DALLAS - FORT WORTH | Rail Transportation

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by M1EK

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.

Good for Austin. In *these neighborhoods* in my city, the streetcar will be going down streets that for the most part don't have a lot of problems with double-parking or being all that clogged. Here on Magnolia I don't think I've ever seen the #4 bus have to shift its path because of a parked car or other obstruction.

The Seattle streetcar also broke its ridership projections three months ahead of schedule, so if you're wanting to use that as an example of how streetcars will fail you might want to look elsewhere.

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 try and pass off ridership success as being due to dedicated ROW - the Portland streetcar is almost all shared ROW and it's shattered ridership records - now over 4.3 million people per year. Seattle is almost all shared ROW and it broke ridership projections three months early in its first year.

You can't write off streetcar ridership success as being due solely to technicalities.

It boggles my mind that somebody who is ostensibly pro-transit can't see the obvious features of the streetcar that make it far more desirable to choice riders than a bus is. There is no comparison between the pleasantness of a modern streetcar vs. a jerky, bumpy, loud bus.

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.

Dedicated ROW light rail and modern streetcars aren't for the same purpose. They are two different things. One is a non-rapid pedestrian accelerator/neighborhood circulator meant for shorter trips and supporting dense and intimate neighborhoods and the other is usually a more rapid, longer distance, and often more commuter-oriented mode. Not only would it be staggeringly expensive to build a dedicated ROW light rail line in these neighborhoods (especially given that *all* the existing ROW is in very active use by freight companies and hence you can't run light rail cars on it anyway because of FRA regs - don't forget that Fort Worth is home to the busiest freight rail intersection in the entire country), it would probably be impossible to do so to the extent that we're planning on doing here in Fort Worth. The light rail trains can't get into the neighborhoods as tightly as the streetcars can. We'd go from a tight network of lines with many stops to, most likely, one line per district with a couple of big stops. That's not what we're going for. You couldn't build a DART train that made the South Main/Magnolia/7th/Terrell route, for example.

These aren't supposed to be big trains bringing commuters in - that's what SW2NE and TRE are for. That's what the NCTCOG regional rail plan is for. This is a short-distance neighborhood-enriching circulator. It is not supposed to be a light rail replacement and running it on-street is not a bad thing. I don't care if Austin doesn't want to do it - it is being designed for our *Fort Worth* central city neighborhoods and their needs, not to move people in from Burleson. In a perfect world without concern for funding or realities it would be lovely to tear out these streets and convert them into car-free light rail ROW but that is not going to happen - the modern streetcar will be the best way to serve these neighborhoods in Fort Worth.

Fort Worth is a streetcar city. The fact that we threw it away for decades doesn't change the fact that our central city was planned around extensive streetcar networks. We had one of the finest streetcar networks in the country for many years. The neighborhoods and their bones that supported the streetcar are still intact and are places the city has designated as urban redevelopment growth centers, and it turns out that the modern streetcar will serve them very well for a workable sum of money.

[Atomic Glee]

And for the curious, I am not exaggerating about Fort Worth being a streetcar city. The character and design of many of our urban neighborhoods is the result of the city's extensive original streetcar system - in its day, one of the finest anywhere. These were the streetcar routes circa 1925:



What doesn't surprise me but what some might find surprising is that many of these parts of town are still places that will respond well to a streetcar line. The bones (and desired land uses) of the old streetcar districts are still very much intact, and many of them are designated by the city as Urban Villages, places which the city will use as centers of pedestrian & transit-centric dense infill development (thanks to the much more progressive planning department we have now). This shows the modern streetcar starter system in red over the 1925 map in blue.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

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.

The SLUT started operation at a higher fare with longer headways. Its ridership is people who had previously had a bus stop in front of their building, but given the choice of transfers downtown chose instead to use the Streetcar. Also against your dire predictions, the Streetcar runs on-time and hasn't had any major collisions since, what, January?

The main riders are workers at Fred Hutch (if you've dealt with cancer, you know what a big deal that place is), who had previously had the choice of several buses that arrived every 3-5 minutes.

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.

I'm not saying you're anti-rail, I'm pointing out an extreme mode bias. I'm not saying you're anti-rail, I'm pointing out an extreme mode bias.

