154 replies to this topic

[renamerusk]

I'm glad to see the city's public transportation system trying to go green.  I was a little mislead by the words "Tarrant County" and "regional" at the beginning of the FWBP article below in that I thought the new scheme was to bring in surrounding communities in Tarrant County.  But this particular bus has stops only in Fort Worth.....

 

The staff reporting is a sad illustration of lap dog news.  This is not a genuine news story but a

 

 There are not "commuters" between Sundance Square and Crockett Row;and is nothing more than a partisan gift of welfare to the these select merchants and bars.  TM is picking and choosing winners and losers; and not doing its job to provide public transportation.  If Sundance Square and Crockett Row customers need transportation, then let them use taxis,uber/lyft or their personal vehicle that pay to park at Farrington Field or along Downtown Streets and in Downtown garages.

 

To be non-partisan, Trinity Metro should be required to provide equal service to Magnolia and South Main Entertainment Districts.

[Austin55]

The city was presented with 3 different scenarios yesterday, "incremental improvements", "asperational outlook", and "visionary city". Each adds more service and more cost. 

 

Each adds the TEXRail medical district station, more highway based xpress routes, and more frequent bus service with longer hours. Highlights of aspirational outlook add BRT along North Main/Hempill and Lancaster/Camp Bowie and Riverside, several more rapid bus routes, and the full TEXRail buildout to the southwest. Visionary City changes the North Main/Hempill and Lancaster/Camp Bowie BRT lines into light rail, over a dozen other local bus routes with 15 minute frequencies, and 2 new commuter rail lines, one to the South towards Crowley and another to the Southeast towards Kennedale.

[panthercity]

Visionary city, sign me up for that!

[renamerusk]

I do not like the emphasis on "commuter rail" over a the implementation of a hybrid street car/ light rail with headway frequencies of 10-15 minutes. Who are the citizens that will use commuter rail to go to places like the Stockyards, Cultural District, and Downtown.  Why is Fort Worth (Current Leadership) so smitten with the transportation needs of outlying communities?

 

I am disappointed that intra-city rail is not even being planned for.

[Dylan]

You might want to re-read Austin's post. There are three options being presented to the city, from cheap to expensive.

 

The most expensive option proposes light rail on Camp Bowie, Lancaster, Hemphill, and N. Main, in addition to three new commuter rail corridors.

 

That said, I'm a little confused about why two of the proposals call for BRT or commuter rail on the Riverside Drive / Mansfield Hwy corridor. What would high-capacity transit on this corridor serve?

 

Perhaps I could ask the same about the Lancaster corridor, but at least BRT or light rail on this corridor would replace the city's busiest bus route.

 

IMO, these proposals appear to be core-centric (aside from the Crowley commuter line).

[Dylan]

A few more thoughts based on the map in Luke Ranker's tweet yesterday: https://twitter.com/...609573572173824

 

1- On the Hemphill and N. Main corridors, how are you supposed to fit a transit median in these corridors? I don't see how these corridors are wide enough for two light rail lanes in the middle, then stations / vehicle turn lanes / medians on the outside of them, then regular car lanes on the outside of all that.

 

2- Somehow, nobody seems to understand that there needs to be a connection between TEXRail's North Side Station and the Stockyards. The N. Main line ought to end at North Side Station.

 

3- The Camp Bowie line ought to be extended west of Loop 820. There's high demand for transit just inside the loop, and a lot of development taking place just outside the loop.

 

4- The almost Crowley and almost Kennedale commuter lines would run on BNSF and Union Pacific corridors, respectively. If we're banking on these rail owners allowing passenger service on their corridors, and we're proposing commuter rail for low-density sprawl towards the south, why not propose commuter rail for low-density sprawl towards Alliance / the north as well?

[elpingüino]

A few more thoughts based on the map in Luke Ranker's tweet yesterday: https://twitter.com/...609573572173824
 

Here's that map. He wrote that he's working on a full article later in the week.

