Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

M&O Subway

Resurrect It!

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:31 PM

If any topic ever deserves it own thread, this may be it.  

BTW, I like the M&O units over the Tandy units.

 

I was going to make this a poll, but I figured it would be better to just say what you believe was the worst thing to happen. I know a lot of you have your opinions on it, so I'll just make this one open. 

 

 

I'll start it off by saying that I believe demolishing the old Med. Arts Building for Burnett Plaza was an absolutely awful idea. I HATE Burnett Plaza. I'm sure many of you know that... but it's NOT what I think is the worst decision.

 

Honestly, I think getting rid of the old Tandy (Leonard's) Subway was the biggest mistake. I'm sure many of you wont agree with that, but I feel that it could have been something more. We could have been the only city in Texas with a full, functioning subway system. Sure it was only a mile and went from one stop in downtown to a parking lot a mile northwest, but it was still a subway.

title_world_us_fortworth.jpg

 

Maybe I'm being to overly optimistic, but I could envision a subway line running up and down Throckmorton, Houston, 1st, & 9th Street. Of course, it would only stay underground in downtown. I'd be crazy to suggest a full underground subway anywhere outside of it. The rest of it would be typical light rail. 

 

 

Just my take. It's not gonna happen now, but a guy can dream. 

 

Tandy_Center_Subway_1.jpg

 

 

It totally breaks my heart to think that we could've expanded the subway. I didn't even know that was an option.  I think between shutting down the subway and demolishing Hell's Half Acre that those two things really would have helped Fort Worth maintain a stronger national and regional identity.  The subway at the very least would be an awesome tie into a modern streetcar system (like Philadelphia), and Hell's Half Acre would probably be Sixth Street (Austin) meets The Strand (Galveston).  Gosh now my night is ruined thinking of all that wasted opportunity.  I'm sure I'll get over it soon.

 

 

The city actually had a plan in the '70s to take over the Leonard's subway and expand it through the rest of downtown and the surroundings.  I used to have a PDF of the plans.  I dearly wish I hadn't lost it.



#2 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:34 PM

One of the first item on Future Mayor Joel Burns' agenda ought to be getting this long neglected and sleeping asset resurrected.



#3 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 31 July 2014 - 06:40 AM

One of the first item on Future Mayor Joel Burns' agenda ought to be getting this long neglected and sleeping asset resurrected.

Not to delve into a political discussion (another thread), but isn't Mayor Price a rail transit advocate?  And the current city council has been talking about both commuter and high-speed trail lately.  Seems to me the current mayor and council are ripe for, at least contemplating, your idea.



#4 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 31 July 2014 - 10:04 AM

Seems to me they care more about getting people into and out of the city more than getting around the city.  Isn't the current council pretty much the same one that killed the streetcar study?

 

I was just reading this blog http://www.strongtow...ml#.U9plL_1CxBY and I think the following quotes apply to Fort Worth as well.

 

If the city’s goal is to cater to the suburban and exurban commuter, again, I ask why? Is there a belief that the financial cost inflicted on the city by building highways through neighborhoods, devaluing its property and turning the streets hazardous are somehow made up by the money suburban commuters bring to the city? Where is the proof of that? They need you more than you need them, especially if you stop fighting congestion and instead use it to bring about a natural market response to high demand (greater investment, maturing neighborhoods and growth).

 

If I were a resident and a voter in this city, I would ask my city council members: why are you obsessing over the happiness of people who are so eager to leave your city and not equally obsessing over my happiness to stay?


#5 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 31 July 2014 - 12:24 PM

 

One of the first item on Future Mayor Joel Burns' agenda ought to be getting this long neglected and sleeping asset resurrected.

Not to delve into a political discussion (another thread), but isn't Mayor Price a rail transit advocate?  And the current city council has been talking about both commuter and high-speed trail lately.  Seems to me the current mayor and council are ripe for, at least contemplating, your idea.

 

 

No.  I do not believe that the current mayor and council are ripe for contemplating the idea of reviving the M&O subway; my guess is because of their obsession with the DFW Airport Connection, or intercity transportation systems, it just does not ever cross their minds.  As of this lack of interest, I am puzzled of the why.

 

I predict that a Mayor Burns would be a strong advocate of a M&O project.



#6 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 31 July 2014 - 01:22 PM

Even though I'd be perfectly happy with above ground light rail, it would be amazing (and something else we can say about our city that other cities in Texas can't) to kick this off again.

 

My hope now is that at least some of the citizens make a campaign to put more importance on INNER city rail, just as much as Commuter Rail. Or should I say more than Commuter Rail, since it's been dragging for years.


