Not much of an update. I agree with the Dallas City Council though, aerial High Speed Rail is unsightly and would be a detraction from the city. Dallas should go with a HSR subway through Dallas if it gets that far. The TRE proposal is interesting and would explain some of the long railroad crossing flyovers they have put in place.
https://www.chron.com/news/article/dallas-texas-high-speed-rail-grant-restrictions-21309821.php
I’m not understanding. Multilevel highways already prevalent downtown but railway would be unsightly? And which long flyovers?
I added the link above, not sure why it fell off.
Yes, and it’s been fairly common knowledge since at least the 1970s that there are material advantages to locating true HSR stations at as high an altitude as possible. LGV doesn’t do this regularly, but that’s a conscious decision to ‘adaptively reuse’ legacy last-mile and station trackage to save cost at the expense of a little more wear and tear and a few minutes added to trip time.
I’m familiar with the article but you didn’t explain your unusual take on it.
Back to the article, I thought it defined the area as the central business district? Specifically they are referring to the proposed high speed line route. The tunnel underneath for high speed rail was discussed earlier by both Dallas City Council and whatever the real estate concern is across the tracks from DUS. The real estate interest did not want an aerial line and stated future development plans would not take place if an aerial line was built. I think it was discussed in the past here in the Forum but it was some time ago (Bass Real Estate? Not sure). The recent trend for Dallas and other Texas cities is to get rid of some of the elevated freeways that do exist by submersion or abandonment (nationwide trend). Elevated freeways are viewed as brick walls through a city as far as economic development and integration. You can google Dallas freeway submersion and read up on the near future plans. I think a couple another Texas city has plans as well but I am going off memory (Austin or Houston?). So makes no sense to pay to submerge those and then build an aerial high speed line (urban planning approach). Hence, the Dallas City Council vote makes sense to me.
As for flyovers, I should have used the term road grade crossing avoidance you can follow the TRE line between Dallas and Fort Worth and fairly significant long flyover in Irving. Additionally, note the overpasses and underpasses built since TRE took over. That looks planned to me.
It’s not common knowledge to me. What would those advantages be?
When they were discussing making Milwaukee to Chicago HSR decades ago it was to use the existing land based alignment for the most part. HSR line in 2008 was to do the same. So maybe I am misinterpreted what your definition of HSR is (which I think in Wisconsin’s case was max speed 110 mph). In the US since we do have the money ( in Texas at least), makes more sense to submerge them through downtown high density areas vs using 18th and 19th century rail lines. Better access and better quality of life for city folks. Europe uses a different approach and Brightline Florida did as well.
Madison, WI proposed Amtrak station will be a subgrade to the urban area it serves.
The principal one is dynamic: the approach grade assists with braking, and the departing grade with reacceleration. It was assumed in the 1970s that the very powerful motors and high gearing needed for wheel-driven HSR would have the kind of molasses-slow initial acceleration seen with the AEM-7s, so there were perceived advantages to even relatively short grades. If the stations are high, either direction is desirably uphill arriving and downhill departing.
The new trackwork would be elevated using the same construction for the necessary high percentage of viaducting or berming for much practical LGV not constructed by a government. At least in theory less real estate cost or neighborhood disruption of ground transportation is imposed by viaducts… although you really have to work to find uses for the space under the approach ramps.
Drainage is often a wretched disaster for tunneled approaches.
Alright, I’m guessing you don’t live here and making a lot of assumptions. That’s fine, just say so.
I’ve lived here over 35 years.
I followed this issue pretty closely. What assumptions are you referring to?
Well they already have a tunneled approach to downtown via the DART Red Line, it is a fairly deep dip underground and to my knowledge there has not been a drainage issue. It would look like there would be with the deep dip it takes.
They wanted to do another subway (called D2) but tabled it.
I believe the trunnel was discussed under the Central Business District High Density area only and the tracks would resurface before and after.
Dallas is sinking as well, I think the figure I read was 2 mm a year due to ground water and oil extraction. Apparently that is not an issue with their plans.
Then you should know about the TRE and the fact the line cannot be used for high speed transport without billions of dollars in additional funding
Tunnels are extremely expensive to design build and maintain. Red Line tunnel has flooded and continues to be problematic. Same with the I-30 canyon downtown.
That all depends on how you define High Speed Rail. As I alluded above there is more than one definition and it depends on the author. In the Wisconsin case it was probably limited to 110 mph.
This was from the article above:
"The resolution also requests that the Trinity Railway Express, which runs between Dallas and Fort Worth, be considered for upgrading opportunities in place of a separate high-speed rail right of way. " <=== The statement I did not write it.
I might point out they had earlier discussed using the UP ROW for HSR, not sure what happened to that idea…long time ago. Since Texas Central ends in Dallas. Dallas City Council and others want to see a connector to Fort Worth built, upgraded or whatever.
If you feel it is problematic then show up at the next City Council Meeting to inform them of this issue. It’s not my proposal to submerge the freeways and not my proposal for the Tunnel under the Business District. First I heard in 35 years of living here that the Red Line was problematic with flooding. I ride it several times a year so my guess is possibly it is not flooded when I ride it?
Though I still support both ideas as good ideas.
Oh, I’ve been to plenty of meetings. I don’t want to wade into politics and how incredibly incompetent this council is. They’re are holding up progress in favor of rich landowners and stonewalling the residents who put them in office. If you live here, you know all this. And with that, I’m out.
We can’t run 100mph on a line shared with freight traffic. You know all that if you actually live here.
Just for clarification. I do not live in Dallas per se, I live in the suburbs.
Close enough that some of the implied canards hold little water.
Any existing surface route they could use? Even the French won’t dig a tunnel under a city. Too $$$$$. They use existing ROW. Train is already slowing for the stop anyway.