[Austin55]

A little clearer,

 

[Austin55]

1- On the Hemphill and N. Main corridors, how are you supposed to fit a transit median in these corridors? I don't see how these corridors are wide enough for two light rail lanes in the middle, then stations / vehicle turn lanes / medians on the outside of them, then regular car lanes on the outside of all that.

 

It could be great to follow the Houston Metro's look, which strongly prioritizes pedestrian and transit with only one car lane. There's other examples with turn lanes and parking which are not very wide. However, Houston has a ton of alternative parallel routes, where Fort Worth has pretty much only one option in each direction, which would surely lead to a ton of pushback from automobile users.

 

 

4- The almost Crowley and almost Kennedale commuter lines would run on BNSF and Union Pacific corridors, respectively. If we're banking on these rail owners allowing passenger service on their corridors, and we're proposing commuter rail for low-density sprawl towards the south, why not propose commuter rail for low-density sprawl towards Alliance / the north as well?

 

Interestingly these two additional lines are the same two proposed in NCTCOG's Plan 2045, which also neglects anything towards the north (or any other direction)

[txbornviking]

pushback from auto users will be strong and fierce on any proposal pursued. as such, I'd argue we pursue the most aggressive plan possible. at least that way, if you have to "give up something" you're starting from a better position.

 

my bigger "fear" is that these plans/proposals will fall flat just as the 2016 T Master Plan did which died without so much as a vote by the city council

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

[Jeriat]

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

 

Funny how that same *cough* is now pushing to get TEXRail down to the new Tarleton Campus, which just so happens to go through his district...

[renamerusk]

Placing a transit rail line on Camp Bowie, Hemphill, Lancaster are problematic. I don't think it is safe or advisable; and it will surely be resisted.  These corridors have are multi faceted purposes: commercial, emergency, cross town corridors.

 

A more sensible approach might be to identify secondary streets that would be converted into transit corridors.  Designating a network/web of a secondary streets would be less disruptive and would actually penetrate neighborhoods more effectively.

[Dylan]

Light rail lanes and their surrounding medians take up a ton of width. As it is, I'm not sure how Hemphill and N. Main are wide enough to accommodate light rail lanes, medians, and car lanes. The Harrisburg Blvd. corridor in Houston that Austin55 posted above is wider than both Hemphill and N. Main. It would probably be more feasible to run streetcar service on these corridors instead of full-blown light rail.

 

In central Fort Worth, Camp Bowie and Lancaster are two of the few roadway corridors I can think of that are wide enough for light rail lanes, medians, and car lanes.

 

I'd like to hear your suggestions for alternate light rail corridors.

[Austin55]

 

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

 

Funny how that same *cough* is now pushing to get TEXRail down to the new Tarleton Campus, which just so happens to go through his district...

 

 

If I remember right, when Jungus was told that the SW portion of the line was cut he turned and opposed the line altogether. 

____________________

 

 

Luke Rankers article is out, https://www.star-tel...e235461207.html

[rriojas71]

Placing a transit rail line on Camp Bowie, Hemphill, Lancaster are problematic. I don't think it is safe or advisable; and it will surely be resisted.  These corridors have are multi faceted purposes: commercial, emergency, cross town corridors.
 
A more sensible approach might be to identify secondary streets that would be converted into transit corridors.  Designating a network/web of a secondary streets would be less disruptive and would actually penetrate neighborhoods more effectively.

I lived in SF where they have light rail going down several streets that are narrower than any of the streets you named. In can be done; cars just need to know how to navigate along the road with a light rail car next to them. It’s no different than having a large delivery truck or trailer going down a city street.

[renamerusk]

Here are my candidates for Street Car Corridors:

 

Downtown...Taylor-Texas to Jennings

 

Near South ....Jennings to Allen

 

South East ....Allen - Evans to Berry

 

South East/Poly/Stop Six .....Vickery-Rosedale to Handley

 

TCU .... Jennings - Allen - 8th to Berry

 

North Side ... Commerce -23rd/Main - 25th to End

 

These streets are Tier 2-3 Corridors.  Converting them to transit only corridors would be less disruptive to the Commercial and Private Auto movement.