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#7 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 01:25 AM

Even though I'd be perfectly happy with above ground light rail, it would be amazing (and something else we can say about our city that other cities in Texas can't) to kick this off again.

 

My hope now is that at least some of the citizens make a campaign to put more importance on INNER city rail, just as much as Commuter Rail. Or should I say more than Commuter Rail, since it's been dragging for years.

If inner city rail is important, the best way to finance it is by doubling FWTA sales tax revenues by doubling its rate from 0.5% to 1%. Talk all you want about building inner city or commuter rail priorities, FWTA will still need the increased revenues to build and operate both.



#8 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 01 August 2014 - 12:40 PM

If inner city rail is important, the best way to finance it is by doubling FWTA sales tax revenues by doubling its rate from 0.5% to 1%. Talk all you want about building inner city or commuter rail priorities, FWTA will still need the increased revenues to build and operate both.

 

Again that misses the point. The best way for building inner city rail priorities is to abandon commuter rail priorities; or at least setting inner city priorities ahead of regional priorities.

 

I am all for doubling the rate if the revenue is to be spent for busses and transit within the inner city. 

 

Suburbanites are welcome to move into the city, in fact, I would encourage them to do so.  In the case of suburbs v. inner city,  my personal feelings are to let suburban commuters fend for themselves since they have chosen to live where they do. 

 

As for the FWTA, if it is reconstituted towards a more narrow focus on the inner city mobility needs, then it will have my support, but if not, I hope that it is disbanded.



#9 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 02 August 2014 - 12:57 AM

 

Even though I'd be perfectly happy with above ground light rail, it would be amazing (and something else we can say about our city that other cities in Texas can't) to kick this off again.

 

My hope now is that at least some of the citizens make a campaign to put more importance on INNER city rail, just as much as Commuter Rail. Or should I say more than Commuter Rail, since it's been dragging for years.

If inner city rail is important, the best way to finance it is by doubling FWTA sales tax revenues by doubling its rate from 0.5% to 1%. Talk all you want about building inner city or commuter rail priorities, FWTA will still need the increased revenues to build and operate both.

 

 

 

In all honesty, I'd rather not have the FWTA even be involved with this.... 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#10 Not Sure

Not Sure

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Location:NRH

Posted 02 August 2014 - 10:13 AM

 

Even though I'd be perfectly happy with above ground light rail, it would be amazing (and something else we can say about our city that other cities in Texas can't) to kick this off again.

 

My hope now is that at least some of the citizens make a campaign to put more importance on INNER city rail, just as much as Commuter Rail. Or should I say more than Commuter Rail, since it's been dragging for years.

If inner city rail is important, the best way to finance it is by doubling FWTA sales tax revenues by doubling its rate from 0.5% to 1%. Talk all you want about building inner city or commuter rail priorities, FWTA will still need the increased revenues to build and operate both.

 

 

I would also like to see greater involvement from surrounding cities. Part of the reason DART is so successful is the greater percentage of sales tax it collects. Just as important a reason is the number of surrounding cities involved. FWTA has Fort Worth and Richland Hills (is Lake Worth still in the mix?).

 

Membership in the transportation group for the county a city is located in should be compulsory, in my opinion. Since that's not likely and since there's not much political will in this part of the country to volunteer for greater taxes, FWTA will likely continue to flounder.



#11 urbancowboy

urbancowboy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Was Philly, now Houston
  • Interests:Sustainable, Livable, Urbanism

Posted 02 August 2014 - 11:33 PM

I believe Lake Worth left, but Blue Mound is a member. There might be more interest from our suburbs to join once the TEX line is opened.

#12 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 03 August 2014 - 09:57 AM

Maybe it is time to consider a combined city/county government. NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lexington KY, Indianapolis, Augusta GA, Athens GA, Jacksonville, Nashville, Denver, Honolulu, Kansas City KS, San Francisco, and Anchorage all operate under some for of combined city-county government.



#13 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:36 AM

Maybe it is time to consider a combined city/county government. NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lexington KY, Indianapolis, Augusta GA, Athens GA, Jacksonville, Nashville, Denver, Honolulu, Kansas City KS, San Francisco, and Anchorage all operate under some for of combined city-county government.

But not a single example in Texas. Have you looked at the Texas Constitution lately? Counties in Texas have far more "constitutional" responsibilities than they do almost everywhere else in the country. I believe some amendments to Texas' Constitution will be needed to initiate a combined city-county government in Texas. There's so many amendments already I'm not going to suggest that task will be impossible - but I am going to suggest it will be politically improbable.



#14 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:29 PM

 

Maybe it is time to consider a combined city/county government....

