Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Main LRT Station (...for IF we ever get LRT or streetcars)

Light Rail LRT Train Station Trinity River

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 26 January 2014 - 08:59 PM

IF we had light rail, this would be my proposal for the main station in downtown. It would be north of the Courthouse, in between the TCC East Campus and Main Street. 

 

Obviously, several things would have to happen in order for this to even be a remote possibility. 

 

- Commerce (and by the way I envision the rail lines to run, Houston as well) would be a one way street from Lancaster to the north end of downtown. 

- Also, Commerce would have to build all the way out to the future Panther Island. I know there's a power plant and all, but I looked down from the bluff and saw an open spot where Commerce continues. 
- Staying with Panther Island, I know the streets would have to connect back to where Main Street would become a two way street again. So there's that to deal with... 
- And again, there has to be SOME kind of light rail to make that happen. 

Anyway, here's the visual. 

1779056_10202177804480025_1650537462_n.j


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#2 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,769 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:25 AM

I see a few issues with it. 

First- I don't think the bluff needs to be altered anymore. TCC has done that enough, (It looks good in my opinion, but anything further would be to much) and building anything there would take a lot of reinforcement to be be built into the hillside. 

Secondly, It's not really located next to enough high density development. Sure the Courthouses, TCC, maybe upper Sundance are within a few blocks. But north there's nothing but the river. I think if you are going to build a stop it needs to be in dense areas, or areas that have potential to become dense.

Third- We already have a main station in the form of the ITC no?

 

Fourth, unless the Paddock Viaduct couldn't support streetcars/LRT, why the need for a new bridge? Why not just share traffic lanes?



#3 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 27 January 2014 - 03:14 PM

I see a few issues with it. 

First- I don't think the bluff needs to be altered anymore. TCC has done that enough, (It looks good in my opinion, but anything further would be to much) and building anything there would take a lot of reinforcement to be be built into the hillside. 
Secondly, It's not really located next to enough high density development. Sure the Courthouses, TCC, maybe upper Sundance are within a few blocks. But north there's nothing but the river. I think if you are going to build a stop it needs to be in dense areas, or areas that have potential to become dense.
Third- We already have a main station in the form of the ITC no?
 
Fourth, unless the Paddock Viaduct couldn't support streetcars/LRT, why the need for a new bridge? Why not just share traffic lanes?


I should have erased some of that blue. It wouldn't really cut in to the bluff, it would actually just stop right where it begins to ddrop.

The lines are based on the the streetcar proposals that were posted back in 2010 (...man, it's going too be a full 4 years after the rejection. Time flies...) And I think only one of those proposed routes even touched the ITC.
The location I selected was supposed to be a link between Panther Island and downtown. The two different bridges came from an idea I had last year to make it where Main Street wouldn't just be cars and an oddly placed pedestrian walkway.

7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#4 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 27 January 2014 - 04:55 PM

The actual line that was planned would have gone to the ITC, had it been built.  There was a strong desire to concentrate all the transit hubs there.


--

Kara B.

 


#5 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:53 PM

The actual line that was planned would have gone to the ITC, had it been built.  There was a strong desire to concentrate all the transit hubs there.

I'm sure the actual line (whenever we actually get light rail in some form) will connect. 

My idea is far away from possible, but I just got the idea walking down that area. 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#6 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 29 January 2014 - 12:22 AM

The actual line that was planned would have gone to the ITC, had it been built.  There was a strong desire to concentrate all the transit hubs there.

 

 

 

The lines are based on the the streetcar proposals that were posted back in 2010 (...man, it's going too be a full 4 years after the rejection. Time flies...) And I think only one of those proposed routes even touched the ITC.

 

 

 

Third- We already have a main station in the form of the ITC no?

 

 

So, experience tells us that CLRT (Commuter Light Rail Trains), unless it is elevated or is submerge, is a bad idea if convergence of the system lines is at one corridor in the CBD.  For evidence, one only needs to look at the crosstown gridlock  routinely caused in downtown Dallas by the Pacific Street DART rail corridor as trains backup due to either mechanical breakdown, train/auto accidents, and the inability of the corridor to handle additional capacity as new lines are added to the system. DART is now facing problem an enormous price as well as an unforeseen disruption to the entire system so that it can remedy the situation ---”Think Tower 55 and sticker shock!”  Fort Worth should absolutely not repeat DART’s blunder and keep any CLRT off downtown streets.