Here's the long and short of it: money is so limited that for a very localized system, you have to dip into LIDs, taxation districts, whatever your city calls it. This requires strict federal and state-backed covenants between the service provider and each stakeholder in these districts. Business interests are fine with a limited construction cycle (Stacy Whitbeck's 3 blocks, 3 weeks), but to take away a lane would require excessive use of legal wrangling. Residents initially have difficulty accepting the loss of parking, especially in new-but-existing urban environments such as the ones to be served by streetcars.

Streetcars do have the added benefit of encouraging development. You've stated before that zoning was all that was needed, which ignores the reality that it's not quantity, it's quality. I think the best example of this is the Urban Center at Portland State University. Do you think a bus could accomplish anything of the sort as what was done there? Do you think buses encourage anything more than peephole office building entrances?

Oh, and come mid-2009, MAX will be running in mixed-traffic.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Streetcars do have the added benefit of encouraging development. You've stated before that zoning was all that was needed, which ignores the reality that it's not quantity, it's quality.

Precisely. Here, Magnolia Avenue - to use one example - has had the right zoning for a while now. Now we need to kick it with a development-supporting transit mode like the streetcar - The T's #4 bus line has not and will never do anything to encourage good quality infill.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Good for Austin. In *these neighborhoods* in my city, the streetcar will be going down streets that for the most part don't have a lot of problems with double-parking or being all that clogged. Here on Magnolia I don't think I've ever seen the #4 bus have to shift its path because of a parked car or other obstruction.

Then the investment in additional transit for this corridor is kind of stupid. There does not exist an inexhaustible supply of dollars to spend on transit.

Don't try and pass off ridership success as being due to dedicated ROW - the Portland streetcar is almost all shared ROW and it's shattered ridership records - now over 4.3 million people per year. Seattle is almost all shared ROW and it broke ridership projections three months early in its first year.

You can't write off streetcar ridership success as being due solely to technicalities.

Uh, yes, you can - the SLUT hasn't been viewed as the success you claim here - all you need to do is see the Seattle Transit Blog for a few weeks.

It boggles my mind that somebody who is ostensibly pro-transit can't see the obvious features of the streetcar that make it far more desirable to choice riders than a bus is. There is no comparison between the pleasantness of a modern streetcar vs. a jerky, bumpy, loud bus.

And it boggles my mind that you can't see that with shared-lane streetcar, you get the worst of both modes - all the 'inflexibility' of LRT without its own lane to keep it free from traffic congestion. Capital costs more like LRT; operating costs more like buses. And the comfort advantages you cite are because the infrastructure is new - the shallow railbed will eventually give you the same crappy ride as you get on buses on non-new roadways today. They board quicker than buses but slower than LRT; and the capacity is closer to buses than LRT.

Dedicated ROW light rail and modern streetcars aren't for the same purpose.

In fact, light rail is being inappropriately crowded out on both ends - on the upper end by stupid commuter rail that is cheap because it runs on existing tracks but rarely goes where it needs to go, and on the low end by streetcar vulgaris - ignoring the fact that when shared-lane streetcar was popular the last time, far fewer people owned automobiles.

As for the zoning argument, again, in many cities (not all), streetcar provides an excuse for upzoning that the market would already have supported (definitely the case in Austin, probably in Seattle). Yes, it's nice to have an extra weapon against NIMBY neighbors, but you can't credit the streetcar (people in Austin are trying to credit the commuter rail start for some crappy mislabelled 'TOD' that's significantly LESS dense than some good mixed-use stuff on a major bus corridor nowhere near the rail line).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Uh, yes, you can - the SLUT hasn't been viewed as the success you claim here - all you need to do is see the Seattle Transit Blog for a few weeks.

By transit wonks that merely visit or live quite a bit away from the line. Actual regular users and planners, on the other hand, and the city itself think it's doing great:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/1...-city-council/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/1...treetcar-plan/

The main problem with the Streetcar is it would need to have 1 or 2 more cars to increase headways. That, of course, is easily arranged.