[Jeriat]

 

 

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

 

Funny how that same *cough* is now pushing to get TEXRail down to the new Tarleton Campus, which just so happens to go through his district...

 

 

If I remember right, when Jungus was told that the SW portion of the line was cut he turned and opposed the line altogether. 

____________________

 

 

Luke Rankers article is out, https://www.star-tel...e235461207.html

 

 

Of course...   

I think it's been touched on already, but would it really kill this city's safety to take some from the "Crime Control & Prevention" fund? 

[Electricron]

I liked the map, showing all the different routes. But it is misleading, the map reflects everything being built with scenario 3, where the most money has to be invested - without showing how much money is needed or how much taxes need to be raised.

It would be nice if three maps had been posted, one for each scenario along with how much taxes would be needed for that map.

I'll assume the costs and associated taxes needed were mentioned somewhere in the entire pdf of the Plan, but who amongst us will take the time to read the entire pdf? From what I'd read so far, Scenario 1 assumes continuing with the same tax rate. I haven't read yet how much Scenarios 2 and 3 costs and how much more taxes will be needed for either. 

 

It's difficult to determine if the plan is good or not without costs being readily and easily available. Like a kid at a toy store, they can not understand why their parents do not buy them one of  everything in the store. The parents know what they can afford, adjusting the budget of everything to make it work if needed. We do not get to be parents, these presentations of future plans treat us as kids. 

[roverone]

I think you always have to be a little aspirational with the planning, even if the budget is not available for a long while -- because you want development to be aware of what could happen.  Not to rely on it happening, but to not be surprised if it does happen.

 

I notice on the visionary map that my house is 54 feet from an every 10 minute bus.  I can hope that if this were to happen, those will be electric, and honestly I have planned more than most to deal with such things.  But it could affect decisions about property to know these things in advance.

[renamerusk]

"110"  "145"  "349", these are the square miles, in order, of Salt Lake City, Portland, OR and Fort Worth.  Fort Worth is too large and is already a city with an abundance of under used land.  I think politically it would be impossible but Fort Worth should de-annex much of these far flung regions and allow those who live out there to fend for themselves.  I would like a city of about half of what it is today; perhaps comparable to Arlington.

 

These so called plans are neither visionary or aspirational.  These plans continue the post World War Two goal of hallowing out the core of Fort Worth by perpetuating the auto/real estate/petroleum based lifestyle that will by the time that these plans are actualized will be in conflict of the lifestyles of the next generations following us.

 

Express buses, commuter rails to communities that now consume precious resources watering lawns and mowing them with gas powered mowers, and shop at sprawling malls.  These practices will be a thing of the past as the lifestyles will be forced to adapt to a new Climate Order; and Order that is forecast to arrive at about the same time as the City Transportation Masterplan (CTM)

 

The young generation is already asserting its preference by choosing to be the first generation to buy less autos and being the first generation that is being priced out of affordable housing.  Population growth is slowing down; and the growth that Texas and Fort Worth are experiencing will be slowed if the rise in the cost of living is not addressed.  The CTM fails to be visionary or to look into what is occurring now; and instead rolling out the old TXDOT/NCTCOG.  I would characterize it as deeply disappointing and insanely repetitive of the cheap land and cheap gas attitude that Fort Worth now bases its prosperity upon.

 

Unless there is a vital effort to involve the current young generation and generations to follow in the CTM, it is doomed to be a colossal and costly failure when 2050 rolls around.

[Austin55]

Here are scenarios 1 & 2. Prices were not mentioned in the presentation. I don't believe even scenario 1 is even "current funding", there's some things in there that do seem like they'd require more than what Tmet currently receives, like 3 different routes of 10 minute services and 9 routes of every 15 minutes.

