Saxman has a good point. No one has metioned the flexability of the Cotton Belt and its ability to connect all the major emplyment centers in Collin County to DFW and Fort Worth. Makes you think it probably is the btter alternative. Robertb had a good idea though to connect the Addison Transit Center with a shuttle LRV/Trolley to the Galleria.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
^Again, whether DART chooses LBJ, Cotton Belt or both, the route west of the Addison transit center is the same - just along Belt Line all through Carrollton to Grapevine and south to DFW airport.
My point is do both. But do LBJ first because it has the highest ridership and goes throught the area with the most density. Either option will go to Addison and DFW! The routes just get there diffent ways - one thourgh a dense business center, the other through residental neighborhoods.
As an aside, I wonder how many riders in DART's computer modeling of the Cotton Belt route live in non-DART cities? With the growth north of Plano, I am sure its a huge number. It does not seem like that would be very fair to all the DART-member city residents that would benefit from LBJ.
Of course how do we know that by 2018 or whenever the Cotton Belt is expected to be completed, that these cities in the North will not be member cities? As these cities expand, they will come to realize that they need a mass-transit system. They could create their own, however it would be easier to allow incorporation into DART. Also DART already owns the Cotton Belt line, and it would be less expensive to build the Cotton Belt.
When addressing the people that are not in the member cities riding DART, we already have that sort of issue present already. There are people who live in non-member cities that drive to DART rail stations and take the train to wherever they're going.
Darkblood
*Mass-Transit: Goes down good!*
-2k5
"Bow down... bow down... before the power of Santa! Or be crushed... be crushed... by his jolly boots of doom!" --Elves:: Invader Zim episode 29, The Most Horrible Xmas Ever
any updates on this?
Unfortunately, I don't think anything will happen until DART sorts out the problems detailed in the Orange Line in trouble thread.Originally Posted by xen0blue
In fact, I think this thread should probably be un-stickied.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Regardless of any troubles, this is in the 30-year-plan and at best wouldn't be started until 2018.
2008-2018...A decade may seem like a long time, but it will have taken longer than a decade to complete the current expansion plans to DFW (2013) after its last expansion (to Parker in 2002). So that seems to be a reasonable timeline for me. But I wonder how much a gallon of gas will cost in 2018, and I'm curious to learn how any future oil crises will either delay or expedite rail expansion in N. Texas.
2018 is when the current round of expansions is scheduled to end with the south Blue Line extension. Aside from the Lake Highlands Station, none of the components of the 2030 plan will start prior to that. I have had some sources tell me that the Cotton Belt will be the priority, though that is all subject to approval of the board.
This just in from Pegasus News, which seems to have the scoop -- nothing on the DMN or DART.org sites.
I'm assuming that "north of Beltline" means that they're giving funding for the hub at Carrollton Square Station. Beltline goes all the way around Dallas County, so there are a lot of places "north of Beltline". But not very many that are being considered for a multi-modal transit hub.Monday, August 11, 2008
DART receives $227,700 federal grant for “multi-modal transit hub”
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration awarded DART a $227,700 grant, as announced today. DART will allocate the money to creating a "multi-modal transit hub" at the junction of the DART, Union Pacific, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe, and Cotton Belt rail lines north of Beltline.
Source: Office of Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson
Oh, and be sure to click that link if you watched TV in the '70s. "Come ride the little train that is rolling down the tracks to the junction..." (I had to look up the words, but I knew the tune!)
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
DART: Cotton Belt Line
According to recent DART Board Meeting Minutes (http://www.dart.org/about/board/boar...8DARTBoard.pdf) only one type of vehicle will be allowed on the entire Cotton Belt corridor (DART owns it from Wylie to Fort Worth). These trains will be an FRA compliant light rail vehicle that is generally the same size (length, height and width) as the current DART light rail vehicle. The vehicles in discussion are the Austin vehicle, which the manufacturer can modify so that the cars can run on existing light rails.
Care to elaborate for those of us who don't know what the heck you're talking about?
What is FRA-compliant light rail? What is an Austin vehicle? What do you mean it can be converted to run on existing light rail, didn't you just say it is light rail?
Are these the same kind of vehicles DCTA will be using?
FRA-compliant means that it can run beside fright train traffic (according to Federal Railroad Administration guidelines), which is a requirement on the Cotton Belt line.Care to elaborate for those of us who don't know what the heck you're talking about?
What is FRA-compliant light rail? What is an Austin vehicle? What do you mean it can be converted to run on existing light rail, didn't you just say it is light rail?