Even then, the line which had lowballed ridership projections of 350k a year cracked 500k in its first year. The city's excited: http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=9117&Dept=40

One functional piece of equipment they are looking to add to the SLU is what amounts to a remote control for traffic lights. It gives 30 seconds to green lights or instantly starts a double-speed yellow-red cycle.

One thing that proves something is a success is that nobody really knows its there, but it does EXACTLY what it's supposed to do. Ridership is 30% higher than projected and growing, the city is going ahead on studying a network, and nobody really writes any stories about it except to say "there need to be more cars to reduce crowding and improve headways".

Also, notice that the council vote to approve Streetcar expansion was on the 8th, but they've already asked for statements of qualifications for engineers and planners for the expansion on Friday. LRT doesn't move that fast, not in a million years.

And it boggles my mind that you can't see that with shared-lane streetcar, you get the worst of both modes - all the 'inflexibility' of LRT without its own lane to keep it free from traffic congestion. Capital costs more like LRT; operating costs more like buses. And the comfort advantages you cite are because the infrastructure is new - the shallow railbed will eventually give you the same crappy ride as you get on buses on non-new roadways today. They board quicker than buses but slower than LRT; and the capacity is closer to buses than LRT.

Boarding is much faster on a streetcar and comparable to LRT. How do I know? Because I've lived with both. The ride is also much smoother, even in the original alignment on the Portland Streetcar. Boarding a bus is much slower, and PoP would not work simply because there is not the infrastructure to provide ticketing machines at each stop like you can with a Streetcar.

In terms of costs, Streetcars are much cheaper than LRT, and you know that. Under $25mil per mile for the SLU line, less than 10% of a LRT line in this region. With additional infrastructure costs for the expansions, we're looking at a present day cost of about $30-35mil per mile, compared to around $300mil per mile of LRT.

In fact, light rail is being inappropriately crowded out on both ends - on the upper end by stupid commuter rail that is cheap because it runs on existing tracks but rarely goes where it needs to go, and on the low end by streetcar vulgaris - ignoring the fact that when shared-lane streetcar was popular the last time, far fewer people owned automobiles.

I think that's the fault of you and your fellow residents, M1EK. Not that it's a total negative, but some regions just refuse a certain mode. Furthermore, personal transit was available when Streetcars were initially the rage-- they were called horses. And for about 30 years until the decline of Streetcars, there were indeed personal cars that were within the range of the middle class.

Also, in the PacNW, you have people voting against things for including roads and demanding the option to vote solely on transit. The bias up here is against more roads. That, too, is a negative.

As for the zoning argument, again, in many cities (not all), streetcar provides an excuse for upzoning that the market would already have supported (definitely the case in Austin, probably in Seattle). Yes, it's nice to have an extra weapon against NIMBY neighbors, but you can't credit the streetcar (people in Austin are trying to credit the commuter rail start for some crappy mislabelled 'TOD' that's significantly LESS dense than some good mixed-use stuff on a major bus corridor nowhere near the rail line).

Upzoning cycled through repeatedly in SLU and until the Streetcar was proposed, none of the developers jumped. Paul Allen demanded the Streetcar as a part of his neighborhood because it saves on car-related costs (parking stalls, for one). The Pearl District in Portland was upzoned several years before the Streetcar, and nobody moved on it. What you saw in Drugstore Cowboy was the stark reality of an unimproved upzoned area. Buses were frequent, but the Pearl District area was simply flop houses and low-rent lofts.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Upzoning cycled through repeatedly in SLU and until the Streetcar was proposed, none of the developers jumped. Paul Allen demanded the Streetcar as a part of his neighborhood because it saves on car-related costs (parking stalls, for one). The Pearl District in Portland was upzoned several years before the Streetcar, and nobody moved on it. What you saw in Drugstore Cowboy was the stark reality of an unimproved upzoned area. Buses were frequent, but the Pearl District area was simply flop houses and low-rent lofts.

Indeed - we already have developers who are lining up developments on the FW Streetcar line with just the promise that it'll happen on X Street. The developers are really excited over it - the buses never did that, and never would.

I saw plans just the other day for a very impressive mixed-use development centered around one of the new FW streetcar lines in what is now pretty much a wasteland of vacant buildings and lots. The zoning was already there, but the streetcar is what's driving the interest.