 

 

[Electricron]

Thanks for providing the extra maps. Without doing so, some years into the future someone will post the Scenario 3 map that included everything and complain that their project was not done when only Scenario 1 or 2 was funded. It's important that all three maps are included now for this discussion. At some point 5 to 10 years from now, these maps may be hard to find on the world wide web. 

 

While I understand the reluctance to posts projected costs by the planners; the lack of costs makes it extremely difficult to have an adult discussion about them. 

[txbornviking]

 

 

 

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

 

Funny how that same *cough* is now pushing to get TEXRail down to the new Tarleton Campus, which just so happens to go through his district...

 

 

If I remember right, when Jungus was told that the SW portion of the line was cut he turned and opposed the line altogether. 

____________________

 

 

Luke Rankers article is out, https://www.star-tel...e235461207.html

 

 

Of course...   

I think it's been touched on already, but would it really kill this city's safety to take some from the "Crime Control & Prevention" fund? 

 

 

considering how crime rates all across the nation have fallen by similar amounts since the early 1990s I believe there is a fair argument to make that the CCPD had a minimal impact at best and it's removal or phasing out would have no impact on actual crime rates or safety here in Ft. Worth.

 

Since 2012 nearly $1million in CCPD funds have been spend on tools to spy on cell phones (more than any other US city and over 150% of what the 2nd highest city, Chicago, has spent)

(http://www.citylab.c...rtments/512543/ ) 

In 2018 the city pushed spending $5million in CCPD funds on the purchase of a new helicopter that would provide officers with the ability to "shoot from the aircraft "
https://www.star-tel...e207124289.html

 

Over $1million/yr is spend on the police aviation unit.

 

In 2015 early $100million was spent on a new "state-of-the-art" police training "village" complete with " 30,000-square-foot simulated village with a bank, convenience store and gas station, restaurant, apartments and a school." Part of the supposed belt-busting budget
https://www.star-tel...le39003375.html

 

Part of the supposed logic on the belt-busting budget was to create a facility so enticing departments from all over would pay to come use our facility. This has turned out to be a White Elephant continuing to lose money year-over-year.

https://www.star-tel...e204893994.html
 

I think there are some REAL hard questions that need to be asked on how FWPD is spending tax dollars and how the annual CCPD windfall impacts spending decisions.
 

[JBB]

The problem with reallocating the CCPD funds is that doing so will have to go in front of the voters, first to end the tax district (or vote against renewing it, unless the council doesn't bring it back to the voters for approval) and then to send the money to transit.  I can't see it making it past the first step since everyone with skin in the game will utterly scare the daylights out of voters with what could happen if the CCPD goes away.

[Dylan]

As a kid growing up in transitless suburbia, I was conditioned to believe that public transit is dangerous and full of criminals.

 

Unfortunately, if there were an election to divert CCPD funding, transit opponents would convince residents to vote against the proposal by claiming: "transit supporters want to take money from an entity that fights crime, and give it to an entity that enables crime."

[renamerusk]

Transit proponents seem to be racking up a lot of victories around the county, so I don't think that the scare tactics will be as salient today as they have been in the past. To share a perspective, the Fort Worth Street Car had broad public support but was eventually derailed for partisan interests who saw it as a threat to the economic holdings of the city's powerful.

 

Tarrant Express Rail is itself a mode of transit and even though its has been poorly conceived in significant ways, it is popular for certain journeys and has maintained ridership safety so far.

 

The factor that will likely put the transit=crime talking point is a more tolerant generation of users and the dilemma when the inevitable rise in the cost of personal transportation bumps up against no alternative form of transportation.  When gas prices rose substantially a decade ago, DART experienced a big jump in ridership; so did Trinity Metro.

[txbornviking]

 

 

 

 

 

or the 2010 streetcar initiative which died with certain members of the city council arguing for investments in a better bus system, investments they've since sought to undercut ( Jungus *cough cough*)

 

Funny how that same *cough* is now pushing to get TEXRail down to the new Tarleton Campus, which just so happens to go through his district...

