I really like their real-time stop information. Although compliance with the printed schedules by the operators is a simple enough method of handling the “when is the next streetcar question”, the automated system looks pretty cool.

http://www.nextbus.com/predictor/publicMap.shtml?a=portsc

I am also very curious to see the finished garage. It sounds very interesting.

MB,

The Omni’s on schedule, as far as I’ve heard. The hotel will be open by the end of the year, I believe, and the condos will be finished a month or two later.

Operationally speaking, to be able to use a red line car on the blue line should be a minor thing and not require turning the car around. Who knows when a car has to be swapped out for one on a different line? If you want a car facing a particular direction, on tracks you have to think ahead because you can’t just loop around the next block to turn the car around.

I am aware of maintenance issues that occur when you run a car the same direction every time. The wear builds up unevenly. Denver had a problem with their historic car that never got “turned”. It was wearing unevenly and they ended up renting a crane to lift the body up while the wheels were turned around underneath since they had no way of turning the streetcar around on the tracks they used. I would think this problem is more common on shorter lines, but it is a legitimate consideration. Before MATA in Dallas extended their route, they had a loop and a wye so their cars naturally turned every trip. Now, with the replacement of the Hall Street Loop with the Cityplace wye, they don’t turn naturally and have to be turned by the maintenance crew (which is supposed to be done on a weekly basis). A painted car would have to run the same route every time facing the same direction. Higher chance of uneven wear. Oh sure, there used to be single ended cars, but that is one of the nice thing about double-ended streetcars. If you got ‘em, you might as well utilize both ends equally.

I don’t mean to detract from Joel’s posting, but since Mr. Poole posited the suggestion, I have been dying to know how Portland’s maintenance and operations guys feel about it. His Fortworthology shirt brought the question to the front of my mind.

Would not a good solution for that be to not *paint* the cars particular colors, but instead to use a vinyl wrap? Perhaps even just a simple band of color around the cars, rather than an entire body’s worth.

Wasn’t it “Fort Worth Brush Co” or some such at one time?

And regarding the boondoggle sentiments… How dare they! That’s 3 cents of my hard earned money wasted on improving our lives!

Lighten up people! This is hardly a what you’d call a boondoggle.

PS. Please stop using the word “boondoggle”. It’s replaced “maverick” as the most annoying word of the week.

As I said, I don’t consider it a boondoggle. So your line of questioning and my viewpoint are never going to intersect.

I’ll say it again - I do not have a problem with the trip (and it’s not entirely at taxpayer expense, by the way). I also do not consider either the trip or the streetcar project to be a boondoggle in any way, shape, or form.

Looks like it may be bad news. It was owned by a “Magnolia Avenue LP” until very recently; now it’s owned by Comerica Bank. The address is 1560 W Magnolia Avenue; and according to the appraisal district it was built in 1915.

Also, re: the Church on Hemphill. It looks like it’s on the HCLC October agenda for demolition. http://fortworthgov.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=8

Facades:
The building has three major facade variations. On the east, it was configured for offices. This portion can readily be adapted to residential (or office). The central section was the warehouse, and the windows are quite small and located approx. 6′ above the floor so that crates could be pushed against the wall without blocking light and air. The western portion was added later as refrigerated storage and has no windows.

The walls are solid masonry and are approx. 16″ thick. In order to make the building habitable (and meet building code for residences) the openings will have to be significantly enlarged and/or newly created, a very costly undertaking.

Structure:
The structure is quite stout, not surprising given the intened purpose. The concrete slabs are about 18″ thick, so cutting through them is feasible but again costly. The large mushroom columns are beautiful but relatively closely spaced, limiting some planning options as well.

Floor sizes:
The building is really deep. This is a significant problem for residential since you have such small windows and the ceilings aren’t very tall. Inevitably you end up with long dark spaces, which is not a positive feature in a loft. Yes, you could cut an atrium through the building but this type of structure is not amenable to such modifications without a significant amount of re-working.

Historic Tax Credits:
The historic tax credits have not been “harvested” and would be essential to help defray the cost of an adaptive re-use. However, they come with strings- the work must (rightly so) meet standards that ensure the historic integrity is maintained. So the facade changes, which really are needed for about any use other than storage, become a very delicate balacing act. Any addition of windows sufficient to make the project marketable will change the character, although in theory this could be done in a sensitive manner that would meet with Texas Historical Commission approval.

Size:
This is a big building. With retail at the base it would still yield around 300 residential units. Given other projects downtown that is a lot of lofts for the market to absorb at one time. Yes, we need more residential downtown, but financing (especially today) is another obstacle.

It is indeed one of FW’s architectural gems. But as it sits year after year in a porous condition it becomes an even bigger undertaking to restore. And even in the best of times it represents a daunting challenge…

On another note, Kevin do you know who owns the building on 8th and Magnolia?

Description from the THC Atlas:
The Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church of Gustavus Adolphus Synod was organized in 1905 to serve Swedish settlers in the City of Fort Worth. In 1912 the congregation, which later became known as Grace Lutheran, constructed this sanctuary and held worship services here until it moved to another site in 1957. The Lombard Romanesque style building features fine brickwork in the tower and over the arches.

I’ve talked to Portland residents and your friend’s experience doesn’t agree with what I’ve been told. I’ve never heard “everybody hates it and thinks it’s a waste of money” - on the contrary, I’ve heard quite a few great reviews of the streetcar, and with the massive amounts of development around the line it seems hard to call it a “waste of money.” I’ve also never heard that ridership is “always low” - in fact, most sources indicate significantly higher ridership on the streetcar compared to busses on the same routes (one figure was as high as 700% higher ridership).

Not sure what her experiences are, but they don’t jibe with most things I’ve been told by Portlanders. It’s also important to recognize that the streetcar is a neighborhood circulator - it doesn’t serve the same function as a light rail line like Portland’s MAX or the DART trains.

“It surprises me that the Metroplex thinks we have a model streetcar system. Everyone here hates it and thinks it was a huge waste of money. Ridership is always low since the bus/lightrail system is much more convenient. Hopefully DFW can come up with some way to make it work.”

I know that there are certainly opinions to be had on both sides of the issue - but I thought it was interesting to get this perspective from a urban Portlander firsthand.

Sounds like it would be a nice thing for the area, though. I always wanted more stuff in walking distance when I was a student.

Unless of course you view the streetcar system as a boondoggle, which I strongly disagree with as well. It’s going to be an important part of this city’s future as we densify and improve our transit systems.

Calling something a “boondoggle” doesn’t make it so. And frankly, I’m a little surprised that here, on Fort Worthology, a blog dedicated to promoting urbanization, transit, and attempts to slow down car-dependent sprawl, that I’m getting much/any real pushback about this. It’s not like I hide my motives here - anybody who’s read this site for more than three minutes can figure out that I’m a big transit supporter and that this blog is written from the viewpoint that transit = good, so by a corollary transit fact-finding missions to learn more about it before we spend money on it = good as well. It’d be like going to a car blog and posting negative comments about sprawl and car dependency - seems a bit like a waste of effort.