We already have a few fairly impressive projects on 7th, but a closer look reveals they're as much as 50%-60% parking garage. The presence of a streetcar line would allow those developers to reduce their parking garage space in favor of more usable development.

Finally, several of the members of the streetcar study committee are developers, and some very loud pushes for it are coming from other developers. They see the value.

[alexjon]

Parking is between 40k and 90k per stall, depending on how you build it.

Those Streetcar passengers that take the Streetcar instead of driving save developers 25mil at least. Coincidentally enough, that's what the line cost developers and taxpayers.

Charing $250/month for parking only provides a few million a year, nowhere near the benefits of having people use transit.

[M1EK]

In Seattle's case, nobody has ever come out and said, pinned down, whether the streetcar really replaced an existing bus service and at existing headways. That's what you need for an apples-apples comparison (N pax capacity on bus/minute; N pax capacity on streetcar/minute). And no, the loading/unloading time is not a major issue - unless the entire vehicle loads/unloads in one place (ironically, that WILL be the case if you're stupid enough to use streetcars/buses as circulators from commuter rail rather than for local traffic - in which case either one will take a long time to clear).

If all you're doing is pushing this as a development stimulator, then let the developers pay for it (through a TIF) and let the scarce transportation dollars go to existing needs. It is exceedingly unlikely that the rail transit is necessary to induce the densification you're talking about given that almost every block of every metro area in this country is zoned an order of magnitude too low, but it's conceivable. Fine, let them pay for it.

In our case, we have a downtown bursting at the seams WITHOUT streetcar, and a dire need to bring more people in without expanding roadways. A stuck-in-traffic streetcar and a useless commuter rail line, even when stuck together, do nothing to help bring more people in - while a good reserved-guideway rail line (like every other smart city in this country has done) will do it. The same metrics hold for Fort Worth.

And comparing to the era of horses? Are you serious? Today, every suburban and most urban families have a car per driver. GMAFB. Those cars, and the relatively cheap/easy parking downtown in Austin and FW are the competition, and if existing direct bus service can't win passengers, neither will streetcars, unless they run in reserved guideway.

BTW, 500K/year for a rail start is pathetic. It looks good compared to exceedingly low expectations - like how our commuter line in Austin will look good if they fill the cars at 2000 pax/day. But by now, the 2000 LRT plan would have been carrying 35-46K pax/day.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

In Seattle's case, nobody has ever come out and said, pinned down, whether the streetcar really replaced an existing bus service and at existing headways. That's what you need for an apples-apples comparison (N pax capacity on bus/minute; N pax capacity on streetcar/minute).

#17 runs to every stop until the last one at 10min intervals at peak hours, and the last stop, the world-renowned Fred Hutch Cancer Center is served by the 70, 71, 72 and 73 which run every 3-6 minutes on-peak with articulated buses.

And no, the loading/unloading time is not a major issue - unless the entire vehicle loads/unloads in one place (ironically, that WILL be the case if you're stupid enough to use streetcars/buses as circulators from commuter rail rather than for local traffic - in which case either one will take a long time to clear).

Yes, M1EK, it is indeed an issue. I ride the bus every day to get to work and have had to switch my routes depending on seasonal usage because more people ride at times and increase load/unload times.

If all you're doing is pushing this as a development stimulator, then let the developers pay for it (through a TIF) and let the scarce transportation dollars go to existing needs. It is exceedingly unlikely that the rail transit is necessary to induce the densification you're talking about given that almost every block of every metro area in this country is zoned an order of magnitude too low, but it's conceivable. Fine, let them pay for it.

They do, dearheart.

In our case, we have a downtown bursting at the seams WITHOUT streetcar, and a dire need to bring more people in without expanding roadways. A stuck-in-traffic streetcar and a useless commuter rail line, even when stuck together, do nothing to help bring more people in - while a good reserved-guideway rail line (like every other smart city in this country has done) will do it. The same metrics hold for Fort Worth.

Yeah, it's not about bringing them in, it's about getting them around. Your housing choices should not determine the life of a downtown area.

And comparing to the era of horses? Are you serious? Today, every suburban and most urban families have a car per driver. GMAFB. Those cars, and the relatively cheap/easy parking downtown in Austin and FW are the competition, and if existing direct bus service can't win passengers, neither will streetcars, unless they run in reserved guideway.