 

 

If I remember right, when Jungus was told that the SW portion of the line was cut he turned and opposed the line altogether. 

____________________

 

 

Luke Rankers article is out, https://www.star-tel...e235461207.html

 

 

Of course...   

I think it's been touched on already, but would it really kill this city's safety to take some from the "Crime Control & Prevention" fund? 

 

 

considering how crime rates all across the nation have fallen by similar amounts since the early 1990s I believe there is a fair argument to make that the CCPD had a minimal impact at best and it's removal or phasing out would have no impact on actual crime rates or safety here in Ft. Worth.

 

Since 2012 nearly $1million in CCPD funds have been spend on tools to spy on cell phones (more than any other US city and over 150% of what the 2nd highest city, Chicago, has spent)

(http://www.citylab.c...rtments/512543/ ) 

In 2018 the city pushed spending $5million in CCPD funds on the purchase of a new helicopter that would provide officers with the ability to "shoot from the aircraft "
https://www.star-tel...e207124289.html

 

Over $1million/yr is spend on the police aviation unit.

 

In 2015 early $100million was spent on a new "state-of-the-art" police training "village" complete with " 30,000-square-foot simulated village with a bank, convenience store and gas station, restaurant, apartments and a school." Part of the supposed belt-busting budget
https://www.star-tel...le39003375.html

 

Part of the supposed logic on the belt-busting budget was to create a facility so enticing departments from all over would pay to come use our facility. This has turned out to be a White Elephant continuing to lose money year-over-year.

https://www.star-tel...e204893994.html
 

I think there are some REAL hard questions that need to be asked on how FWPD is spending tax dollars and how the annual CCPD windfall impacts spending decisions.
 

 

 

If the argument could be won on facts and not emotions, redirecting the CCPD 1/2 penny would be a no brainer.

https://www.themarsh...e-still-falling

[renamerusk]

 

If the argument could be won on facts and not emotions, redirecting the CCPD 1/2 penny would be a no brainer.

https://www.themarsh...e-still-falling

 

 

 First, there has to be a change in the antiquated mindset of both City Management and Trinity Metro Management.  I am confident that if a 21st century transportation plan was put before voters,  a tax increase would be approved. 

 

Other peer cities face similar crime issues and concerns, yet they have been able to walk and chew gum at the same time addressing crime while building their city's intracity mobility infrastructure.

 

I may be in the minority, but IMO,  the Commuter Rail projects have not been exciting or impactful to the majority of Fort Worth residents; the exception being that they do impact Downtown and it has made the commuter of a tiny fraction on workers better.

 

On the other hand, if a street car rail system connecting multiple neighborhoods with 5am to 1pm ridership 7 days schedule was proposed, there would be exciting and investments throughout the City.

[Dylan]

Here are my candidates for Street Car Corridors:

 

Downtown...Taylor-Texas to Jennings

 

Near South ....Jennings to Allen

 

South East ....Allen - Evans to Berry

 

South East/Poly/Stop Six .....Vickery-Rosedale to Handley

 

TCU .... Jennings - Allen - 8th to Berry

 

North Side ... Commerce -23rd/Main - 25th to End

 

These streets are Tier 2-3 Corridors.  Converting them to transit only corridors would be less disruptive to the Commercial and Private Auto movement.

 

A bit belated, but I have a few responses:

 

First, I'd like to see light rail and streetcars serve busy commercial districts over not-so-busy residential districts. I'd serve residential areas with buses instead.

 

That said, I think your proposal of running rail down Jennings to Allen (as an alternative to Hemphill) could be a good one.

 

Hemphill is too narrow for light rail in its own dedicated lanes (plus medians and car lanes). Jennings is narrower, but has light car traffic. Perhaps it could be a transit-only corridor.

 

Basically, have a light rail line run down Jennings to JPS / Allen, then transition to Hemphill as a streetcar.

