard to remove the "more and bigger" from the roads in our neighborhood here in the Near Southside.  Magnolia Avenue is now a slower street with fewer traffic lanes and the neighborhood is *booming* since that change happened.  I think you'd find that the vast majority of people down here would be actively opposed to going back to the street's older, faster four-lane configuration.  We've used the same technique on South Main to start the ball rolling on bringing back what has been a dead zone until recently, and we're also narrowing Rosedale trying to fix the barren wasteland that resulted when the State DOT plowed through one of those "more and bigger" roads through the 'hood, even though it's majorly over-scaled and antithetical to the kind of place we want to build.

[Volare]

The City is preparing to right-size Race Street in the Riverside area and I'm hopeful that it will help that area experience maybe 1/10 of what has happened in the near Southside.

 

At the same time we are bracing for the huge expansion of I-35W just to the west of Oakhurst, going from 6 lanes of traffic to 16, with zero mitigation for noise. I anticipate that the western parts of this great neighborhood will see their home values plummet due to the failure of TxDOT to live up to their past promises regarding this expansion.

 

"More and Bigger roads?" No thank you.

[RenaissanceMan]

(less creepy than a dark, forbidding subway).

 

I know what you mean, man...

 

 

Looks like it's gonna just jump out and bite you. (sorry... just couldn't resist).

[Jeriat]

I also believe in "more and bigger roads" but only in the suburbs, where everything is already spread out and public transportation is pretty much an afterthought. 

 

I am in favor of streetcars or at least some shorter version of light rail you'll see in Dallas or Houston (since our city blocks aren't that big), but have also thought of other rail options like a monorail or subway. 

 

Then again, I know those two would be very expensive in comparison... 

[Doohickie]

Magnolia Avenue is now a slower street with fewer traffic lanes and the neighborhood is *booming* since that change happened.  I think you'd find that the vast majority of people down here would be actively opposed to going back to the street's older, faster four-lane configuration.  We've used the same technique on South Main to start the ball rolling on bringing back what has been a dead zone until recently, and we're also narrowing Rosedale trying to fix the barren wasteland that resulted when the State DOT plowed through one of those "more and bigger" roads through the 'hood, even though it's majorly over-scaled and antithetical to the kind of place we want to build.

 

The City is preparing to right-size Race Street in the Riverside area and I'm hopeful that it will help that area experience maybe 1/10 of what has happened in the near Southside.

 
We know the Road Diet experiment worked on Magnolia.  It's been slow to get going on South Main, but with new businesses at Daggett and the new Southside Urban Market on Saturday mornings, momentum is building.  How ultimately successful it turns out remains to be seen.  I'm eager to see what happens at Race Street.  I think Race is already more lively than South Main, so the road diet may really help the area blossom.
 
One thing that's kind of depressing about all this is that, as someone who lives south of I-20, I am not part of it.  Our plan is to eventually move closer into town, ideally Fairmount or Ryan Place, but we're not ready to pull the trigger just yet.  But I wonder, especially Kevin, in all the investigation you've done on liveable neighborhoods, has there been much success in turning a suburban sprawl neighborhood into an urban village kind of area?  For instance, what would you suggest for an area like Sycamore School Road and McCart Ave. (my 'hood)?  It's a sprawl neighborhood that is mature.  The housing is pretty much fully built out, and the area never quite got the kind of retail and business mix to support the population (for instance, NO neighborhood bars; the closest bar I can think of is at Altamesa, a mile to the north, or south on Crowley Road near CMS).  Is there any way to "reclaim" a neighborhood that is based on driving a half mile to Albertson's?


EDIT: New thread on this topic; click here.

[cberen1]

OK.  I haven't done or read any research on the topic, so I'm just asking questions.  Streetcars seems to be a bit of a polarizing issue.  My assumption has been that it's polarizing for two reasons primarily.  First, it's tax money that only serves the city center. and second, busses theoreticaly do the same thing.  But it seems that more is at issue here than that.  So the first of my assumptions that I'd like to either validate or disprove is this:

 

Streetcars are as effective or more effective than busses and cars at moving middle class working people along common/busy travel routes in dense areas.  In my mind this would be the case because of ease of use and predictability and to a lesser extent because streetcars lack a certain stigma attached to busses.

 

Thoughts?