No, I have a feeling that your year over year parking usage won't go down with even the most elaborate LRT system.

BTW, 500K/year for a rail start is pathetic. It looks good compared to exceedingly low expectations - like how our commuter line in Austin will look good if they fill the cars at 2000 pax/day. But by now, the 2000 LRT plan would have been carrying 35-46K pax/day.

And? It's proof of concept. 500k rides meshes will with the existing workforce and resident population. You ignore (not forget, but outright ignore) that I've repeatedly pointed out that even with zoning from a long while ago, SLU didn't move. Not many jobs to speak of. The main thing there was Chandler's Cove and Hutch.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004086610.pdf

That's a map of Amazon.com's new headquarters. Notice something interesting about the map?

[alexjon]

Blog of residents of SLU: http://www.thesouthlake.com/2008/12/...streetcar.html -- notice anything about their logo? Or the logo on the Teeth Whitening service?

Also, http://www.thesouthlake.com/2008/12/...niversary.html -- Didn't I say "build it and they'll ask for their own ROW"?

The blog also points out the insanely hilarious conjecture that Streetcars fly wildly into parked cars and traffic: http://www.thesouthlake.com/2008/04/...bulations.html

[M1EK]

No, I have a feeling that your year over year parking usage won't go down with even the most elaborate LRT system.

You're arguing against a lot of success stories with a statement like that - and their success stories are 25, 30, 40 thousand people per day; not the comparatively miniscule numbers you're seeing on the SLU streetcar.

As for the current conditions there, I still see a LOT of people from Seattle arguing for reserved guideway, especially on the new lines; and as with Austin's most likely shared segment (Manor Rd), you're ignoring the likelihood that as new development hits the area, car traffic will increase - so using today's conditions as evidence that car traffic doesn't slow the streetcar down is kind of stupid.

Finally, it's nearly impossible in the real world to upgrade a runningway from shared to reserved (a bit more feasible on one-way streets, but on two-way streets, you want reserved runningways in the middle and shared runningways on the right). Even in the examples people sometimes cite, it actually was more like "close and destroy the shared line for 4 blocks, then connect the old line to a new segment of reserved guideway". It's basically tearing up the old one and starting over.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

#17 runs to every stop until the last one at 10min intervals at peak hours, and the last stop, the world-renowned Fred Hutch Cancer Center is served by the 70, 71, 72 and 73 which run every 3-6 minutes on-peak with articulated buses.

So the answer was "no", then. No, there was no apples-to-apples comparison. Thanks.

Yes, M1EK, it is indeed an issue. I ride the bus every day to get to work and have had to switch my routes depending on seasonal usage because more people ride at times and increase load/unload times.

The bus I ride most often has two doors - about as many doors per potential passenger as your streetcar has. And again, if everybody's getting off at the same stop, even twice as many doors still isn't going to be enough for very quick unloading.

Yeah, it's not about bringing them in, it's about getting them around. Your housing choices should not determine the life of a downtown area.

"getting them around" works fine on a bus. It did for you. Unless they decide to buy a car, in which case you actually need to compete with that car - which means that being stuck in traffic isn't going to get the job done.

Listening to a transit-dependent commuter lecture me on what it takes to make rail transit successful is pointless. They've got your business either way.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

So the answer was "no", then. No, there was no apples-to-apples comparison. Thanks.

It's destinations, M1EK. Every destination on the route is served by a bus that leaves frequently from the Downtown core.

The bus I ride most often has two doors - about as many doors per potential passenger as your streetcar has. And again, if everybody's getting off at the same stop, even twice as many doors still isn't going to be enough for very quick unloading.

The low floor doors, 2, are 40% wider than rear bus doors and twice as wide as front bus doors. The upper level door has an open standing area for quick exiting, so even that is more efficient.

"getting them around" works fine on a bus. It did for you. Unless they decide to buy a car, in which case you actually need to compete with that car - which means that being stuck in traffic isn't going to get the job done.

So now you're telling me what I prefer and what works best for me?