 

--------

 

As far as rail to east Fort Worth goes, neither Lancaster nor Rosedale strike me as busy commercial corridors quite deserving of rail. But, Lancaster would be better for two reasons:

 

1- Lancaster is so wide, there's plenty of room for transit lanes in the median. That's not the case on Rosedale. Light rail on Lancaster would be faster than a Streetcar on Rosedale.

 

2- Lancaster is the city's busiest bus route; Rosedale has a fraction of the ridership. I'd rather spend taxpayer dollars on faster service that serves more people.

 

--------

 

What about west Fort Worth? IMO, light rail service on Camp Bowie would be better and faster than any streetcar alternative.

[renamerusk]

A bit belated, but I have a few responses:

 

First, I'd like to see light rail and streetcars serve busy commercial districts over not-so-busy residential districts. I'd serve residential areas with buses instead.

 

What about west Fort Worth? IMO, light rail service on Camp Bowie would be better and faster than any streetcar alternative.

 

 

To your first response, I think the fundamental proposition going forward in the City Transportation Masterplan (CTM) is to first decide what is the role of transit, whether it is to serve business or to serve citizens? 

 

Businesses have a specific time need for transit, if it actually does: the 5 day work week rush hours 6-9am and 4-7pm. Outside of this narrow time demand, businesses are not that focus on transit.

 

Citizens have a both a time need for transit that parallels business' need as well as a more general need to have transit outside of the traditional commuter needs. 

 

Without going much deeper, the CTM is a package of old assumptions that do not get ahead of a new and efficient design which is demanded of Fort Worth that will steer the City forwardly.

[renamerusk]

Commuter rail is not a panacea for development all by itself.  It does not, by itself, "cause" people to want to be there.

 

The network of transit, however and the connection of places where people want to go, DOES matter.  

 

DFW airport and Downtown Fort Worth are two of those highly relevant places.....It doesn't have to work for everyone, just some people.

 

 I agree with and like each of the points that you are making.  They highlight what we should expect of commuter rail.  And that is why I find the CTM so disappointing; it emphasizes fixed rail on a commuter rail level instead of a fixed rail network on a neighborhood level. 

 

I actually believe that the current commuter rail system is now at its optimum level for Fort Worth and that now the emphasis should be on capillary levels of transit.

[CFerguson]

Luke Ranker's article from late September has today (10-15) made the ST Express (throw-paper).  No acknowledgement whatsoever is included with regard to Rename's criticism of regional transit plans that sap the commercial lifeblood from Tarrant.  Nor is there any acknowledgement of the flawed nature of the Texas A&M transit study.  Still, at least the issue has reached a wider audience than just ST subscribers.

[renamerusk]

Luke Ranker's article from late September has today (10-15) made the ST Express (throw-paper).  No acknowledgement whatsoever is included with regard to Rename's criticism of regional transit plans that sap the commercial lifeblood from Tarrant.  Nor is there any acknowledgement of the flawed nature of the Texas A&M transit study.  Still, at least the issue has reached a wider audience than just ST subscribers.

 

CF, you are probably correct that this issue and many other issues discuss here reach a wider audience.  Even though there are those among this wider audience who can not comment because of professional or personal obligations; I bet they do read and get a pulse on the issues that are in the news today.

 

It is why we must stage engaged and frequently post our comments, positively and critically so that more thought is given to when and how to implement public policy.  When the Forum goes silent for lack of participation, the issues loose critical and sustainable momentum.

[Austin55]

The 3 scenarios have all been posted online

https://www.transitm...oject-documents

[txbornviking]

The 3 scenarios have all been posted online

https://www.transitm...oject-documents

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I have very low expectations from our current city council but still hope to be surprised by an enthusiastic backing (and funding measures) for Option 3.

 

It's still downright shameful that no actual votes were taken on the T Master Plan from 2015, a plan specifically put together at the urging of city council.

[Austin55]

Even the Scenario 1 plans are worthy of getting excited over.

[renamerusk]

Why can't visionary be our only goal?  Fort Worth lags most if not all of its peer cities which are already doing what we call visionary. Meanwhile, Dallas is holding public hearings this month for a Downtown Subway. 