[RenaissanceMan]

OK.  I haven't done or read any research on the topic, so I'm just asking questions.  Streetcars seems to be a bit of a polarizing issue.  My assumption has been that it's polarizing for two reasons primarily.  First, it's tax money that only serves the city center. and second, busses theoreticaly do the same thing.  But it seems that more is at issue here than that.  So the first of my assumptions that I'd like to either validate or disprove is this:

 

Streetcars are as effective or more effective than busses and cars at moving middle class working people along common/busy travel routes in dense areas.  In my mind this would be the case because of ease of use and predictability and to a lesser extent because streetcars lack a certain stigma attached to busses.

 

Thoughts?

 

This deserves a much more complete answer than the oversimiplified one I'm going to give, but it really tends to come down to three things (all three of which really can be applied to most forms of rail versus bus or BRT):

 

1) Rider experience/psychology (ease of use, predictability, confidence of the rider, apparent integration with the urban fabric, etc.)

2) Ability to attract "choice riders" (i.e. those who have the ability to choose between different forms of transportation and are not doing it purely out of necessity)

3) Committed location of tracks/routes which are unlikely to change very often (if at all), which attracts more development alongside it (particularly pedestrian-friendly development), as opposed to a bus route which can easily be rerouted to meet a different need (some point to this flexibility of bus routes as an advantage, but that all depends on what you are hoping to achieve by the ability to easily alter bus routes - it certainly will not prompt new development).

[360texas]

My thought is "its the riders "destination" that is the most important.   Which mode of tansportation has the ability to get the rider to 'their' specific destination at the time of day 'they' require.     If that mode of transport does not meet the prospective riders destination requirement.. then that form of transportation will ultimately fail.

 

[edit]

I would think it would be encumbant upon employers and city planners to cluster work destinations.  I think they already do this .. called industrial, or commercial zones.  From this.. then the folks in transportation planning.. need to focus on getting rail, vehicle, trolly, light rail  to go from a "residential" drop off point'  to a "work" drop off point. Once that is in place... rider timing is second on the list of todo tasks.

 

I think somewhat like Doohickie,  our destinations are local within an 4 mile radius... bank, shopping, and our work is digtial imaging for clients on the internet [ like California and British Virgin Islands ].  We drive a hybrid electric.... not much need for hi-ways, trolly, rail or bus.  I think the last time we bought gas for the car was few months ago.  I do keep a spreadsheet of gasoline fill ups.  Longest time between fill ups was about  91 days (Aug - Dec 2012).  AND thats a good thing. 

[qmcgown]

For those of us who have been delayed by the Water Dept. closure of the Summit/7th Street intersection, the excavation work has at least provided one of those rare glimpses into the past as the hole in the roadway exposed the wooden ties for the double streetcar tracks along 7th. The Summit side of the hole also shows a few fragments of the Summit line. The workers half filled the hole this morning, so I'm not sure how long the view will be around. I suppose this post could have gone into the local history column, but it seemed appropriate to ponder here, a little wistfully, the legacy of the old streetcar traditions. The 7th street route dated back to the original 1890 Chamberlin Arlington Heights line that connected downtown to the soon to be bankrupt west side development. I'd have posted a picture, but the shadows were too deep for the phone camera's liking.

[johnfwd]

Nearly everyone here has been basing their opinions (I believe) on the functionality of streetcars.  Perhaps another factor often overlooked is whether streetcars contribute to the cultural aesthetics of the urban environment..  Remember those old "Rice R Roni" TV commercials that show a streecar going up a steep San Francisco hill?  Since being a kid, when I think of S.F. I think of that streetcar.  Not intending to make light of this particular argument, but the old-fashioned streetcar seemed to add to the quaintness of a city's downtown. in a way that busses do not.  I think Cberen1 touched on this above when he said streetcars do not have that "certain stigma" that busses do.  Here in Fort Worth, the Molly Trolley is the closest cultural thing we have to a streetcar. 

[AndyN]

Rice-a-roni uses cable cars in their advertising. Fort Worth never had cable cars. Dallas almost had cable cars, but electricity was invented and their cablecar line was converted to 'lectric.

 

Don't be fooled, Molly is a bus and an antithesis to the streetcar paradigm.