I posted that document because up to now there wasn't much indication about what kind of trains DART will want to use on the Cotton Belt line. We've heard that all the regional transit authorities (DART, the T, DCTA) want to use one common vehicle throughout the system. Even though the Cotton Belt line runs through all 3 transit authority districts, the same type of vehicle must be used on the entire Cotton Belt Corridor and it must be a similar size/shape to the currently used non-compliant vehicles. Except that it will be diesel/electric powered.
DART is hinting at using the same train manufacturer that Austin is using for their commuter rail service which opens this fall (here's a photo: http://www.capmetro.org/images/train_austin.jpg. These vehicles would need to be modified in size and be able to have alternate electric power capability if DART wants to run them on current/future light rail lines as well.
The current DART light rail vehicles and the vehicles DCTA is looking into are non-compliant, which means the lines cannot share rail with freight vehicles. DCTA will get around this by scheduling freight at night, and passenger service during the day. DART's vehicles are electric powered, and DCTA will be diesel/electric.
So it looks like we will have 3 different types of "light rail" vehicles in the area.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by jsoto3; 27 August 2008 at 08:42 PM.
Land around the future UTD DART station on the north side of campus, on the cotton belt line, has been fully acquired by the university, including the land on both sides of the tracks.
The land was traded with Dallas International School, part of the Mission La'que Française School, which has 70 member schools around the world, for land on the west side of campus on Waterview Parkway. The school will temporarily move their high school students into buildings on the UTD campus, while they construct the new facility on the traded land.
The important thing is that the school now has a valuable chunk of land, both sides of the area around the future DART station. I don't know if they would sell the land to a developer, or if it would be possible to develop it themselves, but it is a prime spot for a transit-oriented development. A University Village type area would be great, retail and dining, maybe student housing?
And does anyone know a general time period for the commencement of construction on the cotton belt line? I know its in the 2030 plan, but are we talking within the next decade, or 2030?
CapMetro (Austin) Stadler built trainset (Diesel Multiple Units) DMUs aren't FRA compliant either.
That why CapMetro is having to use time separation just like DCTA is planning to do.
For those interested, FRA (Federal Railway Administration) has much stricter crash worthiness rules than the rest of the world. FRA compliant trains have to meet a US crash test specification with freight trains. The rest of the world trains are much lighter in construction, and can't pass this test. The rest of the world prefers to avoid collisions first, then make passenger train more robust. America regulations are just the opposite, surviving crashes first, and avoiding crashes second.
Avoiding crashes is accomplished with new remote computerized, automated technology using GPS systems. American freight railroads are decades behind European railroads, still using radios for dispatching trains. Only the latest built tracks and trains, like DART light rail, have modern dispatching and control systems.
Therefore, stupid but robost trains are FRA compliant, smart but lighter trains aren't.
So, if the tracks will be shared with freight trains, only complaint trains can share the tracks at the same time. Although the light train may be smart, you can bet your last dollar that the freight trains are stupid. You can't guarantee there will be no crashes in a mixed environment.
Therefore, since there will mot likely be stupid freight trains running on the Cotton Belt tracks all day and night long, only compliant passenger trains can share the same tracks. Passenger trains like the bilevel TRE cars, the TRE old RDC units, and Amtrak cars are compliant. There's one DMU passenger trainset that's compliant, made by Colorado Railcar. In the past few years, there's only been about 5 Colorado Railcars in total made, and it's having a very difficult time meeting orders. It may take a few years for them to get back on delivery schedule.
Since the T's SW to NE line will not only be running on Cotton Belt tracks, but also on FWWR and UP freight tracks, they too will have to use compliant passenger cars. They too are looking at the Colorado Railcar. Since they are, DART's DMU trainset will also have to be compliant, because the T and DART DMUs will be sharing the same tracks to DFW airport, from the Grapevine Wye.
Which means DCTA non compliant trains will only be allowed to run on their own tracks, time separated from freight trains, and on DART's light rail tracks. Note: DART's light rail cars are non compliant too. Like with like is okay, not mixed.
Which means DCTA non compliant trains will not be able to switch onto the Cotton Belt tracks, nor go to the north entrance of DFW airport.
I hope that long answer helps explain the differences.
The Stadler built DMUs used by CapMetro (Austin) are non-complaint FRA too.
The only new DMU design that exist today that are complaint FRA is made by Colorado Railcar.
Austin's CapMetro train cars are made by Stadler Rail, a Swiss corporation.
Their trains are very popular in Europe, and could apparently be very popular in the USA too.
The major problem with these trains is that they aren't FRA compliant yet. CapMetro has been having a very difficult time with the FRA getting them approved. The tracks CapMetro is using to get to Leander from Austin have freight trains too. CapMetro is hoping the Stadler GTW trains will get certified by the FRA, but has a time separation between passenger and freight trains backup plan, just like San Diego's Sprinter and New Jersey River Line trains.