 

Getting excited about option 1 is a sad reflection.

[Jeriat]

 

Getting excited about option 1 is a sad reflection.

 

Can't disagree with that...     

[Austin55]

Several public meetings coming up,

 

[renamerusk]

Something novel - asking the public what it wants the transit to look like in the future.

 

For too long, the powers to be have told us that Fort Worth is not interested in rail transit (Mayor Price) except that Fort Worth was very interested in commuter rail. Yes we are.   The commuter rail is very important to the sustaining of a vibrant Downtown. Ridership have fallen way below numbers that Trinity Metro projected for Tarrant Express and then there is theTOD at said North Side that is as of now dismal.

 

Like another peer city OKC, Fort Worth who has a similarly conservatively oriented citizens,  voted for a modern street car. Actually, Fort Worth citizens voiced strong support for a street car in the past but the powers to be derailed it.

 

I think if an option having a plan for a street car system is offered to the public it will be supported.   I think Fort Worth wants to be a city that both rail transit and cars existing together.

[Jeriat]

Several public meetings coming up,

 

 

The first one is right down the street from me. 

I definitely plan to be there... have to clock in to work earlier just to make it. 

[renamerusk]

The first one is right down the street from me. ....I definitely plan to be there... have to clock in to work earlier just to make it. 

 

 

 Be sure to press them on the topic of street car and light rail.."Take it to them!"

[roverone]

These Master Plans are a little interesting, but I'd really like to see the underlying information about where the sources and destinations of riders are today and where they are projected to be -- in some cases I know those are diffuse, but someone must have started with where people are and where they want to be, and how many people that is.  I don't know how this gets projected out decades into the future for the lifetime of these plans, but people smarter than me must know how to do that for say, highway planning.  Does anyone have the link to that underlying data?

 

These plans are kind of like a network diagram that only has the edges, and not the nodes.

 

Another assumption that seems to be made is that the transit pathways are mirroring the current automobile pathways -- assuming that busy roads for cars must mean that it should be a busy road for transit -- that the same people who take cars now are the ones who will take transit and go along the same pathways.

 

I'd have to guess that a bus can carry more people on a smaller road than how many cars it would take, and so it seems like there should be some analysis of the sources and destinations of people who will take transit and then place them onto the pathways that link that up most efficiently -- which may or may not be along the roads that are highest capacity and busiest for automobiles.

 

For a few years I would often take route 25 along a street that was very busy with automobiles.  The bus only operated once an hour.  Often there were were only 2 or 3 of us on the bus in that area -- 6 or 8 would be a busy day.  I almost felt like my part of that route was just a way to move bus equipment from one place to another and evidently the route had more riders in other places.

 

I see on the maps that this is talking about being changed from once and hour to 4 or 6 times an hour on this route.  I know that more frequent runs will encourage more ridership -- but even if it went up by a factor of 4x - 6x that would still be a lot of nearly empty busses.

 

I know not everyone can, but I switched over to ride share because I could be door-to-door to my office in 15 minutes instead of 50-55 minutes, and I do not have to stand in the mud at my stop.  I would never ride home on the bus because a single misalignment of busses would mean sitting outside at a stop for an hour.  More frequent would of course change some of the math on all of that.

 

Also I don't really understand why we don't have a variety of sizes of bus to fit the ridership.

 

I believe they should reconsider that busy automobile roads automatically make the best pathways for transit.

[renamerusk]

Hear, hear. roverone;  said with well reasoned, pinpointed insight.

[roverone]

I dug around over lunch and noticed that the May 2019 Project Update has some Transit Demand maps in it for 2018 and 2045.  There are things on it that don't necessarily make sense to me, but I'm sure they are basing them on some source of good data and have better details below these composite maps.

 

It does seem like such a difficult projection to make since you are, I think at least, trying to expands your market beyond its base, so understanding the current base of riders only takes you so far.