Living and working in an actual city core, I have many options available to me. Dining and shopping and meeting friends in SLU involves the Streetcar unless I'm taking photos of all the great buildings under construction.

Seattle has a very high car ownership level, but it stomps Austin completely flat into the dirt in terms of actual usage. It even stomps Dallas, a place that already has light rail. Parking, regardless of your lovely lies, is cheap in Seattle. It may look expensive from afar, but people make more here by a factor of 25%.

Listening to a transit-dependent commuter lecture me on what it takes to make rail transit successful is pointless. They've got your business either way.

No, if a bus is slow, I walk. If a bus is crowded, I walk. Actually, I only ride the bus 4 times a week, yet work 5 and go out 7. I walk 40 miles a week versus around 8 miles of buses. In fact, since it's snowing tomorrow, I'm skipping my usual morning bus ride to walk to work.

This is because buses make many more stops than they should, they don't have good enough traction in the rain and snow and they're jerky.

Transit doesn't have my business "either way" since I can walk to everything I need easily enough.

You're arguing against a lot of success stories with a statement like that - and their success stories are 25, 30, 40 thousand people per day; not the comparatively miniscule numbers you're seeing on the SLU streetcar.

You're ignoring that SLU is under development still, again. And again. And again. And you're ignoring the scale of the SLU Streetcar. If LRT trains are meant to go 50 miles, carry 800 people per trip and do 280,000 passengers a day, what should a Streetcar going 2 miles and carrying 80 people per trip be doing?

Of course, in terms of Austin (and unlike Portland, FW and Seattle), people hate the idea of LRT and voted it down, so I guess the argument of having a diverse set of transportation options is useless since free-thinking Austin seems to have a love affair with the car.

As for the current conditions there, I still see a LOT of people from Seattle arguing for reserved guideway, especially on the new lines; and as with Austin's most likely shared segment (Manor Rd), you're ignoring the likelihood that as new development hits the area, car traffic will increase - so using today's conditions as evidence that car traffic doesn't slow the streetcar down is kind of stupid.

I'm not ignoring the new development-- I'm acutely aware that parking inventory has been slashed and transit usage increased. Paul Allen got Amazon.com to bring 6,000+ employees to SLU by saying "alright, we've got the Streetcar that will drop people off at the Tunnel, so don't worry that we provide parking for less than 40% of your employees."

The Clise family stipulated in their sale contract for development rights on their property that for the 14,000,000 square feet of developable space, there can only be parking equivalent to 5,000,000 square feet of developed space. The sale of those rights is set to go forward in the first post-recession quarter, probably the first half of 2010. Same stipulations.

Your previous argument of parking being more scarce and expensive in Seattle is also excessively wrong. 70% of parking inventory is used (30% is scarcity?) and with an average income 25% higher than in Austin, parking rates are comparable.

Finally, it's nearly impossible in the real world to upgrade a runningway from shared to reserved (a bit more feasible on one-way streets, but on two-way streets, you want reserved runningways in the middle and shared runningways on the right). Even in the examples people sometimes cite, it actually was more like "close and destroy the shared line for 4 blocks, then connect the old line to a new segment of reserved guideway". It's basically tearing up the old one and starting over.

It may seem impossible to you to paint a street, install bumps and change signal priorities, but it's a whole lot easier than wresting control of a lane from taxpayers for something that's a new technology to a city. Politics, my friend.

Rome, after all, was not built in a day.

I think Fort Worth can pull this off. Multi-modality is the best thing ever. Of course, they won't have a monorail, water taxis, and a massive ferry system, but they can at least have multiple types of rail!

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by alexjon

I think Fort Worth can pull this off. Multi-modality is the best thing ever. Of course, they won't have...water taxis

Just give us time on the water taxis.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

Just give us time on the water taxis.

Oh, touché!

Ridership on ours is up to something like 800 a day so they're extending it to year round starting in 2010. Originally it meant to be year-round starting in January, but the economy ate it all up.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by alexjon

It's destinations, M1EK. Every destination on the route is served by a bus that leaves frequently from the Downtown core.

So again, the answer is "no". No, this streetcar line didn't replace an existing bus line, so "no", a comparison can't be made to existing bus ridership.