DART must use FRA compliant trains on the Cotton Belt, as there is too much freight traffic on the line for any time separation plan to work. East Carrolton has a huge warehouse area, with many good paying jobs at stake to kick freight trains off the Cotton Belt. The "T" will also have to use FRA compliant passenger trains as well, crossing the Texas UP mainline west of Tower 55 and running with another UP line from Tower 55 to the Stockyards, running along the FWWR southwest of downtown which will get busier with freight trains in future years, and running on the same Cotton Belt to DFW ariport. The "T" and DART must use the same compliant trains on the Cotton Belt if both are to service DFW airport. You can't mix trains, that's Federal law.
If CapMetro is successful getting the Stadler built GTW trains certified, Dart and every other transit agency in the area will use them on the Cotton Belt. They are almost as quiet and smooth as Dart's light rail trains. Since freight traffic will also share this corridor, initially with single track, don't expect as frequency of service Dart's light rail trains acheive on freight separated double tracks. As demand increases, the Cotton Belt line could be double track in the future. Still, passenger service will have to share the line with freight.
Here's what a Stadler GTW looks like:
GTW 2/6
GTW 2/8
Note: The Stadler GTW 2/6 passenger capacity is approximately the same as a Dart SLRV. The Stadler GTW 2/8 passenger capacity is approximately a third larger.
Last edited by electricron; 07 March 2009 at 11:52 AM.
I nominate eletricron for the award of "Most informative starting posts ever". Welcome to the forum!
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
The problem with Colorado Railcars, as far as the Cotton Belt and Dart is concerned, is that they're built relatively heavy to meet today's FRA requirements to operate alongside freight trains.
Being heavyweights, they cause as much vibrations which cause as much noise as today's freight trains and TRE trains. Dart has promised Dallas, specifically the north Dallas communities along the Cotton Belt line, that any future service will be as quiet as Dart's light rail trains.
Therefore, DMUs will have to be Dart's choice for the Cotton Belt, even their Budd RDCs are too heavy and too noisy. There's four large vendors making modern DMUs (Diesel Multiple Units) in the world today.
(1) Bombardier "Talent" DMUs are being used by Ottawa's O Train.
(2) Siemens "Desiro" DMUs being used by North San Diego County's Sprinter train.
(3) Stadler "GTW" DMUs being used by New Jersey Tranist's River Line train, and soon by Austin's CapMetro.
(4) The few test units by Colorado Railcar used by Miami's TriMet.
Only the Colorado Railcar DMUs are FRA compliant today. CapMetro is trying very hard to get the Stadler GTW DMU FRA certified, but it hasn't been yet.
The other remaining DMUs are built very light, and could never get FRA certified. Just like Dart's light rail cars could never get FRA certified.
Colorado Railcar has two different DMUs certified, a single level and a double level DMU car. Here's two photos of the TriMet's examples.
You can tell just by looking at these photos how heavy and rugged these DMUs are.
Dart wants only trains equivalent in size to their Light Rail trains on the Cotton Belt. Therefore, you can toss out the double level DMU car from any future Dart's plans. The single level Colorado Railcar will be Dart's only choice left today if the Stadler GTW DMU doesn't get FRA certification. And it is probably too heavy for Dart to use to keep its promise to north Dallas communities.
So much rides on Stadler's GTW certification by the FRA for CapMetro for when Dart does anything with the Cotton Belt corridor. It's the only DMU that's maybe both lightweight to please North Dallas and maybe strong enough to pass the FRA requirements.
p.s. There's an internal layout of the Colorado Railcar single level DMU car on page 25 in this brochure. It has 92 seats for passengers, but only one double door per side for egress. Which means it'll have to have more station time for passengers egress. Adding a second door per side to speed up egress will mean less passenger seats.
http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmu-brochure-2005.pdf
Last edited by electricron; 29 August 2008 at 03:51 PM.
It'll takes at least 12 years to build a rail line or highway and put it into operation with federal funding, once the process starts. Dart's Board last month started the process to start a "business oportunity" for the Cotton Belt line. Therefore, 2008 + 12 = 2020.And does anyone know a general time period for the commencement of construction on the cotton belt line? I know its in the 2030 plan, but are we talking within the next decade, or 2030?
Of course, if Dart decided to not use Federal funding on the Cotton Belt line, they could proceed much faster. There's several year delays for Federal review they could skip along the way, possibly saving two, three, or up to four years. But I think Dart will want to get every penny from the Federal government possible.
NCTCOG looked at the Cotton Belt with a study in 2003.
Here's the link:
DFW to Ft. Worth
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/...DFWIA_Line.pdf
Projected costs $366 million for 32 miles, $ 10+ million per mile.