Streetcars are another matter; and can blend in much smoother with regular vehicular street traffic than CLRT.

The Scenario: Begin and end street car lines from the CBD from not one, but two ITC points with all lines at grade. The second ITC eliminates the need to cross core downtown streets.
From the 9th Street ITC, start and end the lines traveling east and south of the CBD
From a second ITC (Lancaster @Henderson) start and end the lines traveling west and north of the CBD.

Connect the two ITC with a shuttle street car along Lancaster Street.
 



#7 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 29 January 2014 - 09:13 AM

There's no need to banish any theoretical light rail trains from the surface of a CBD - it works fine in plenty of cities.  DART's just not as well thought-out in some cases.  It's not inherent to LRT.

 

I would be thrilled to have something like, say, http://en.wikipedia..../MAX_Light_Rail , surface-running downtown trains and all.


--

Kara B.

 


#8 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 29 January 2014 - 08:27 PM

Just more wishful thinking, but good God I wish the Tandy Center subway would have stayed and expanded into a starter line for either light rail (more likely) or a continued subway (would be MUCH more expensive, but interesting to be the only city in this state with a subway system). 


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#9 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 29 January 2014 - 08:55 PM

Just more wishful thinking, but good God I wish the Tandy Center subway would have stayed and expanded into a starter line for either light rail (more likely) or a continued subway (would be MUCH more expensive, but interesting to be the only city in this state with a subway system). 

 

If I remember correctly the majority of the M&O/Tandy tunnel was single track. A "real" subway would need two tracks to allow for bi-directional travel. So unless this hypothetical system had a second and parallel tunnel, most likely on another north-south street, or extensive modifications were made to the existing tunnel, it would not be suitable for the use you describe. I love the idea, but this sort of system would be extremely expensive to implement here. I still prefer converting the tunnel into an urban bat colony.



#10 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 29 January 2014 - 11:37 PM

 

Just more wishful thinking, but good God I wish the Tandy Center subway would have stayed and expanded into a starter line for either light rail (more likely) or a continued subway (would be MUCH more expensive, but interesting to be the only city in this state with a subway system). 

 

If I remember correctly the majority of the M&O/Tandy tunnel was single track. A "real" subway would need two tracks to allow for bi-directional travel. So unless this hypothetical system had a second and parallel tunnel, most likely on another north-south street, or extensive modifications were made to the existing tunnel, it would not be suitable for the use you describe. I love the idea, but this sort of system would be extremely expensive to implement here. I still prefer converting the tunnel into an urban bat colony.

 

 

I know. But one can dream...


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#11 Dylan

Dylan

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Suburbia

Posted 30 January 2014 - 08:47 AM

I can understand streetcars to connect the urban core, but I don't see the need for light rail lines through downtown for trains from the suburbs. We've got commuter lines around downtown for trains from the suburbs.

-Dylan


#12 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:52 AM

I can understand streetcars to connect the urban core, but I don't see the need for light rail lines through downtown for trains from the suburbs. We've got commuter lines around downtown for trains from the suburbs.

 

"Agree".



#13 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:53 AM

 

 

Just more wishful thinking, but good God I wish the Tandy Center subway would have stayed and expanded into a starter line for either light rail (more likely) or a continued subway (would be MUCH more expensive, but interesting to be the only city in this state with a subway system). 

 

If I remember correctly the majority of the M&O/Tandy tunnel was single track. A "real" subway would need two tracks to allow for bi-directional travel. So unless this hypothetical system had a second and parallel tunnel, most likely on another north-south street, or extensive modifications were made to the existing tunnel, it would not be suitable for the use you describe. I love the idea, but this sort of system would be extremely expensive to implement here. I still prefer converting the tunnel into an urban bat colony.

 

 

I know. But one can dream...