 

Also, realize that the last proposal was for a modern, air-conditioned, ADA compliant streetcar, not original antiques or reproductions. The electric streetcar is a slightly newer invention than the infernal combustion automobile, but the modern incarnations of both are nothing as primitive or ornate as their predecessors.

[djold1]

Nearly everyone here has been basing their opinions (I believe) on the functionality of streetcars.  Perhaps another factor often overlooked is whether streetcars contribute to the cultural aesthetics of the urban environment..  Remember those old "Rice R Roni" TV commercials that show a streecar going up a steep San Francisco hill?  Since being a kid, when I think of S.F. I think of that streetcar.  Not intending to make light of this particular argument, but the old-fashioned streetcar seemed to add to the quaintness of a city's downtown. in a way that busses do not.  I think Cberen1 touched on this above when he said streetcars do not have that "certain stigma" that busses do.  Here in Fort Worth, the Molly Trolley is the closest cultural thing we have to a streetcar. 

 

I guess it's understandable but you have a very skewed view of the streetcar and it's history.  To be brief, my reading of the transitional period in Fort Worth from 1930 to 1940 during which buses superseded streetcars, was very enlightening to me.  Essentially, using the same phrases for buses that are now used to praise streetcars, Fort Worth and many other cities threw streetcars out citing them as obsolete, inflexible as to routes, uncomfortable, requiring unsightly overhead wires, the nuisance of rails in the streets, etc., etc.  The city fathers that threw them out had been elected as modernist  progressives or liberals as part of Roosevelt's New Deal, although they were supported by many of the more conservative Council members as well.  They wanted a MODERN bus system.. Sound familiar?  

 

By 1936 when the franchise renewal for use of the streets came due for the Northern Texas Traction Co., there was a huge public cry to get "the rails out of the streets". In fact, the NTT had been replacing streetcar routes with buses since as early as 1924 and only about 60%-70% of the original rail lines were still in service, mostly on the longer and more heavily traveled streets. Although the NTT had mostly very modern, well maintained equipment, there were many news stories in the FWST about the advantages of "modern" buses vs. the old obsolete streetcars.  The bus-love rhetoric of 1936 sounded almost exactly the same as the gushy modern streetcar advocates are pushing today.  And just like today with streetcars, the bus lovers used a lot of half-truths and innuendo to push their ideas. 

 

The absolute worst and most dishonest statement that is current is that somehow the electric rail user will be able to mystically "know" where they are going by the fact that there are rails in the the street.  I actually heard two "consultants" say this in public meetings,. In spite of the fact that those rails can immediately be switched into innumerable destinations within a block of where the rider gets on and can go anywhere.  Just look at an old map if the FW streetcar lines.  Do you really believe that a streetcar rider of the 1900-1938 era REALLY gave that a thought?  If this little untruth were for real, what would have stopped the bus lines from painting a silver set of stripes on the streets where they ran to do exactly the same thing? 

 

Please do not expect anyone that has any interest in the subject or any reasoning power at all to believe that there is any intrinsic difference between a bus and a streetcar if they are both of the same vintage and quality of construction.  If you have seen the new articulated buses that run out East Lancaster, it would be hard to tell from any distance if they were external electric rail or internal CNG powered units.

 

Also, it's quite possible that a CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) bus will produce less pollution than that of a remote coal fired electric plant that runs the streetcars. I think that the current figure for coal fired energy in Texas is still around 40% or more.

 

I am well aware that the current view of streetcar usage is not for mass rapid transit but to cherry pick the well-paid but finicky dweller in urban villages (how is this not sprawl of some kind since it is not in the core city?).  The theory does not even consider the possible advantages of dedicated tourist trolley transportation and leaves out almost entirely those that need public transportation the most, consigning them to the odious buses.   

 

All that said, I personally think that there is a place for streetcars in Fort Worth.  So far IMHO, the planning has been inept, driven by agendas that have no real worth in the real transportation world. Which would ultimately bring service to areas that are already developed and don't need them & that already have or could have good bus service. This kind of premium, low return on the ticket transportation will only be used by the rider if there is no other alternative.

If we really want to have streetcars in Fort Worth, then let's stop the BS promotion using false values and get down to something that will ultimately benefit more than just a few....