They didn't do a study from DFW to Plano on the Cotton Belt.
The other studies NCTCOG did can be found at:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/...rrcs/index.asp
Since the Cotton Belt west is 32 miles, and the Cotton Belt east is 22 miles from DFW to Plano, I suggest a ratio could be used to find the approximate costs going east.
22/32 = x/366, 32x = 22(366), 32x = 8052, x = $251.6 million
You can be safe to assume there's been significant inflation, so I'd would add 25% to that number, for a total cost around $314.5 million.
That's about the same as DCTA estimates to build a 21 mile line from Carrollton to Denton. By the time Dart gets around to building the Cotton Belt, I'd expect inflation to hit again. So let's add another 25% for Dart's build estimation, assuming they really have started the process. Therefore, the costs should be close to $393 million to build the Cotton Belt into a single track regional rail line using DMUs.
That sum includes replacing all the tracks like Denton will. The costs could be much less if the track doesn't need replacing. $400 million should be easy for Dart to raise soon after completing it's present scheduled capital projects. So, I'm very optimistic the Crosstown Corridor on the Cotton Belt could be in service by 2020. But I wouldn't count on Dart doing it that quickly.
Last edited by electricron; 01 September 2008 at 11:11 PM.
An interesting link from another thread. It's not really news -- I think it's been said before -- but this confirms that DART is still committed to an LRT-like option on the contentious Cotton Belt route. This is from the "Regional Rail Right-of-Way (RRROW) Company" meeting of Oct 14, 2008, in which the committee agrees to "adhere to the same objectives" as the main DART board.
DART will allow only one type of rail vehicle to provide public transit service on the entire Cotton Belt Corridor and the. regional rail system. The vehicle shall be an FRA compliant light rail vehicle that is generally the same size (length, height and width) as the current DART light rail vehicle, and would be within 8% measured in bulk as cubic feet. Noise/vibration impacts will be mitigated to a level consistent with DART Light Rail. Emissions will meet or beat Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards of Tier IV (2011-2014).
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
I can't locate the article, but I read on a UTD news article recently that a Richardson city leader said that a DART rail station was coming to the campus by 2013. Has there been any news that the cotton belt line is being started early, or at least a portion of it (from George Bush station to UTD, the tracks already exist)?
It seems unlikely considering DART's current situation, but under the Obama administration public works, including mass transit, are going to be expanded. Anybody hear anything about this, or did the city leader just misspeak?
That's certainly the sort of project that would be on any list of "could be running in a year with enough money" infrastructure projects that the new administration is hoping for. I love it when I hear Biden say, "I'm biased towards rail".
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
I'm optimistic Dart will start regional rail on the Cotton Belt sooner rather than later. Dart is hoping for some help funding it, I'm not sure from where. But discussions apparently are underway with all the parties involved. I wouldn't expect Dart to announce in public any deals until all the financing details have been settled.
Financing aside, Dart can't start service on the Cotton Belt until Beltline Road and I 35E reconstruction in Carrolton is completed. I 35E service roads and Beltline Road have to be lowered so the Cotton Belt and Burlington Northern can be grade separated at these intersections of major roads. TXDOT has the lead on the roads, therefore there's no guarantee when TXDOT will finish. Were as Dart can start construction on the Cotton Belt at the same time as TXDOT, passenger train service can't begin until TXDOT is finished. When was the last time TXDOT finished a highway project in a timely manner?
I don't doubt the new administration hype. But let's get serious.That's certainly the sort of project that would be on any list of "could be running in a year with enough money" infrastructure projects that the new administration is hoping for. I love it when I hear Biden say, "I'm biased towards rail".
(1) Only projects that have finished the environmental impact statements can start construction. Dart's Cotton Belt sections haven't started the environmental process yet.
(2) Federal funding always require a local match. TXDOT, the T, and DART don't have much local funds available to provide the local match for federal funds. That's the reason several highway projects are on hold, they're waiting for local funds.
Therefore, only projects ready to start construction will get any Obama fast funding. In the DFW area, only the T's SW2NE line, and Dart's Orange Line are that far into the process. Even Dart's D2 project isn't that far along yet.
^ According to the DMN, this particular giveaway of our future will not require local matching funds, and DART is going after money for the orange line to DFW.
I admire your restraint! I'm not so starry-eyed that I can't see that this bill is going to have to be repaid by my grandkids. But I will confess to feeling like a kid on Christmas Eve, hearing the sound of sleigh bells on the roof.
The Orange Line is almost a no-brainer for the infrastructure-based stimulus -- it's already gone through almost the entire process, at least to Belt Line Station.