 

 

 

Actually, in the '70s, there was indeed a plan to convert the Tandy subway into an actual subway for the rest of downtown.  I used to have a scanned PDF of the documents.

 

Basically, the gist I got was that the city would have taken over the Tandy subway and expanded it.  I don't recall many specific alignments, but the one that stood out in my mind was an extension running south through downtown to the T&P.  I believe there were maybe one or two other alignments, and all were designed to expand out of downtown in a later phase.

 

I wish I still had the PDF, as it was a fascinating look at an alternate Fort Worth history that never was.


--

Kara B.

 


#14 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 30 January 2014 - 12:39 PM

 

Actually, in the '70s, there was indeed a plan to convert the Tandy subway into an actual subway for the rest of downtown....Basically, the gist I got was that the city would have taken over the Tandy subway and expanded it.  I don't recall many specific alignments, but the one that stood out in my mind was an extension running south through downtown to the T&P.

 

An idea like that actually still makes sense as the beginning of the tunnel is already in place.  Beneath Taylor Street would be the ideal alignment if you want to cross the core CBD. 

 

Otherwise, the peripheral corridors like Henderson Street, as the future development expands the core CBD southward and westward, and Lancaster are better for rail transit than the many of the core streets of downtown.  As I earlier opined, a second ITC, possibly one elevated at Henderson@ Lancaster, could be the nexus for a central city transit network where streetcars could travel east, west, north and south.

 

Maybe, the FWTA ought to be rethinking its strategy of linking every type of transportation in one location.



#15 Jeriat

Jeriat

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SWFW

Posted 30 January 2014 - 08:20 PM

I can understand streetcars to connect the urban core, but I don't see the need for light rail lines through downtown for trains from the suburbs. We've got commuter lines around downtown for trains from the suburbs.

 

Eh... all we really have is the TRE at the moment and that just goes to Dallas. 

The TEX is another 4 (hopefully) years away and who knows when the other planned CommRail lines will happen? 

 

I


7fwPZnE.png

 

8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg


#16 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 February 2014 - 11:41 AM


If I remember correctly the majority of the M&O/Tandy tunnel was single track. A "real" subway would need two tracks to allow for bi-directional travel. So unless this hypothetical system had a second and parallel tunnel, most likely on another north-south street, or extensive modifications were made to the existing tunnel, it would not be suitable for the use you describe.....

 

 

The Tandy Subway ran northward along Taylor Street from an underground station between Weatherford and 2nd Streets... about 0.2 mile (0.35 km) was underground....when the Tandy Center was built, the terminal was relocated to just north of where 1st Street would intersect Taylor if it ran through there. The tunnel was also excavated further south to 3rd Street, but this was never used....The line was mostly double track (left-hand operation) with a short stretch of single track at the outer end, and a single-track spur to the carbarn. At the Tandy Center end, the two tracks merged into a single track just before entering the station, then split into three stub tracks inside the station.

 

http://web.presby.ed.../TerminalSE.jpg

http://web.presby.ed...CarInterior.jpg

http://web.presby.ed...orth/Portal.jpg

http://web.presby.ed.../PortalView.jpg



#17 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,769 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:32 PM

If streetspace is at premium downtown, how much more would it really cost to build tracks underground as opposed to at grade? Belknap to Lancaster along Commerce isn't even a mile, perhaps future rail solutions could be underground during this stretch? I remember going to St. Louis and it's Metrolink runs underground as a subway in the CBD. Dart has several underground portions as well? 



#18 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

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

Posted 06 February 2014 - 01:58 PM

If streetspace is at premium downtown, how much more would it really cost to build tracks underground as opposed to at grade? Belknap to Lancaster along Commerce isn't even a mile, perhaps future rail solutions could be underground during this stretch?.....

 

Engineers could extend the already existing tunnel along and beneath Taylor Street and then Lamar Street where the tunnel would reemerge onto Lamar Street; then tie-in to the proposed Lamar Street extension that would connect to a route down and back Hemphill Street to Felix.

 

A grand plan but a practical plan to serve an area where transit is more frequently used.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Light Rail, LRT, Train Station, Trinity River

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users