 

I'd also like to understand the factors that are used to value the plans, since building anything out costs in real dollars, it seems like you should go beyond "bodies on a bus" as a benefit -- for example, if a particular set of bodies on a bus means that you can defer some large road expansion project, that possibly has an increased value.  I recognize that some are just baseline mobility-as-a-service issues, for those with fewer options.  It just seems like there needs to be some way to value the usage so finite budgets are spent most efficiently.  And then there is the reverse, and how transit based development occurs.

 

I also hope that technology can notch up efficiency also -- it is great to have have schedule access, and to know when the bus will arrive, but here in the age we live in, it seems like we could go beyond that.

 

It seems to me that there could be something analogous to the way that elevator efficiencies are enhanced if instead of just calling for up or down, the system requests what floor you want to go to and guides you to the correct elevator to take, behind the scenes the system clustering multiple riders to get on the elevator car that takes them quickly to nearby floors.

 

I'm not talking for right now, but I think not way into the future, it would be possible to have the rider use their phone (and yes, I do believe we are getting closer and closer to a time when virtually everyone will have a smart phone) to designate where they are wanting to start and stop and a system clustering riders on smaller busses that basically make up their own routes (probably staying on the basic route roads, but not needing to make every stop) and maybe reducing or eliminating transfers.  If 75% of the people on a bus are transferring to another route, why not just let that one bus keep going to the final destination, letting some people off and some people on, but keeping 75% sitting in their same seat -- it feels so artificial to say a bus named with one route is not allowed to drive beyond a certain point, and only a bus with a different name can go to the final destination.  We have dynamic signage on these busses already.  Although not full on-demand, just smarter and more efficient at using the hardware on the road and hopefully making for quicker transit with fewer transfers.  Computing is always going to be cheaper than physically moving things.

 

What we have today is even worse than the conventional elevator -- at least that has up and down call buttons -- what we have for transit today is like  an elevator that is just going to show up at a floor on a schedule, give or take a few minutes whether or not anyone is there.  I'm certain that we can do better than that in modern times.

[Dylan]

This appears to be a busy week for anyone interested in attending local transportation meetings.

 

This Wednesday, I plan on attending the DART D2 tunnel meeting at 11:30am (I have other plans that evening). This Thursday, I plan on attending the TXDOT Hwy. 287 expansion meeting.

 

So, it looks like I may go to the Transit Moves meeting in the middle of nowhere on Saturday morning. At least I can drive there now. Two years ago, I wouldn't be able to do that.

[Dylan]

Roverone, buses work similar to your elevator-inspired suggestion.

 

Bus drivers only stop when: 1- there's someone waiting at a stop, 2- someone requests a stop (pushes a button/pulls a cord), or 3- the bus is running early at a timepoint.

 

The thing about light rail is, there are usually more people on any given train than any given bus, and train stations are usually a little further apart than bus stops. So, there's more likely to be people boarding or disembarking at any given train station than any given bus stop. IMO, for the sake of keeping a consistent schedule, it's better for light rail trains to just stop at every stop on the route... unless it's an express train where the schedule intentionally skips over stations.

[Jeriat]

First meeting was cancelled due to a water main break... ugh. 

I went to work early for nothing. 

[roverone]

Jeriat -- I'm sorry the meeting was canceled

 

That first meeting was walking distance from my place, and I was planning on leaving the office a little early to be there to see what they had to show / say.  But by the time late afternoon came, looking out at the cold wind convinced me that it would be an unpleasant walk, and so I just stayed at the office and worked later instead.

 

Had I been tougher and decided to do it; I would have been a pretty unhappy guy.

[JBB]

I don't have time to go back and track down the exact thread, but Luke Ranker reported in his live Tweeting of last night's CCPD board (otherwise known as the City Council) meeting that Ann Zedah cast the lone vote against calling an election to recertify the CCPD tax for another 10 years in the spring because she would like to look into reallocating a portion of the tax to transit.

 

Edit:  Here's the Tweet: https://twitter.com/...361229898219520