But the Cotton Belt is a reasonable next step; an existing facility that could be upgraded and in operation quickly and cheaply. It's one of those where some red tape could stand to be cut -- in this case, it's not an environmental issue, but a NIMBY issue. It's an active freight line, but the property owners along it seem to think they have a right to require it to remain underutilized. It's one thing to find that the Volgons are building a hyperspace bypass through your planet... it's something else entirely to buy a house 100 yards from ten tons of steel and expect fluffy clouds and unicorns.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
The high 5 was finished a year early was it not?
Yeah... it's easy to be cynical about TxDOT, because of its misdirected management. But when the agency focuses on what it does best -- building and maintaining the largest road network in the country -- I'd put it up against anyone. Just drive on some isolated Farm-To-Market road and cross a state line, especially into Louisiana, where they actually have *warning signs* to advise you that the road is substandard.
(I do have quibbles with their cartography and numbering systems, though. But then, I'm a roadgeek -- whaddya expect?)
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Don't worry they will pass it on to their grandkids.
The U.S. Government and Economy is too big to fail. ; )
Plus, neither the Repo man or any creditor wants to face down this when it comes time to collect on those debts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH5RV...eature=related
Tighten the female dog!
Construction of the High 5 did finished a year early, but TEN years after initial planning. The only reason a year was saved was because the State decided to use one major design, build main contractor which found a quicker, cheaper way to build it. None-the-less, it should have been rebuilt at the same time as the rest of North Central Expressway was rebuilt.
It's not difficult to imagine the 10 year choke point that existed with 8 through main lanes both north and south with just 4 through main lanes at this intersection. If TXDOT had planned and scheduled it properly, the High 5 intersection should have been completed first. Like what's being planned and scheduled for all of I 820 and H 121 in Tarrant County, and LBJ and Stemmons intersection in Dallas.
More information about the various train vehicles weights.
DART LRV = 107,000 pounds
Stadler GTW 2/6 (NJT) = 121,000 pounds
TRE Bombardier BiLevel car = 122,000 pounds
TRE RDC = 135,000 pounds
DART SLRV = 138,000 pounds
Stadler GTW 2/6 (CapMetro) = 140,000 pounds
Stadler GTW 2/8 (Dutch) = 174,000
Colorado Railcar single level DMU = 180,000 pounds
TRE diesel locomotive = 260,000+ pounds
There's no doubt that the single level Colorado Railcar DMU is HEAVY!
Well, it appears the Colorado Railcar FRA compliant DMUs choice is gone.
Colorado Railcar closed shop on December 23rd. By the end of the year, it'll have no employees, which makes it extremely difficult to build any more DMUs for the Cotton Belt.
http://www.coloradorailcar.com
Does anyone in the world build Dart light rail sized, FRA compliant DMU vehicles?
Not today, I wonder if any European DMU manfacture will soon?
've been surfing at other Transit Agencies web sites last night, look what I found at SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rapid Transit), who are also looking at buying DMUs in the near future.
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/user...09_Revised.pdf
They found five potential manufactures of Compliant FRA DMUs.
FRA Compliant Heavy DMUs:
1) Bombardier M7 Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design base: LIRR M7 (FRA compliant), Diesel electric drive, No cost estimate available.
2) Nippon Sharyo Designed for Commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, New Design, Diesel hydraulic drive, No cost estimate available.
3) Rotem Designed for commuter service mixed with freight, Married pair configuration, Design based on TTA project, Diesel hydraulic drive, ROM cost estimate $8 to $9M. Note: In August 2006, Triangle Transit (formerly Triangle Transit Authority) announced that it would not file a “New Starts” report on the Regional Rail Transit Project with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Federal FY 2008.
Triangle Transit, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), NC Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation Alliance will work with the community as we rethink transit in the Triangle.
4) Siemens No information available (Siemens exhibits interest in building FRA-compliant DMU)
5) CAF No information available (CAF offered an FRA-compliant DMU to NJT)
All the potential FRA Compliant DMU designs with drawings or photos have high floor doors. Meaning the stations will require low platforms with high blocks or high platforms for ADA access.
DART and the T don't have to use familiar large TRE equipment on the Cotton Belt line to have FRA Compliant vehicles. There are other choices available after the demise of Colorado Railcar.
The Nippon Sharyo design comes in two varieties, blunt or streamline nose. The streamline nose version looks fast! The Rotem design almost ordered by a North Carolina transit agency looks cool too. I don''t like the appearance of the blunt nose trains.
Remember, DART has already stated the will only allow one type of vehicle on the Cotton Belt, FRA Compliant trains. These are the possible DMU train choices left.
SomonaMarinAreaRapidTransit(SMART) posted links to the 6 DMU vendor presentations made last week to them. They include both FRA and non-FRA compliant trains.