 

..... I believe some amendments to Texas' Constitution will be needed to initiate a combined city-county government in Texas. There's so many amendments already I'm not going to suggest that task will be impossible - but I am going to suggest it will be politically improbable.

 

I would suggest that none of this is needed.  

 

The M&O was a private project; and its rebirth, I hope, could be accomplished by a private/federal/city effort.  I would hope that the FWTA would not be involved.



#15 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 04 August 2014 - 02:09 PM

Having just got back from Seattle, this reminds me of the old Alweg monorail they have up there. It just runs between the worlds fair site and downtown, every 10 minutes. Only has two stops. Uses a single train at a time. The line is run by a private company. It runs about one mile. It was always packed, Wiki has a listed daily ridership of 7,000. 

 

I wonder is a similar monorail (or other elevated system) could be in any way used in FW. It seems cheaper than to build than a subway and less intrusive than a streetcar, 



#16 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 04 August 2014 - 02:24 PM

I have always found elevated systems to be far *more* intrusive than ground-level systems.  The elevated track is never enjoyable to be around from a pedestrian perspective.



#17 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:08 PM

Whenever I think "Monorail", 3 things come to mind:

 - Dated (it's a 60's thing, when everyone thought we would be living in a Space Age, which was supposed to be around 14 years ago)

 

 - Theme Parks

 

 - That classic Simpsons episode

 

Personally, I think monorails should only be used for a few specific reasons. Public Transportation isn't one of them.

 

Now, when Casino Beach is reborn, perhaps...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#18 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted 04 August 2014 - 09:51 PM

Downtown Fort Worth is surrounded by railroad tracks in every direction. Streetcars and light rail trains that aren't FRA compliant, will either have to go above or below these tracks. Look at how much the TexRail tracks heading north of downtown towards Tower 60 will be above grade. A streetcar line north towards the stockyards would have to cross both the River and the FWWR tracks. A streetcar line to the south would have to cross the UP tracks. A streetcar line to the west would have to cross the FWWR tracks. A streetcar line to the east would have to cross both the UP and BNSF tracks. 

 

There might be a point building an elevated line through downtown Fort Worth to at least the ring of tracks surrounding it. 

 

Downtown Dallas is no longer surrounded by railroad tracks. The light rail lines don't have to cross the tracks to the west as it runs adjacent and parallel just to the east of them. The tracks to the north was repurposed into a bike trail. The tracks to the east was repurposed by DART into light rail lines. The tracks to the south DART built viaducts over, or had service abandoned.  DART was lucky when it came to freight tracks.

 

Fort Worth will not be so lucky.



#19 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 04 August 2014 - 10:52 PM

Kevin- I somewhat disagree. Seattle's system is very open and not all that obtrusive or unpleasant at all. It also elevates crowds and stations above sidewalks, or in some cases within buildings themselves (Seattle's downtown line ends in a shopping mall and above an underground transit station) It does have a disadvantage of taking away some streetspace for it's support system though. But in an auto reliant city, having separation between cars and trains might help convince the general public it's a good idea. 

 

Jeriat-  To me monorail are the most modern form of mass transit, more so than streetcars or light rail or anything like that. While they are good at moving people about theme parks, theme parks are also pedestrian oriented places. I've never seen the mentioned simpsons episode. 

 

Seattle's system, 

W27VkpX.jpg

 

I don't think a Monorail would look appropriate running near the Stockyards or Southside, but perhaps a Cultural District-Downtown monorail could be a reasonable idea?

 

 

Run across a nice website advocating more monorail's here -> http://www.monorails...spages/Why.html



#20 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 05 August 2014 - 12:34 AM

You don't remember this? 
 

sZBPoRwog00
 
JjTv_bJRwf4

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#21 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:08 AM

Just because an elevated monorail has less "impact" on cars than a surface-running system doesn't mean that's automatically a good thing.  Don't discount the traffic calming effect of surface transit, which helps reclaim neighborhood main streets from being higher-speed traffic funnels to being true mixed-use neighborhood streets again.  I get why it can be seen as a good selling point to car-crazy citizenry to get trains off the street, but I really believe that this attitude does transit a disservice in the long run.  Modern transportation planning is about the people-moving ability of the street, not the car-moving ability of the street, and transit in the street helps to transform those streets into better places even for people simply walking down the street (not only through traffic calming, but also through all the associated improvements that come along with a transit line - better pedestrian infrastructure, etc.)

 

Elevated stations are also quite a bit more expensive and awkward to use (including the requirement of elevators).