[cberen1]

So, what I read here is one clear vote that busses and streetcars are interchangable (djold1).  There is also a fair amount of discussion about how to make a decision about streetcars vs. busses without a clear vote as to whether or not they are interchangeable.  The way I perceive a street car which makes it different from a bus is I see a street car as the largest possible version of a moving sidewalk.  Few turns, short-haul, easier, quicker and faster than getting in my car and messing with parking for a relatively short ride that I might not even bother to sit down on.  I perceive busses to wander around all over the city to collect and drop off riders in complex networks of routes meant to provide service to as many people as possible.  Not quick, not easy, a product of financial necessity for most rather than convenience.

 

This is simply how I perceive it to be regardless of what they truth may or may not be.  The question for me is, is public perception such that this bias precludes people from treating them the same way? 

 

A corrolary, my kids hate mashed potatoes.  I think it's criminal because mashed potatoes are little piles of heaven.  But, they hate mashed potatoes and instead love french fries.  Eat 'em like it's their last meal.  I simply can't convince them that mashed potatoes and french fires are in most respects exactly the same thing.  After several years of this I have accepted that they simply aren't going to eat mashed potatoes (until they're ready anyway), so there's no point in getting hung up on philosophy, give them what they will eat.  Cleary potatoes are cheap and streetcars are not.  I can buy and throw away french fries if they go uneaten.  Not so with streetcars.  So, the question here to me is, will people actually ride the streetcars or will they become half-full fixed route busses?

[Russ Graham]

Djold1 - good points.  I agree that the city can and should be looking at increasing the bus service in certain areas.  I still think there's a place for streetcars in the city however.

 

First of all, public transit will always have a hard time attracting riders (choice or not) in areas with population densities below about 5,000 a square mile.  My source for this fact is that I did some research for a stats class in graduate school, and the rate of use of public transit is almost exclusively a function of population density.  There is tons of research in this area, and if you look you can find lots of research backing up the relationship between density and transit use.  It almost doesn't matter what kind of public transit you have, the rate of use of that transit will increase if there are more people there to use it.  And the rate of people using cars goes down ('cause they're using the transit).  So, for example, you've got ~ 50% of people in NYC using public transit to get to work, and a population density of ~ 27k / square mile, and at the other end of the spectrum there's Fort Worth, about 1% of commuters using transit to get to work, and a population density of just over 2k / square mile. 

 

So if you want to increase use of public transit, or increase population density, you've got to increase the other one at the same time.  If you increase availability of public transit, but don't have densely populated areas, then few people will use that new transit.  If you increase population density, but don't increase public transit for those densely populated areas, you'll have car gridlock.  Everybody will hop in their car to do everything, and once you get above a certain density, that will cause a more or less unbearable traffic situation. 

 

So, for the "Urban Villages" - for instance the huge developments along 7th street, with hundreds of new apartment units going in.   That area is exploding with development.  The population density is going to skyrocket once all those apartment complexes fill up.   Now what is the public transit situation there?  It will be the same few routes that served the area when Acme Brick was the main employer in the area and Wendy's was the big restaurant.  The public transportation needs to increase to feed this area, or it will get choked with cars, a bunch of business will be lost, and if we were playing Sim City, all your residents would move out and the sad music would start playing. 

 

Why is the west 7th urban village not sprawl?  I guess that depends on what you want to call "sprawl".  I tend to thing of greenfield development that causes the city to have to put in new streets, schools, police divisions, sewers, etc, etc, etc, as sprawl.  Development in what the city's planning dept calls urban villages was supposed to concentrate some of the projected growth of the city into areas that are more economical for the city to supply services.

 

I agree that it's a rotten argument that we need streetcars over buses to attract "choice riders".  I cringe every time I hear that.  I also agree that you could get the exact same level of service (or close) using rubber wheeled vehicles vs. steel wheeled vehicles.  I suspect in addition that part of what makes cable cars so much better than gas or diesel powered buses in San Francisco is the steep hills, since a cable or electric motor is pretty quiet at max torque going up a hill, compared to a roaring turbodiesel.  And this is not an argument that applies to Ft Worth, which is mostly flat. 