Surf to SMART's web site at
http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/
I've downloaded the presentations, and posted them on my server at
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...ldoBredaDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...mbardierDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CAFDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.P...onSharyoDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/SiemensDMU.pdf
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/StadlerDMU.pdf
These are large files, so please give them a few minutes to open.
Briefly, Ansaldo Breda, Bombardier, CAF, Siemens, and Stadler presented non-FRA compliant DMUs. CAF, Nippon Sharyo, and Siemens presented FRA compliant DMUs.
DART and T will be looking for FRA compliant DMUs for the Cotton Belt. DCTA is looking for non-FRA compliant DMUs. The CAF FRA compliant DMU was by far the ugliest choice. The existing TRE RDCs look better! The streamline nose Nippon Sharyo and Siemens trains take a while to get use to, their designs look more like wieners, but the blunt noise designs aren't that much better than the TRE RDCs as well.
I didn't see a FRA compliant DMU that is appoximately the same size as a Dart LRV or SLRV.
Here's an image of what I believe is a FRA compliant CAF DMU
Although this was presented to North Carolina transit agency a few years ago.
I also found this pdf about a 12-12-08 Cotton Belt Corridor meeting held by NCTCOG.
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/tran...es12_12_08.pdf
Loretta Ellerbee, Plano's Representative for the DART Board, stated DART wants to use a single vehicle that is compliant with FRA and LRT standards, though there is not a currently available vehicle that meets all the needs for this corridor and has been approved by the FRA. The plan is the initial vehicle purchased for the Cotton Belt Corridor will be similar to the current TRE vehicle with potential to switch to a new technology when it is available. The initial vehicles would be switched to TRE service when the new technology is implemented.
Wayne Friesner, DART Vice President Commuter Rail stated the DART Board has not discussed the full corridor idea, but probably would support it. Current LRT vehicle technology is not possible in the Cotton Belt Corridor due to the presence of freight traffic in the corridor. DART is studying a hybrid vehicle which is compatible with both light rail vehicle technology and commuter rail vehicle technology. The plan is to eventually have one vehicle operate in the Cotton Belt Corridor from the Western terminus to the Eastern terminus.
William Tsao P.E., Dallas's Representative to the DART Board, stated that the hybrid vehicle technology shown in the presentation is close to FRA standards and is being tested in Austin. Test results should be available at the end of this year. He also wanted to ensure the hybrid vehicle technology being tested is not called 'commuter rail' which is associated with diesel trains and not publicly acceptable. The term ‘commuter rail’ will make it harder to 'sell' diesel car technology to North Dallas and other sensitive areas. He suggests calling the new vehicle ‘New Light Rail Technology.’ Having a unified vehicle choice will create a market for the vehicle manufacture, especially with other markets also interested in this technology.
Interesting meeting. But I couldn't find Mr. Morris' presentation about the Light Rail New Technology train.
But I did find a pdf discussing Dart's Light Rail New Technology DMUs at a meeting for the BNSF/Frisco line.
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/tran...es12_19_08.pdf
DART is trying to develop a vehicle that can be both LRT and FRA compliant. Steve Salin, Vice President Commuter Rail at DART, was asked to answer this question. He stated the vehicle Mr. Morris is referring to is a concept vehicle developed as part of the coordination with the DART 2030 System Plan and the City of Dallas transportation plan. There were limitations on the type of vehicle able to operate in the North Dallas area. The vehicle had to look like the light rail vehicle that the residents are familiar with and be approximately 100 feet in length. The weight would be different based on the structural needs of this type of vehicle and it could not have the catenary system on the top. One of the engineering issues with this vehicle is the turning radius is larger than the LRT vehicle. The turning radius difference could prohibit the vehicle from using the existing LRT corridor. DART is early in the process for getting this vehicle; there are 14 tasks that are on going, working with builders and other interested parties interested in marketing this type of vehicle in their own area across the country. The plan is to reveal this vehicle in several years. The exact vehicle specifications have not been determined, but the plan is for the vehicle to be able to run at 70 miles per hour.
Mr. Morris further elaborated about the vehicles and their size. He stated that if this vehicle is built and used in the region then, in theory, a customer/rider could get on in Frisco and go to any of the airports or get on in Denton and maybe go down to Las Colinas without transferring vehicles. If the new technology is not used, the user will have to transfer at stations, and, hopefully, the next train would be waiting, preventing waiting for the next arrival. However this is not always the case. On the issue of neighborhoods close to the rail, a lighter vehicle would make sense for both visual aesthetics and noise pollution.