The low floor doors, 2, are 40% wider than rear bus doors and twice as wide as front bus doors. The upper level door has an open standing area for quick exiting, so even that is more efficient.

As does the bus I ride most often (standing area). Big whoop. Again, door area per passenger is about the same or at least close. If you're not unloading the entire vehicle in one getgo, you wouldn't tell the difference.

Living and working in an actual city core, I have many options available to me. Dining and shopping and meeting friends in SLU involves the Streetcar unless I'm taking photos of all the great buildings under construction.

And I ride the bus by choice too - but I don't make the mistake of assuming that the average choice commuter will be willing to pay the time and reliability penalty to do so.

Seattle has a very high car ownership level, but it stomps Austin completely flat into the dirt in terms of actual usage. It even stomps Dallas, a place that already has light rail. Parking, regardless of your lovely lies, is cheap in Seattle. It may look expensive from afar, but people make more here by a factor of 25%.

You have no idea what you're talking about here. Seattle has a much more developed downtown (older urban core), which is responsible for essentially all of your extra transit use. And, no, parking isn't as cheap in Seattle as it is here (or in Ft. Worth), and no, people in Seattle don't make 25% more money.

No, if a bus is slow, I walk. If a bus is crowded, I walk. Actually, I only ride the bus 4 times a week, yet work 5 and go out 7. I walk 40 miles a week versus around 8 miles of buses. In fact, since it's snowing tomorrow, I'm skipping my usual morning bus ride to walk to work.

You're ignoring that SLU is under development still, again. And again. And again. And you're ignoring the scale of the SLU Streetcar. If LRT trains are meant to go 50 miles, carry 800 people per trip and do 280,000 passengers a day, what should a Streetcar going 2 miles and carrying 80 people per trip be doing?

Again, you're a transit-dependent commuter who has no idea, whatsoever, what it takes to win choice commuters. And, no, walking vs. transit isn't what they mean when they talk about "choice commuter". The light rail line may have covered 30 miles or so, but not every person would ride that far (and the fact that you think so shows you're more like this electricon joker than you think). LRT serves BOTH suburban AND urban commuters - streetcar in shared lane doesn't serve anybody, and commuter rail, if it actually went anywhere worth going, would serve only suburban commuters. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course, in terms of Austin (and unlike Portland, FW and Seattle), people hate the idea of LRT and voted it down, so I guess the argument of having a diverse set of transportation options is useless since free-thinking Austin seems to have a love affair with the car.

_Austin_ voted for light rail in 2000, even though every possible obstacle was thrown in its way. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, for like the twentieth time.

It may seem impossible to you to paint a street, install bumps and change signal priorities, but it's a whole lot easier than wresting control of a lane from taxpayers for something that's a new technology to a city. Politics, my friend.

That's not what you have to do to turn a right-side-running shared-operation streetcar line into reserved guideway. You can't practically run reserved guideway on the right side of a two-way street. It's an incredibly stupid idea (people are somewhat used to the idea of restricted LEFT turns, but not right turns). Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for "multimodal", again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Getting lectured about how wonderful a transfer-heavy transportation system will be for choice commuters by a guy who doesn't drive is like getting lectured on how to run your transit system by the CEO of GM.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by M1EK

So again, the answer is "no". No, this streetcar line didn't replace an existing bus line, so "no", a comparison can't be made to existing bus ridership.

Why would it replace an existing bus line fully? It's a short haul line compared to the bus routes that go many times further. It also serves destinations and hubs rather than "stops".

As does the bus I ride most often (standing area). Big whoop. Again, door area per passenger is about the same or at least close. If you're not unloading the entire vehicle in one getgo, you wouldn't tell the difference.

Fewer places the vehicle has to stop, more people exiting at any given destination.

And I ride the bus by choice too - but I don't make the mistake of assuming that the average choice commuter will be willing to pay the time and reliability penalty to do so.

You do so much help to big auto by boosting the theoretical reliability of cars! Cars are far more reliable than LRT by your metrics, too, don't forget. Easing reliability up by fractions isn't going to do a bit of good.

You have no idea what you're talking about here. Seattle has a much more developed downtown (older urban core), which is responsible for essentially all of your extra transit use. And, no, parking isn't as cheap in Seattle as it is here (or in Ft. Worth), and no, people in Seattle don't make 25% more money.

Transit usage is excessively high inside Capitol Hill, Ballard, Northgate, U District, Rainier Valley, etc. Heck, travel between Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford and the U District sometimes makes in and out traffic to downtown look weak in comparison.

According to the BEA, the Per Capita income in Austin is 37,517$, versus 48,499$, a difference of 33%. Figuring in this difference, parking in Seattle is only about $20 more a month if determined as an equal portion of one's income. And again, only 70% of the stock is used.

Again, you're a transit-dependent commuter who has no idea, whatsoever, what it takes to win choice commuters. And, no, walking vs. transit isn't what they mean when they talk about "choice commuter". The light rail line may have covered 30 miles or so, but not every person would ride that far (and the fact that you think so shows you're more like this electricon joker than you think). LRT serves BOTH suburban AND urban commuters - streetcar in shared lane doesn't serve anybody, and commuter rail, if it actually went anywhere worth going, would serve only suburban commuters. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking about in regards to urban-only transportation. It's all about winning over suburbanites for you, possibly since you demand convenience for yourself, possibly because you know you have to tap into urban money to serve your workplace.

_Austin_ voted for light rail in 2000, even though every possible obstacle was thrown in its way. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, for like the twentieth time.

What I do know is that Austin doesn't have an approved regional light rail plan. And that you're still aching over that so anything that seems like direct competition for funding you attack.

That's not what you have to do to turn a right-side-running shared-operation streetcar line into reserved guideway. You can't practically run reserved guideway on the right side of a two-way street. It's an incredibly stupid idea (people are somewhat used to the idea of restricted LEFT turns, but not right turns). Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I do know that the two methods of turning are wait-for-passing signal priority or limited access turning lanes. I think that's the extent of traffic on Aurora, State Road 99.

As for "multimodal", again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Getting lectured about how wonderful a transfer-heavy transportation system will be for choice commuters by a guy who doesn't drive is like getting lectured on how to run your transit system by the CEO of GM.

Well, I don't drive because I'm blind -- it would take extrahuman lenses and a very forgiving testing structure to get licensed. In fact, there are plenty of people like me who have limited mobility or visual acuity. Of course, I'm insanely happy that there are more options.

Getting lectured about transportation from someone in a city that can't get its ducks in a row is incredibly hilarious, especially a guy who claims to have had heavy involvement in the process. It's like being told how to build a house by someone with a leaky roof and broken windows.

You're arguing that LRT with its own guideway and lanes is best for cities, and yet, your own isn't getting it. The cities you are slamming for having Streetcars, however, are getting it. Do you not see what's wrong with this? There's a difference between people in Seattle complaining about needing more lanes for Streetcars and someone in a city with no working rail to speak of saying "Oh, Seattle, oh Fort Worth, you stop that! You're ruining my previously ruined hard work!"

I have a heavy interest in New York City Transit and PATH, but I don't say "Hey, NYC, you're doing it wrong-- transfers should be made above ground, not between stations! Yards should be this way! Look at how inferior your system is to Seoul's!" -- it is beyond my realm of everyday experience.

Discussions with people like cjh (ignoring maturity level) or folks on STB are enriching to me, since we are speaking from experience by and large. On the other hand, discussions with you are analogous to having a discussion with a road warrior, wherein "the current option is inadequate as proposed, the existing option is superior, and there's no level of nuance to success. Roads and gas-using vehicles should be used instead."

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by alexjon

What I do know is that Austin doesn't have an approved regional light rail plan.

And I'd like to point out that we do - another big difference. Our streetcar isn't our only project - SW2NE Rail is coming up too to join the TRE, within 5-6 years, and North Central Texas Council of Governments is pushing hard for even more between Fort Worth, Dallas, and their suburbs.

[Atomic Glee]

And for the curious, here's a detailed "virtual tour" of the proposed system I've written up, in honor of it going to council today to seek approval for the engineering and funding phase:

http://fortworthology.com/2008/12/16...rth-streetcar/

If nothing else, I hope our ambition is recognized. We're going for a starter system - a *first* phase - that's about *12-13 track miles* long. We are nothing if not bold.