 

And there's no such thing as an "off-the-shelf" monorail system - it's all got to be custom built, unlike things like light rail and streetcars, which have proven, readily available components and vehicles.

 

Also, it's more difficult to build an actual transit system out of monorails - things like switches, etc. are hugely complicated and pricey compared to the ones for conventional transit systems.  One reason why you rarely see monorails in any context besides a simple Point A to Point B one-line route or a closed system like a theme park.



#22 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:11 AM

Downtown Fort Worth is surrounded by railroad tracks in every direction. Streetcars and light rail trains that aren't FRA compliant, will either have to go above or below these tracks. Look at how much the TexRail tracks heading north of downtown towards Tower 60 will be above grade. A streetcar line north towards the stockyards would have to cross both the River and the FWWR tracks. A streetcar line to the south would have to cross the UP tracks. A streetcar line to the west would have to cross the FWWR tracks. A streetcar line to the east would have to cross both the UP and BNSF tracks.....

 

"That is not so".  There are existing tunnels and ROW which can be used to enter and exit downtown without crossing RR tracks.

 

As for the topic at hand, the M&O is an existing ROW into downtown that could be tied to existing FWRR ROW to connect to the north and to the west never while never once needing to cross private RR tracks.



#23 PeopleAreStrange

PeopleAreStrange

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 05 August 2014 - 03:21 PM

If Gateway Park ever gets built as planned, I think it would be a good idea to connect T&P or ITC with the park by elevated streetcar or monorail.

 

http://trinityriverv...master-plan.pdf (PDF)

 

I suggest this because it would be difficult to connect downtown and the park on ground level.


- Dylan


#24 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:32 PM

Just because an elevated monorail has less "impact" on cars than a surface-running system doesn't mean that's automatically a good thing.  Don't discount the traffic calming effect of surface transit, which helps reclaim neighborhood main streets from being higher-speed traffic funnels to being true mixed-use neighborhood streets again.  I get why it can be seen as a good selling point to car-crazy citizenry to get trains off the street, but I really believe that this attitude does transit a disservice in the long run.  Modern transportation planning is about the people-moving ability of the street, not the car-moving ability of the street, and transit in the street helps to transform those streets into better places even for people simply walking down the street (not only through traffic calming, but also through all the associated improvements that come along with a transit line - better pedestrian infrastructure, etc.)

 

Elevated stations are also quite a bit more expensive and awkward to use (including the requirement of elevators).

Whereas one responder suggested monorail, I included elevated light rail. I agree with you that monorail systems provide more difficulties than elevated light rail systems. Follow DART's green line through the Medical District to visualize what an elevated modern light rail line looks like. 



#25 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 01 July 2017 - 06:25 PM

A while back someone posted a PDF (I think) of a feasibility study to extend the subway towards the City Hall/T&P station. I can't find it anymore. Anyone have it handy?

#26 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 02 July 2017 - 10:10 AM

.... I can't find it anymore. Anyone have it handy?

 

Well I tried to find it. It is very difficult when comments and information are posted willy-nilly.  If and when it is able to be found; an attempt will be made to place it in an appropriate topic/thread. :)



#27 Jamie

Jamie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:14 PM

It was apparently lost when the North Texas Transport website was revamped last spring. I have the file in .mht format (4.5 MB) but can't seem to figure out how to upload it here.



#28 David_H

David_H

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:17 PM

Jamie, you are right, the file seems to no longer be available in the original location. 

 

I had saved a PDF in my Dropbox - you can get it here: http://djh.cc/2ueHmsC



#29 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 03 July 2017 - 01:05 PM

Finding and reading the M&O Subway PDF is exciting and opens up a reasonable possibility of rail transit in Downtown.

 

One option which ought to garner serious consideration is the combine the use of the M&O Subway Tunnel (MOST) and a Street Car Line.

 

If MOST operated in its original capacity as a sub-terrarium terminal, it should be feasible for a terminal to be built on Taylor Street at surface above the MOST terminal.   The street car route could cross through Downtown using Taylor and Texas Streets; turn onto Jennings Street; and operate a path using Jennings to the JPS Hospital.



#30 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 07 July 2017 - 10:17 AM

There are several folders worth of M&O & Leonards information & pictures up for bid in the RadioShack auction on UBid.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#31 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 07 July 2017 - 12:50 PM

There are several folders worth of M&O & Leonards information & pictures up for bid in the RadioShack auction on UBid.

 

They're just giving it away...?


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#32 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,321 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 07 July 2017 - 12:59 PM

No, it's an auction, not a raffle.



#33 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 07 July 2017 - 02:03 PM

I think the lot was bidding at $26 last time I looked.


Www.fortwortharchitecture.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users