Mr. Salin stated the existing light rail vehicle can carry 150 passengers, 76 seated and 74 standing. However vehicles can carry more at crush loading if needed. The new super light rail vehicles with the seat car insert add an additional 33 passengers. The new technology vehicle that was illustrated has essentially the same capacity as the super LRT vehicle, between 150 and 180 passengers. The bi-level vehicles used on the TRE seat about 110 to 115 depending on the configuration. Typically there is no standing on the TRE however there are times people stand. The TRE vehicles can accommodate 150 to 160 passengers, including standees. On game days there are about 600 to 750 people on the trains. The bud cars, RDC (Rail Diesel Cars), or the silver stainless steel vehicles can sit about 90 people.
Last edited by electricron; 22 February 2009 at 01:38 PM.
Are there low floor DMU's that have step in height comparable to the Bombadier Bi-level cars that the TRE uses. To be honest, as a regular TRE rider when I see the DMU's pull into the station I just dread the hike up the stairs and having to shuffle people slowly down the stairs.
Not that I can't walk up them but the entry and exit to the train just isn't as fluid as the Bi-level cars with zero step in height.
Yes, there are light DMUs with low floors. But they are all non-FRA compliant and can not be used on the Cotton Belt. All the heavy FRA compliant DMU trains I've seen proposed have high floors, maybe the design Dart is developing will have low floors. But that DMU design is years away.
Many transit agencies, for example NJT and TriMet, use high station platforms (4 feet tall) to get the same effect that TRE BiLevel trains have with low platforms (< 2 feet tall). There are problems with high platforms and freight trains. They often require the use of gauntlet tracks by station platforms, like at TriMet's WES train stations, so freight trains can go by the platforms without hitting them, and so wheelchair passengers can roll on and off the trains.
Last edited by electricron; 07 March 2009 at 12:01 PM.
DMN:
DART, The T want to partner with private companies to fund Cotton Belt Rail Line
06:24 PM CDT on Friday, May 22, 2009
DART and Fort Worth’s The T want to partner with private companies to build a 68-mile passenger rail line that would stretch from Fort Worth to the airport to Addison to Plano and onto Richardson, with service beginning as soon as 2013.
The unusual partnership with private firms would speed up the long-planned project known as the Cotton Belt Rail Line. DART has planned to build portions of the Cotton Belt for years, but its current financial plans allocate no money to do so until 2027. Agency officials said Friday that private firms’ involvement could speed construction by 15 years or more, and that some services on the new line could open within four years.
“This is new territory for us and for a lot of people,” Lyons said. “So we wanted to send this request out to see who is interested.”
Public-private partnerships have become more common in Texas in recent years, as Gov. Rick Perry has pushed their involvement as a way to fast-track the building of toll roads throughout the state. Private companies are set to rebuild LBJ Freeway and the Southwest Parkway in Fort Worth, for instance.
But that approach has only rarely been used for other types of major transportation infrastructure — and all but non-existent among American transit agencies. A proposal to privatize Midway Airport in Chicago fizzled earlier this year, and their use in passenger rail lines has been extremely rare within the United States.
Still, DART has been studying the approach for more than a year, and is using a watered-down version of public-private partnership to hasten the completion of the Orange Line to Irving. That approach, called a design-build agreement, allows a private company to bid on both the design and construction phases of a contract at once, with the result that the project can be completed more quickly but with less oversight by the public entity.
But what the agencies have in mind for the Cotton Belt is far more aggressive, and would involve private firms investing in, and operating at least for a time, rail lines in a way that remains extraordinarily rare in this country. That’s partly because unlike toll roads, rail lines aren’t profitable without enormous public subsidies.
In general, DART is hoping that a private form will agree to build and operate the rail line between now and 2027, when DART and The T would have their own money to take over both capital and operations cost. One idea for how to compensate the private companies — in addition to given them fare revenue — is to share with them some of the property tax revenue generated by the new development expected along the line.
An open-house on the project has been scheduled for June 12 at 9 a.m. at DART’s Union Station in Dallas.
The three segments of the rail line include:
• Segment 1: This line extends from the airport to downtown Carrollton, moving east from Carrollton to connect with DART's Red Line Bush Turnpike Station. It would connect with the DART Green Line and perhaps the proposed Denton rail line. This line would serve DART member cities Farmers Branch, Addison, Dallas, Richardson and Plano, according to DART.
• Segment 2: This begins at Sycamore School Road southwest of Fort Worth, and would continue along the Fort Worth & Western Railroad corridor toward downtown Fort Worth, DART said. It would connect with the TRE commuter rail line service at the T&P Station.
• Segment 3: This would extend north from downtown Fort Worth’s ITC Station, and include stations in Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, Grapevine and the D/FW International Airport.
I've been writing after the present round of Phase II construction that DART would not have any capital money left to start Phase III construction projects for almost another 20 years.DART has planned to build portions of the Cotton Belt for years, but its current financial plans allocate no money to do so until 2027.