 

So what justifies rail-based, permanent infrastructure in certain core areas of the city, vs presumably cheaper buses?   I think from a cost-benefit point of view, you have take a detailed look at whether you will save operating costs, and whether this will pay for the additional capital costs.   And there might be less marginal cost to increasing the level of service, once you've installed rails.  E.g., for buses, to double the service, you double the buses, which doubles your capital and operating costs.  For rail, doubling the service level "only" doubles your operating costs, but you've already paid for the rail, so you "just" have to buy a new tram.  I don't know how thin of an argument that is, I'm speculating on how you would justify it.  Another argument that has been made is that rail-based infrastructure serves as a guarantee of future transportation service, which attracts development.  This makes sense, when you consider how easy it is for the T to cancel or reduce service along a bus line.  The higher sunk cost and lower operating cost of a streetcar may serve to make this less likely.

 

So why encourage development in a certain area?  The city saves money by reusing existing infrastructure.  If the South Main urban village has anywhere near the same level of success as West 7th, then the city is going to make all kinds of money on property tax, and sales tax.  And there are already existing utilities in that area - no need to build everything from scratch.  So it's not "just" a handout to developers, or "just" a toy for spoiled urban hipsters to play with.  It's a tool in urban development, and in the city's best interest.  That's why the planning department has been talking for the last decade or so about the commercial corridor revitalization plan, the TRV, transit-oriented development, etc, etc. 

[Electricron]

Russ, you made some very good points, welcome to this discussion.

 

I just wanted to point out it's very, very difficult to provide better transit (any mode) and increase population density in a district or neighborhood at the same time. Ideally, that's what city planners want, but ideally is not in the real world. Usually transit (public or private) and better utilities come first, followed by high density housing later. Even in suburbia, utilities and streets are built first, homes are built in new neighborhoods later.

 

So, the question that needs to be asked is, What is "the" vision of the future for these neighborhoods? Is it single family housing in the Mistletoe neighborhood, or blocks of multifamily apartments in West 7th? Fort Worth should build whatever it takes to make that vision of the future happen. Then we can answer whether or not streetcars are needed or not on a particular street or in a particular neighborhood..

 

Too often, politics get involve in transit project planning. If your neighborhood gets this, then my neighborhood should also get it. This tit for tat, neighborhood against neighborhood, jealousies has got to stop. Fort Worth can't afford to build exactly the same infrastructure in every neighborhood. Politics should only effect the future vision of a neighborhood, then transit and utilities should be built to support that vision. 

[AndyN]

While I am disappointed that the city council did not complete the streetcar circulator study/design, I am greatly relieved that we did not purchase any of these United Streetcar hunks of junk. The delays hinted at problems which were confirmed to me a long time ago by unnamed sources. The prototype mentioned is the car that visited downtown Fort Worth. Pretty to look at, but severe performance issues.

 

http://www.oregonliv...oney_flows.html

 

Having had some dealings with Brookville Equipment, who has done some excellent work in Philly, Frisco and Nawlins, I am optimistic that the modern Dallas streetcars will turn out much better.

[Doohickie]

Hmm... I guess it's a bad day for streetcar news. 

 

Council to decide fate of Cincinnati streetcar at Monday meeting

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/...l#ixzz2Rbljju6G

[RD Milhollin]

It was a good day for streetcar news in Dallas:

 

http://dfw.cbslocal....r-project-a-go/

[Austin55]

Great for Dallas!

[Jeriat]

Yeah... great for Dallas... 

[Doohickie]

Embarrassing for Fort Worth.

[Jeriat]

Embarrassing for Fort Worth.

 

Yep. 

Then again, this is one of those few times where I'm GLAD Fort Worth isn't very well known nationally. Few people will even notice. 

[Doohickie]

I mean embarrassing from the point that we had a chance to get this at the same time Dallas did, and we sat on our hands let let Dallas pass us.  Again.

[Brian Luenser]

Fort Worth doesn't need them and we were too smart to waste millions on street clogging ancient transportation devices.  (Yes, I know the new ones have GPS systems.)   We need to clear our freeways.  Light rail, smart traffic lights and bigger highways with more lanes are the real solutions to Fort Worth's transportation problems. (Don't drink the Kool-Aid)   Our  I-35W North not only is incapable of getting people back and forth to work, it also punishes people driving through to the extent that they may never come back to Fort Worth.  Yes, to a large extent a Federal issue there,  but all our streets contribute to that problem.   The only embarrassment is that Fort Worth considered streetcars as long as they did.  If we think we need to copy Dallas, let's copy their light rail.

[johnfwd]

The only embarrassment is that Fort Worth considered streetcars as long as they did.  If we think we need to copy Dallas, let's copy their light rail.

I'm not crazy about streetcars, either. I've always been a fan of monorail. Below is an link to photos of the monorail system in Phoenix. What's wrong with building a monorail system downtown, anyway?

http://images.search...onorail phoenix

[JBB]

Phoenix has light rail, not a monorail.  Most of those pictures are of monorail systems at Disney theme parks.  The only true public transit monorail in the US is in Las Vegas.  All of the others are on private property (zoos or theme parks) or serve as a point to point system (Seattle, Memphis, several airports).

 

The system in Vegas was built with private money at a cost of around $160 million per mile.  Compare that with (I believe) around $60 million per mile for the DART Green/Orange line expansions and I think you have your answer.

[Russ Graham]

Fort Worth doesn't need them and we were too smart to waste millions on street clogging ancient transportation devices.  (Yes, I know the new ones have GPS systems.)   We need to clear our freeways.  Light rail, smart traffic lights and bigger highways with more lanes are the real solutions to Fort Worth's transportation problems. (Don't drink the Kool-Aid)   Our  I-35W North not only is incapable of getting people back and forth to work, it also punishes people driving through to the extent that they may never come back to Fort Worth.  Yes, to a large extent a Federal issue there,  but all our streets contribute to that problem.   The only embarrassment is that Fort Worth considered streetcars as long as they did.  If we think we need to copy Dallas, let's copy their light rail.

 

You want to save money - and then suggest freeways?  The $85 million saved by not installing the streetcar system will pay for about 1.7 miles of the CTP...

 

And saying the highway is so packed that people are going to quit coming here sounds like the Yogi Berra quote about how "nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, it's too crowded"... you're never going to clear the highways, but it makes sense to give people options to use public transit.  Light Rail is not my favorite option but I think the DART is getting to be an awesome system - mainly because Dallas at one point just shut up and started building. 

[Brian Luenser]

^{I do want to save money.  And horse and buggies would save us millions over the streetcars.  But just like streetcars, would only clog up our streets rather than facilitate getting the actual taxpayers footing the bills back and forth to their jobs.  Dallas has it right with their light rail.  And nothing else.} 

[Binx]

This article was in Sunday's paper:  "Downtown Fort Worth plan calls for pedestrian-first focus"

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...l#storylink=cpy

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/05/05/4827212/downtown-fort-worth-plan-calls.html

 

The first sentence kllled me - "Future development in downtown Fort Worth should be done with the pedestrian in mind but should also find ways to transport people to the Cultural District, the Stockyards..."

 

I wonder how the city could transport people from dowtown/rail stations to the other core urban villages?  I wish this plan was around before the streetcar vote. 

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...l#storylink=cpy

[Doohickie]

Fort Worth doesn't need them and we were too smart to waste millions on street clogging ancient transportation devices. 

 

Of course, because only smelly people use public transit. 

[RD Milhollin]

I wouldn't hesitate to refer to gasoline burning automobiles as "street clogging ancient transportation devices"

[Brian Luenser]

 

Fort Worth doesn't need them and we were too smart to waste millions on street clogging ancient transportation devices. 

 

Of course, because only smelly people use public transit. 

 

An excellent response here.

[Jeriat]

I know it's a long shot (an even LONGER shot now holding off street cars a few years back), but I was thinkin' of having streetcars only for the "core hoods (downtown, Near Southside, West 7th, Trinity Uptown) and LRT for the outer core of the city. You know, about a mile within 820 and a few miles outside of it. 

But that's even more of a pipe dream now than it was in 2010. Still would want to see it happen someday. 

[renamerusk]

^{...streetcars,[horse and buggies] would only clog up our streets rather than facilitate getting the actual taxpayers footing the bills back and forth to their jobs.....} 

 

 

I wouldn't hesitate to refer to gasoline burning automobiles as "street clogging ancient transportation devices"

 

but I would hesitate to characterized trips that are taken for purposes other then for work as being trips that are non productive and that are otherwise a drain upon taxes to be a characterization without merit.

[BlueMound]

Dallas expanding its Trolley system into Uptown
http://m.bizjournals...ce-traffic.html

[renamerusk]

 

....The traffic lanes are going to be 12 feet wide, maybe this is to accommodate future streetcar tracks....

 

The opening of this new connector (Hemphill-Lamar Streets) might then allow for the re-purposing of the Jennings Street tunnel to serve as a transit corridor.

 

 

 

I suppose that would work if the streetcar went down Jennings St. south of Vickery. That would keep the trains from interfering with car traffic on Hemphill and maybe spur more urban "Uptown-like" development there. I seem to remember that the Jennings tunnel is prone to floods during heavy rains, maybe  the drainage there could be addressed if tracks were added.

 

Serious consideration should be given to a Jennings Street Line.

 

As stipulated, egress into Downtown already exists with the Jennings Street Tunnel. And then there are these advantages:

 

South of Downtown: Jennings St is a straight line route through currently a relatively slower developmental activity than streets like Main and Hemphill; and a Jennings Street line would have the potential to accelerate development along either side of Jennings.  It has a pivotal intersection at the eastern section of Magnolia that would spur more development east of Hemphill.  A streetcar could then travel west along Magnolia ending with a terminal near 8th Avenue. 

 

Within Downtown: Jennings St is an easy route via Texas Street to Taylor Street.  Jennings/Texas gives convenient service to both the current municipal complex and to the Convention Center.  Texas/Taylor serves the federal complex.  Taylor Street is the ideal corridor for transit because of the existing M&O Tunnel.  The tunnel could be phased into the route and that would provide an already existing way for the street car to exit/enter Downtown from the north.

[Doohickie]

Would there be enough room to run a street car down Magnolia?  Right down the center turn lane?

 

Jennings would be a perfect streetcar location for the southside, running between Main and Hemphill.  As was noted, it would probably spur some development.  And automobile traffic along Jennings is already light; with the new Lamar Hemphill connector it will probably get even lighter.

[Austin55]

It's been 7 years now

 

The initial phase, the one that was $88 million, where did was it to run? Did it essentially just follow the Molly Route? Or  did it have extensions? It's really hard to find any info on the route now.

[renamerusk]

It's been 7 years now .....The initial phase, the one that was $88 million, where did was it to run? Did it essentially just follow the Molly Route? Or  did it have extensions? It's really hard to find any info on the route now.

 

Transport Politic (2010)

 

https://www.thetrans...other-question/

[Austin55]

 

It's been 7 years now .....The initial phase, the one that was $88 million, where did was it to run? Did it essentially just follow the Molly Route? Or  did it have extensions? It's really hard to find any info on the route now.

 

Transport Politic (2010)

 

https://www.thetrans...other-question/

 

 

So $88 Million for 3 cars and a 2.5 mile loop, which I assume is Belknap down Houston, Lancaster to Jones, Jones to 9th, and the back up Commerce to Belknap.

 

Some articles say the initial line was to be 6 miles and have connections to PI and NSS. 

 

EDIT

 

here ya go, the initial line

 

[renamerusk]

So $88 Million for 3 cars and a 2.5 mile loop, which I assume is Belknap down Houston, Lancaster to Jones, Jones to 9th, and the back up Commerce to Belknap....

 

 Yeah, it looked that-a-way.  It was a starter (hub) where spokes would have gone out to all other areas of the City.  At $88m in today's market, it was a bargain.  Today, we would have the skeletal bones in place.  Shame on those who put their protectionist self-interests ahead of the City's future.

[Fort Worthology]

 

 

Some articles say the initial line was to be 6 miles and have connections to PI and NSS. 

 

 

The initial route recommended by HDR was a downtown-to-Near Southside route along South Main to Magnolia.

 

(The newly redone South Main is, in fact, prepped for streetcar tracks already, just in case.)

[Volare]

  Shame on those who put their protectionist self-interests ahead of the City's future.

 

 

Unfortunately, those very few who control this City are the same ones who always put their self-interestes ahead of the City's future. That saying about Fort Worth being a City that feels like a small town? This is a City that runs like a small town.

[panthercity]

The initial route recommended by HDR was a downtown-to-Near Southside route along South Main to Magnolia.
 
(The newly redone South Main is, in fact, prepped for streetcar tracks already, just in case.)[/quote]

How so?