DALLAS - FORT WORTH | Rail Transportation

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by electricron

Fort Worth's streetcar lines aren't designed to attract commuters into downtown Fort Worth from suburban cities. That's what the T's commuter rail lines are for. The commuter trains, with relatively fast speeds, get surbanites downtown, where they can connect with the streetcars to get where they wish to go nearby. The streetcars are for moving people around downtown, from downtown to Fort Worth's north and west tourist locales,from downtown to it's two major universities, and to it's huge hospital district.
The speed limit on most of the streets being used is 35 mph, or less. Slightly larger and faster, but three times more expensive, light rail trains aren't needed.
Fort Worth can build the entire proposed streetcar system, 5 lines branching out from downtown on city right of ways, for the cost to build one light rail line all the way to Arlington. The roads proposed to be used in Fort Worth aren't major commuter highways, but heavily used local streets.

Couldn't have put it better myself. The anti-streetcar zealotry wears on me - not everything has to be, or should be, a grade-separated rapid light rail line. The systems are for completely different purposes.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Couldn't have put it better myself. The anti-streetcar zealotry wears on me - not everything has to be, or should be, a grade-separated rapid light rail line. The systems are for completely different purposes.

It's anti-urbanism at its finest. All roads lead to the suburbs and should cater exclusively to the suburbanites.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

Fort Worth's streetcar lines aren't designed to attract commuters into downtown Fort Worth from suburban cities. That's what the T's commuter rail lines are for. The commuter trains, with relatively fast speeds, get surbanites downtown, where they can connect with the streetcars to get where they wish to go nearby.

The number of 'new rail' cities which have succeeded with this model is: 0.

HTH.

Hint: If you have to compete for the business of people who are driving to work, today, then offering them a 3-seat alternative (drive to park-and-ride, commuter rail, stuck-in-traffic streetcar) is not the way to do it.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

It's anti-urbanism at its finest. All roads lead to the suburbs and should cater exclusively to the suburbanites.

That's a load of crap, and you're an asshole for painting me with that brush when you know better. I want more urban rail like Portland did with MAX, or Dallas did with DART, or Houston's (whatever they're calling it now), or Salt Lake's, or Denver's, or Seattle's LINK, or Minneapolis'[...]

None of those are grade-separated. They're all reserved-guideway, though. Not a single one of those caters exclusively to the suburbanites. Every single one has enough stops in close-in neighborhoods and true urban areas to serve BOTH suburbanites AND urbanites.

The difference is that a stuck-in-traffic shared-lane streetcar line doesn't serve either suburbanites OR urbanites. It's only attractive to those who currently ride the bus, and not very much at that.

[llamaorama]

So, the primary difference between Streetcars and LRT is just the size of the vehicles, and the size and weight of the rails and depth of trackbed that are laid in the street right?

Why not take cheaper Streetcar units, and lay a cheaper shallow track bed, but set it up in a reserved guideway operation like a LRT? If you need increased capacity buy units that have extra articulated segments between the ends, like how trams in Europe are set up.

In fact, for any LRT, if the route doesn't allow for high speeds why even build LRT anyways? Just use the streetcar vehicles and construction instead.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

That's a load of crap, and you're an asshole for painting me with that brush when you know better. I want more urban rail like Portland did with MAX, or Dallas did with DART, or Houston's (whatever they're calling it now), or Salt Lake's, or Denver's, or Seattle's LINK, or Minneapolis'[...]

None of those are grade-separated. They're all reserved-guideway, though. Not a single one of those caters exclusively to the suburbanites. Every single one has enough stops in close-in neighborhoods and true urban areas to serve BOTH suburbanites AND urbanites.

The difference is that a stuck-in-traffic shared-lane streetcar line doesn't serve either suburbanites OR urbanites. It's only attractive to those who currently ride the bus, and not very much at that.

No, M1EK, you and your Coxian buddies go from blog to blog to blog, complaining wildly about how Streetcars ruin your wishes for oooh, sparkle sparkle, urban rail like Portland (which also has a Streetcar), Dallas (low ridership per mile), Houston (not very fast), Seattle (the densest neighborhoods on the Link system are served by this: http://www.soundtransit.org/x6487.xml) or Salt Lake City (TRAX serves urbanites? Why are they building a Sugarhouse streetcar?), flogging dissenters mercilessly with these hackneyed castigations like "it's not much faster than a bus, useless!"

No, M1EK, it's not always faster than a bus, and yes, it would be nice if it were faster, but HI, POLITICS. HI, PRIORITIES. Living in a city, you find that when point A and point B are under 5 miles apart, speed doesn't matter as much as having a ride you can pinpoint when it's raining, hot or you simply work a mile from home and don't want to walk.

You spend countless hours of your day hopping on one foot angrily insisting that Streetcars destroy your dreams of reliable transit. Well, guess what? Places are getting them. If you don't want to ride it, don't. If you live somewhere that would see its chances at getting light rail destroyed by having streetcars, that's your problem. Don't, however, pretend that transit planning exists in a vacuum that is black and white and free of political or funding concerns. It's not. Take what you can get then improve where you can.

I, for one, welcome the chance to ride streetcars when it suits me. I live in a city, after all. How about you?

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

So, the primary difference between Streetcars and LRT is just the size of the vehicles, and the size and weight of the rails and depth of trackbed that are laid in the street right?

Why not take cheaper Streetcar units, and lay a cheaper shallow track bed, but set it up in a reserved guideway operation like a LRT? If you need increased capacity buy units that have extra articulated segments between the ends, like how trams in Europe are set up.

In fact, for any LRT, if the route doesn't allow for high speeds why even build LRT anyways? Just use the streetcar vehicles and construction instead.

That's politically and fiscally prudent, and several cities are doing it. You only need to move a couple of thousand or so people in a corridor but want a long-lasting capital investment that helps riders (short haul trips without the hassle of a bus, all-weather transit, etc. -- the buses are looking to shut down in an ice event here, but the Streetcar is still going to run), developers and civic pride. Moving quickly in a city isn't the biggest priority since everything is already dense and close-in, as you can see with the Seattle Monorail. Heck, they're putting in a Streetcar to assist the Link system: http://www.soundtransit.org/x6487.xml

In fact, this is the reasoning behind the First Hill Streetcar:

The overarching goal in this work was to evaluate which services will attract the highest ridership and most improve regional transit connections to the major employers and residents of the designated regional growth center formerly expected to be served directly by light rail. The streetcar option was preferred strongly overall by residents, institutions, and business owners commenting on the study.

I've yet to hear a single politically involved person say a Streetcar as a central city solution is infeasible when compared to the total cost of a LRT system.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

So, the primary difference between Streetcars and LRT is just the size of the vehicles, and the size and weight of the rails and depth of trackbed that are laid in the street right?

Why not take cheaper Streetcar units, and lay a cheaper shallow track bed, but set it up in a reserved guideway operation like a LRT? If you need increased capacity buy units that have extra articulated segments between the ends, like how trams in Europe are set up.

In fact, for any LRT, if the route doesn't allow for high speeds why even build LRT anyways? Just use the streetcar vehicles and construction instead.

1. People are doing this (the Austin proposal which is still sputtering along is for streetcar vehicles in reserved guideway, at least that's the most likely outcome).

2. LRT vehicles can generally hold more people.

The dichotomy expressed by both the DMU tool and by the lying sack of crap is that supposedly you can only either support "rail to the suburbs" or stupid stuck-in-traffic streetcars. In fact, good LRT lines serve both suburban and urban populations all over the country - the only reason we see this emphasis on old-style streetcar these days is because of the Bush administration's effective halt of funding for most rail projects.

And just because shared-lane streetcar is cheap doesn't make it worth doing. Nobody, not here, not on Seattle Transit Blog, has ever made a decent case for why it's worth investing money in a mode of transportation that is objectively worse for its riders than a bus running in the same corridor.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Listen, you lying sack of crap: I want light rail like all those other cities did. That makes me about as far away from Cox as you can get.

Did I say you were against transit? Does saying someone is a grammar nazi make them anti-semitic?

[M1EK]

"No, M1EK, you and your Coxian buddies"

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

"No, M1EK, you and your Coxian buddies"

Did I say you were against transit? Does saying someone is a grammar nazi make them anti-semitic?

Show me where I said you were anti-LRT (transit) or anti-Bus (transit). I was pretty sure I was implying you were being too quick to judge a new technological application of a transit mode.

Transit is stratified, so saying that Streetcars are a mode killer or destroy chances at other transit is silly. What's even more silly is calling people names with no rhetorical foundation other than your own opinion. You know very well what I mean when I say Cox, and I've explained it several times.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Did I say you were against transit? Does saying someone is a grammar nazi make them anti-semitic?

Show me where I said you were anti-LRT (transit)

Cox is against all rail transit. You're a liar and a bad person. (Hopefully this will get past the ban on 'name-calling'; which, curiously, doesn't seem to apply to YOU).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Cox is against all rail transit. You're a liar and a bad person. (Hopefully this will get past the ban on 'name-calling'; which, curiously, doesn't seem to apply to YOU).

No, M1EK, I clarified multiple times-- I did not say that his opposition to rail is what I attribute to you, it's his fervent use of a clearly pessimistic view of modes of transportation that go against his preferred mode. In this case, you've at times asserted a low dependability for the Seattle Streetcar, high crash rate, ridership failing expectation, etcetera. You go into every mention of streetcars you come across and outright attack it.

I've also clearly pointed out that you have a strong bias toward LRT, which goes against your assertion that I'm saying you're anti-rail.

There's also a difference in saying someone is a liar and a bad person versus saying their rhetorical slant is decidedly pessimistic. Saying I'm a bad person and a liar is specious at best and regardless of his dissenting viewpoint, I don't think it's right at all to attack Cox so acerbically. Instead of telling me that it wounds you deeply to be compared to Cox, you resort to name-calling and when I explain in a way that's contrary to your assertion you resort to even more name-calling.

I'm done. I already know we're getting plenty of rail here. LRT, Streetcars, Commuter Rail, Heritage Rail, Tacoma Link expansion, the first LRT to go across a floating bridge. Many modes, all part of one big transportation system. I'd like that for Fort Worth.

[M1EK]

No, M1EK, I clarified multiple times-- I did not say that his opposition to rail is what I attribute to you, it's his fervent use of a clearly pessimistic view of modes of transportation that go against his preferred mode

Then there's no need for guilt-by-association with Cox, who is nothing at all like me in any way shape or form, except, PERHAPS, that we both breathe oxygen.

I might as well say that you and your Stalinian buddies oppose good rail transit because you hate capitalism and want to oppress us all. Oh, I didn't call YOU Stalin, of course! And, of course, you have nothing in common with Stalin. But still - I insist that I be allowed to do so! Otherwise, you and your Stalinian buddies win!

Of course, I know exactly why you do this. Again, guilt-by-association. So cut the crap and just knock it the hell off.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Then there's no need for guilt-by-association with Cox, who is nothing at all like me in any way shape or form, except, PERHAPS, that we both breathe oxygen.

I might as well say that you and your Stalinian buddies oppose good rail transit because you hate capitalism and want to oppress us all. Oh, I didn't call YOU Stalin, of course! And, of course, you have nothing in common with Stalin. But still - I insist that I be allowed to do so! Otherwise, you and your Stalinian buddies win!

Of course, I know exactly why you do this. Again, guilt-by-association. So cut the crap and just knock it the hell off.

I've just asked two transportation planners if they'd be insulted by being called or compared to Wendell Cox-- the answer is no, except they actually have a background in transportation planning and not some other field like Cox. I guess it should be noted that personally I like to describe my future aspirations as "The Robert Moses of Rail", which makes transportation planners laugh in a good way -- you know, with me, not at me.

The level of feigned insult here is simply to mask your own culpability. You're the one who came and drew the line from Atomic Glee's "anti-streetcar zealotry" to my "anti-urbanism" remark. Even if my remark was far more glib than it really is, all it really is is exasperation at the fact that people demand all planning be regional with little to no consideration for local planning. It's why buses are so awful here at times, all the money flees to the suburbs.

I love when considerations are made to central cities, I love when bus lanes are suddenly striped or streetcar tracks dropped in-- it reframes the downtown core as pedestrian in nature and makes people reconsider their sitting in a car. Seattle parking supply is already only utilized at 70% of existing stock, and that percentage drops each year. The expectation is that 50% of workers will be taking transit to get downtown.

Heck, 1/3rd of all downtown core residents (in this case, from Cherry/Cap/First hill's ridge at about 18th to the waterfront) walk to work. another 3rd take the bus or streetcar. They want the SOV or Carpool utilization down to 15% in the downtown core.

As transit options increase, traffic defrays more and more each year. The SLU Line is exceeding expectations before a single new housing or office unit has opened. 3mil square feet of new office space will be available by 2011 on the line, and given the probability that there's already a massive tenant on WaMu's properties (MS and Russell Investments), the need exists for these office spaces. There are also hundreds of condo units that will begin moving when the market picks up again.

I'll say it again, the scale of things is the most important thing. Furthermore, the SLU streetcar is set to be converted into a bus/streetcar-only lane within the next 3 years. Why? Because it works. I think applied at the appropriate scale, it can work in Fort Worth.

I compare you to Cox because you take a single hated mode (Streetcar Vulgaris) and twist and tweak facts (riding a bus is more convenient since you pay on board, climb stairs, board single-file, exit single-file, have limited standing room, it's far more bumpy), attack and eviscerate and basically insult down anyone who agrees with this mode. Cox is a jerk, but he's not a bad person. I disagree with Cox and I disagree with you, but I don't hate either of you, nor do I think you or he are bad people or liars. I just disagree heavily with your vision.

[electricron]

To add to this conservation. First, this thread is about DFW transit, not about Austin transit.

I believed Houston's Metro used the wrong type of train on its Main Street corridor. Modern streetcars are much better in traffic than light rail trains.
If your corridor isn't wide enough for dedicated lanes or ROWs, streetcars should be the preferred choice.

Fort Worth plans to use DMUs on active railroad corridors and Streetcars on fairly narrow city streets. Just Fort Worth, Blue Mound and Richland Hills are the only member cities in the T. Richland Hills lies northeast of downtown Fort Worth and already receives TRE commuter rail services. Blue Mound lies north of downtown Fort Worth and only gets bus services. NONE of the other cities and towns in Tarrant County are T member cities.

Most of Forth Worth's expansion recently has been to the Southwest and North. Most of Tarrant County's expansion has been to the South and Northeast. There are ACTIVE freight rail lines in all the corridors, three of which is where the T plans the SW2NE DMU regional rail services. The train technology that must be FRA compliant on ACTIVE freight railroad corridors. Non compliant FRA light rail trains can't be used.

Therefore, all the other directions from downtown Fort Worth in the T's service area are well within the range for using streetcars.

A restriction placed upon the T is finances, they only collect a half cent sales tax. Unlike DART, which charges a full cent sales tax. Therefore, the T doesn't have the financial resources to build a light rail system.

Another restriction, in comparison to DART, is that all the railroad ROWs are ACTIVE, and owned by privately held railroad corporations, except two. One is half owned by DART and the T, the old Rock Island line the TRE runs on between downtown Dallas and Forth Worth, and by the way it supports freight trains all day and night too. The other is the old Cotton Belt coorridor being used by the proposed SW2NE regional rail line, which is owned by DART, which also has ACTIVE freight services.

I think the T is doing fairly well with the financial resources they have. One doesn't need to use 65 mph capable light rail trains on city streets with 35 to 40 mph posted speed limits.

I'll agree having dedicated ROW for light rail trains is a great idea. But when dedicated ROW and lanes aren't available, streetcars is the best choice.

DART on the other hand owns all the railroad ROWs it runs light rail trains on. Some locales along DART owned ROWs still have ACTIVE freight service. DART does not use time separation schemes on its ROWs, instead uses at least three tracks where necessary, at least two electrified and dedicated for light rail trains only, and at least one dedicated track for freight trains only. It's much easier to do this when DART owns the ROWs, it's virtually impossible to get freight railroad corporations to agree to lose any control of their ROWs. You're lucky to get permission to use their ROWs, at a significant cost.
Where DART light rail trains run along city streets, they are in dedicated lanes, which is the way it should be. But note, the light rail trains do not run exclusively down city streets, most of the lines are abandoned, DART owned, railroad ROWs. That's why light rail trains made sense for DART, but is not the best choice for the T to date.

Dallas and DART are also looking at building DMU regional rail on the old Cotton Belt ROW, and streetcars in downtown Dallas streets. Which supports my arguments that the proper train choice depends upon what's best for each corridor, and how big your pocketbook is!

The T's SW2NE DMU regional rail web site:
http://www.sw2nerail.com/
Fort Worth's Streetcar web site:
http://fortworthology.com/lightrail/
NCTCOG's Rail North Texas web site:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/.../rnt/index.asp

[Atomic Glee]

Give me a bit on that streetcar page - I am very behind in getting it updated. The streetcar-related blog posts on the site are much more current.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Nobody, not here, not on Seattle Transit Blog, has ever made a decent case for why it's worth investing money in a mode of transportation that is objectively worse for its riders than a bus running in the same corridor.

Just because you keep saying it's "objectively worse" than buses doesn't make it the least bit true.

Streetcars are smoother than buses, more comfortable, far quieter...the list goes on. Somebody mentioned paying on board vs. at a stop - streetcars can be set up either way, I believe.

Modern streetcars attract higher ridership than buses in virtually every case where they've been introduced - Tacoma's jump from 200,000 to 900,000 on the Link streetcar being just one example. It's not difficult to see why - people can immediately grasp a streetcar's route because of the rails in the pavement, versus a nebulous bus line. That's on top of the smoother/quieter/more comfortable/don't smell like exhaust/etc. reasons. They attract people who would otherwise not have taken a bus.

When talking about the thing of streetcars vs. the thing of buses (not funding stuff), I see *nowhere* where the streetcars are worse and many places where they are much better - at least for these neighborhoods and routes. (Don't give me that "buses are more flexible" business - this nebulous concept of "flexibility" is not what is needed in these neighborhoods. A strong, committed transit link that is predictable and simple for riders to understand is.)

Beyond that, they're development catalysts. The modern streetcar is planned for Fort Worth to run through the heart of central city neighborhoods ripe for redevelopment - the streetcar supports, encourages, and improves that development. The bus systems that have been in the exact same neighborhoods and routes for *years* have never and will never do that.

The areas the modern streetcar will run through are intimately familiar to me - one line will run two blocks from my house - and I am certain beyond doubt that the streetcar is far more appropriate for these neighborhoods than a DART-style light rail line would be. They are neighborhood circulators, pedestrian accelerators - perfect for supporting the city's Urban Village program.

There are so many varieties of transit, and it's a full and complete system of modes that is needed. Grade-separated light rail is not always, 100% better or more appropriate than other modes, necessarily. In these Fort Worth neighborhoods, I believe it would not be the most appropriate mode for the purpose we want. The streetcars fill the desired role much better.

[Atomic Glee]

Incidentally, a few Fort Worth Streetcar updates:

The proposal goes before the City Council tomorrow. This will be a make or break event and I am predicting a victory for those of us supporting the project. The council seems to be on board.

I have been working with Fort Worth South, Inc. and a City Council member on a potential small extension on the Near Southside streetcar route, which would link it to the site of the planned Near Southside Southwest-to-Northeast commuter rail station. Still early but I hope for good things. If we're successful, Near Southside workers would be able to take SW2NE from the north or south to commute to the district, then hop on the streetcar for a car-free ride to work at any of the five major hospitals or the businesses along Magnolia.

I have also been working with Fort Worth South on coming up with a plan to integrate the streetcar line on Magnolia into the planned remade Magnolia which will feature fewer car lanes and new dedicated bike lanes, looking at a variety of examples of putting together the various modes from around the world. Good progress here as well.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Just because you keep saying it's "objectively worse" than buses doesn't make it the least bit true.

Streetcars are smoother than buses, more comfortable, far quieter...the list goes on. Somebody mentioned paying on board vs. at a stop - streetcars can be set up either way, I believe.

Modern streetcars attract higher ridership than buses in virtually every case where they've been introduced [...]

Streetcars that share lanes ('streetcar vulgaris') are slower and less reliable than a bus operating on the same exact route - because a bus can go around obstructions, while a streetcar can't. The SLUT proved this several times in its first couple of weeks when service was halted for hours due to parked cars - but that's the exceptional case; the normal case is just a car double-parked for a few minutes (not long enough to get towed; but long enough to screw up the streetcar).

And, yes, buses do change lanes - sometimes even just to get around a traffic clog. Happens all the time here in Austin.

As for 'higher ridership', in every case I've seen this to be true, it has been because the streetcar service was NOT the same as the bus service it replaced - there were elements of reserved guideway introduced, or fare changes, or headway reductions, etc.

Don't make the mistake of painting this as anti-rail like alexjon does. I want trains to operate in reserved lanes - shared lanes are for buses and cars. Given that the amount of money we have available to spend on trains is highly limited, we should be spending it where it works the best - where it can run in its own lane.