Yet, a month doesn't go by without someone posting DART needs to build this or extend that rail line. Maybe reading the same in a DART press release will hammer home that very important point?
Since when have most of the folks here worried about who's going to pay for their pipe dreams?
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually, run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher.
the problem with capitalism
In free markets in some instances "A wedge exists (External Cost) between what a private person does given market prices and what society might want him or her to do--- Such a wedge implies wastefulness or economic inefficiency"
DART is a public good that we all value the output of (clean air,buffer against oil price shocks, less dependence on foreign oil) yet the free market has found no way to provide or pay for this other then through government.
I love Capitalism it is beautiful in how it work but like socialism it has known failures that we must try to protect against.
Last edited by gshelton91; 27 May 2009 at 12:04 PM.
It could also imply what society wants to do is a stupid idea.
Private ownership has provided all kinds of transportation solutions paid for by the users of those services. The problem with DART is that the users don't want to pay the full cost of the service. We've entered into an unusual arrangement where the non-users subsidize the users to keep the users off the solutions favored by the non-users. That arrangement can only go on so long.
I personally value DART and regularly use it. But I understand I enjoy it while fellow citizens pay for my use. My belief in capitalism tells me eventually true value will win out. Either prices will significantly rise, the trains/buses will get packed to unbelievable degrees, or services will drop. As Baroness Thatcher rightly states, eventually the other people wise up.
There are tons of things in our society that are subsidizes by taxpayers who may or may not ever use them: schools, libraries, parks, hospitals, police, etc...
Dont think of transit in isolation. Think of it as part of the larger transportation network. If I live in uptown, I may never use Forest Lane in north Dallas, but my taxes still help maintain it anyway. Transit helps keep cars off the road, so even the non-users benefit in some way by a slightly lighter rush hour ans slightly cleaner air.
Over time, we have learned the private ownership of transportation solutions (personal vehicles) has had terrible side effects. For the past generation, admirable technological advances have dramatically reduced the amount of air pollution collectively created by the Metroplex's swollen fleet of privately owned vehicles, yet the fleet is responsible for at least half of the area's unhealthful summer air. The requirements on real estate and natural resources necessary to maintain a functional infrastructure for the personal vehicle is beyond burdensome. The car has certainly changed the way people live. For as much as the car and highway have been shown to improve the "overall quality of life" from 1940 - 2000, we're really just now beginning to recognize how much the car and highway have damage the "overall quality of life."
The growing popularity of passenger train service is more pragmatically seen to imply society is correcting the stupidity of excessive reliance on privately owned transportation solutions.
Last edited by tamtagon; 24 May 2009 at 04:22 PM.
Private ownership does not always mean personal vehicles. Ocean liners, airlines, and the river ferry in the Outlaw Josey Wales are also in the mix.
I'm not defending automobiles. I challenged the assumption that capitalism can't provide a solution. Eventually every solution has to add economic value that you can calculate on the back of an envelope. Money is eventually the ONLY standard. People challenge capitalism because by its nature it forces that analysis. If you want to avoid that analysis, you say capitalism won't work. But eventually every project comes down to money and capitalism keeps kicking butt as it has since the Celts invented it.
Last edited by mjblazin; 25 May 2009 at 08:32 PM.
One year of increase (maybe) after 80 years of decreases and your ready to put a stake through the heart of personal transportation? LOL.
Found this pdf online from www.dart.org/cottonbeltppp and the page's summary goes like this:
The other things I found interesting:Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) are seeking to identify individuals and firms interested in entering into a Public Private Partnership ("PPP") to design, construct, operate, maintain and finance a cross regional passenger rail service starting on or about 2013. This service shall be known as the Cotton Belt Rail Line. The service may be implemented in various segments which are detailed below and should be the same type of vehicle and operating characteristics on the entire corridor. Businesses and individuals, including developers, financial firms, construction contractors, subcontractors, engineering and design consultants, equipment suppliers and all others who are interested in this exciting opportunity are invited to become part of DART's database of interested parties and attend a public symposium on Friday, June 12, 2009, from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. at Union Station, 400 South Houston St., in downtown Dallas (DART Union Station).
A full schedule concept:
- 20-minute peak period service headways in each direction
- 60-minute off-peak period service headways in each direction
- 60-90 minute service headways on Saturdays and Sundays
- Weekday service span of 5 AM to midnight
- Weekend service span of 7 AM to midnight
(it might have been mention on here already)
A pretty photoshop job of Austin's Stadler GTW for their new MetroRail turned Cotton Belt with DART colors:
And the first map I've seen with stations listed:
And it's all found from this pdf from DART.
WOW!!! GREAT find NThoms. Thanks for sharing!
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
^ Good find!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks